Rorate Caeli
Notes:

1) On the division among Italian bishops regarding the application of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, reported here last week, the Secretary of the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), Bishop Giuseppe Betori, told Zenit that, "no Bishop is against the Motu proprio; if there is any Bishop who refuses the application of the Motu proprio, he is out of the line of the Italian Episcopal Conference and [out] even of the invitation [extended by] the Holy Father."

2) On the delay of the official publication of Summorum Pontificum in the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis (AAS), reported here on Saturday, Italian daily Il Foglio reports today:

It is noticed in the Holy Palaces [Vatican] that the motu proprio in reference was published last July 7, while the last issue of the AAS that was published was that dated April 6 [2007], which reports documents and pontifical nominations dated from up to April 5 [2007]. It cannot be seen, therefore, how it could be affirmed, or believed, as a matter of fact, that the "Official Record" of the Holy See has not published the motu proprio. It will be necessary to wait for three or four [additional] issues of the AAS, at least, to verify if the publication took place or not.

3) On the German Episcopal Conference's discussion of the motu proprio, its application, and its "interpretation": coverage on Catholic Church Conservation.


In Fulda, the German bishops are seeking a common line on the implementation of the Papal letter on the old Mass. Questions are still open, said the Chairman of the Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Karl Lehmann, prior to the autumn plenary assembly. Such as, ““like the request of a stable group” leaves itself open to interpretation”: Are the people from a Parish or will Masses be allowed with the people coming from a larger area? There is also the question, which is whether the priest is suitable{to celebrate the Latin Mass}? Because it is said also that if the priest celebrates the Mass privately, then this needs permission neither from the Bishop nor from Rome. How can one determine then the suitability? “

In the run-up to the plenary assembly, guidelines were compiled on two sides of A4, which are now to be adopted by the chief pastors. Lehmann stated confidently that he could present this at the end of the week. Starting from at the beginning of October, the guidelines could then come into force. Decisions must, in the long run, be made by each Diocese, stresses the Bishops’ conference chairman. Guidelines are not binding.

”One can perhaps say, these are guidelines, where we position ourselves between both sides, but in the center there is a large road with different ways to proceed. That is perhaps also necessary, because the situation is different in the individual Dioceses.“

When the need in the Dioceses is compared with that of the past year when the Bishops’ Conference arranged a survey, the demand has so far not considerably increased, said Lehmann.

”I would be surprised on thus, if it were any different. … We want what the Pope asked for, not to get round or minimize it, but we wish that it is followed. An important requirement is that he that only can and may celebrate the extraordinary form, the Mass of 1962, will without reservation recognize the new Mass, as the usual form. That was so far not always the case. There were people that said: no, in no case is a Concelebration with the Bishop with the new Mass possible. And that is impossible. “

However, Lehmann ruled out a rigorous system of the examination

5 comments:

Hebdomadary said...

"It cannot be seen, therefore, how it could be affirmed, or believed, as a matter of fact, that the "Official Record" of the Holy See has not published the motu proprio. It will be necessary to wait for three or four [additional] issued of the AAS, at least, to verify if the publication took place or not."

What? Come again? Sorry, could you repeat that? I'm reading this doing my comdey Italian Chico Marx imitation, and I still can't make any sense of it. Shouldn't it read "It will NOT be necessary to wait..." since earlier it says that the Holy See can't believe that anyone would believe that they hadn't published the Motu Proprio?

By the way, don't everybody get all offended about the Chico Marx thing, it's called a joke.

New Catholic said...

It means that these Vatican sources do not think the argument could ever make any sense, since the AAS issue including the acts made public at the time of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (July) is not available, so any argument (as Melloni tried to make) stating that the motu proprio has been somehow "forgotten" is not true: it simply will take a while before the appropriate issue of the AAS becomes available.

Anonymous said...

No where in the MP does it say that one is obliged in conscience to accept the New Rite, and the Pope has clarified that the MP imposes no new obligation on the faithful.

Jordan Potter said...

No where in the MP does it say that one is obliged in conscience to accept the New Rite, and the Pope has clarified that the MP imposes no new obligation on the faithful.

True, but the Pope has also clarified that it is inappropriate for anyone to reject the New Rite altogether.

I know a priest in my diocese who usually celebrates according to the 1962 Missal, rarely if ever according to the post-Vatican II Missal. He does not in conscience reject the new Missal, but that doesn't mean it's the Missal he normally uses.

LeonG said...

"We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness ... And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of satan has entered the temple of God."
HH Paul VI June 29 1972.

The holy father Paul VI(RIP) who facilitated all of the subsequent liturgical catastrophe inflicted on the church in postmodern times, has himself cast adequate doubt on his own handiwork both pastoral and liturgical. Indeed, the smoke of Satan is in the sanctuary. And as his predecessor intimated would happen we would search for the red lamp therein which has subsequently disappeared leaving many of the holy places desolate. This is why so many of them have become empty spiritual wastes, sold as mere real estate and even subjected to the demolition-ball. One of them recently which has been defiled with persistent rock liturgies has been incinerated by a thunder storm. Others have emptied out their dwindling audiences and have become rotting, useless edifices.

The current holy father has also stated publicly enough some of his own private thoughts about the pauline rite corroborating what many other more orthodox authorities in the church feel about it too. In a postmodern church which cries pluralism in religious liberty and individualism in primacy of conscience then a properly formed sensus catholicus laments that such an expression of faith as the vernacular Sunday service created by protestant sentiment should be equated with the authentic magnificence of The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass in its authentic Roman Catholic language, Latin.

Implicit doctrinal matters are another but intimately connected subject altogether.

Secret thought thereupon is indeed another consideration.

In normal times it is scarce credible. Yet these are not normal times.