TLM and the Universal Indult

Assuming that the Pope will grant the Universal Indult for the Tridentine Mass won’t end the restrictiveness of it.

First off with so many new Churches and the architecture of them makes it in some cases impossible to have it.

Secondly a Bishop hostile to having a TLM might insist on rigorous requirements for saying it. i.e. having perfect enunciation of the Latin.

Thirdly the Bishop might feel that its not worth having it if he feels that there isn’t going to be enough people.

Lastly and this would be the hardest to stop would be to transfer Priests who say it in his diocese to another that would NEVER want it.

I sincerely hope that the above mentioned is irrational fears on my part.

I think we have to wait to see what the Holy Father says.

Your fears are not totally unfounded. The Pope realizes he has far too many liberals opposing him in his efforts to extend the TLM. Look around you. It’s hard to avoid them, even when you put them on ignore. [edited by moderator] :smiley:

What many don’t realize is what the indult will actually do, versus what it cannot do.

What the indult will do: allow any validly ordained priest to celebrate the TR in private.

What it won’t - and cannot do: allow Father Joe down the block to - by way of his own initiative - institute a Tridentine Rite service in his own parish.

The bishop still has ultimate say over public worship. So, the indult won’t change anything as quickly as most people think it will. What it can do, however, is encourage bishops to relax restrictions and more liberally grant permission to celebrate the TR publicly, as pastoral need arises.

Cardinal George gave this clarification to a group of seminarians gathered last week, and I thought I’d pass it along.

:shrug: what are ya gonna do, though? :shrug:

Priests can already offer the Tridentine Mass in private. Msgr. Schmitz, the United States Provinicial Superior for the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest has said this many times. I would like to note that the Provincial headquarters is in Chicago.

What it won’t - and cannot do: allow Father Joe down the block to - by way of his own initiative - institute a Tridentine Rite service in his own parish.

Again, this is the case right now. No priest can institute the Tridentine Mass (it’s not a service) without an indult from the local ordinary.

The bishop still has ultimate say over public worship. So, the indult won’t change anything as quickly as most people think it will. What it can do, however, is encourage bishops to relax restrictions and more liberally grant permission to celebrate the TR publicly, as pastoral need arises.

Once again, this is the case right now. Pope John Paul II called for a “wide and generous application” of the Tridentine Mass in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. The majority of bishops have ignored his words, which is why there’s talk of a universal indult.

All you have done is state the current situation. There are bishops who refuse to let the Tridentine Mass be offered in their diocese. If a universal indult says the bishop can still refuse to let the Tridentine Mass be offered in his diocese, then it would be totally and completely useless. It would do absolutely nothing.

You did touch on something when you said that the Tridentine Mass could be offered as the “pastoral need” arises. Who defines “pastoral need?” It’s the local ordinary. So the bishop who refuses the Tridentine Mass in his diocese uses the bogus excuse of there is no “pastoral need” in his diocses. This is why an apostolic administration is needed for the Tridentine Mass. I wouldn’t expect the same bishops who have been covering up the priest sex abuse scandals to be honest in their reasons for not allowing the Tridentine Mass.

Cardinal George gave this clarification to a group of seminarians gathered last week, and I thought I’d pass it along.

I would like a transcript of Cardinal George’s comments. I don’t believe you heard him correctly.

Swiss Guard:

As Fr. John Zuhlsdorf of What Does the Prayer Really Say? fame states:
4) It will authorize private celebration of Mass with the 1962 Missal by any priest as he chooses. Public Masses will be regulated by the bishop.
5) What a “private” Mass is will be defined in the document. A number will be established for what constitutes a “private” Mass. Provided the group is that size, no permission of the bishop will be necessary.
6) If I understand it right, and I admit I might be confused, there might be something in the document about greater numbers of people (than what would constitute a “private” Mass) being allowed to attend without the bishop’s permission so long as a Mass in the Novus Ordo is first provided for those who want it. I am not sure about this element, but it might be a prudent solution. If I am right about this element of the document, the idea would be to ensure that a priest doesn’t simply stop offering people the chance to attend the Novus Ordo and thus force everyone to go to the older form. See what I mean?
7) The document will stress the obligation of bishops to be “generous” in allowing the older form of Mass to be offered publicly with language much strong than that in the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei adflicta” of John Paul II.
“Pastoral need” in my previous post basically means, “Does the parish in question need this liturgy to meet the spiritual needs of its people?” In Chicago, for example, there are currently three parishes that hold TR liturgies. If there is need, there will be more.

