Those who sign the petition should exercise some discipline for there appears to be many duplicates and errors such as these will no doubt work to our disadvantage. The modernist will howl that the petition should be rejected on the basis that it contains so many errors. But, there are many luminaries that have signed the petition, the Rev. Dr. Alcuin Reid O.S.B, being but one example, that should work to our advantage as well as the many young people, including seminarians, that have stood up to be counted. Unfortunately, however, our bishops and cardinals are not among these luminaries (so far as we can tell unless they chose the "anonymous" label). There is certainly a way that they can identify themselves when singing the petition so questions must remain as to their professed loyalty to Tradition and to the Holy Father himself. I continue to hope and pray that they will stand up to be counted.
Please, do read itI tried my best, honest I did, but the will to live had leaked away somewhere before the end of paragraph 4.
Why is it that one has to get a headache to get through reading such things?
"singing" should be "signing" in my previous post.
Actually there are surprisingly few actual duplicate signatures, it seems to me - but a certain glitch in the software seems to throw up the same few names again and again when one clicks on the "last page" button (am I alone, for example, in seeing "Lonnie DeLumpa" practically every time I refreshed yesterday?). Some names which actually only appear once seem to get pushed to the end again and again, with different rankings.When one digs a little deeper into the petition, however, these odd repetitions seem to disappear. Indeed, some people are signing for their whole families rather than as seperate individuals, which makes up for some of the actual duplicates.Good petition, good uptake. At this rate there'll be 10,000 sigs within a day or two.
With regards to signatures, please know that Church custom expects one line per married couple and all the children living at home with them.Don't get me started on the angry scowls I've received from certain clergy on this point.
There can be no "mutual enrichment" between a liturgical rite that is organic and embodies The Roman Catholic Faith and one that is revolutionary vernacular not only disdembodying The Faith but also deconstructing it.
Only one word need to be removed from the Instruction. That word is "Levada".P.K.T.P.
Let us consider the situation rationally, please.The m.p. resulted in a substantial improvement for the Latin Mass Movement during its first eleven or twelve months, but the effect differed markedly from place to place. In Germany, England, the U.S.A., and New Zealand, the improvement was sudden and extremely impressive. We can say confidently that, thanks to the progress in those countries, all or nearly all their dioceses will soon have the T.L.M. every Sunday. The situation in Poland was also very good and continues to improve.In Latin America, especially in Brazil, there was a very small but still important improvement during that first year or so but really not much since. There has been some improvement also in Ireland and in Eastern Europe beyond Poland, and some in Spain and in Italy. 3. For this whole period, the effect has been negligible in France, Portugal, the Philippines, Australia, Canada, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands and in many other places. In most of the world, there has been no discernible effect at all. There is not even one approved T.L.M. in a city as important as Bombay. That speaks volumes. There is nothing in Buenos Aires and that shows how the Latin American bishops can defy the Holy Father with impunity.4. While there have been impressive signs of hope in some places over the last two years (e.g. Zagreb, Croatia and Las Cruces, U.S.A.), really, the m.p. is almost a dead letter now. If something is not done soon to advance it, we might as well wave it goodbye. At this rate of improvement, all those living today will die of old age before we see our Mass entrenched in the Church. The bishops have found a way around us. They claim that they would love to implement the m.p. but lack the resources to do so. Then they tell their priests that they are needed to offer more N.O. Masses to the maximum number allowable. Those who try to offer T.L.M.s find themselves ministering to comatose patients in hospices or to prisoners in maximum security institutions. So we must not let the liberals re-frame the issue. It really does not matter if there are some small restrictions in the clarification or not. What matters is whether or not Article 1 is opened up to establish a norm, a minimum number of Masses per see every Sunday. Rome could then erect ordinariates or personal apostolic administrations to 'help' the poor helpless bishops to do their duty. If Article 1 is not opened up to establish a norm for each diocese, it really does not matter if the clarifaction is restrictive or not because a clarification which does not EXTEND the reach of the m.p. assures that it will remain what it is now: a dead duck.Your Holiness: Do you want a failed pontificate? Your project has been sabotaged. If this clarification is not made to change the sitaution, then something else must be done to change it. Will the Vicar of Christ be ruled by the Archbishop of Milan and the pipsqueak of Langres?P.K.T.P.
Post a Comment