Who can reconcile this?

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I thought I would start a thread to see if anyone can reconcile this contradiction.

John Paul II issued two indults for the use of the Traditional Mass. What is an indult? *“Indults are general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law” (Catholic Encyclopedia - newadvent.org/cathen/07789a.htm)).

For years Traditionalists were ridiculed for claiming that there was no need for an indult to say the old Mass, since the old Mass was never abrogated. Their detractors and calumniators could point to the two indults of John Paul II as their “proof” that the old Mass was abrogated. After all, if it wasn’t abrogated, it would make no sense at all for the Pope to grant an indult. Their case seemed strong, since they had an official act of the magisterium - of the Pope himself - on their side.

Then came the long awaited Motu Proprio of Benedecit XVI, in which he admitted, contrary to what virtually eveyone believed, that the old Mass was not abrogated, but instead was “always permitted”.

Summorum Pontificum: “As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted”.

Here we have two official Papal acts: One that implies the old Mass has been abrogated, and thus needed an indult; and another that admits that the old Mass was never abrogated, and always permitted.

Who can reconcile this contradiction?*

 

[chrisb]

Ah! The Conundrum!

But seriously wasn’t the TLM allowed (i.e. given an Indult) at these parishes as a ‘substitution’ for the ‘ordinary’ Roman Liturgy (i.e. Novus Ordo)?

In other words, the ‘extraordinary’ Mass was given an indult to be used as the ‘ordinary’ Mass for these Parish. That is my way of looking at it…

 

[rpp]

The real questions that I see is whether Pope John Paul II ever actually gave an indult, or was that word used simply as a convenience? Did he not, rather provide guidelines to bishops in how the Mass of Pope John XXIII was to be celebrated? Was the word “indult” ever used? If not, there is no hint of contradiction. If so, there is no effective contradiction since what Pope Benedict said was accurate.

 

[Dauphin]

I thought I would start a thread to see if anyone can reconcile this contradiction.

John Paul II issued two indults for the use of the Traditional Mass. What is an indult? "Indults are general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law" (Catholic Encyclopedia - newadvent.org/cathen/07789a.htm)).

For years Traditionalists were ridiculed for claiming that there was no need for an indult to say the old Mass, since the old Mass was never abrogated. Their detractors and calumniators could point to the two indults of John Paul II as their “proof” that the old Mass was abrogated. After all, if it wasn’t abrogated, it would make no sense at all for the Pope to grant an indult. Their case seemed strong, since they had an official act of the magisterium - of the Pope himself - on their side.

Then came the long awaited Motu Proprio of Benedecit XVI, in which he admitted, contrary to what virtually eveyone believed, that the old Mass was not abrogated, but instead was “always permitted”.

Summorum Pontificum: "As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted".

Here we have two official Papal acts: One that implies the old Mass has been abrogated, and thus needed an indult; and another that admits that the old Mass was never abrogated, and always permitted.

Who can reconcile this contradiction?

If the common law of the Church is anything like the common law in the traditional legal sense, it simply refers to those prudential decisions made without a formal statute. It refers to the precedent of the Church’s effective decisions, and not to any formal decision made with binding authority.

As such, there’s no contradiction. The Pope simply recognized the binding authority of Quo Primum, and the common law was discarded.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The real questions that I see is whether Pope John Paul II ever actually gave an indult, or was that word used simply as a convenience? Did he not, rather provide guidelines to bishops in how the Mass of Pope John XXIII was to be celebrated? Was the word “indult” ever used? If not, there is no hint of contradiction. If so, there is no effective contradiction since what Pope Benedict said was accurate.

To answer these questions, we need to examine two documents: Quattuor abhinc annos from 1984 (the first indult); and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, of 1988, in which John Paul II asked that its directives be applied more generously.

**Quattuor abhinc annos, October 3, 1984: **

Most Rev. Excellency:

Four years ago, by order of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, the bishops of the whole Church were invited to present a report:

1.) concerning the way in which the priests and faithful of their dioceses had received the Missal promulgated in 1970 by authority of Pope Paul VI in accordance with the decisions of the Second Vatican Council;

2.) concerning the difficulties arising in the implementation of the liturgical reform;

3.) concerning possible resistance that may have arisen.

The result of the consultation was sent to all bishops (cf. Notitiae, n. 185, December 1981). On the basis of their replies it appeared that the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called “Tridentine” rite was almost completely solved.

Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups, grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition…

As we can see, this document did use the word indult.

And notice how adherence to the old Mass was repeatedly referred to as a “problem” that needed to be “solved”. But how could that be when the old Mass was never “juridically abrogated”, and “always permitted”, as we now know?

In the second document, Ecclesia Die Adflicta, John Paul II refers back to the above documents, and asks that the Bishops be generous in applying its directives.

Ecclesia Dei Adflicta:

"To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms

of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church.

1. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree the following: …

c) moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See [Quattuor abhinc annos], for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962

So, to answer the question: Not only were Priests required to ask for and obtain permission to say the old Mass (which was usually not goven), but the actual word itself was used. The “indult” was granted in Quattuor abhinc annos, and extended in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.

