The solid Andrea Tornielli has a meaty piece in Il Giornale about the Motu Proprio.
Highlights:
1) The MP will be released probably on 7 July.
2) There will probably be no press conference to present the document.
3) The Pope offers a letter with the document to explain his decison.
4) The older rite was not abolished.
5) It had been decided by a group of cardinals in 1982 that there should be more use of the 1962 Missale.
6) The prayer about the "perfidis judeais" was already gone from that edition.
7) When "stable groups" ("gruppi stabili") want the older Mass they can go to the parish priest (pastor).
8) It will be the bishops role to help iron out problems, resolve difficulties.
9) The old calendar and readings for Mass are preserved.
10) People can have not only Mass but all the sacraments in the old rite.
11) We don’t speak any longer of two rites, of Paul VI and of "Tridentine", but of one rite of the Latin church in two forms, ordinary and extraordinary.
12) The Pope explains in his letter that this is not a return to the past.
13) What happened after the Council was not supposed to be a break with the past.
14) Mass must be celebrated well in either form.
15) Card. Castrillon Hoyos explained the text.
16) The Pope came and they discused things for an hour.
17) In the last few months very few and very small changes were made to the text, as was explained on Wednesday.
18) In the last few weeks Cardinal Lehmanand Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor brought up the point abut Jews being upset.
19) The French had expressed worry abou tht e "unity" of the Church, something they did not seem to wory about in the face of liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo.
20) The Letter to the Chinese will be 28 pages.
21) The Pope declares the full validity of the sacraments celebrated by both the official and clandestine Churches.
Great article! Tornielli gets a thumbs up.
n. 152 del 2007-06-29 pagina 17
Il Papa ai vescovi: via libera alla messa antica
di Andrea Tornielli
Per celebrare non servirà più il placet delle curieda Roma
Benedetto XVI due giorni fa ha convocato a Roma i leader delle conferenze episcopali dei Paesi dove è più consistente la presenza dei tradizionalisti per presentare il Motu proprio che liberalizzerà la Messa preconciliare in latino e sarà pubblicato con tutta probabilità sabato 7 luglio, senza conferenza stampa di presentazione.
Il documento papale è accompagnato da una lunga lettera nella quale Papa Ratzinger spiega ai vescovi le ragioni della sua decisione. Il testo dichiara che l’antico rito romano non è mai stato abolito, come stabilì un gruppo di cardinali dell’ex Sant’Uffizio già nel 1982, e che dunque è possibile utilizzare il libro liturgico promulgato da Giovanni XXIII nel 1962, l’ultima versione dell’antica messa, già purgata della preghiera del Venerdì santo nella quale gli ebrei erano definiti «perfidis judaeis». Fino a oggi, secondo l’indulto già concesso nel 1984 da Papa Wojtyla, per ottenere questa celebrazione, i tradizionalisti dovevano chiedere un’autorizzazione al vescovo diocesano, il quale poteva concederla o meno. Dall’entrata in vigore del Motu proprio di Benedetto XVI non sarà più così: i fedeli – un «gruppo stabile» recita il testo – si rivolgeranno direttamente al parroco. Il vescovo dovrà eventualmente dirimere i problemi, stabilire come superare le difficoltà: il suo ruolo, come ha precisato il cardinale Segretario di Stato Tarcisio Bertone, rimarrà «centrale nelle disposizioni dell’ordine dele celebrazioni». Ma sia il vescovo che il parroco si muoveranno nell’ambito della nuova legge.
I tradizionalisti conserveranno il vecchio calendario e l’antica scelta di letture bibliche. Oltre alla Messa domenicale si potranno celebrare anche tutti i sacramenti con il vecchio rito. Non si parlerà più di due riti diversi, quello tridentino e il nuovo approvato da Paolo VI, ma di un unico rito della Chiesa latina in due forme: quella ordinaria, vale a dire la nuova Messa; quella straordinaria, rappresentata dalla Messa secondo l’antica tradizione.
Nella lettera di accompagnamento il Papa spiegherà ai vescovi che con questa decisione non si fa un salto nel passato. La stessa riforma liturgica voluta dal Concilio non era infatti da intendersi come una frattura. E Benedetto XVI spiegherà l’importanza che la liturgia sia ben celebrata sia nell’una che nell’altra forma.
