I am reading in ASCA today an interesting story about the MP.
In this story the claim is made that His Holiness, listening to the concern of bishops, may be issuing the MP for a three year trial period.
I won’t believe that until I see it in the MP or the Pope’s accompanying document.
We have heard this before. I won’t believe it until I see it in the MP, however.
VATICANO: MESSA PRECONCILIARE, TRE ANNI DI PROVA. SABATO IL MOTU PROPRIO(ASCA) – Citta’ del Vaticano, 5 lug – Quasi certamente sabato prossimo il Vaticano rendera’ pubblica la disposizione con la quale Benedetto XVI concedera’ per i prossimi tre anni la possibilita’, a chi lo volesse, di poter partecipare alla messa celebrata secondo il rito tridentino. Si tratta della messa in latino secondo il rito stabilito da san Pio V, celebrata dai sacerdoti con le spalle ai fedeli, fino al 1965, quando nella prima domenica di quaresima entro’ in vigore il nuovo rito approvato da Paolo VI per dare seguito alla riforma liturgica conciliare. All’apparenza puo’ sembrare un nostalgico ritorno all’indietro, ma una valutazione completa della disposizione papale sara’ possibile solo con una lettura integrale del ”Motu proprio” e della lettera firmata da Papa Ratzinger per accompagnare il documento inviato a tutti i vescovi cattolici del mondo. Qualche fonte vaticana sostiene che la lettera del papa non e’ meno importante del documento stesso poiche’ spiega i motivi pastorali di una scelta che ha sempre causato molte dispute nell’ambito cattolico tra i progressisti e i conservatori. Da quanto l’Asca ha potuto apprendere l’iniziativa di Papa Ratzinger non punta a un ritorno al passato, ma cerca di sbloccare una situazione di stallo tuttora esistente tra progressisti e conservatori su un nervo scoperto della Chiesa: la liturgia. Benedetto XVI non punta a indebolire la riforma conciliare, ma intende accompagnare piu’ dolcemente tutti, anche i piu’ nostalgici del passato (la punta di diamante di questa sensibilita’ si trova tra i seguaci di mons.Lefebvre che sono giunti a consumare uno scisma) dal vecchio rito al nuovo rito. Accogliere infatti il nuovo rito senza demonizzare quello precedente, crea le condizioni per una piu’ facile ricomposizione ecclesiale tra i fedeli legati all’antico e quelli piu’ sensibili alla modernita’. Il rito tridentino (e non la semplice messa in latino che non e’ stata cancellata neppure dal nuovo rito conciliare, anzi e’ prevista in alcune specifiche circostanze) non sostituira’ affatto percio’ la messa nelle lingue moderne introdotta dal Concilio vaticano II che continuera’ e restera’ la messa tipica della chiesa cattolica.
Semplicemente sara’ prevista la possibilita’, per quei gruppi di fedeli che lo volessero e che capiscono il latino, la possibilita’ di partecipare alla messa secondo il vecchio rito che non sara’ piu’ guardato con sospetto.
L’iniziativa di Benedetto XVI non riguarda solamente ne’ principalmente i seguaci di Lefebvre: con costoro infatti le condizioni per una ricomposizione dello scisma restano invariate: possibilita’ di celebrare la messa secondo il rito tridentino, ma accoglienza piena di tutta la dottrina contenuta nel Concilio Vaticano II, compreso il nuovo rito. Infatti se ai cattolici conciliari si richiede di non guardare con sospetto al vecchio rito, ai cattolici nostalgici si chiede di smettere la loro ostilita’ e le loro accuse di apostasia nei confronti del nuovo rito voluto da Paolo VI. Benedetto XVI e’ sempre stato convinto, anche da teologo, vescovo e cardinale, della bonta’ della riforma liturgica conciliare,ma ha sempre pure avanzato riserve su alcuni metodi troppo decisi che hanno dato l’impressione di voler liquidare anche il valore positivo e religioso della tradizione con la quale per tanti secoli si e’ espressa la preghiera della Chiesa.