 

[rpp]

Thank you for doing the legwork and getting those articles. I really appreciate it.

In either case, this is a matter of Church discipline, Church law, if you will. Not a matter of doctrine. Later Popes have often rescinded things that earlier popes promulgated. It is not like Pope Benedict is saying that Mary was not really assumed into Heaven (which, of course he would never do.)

I do not see the problem you are referring to. That is, I do not believe it matters if Pope Benedict contradicted or overturned something Pope John Paul II did.

Apparently you feel it is a problem. Could elaborate on why you believe this is a potential problem. (I am not trying to argue, I am trying to understand your position better. I mean absolutely no ill will and write this with friendly intentions.)

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Okay, in either case, this is a matter of Church discipline, Church law, if you will. Not a matter of doctrine. Later Popes have often rescinded things that earlier popes promulgated. Either way, it is not like Pope Benedict is saying that Mary was not really assumed into Heaven.

I do not see the problem you are referring to. That is, I do not believe it matters if Pope Benedict contradicted or overturned something Pope John Paul II did.

I agree that this does not touch, in any way, Papal Infallibility.

And, just so you know where I am coming from, I applaud Pope Benedict XVI for having the courage to admit that the old Mass was never abrogated. It would have been much easier to issue another phony indult and let the Bishops continue to supress the Mass that he knew was never abrogated, but he did not. Our new Pope had the courage to admit the truth and he is to be commended for it.

 

[ProVobis]

JPII used the word “indult” in his 1984 decree, but the issue of abrogation wasn’t really discussed until 1986, whereupon a committee of nine cardinals met to discuss and agree that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated. This, of course, was not made official until 7/7/07. The better question is, whether the bishops and others, who prior to 1986 claimed most assuredly the TLM was abrogated, had been in error.

 

[EasterJoy]

If the common law of the Church is anything like the common law in the traditional legal sense, it simply refers to those prudential decisions made without a formal statute. It refers to the precedent of the Church’s effective decisions, and not to any formal decision made with binding authority.

As such, there’s no contradiction. The Pope simply recognized the binding authority of Quo Primum, and the common law was discarded.

The “problem” may not have been that the Holy See rejected the TLM, but rather that it was foreseen that there might be a refusal among the faithful to admit that the Pope, in collegial consultation with the College of Cardinals, had full authority to institute the NO and the other reforms of Vatican II. On this account, access to TLM may have been restricted as a discipline and as a precaution against fracture over the issue. I don’t mean “discipline” in the sense of a punishment, but in the sense of the Church using the restriction of one liturgical norm as a means to reiterate of the authority of the Church to have introduced the other, lest refusal to use the NO be used to deny Rome’s ultimate authority in the matter of defining legitimate liturgies for the Church, and as a precaution against the temptation towards the formation of factions over the question.

This would imply that requiring permission to use the TLM was not any reflection on the TLM itself, but rather was imposed as a discipline because it was foreseen how many would tempted into disobedience by refusing to recognizing the NO. Once the NO was recognized by all but a few, the “problem” was solved.

For instance, ordination of married men to the priesthood has never been banned, but does require permission by the Holy See, because the Holy See has, by its full authority, imposed the discipline of celibacy, because of the value inherent in a celibate priesthood. Would the Holy See not have to issue an indult if that discipline were to be lifted?

Having written all this, I think what is needed is a canon lawyer, who understands what the words mean and can explain the matter in real terms, or a Church historian, who knows the whens and whys around this issue.

 

[Genesis315]

What’s the ecclesiastical definition of “abrogated”?

If it’s anything like the one in the dictionary, then it wasn’t ever abrogated. It was never done away with but rather was always in use in some way or another (although the use was greatly restricted).

dictionary.reference.com/browse/abrogated

(Also, nota bene, the issue is not whether the decree in Quo Primum was abrogated, but whether the 1962 Missal as a valid and licit liturgical text was).

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think it was a matter of papal authority concerning a new Mass that was the issue at the time. Probably because of the misunderstandings and interpretations of Vatican II, the Mass had broken into many different uses and canons and languages, and it became a very unstable focus of the Catholic Church. The Pope had to put his foot down and enforce some stability within the Church. He really didn’t have any choice but to consolidate the different canons that were used in the many dioceses. This didn’t happen overnight and is still being debated, though not to the extent prior to 1970.

As far as the TLM goes, this also was very unstable. It wasn’t until the 1962 Missal firmly defined the Old Mass that sides became drawn between using the Old Rite vs the New. I think this is where JPII came in to be of utmost importance in restoring the Old Rite.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

As far as the TLM goes, this also was very unstable. It wasn’t until the 1962 Missal firmly defined the Old Mass that sides became drawn between using the Old Rite vs the New. I think this is where JPII came in to be of utmost importance in restoring the Old Rite.

Why do you believe the old Mass was unstable? What evidence is there to support that statement? And why do you say the missal was not firmly defined until 1962? What about Quo Primum of 1570, which canonized the Missal?

What changes were made to the Missal between 1570 and 1962? And what were the changes of 1962?