Alla riunione hanno partecipato tra gli altri gli italiani Ruini e Bagnasco, i francesi Ricard e Barbarin, il tedesco Lehmann, l’inglese Murphy O’Connor, l’americano O’Malley, l’australiano Pell, lo svizzero Koch, l’indiano Toppo. Sono intervenuti i cardinali Bertone, per spiegare il senso dell’iniziativa, e Castrillón, presidente di «Ecclesia Dei», che ha illustrato il testo. Quindi il Papa si è unito ai presenti e ha discusso con loro per un’ora. Pochissime e poco rilevanti le modifiche apportate in questi mesi al testo, qualche precisazione è stata avanzata anche mercoledì pomeriggio. Nelle ultime settimane alcune resistenze erano arrivate in particolare dal cardinale Lehmann, che aveva parlato di un disagio delle comunità ebraiche, poi rientrato, dato che il messale autorizzato non conterrà l’abolita frase sui «perfidis judaeis», e dal cardinale inglese Murphy O’Connor. Mentre i vescovi francesi avevano in precedenza manifestato timori per «l’unità» liturgica della Chiesa: preoccupazione reale ma quasi mai evocata nel caso di abusi o frequenti stravaganze nelle celebrazioni col nuovo rito.
È infine ormai imminente la pubblicazione della lettera del Papa ai cattolici cinesi. Nelle 28 pagine di documento il Pontefice fornisce indicazioni per superare le divisioni tra le comunità clandestine e quelle ufficiali, dichiarando la piena validità dei sacramenti celebrati da entrambe.
Loading ...
LeRenard:
This is exactly what we don’t need right now!
What is needed, rather, is this: give some prayerful thought to this subject, and prepare a few sentences for a “letter to the editor” section of, say, your local Catholic paper. We know that there will be a deluge of comments in the wake of this release. Make some simple points, something that might seem obvious to you, but might not be obvious to many at all and give a little support without sounding at all bitter or negative about anything. Even if you were just to say something like: “it is good to have diversity” – they love the word “diversity” so let’s use it on them.
Andrew,
I take it you’ve never watched the Movie Ben Hur?
Make some simple points, something that might seem obvious to you, but might not be obvious to many at all and give a little support without sounding at all bitter or negative about anything.
Thanks, Andrew, for this great piece of advice!
God bless you and Keep the Faith!
From inside the motu-meeting:
http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/?p=1752#respond
An excerpt:
“In my comments at the meeting I told my brother bishops that in the United States the number of people who participate in the Latin Mass even with permission is very low…this issue of the Latin Mass is not urgent for our country, however I think they wanted us to be part of the conversation so that we would be able to understand what the situation is in countries where the numbers are very significant.”
I’m sure Archbishop Burke had a few words of his own to add. ;^)
21) The Pope declares the full validity of the sacraments celebrated by both the official and clandestine Churches.
Now this seems extremely significant and may even find application for the SSPX. By “full validity”, might the Holy See be granting jurisdiction for all of the sacraments including confessions and marriages?
I wonder what will be done when someone wants a marriage performed in the traditional Rite, since the coupl requesting wouldn’t comprise a stable group of people. Also, when a parish requests a traditional confirmation, will the Bishop be allowed to say no? I’m eager to find out.
I would encourage EVERYONE to log on to Cardinal Sean’s blog and let him know how many people there are in the United States that want the Traditional Mass! I left a comment – I hope hundreds, maybe thousands more will in the coming days. This is our moment to make a difference!
I am very in favor of the Motu Proprio, and basically agree with LeRenards attitide. Very humerous, but very true. I know the movie “Ben Hur”, and that quote is what many think of the Novus Ordo. Sad to say but true.
People like Marini and Arinze will be very much angry nd embittered, but their day is past and they should accept.
July 7 is given as the day for the publishing of the Motu Proprio. But why no press conference and formal presentation? After all, it is not some thing to be ashamed of to not mention .
Maybe this is still the last gasp of a manoever of the liberals to hid the Motu Proprio from the public so it will go almost uinoticed.