Ora tenta di ricucire questo strappo, senza tuttavia concedere nulla agli anticonciliari. E ha dato un segno di non voler imporre una decisione solitaria su un tema che pure ha avuto particolarmente a cuore. Nei giorni scorsi il direttore della Sala Stampa vaticana aveva informato i giornalisti della riunione di 13 cardinali e vescovi rappresentanti di vari paesi del mondo messi al corrente del documento e della lettera del Papa. In quella riunione dove lo stesso pontefice si era intrattenuto per un’ora a dialogare con i partecipanti, sostanziali obiezioni non sono emerse. Comune ai vescovi invece, la preoccupazione, accolta da papa Benedetto, di regolarizzare la celebrazione del vecchio rito, senza sfasciare il delicato equilibrio pastorale che si e’ ormai costituito nelle parrocchie di tutto il mondo specialmente con la celebrazione domenicale partecipata secondo il rito rinnovato dal concilio. E in questo senso ha preso forza la decisione di riaprire al vecchio rito per un tempo limitato e sperimentale di tre anni. Al termine del quale i vescovi dovranno riferire le esperienze in base alle quali a Roma si prendera’ una decisione definitiva. ”Non bisogna affatto considerare il ripristino della messa in latino, come una prova del tradizionalismo del papa – ha scritto su Repubblica il notissimo antropologo Rene’ Girard, favorevole ed estimatore della messa in latino -. Il suo conservatorismo e’ una forzatura, un grottesco luogo comune.
Che cosa ha fatto di conservatore Ratzinger da quando e’ divenuto papa? Nulla. Finora ha dato solo prova di lucidita’, di saggezza ed elasticita’ mentale, alleggerendo molte delle problematiche che affliggono la Chiesa”.
Con tutta probabilita’ i testi che saranno pubblicati sabato prossimo daranno conferma di questo stile di papa Ratzinger, forza tranquilla ancorata certamente alla tradizione cattolica, ma aggiornata senza equivoci ai documenti conciliari e alle disposizioni dei papi che ne hanno promosso l’applicazione.
Loading ...
If true,three years and then what?
I wonder if Pope St Pius V gave a three year trial period to the Mass.
For that matter I wonder if Christ gave a three year trial period to the Mass.
I just don’t get it.Hopefully this is just a rumor.
God bless you
I think it is a nice trick, if true. By giving it a three year trial, one calms the nerves of some, ensuring a smoother acceptance of the MP. But at the same time, puts the burdon of proof, in three years time, on those who are against it (reversing the current situation). And I can’t . In three years, all the dust will have settled, the MP will be old news, adn can be quietly renewed the Pope
Would Fr. Z. care to comment on the part of this quotation marked with ***?
“Semplicemente sara’ prevista la possibilita’, ***per quei gruppi di fedeli che … che capiscono il latino,*** la possibilita’ di partecipare alla messa …”
Fr. Augustine: I don’t think too much of that. There cannot be a Latin proficiency test.
If some bishop thought that people would need to have a minimum understanding of Latin, my next query to His Excellency would be about him taking a little quiz I might prepare.
Sorry for the sentence fragment ‘And I can’t’ –> I though I had eerased the whole sentence (sometimes I can’t see the entire comments as I type it)
We will have to pray for his Holiness’s well being, that the Holy Spirit preserves him.
I could imagine that a trial period might attach to some specific pastoral provisions, such as how many people it would take to require local pastors to provide a Mass in a given church.
However, if the Holy Father is going to settle the canonical status of the traditional liturgy in itself, dealing with whether it has even been abrogated or obrogated, then that could hardly have any trial period attached; that would be a statement of a legal fact. If he were to suggest that he was restoring rights that had been abrogated, of course, then a trial period would be possible. I pray that isn’t the case!
If the three year trial is part of the provision, then I am confident that Benard’s point (11:07 am) is the point. The pope is not stupid.
