Rorate Caeli

For the Record

Paolo Rodari, in Il Riformista (May 29 issue):

For when, then, the expected liberalization of the ancient rite? Hard to answer. What seems to be certain is that the text of the "Motu proprio" by Benedict XVI is ready. Recently, moreover, it seems that the Pope spoke about it in a private audience with Robert Spaemann, philosophy professor at the University of Munich, the great Catholic intellectual to whom Ratzinger himself dedicated the book "Church, Ecumenism, and Politics" (Kirche, Ökumene und Politik). An audience -- the one the Pope granted to Spaemann -- of which little has been known, even if it is said that the German professor left it with the belief that the "Motu proprio" will be made known soon, maybe even within the month.

33 comments:

New Catholic said...

As always, we wish to make clear our great skepticism regarding specific dates or date ranges. This information is made available here for the general record of events.

Sub Umbra Mortis said...

How far will the donkey go before he realizes that the carrot being dangled in front of his nose will never touch his lips?

Next month? I can no longer believe anything in regard to the MP.

New Catholic said...

It was always risky to rely on doubtful dates or magic months... We have always made our skepticism regarding specific dates quite clear here at Rorate -- exactly because it is easy to mistake the reality of the document for the volatility of the date of its eventual publication.

Anonymous said...

I agree it is funny that each month there is an article that says the MP COULD come out "as early as next month" and yet we are still waiting. The good news is though that it exists and has been confirmed by high ranking officials.

Regarding this latest blog entry, the focus should be on the small private papal audience and the phrase "of which little has been known"...someone needs to track down those who were there and talk to them. I await the news.

Pascendi said...

These delays indicate strongly (understatement perhaps of the year) that powerful forces are opposing the will of the Supreme Pontiff.

Woody Jones said...

Pascendi,

You have got that right. This whole process has been very instructive. I also cannot resist referring readers to the discussions about episcopal appointments at CTNGREG on the Yahoo.com groups site.

If things don't turn around soon, given the Holy Father's age and all, I think we will have to begin to draw some very serious conclusions.

Anonymous said...

Do you believe in Santa?

How quick were the altars ripped out, the pews moved and altar rails gone in 1970- 1972? Overnight

A complete restoration is what is required, almost a chastisement because what is being sold today as Catholic I wouldnt let my family go near within 100 miles

Anonymous said...

"within the month"

Which month?

It will come 'in the fullness of time'. And it will not bring huge changes overnight like the foisting of the novus ordo did. But little by little I hope for a true reform.

Ave Maria!

Thos. said...

So, the month of May has now come and gone; the month during which, Benedict XVI told Alice von Hildebrand, the MP would be promulgated.

I can think of three ways to explain this:
1) AvH lied about what she was told.
2) BXVI lied in what he told AvH.
3) BXVI truly expressed his intentions at the moment he spoke to AvH, but subsequent developments caused him to hesitate yet again.

Scenario #3, of course, is the most likely. This MP has been delayed continuously since October 2005. Who believes that the enemies of the MP cannot keep this game up forever? Apparently BXVI thinks that, alone amongst all of humanity.

My belief: like the decision of the commission of cardinals in 1986, we will never see this MP.

poeta said...

Benedict is already on record as believing that an abrupt restoration would be potentially as damaging to souls as the abrupt demolition was 40 years ago-- basically, that all abrupt changes or discontinuities in the liturgy are to be avoided.

This from some comments he made in that book with the unwieldy title, "Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger."

belloc said...

For cryin' out loud, all the man has to do is pull the text out at his next public Mass or audience and read it aloud, proclaim it his will, and be done with it.

Stand up and be pope. What's he worried about? Poison in his soup? Opposition be damned.

And it IS as easy as that.

Anonymous said...

The Alice von Hildebrand thing is simply silly, either she flat out lied or, the most likely, she was misquoted and thus it was all a rumor.

I honestly cant think of a single good excuse why it is not issued, especially with all the talk that it is "completed"...the amount of grace that would rush into his office at the point of promulgation is unimaginable, it would be a decisive victory in the midst of a huge ideological war.

Jordan Potter said...

Alice von Hildebrand was misquoted at first -- it was wrongly claimed that she was told it would be April 30 or May 5. She then clarified that in fact all the Pope had indicated that it would be "in May."

It's inconceivable that either Alice von Hildebrand or the Pope lied. I agree that it's most likely that other developments made it necessary to delay the publication of the already-signed (and therefore already official church law) Motu Proprio. The Pope may have wished to do it in May, but frankly with his schedule for May, I just couldn't see when he'd have time to take so vital important an action. I wish everyone would take New Catholic's advice and stop worrying about the date: it will come when it comes.

