![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
It is possible that the Motu Proprio is now being printed
I am told by a very well-placed source that the text of the Motu Proprio is being printed at the Vatican Tipografia.
On Italian news via RAI tg2 on Sunday, it was said that the MP will come "in the upcoming days" and "next week".
It has been said that the MP would come before the Holy Father leaves Rome for his summer break. He leaves in early July.
UPDATE: The Roman daily Il Tempo has a story on the MP. It states that the Pope will release the MP "in settimana… during the week". Once again, we find the comment that at least 30 people have to make the request.
O Lord, let it be so.
Comment by Jon — 25 June 2007 @ 6:45 amIndeed; fiat, fiat!
I wonder if the letter to the Chinese is also being printed.
Comment by Cerimoniere — 25 June 2007 @ 6:57 amAnother source says that the Chinese letter has been translated and has gone “up” for approval.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 25 June 2007 @ 7:00 amWhen will the Tipografia come out?
Comment by Jennifer — 25 June 2007 @ 7:00 am+ Nihil obstat !
Comment by Jim — 25 June 2007 @ 7:01 amThank you for the quick reply, Father! That’s interesting; so it would seem that the MP is on track to come out first. Still, I suppose just because one is ready earlier, that doesn’t necessarily determine the order of publication. They could both still come out before the vacation.
Comment by Cerimoniere — 25 June 2007 @ 7:12 amFather… if that were true… then, they would certainly know the name of the MP. What is its title, then?...
Comment by Doubtful — 25 June 2007 @ 7:17 amI’m off to Bavaria for 5 days. I hope ye all have nothing still chilling when I get back. God Bless!
Comment by Irulats — 25 June 2007 @ 7:18 amMy source didn’t mention a title. However, once the thing gets into print, it’ll leak pretty fast I think.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 25 June 2007 @ 7:20 amHas anyone else noticed that motumania makes it really hard to concentrate on doing any work? I think when it is finally promulgated, I may actually have to take a complete day off…
Comment by Cerimoniere — 25 June 2007 @ 7:22 amOf course you’ll have to take the day off. It’s hard to sing the “Te Deum”, light candles, or drink that chillin’ champagne if you’re at work.
Unless you work at Ignatius Press or something. :)
Comment by Maureen — 25 June 2007 @ 7:34 amNow if only the Holy See offered internship. I’d have no problem doing overtime sitting by the printer 24/7 :p
I guess its time to learn the Te Deum in earnest.
Fr Z, are there any more details about the the news conference?
Comment by Demerzel — 25 June 2007 @ 8:07 amMy bet is on the 4th of July shortly before the Holy Father leaves for vacation. I have tickets to the Wednesday audience and may meet him that day! Yessss! It’s all about me! Hhhaaaa But seriously, I hope so. They’ll need another week to print the Motu Proprio. I will then go and celebrate the 4th of July and drink my Champagne while many of you are still sleeping.
Comment by Aventicus — 25 June 2007 @ 8:14 amBest, Jeff
Ceremoniere,
Yes, I’ve noticed. Owning one’s own business has some perks, though.
Comment by thetimman — 25 June 2007 @ 8:26 amBruno Volpe said today in Milenio Diario that the Motu could be published next friday (29 of June).
“Although an exact date has not been announced, vatican sources assured that it might be the 29th of this month, the date in which is celebrated the solemnity of Apostles Pedro and Pablo”
The whole article in my hummble blog (in spanish)
Comment by Felipe — 25 June 2007 @ 8:50 amWould there be any connection between the derestriction of the traditional Liturgy and the “Annus Sancti Pauli” that the Holy Father seeks to declare on 29 June?