A three-year trial period will mean that the whole issue of the Classical liturgy will be discussed again in three years. That’s great publicity! And I can’t imagine the Pope going back on freeing the Classical Mass, especially since it will continue to grow like wildfire.
By contrast, a three year trial might give certain priests and bishops the hope that if they just ignore this little experiment for a few years, it will just go away. Not really the message one might wish to send.
I don’t recall any “three year review” clauses in Quo Primum…
By giving it a three year trial, one calms the nerves of some, ensuring a smoother acceptance of the MP
Benard. One of the putative reasons for the MP was to reconcile with the sspx and reabsorb them fully ully back into the fold.
Will they be mollified by a three year trial period or are they more likely to be skeptical by a three year trial period?
I agree with the logic of Cerimoniere’s comments.
In fact, I don’t believe that there will be a trial period. If there is one, then it surely must be limited to some of the provisions of the MP regarding the practical implementation of the new rules of “cohabitation” between the two rites (number of Masses offered per week in each rite, Holy Week provisions, etc).
What is more: if there is a trial period, could this mean that, if the provision made is not sufficient, then further provision will be made to guarantee the rightful aspirations of those attached to the traditional liturgy?
On the question of the derrestriction being granted “for those who can understand Latin”, that makes no sense at all. Latin is still the official Liturgical language of the Latin Church, even for the celebration of the Pauline rite, rectius, the celebration of the ordinary form of the one Roman Rite (cf. Conciliar Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, art. 36, section 1).
Thus, under the Conciliar Constitution, the legal rule for Masses celebrated in the rites of the Latin Church is that Latin be employed. Therefore, one does not to prove that one understands Latin. Latin is the rule, vernacular is the exception.
One would need to prove that there is a pastoral need for a concession of vernacular celebrations under Sacrossanctum Concilium, art. 36, section 2, and that the commuinity affected by that pastoral measure understands the vernacular language in question.
Vernacular, being the liturgical exception, can be surrounded with pre-requisits for being authorized. But not Latin. Latin is the general rule. If one is a subject of the Latin Church, then one will have a Mass in Latin avaliable, be it celebrated in the ordinary form of the Roman rite or in another form.
Unless the Church authorities are prepared to admit that they make tabula rasa, and completely ignore, section 1 of article 36 of the Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy, there is no reason for saying that one will only be able to request the celebration of the Tridentine, er…, extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, when one understands Latin if the general legal rule is that one can attend a Latin language celebration of the Novus Ordo without needing to prove knowledge of Latin.
Thus, I don’t believe that anyone will have to prove understanding of Latin. It wouldn’t make legal sense.
By giving it a three year trial, one calms the nerves of some, ensuring a smoother acceptance of the MP
Benard. One of the putative reasons for the MP was to reconcile with the sspx and reabsorb them fully fully back into the fold.
Will they be mollified by a three year trial period or are they more likely to be skeptical of a three year trial period?
Thanks, Fr. Z. I still think it an odd proviso.
But then, it might not even be in the actual document.
Not too hasty. Let’s wait & see. There could be a number of things on a 3-year leash. IF there is a 3-year period for something, it could just as easily be a “straighten-up clause” for the Pauline missal, or a milestone clause for the entire liturgical situation in the Latin rite.
Pope Benedict wants very much to see the hermaneutic of continuity realized, remember. He’s written about it for years. And he’s smart. He won’t create a situation where even more people would feel like running off to the SSPX to get the Latin mass. A collapse or a “failure to effect” would make things worse than ever for the Church (and the Pope) and I’m sure he has considered all this.
Thus I don’t anticipate a 3-year-only curtain call for the Mass of John XXIII. It’s more conceivable that a “3-yr Pauline cleanup” or “overall milestone clause” exists, and if so, it could become somewhat of a football, and a bit of prevarication could well pivot around it (not like we haven’t seen that before). We don’t yet know how what little we’re hearing relates to the actual document. We should know soon.
