Indult matters

The other night I promised to a friend an explanation of why although I would certainly welcome it, I'm not as excited about the rumored upcoming universal 1962 Missal indult as some people might suppose me to be.  I said I wasn't going to go into a long explanation on the spot, as it would have been tiresome to shout it at the top of my lungs the way I would have had to to be understood at that time in that place.

As I was about to sign on here and write a piece, I noticed that Dan of the Holy Whapping has written one that closely enough reflects enough of what I think and feel that I will just link to it.

I think what I'd really want as a long-term result from said indult when (if) it is ever promulgated (and I'm not holding my breath), is that wider permission for the older style of Mass will cause people to be reminded about some of the good perennially valid Catholic sensibilities (Vatican II and pre-Vatican II) that we've forgotten about or let slide since the 60s, and that these will be integrated with the good reforms we have already carried out, while we at the same time avoid or divest ourselves of the bad or lazy habits of preconciliar and postconciliar times (maybe I will muse on specific examples of what I mean in later posts).  Perhaps this may seem like an idealistic sort of hope, but since when does one ever make progress in the Christian life without a heavenly ideal to hope for?

Comments

[Matt]

My thoughts have always been that indults for the Trinitine Rite encourage, support, and strengthen the various postconciliar schisms.

In general the gripe about the Novus Ordo seems to be divisible into two categories: detestation at the drop-off in reverence and the rapid introduction of heterodoxy into the mainstream Church; or the belief that Blessed John XXIII was an anti-pope and that the council was illegitimate and thereby null-and-void [continue fallacious SSPX heretical rant here].

The so-called “spirit of Vatican II” is the true culprit of the scandals in the Novus Ordo not the missal itself. When done all-out in Latin--with all of the optional rites, a celebrant who can both sing and pronounce the Latin correctly, proper chant of the mass parts by the people and choir, proper organ choral music, and a homily that is at least not heterodox--the Novus Ordo is orders of magnitude more reverent, and much more closely in line with the deposit of faith than any missal in history. Why, then, is the Novus Ordo (which requires no indult) not good enough for the so-called “Traditional Catholics?”

The answer is quite obvious—traditional Catholics reject the dogmatic proclamations of the Second Vatican Council. This is a charge that I level at the ring-leaders and the priests who insist on the indult mass due to their false belief that the church fathers do not have the authority to change disciplinary matters such as the liturgy--namely the Society of Saint Pius X. Their strategy is simple: if the SSPX Catholics can garner enough support for the Trinitine rite to have it said on a regular basis locally, then there is no motivation by those who long ONLY for a return to the reverence and orthodoxy of a pre-Vatican II Church to support the Novus Ordo in Latin. They simply tag along and attach themselves to heretics with whom they otherwise would have little in common. Granting indults for the Trinitine Mass only fuels this heretical fire that threatens to consume the arm of the Church that must be stalwart in the defense against the most deadly poisons of modernism, relativism, and secularism.

It is sad that good holy priests and bishops do not step up and offer a “high” Novus Ordo mass on a regular basis (even in the vernacular!)—even the ordinations I have attended could have been done much more elaborately. If I were to become a priest, one of my goals would be to promote a return to reverence and sanctity within the mass in general, and offer it in Latin once a week. I wonder if there are any priests out there who have tried offering such a mass weekly? I would bet BIG money that those masses would be well-attended, not just by the visitors that are brought in, but by the members of that parish.

[Mike O'Leary]

I hope this does not offend anyone but you have to look at the Church in a different light and that is in comparison with the Jewish Faith.Lets start with the Bible as we know there is a new testament and a old testament the Jewish Faith is permanently imbedded in the old testament and I see nothing wrong with that.I am a 68 year old Catholic who was in a Catholic School system for 12 years graduating in 1959.So as you are now aware of I received my Catholic Faith during the traditional years of the Churchh.The years leading up to Vatican 2 are lost in my memory.All of a sudden it was the 1970's we had gone thru the Vietnam War and 4 Popes and found ourselves immersed in the new era of Catholicism in regards to having a new form of liturgical Sunday worship which was quite different than the old liturgical Sunday worship.To most Catholics it was a big change to others it was new change which they now had to grow up with.We as Catholics received our Faith when we were Baptized and now have the option to go to 2 distinct type of Masses which is quite rare since both liturgies are very different.Of course this was not the intent of Vatican2 but is totally not wrong.The church finds it self in the same position as the Jewish Faith Their are some traditional Jews who find their Faith still in the old testament then their are some who are not traditional for the very same reason as the traditional Catholics and the non traditional Catholics and that is they are living their Faith in the 20th Century.

[Peter Terp]

Personally, I'm more interested in living my Faith in a way that doesn't adhere to any century...but that's just me.