The liberals fool themselves if they think this will not be a very big thing, with no interest from the faithful. They are in fore a rude awaking.
Mark,
It looks like all the comments have been deleted. I would have loved to see what people had to say.
I wonder though if the Cardinal might be right. Most of the Catholics I speak to have no idea Mass is still said in Latin in either Rite. I’d imagine that demand for the traditional Rite is as insignificant as the demand for confession. Most Catholics could care less.
I was thinking yesterday how this MP might be instituted in my own parish. With a parish priest and pastoral team who support a hermeneutic of rupture, and a congregation largely apathetic to liturgy and doctrine, how could the MP ever take root? I can never imagine my pastor saying a Tridentine Mass, or allowing me to collect the 30 signatures that would make it possible.
Shoshiru Honda:
You caught on to what exactly I was attempting to do with that quote!
Thank you for explaining to others and God bless you, indeed!
Michael archangele paradisi praeposite veni in adiutorium populo Dei: et velis nos defendere a potestate inimici: et tecum ducere in societatem domini!
Not to mention, how will the faithful ever find out about the MP? Few bishops and pastors will be mentioning it in their homilies, and I’m sure there are some progressives who will do what they can to hide it.
My son was born this past Sunday. He was due the 11th, but I figure he just waited as long as possible for the MP. I’ve actually been hanging back on plans for his baptism for just this reason. If I could have him baptised in the old rite, I would jump at the chance. Is it worth waiting a couple of weeks to baptize my little boy? I’m quite sure that our local parish priest doesn’t know the rite. However, the priest who does the indult is a wonderful retired priest who I’m sure would be willing. I’d love to have my son registered in our local diocese. Is it worth waiting, or will the MP take much longer than a week or two to go into effect?
Michael – “It looks like all the comments have been deleted.”
When I followed the link, I saw all of the comments and the comment box was open.
“It looks like all the comments have been deleted. I would have loved to see what people had to say”
I’ve just been on the Cardinal’s blog and left a comment. There were 11 comments before mine.
Maeana,
Congratulations! What a blessing. Have you considered calling the chancery and asking the bishop for permission to have the indult priest baptise your son in your own parish? It couldn’t hurt. If your bishop says no, just wait until Saturday.
Shoshiru:
I think you’re the first person I’ve ever heard call Cardinal Arinze a liberal.
The Cardinal’s comments field is still turned on, and I also left a comment for His Eminence. And I even managed to be polite, although I may still have broken one of Fr. Z’s rules of engagement. The one about not strutting, I believe…. Bless me Father for I have sinned…
:-)
This is bad. They’re giving us what we want, but only barely. I’d be careful, if the Motu Proprio is truely this grand, it’ll grab most of the SSPX’ers and others who have stood outside the Church. Then the Church will become Novus Ordo again, and it’ll move more slowly this time, to take more traditionalists with it.
Jack,
I really don’t believe that this will take many SSPX’ers.
I belong to a FSSP parish that is mostly comprised of individuals who held their noses for 40 years while attending the NO.
There are a few priests that are former SSPX’ers who have gone over to other Traditional communities.
As much as I respect Monsignor Levebre, one must look at what some portions of that society have become. Ie; cultish. Just Google a few names for former SSPX priests and read the results.
I was the Godfather at an adult baptism, confirmation, and first communion today at the Indult parish in Phoenix. It was my first old rite Baptism which I have experienced, and it was most powerful and beautiful indeed, loved all of the exorcisms, adoration, being led into the Church by the stole of the priest, consuming blessed salt, the beautiful prayers.
It makes me even more joyous that there will be an encouragement to celebrate all of the sacraments according to the old rite, as the beauty and power is profound. Two weeks ago, I was the Best Man at the first Old Rite Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in this Diocese for who knows how long. Again, that was beautiful, and there were many positive comments from the others who are Novus Ordo parishioners.
Praise God that our Holy Father is liberalizing our beautiful traditions, I think H.E. may be in a little bit of shock of how much this MP is going to change our Church for the better. Sure, it may not be a sudden change, but I am convinced that the improvements will happen over time because of this blessed document and the prudent leadership of our Holy Father.
Viva il Papa!