I’m wondering if the new translation of the Novus Ordo figures in here anywhere too. It’s possible. Just one more “lever” to apply.
I do know one thing: I don’t expect the status quo to take this MP sitting down, whether there is a 3-yr clause &/or a timetable or not. But I also believe that it’ll matter far less than they think what kind of fit they throw. We’ll see.
Meanwhile the silence is eerie, isn’t it?
Father Z,
I know that you have credentials to the Holy See press office. That is why I ask the following, if you will forgive my curiosity: Do you have access to the Bulletin of the Holy See press office under embargo?
If you have, then let me just ask something else: Is the Motu Proprio already released under embargo?
I want to clarify that I´m not asking you or anyone to violate the embargo, much less to break the seal of pontifical secret. I´m not asking to be informed of the content of the document that is under embargo, its text, its provisions. However, given that the Holy See Press Office itself issued a statement on the meeting of prelates convened by the Vatican to inform them of the text of the MP and of its publication in the next few days, and given that it is customary for pontifical documents to be released under embargo a few days in advance, I wonder if that step was taken in the present case.
Finally, one last question: If a document, any document, were under embargo, and if you had access to the Bulletin of the Holy See Press Office under embargo, then would your obligations arrising from the embargo prohibit you from merely saying that a document has been released under embargo (without revealling its text or key points) or would your obligations simply prohibit you from releasing the text and commenting on it?
Please, I´m not trying to push anyone into violating the Holy See rules. If you can’t answer a question due to your obligations, then consider as if it had never been asked. And again, I´m not trying to get comment on the text or anything, I´m only curious to know if the costumary release under embargo has already taken place, and only if that can be lawfully answered.
Prof. B: Thanks for the questions. I have the credentials. The documents are made available ahead of time. They are under embargo until the time indicated for their public release.
My approach to the embargo is very strict.
Have a nice day!
o{]:¬)
I realize that the Pauline Missal was released with a three year trial period,but that was because it was hastily fabricated and the Holy Father wanted to see if the Holy Ghost would make it stick.
The Classical Rite has had a 1700 year trial period,and it got the green light from same Third Person.There is no reason for a three year trial period.
Dan, it’s possible he expects something to happen across the Latin Rite liturgy landscape, not *only* that he expects the Pauline mass to clean up, get left or whatever.
Remember this is all about the organic nature of the mass, instead of the prefabricated nature of the N.O.
It’s okay. We’ll see the document soon.
As far as SSPX and the possible 3 year window go, the problem they have with the ‘conciliar Church’ goes beyond the liturgy, so this MP alone wouldn’t satisfy ‘them’. I put them in quotes for it seems to me that there are some fizzures in the group. But it might satisfy some people that go to their chaples mainly if not exclusivley for the liturgy, and give them an another, regular, rather then irregular, place to go.
But I think that, as much as B XVI and all people of good will want to work out the problems with SSPX, and although often mentioned, I don’t think it is his prime motivation in issuing the MP: that, I suspect, is his long standing concern with a hermeneutic of continuity.
But whatever, 3 years or no 3 years, I will take what I can get.
One more thing to forestall an objection I can see coming: I know that the SSPX-issue and the Hermeneutic of Continuity issue have a lot in common, so that working to advance one tends to advance the other, but they are ultimatley two distinct things, since the SSPX reading of the Council is strongly a hermeneutic of rupture
Of course, the Pope, whether this one or the next, could always undo the MP anyway, so I do not think an ad experimentum period of itself adds any more uncertainy that there already could be. It would send a bad signal of irresolution, however, and probably act as an encourage ment to those opposed to just sit tight and wait him out. So I will still be bummed. But I’m getting ready to be bummed anyway.
Fr. Z,
I have a quick question that you may be able to help with. If the document will be made public on Saturday, what time would it likely be on-line? Any ideas?
Just want to know what time to set my alarm clock for.