What Fr. Z stresses - and, I think, rightfully so - is that it’s still a bit ambiguous, what “private” means.

And you’re mistaken: there is no universal indult granted at the moment, allowing any priest to pray the TR without permission from a bishop.

As for a transcript, I don’t believe one exists. I wish it did, as the bulk of his presentation was on a wonderful paper regarding religion in American democracy, which will be published in the future.

And lastly, forgive my poor use of the word “service.”

  1. the Bishop will not be allowed to suppress any “TLM”. Most likely he would have to enforce it being done correctly, of which none of them today can even come close to even knowing how it is to be done correctly. And try to get a Bishop nowadays to properly recite Latin- he most likely will not know if one Latin word is mispronounced. Also, the Low Mass can be said basically inaudibly with only the server doing the responses so he cannot even enforce the concept of properly pronouncing the Latin.

  2. The architecture does not matter. When our chapel was in a transitional phase from private ownership to Diocesean ownership we had the TLM at a local parish and brought our own hand made wooden altar- and placed it in front of their “Cramner table”.

Ken

Your use of service is forgiven. I just blow up whenever I see the Mass (NO or TLM) referred to as a service.

What Fr. Zuhlsdorf states is the current situation. If he’s correct, then the universal indult changes nothing. It wouldn’t even be a universal indult. Msgr. Schmitz has stated numerous times that a priest can already offer the Tridentine Mass in private. I used to serve Mass for a Benedictine priest who offered the Tridentine Mass in private. He also said no indult is necessary for a private Mass.

I know there’s no universal indult at the moment. I never said there was one. That’s why I said what you have posted is the current situation. What you posted was stated by Pope John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei. Like I said, if the universal indult does what you say it will, then it changes nothing.

Also, there are 5 parishes in the Archdiocese of Chicago that offer an indult Mass:

St. John Cantius - Chicago
St. Thomas More - Chicago
Shrine of Christ the King Sovereign Priest - Chicago
St. Peter - Volo
St. John Vianney - Northlake

St. John Vianney is my parish. We are the only one of the 5 parishes that only offer the Tridentine Mass on Sundays. St. Thomas More and St. Peter have the Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation while Shrine of Christ the King and St. John Cantius have a daily Tridentine Mass.

Shrine of Christ the King is run by the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest which says the Mass according to the 1956 Missal. They have permission from the Holy See to use this Missal.

BTW, Msgr. Schmitz was ordained by Cardinal Ratzinger.

You know, Ken, I’ve seen your parish’s website. It’s truly beautiful. I love the Crucifix and the Altar.

Don’t be so hard on yourself, Bob. I doubt if anyone here would refer to you as a trud.

A Benedictine would need permission from his abbot rather than the diocesan bishop. Benedictines tend to be much more tolerant of that sort of thing. A monk friend of mine was however banned from celebrating Tridentine Masses after sneaking out to say one on some pretext or other. The ban was supposedly forever, though I would imagine it has been lifted by now.

Hire a pied piper. (I don’t have a smiley for that.)

It would be nice to see/hear real numbers instead this time. Or under the penalty of the wrath of Almighty God. It definitely strengthens the directive.

Hmmm… something one does not hear much in the modern Church.

The Benedictine priest was at the parish I was attending at the time, which wasn’t a Benedictine parish. His province was in Kansas. He really didn’t want to go back to his province and they were more than happy to let him stay in Chicago. It’s all because he is very orthodox.

You’re right that a religious order priest would need the permission of his provincial superior to say a public Tridentine Mass. However, he would also need the permission of the local ordinary. There would be no Tridentine Masses in Chicago if Cardinal George decided to forbid them. Permission from the provincial superior would not give him permission to offer the Tridentine Mass in public if the local ordinary says no.

Any priest can licitly offer the Tridentine Mass in private without permission from the local ordinary. I trust what Msgr. Schmitz has to say about the matter.

How does one define “private” in the traditional sense?

Good question.

Maybe celebrating Mass outside of diocesan property? Within someone’s house, for example?

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.