Viva il Motu Proprio! (Father feel free to correct my Latin, :) )
I am sort of hoping this document or the following letter from our Holy father will address how this will impact seminary formation. Time will tell though :-)
20) The Letter to the Chinese will be 28 pages.
21) The Pope declares the full validity of the sacraments celebrated by both the official and clandestine Churches.
—–
This could the point which has been alluded to as being pertinent to the MP and the SSPX.
> The Pope declares the full validity of the sacraments celebrated by
> both the official and clandestine Churches.
Even the penance in schismatic “Patriot Church”? Without proper jurisdiction???
Our priest, not the pastor, is performing an ever increasing number of baptisms according to the older rite. Just the ones I know about, I think I can name 1/2 a dozen in the last year or so. [Again, these are the ones I know.]
I don’t think the Motu Proprio will be some thing that we are given only barely. If it were just a small initiative of the Pope, why the conflicts, why the hostility of many confrences of Bishops and the anxiety of liberal priests, sisters etc.
A small gesture would not create such enormous oposition. I beliebe that this time next week, the Motu Proprio will be out, and the TV nextowrks and news blogs filled with coverage. It will be very big. The liberals and dissidents will be very angry, but their is done, No?
As for me calling Cardinal Arinze a liberal, yes. I many times read that He alone was most vocal in being against the Motu Priorio in the Curia, and tried to gather others feeling the same. Also, if ever you have seen some of His Masses, they very much are like the “circus” type affairs of John Paul II. Fortunatly, He is near to 75, and hopefully out of office before Christmas this year.
Some Cardinals who sometimes say something traditional actually are not really so. That’s where we fall into trap of saying “AH, He is a good traditionalist, He is so orthodox”. Don’t be fooled.
On other hand, people like Archbishop Burke, Finn, Olmstead, Rhoades, are actually true traditional Catholics who can be placed much trust.
I’m tired of people making accusations about the SSPX being
“cultish.” First of all, I’m a life-long baptised Catholic. My family and I have assisted at an SSPX mass for over 20 years. We are not big “joiners,” and thus have not really become part of the chapel’s social scene (we also live quite a distance away from the chapel). We have NEVER been hassled about our involvement in the parish, commitment to tradition, style of dress, etc. — common charges I hear from anti-SSPX types. Furthermore, the SSPX priests have been most gracious in baptizing our children, administering last rites to my father, etc. — without any strings attached.
This doesn’t seem like a cult to me.
We attend SSPX because of the traditional mass and doctrine. The doctrine we hear from the pulpit comes straight out of the Baltimore Catechism. We have NEVER witnessed anything weird or unorthodox in this parish.
Come on people, grow up, and quit believing the propaganda put forth by jealous modernists.
I keep hearing Cardinals involved with the Motu Proprio talk about “reconciliation” (gosh, how the N.O. folks love that word!) with the SSPX. In one statement, it was even listed as the #1 reason for issuing the MP. I’m starting to wonder: Does this action have more to do with drawing the SSPX back into “full” communion with Rome, than it does with restoring the liturgy and serving the desires of the faithful “attached” to the TLM? Are we seeing another example of Roman politics at work? I certainly hope and pray this is not the case.
I’m with Finegan. I’ve never experienced anything remotely “cultish” in over twenty years involvement, on and off, with the SSPX. No secrecy, no pressure to join up or sign up for anything, no cults of personality, no manipulation – absolutely none. I broke with them in the mid-nineties in order to explore the possibilities of a vocation with the FSSP. When I came back in 2001, I was greeted with perfect warmth and courtesy, by all of the clergy and defended very vigorously by the district superior when one of the laity attacked my involvement with the “indult”. My mostly non-practicing wifeis always treated with great respect courtesy and tact.
While I have never regularly attended SSPX liturgies, I must say my experiences with laity (and clergy) who are involved with the SSPX have been uniformly positive. On occasion, the people at the SSPX sites have been less “odd”, for want of a better word, than the people at some indult sites. I can’t speak ill of anything I’ve ever seen or experienced at an SSPX location.
Very interesting comments by finegan and moretben.