I hope, come this weekend, we don’t all feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy pulled the ball away. I fail to understand the need for a “three-year trial period†on reinstating the Mass of All Time, which was never formally abolished. I pray the Pope was not coerced into making concessions that play into the hands of the Modernist hierarchy.
Yes, I know…let’s wait until the document is actually published. Likewise, let’s hold off on uncorking the champagne just yet.
Correct, Benard. The two extremes are simply two sides of the one coin.
And I’ll tell you something else: Most pew-Catholics are of the continuity mindset even if they think that resides in the Pauline mass because they’ve been told this over and over by those they hold in authority. Many of them have done the best they could under heavy fire and under conditions of abject neglect. Many of them will slide right over to something that looks more eternal if it’s presented to them properly with time to assimilate. THey only went over to the Pauline mass (and all its reductive elements) under heavy protest in the first place. They don’t like the name-calling & running-down they heard in the 70s and it must not be repeated. They’re just people but they’re not all so dumb. They’re Catholics and that means loyal and that’s just fine.
Woody, the Holy Spirit protects us and he’s not going to die and be re-elected. Take it easy.
Patrick: Noon, Rome time.
ted: we don’t all feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy pulled the ball away. The image I used this week in my column in the paper.
Father Z,
Yes, that image certainly seems appropo under the circumstances.
I realize the Pope is under intense pressure from all sides in this matter, but frankly, I think we need decisive action — not double-speak. I believe the implications of the MP may be just as important, to the average Catholic, as the actual words. Terms, conditions or other “fine print” on freeing the Mass may cause people to become hesitant in accepting the MP as the “final word” by the Supreme Pontiff. A three-year period just sounds like more collegiality!
Noon, Rome time.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
Thanks! Not too early.
Patrick! You wouldn’t get up at 4AM to read the Motu Proprio?! I’m shocked!
swmichigancatholic,
The sad thing is that I would. My wife already thinks I am a loony, and that would only reinforce the perception.
Along the same lines as the putative “trial period” are the various restrictions mooted in the full (French) text of the I.MEDIA article (linked-to by Rorate-Caeli and other blogs.) Is it possible that the m.p. would, for instance, contain a clause specifically exempting the Triduum? In the absence of any other legislation would this effectively preclude any of the liturgies of the Triduum from being celebrated except in full traditional-rite personal parishes?
I am thinking of the many well-established diocesan indults which have heretofore been unable to manage the logistics of celebrating any of these liturgies in a “bi-ritual” parish. It was not unreasonable to anticipate that a document affirming the status of the 1962 books might provide the rationale for having *some* of the Triduum in the classical rite in such circumstances.
Is it reasonable to expect that the provisions of “Summorum Pontificum” will be so granular?
I was just kidding, Patrick. I’ll be wiping the sleepies out of my eyes and reading too. At 6AM. With EWTN going in the background.
Isn’t it obvious that any derestriction of the older Latin rite will inevitably require mid-course review and correction that might well be built into the process initially?
For instance, though hand missals render knowledge of Latin unnecessary for laity, surely some knowledge of Latin should be required of celebrants. If and when celebration of the TLM becomes a feather in a priest’s biretta, we can be certain that unqualified priests will be attempting to celebrate it willy nilly. Can we be confident that the diligence of our bishops in protecting the old Mass from abuse will match the diligence they have exhibited with the new Mass?
My own greatest fear in this whole situation is the abuse of the old Mass that seems inevitable. Some priests just will not obey norms and rubrics. For instance, recently I attended a private TLM that was interrupted by the celebrant preaching a brief homily. Excellent and pertinent though it seemed to me, someone remarked afterwards that a homily at a private Mass is improper. If indeed this is so, it was the only liturgical abuse I observed at this particular Mass. But you just cannot be too vigilant when it comes to guarding the purity of the liturgy.
Similarly, I fear tampering with the TLM in some progressive parishes. I’ve heard horror stories about “hybrid” Indult masses combining elements of the old and new liturgies. This type of situation serves no one, and is certainly scandalous to the Faithful.
