"Breaking news: Bertone confirms motu proprio"

[vincenzo]

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

           Breaking news: Bertone confirms motu proprio          

                           

In an interview for the cover story (pages 56-60) of Le Figaro Magazine (weekly magazine of the French national daily Le Figaro), published today (not yet available on the newspaper's website); excerpt:

Is a Decree widening the possibility of celebrating the Latin Mass according to the rite from before Vatican II (the so-called Mass of Saint Pius V) still expected?

Cardinal Bertone: The merit of the conciliar liturgical reform is intact. But both [for reasons of] not losing the great liturgical heritage left by Saint Pius V and for granting the wish of those faithful who desire to attend Masses according to this rite, within the framework of the Missal published in 1962 by Pope John XXIII, with its own calendar, there is no valid reason not to grant to every priest in the world* the right to celebrate according to this form. The authorization of the Supreme Pontiff would evidently preserve the validity of the rite of Paul VI. The publication of the motu proprio which specifies this authorisation will take place, but it will be the pope himself who will explain his motivations and the framework of his decision. The Sovereign Pontiff will personally explain his vision for the use of the ancient Missal to the Christian people, and particularly to the Bishops.

*au prêtre du monde entier: literally, to the priest of the whole world
Source: Le Forum Catholique.

[Tradglad]

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

Breaking news: Bertone confirms motu proprio

In an interview for the cover story (pages 56-60) of Le Figaro Magazine (weekly magazine of the French national daily Le Figaro), published today (not yet available on the newspaper's website); excerpt:

Is a Decree widening the possibility of celebrating the Latin Mass according to the rite from before Vatican II (the so-called Mass of Saint Pius V) still expected?

Cardinal Bertone: The merit of the conciliar liturgical reform is intact. But both [for reasons of] not losing the great liturgical heritage left by Saint Pius V and for granting the wish of those faithful who desire to attend Masses according to this rite, within the framework of the Missal published in 1962 by Pope John XXIII, with its own calendar, there is no valid reason not to grant to every priest in the world* the right to celebrate according to this form. The authorization of the Supreme Pontiff would evidently preserve the validity of the rite of Paul VI. The publication of the motu proprio which specifies this authorisation will take place, but it will be the pope himself who will explain his motivations and the framework of his decision. The Sovereign Pontiff will personally explain his vision for the use of the ancient Missal to the Christian people, andTitan particularly to the Bishops.

*au prêtre du monde entier: literally, to the priest of the whole world
Source: Le Forum Catholique.

Whats he gonna say to them? Will he be "God's Rottweiller" or will he try to soothe their egos? If he does this..who wil rebel first?  The U.S Bishops of course!!!!! Does this change collegiality? Whats latin for sinking ship? Titanticus sunkum et?

 

[HailGilbert]

If the US bishops rebel, then we'll - so to speak - put a fire underneath their feet and bring them back into line.

Period.

[Kenny]

I don't know... To me, this still sounds like "The motu proprio will be published soon; it is only a matter of time."

New old news.

[Dilexisti]

The novus ordo Missae will still be the Latin Rite, so nothing is changed.  The traditional Latin Mass will still be an Indult -- so nothing is changed.  Same old, same old.  Can we expect a more liberal attitude from the bishops and expect to have the TLM widely celebrated?  Will the bishops obey the Pope?  Will NO priests be motivated to learn to celebrate the TLM?  What's the difference between JP II's motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, and Benedict XVI's?  No bishop obeyed JP II.  Don't expect they will heed B-16 this time around.  The SSPX  has nothing to worry about.  It will be business as usual.

[batteddy]

The merit of the conciliar liturgical reform is intact.

 
Notice how that is the first thing he said.
 
Does it seem to anyone else that the main motivation for these guys is, basically, saving face? Not wanting to admit they might have made a mistake? "Yes, there are problems...but the reform of the Council is still very much good and blah, blah, blah...the Council couldn't have been wrong..."
 