Until 1994 I would only attend the Indult (which in my case was 100 miles south of here in Port St. Lucie). Yet at the Indult, I would meet individuals who had and would also attend SSPX Chapels, which concerned me because I was under the impression that it was not permitted. Then around this time I finally heard about the famous “Hawaii Six” case, in which the then Cardinal Ratzinger overturned the “excommunications” of Bishop Ferrario (who had thought he “had them” for performing “a schismatic act” (i.e. bringing in Bishop Williamson to confer the rite of Confirmation) and thereby incurring “ipso facto, the grave censure of excommunication”). Landmark case which at the time was given almost no coverage by the conservative Catholic press. This lack of reporting on the overturning by Cardinal Ratzinger caused be serious dismay. The results of this case should be “shouted from the rooftops”, I thought. Why is it being ignored?
My feeling is that the MP is going to have an effect that many in the Vatican hierarchy are fearing. Instead of bringing the traditionalists “back in to the fold” (as they say) it will serve to bring the tradition-minded conservative Catholics more fully in line with traditional Catholicism — the Faith of Our Fathers.
Fr. Carl Pulvermacher (RIP), a Franciscan who would offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at SSPX Chapels, told me upon the election of Pope Benedict XVI that he was overjoyed, that this was clearly the Work of the Holy Ghost.
Deo Gratias.
Maybe now that the Motu Proprio will be published the Church can get on with
the real renewal of Vatican II. Perhaps in opening up the Tridentine Mass
and Sacraments the Pope hopes to encourage unity East and West as well. The
return will be a stabilizing force in the church. After all, many of the most
ardent Catholic supporters are traditionalists. Why isolate a solid group
for so long? The abuses that set in after Vatican II caused alot of damage to
the Church. Now its time for healing!
Jack said: This is bad. They’re giving us what we want, but only barely. I’d be careful, if the Motu Proprio is truely this grand, it’ll grab most of the SSPX’ers and others who have stood outside the Church.
Yes, it’s always a bad thing when people who are standing outside, or on the fringes, of the Church enter fully into her Communion. We must stop the Pope from doing things that draw people away from schism and near-schism and that bring them closer to Christ! It’s an outrage, I say!
Then the Church will become Novus Ordo again, and it’ll move more slowly this time, to take more traditionalists with it.
Whether or not the Church moves more slowly to ensure no one is left behind, the important thing is that no one is left behind — because outside of the barque of Peter there is only storms and swells that drown the soul.
Leith said: Does this action have more to do with drawing the SSPX back into “full†communion with Rome, than it does with restoring the liturgy and serving the desires of the faithful “attached†to the TLM?
It obviously has to do with both of those things. There are still many things that must happen before the SSPX is fully reconciled with the Church, but this Motu Proprio will definitely help.
As for the SSPX being “cultish,” well, in some part of the world we have “cultish” parishes. Remember that Brian only said “some parts” of the SSPX have become cultish. Anyway, I don’t think the SSPX is like a cult — it seems more like a sect to me. The “remnant” mentality among self-described traditionalists isn’t healthy at all. As a former member of a rigid, world-be-damned-we’re-the-only-remaining-true-Christians sort of sect, I am very familiar with the unpleasant odor of the “remnant” mentality, and the writings of the SSPX-affiliated do give off that odor.
Father, is there a recent translation of Vatican II’s document on the Liturgy, one that is faithful to the Latin? The more I read about the bad English translations of the Novus Ordo, the more suspicious I’m becoming of the old translations of the Vatican II documents. I’d like to study these documents in as accurate a translation as I can get, because they may be far more positive in an orthodox sense than the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” theories.
God bless you for your work.
“The ‘remnant’ mentality among self-described traditionalists isn’t healthy at all.
I agree, but what do you really expect? Traditionalists (including members of SSPX) have been like brides left at the altar for the last 40 years. The outlandish efforts of church liberals to squash even the slightest hint of traditional liturgy and doctrine are to blame for this attitude — not the faithful. At our SSPX chapel, our pastor focuses on the Gospel, Church doctrine, etc. The whole SSPX vs. NO matter is NOT the main topic of discussion.
I just think the progressives have fostered this “SSPX is the boogieman” attitude because they fear the devotion and ferver of its followers.
