FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Blessed Sacrament question
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
With the way things are today, some Traditional Mass centers out of necessity have a chapel in private homes.  A priest is usually there often and only he can open the tabernacle.

Joe
This seems to settle the question, a big fat no unless you're a bishop or can get a papal indult (I doubt the pope issue very many of these).
From newadvent.org:

The present-day law of the Church, while placing no restriction on the erection of chapels that form part of a larger church, lays down very definite regulations respecting any that belong to the category of private chapels. This applies, however, only to those intended for the celebration of Mass; there is no restriction whatever as regards the setting apart of a particular chamber in a private house merely for purposes of private prayer and devotion. But for a chapel in which Mass is to be said, canon law legislates very strictly. Cardinals, bishops (even titular), and regular prelates, are allowed the use of a private chapel by right; for all others a special indult is required. The ordinary of the diocese can give the necessary permission for the chapel or oratory of an institution such as a religious house, an orphanage, hospital, workhouse, or prison, such chapels being usually public or semi-public. But for a strictly private chapel in a private house, intended only for the convenience of the inmates of the house, a papal indult must be obtained, and such indults are only granted for sufficient reasons, e.g. distance from a church, permanent ill-health of a member of the household,

Full article with lots of info regarding chapels:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03574b.htm
(11-05-2009, 09:35 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-05-2009, 09:27 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]According to canon 934, if one built a chapel attached to one's home, it would indeed be licit to reserve the most holy Sacrament in the tabernacle of said chapel with the permission of the bishop.

No, Just building a chapel doesn't make it a 'Chapel' under the law. Traditionally, only Heads of State were allowed private Chapels in which the Sacrament could be reserved, but that doesn't seem to have carried over into the new code.

Obviously just building a chapel certainly would not canonically make it a chapel. But if the bishop designated said structure a chapel and had it consecrated or blessed, then it would be one:

Can.  1226 By the term private chapel is understood a place for divine worship designated by permission of the local ordinary for the benefit of one or more physical persons.
(11-05-2009, 11:05 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously just building a chapel certainly would not canonically make it a chapel. But if the bishop designated said structure a chapel and had it consecrated or blessed, then it would be one:

Can.  1226 By the term private chapel is understood a place for divine worship designated by permission of the local ordinary for the benefit of one or more physical persons.

Check the above quote from New Advent pointing out that what you are talking about requires a Papal indult.
(11-05-2009, 11:13 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-05-2009, 11:05 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously just building a chapel certainly would not canonically make it a chapel. But if the bishop designated said structure a chapel and had it consecrated or blessed, then it would be one:

Can.  1226 By the term private chapel is understood a place for divine worship designated by permission of the local ordinary for the benefit of one or more physical persons.

Check the above quote from New Advent pointing out that what you are talking about requires a Papal indult.

The canons that apply to this situation today are different from those that applied to it when the Catholic Encyclopedia was written.
(11-06-2009, 12:54 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]The canons that apply to this situation today are different from those that applied to it when the Catholic Encyclopedia was written.
Can you provide a situation that states what you're saying ??? I'm not sure the situation has changed, could be wrong.
I've heard that a papal indult is required and just look on newadvent.org and that statement seemed to be true.
On the village were I lived in the sixties, before WWII the countess had her private chapel. It was consecrated by the Archbishop when it was built in the 1920's, there were monthly Holy Masses held there (even in my time, since it was then a nursing home), and the Eucharist was in the tabernacle preserved.. I do not remember any note about papal indult. There were at least a half dozen such chapels in Hungary, some built in the 17th century.

(11-05-2009, 11:13 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-05-2009, 11:05 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously just building a chapel certainly would not canonically make it a chapel. But if the bishop designated said structure a chapel and had it consecrated or blessed, then it would be one:

Can.  1226 By the term private chapel is understood a place for divine worship designated by permission of the local ordinary for the benefit of one or more physical persons.

Check the above quote from New Advent pointing out that what you are talking about requires a Papal indult.
(11-06-2009, 08:17 AM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]On the village were I lived in the sixties, before WWII the countess had her private chapel. It was consecrated by the Archbishop when it was built in the 1920's, there were monthly Holy Masses held there (even in my time, since it was then a nursing home), and the Eucharist was in the tabernacle preserved.. I do not remember any note about papal indult. There were at least a half dozen such chapels in Hungary, some built in the 17th century.
Not trying to argue with you, as I really don't know much about this, but:
If the countess' home or whatever was used as a nursing home than it could be considered an 'institution' and the bishop could consecrate the chapel as a public or semi-public chapel like those in hospitals or the homes of religious without an indult
I don't think this is the same thing, maybe I'm wrong. Plus, as I see it, what was done in the 17th century may or may not have been an abuse. Just cause it was done doesn't mean it should've been. Again, I don't know just my thoughts...take 'em or leave 'em. Thanks for sharing  :) +1
Pages: 1 2