tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post5555371546111089308..comments2009-10-08T23:10:11.662-04:00Comments on Summorum Pontificum: Is the Catholic Church sliding towards civil war?Patrick Archboldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13230114519933936165noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post-76595735367915301382008-06-26T06:58:00.000-04:002008-06-26T06:58:00.000-04:00To allow the Roman Rite to be celebrated in two di...To allow the Roman Rite to be celebrated in two different forms in the same parish church is a liturgical innovation -- divisive and troublesome in the extreme. To justify so unprecedented a change, very sound canonical arguments are needed. The Motu Proprio provides none.<BR/><BR/>The MP claims that the TLM was ‘never juridically abrogated’ but no evidence is given to support this claim. It cannot be said that the TLM was not abrogated, given the understanding generally accepted at the time and up to now. Paul VI clearly intended to make the 1970 rite definitive. It was understood that he had replaced the previous rites (which had undergone revision in 1964/5 and again in 1967) with the 1970 Rite, and that this was the import of the technical, legal language of the Apostolic Constitution, which was, and still is, one of the normal ways of enacting Papal legislation. The Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of April 2nd 1969 copied the style used by previous Pontiffs to establish reformed rites as definitive:<BR/><BR/>"In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal…. In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal, Our predecessor, St. Pius V, presented it as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a witness to the purity of the worship the Church…. While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, ‘for legitimate variations and adaptations,’(SC 38-40) we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all. … We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation."<BR/><BR/>THE AIM OF UNITY of the liturgical rite is referred to three times; far from presenting the revised rite as an option, the constitution states, in legal terms, that the new rite is to remain and the old is to cease to exist. Thus there would continue to be a single Roman Rite for the Roman Church, although now it would be one which could further develop, with variations and adaptations (particularly through the use of the vernacular).<BR/><BR/>The negative reaction of many of the faithful who felt that they were losing their previous rite was perfectly understandable. They had interpreted the above correctly. Paul VI had abrogated the previous rite and replaced it with the new Rite. Paul VI himself also understood this as what had taken place, which is why, in allowing for an indult (a departure from normative law) he stated that bishops could give permission for ‘elderly’ priests to continue to use the old rite of Mass as long as they celebrated it without a congregation. Subsequent indults would be granted for pastoral reasons, including that by Pope John Paul II (Quattuor abhinc annos of 1984). Again, note that these were called indults, or departures from normative law. Any group who requested permission by way of the indult was expected to respect the doctrinal authority of the renewed liturgy.<BR/><BR/>TO MAKE THE TLM A RITE ENJOYING PARITY WITH THE NO CONTRADICTS THIS PAPAL LEGISLATION, ON THE PREMISS OF AN ENTIRELY FALSE AND CONCOCTED ARGUMENT.<BR/>IT IS A CANONICAL MONSTROSITY!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post-19493300678694680562008-06-23T17:03:00.000-04:002008-06-23T17:03:00.000-04:00Maybe this is on purpose...??No doubt about it. Th...<I>Maybe this is on purpose...??</I><BR/><BR/>No doubt about it. Think of how long it took for Summorum Pontificum to actually happen. The 1984 Indult, the 1988 indult, then almost 20 years of rumors and dashed hopes. <BR/><BR/>Then...Summorum Pontificum. How many people, on either side of the debate, truly anticipated just how earth-shaking Summorum Pontificum would be? <BR/><BR/>Now, almost a year later, we are eagerly anticipating the "clarification." Judging by Cardinal Hoyos' recent comments, the "clarification" is going to be far wider reaching than Summorum Pontificum itself was, or was intended to be.<BR/><BR/>Its the frog-in-the-pot-of-hot-water, but this time in reverse.<BR/><BR/>If all this had been done by simple papal edict in 1988, or even last summer, there would have been open schism. No doubt about that either.<BR/><BR/>This Pope is a consummate chess player. And he is NOT the same man as the Fr. Ratzinger at VII, that so many trads prefer to caricature. He is not even the same Cardinal Ratzinger that served under JPII at CDF. <BR/><BR/>Only in hindsight will we understand what he has done, and the patience it took for him to do it -- in God's time, not ours.Brian Kopphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02575906703463685178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post-59059121519742961222008-06-23T16:42:00.000-04:002008-06-23T16:42:00.000-04:00Patience is more than a virtue in this instance. M...Patience is more than a virtue in this instance. Many in the Traditionalist camp feel as though they have been more than patient for long enough, and cannot understand why the time is not right to simply bring down the hammer on disobedient Bishops and get the job done through juridicial means. After all, how exactly would a Bishop be able to oppose an actual "edict" from the Holy See that the TLM MUST BE OFFERED WEEKLY IN EVERY CATHOLIC PARISH, say within a 2 year time period for implementation. No "may" or "ought" or "make available" in the wording, just MUST. This is why the impatience with the process we are currently witnessing. It is as though things are being done so as to allow some "wiggle room" for the disobedient. Maybe this is on purpose...??Chironomohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13024533507945352862noreply@blogger.com