Indult Implementation


#1

It seems as if most dioceses which have an indult for TLM use a permanent site for the Latin masses, some rotate it around a handful of churches in a monthly rotation.

Which is the most equitable way to implement the indult, in you opinion. A permanent location, a monthly rotation, or perhaps rotate the TLM throughout all of a diocese’s parishes. Afterall, theoretically, there are people sufficiently old who remember the Latin mass in every single parish, and if the TLM belongs to the whole church, let the whole church hear it.


#2

I attend a Novus Ordo/Mass of Paul VI parish. I don’t imagine I would ever attend the Indult. I do, however, think that our old Holy Father’s directive (largely ignored in the US) should be implemented in the spirit he intended. I suggest that there should be one Indult PARISH in each vicarate, at least in big dioceses. It could be done on a rotational basis elsewhere.


#3

I didn’t vote because I think there should be as many locations for the Tridentine Mass as there is interest in a diocese. Limiting the Tridentine Mass to only one location is a diservice to the priests and people who would like to have it in their parish.

Rotation is a bad idea because people get used to going to one church and then have to remember to go to another. I also don’t think every church in a diocese should have it because there may be parishes where the priests and people aren’t interested in having a Tridentine Mass. Those who don’t want to attend a Tridentine Mass should not be forced to attend, just as those who want to attend the Tridentine Mass should have every opportunity to attend one.



#4

Different solutions per diocese.

We are in Galveston-Houston and there is one Indult Mass. It is “centrally located”. Since the diocese is so large geographically, that means that hardly anyone can conveniently attend. :frowning: Some of the dioceses that are a whole state in size would have this same problem.

On the other hand, I used to live in NJ. There are 4 diocese in the state and one per diocese would geographically work, although I think the demand is too big for one parish to serve the whole diocese without having to do nothing but TLM.

Some diocese do not have enough priests capable of saying the TLM to have it said in more than one location. I think that Detroit is trying to rotate the location AND the priests and has a team of roving TLM priests. That is a good solution if you can spare a team of priests from regular parish Sunday Mass schedules.

Another consideration is that if the TLM is always in the same location, people will go to that Church instead of their own parish and may disconnect in terms of stewardship (monetary and time) from thier own parish. If the TLM came around somewhere nearby once a month or so, I, for one, would still go to my regular parish the other weeks.

It shouldn’t have to be a major sacrifice to attend the TLM. That seems to go against the whole idea of “wide and generous” use of the indult.


#5

To those of you who are suggesting a rotation of the Tridentine Mass:

What would you do about servers? Rotate them, too? What about the choirs that sing the 1962 Mass? How about the schedules at those other parishes that would necessarily need to be modified to accomodate the extra time (and traffic)?

Recently, someone asked Father Echert (St.Paul/Mpls.) if it wouldn’t be nice to have TLM earlier on Sundays than 11:30, and he reminded them that many people come great distances each week for that Mass (and that can be a real challenge in Minnesota in the winter), although I believe that it does make it hard on the smaller children, of which there are many.

Just some thoughts that give me a chance to use these pennies! :twocents:

Anna


#6

In many parishes, the Tridentine Mass draws very few people. If resources are an issue, it would make little sense to maintain a Mass that drew few people when they could simply attend another Mass.


#7

I say that the Pope gives a universal permission for the TLM.

Purificator,
Before Vatican II, “renovators” promised full churches when a vernacular Mass would be introduced, because this would garner the protestants in. It is 2005, 40 years after Vatican II and 38 years of the Novus Ordo, have we experienced an increase in Catholic devotion and piety in these last years? Modernists destroyed the 1600 year old Roman Rite tradition and now we have to accomadate them? Forget about it!


#8

[quote=Detroiter]I say that the Pope gives a universal permission for the TLM.

Purificator,
Before Vatican II, “renovators” promised full churches when a vernacular Mass would be introduced, because this would garner the protestants in. It is 2005, 40 years after Vatican II and 38 years of the Novus Ordo, have we experienced an increase in Catholic devotion and piety in these last years? Modernists destroyed the 1600 year old Roman Rite tradition and now we have to accomadate them? Forget about it!
[/quote]

If Tridentine Masses didn’t draw many people, I certainly wouldn’t favor mantaining them – unless there was a surplus of resources, which is not too common today.


#9

[quote=Purificator]If Tridentine Masses didn’t draw many people, I certainly wouldn’t favor mantaining them – unless there was a surplus of resources, which is not too common today.
[/quote]

I certainly hope this beautiful form of worship will be preserved, but I agree that the priests must be used where they are most needed. With so many overcrowded NO Mases, or a Communion service instead of a Mass, it would be very wrong to continue an underattended Tridentine Mass.


#10

Different dioceses require different solutions

As for me, I have desire to attend a TLM since I have been listening o the inane rants of some RadTrads from the past couple of years ramming the TLM down our throats as the “only valid Mass”. Sorry, but that is the way I feel.

PF


#11

[quote=WanderAimlessly]Different dioceses require different solutions

As for me, I have desire to attend a TLM since I have been listening o the inane rants of some RadTrads from the past couple of years ramming the TLM down our throats as the “only valid Mass”. Sorry, but that is the way I feel.

PF
[/quote]


#12

[quote=WanderAimlessly]Different dioceses require different solutions

As for me, I have desire to attend a TLM since I have been listening o the inane rants of some RadTrads from the past couple of years ramming the TLM down our throats as the “only valid Mass”. Sorry, but that is the way I feel.

PF
[/quote]

I this what you intended to post ? or

“I have no desire”


#13

[quote=WanderAimlessly]Different dioceses require different solutions

As for me, I have desire to attend a TLM since I have been listening o the inane rants of some RadTrads from the past couple of years ramming the TLM down our throats as the “only valid Mass”. Sorry, but that is the way I feel.