Attend an SSPX mass sometime; you just might be surprised how orthodox and low-key it really is!
I might add that my wife, who attends the SSPX chapel with our children and myself, isn’t even Catholic (she was raised Methodist; we received a dispensation for a Catholic Marriage from our local Bishop back in 1979). Many of the people who attend our parish know this fact. She has NEVER been treated poorly or critized by any anyone there. The SSPX priest has encouraged her to convert to Catholicism, but has never applied undue pressure. My wife will likely convert one day, but that’s another matter.
Again, hardly sounds like a bunch of hardcore cultists to me.
Sorry Father, this is probably more appropriate in this thread.
Check this out—just got this in an email. Pretty good stuff. Father, looks like this person incorporated your Golden Rule for the first request. Seems pretty level-headed:
POST-MOTU PROPRIO: What Traditional Catholics Want After Promulgation
It appears certain that, in the coming days, our Holy Father will promulgate a motu proprio freeing the Traditional Latin Mass which was perfected in the sixth century and canonized in 1570 by Pope St. Pius V. However, without proper enforcement and enactment, it will mean little to traditional Catholics in their every day lives. Below is a respectful request to our prelates world wide upon its promulgation. Please pass along and spread the word:
1.That all traditional Catholics, upon its promulgation, welcome it with humility and joy and not a “we win†attitude;
2.That non-traditional Catholics see it less as an attack on the Novus Ordo Mass and liturgy but as an opportunity to grow their own Faith and return to the Church’s roots and the way of the Saints;
3.That our bishops accept it in joy and gladness and profound respect for the Holy Father and implement it fully and without hesitation understanding that, while we do not just “prefer†the Traditional Latin Mass but desire it exclusively, we also do not question the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass if it adheres fully to the rubrics of the new missal and absent of abuses;
4.That our bishops ensure at least one Traditional Latin Mass every day of the week, every week of the year;
5.That every priest who wishes to pray the Traditional Latin Mass, whether publicly or privately, be able to do so without threat or intimidation by his bishop or the lay people of the diocese;
6.That, if a diocese does not have a priest who wishes to pray the Traditional Latin Mass daily, the bishop work with a traditional group like the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) or the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP) to bring one of their priests into his diocese for this purpose;
7.That each and every diocese has at least one full parish that offers only the Traditional Latin Mass and Sacraments as well as the traditional Baltimore Catechism for the formation of traditional young Catholics;
8.That our bishops provide at least one traditional Catholic school per diocese in order that our children may receive a classical Catholic education focused on the traditional Faith and Sacraments;
9.That every bishop once a year confirms young, traditional Catholics into the Church in the traditional rite (which does not include a Mass during the ceremony);
10.That every diocese has at least one parish with more than one Traditional Latin Mass each Sunday so that traditional Catholics have a choice in Mass times like all other Catholics who assist at the Novus Ordo Mass;
11.That at least one parish have a priest who exclusively prays the Traditional Latin Mass and is not forced to “concelebrate†with Novus Ordo priests or confer new rite sacraments at another parish;
12.That there be no mixing of the rites – if 1962 is the year for which traditionalism is recognized, then nothing post-1962 should ever enter the Traditional Latin Mass, Sacraments or liturgy;
13.That the traditional calendar in place in 1962 is used in accordance with each and every Traditional Latin Mass;
14.That at least one Traditional Latin Mass is available on each and every Holy Day of Obligation in effect in 1962 according to the traditional calendar;
15.That every attempt is made by each bishop to bring any and all independent chapels or Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) chapels into full communion with him in his diocese. If they refuse, so be it, but at least make an honest attempt for the sake of the Faith.
Many bishops are already using the talking points that they already allow a Traditional Latin Mass and “there really just isn’t any interest.†That is because, in most cases, they grant only one Mass a Sunday, at an hour too late in the day for most to attend, in the worst neighborhood in town, without the traditional Sacraments or chance of a daily Mass. Once they make it impossible to survive, they tell the media no one wants “that old Mass.†Let’s pray they put these desires into action and see what kind of response they get.