Comment by Raymundus — 25 June 2007 @ 8:54 amFr. Z, I hope that you have not invoked Murphy’s law…
Comment by Thurifer — 25 June 2007 @ 9:14 amOh please, please, please… let the MP come out tomorrow! I don’t think my nerves can stand another week…
Comment by Mac McLernon — 25 June 2007 @ 9:53 amFather,
If true, I wonder if the requirement of 30 for a petition will mean that 30 people must request EVERY TLM celebrated, or if the number will suffice to get a single TLM placed on the weekly schedule?
If the latter, I see a LOT of trouble ahead.
Comment by Jon — 25 June 2007 @ 11:03 amWell, I leave for a retreat at Clear Creek on Friday, wouldn’t that be nice timing?!
Comment by Brian — 25 June 2007 @ 11:13 amOf course the one weekend I’ll be out of town… (I’ll be in transit most of the 29th for a friends wedding.)
Comment by telcontar — 25 June 2007 @ 11:41 amI noticed that the Il Tempo blurb mentions that the bishops will retain the power to prohibit the Mass in specific instances—the article says it is a universal indult “salvo specifico divieto da parte del loro vescovo.” It will be interesting to see under what circumstances this veto power is used.
Comment by Dan — 25 June 2007 @ 11:57 amHere a some suggestions for the name of the MP
Play name that Motu Proprio here
Comment by Patrick A. — 25 June 2007 @ 12:07 pmI noticed that the Il Tempo blurb mentions that the bishops will retain the power to prohibit the Mass in specific instances..
Dan. I have been saying that would be the case all along. That was an easy prediction. More than anyone else, this Pope understands both the past and present. He knows the Bishop’s authority is Divinely-Constituted and he is also an advocate/supporter of collegiality.
He also will try and strengthen and support his brother Bishops but it always seemed to me he would acknowledge and support any Bishop who thought he had just cause to deny use of the Old Missal.
Comment by I am not Spartacus — 25 June 2007 @ 12:18 pmFourth of July! Independence Day! Illegal Fireworks!
Comment by Patrick Kinsale — 25 June 2007 @ 12:50 pmWell, it is good to see nobody has received the “sour grapes” award…yet (though some have come close).
About the “30 people minimum” I think people are going overboard with worry here, all that would take is a hand full of families (around 7) for the TLM to be offered, that should be no problem and that is more than fair.
Also, the “bishops will retain the power to prohibit the Mass in specific instances” is in my mind very important. It would show the Bishop’s true colors in an undeniable fashion. Lets see what kind of “excuses” they can come up with and still be able to look the faithful straight in the eye.
I personally have had a strong feeling since the start of this month that it was coming out this month.
Comment by Nick — 25 June 2007 @ 1:44 pmEven better – 4th of July with illegal fireworks manufactured by kidnapped children in China. No better way that I can think of to celebrate independence.
Comment by Ian — 25 June 2007 @ 3:08 pmI don’t think that the “30 minimum requirement” applies to every Tridentine Mass offered. I believe that applies to public, regularly-scheduled Masses. This I would imagine is to insure that the Tridentine Mass is not imposed on any community against its will-and that’s fair folks. Otherwise the priest is free to offer it privately when he so chooses, as a priest celebrating the Novus Ordo is free to offer Mass in whatever language he wants to privately. I would imagine that a priest making a visit to a shrine or basilica at which he wants to offer Mass privately in a chapel, either alone or with a small group, would be free to offer a Tridentine Mass if he wanted to, under the upcoming MP. When I was a volunteer MC at the National Shrine in DC, the sacristies were stocked with Missals in many different languages, and three liturgical rites- so I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve already stocked up on ‘62 Missals and altar cards in anticipation of the MP and of priests who would want to offer Mass in this rite there. I’m confident that the Holy Father will be very generous and will define things very cearly.
Comment by EJ — 25 June 2007 @ 3:20 pmAccording to one of Zeno’s paradoxes, I can assert that the MP will never be released, since the MP will first need to get halfway to being released, then the remaining must be divided in half, the remaining again divided in half, and so on . . . ;-)
Comment by Mike — 25 June 2007 @ 3:32 pmMike,
Just like in the Hangman’s Paradox, the MP’s release will catch you completely by surprise. :-)
Comment by Brian Day — 25 June 2007 @ 3:44 pm“Bishops may restrict†= bishops will restrict = same old status quo.