David said...

Jump over to Fr Z's where there is a post citing "sources" that indicate the problem is Fr Foster's unwillingness to translate the document!

Anonymous said...

Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Sodano supposedly revealed the "entire" third secret of Fatima in that famous shell game in 2000. From all the research that has gone on around this message for the last 90 years, it is perfectly clear that a fairly short text (not vision) that makes clear why "Portugal will not lose the Faith" is significant was NOT revealed at that time.
Cardinal Ratzinger was not then above being involved in a clear deception of the entire world. It is not impossible that he could deceive someone now ... but that seems vanishingly unlikely.

What is really surprising is that so many people apparently know about the MP and no one has leaked its contents. That is the real story. Maybe the Pope is just waiting until someone does leak it ...?

alsaticus said...

"I agree that it's most likely that other developments made it necessary to delay the publication of the already-signed (and therefore already official church law) Motu Proprio. The Pope may have wished to do it in May, but frankly with his schedule for May, I just couldn't see when he'd have time to take so vital important an action." (jordan potter)

This is a funny - funny peculiar - comment where I detect some extreme papal adulation, from a good-willing Catholic certainly but turning into ridicule. Plus some errors.

1. "other developments" ?
like what ? what "new" development can be said on the topic that hasn't been said, written in the past 2 years and more in the past 25 years ?
The question has been studied in all aspects by cardinal Ratzinger and I've trouble to figure out how, wearing the mitre of Bishop of Rome, he could have instantly forgotten everything !
Come on will you, stop taking the baptized for dummies.
The only "development" I see is nothing new, it is written in the Gospel when saint Peter flinched 3 times. It's written in the human nature : we prefer a relative comfort to struggle and fight. If saint Peter had fear 3 times at a crucial moment on the very core of the faith, his Successor can flinch during 2 years. The Vicar of Christ is a human being, remember ?

2. false affirmation :
"and therefore already official church law"

Absolutely wrong. Without official publication, the document is null : good for the Vatican archives and further study by ... historians.
For the moment we have a sort of motu proprio "in pectore" : without being named publicly, secret cardinals are not cardinals at all.
Today there is one motu proprio : Ecclesia Dei adflicta 1988. Period.

3. the funniest part :
"I just couldn't see when he'd have time to take so vital important an action"

a) Let me tell you : to write Benedictus papa it must take less than 30 seconds even in writing slowly with a feather pen and ink. Wake up !
The pope must sign documents like that dime a dozen per day...
b) "so vital important an action" ?
That's where you're wrong : "vital" for whom ? you, me, and a couple of others.
But neither the 2005 Synod nor the recent CELAM found it "vital" at all : they couldn't care LESS.

Naturally as I wrote commenting Allen's report, very acurate, there is a "symbolic" importance to the freedom of TLM. Naturally it is something that will bear fruit in the LONG term, but today it's no big deal and certainly not considered "vital" in Rome. We can deeply regret this but it is the reality.
Last year when in Rome, it was the great turmoil in France about TLM and a Vatican official, a minutante, told me with a smile "oh yes this, there is a vague rumor about something" ... like it was totally insignificant and VERY VERY distant !
Do not fool yourself : TLM is not "vital" in the present Rome so far. And it will take 20 years at the present snail rythm to change this perception.

Anonymous said...

The Motu Proprio will never come out. The rumors are only a stalling tactic of Satan himself, to divert our attention from the central problem, which is the heresy of Modernism that has infiltrated and penetrated the Church. The goal of all our prayers and actions must be the complete end to the Novus Ordo and the 100% restoration of Tradition. Vatican II was the excuse the Modernists needed to wreck the Church by targeting its core, which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Novus Ordo is a poison injected into the Body of Christ - "you shall know a tree by its fruits", as our Lord Himself warned us. If this Pope is powerless, then we need to pray for the next Pope...

Anonymous said...

Some time ago Cardinal Ratzinger stated,that twice He had forced hands:1.1988-Arch.Lefebvre,2.Fatima,III secret.And now as Pope again? So, who have real power? Forced hands again? He need more Grace from Heaven,so lets prey.

Anonymous said...

As David said,
Fr Foster unwillingness to translate the text into Latin - one more worrying sign that the Pope has very little power, no power at all. Maybe even Queen of England has more power to order things to be done....

Anonymous said...