There will be many challenges ahead in implementing this Motu Proprio. I pray that our Church is up to the task!
I also wondered if it were possible that the line about knowledge of Latin was someone’s misunderstanding of a requirement that the celebrant’s Latin be adequate, rather than the people’s! (Someone, perhaps, who has seen a draft of the Latin original, but whose own Latin isn’t especially good?) That certainly is a legitimate concern, given that so many seminaries don’t require it at all.
As to the Triduum, one can see that the MP is unlikely to require mainly new rite parishes to displace their new rite Triduum services for a small group of traditional rite faithful, and obviously, it’s usually impossible to have more than set of services in the same church.
However, since the same article also suggests that the MP will encourage the establishment of personal parishes for the traditional rite, the situation may improve dramatically in this respect and in many others.
Three year period could be good or bad…good in that it could settle the fears of some of the bishops and give a wider reception to the document, but bad if BXVI should die within the three year period and be replaced by somebody not as supportive of true liturgical reform.
Check out my blog at http:/unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com
Three year period could be good or bad…good in that it could settle the fears of some of the bishops and give a wider reception to the document, but bad if BXVI should die within the three year period and be replaced by somebody not as supportive of true liturgical reform.
Check out my blog at http:/unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com
Certainly Cerimoniere,
Especially if we all mob the place on Easter.
Actually, I’d probably ought to watch my slang on this, an international website. I mean to say:
Certainly, Cerimoniere,
Especially if we all show up with missal in hand Easter week and there are so many of us we hardly fit in the building!
God bless.
Honestly, I don’t have a firm opinion on either the odds of such an ad experimentum clause being in the document, or the impact of such a clause, if it exists.
If it does exist, I strongly suspect it will delay any rapproachment with the SSPX until the ad experimentum period expires. Which would negate one of the reported purposes of the document itself.
Could a decision to except from the derestriction the Triduum Liturgy have anything to do with the totally inappropriate attempt on the part of our Jewish brethren and certain segments of the Israeli media of dictating to us what our Good Friday services can or cannot contain?
I hardly think that a brief homily during a “private” TLM is inappropriate, as long as the priest has faculties to preach from his bishop. Secondly, from a theological point of view, there really isn’t any such thing as “private” celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy. All celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy are public acts of worship even if the priest celebrates Mass or prays his office “alone.”
Prof. Basto,
“Could a decision to except from the derestriction the Triduum Liturgy have anything to do with the totally inappropriate attempt on the part of our Jewish brethren and certain segments of the Israeli media of dictating to us what our Good Friday services can or cannot contain?”
I am shocked by such paranoia! Seriously, if it walks like a duck…
I certainly agree with Serafino as to preaching. A sermon is required at parochial Masses on certain occasions, but I’ve never been aware of any restrictions on preaching at Mass, apart from special cases such as eulogies etc.
I am very reluctant to speculate along the lines that Prof. Basto suggests on the Good Friday issue. I don’t believe the Holy Father would bend to such pressure. I think it is much more likely to do with the practicalities of scheduling in situations where a basically new rite church is being obliged to put on traditional Masses for a group requesting them. On Sundays, there are many possible Mass times. During the Triduum, much less so, and so for now, the status quo is going to win out. Hence, of course, the need for personal parishes (along with many other reasons).
As to the SSPX, it is true that a trial period would delay a reconciliation, if it concerned anything other than practical details. However, if it is made clear that priests have the legal right to celebrate the traditional Mass if they so wish, without limitation, then one of the SSPX’s two major preconditions for reconciliation will have been met…
This is all just pre-release guessing too. Who knows who is putting such things into the minds of journalists who are eager to have a story? Before you get too wrapped up in these things, remember that it’s “game on.” Some people are astounded by the news of last week and will do what they can to cause difficulty. We will all know soon.
Greg, it’s not paranoia.
I knew, when I wrote it, that trouble was comming: someone would end up calling me anti-semitic, or say that I share in the paranoia of the SSPX against ecumenism. None of which is true.
