More evidence the universal indult is immanent?

Roman Catholic bishops really do not have any independent authority. That has been undermined for several hundred years.

They have only the authority they are allowed to have and no more. That was the whole purpose of the dogma of Universal Jurisdiction. Everything they do is actually delegated.

If the Pope grants a universal indult upon his own authority, no bishop will be able to oppose him.


That is true. The bishops have stacked the deck in favor of the completely vulgar (or vernacular) liturgy for the last 40 years. It would not be hard to see where they would be offended if they felt they would have to give up some ground.

An individual bishop would not be able to oppose him but a delegation of bishops from a certain region could oppose him, according to Vatican II documents (or from I understand of the Vatican II documents). It is called collegiality.

Perhaps this was part of Archbishop Lefebrve’s problem, that he could not muster up a bunch of bishops who could have blocked the Pope in spreading the Novus Ordo. :frowning:

Actually Pope John Paul II was going to offer a universal indult, and Cardinal Hume wouldn’t let him, because he was irritated by the antics of English far-right traditionalists.

Could you provide some evidence for this? Personally I think he was going to do what the current Pontiff is being rumored in doing, except we hope that Pope Benedict can overcome the intense opposition being thrown by those French and German bishops again.

Of course, the “Novus Ordo” can be celebrated in Latin, ad orientam, using only altar boys, and only Gregorian chant, by any priest, whether the bishop likes it or not.

I read it in the mainstream press.
A web trawl turned up this

"In 1984 John Paul II granted a universal indult and exhorted the bishops in 1988 and again in 1998 to implement it with “generosity”. He had convened a commission in 1986, which concluded as vouched for by Cardinal Stickler, that the old missal had never been abolished and that any priest of the Latin rite could use it. In the face of opposition, in particular Cardinal Hume, the Holy Father had renounced publishing these conclusions, thus not giving them force of law. The projected motu proprio of Benedict XVI would thus complete what John Paul II had to a great extent undertaken. "

I am pretty sure that the incident did occur more or less as I ahve described.

I am sorry to seem so contrary here. I do not mean start any fuss, but that (see emphasis) is impossible.
*]Cardinal Hume may object
*]The Pope may listen to advice[/LIST]But the Cardinal (Memory Eternal) may not prevent the Pope from carrying out any action he has decided upon.

The Cardinal works for and reports to the Pope, whatever authority he posesses is delegated to him by the bishop of Roma. He has no power or authority to overrule the Pope on any issue whatever, even within the CBCEW.


What you describe cannot be collegiality, because ultimately collegiality does not work in the Roman Catholic church. (It could, potentially, but it doesn’t.)

The Pope is above a Council, and his rights cannot be curtailed even by a Council. He may consent to agree as is his right but he cannot be coerced or forced to concede anything. His successors cannot be bound by any temporary concession either.

The conciliar documents from Vatican II do not constitute some form of constitution. If they did, it would destroy the ecclesiology of the church crafted since Ferrara-Florence.


Well, the entire point of a universal indult as may be forthcoming is to withdraw the right of any bishop to forbid the celebration of it, just as a bishop can’t forbid the celebration of the NO.

And this goes whether or not a priest has sufficient “reasons” to celebrate the TLM. Of course I can think of many, such as doctrinal strength, beauty, reverence, the spiritual good of the laity, etc.

Whether bishops may try to suppress the TLM in their diocese regardless of a universal indult is a different matter.

The late French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated for opposing changes in the church agreed by the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s, including the replacement of the Tridentine mass with updated liturgy in local languages.

The quote above was taken from the article linked to by the OP.

It continues to amaze me (and causes me to take every single news story I read with a grain of salt) that they can get such basic facts wrong simply because they didn’t do their homework.

Lefebvre was NOT excommunicated for that reason. He was excommunicated because he ordained 4 bishops without permission from the pope, thereby causing a schism.

You are absolutely correct! (of course you knew that :slight_smile: )

Misinformation blows around here all the day long.

**Why is it good news that we can no longer follow the mass in English?

Is the Latin mass better than a mass in the venacular and why?**

Boys will prefer to serve the Old Mass because they are actually useful such as helping to protect our Lord during Holy Communion by holding the paten. There is also a lot for them to do. Boys prefer activity over meditating in the pews.

My sons prefer serving the Old Mass. They all have learned the prayers at the foot of the altar. and have much experience serving the Old mass. But we only have Sunday Mass in the Old rite. So their skills are not utilized during the week.

They claim they are not needed and are reluctant to serve the New Mass. And in a way they are right. The priest can do everything himself.

Welcome Don. Interesting use of colors there. The English in the Mass isn’t going away, so no need to worry there.

The Latin Mass is reverent and timeless, and it helps many people feel that they are truly participating in Sacred Mysteries. Sometimes the Mass in other places feels cheap, tacky, or irreverent; hopefully, giving all priests the option of celebrating the old Latin Mass will help the ordinary Mass become more reverent.

**Is reverence for God expressed in a language or an attitude? **

In simple terms, Latin contributes to the sense of sacredness that the Tridentine Mass have.

Read this: The Case of the Latin Mass by Deitrich Von Hildebrand

Definitely better. Perhaps you need to reread that Tower of Babel passage in the Scripture again.


Did people speak Latin prior to the Tower of Babel incident?

Let me give a personal example.

I used to travel extensively for business. This travel was international in scope.

On Sundays, I would seek out the local Latin Mass. Why? In that way, I could follow along and participate in the Mass. I had my own missal, so I could read the readings, and the only thing I would miss out on was the homily.

Otherwise, my only other choice was to sit there and try to follow along in French, Dutch, Korean, Polish or whatever happened to be the local language.

As Christians, are we not supposed to be welcoming of the stranger? If there was a foreigner visiting your parish, how to you pupose that they worship with you?

And as for learning the Latin, it was pretty easy. My father’s parish was about 1/2 Hispanic about the time Vatican II came out. So the parish priest there just began to say the NO Mass in Latin. That way, both the Anglo and the the Hispanics could worship together. Isn’t that the way God wants it?

What we have now is a Balcanization of churches. Hispanics have their priest and their Mass, and the Anglo have theirs. They are now two seperate communities that happen to share the same building.

The reintroduction of the Latin Mass ( in any form) will serve to unite the Church again under a common form of worship where everyone can participate.

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