While there is much more than this which is needed to finally bring the One True Faith back to its full glory in the future, this would be a wonderful and holy place to start once the motu proprio is promulgated. Let us pray that all Catholics, whether traditionally minded or not, welcome the wishes of the Holy Father and pray that this undertaking of his brings us closer together as we once were. Oremus pro invicem.
7) When “stable groups” (“gruppi stabili”) want the older Mass they can go to the parish priest (pastor).
8) It will be the bishops role to help iron out problems, resolve difficulties.
In Los Angeles, things are not likely to change at all, and there will probably be only two or three indult masses allowed each Sunday.
Is this betrayal again? I pray not, but I am not encouraged by the loopholes created and the continual delays. Then there is the leak that this MP is only a 3 year trial period which can be voted down by the Bishops.
Lord have mercy. Come Lord Jesus.
Maybe you should send this list of what traditionals want to Mahoney …
I think maybe there is too much of the fear that the Motu Proprio will change nothing that some people can not find reason to be joyful at the Motu Proprio being published at all.
For one, I am going to pray and hope that it meets all the hopes and aspiritons of traditional Catholics. But honestly I don’t expect that we all will be happy.
Just so the Bishops have no real authority it it at all, and are called only to stand on sidelines and referee if necessary is fine. If the Bishops have any real say in all this, then I think Benedict XVI just wasted his time of two years planning this.
Let’s hope the Bishops are out on this Motu Proprio.
I am intrigued by #14: Mass must be celebrated well in either form.
I pray that comes to fruition.
Can we please stop grouping bishops together for criticism like cattle? This is exactly the type of attitude that will see to it that nothing good comes of this Motu Propri. Cmon you guys. I know there are many bishops who seem to be unfaithful and maybe even are. But they are still the successors of the apostles and deserve a measure of our respect.
Mike,
Their office deserves respect, yes. Their antics may not deserve respect.
The reason they are often spoken of as a group is that they often (too often) act as a group. The USCCB’s pressure tactics are often responsible for this and that’s a bad thing. It’s a brave bishop indeed that stands up to the USCCB.
Yes, Tomasso, but they’re filtering comments on the Archbishop’s blog rather aggressively. I suspect they don’t want too many in favor of the MP there. I’m not sure whether he’s the sole author of the blog or not. The spectre of keeping him busy removing pro-MP comments is amusing.
I am not sure if my comment belongs here or not.
But first, a friend of mine noticed the MP will be promulgated on 7 – July – 07, that is, 777, the Apocolyptic number for the “King of Kings and Lord of lords”.
Now to my comment. I have been struggling with the implementation of the MP. It would seem that my parishioners will be little moved in any which way. I know a rapid and sudden return to the classic Latin Liturgy would meet with dumbfoundedness and anger, all which would be rooted in ignorance of some kind (as one man has told me, that because of Vatican II we should not pronounce AMEN as AH-men, but as AAA-men!).
After reading many of the comments here in other strings, there seems to be an all-or-nothing attitude when it comes to the restoration. In other words, do not even mess with a NO Liturgy ad orientim in the vernacular and/or with Latin, but go straight for the “real thing”. This, I believe is unrealistic. Even if I may have sympathies for the Latin Liturgy, I am no way capable of offering it in a decent manner.
I would like to know in what way the restoration would / could effect the celebration of the NO for the better, as it has been so stated. This is where I believe I (we?) could have the greatest impact for the advance of the Liturgy as a whole.
I am also concerned with the wholesale denunciation by some commentators here of the NO liturgy, in that it engenders something quite else than Catholicism.
I am approaching both the restored Liturgy and the present Liturgy as having equal weight in practicalities. As regards to the comments about the restored Liturgy being “more just” than the present one, I disagree. Where justice does come into this is that it is an act of justice to restore what has been take away, that is, an act of restitution. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the Sacrifice of the Mass, and what is more just than that?
Getting back to my thoughts about the NO engendering something else than Catholicism.
Yes, I can admit that, but it is not an attitude that is intrinsic to it as such. As I was told, one could only understand the present Liturgy if one saw the connection / continuity with the past Liturgy. That, I believe is what has been lacking all along.