PF
[/quote]

Leaving the validity aside re: the Tridentine or the Norvus Ordo, has anyone just taken the two Masses and put them side by side in English to see what the actual difference is? I have done it. You might be surprised by the difference. What I saw and what you might see could be different. I would leave that up to you. Once you have compared the two you might be able to give better arguments for or against either Mass.


#14

[quote=Purificator]If Tridentine Masses didn’t draw many people, I certainly wouldn’t favor mantaining them – unless there was a surplus of resources, which is not too common today.
[/quote]

There was no surplus of resources for the NO Mass when it came out. All TLM’ers want is equal treatment.


#15

[quote=Detroiter]There was no surplus of resources for the NO Mass when it came out. All TLM’ers want is equal treatment.
[/quote]

The Mass was changed. It has not been changed back, so it is not legitimate to give resources needed for the primary celebration to an indult celebration.


#16

[quote=Mysty101]The Mass was changed. It has not been changed back, so it is not legitimate to give resources needed for the primary celebration to an indult celebration.
[/quote]

The Mass has not changed. There is just two Masses. Even Pope Paul VI said he did not restrict the Tridentine Mass. He even said that he would not take that away from priests. It was the bishops that put the restrictions on the Tridentine. The Tridentine cannot be restricted. Read Quo Primum.

John Paul II would only say that he wanted the new Mass said. That is different than restricting the Tridentine. He even said it should be made available to those who wanted it. Trouble is he left it up to the bishops to make it available.


#17

[quote=Lanciano]The Mass has not changed. There is just two Masses. Even Pope Paul VI said he did not restrict the Tridentine Mass. He even said that he would not take that away from priests. It was the bishops that put the restrictions on the Tridentine. The Tridentine cannot be restricted. Read Quo Primum.

John Paul II would only say that he wanted the new Mass said. That is different than restricting the Tridentine. He even said it should be made available to those who wanted it. Trouble is he left it up to the bishops to make it available.
[/quote]

Not meaning to nit-pick but there is only ONE Mass. Jimmy (or Karl, I am not sure) was discussing this on CAL a few days ago. There is ONE Mass and several different Missals for saying the Mass. Currently, there are two main Missals for saying the Mass in the Latin rite of the Church, the Missal of 1962 (TLM) and the Missal of 1968 (so-called Novus Ordo). There are other Missals which are approved only for use within religious orders. But it is all the same Mass.

To those of you who are suggesting a rotation of the Tridentine Mass:

What would you do about servers? Rotate them, too? What about the choirs that sing the 1962 Mass? How about the schedules at those other parishes that would necessarily need to be modified to accomodate the extra time (and traffic)?

Anna Elizabeth,

This would be my suggestion:

Train a team of altar servers at each parish that is on the rotation. We aren’t talking about rotating to every parish in the diocese, just to every section (geographically) in the diocese. In the G-H diocese, an easy way to do this would be one per deanery or even one per viacerate. I think there are 6 viacerates and maybe 20 deaneries. In most of the parishes, in our area, a Mass could easily be added or one converted for using the Missal of 1962, especially if it was on a rotational basis and not every week. The parishes most likely to “get” the rotation would probably be those where a lot of people would go to the Indult Mass and release space in the other regularly scheduled Masses.

As for the choirs, they are not required in the 1962 Missal. Low Masses don’t have them at all and even for High Masses, the Congregation can sing instead. You do need to get your organist some new sheet music, though. :wink: Of course, it would be lovely if the diocese would support a few scholas to go and sing at various parishes for High Mass. (Sigh)


#18

[quote=kmktexas] Not meaning to nit-pick but there is only ONE Mass. Jimmy (or Karl, I am not sure) was discussing this on CAL a few days ago. There is ONE Mass and several different Missals for saying the Mass. Currently, there are two main Missals for saying the Mass in the Latin rite of the Church, the Missal of 1962 (TLM) and the Missal of 1968 (so-called Novus Ordo). There are other Missals which are approved only for use within religious orders. But it is all the same Mass.
[/quote]

What about the 2003 GIRM? These are the current norms


#19

[quote=Mysty101]What about the 2003 GIRM? These are the current norms
[/quote]

The letters “GIRM” in GIRM stand for the “General Instruction of the Roman Missal”. They are the current norms for saying the Missal of 1968. It isn’t a new Missal, nor are those norms binding on the other Missals that are currently approved for use. The GIRM is a limited document, in that it applies only to one Missal currently approved for use in the Latin Church, albeit the one that the overwhelming majority of Catholcs experience.

This doesn’t even touch on the Liturgies of the Eastern Catholic Churches, in Communion with Rome, who still only say the ONE MASS but with an entirely different Missal and accomanying norms.


#20

[quote=kmktexas]The letters “GIRM” in GIRM stand for the “General Instruction of the Roman Missal”. They are the current norms for saying the Missal of 1968. It isn’t a new Missal, nor are those norms binding on the other Missals that are currently approved for use. The GIRM is a limited document, in that it applies only to one Missal currently approved for use in the Latin Church, albeit the one that the overwhelming majority of Catholcs experience.

This doesn’t even touch on the Liturgies of the Eastern Catholic Churches, in Communion with Rome, who still only say the ONE MASS but with an entirely different Missal and accomanying norms.
[/quote]

Yes, I do know about the instructions, but I don’t understand what this has to do with the original question.

My point is that the primary celebration is now the NO or Pauline Mass, so if there is a Priest shortage, an underattended Tridentine Mass should be replaced with a Mass in the vernacular, especially if more Masses are needed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.