TLM Never Abrogated?

[bben15]

Pope Benedict XVI stated in his Summorum Pontificum that the TLM was never abrogated, and its celebration never needed permission. If this was the case, then were the various indults granted irrelevant? Such as the Agatha Christie indult; the 1984 indult; the indult allowing older and infirm priests to celebrate it?

Thank you.

[tradne4163]

There are differing opinions on it.

As a sedevacantist, to give you one example, I regard the "indults" as irrelevant because Paul VI had no authority over the Liturgy to begin with, so the suppression of the Latin Mass (as well as the promulgation of the New Mass) had no force whatsoever.

Those in the SSPX crowd, as well as many of those who might fall under the Ecclesia Dei/Motu Proprio Mass crowd, will say that as an immemorial custom, the Traditional Mass could not be suppressed, and thus indirectly also say the indults are irrelevant. Well, actually SSPXers will outright say the suppression was illegal.

[Cesar_Augustus]

Well, in practice it was different, Priests were persecuted for example.

[Greg]

If you could not access the Tridentine mass it was abrogated.  Arguing over legalisms is silly.

[Bonaventure]

If you could not access the Tridentine mass it was abrogated.  Arguing over legalisms is silly.

I agree.

[Kaesekopf]

Also agreed.

It's a novel legalism to wash away the last 50 years that Rome and the Curia have treated like trash devout traditionalists and devout Catholics who simply wanted the Mass.

Much like the new prayer for blessing holy water, it means nothing.

[bben15]

Also agreed.

It's a novel legalism to wash away the last 50 years that Rome and the Curia have treated like trash devout traditionalists and devout Catholics who simply wanted the Mass.

Much like the new prayer for blessing holy water, it means nothing.

It seems as if the Tridentine Mass was de facto abolished, but not de jure. But yes, I agree. The 40 years of prohibiting the Mass of the Ages to us is unacceptable, and can't just be forgotten by a simple "it was never abrogated, and its celebration never needed permission." Even today, we have particularly liberal bishops who circumvent Rome and force their personal prejudice towards the TLM on the faithful of their diocese, that is, prohibiting the celebration of the TLM in their diocese.

Not very good bishops, if you ask me. I never understood how forcing your personal prejudice on the faithful of the diocese can be beneficial towards their spiritual welfare. 

[Maximilian]

It seems as if the Tridentine Mass was de facto abolished, but not de jure.

I was both de facto and de jure. Benedict's statement was nothing more than a straightforward denial of reality. In fact, Pope Paul VI forbade the Latin Mass, both in theory and in practice.

[Kaesekopf]

Also agreed.

It's a novel legalism to wash away the last 50 years that Rome and the Curia have treated like trash devout traditionalists and devout Catholics who simply wanted the Mass.

Much like the new prayer for blessing holy water, it means nothing.

It seems as if the Tridentine Mass was de facto abolished, but not de jure. But yes, I agree. The 40 years of prohibiting the Mass of the Ages to us is unacceptable, and can't just be forgotten by a simple "it was never abrogated, and its celebration never needed permission." Even today, we have particularly liberal bishops who circumvent Rome and force their personal prejudice towards the TLM on the faithful of their diocese, that is, prohibiting the celebration of the TLM in their diocese.

Not very good bishops, if you ask me. I never understood how forcing your personal prejudice on the faithful of the diocese can be beneficial towards their spiritual welfare. 

You'd be surprised at how quickly bygones are bygones in certain circles.

[Greg]

Even today, we have particularly liberal bishops who circumvent Rome and force their personal prejudice towards the TLM on the faithful of their diocese, that is, prohibiting the celebration of the TLM in their diocese.

Not very good bishops, if you ask me. I never understood how forcing your personal prejudice on the faithful of the diocese can be beneficial towards their spiritual welfare. 

I admire those ones the most.  The are at least being mentally consistent and defending their religion.  It is easy to think of these people as the enemy, but that appears to be a childish and simplistic view to me.

The ones that ban or restrict the TLM in the parishes are sending a clear signal that the new religion and the old are not compatible.  In this way the dolts in the pews can make their choice.

I have long held the suspicion that it is the appeasers in the middle who are the real enemy and now I am convinced of it.  The people who will never call a spade a spade, never speak in simple terms, make excuses for both sides, tell us what they think the Pope really meant, use canonical legalisms to sow confusion everywhere, resort to fideism when rational arguments desert them, call themselves peacemakers and moderates but actually just facilitate a state of permanent tension and confusion.

Over time you lose far more souls to apathy than you would to an all out war.

This is why, l believe a God hates the lukewarm and the excuse makers so much and wants to vomit them out of His mouth.

[nmoerbeek]

Even today, we have particularly liberal bishops who circumvent Rome and force their personal prejudice towards the TLM on the faithful of their diocese, that is, prohibiting the celebration of the TLM in their diocese.

Not very good bishops, if you ask me. I never understood how forcing your personal prejudice on the faithful of the diocese can be beneficial towards their spiritual welfare. 

I have long held the suspicion that it is the appeasers in the middle who are the real enemy and now I am convinced of it.  The people who will never call a spade a spade, never speak in simple terms, make excuses for both sides, tell us what they think the Pope really meant, use canonical legalisms to sow confusion everywhere, resort to fideism when rational arguments desert them, call themselves peacemakers and moderates but actually just facilitate a state of permanent tension and confusion.

Over time you lose far more souls to apathy than you would to an all out war.

This is why, l believe a God hates the lukewarm and the excuse makers so much and wants to vomit them out of His mouth.

"When you hear anyone spoken ill of, make the accusation doubtful if you can do so justly.  If you cannot, excuse the intention of the accused party.  If that cannot be done, express sympathy for him [and] change the subject of the conversation"  St Frances De Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life pg 205

It is a hard line to walk when discussing our neighbor and not cross over into sin.  It is better to condemn ideas and ignorance rather than people.

Also the term lukewarm is much more broad than the fervor of the confession of our lips, but is to describe the zeal at which we amend our whole life in conquering sin and growing in virtue. 

[Parresia]

If the TLM was never officially abrogated, then a whole bunch of priests and members of the laity were treated unjustly by the Church for decades.  The Church needs to own up to that. 

[Kaesekopf]

If the TLM was never officially abrogated, then a whole bunch of priests and members of the laity were treated unjustly by the Church for decades.  The Church needs to own up to that.

Also this.
If we can apologize for the Crusades, Inquisition, etc...

[Parresia]

If the TLM was never officially abrogated, then a whole bunch of priests and members of the laity were treated unjustly by the Church for decades.  The Church needs to own up to that.

Also this.
If we can apologize for the Crusades, Inquisition, etc...

Ding ding ding. 

[OSB Melitensis]

Pope Benedict XVI stated in his Summorum Pontificum that the TLM was never abrogated, and its celebration never needed permission. If this was the case, then were the various indults granted irrelevant? Such as the Agatha Christie indult; the 1984 indult; the indult allowing older and infirm priests to celebrate it?

Thank you.

Yes and no. The previous indults were needed in view of the consistent attacks by the hierarchy. Then Summorum Pontificum was needed because of various reasons, specified in the link:

http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2012/09/fifth-anniversary-of-summorum-pontificum_14.html 

In Malta, the TLM was de facto suppressed and although there was a resurgence between 2007 - 2011, since the pontificate of Francis began, it's become a rarity.