Comment by Sid Cundiff — 25 June 2007 @ 3:56 pmThe National Shrine might have a lot of books including different rites butthey do not allow the TLM under any circumstance.For several years groups from St.Gregory school and Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary have come to the shrine and been refused use of any chapel even though the mass would be only for their group which is authorized to only use the 62 missal.One time a priest was stopped as he began mass.A month ago a group of seminarians came in pilgrimage to the shrine.They wrote ahead asking permission.When the shrine did not reply the seminary called the chancery and spoke to the vicar general.They were told that the TLM is allowed at two churches only at specific times and at no other.So they celebrated mass at my parish in the gymn.Ridiculous!Especially with the MP looming.It is such idiocies as this that prompted the Holy Father to issue this document.
Comment by fr.franklyn mcafee — 25 June 2007 @ 4:19 pm“This I would imagine is to insure that the Tridentine Mass is not imposed on any community against its will-and that’s fair folks.”
I beg to differ. Every liturgy is in some sense an “imposition”. If the MP is to be meaningful, it will be a step toward the “imposition” of orthodox worship, not merely a means of appeasing of another political faction in the Church.
Comment by Jeff Culbreath — 25 June 2007 @ 4:20 pmyet another baseless rumor. It isn’t signed. It isn’t even written. It certianly isn’t going to be published this side of the Parousia.
You see? I’m a Cleveland Browns fan, and this is the only strategy that works with them too. No expectation, no let down. But when they do win, you are double happy.
Comment by David — 25 June 2007 @ 4:36 pmAnother intriguing clue pointing a July 4 release date is that July 4 is the feast of St. Elizabeth of Portugal, whose feast date on the old calendar is July 8, which is the day before the Pope leaves on vacation. St. Elizabeth of Portugal was known as the “peacemaker,” so the July 4 release is obviously a signal to the Lefevbrists.
Added to the above is the report, albeit not based on a first hand source, that the accompanying letter quotes the Declaration of Independence. (This source is now reporting that the title of the motu proprio is “When In The Course Of Liturgical Events” and that planning is underway for a fireworks show in St. Peter’s square on the evening of the release.).
So it’s all adding up, it’s all coming into focus now. Now we understand why it was said that the motu proprio would be released just “before” the Pope went on vacation on July 9. July 9 is the day before the old feast of St. Elizabeth of Portugal whose feast is now July 4, which dovetails nicely with the Independence Day angle.
Comment by Dan — 25 June 2007 @ 4:54 pmIf any recourse is given to the bishops to deny permission to say the traditional Mass, than this document will not make things better. If something like that were to happen, there is a greater probability of a backlash and we will have less access to the traditional Mass then we do now. Even if this would “show the bishops true stripes” nevertheless, the Church would still be
Comment by Zach — 25 June 2007 @ 5:20 pmdeprived of her heritage and a dignified form of worship (save for the East.) Let us pray that there is no such clause.
I am so excited I can’t wait to see what this says!
Comment by Ginny — 25 June 2007 @ 5:26 pmI keep praying and I am certain that this is just the beginning of wonderful things to come for the Church
Thaks for keeping us posted
I am so excited I can’t wait to see what this says!
Comment by Ginny — 25 June 2007 @ 5:26 pmI keep praying and I am certain that this is just the beginning of wonderful things to come for the Church
Thanks for keeping us posted
Fr. McAfee- I wholeheartedly agree with you – the Shrine and the ADW have been particularly unaccomadating to the Traditional Rite and those devoted to it. I meant only to suggest a hypothetical scenario where hopefully in the near-future, a priest may celebrate a private Mass according to the ‘62 Missal with complete liberty there – and who knows, maybe with enough prayers, some miracles, and changes in the administration – a Mass in the Classical Rite may be offered on the High Altar there again someday, and not just on a side altar.