Its just that, if the jews, the muslims, etc., want to have in their iturgies some prayer to God begging that we Catholics may see what they wrongly believe to be the Truth, that would be fine by me. It makes sense, it is their religion, and they would be within their liberty confirmed by Nostra Aetate, etc, to hold to their beliefs, and also to pray for us who they think are in error. Similarly, however, I cherish our liberty, which is sacred, the liberty of the Church, that has a much higher dignity than the liberty of the other religions, because it stems from the mandate of Our Lord. And to preserve our liberty, the liberty of the Catholic Church to preach the Truth in all Nations and political systems, a liberty that has often been violated in the history of the World, we must reject, and, more then simply reject, rebuke as innapropriate, any external attempts to dictate the contents of our Liturgy.
And, given that indult communities today, in a pre-derrestriction world, have the right, under Ecclesia Dei, Quattuor abhinc annos, and other pontifical concessions, to celebrate the Tridentine Mass during the entire liturgical year, why would the situation now change? Why, if we already have Tridentine Triduums in the indult communities, would the MP except the Triduum upon enhancing the status of the Tridentine rite? If it is true, it could only be to appease lobbies.
After all, our present indult communities (including bi-ritual parishes) show that the two forms of the Triduum can co-exist.
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/
Looks like Rocco’s got a copy of it.
Actually, I already have one, and the Champagne.
Of course there is a 3 year probation period. After that the
NO, as a rite that has existed for less that 200 years will be
supressed.
Prof. Basto,
Sorry, what I meant was: I agree with you! Poor attempt at humor on my part.
PJ: If he does, and he is revealing its contents then, shame on him.
Shame on him.
Sorry Greg,
I didn’t understand you. One of the limitations of this medium is that we don’t hear one another’s tone of voice.
As for the the line – if it looks like a duck… – I know it was supposed to end saying – “then it is a duck” – but I tought it could mean several things. For instance: if I sound like a paranoied man, then I am a paranoied man.
Now I understand what you meant to say.
Prof. Bosto,
No problem — you made some good points in your posting, and I applaud your candor.
I think it is a nice trick, if true. By giving it a three year trial, one calms the nerves of some, ensuring a smoother acceptance of the MP. But at the same time, puts the burdon of proof, in three years time, on those who are against it (reversing the current situation). And I can’t . In three years, all the dust will have settled, the MP will be old news, adn can be quietly renewed the Pope
I couldn’t disagree more. We know that one reason for the MP is to make the SSPX confident about future use of the 1962 Missal. If the MP says there will be a 3 year test period, then the SSPX will probably say, “Good, see you in three years.”
For that reason I have to wonder whether a 3 year test period is a attempted pre-emptive strike by MP opponents.
What it might say is that the pope will look at it again in three years, but that’s not the same as saying that the de-restriction is for three years and must be renewed.
Should be: “For that reason I have to wonder whether the rumour of a 3 year test period is an attempted pre-emptive strike by MP opponents.”
Dunno …. *if* the MP actually states, “…if after three years you have severe difficulties, let me know and we can work them out…” — well, it seems neutral to me. “Working out” something can be applied to either party, right?
Or, am I just naive?
Don’t worry overmuch. The Loggia only has two
space-holding paragraphs, and those only in the
Unknown Tongue [at least to the vast majority of
blog readers]. So we really still don’t know
anything about it.
Maybe that’s all he has, the fruit of rummaging trash cans at the fax or something. ;)
I don’t believe in the 3-year experimentation period. And it is not a question of meeting SSPX expectations or not delaying the SSPX reconcilation project.
Reasons for the derestriction are deeply rooted in theology of liturgy and do not depend on time. Introduction of a probation period would be a contribution to continuous post-conciliar experimentation rather than an attempt to rescue organic development. |
I would more believe in that the document isn’t there at all rather than it introduces a probation period understood as a possibility to de-derestrict the old rite.