I mean...liturgical reform is never an infallible decision. And some councils are simply not a big deal or never accomplish much (I mean, when's the last time you heard of Vienne?)...and yet it almost seems in their writings and statements like these guys (including, and especially, Ratzinger) feel that their hands are tied because "the Council said it" so they can't disagree...like they wish they could just have the old liturgy, but "the council called for a reform, so we have to do something and stand by it, or else risk making ecumenical councils look like they don't have real gravitas" Sort of like parents and teachers acting like they must never back down and always present a united front lest the children lose respect. But I respect people more for admitting they made a mistake, the other approach shows a lack of confidence.
 
It seems that they really want to believe that Vatican II made an impact. I think it is the shadow of Trent and Vatican I looming over them, both so big historically, that the generations of Vatican II bishops feel that they need to make their project have just as much of an impact to prove themselves competent. But not all valid councils do have a big impact. Trent and Vatican I set high expectations, and I think not having a council for hundres of years after Trent was a bad idea for this reason...it became historically imposing...people afraid "their" council wouldn't be as amazing, wouldnt be able to compete, or seem as great or legendary...and under that kind of pressure to meet that very high standard...they feel like they can't admit a mistake...

[InquisitorGeneralis]

Trent and Vatican I set high expectations, and I think not having a council for hundres of years after Trent was a bad idea for this reason...it became historically imposing...people afraid "their" council wouldn't be as amazing, wouldnt be able to compete, or seem as great or legendary...and under that kind of pressure to meet that very high standard...they feel like they can't admit a mistake...

Historically imposing or not, I have to disagree with you.  As more and more issues become settled, the length of time between councils should become greater and greater.  A council should only be called for a grave and compelling reason (like the Protestant heresy that ravaged Europe and brought on Trent).  I have to staunchly disagree with your idea that we should just call a council every 100 years or so.  And that's the thing about Vatican II, there really was no impetus for it.  It was unnecessary.

[dailyrosary]

I think it was necessary, but the reason why it didn't work so well is because it did not address the issues of the day head on.  There were no dogmas clarified.  Communism was not addressed.  They played around, and dissapointing results were what they got.

[batteddy]

Historically imposing or not, I have to disagree with you.  As more and more issues become settled, the length of time between councils should become greater and greater.  A council should only be called for a grave and compelling reason (like the Protestant heresy that ravaged Europe and brought on Trent).  I have to staunchly disagree with your idea that we should just call a council every 100 years or so.  And that's the thing about Vatican II, there really was no impetus for it.  It was unnecessary.

Perhaps. That makes sense too. I mean, what came out of it was certainly unnecessary repetition (in lots of fluffed up words) or else ambiguity.

But I think SOMETHING was certainly necessary, the modern world was facing (and still faces) a collapse of faith and reason greater than any mere Protestantism. There was certainly a HUGE crisis. Two world wars had reshaped the cultural landscape entirely since the last council (whose crisis was mainly the loss of the papal states), communism loomed (but I think we now know that was merely a distraction from deeper issues in our own culture), and we see the results of totally novel secular culture today. But what the council produced totally didn't address any of that. It just sort of talked a lot and said very little that we didn't already know, but used a new feel-good tone of voice.

It was cowardice really. They chose to try to make the Church "relevant" so maybe it could survive a few more years in the new culture totally foreign to christendom.  They should have trusted in Christ's promise and stood boldly by tradition with, yes, harsh language even. "Well, if we don't give a nod to tolerance and democracy and lay participation...we'll look foolish and irrelevant". Fine. Then be fools for Christ. But backing down only made people LOSE respect.

Nevertheless, I do think they compare themselves (wrongly) to the greatness of Trent...and that is setting the bar a little high...and while Vatican I fortunately turned out well...I think they sort of choked under the pressure at Vatican II. Things became very bureaucratic since Trent. And if the US government is any model, bureaucracies don't like to admit mistakes...they'll stand behind failed programs and pass the buck forever...insisting it will work if a few more things are just adjusted...not really caring about quality while their jobs are cushy...

[QuisUtDeus]

The SSPX  has nothing to worry about.  It will be business as usual.

I really doubt the SSPX is worried that Rome will return to tradition.  That is the whole purpose of its existence.  They would rather not have business as usual.

I think B16 may surprise all of us.  I really don't think he's a reed that bends in the wind.  We'll see what the attached letter says when it comes out.