 

[ProVobis]

Why do you believe the old Mass was unstable? What evidence is there to support that statement? And why do you say the missal was not firmly defined until 1962? What about Quo Primum of 1570, which canonized the Missal?

What changes were made to the Missal between 1570 and 1962? And what were the changes of 1962?

The Old Mass was quite unstable after 1963, witness the many and non-uniform changes made to it, until the New Mass was promulgated. Of course, it wasn’t called the Old Mass at the time. And as far as I know, only one small canon change was made in over 400 years, that of introducing the name of St. Joseph to the 1962 Missal.

I think you misinterpreted what I said about the 1962 Missal. There was Missals of 1963, 1965, and 1967, although probably more unofficial versions were around. It wasn’t until JPII defined the 1962 Missal that it became recognized as the official TLM, not 1957, not 1965, and not 1967.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Regardless would it matter. Neither Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI were speaking infallibly and therefore there could be no contradiction. Many Popes have contradicted other ones, however what matters is that they are speaking infallibly. I don’t believe either were. Besides wouldn’t it be better for Pope Benedict XVI to contradict Pope John Paul in order to clear up the heresy of Pope Paul VI?

 

[chrisb]

What I don’t understand is why wasn’t the actual suggestions of Vatican II implemented? Why didn’t Pope Paul VI simply translate portions of the Ancient Liturgy of the Roman Church into the vernacular? How in the world did an entirely ‘new’ Liturgy get promulgated and the ‘old’ Liturgy get shelved? I still don’t understand how that happened? Did the Church traditions just implode?

 

[holdencaulfield]

What I don’t understand is why wasn’t the actual suggestions of Vatican II implemented? Why didn’t Pope Paul VI simply translate portions of the Ancient Liturgy of the Roman Church into the vernacular? How in the world did an entirely ‘new’ Liturgy get promulgated and the ‘old’ Liturgy get shelved? I still don’t understand how that happened? Did the Church traditions just implode?

I don’t think anyone will ever know what happened however we can probably assume that Pope Paul VI was not mentally sound when he was inventing the Novus Ordo. Regardless it is wonderful that we now have Pope Benedict XVI to restore the Church from the heresy that it fell into. Remember this is not the first nor the last time that the Church will fall into heresy or be surrounded in it.

 

[dyspepsic]

I thought I would start a thread to see if anyone can reconcile this contradiction.

John Paul II issued two indults for the use of the Traditional Mass. What is an indult? "Indults are general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law" (Catholic Encyclopedia - newadvent.org/cathen/07789a.htm)).

For years Traditionalists were ridiculed for claiming that there was no need for an indult to say the old Mass, since the old Mass was never abrogated. Their detractors and calumniators could point to the two indults of John Paul II as their “proof” that the old Mass was abrogated. After all, if it wasn’t abrogated, it would make no sense at all for the Pope to grant an indult. Their case seemed strong, since they had an official act of the magisterium - of the Pope himself - on their side.

Then came the long awaited Motu Proprio of Benedecit XVI, in which he admitted, contrary to what virtually eveyone believed, that the old Mass was not abrogated, but instead was “always permitted”.

Summorum Pontificum: “As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted”.

Here we have two official Papal acts: One that implies the old Mass has been abrogated, and thus needed an indult; and another that admits that the old Mass was never abrogated, and always permitted.

Who can reconcile this contradiction?

Please clear the air for me.

The “Forma Ordinaria” were two versions of the Roman Missal published by PPVI, and republished in e subsequent editions by JPII.

Then, we have the “Forma Extraordinaria” under John XXIII in 1962.

None of these were ever abrogated.

The TLM is what? Is that the total latin version in existence prior to 1962?

Please comment for my understanding.

Thanks

 

[ProVobis]

What I don’t understand is why wasn’t the actual suggestions of Vatican II implemented? Why didn’t Pope Paul VI simply translate portions of the Ancient Liturgy of the Roman Church into the vernacular? How in the world did an entirely ‘new’ Liturgy get promulgated and the ‘old’ Liturgy get shelved? I still don’t understand how that happened? Did the Church traditions just implode?

In defense of Paul VI, he didn’t know all the languages so he had to trust various committees to do the translations. And what do they say about ruling by committee? I agree, if they had abided by the documents of Vatican II instead of hear-says and the spirit of Vatican II, changes at least might have been better accepted.

I don’t think it was the intent of Vatican II to promulgate a New Mass. Paul VI needed to consolidate all the various canons into a new Mass because of the massive confusion and complete disorganization caused by all those liturgical committees.

 

[ProVobis]

The TLM is what? Is that the total latin version in existence prior to 1962?

Please comment for my understanding.

Thanks

I don’t understand the question. The 1970 (Novus Ordo) Missal still exists in total Latin version.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The Old Mass was quite unstable after 1963, witness the many and non-uniform changes made to it, until the New Mass was promulgated. Of course, it wasn’t called the Old Mass at the time. And as far as I know, only one small canon change was made in over 400 years, that of introducing the name of St. Joseph to the 1962 Missal.

OK, I thought I must have been misunderstanding you. I thought you were saying the missal was in constant flux until 1962.