Comment by EJ — 25 June 2007 @ 5:32 pmThere is of course always Sts Peter & Paul, wasn’t there some reference by the Sec. of State to the Pope explaining things to Bishops, all those new eager Metropolitans. It seems unlikely the Pope will drop a bombshell then immediately go on holiday.
Comment by Fr R Blake — 25 June 2007 @ 6:29 pmThirty names on a petition? That’s cake. People will sign anything.
Is there a single Saint’s day that doesn’t seem appropriate for releasing the MP?
Comment by Royce Gregerson — 25 June 2007 @ 7:43 pmI’d just as soon it be released on an ordinary ferial day so the event can be commemorated by its own feast in the future.
Comment by Legisperitus — 25 June 2007 @ 7:54 pmI look forward to the MP finally being released.
Then we can get the Classical Roman rite at our parish with no problem!
Comment by BobCatholic — 25 June 2007 @ 7:58 pmI share the concern of several others who’ve commented. Namely that if the MP is released with the inclusion of a clause stating that bishops may restrict the Traditional Mass, there will be little change. After all this time and anticipation, what would the point of such a MP be? Our pope has got to know that many, many bishops will continue to restrict the mass if they’re given the opportunity. And who will stand as judge and jury of what is a good enough reason to restrict? I will be very sad and let down if such a restriction is included…laughing and screaming in excitement one minute, crying the next! So would this document merely be a “baby step,” so to speak?
Comment by Julie — 25 June 2007 @ 9:08 pmI have been saying that would be the case all along. That was an easy prediction. More than anyone else, this Pope understands both the past and present. He knows the Bishop’s authority is Divinely-Constituted and he is also an advocate/supporter of collegiality.
Not really. Acc to the documents of Vat II liturgical authority is reserved to the Holy See.
He also will try and strengthen and support his brother Bishops but it always seemed to me he would acknowledge and support any Bishop who thought he had just cause to deny use of the Old Missal.
Comment by I am not Spartacus
If what we have heard is true, then your comment is erroneous.
Any priest will be able to celebrate privately using the 1962 Missal. Further, any priest (and he can be an assistant pastor) will be able to celebrate publicly using the 1962 Missal as long as he has 30 people who want it. The bishop will not be able to stop him without first taking his case to Ecclesia Dei.
The situation will be the opposite from the current situation. Presently, priests have had to go through the Ecclesia Dei commission in order to celebrate—and even so the bishop could stop a public mass.
Instead of that, it seems that the MP will obligate the bishop to go to the Ecclesia Dei commission in order to stop it. And of course, any bishop who contacts the commission to stop use of the 1962 Missal will have to wait until the commission considers such a request.
Ever hear of the Roman stall? In this matter it would favor the 1962 Missal.
Comment by RBrown — 25 June 2007 @ 9:59 pm“Instead of that, it seems that the MP will obligate the bishop to go to the Ecclesia Dei commission in order to stop it. And of course, any bishop who contacts the commission to stop use of the 1962 Missal will have to wait until the commission considers such a request.”
In which case, Rome being the Eternal City is a good thing. :)
Comment by Demerzel — 25 June 2007 @ 10:15 pmI’d like to buy a Lewis & Short but from whom?
Comment by Rose — 25 June 2007 @ 10:45 pmWhat a week
The Holy Father issues the MP and Fred Thompson announces he is running in ‘08. Oremus…......