The failure of the Pope’s words to Alice von Hildebrand’s to materialize is a crushing blow to the MP eternal optimists, and I freely admit I’ve been as naïve as anyone else. For once we can be sure that a specific report was correct – as other contributors have already pointed out it is inconceivable that this saintly old lady of 84 would lie. I’ve had enough – of the excuses, the vague never-fulfilled rumours, the rehashed articles of journalists, the unmistakable evidence of an enfeebled Pontiff, the Bishops who know that with an octogenarian Pope in poor health it’s only a matter of a little more delaying action. What price Corpus Christi? Time for a move to SSPX. Thank God for Bp. Fellay.

Papabile said...

Father Z posted the following this morning as a comment on a previous thread. I consider him highly reliable as he used to work for the PCED.



http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/05/der-spiegel-motu-proprio-this-week/#comments

#

Bob K: I never gave what von Hildebrand a lot of weight. The Holy Father isn’t going to employ Alice von Hildebrand as the official instrument of promulgation.

On the other hand, last night when I was out to supper with a couple guys, one of them confirmed that it is signed. As to its release, I am guessing that will happen when I am a) away from Rome and b) away from my computer and telephone. Therefore, I should do the whole world a favor and go fishing as soon as possible after returning to the Sabine Farm.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 1 June 2007 @ 10:02 am

Jordan Potter said...

"Jump over to Fr Z's where there is a post citing 'sources' that indicate the problem is Fr Foster's unwillingness to translate the document!"

David, that was a parody, not a genuine report. A while back, Fr Foster did refer to his unwillingness to translate an important document into Latin, but I have reason to believe that there are one or two other people on this planet besides Fr. Foster who have the ability to translate documents into Latin.

"This is a funny - funny peculiar - comment where I detect some extreme papal adulation,"

Try again. It's not extreme papal adulation -- it's called noticing how full the Pope's schedule was during May.

"from a good-willing Catholic certainly but turning into ridicule. Plus some errors."

Well, I did leave the "-ly" off the word "vitally," but other than that my comment has no errors.

"'other developments'? like what?"

I don't know. I'm not privy to the inner workings of the Vatican and have no desire to be privy to them. I'm content to wait.

"Without official publication, the document is null"

So, what do you think Cardinal Kasper meant when he publicly said that the decision the Pope has made cannot now be unmade?

You're right, though, the the Motu Proprio has yet to appear in the AAS. But other than that, the Pope's signature, which we know has already been placed on the document (and there's another affirmation of that today by Father Zuhlsdorf), makes the document legally binding. We simply await the Pope's decision to inform the bishops of the world.

"For the moment we have a sort of motu proprio 'in pectore': without being named publicly, secret cardinals are not cardinals at all."

In a practical sense they're not, but in a real sense they are.

"Let me tell you : to write Benedictus papa it must take less than 30 seconds even in writing slowly with a feather pen and ink."

He already wrote that. We're not waiting for the Motu Proprio to be signed, we're waiting for it to be made public. I doubt we'll have too much longer to wait -- maybe a few more months. Remember how long it took for the post-syndol exhortation?

"That's where you're wrong : 'vital' for whom ? you, me, and a couple of others."

A legislative text that affects the entire Latin Church is vitally important only to you, me, and a couple of others?? And you find humor in my comment, eh? Christ is vitally important to the entire universe, but his life, death, and resurrection was barely noticed by the human race at the time.

"From all the research that has gone on around this message for the last 90 years, it is perfectly clear that a fairly short text (not vision) that makes clear why 'Portugal will not lose the Faith' is significant was NOT revealed at that time."

The CDF's annotated text of the Third Secret notes that Sister Lucia's previous statement regarding Portugal never losing the faith is not found in the Third Secret at the passage where Sister Lucia had said it was, and in fact isn't in the Third Secret at all. Sister Lucia probably had forgotten what she wrote after all those years. Anyway, Portugal's recent legalisation of prenatal infanticide tends to cast doubt on the accuracy of that prophecy. I don't see any grounds for believing in an anti-Fatima conspiracy theory of which Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Cardinal Bertone are the evil masterminds.

New Catholic said...

Please, let us not discuss Fatima on this comment box!

Fr P said...

The UK Daily Telegraph is reporting this "A senior figure in the Vatican, a monsignor close to the Pope, has been told that the long-awaited motu proprio lifting restrictions on the Tridentine Latin Mass will be issued tomorrow"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/june2007/blessed.htm
I suppose though that its a bit loose to be taken too seriously.

Fr P said...

Sorry, the link didn't come out too well. I've put it "under" my username this time.

TomW said...

What the Pope said to Alice von H was that "something is coming" in May; he did not specifically guarantee the MP itself. Much less did he give the specific date of May 5, as The Remnant erroneously (and very unwisely) reported.

Yes, we have reason to be disappointed by all the delays. But when John Allen writes in the New York Times that the thing is imminent, that actually does mean something. His article the other day was a desperate attempt to put a nice left-wing spin on the inevitable document: it's of little import, it will affect few people, no one cares about the old rite, etc.