It comes down to a method of interpretation, being based on rupture from what had been (all before 1969 is bad, all after is good). The gurus and savants(?) of the Liturgy have had no other vision than this, and this ignorance and arrogance of theirs is what has screwed us. Their vapid “teaching” is what people remember (see above with the Amen), and believe is the truth. This is where we need to begin our education – to show the people what was, what was suppose to be, what actually is, and what we yet can have and should have. The restoration will “legitimize” all that was and was suppose to be, without it being a “dirty word”. Thus, I see the importance it will have for the present Liturgy. But now, how can this be accomplished? What concrete steps can be taken? What teaching materials could be used?
Being boneheads with that “all or nothing attitude” will not “save” the present Liturgy, that does feed and needs to feed the people. We have to meet the people where they are at, and often when it comes to understanding and participating in the Liturgy it is quite deplorable. If we are divided and exclusive in our attachments, the restoration will be fruitless. It has to benefit the WHOLE Church, and that now will be the challenge ahead for all of us. So for those who will sit back in the corner and wait for the NO Liturgy to die, for if that were happen, be aware that EVERYTHING else will be dead too!
Elizabeth said: Is this betrayal again? I pray not, but I am not encouraged by the loopholes created and the continual delays.
No, it’s not betrayal. The authority of the bishop in his diocese as a true successor of the apostles is an infallible doctrine of the faith, and there is no way Rome is going to sideline the bishops in this matter. They must be granted the same degree of authority over traditional Latin Masses in their diocese as they have over post-Vatican II Masses. How that is to be worked out is bound to be tricky, though.
Then there is the leak that this MP is only a 3 year trial period which can be voted down by the Bishops.
There is no such “leak.” All we have is an unsourced assertion in one “news” story that says in three years there is to be a review of some sort. But even the “leak” (assuming it’s accurate) says noting about the bishops getting to vote it down. The Church does these kinds of reviews all the time: a new discipline is implemented, with the stipulation that the bishops must report back to Rome in a specific number of years to let the Pope know how the implementation is going. It’s irresponsible to make major changes and then go one’s merry way without pausing to consider if the changes have done any good. For all we know, this three-year review rmor is referring to just such a requirement: maybe the Pope is going to call on the bishops to report on how the derestriction of the Missal of Blessed John XXIII is going in their dioceses, how well priests are being trained to offer it, how many Tridentine Masses there are, etc. It’s no reason to live in fear.
Just wait a few more days and we’ll all see.
Not to throw cold water on the Motu Proprio (I think it’s a wonderful development for the Church), but as a realist, I’m somewhat concerned about the co-existance of two Liturgies (Tridentine Rite and Novus Ordo) under the same roof.
I can see it now: At the 7:00 am TLM, many of the faithful will wear veils, genuflect before the tabernacle, kneel for communion, etc. At the 9:00 NO mass, many people will wear shorts, take communion in the hand, hold hands for the Our Father, etc. You get the picture.
I know “externals†aren’t everything, but I can’t see how these two vastly different Liturgies (separated by almost 40 years of changing habits and attitudes among the faithful) can co-exist without creating friction in a parish. Someone will have to compromise. The pastor will have his hands full!
Also, speaking as a traditionalist, this whole matter is about much more than just the use of Latin, direction of the priest at the altar, method of communion, etc. It’s about the entire orientation of the Mass and doctrine of the Church. Some people mistakenly boil this issue down to one of language — a big mistake that’s reminicent of the post Vatican II era.
My biggest fear: The TLM at many parishes will become sort of Novus Ordo-like, and the Novus Ordo will take on a few trappings of the TLM. While I think the NO could use some reforming, I don’t want to see a “watered-down†TLM. I believe that is the greatest concern of the SSPX followers and other traditionalists.
All of this talk about “reforming the reform” makes me wonder if Rome’s ultimate goal is not a single, modernized Liturgy using both Latin and the vernacular, and including elements of both the Tridentine and NO missals. The Pope himself said he regrets there was no “organic” reform of the Mass following Vatican II. It’s almost like we’re going back in time to 1965 and trying to do it over again — only in a less radical manner. If this is the case, Rome must be very careful, because traditionalists don’t want to go down the same road of “renewal” that we did in the late 1960s. They will simply pull away again and re-establish fully traditional parishes.
Can someone please tell me where I’m wrong?