Comment by Central Valley Catholic — 25 June 2007 @ 11:32 pmSomeone I know spoke to a well-placed Cardinal two days ago. He confirmed the Moto Proprio and said it would be out soon. No date was given and he would definately be in the know if such a date were planned. We should have hope but not get overly worked up about possible dates…
Comment by Anon — 26 June 2007 @ 4:53 amRose: The Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 26 June 2007 @ 5:27 amA minimum number would be a grave injustice, as the Rite of St. Pius V was never subject to such requirements. Would a normal Latin Roman Catholic priest (e.g. of the FSSP) refuse to offer his church for a Sunday afternoon to an Ukrainian Rite Byzantine Catholic group of 28 persons? I am sure he would never do so. With the progressivist militant clergy of “the Novus Ordo” these days, you never know of course.
A minimum requirement is not fair at all, as every priest and Roman Catholic faithful has a right to this same Roman Mass. Nobody can oblige somebody to accept liturgical abuses.
If the 30 person minimum applies to a parish Mass, I could see the reason, but not in general or so. But even in such case, why 30? Why not 10 or 80? Why is there always given the impression, even under a MP, that the Tridentine Mass is something to be limited and restricted.
Ever heard of a pope telling Byzantine Catholics they cannot worship in the local Latin parish unless they number 30?
It sounds like grave injustice and indirect restriction to me.
If the reports are true, we should not be naively applauding. Actually some aspects might be worse than previously.
Why is there not granted a full allowance, but rather a silent side-altar off-side solution.
And will Benedict XVI himself celebrate the full papal Mass in the classical Roman Rite?
Another Sour Grapes Award Winner
Comment by Alex — 26 June 2007 @ 6:06 amAny priest will be able to celebrate privately using the 1962 Missal. Further, any priest (and he can be an assistant pastor) will be able to celebrate publicly using the 1962 Missal as long as he has 30 people who want it. The bishop will not be able to stop him without first taking his case to Ecclesia Dei.
Mr. Brown. I did not know that. Thanks for the info. and the correction.
I have been worried that so much has been invested in the MP that if folks did not get what they desired they might have taken-it-out in public opposition to this holy Pope.
I hope you are right about the M.P.
Comment by I am not Spartacus — 26 June 2007 @ 8:30 amLegisperitus: a Feast of Orthodoxy for the Latin Rite? I like it!
Comment by Cerimoniere — 26 June 2007 @ 9:34 amCanere Cum Angelis
There is already a great abundance of Latin liturgical music readily available for Latin Mass and Vespers: new editions of Palestrina, Victoria, Byrd, Lassus and many Italian, Franco-Flemish, Spanish, Portuguese, Mexican Renaissance composers, including those most closely associated with the Roman School. Re-publishing appropriate liturgical music from later centuries is also under way. Continuing references to H=Gregorian Chant is abundant on so many CDs too. Ever-brisk sales of these will certainly assist the re-learning process worldwide.
“Seek and ye shall [surely] find”. S.D.G.
Comment by howard — 26 June 2007 @ 11:39 amThank you Father. I must say I am getting quite apprehensive about the Latin. I love the Tridentine rite but I also like the vernacular used in the new rite. Interesting development in my own experience (which also from experience I have noticed is pretty much the average reaction): since all this talk of the MP, the new rite which when celebrated in silence has seemed fine to me now suddenly seems inadequate liturgy (as a rite, I mean, not in its real meaning). What if the Tridentine Mass becomes available and yet is done badly? There is a real risk (and I see that in myself) that with all this criticism of the new rite, normal Catholics will start to identify the “liturgical” experience as being identical to the
Comment by Rose — 26 June 2007 @ 12:42 pm“spiritual” experience. I think Mass, celebrated by a validly ordained priest, no matter the form, dancing or no, in a beautiful Church or in the ugliest basement, facing the people, facing the floor (as a Vietnamese Cardinal who was incarcerated in a windowless, dank prison, shackled, had to do it) is still valid and beautiful. Criticising the new rite so much may lead to ordinary people who actually understood the deeper meaning of Holy Mass, focusing on the “liturgical” aspect of it exclusively and becoming stuck on the aesthetics. Sorry I’m struggling to put this into words but there it is.