Pascendi said...

The archdiocese of Washington has proclaimed that only 500 of 150,000 Catholics frequent the Latin Mass.

If this be true - why the violent opposition to the Latin Mass?

Henry said...

I honestly cant think of a single good excuse why it is not issued, especially with all the talk that it is "completed"

Perhaps Benedict thinks the present process of discussion and preparation is doing more to re-form the heart and mind of the Church than a piece of paper could by itself do. Perhaps he thinks the longer it takes, the greater will be the benefit.

Credo said...

It may be tomorrow or next year. Let us pray that the bishops will obey the pope, though I am not optimistic. Let us also pray that the modernist catholics will see the holiness inspired by the Old Rite and repent.

j hughes dunphy said...

The battle shall go on between the two masses even after the MO: worse than the "Novus Ordo Missae" was the sacrilegious innovation of Communion in the hand. This, more than anything offending God and His Holy Priesthood, is the dilemma. Let us pray for a catharsis of it all by the Holy Spirit, for this is the Season of Pentecost.
j hughes dunphy
http://www.theorthodoxromancatholic.com

alsaticus said...

Jordan Potter wrote :
---------------
"Without official publication, the document is null" (me)

So, what do you think Cardinal Kasper meant when he publicly said that the decision the Pope has made cannot now be unmade?
--------------------
Nothing. His Eminence is not exactly the most erudite canon lawyer I know... he has in numerous occasions made odd - to be soft - statements : his doctrinal opposition with then cardinal Ratzinger is notorious.
A secret decision made by the Pope, even signed by the Pope, is still a non-event without publication.
The Church isn't a ... secret society.
I think His Eminence meant the pope made up his mind but ... like Pius XI who was preparing an encyclicle and a speech before he died, both fell into the Vatican archives after his death in 1939.

As for the "vital" or not qualification, you're free to believe 99% of Catholics are dying to know about the motu proprio. You're just dreaming in technicolor, that's all.
Sorry to be the one who destroy your dream, I don't want you any harm be sure of that. I have the same dream but it's better not dreaming in real life.

Jordan Potter said...

"I think His Eminence meant the pope made up his mind but ... like Pius XI who was preparing an encyclicle and a speech before he died, both fell into the Vatican archives after his death in 1939."

So you think Pope Benedict has lost his free will? As long as he's still alive, a decision he makes can be unmade. The Pope has not yet died. Therefore the Motu Proprio has been signed -- which, of course, agrees with what Fr. Zuhlsdorf has been told.

Cardinal Kasper's doctrinal opposition to Cardinal Ratzinger (and to quite a lot of Catholics) in fact adds force to his statement to the Jewish group that the Pope cannot do anything now to undo the decision he had made regarding the 1962 Missal. Cardinal Kasper obviously would love to do something to undo the Pope's decision, but not even the Pope can.

Also, Pius XI's unfinished encyclical wasn't signed, was it? If it was finished and signed and moments away from being released, then it would have appeared in the AAS, even after his death. But it was unfinished and therefore unsigned, and therefore never released.

"As for the 'vital' or not qualification, you're free to believe 99% of Catholics are dying to know about the motu proprio."

Similarly, you also are free to actually read what I wrote. "Vitally important" doesn't mean "almost everyone in the Church is longing for the Motu Proprio to be released." You, however, seem to think that Jesus' life, death, and resurrection is of absolutely no importance to most people on earth -- after all, most people aren't even Christian. Therefore, by your logic, Jesus is of absolutely no importance to anyone's salvation, just as the Motu Proprio is not vitally important to the life of the Church. After all, according to you, things are only important if someone thinks it is important. If someone somewhere happens to think it is unimportant whether we breath oxygen or carbon monoxide, by your logic that means we will all gain the ability to imhale carbon monoxide without any harmful effect.

And with that, this conversation is ended.

alsaticus said...

wrong Jordan Potter, wrong again.

I have trouble to understand why you can't grasp this very basic rule : without an official publication a document, signed or not, is NULL.

I should have given the best example at first, but I thought you had finally come to understand the basics ...
In 1914, s Pius X SIGNED the decision to put some writings from Charles Maurras on the Index. BUT he shelved the document in his desk and decided not to publish it.
Pius XI wanted to fight against Maurras'influence on Catholic youth and simply decided to make public the s. Pius X former decision. Without publication, a papally signed document has no value except for historians.

I hope it's clear enough this time.

For the rest, you've understood what I wrote and I won't engage in a useless debate. Just do not distort what I wrote. Thanks.