Right?
Wrong, once more. Contrary to what the "papal" blogger wants to say, Pope Benedict is not "bringing BACK" the ancient rite of the "Resurrexit" on Easter. He is merely CONTINUING Pope John Paul's choice of this rite proposed by Marini.
Now, the "papal" blogger has made clear that the practice was introduced (not exactly "REintroduced", since Marini himself admits the rite was "adapted" and "renewed"[aggiornato] by him, which means it was not the original rite, but something completely concocted by his fruitful head) in the Jubilee of 2000. What he does NOT make clear is that it was not a Jubilee-only event, but was truly written into the liturgy books of the Roman Pontiff.
It isn't even a great secret. If one searches carefully, one finds that the rite was repeated in 2001 (see here and picture here ), 2002 (here) 2003 (here), 2004 (here), with the same Acheropita Icon, except in 2005, when the Pontiff was in bed.
So, it is legitimate to say that Benedict has chosen to KEEP this pseudo-"archaelogism" (see Mediator Dei, not the "papal" blogger, for a definition), but not that he has brought it BACK, as if to imply that he is hand in hand with Marini -- he may well be, but this is not the sign the "papal" blogger should be looking for. Benedict has not been one to countenance rupture, so it is obvious that he will not refuse to celebrate a rite Marini officially included in the books for the Papal Liturgy. Why would Benedict establish an unnecessary rupture with John Paul II in his first Easter as pope?
Now, if only Marini would bring the authentic "pre-Avignon" MASS (also known as the "Roman Mass", equally celebrated before and after Trent) back in this collage of pseudo-ancient practices.
Wrong, once more. Contrary to what the "papal" blogger wants to say, Pope Benedict is not "bringing BACK" the ancient rite of the "Resurrexit" on Easter. He is merely CONTINUING Pope John Paul's choice of this rite proposed by Marini.
Now, the "papal" blogger has made clear that the practice was introduced (not exactly "REintroduced", since Marini himself admits the rite was "adapted" and "renewed"[aggiornato] by him, which means it was not the original rite, but something completely concocted by his fruitful head) in the Jubilee of 2000. What he does NOT make clear is that it was not a Jubilee-only event, but was truly written into the liturgy books of the Roman Pontiff.
It isn't even a great secret. If one searches carefully, one finds that the rite was repeated in 2001 (see here and picture here ), 2002 (here) 2003 (here), 2004 (here), with the same Acheropita Icon, except in 2005, when the Pontiff was in bed.
So, it is legitimate to say that Benedict has chosen to KEEP this pseudo-"archaelogism" (see Mediator Dei, not the "papal" blogger, for a definition), but not that he has brought it BACK, as if to imply that he is hand in hand with Marini -- he may well be, but this is not the sign the "papal" blogger should be looking for. Benedict has not been one to countenance rupture, so it is obvious that he will not refuse to celebrate a rite Marini officially included in the books for the Papal Liturgy. Why would Benedict establish an unnecessary rupture with John Paul II in his first Easter as pope?
Now, if only Marini would bring the authentic "pre-Avignon" MASS (also known as the "Roman Mass", equally celebrated before and after Trent) back in this collage of pseudo-ancient practices.
