...even John Allen confirms the inevitable release of the motu proprio on the liberalization of the Traditional Roman Mass.
Yes, this is the same John Allen who said that there was no "consensus" among "Vatican officials" on any such document -- as if the Pope would ever draft such a document based on a consensus which would never take place. Let us remember what we wrote exactly one year ago:
And we presented our own view of Mr Allen:
Were these the same "officials" whom he interviewed last year? The ones who said a consensus was in any way necessary for the Pope to act?... The motu proprio will be a huge deal and it will have a major impact -- particularly, in a first moment, in France and, possibly even more, in the United States, with its large mass of "disenfranchised" orthodox and liturgically-minded Catholics. Naturally, "progressive" bishops will try to ditch it, and "progressive" spin doctors will try to undermine its enormous significance, as they are already trying to do.
One last point: John Allen's piece gives us a glimpse into the double-pronged strategy that the enemies of the Mass will probably employ to undermine the motu proprio: (a) downplay the importance and reach of the document; (b) try to link the Mass with anti-Semitism.
Yes, this is the same John Allen who said that there was no "consensus" among "Vatican officials" on any such document -- as if the Pope would ever draft such a document based on a consensus which would never take place. Let us remember what we wrote exactly one year ago:
His many meetings regarding the same issues are not to find consensus, which he does not need to enact any measure, but to guide the Vatican machinery to whatever he has planned to do, particularly in the cases where there is no consensus at all: the need for meetings is greatly reduced when the issue involved is the object of majoritarian consensus among the members of an organization, and that is true in any organization of any size.
...
So much for a "blogosphere" fever... It is obvious that, whatever he wishes to do, Pope Benedict wishes to do so in a smooth way. But one cannot simply say he wants "consensus", and dismiss all that is related to the issue because a "Vatican Official" said "there is no consensus". The Pope already got his consensus: an almost unanimous consensus from representatives of all bishops of the world meeting in the Synod of Bishops that "the Traditionalist question" was irrelevant to them; and they were clearly AGAINST any concession. This "consensus" did not prevent the developments of the subsequent months.
And we presented our own view of Mr Allen:
Allen is a fine fellow, but he is more a newsmaker than a news gatherer, in the best "tradition" of contemporary American Church reporters, such as Robert Blair Kaiser. He and his sources wish to influence events or to alter the way future decisions are perceived and interpreted, and that is how his words should be read.We should add now: they wish "to influence events or to alter the way future decisions are perceived and interpreted" in a dishonest way. And Allen does that even today, as he "reports", while having to admit the inevitable release of the motu proprio, that "most bishops, pastors and liturgical experts whom I've polled believe that with or without the motu proprio, the normal liturgical experience for the overwhelming majority of Catholics will continue to be the post-Vatican II Mass in the vernacular language."
Were these the same "officials" whom he interviewed last year? The ones who said a consensus was in any way necessary for the Pope to act?... The motu proprio will be a huge deal and it will have a major impact -- particularly, in a first moment, in France and, possibly even more, in the United States, with its large mass of "disenfranchised" orthodox and liturgically-minded Catholics. Naturally, "progressive" bishops will try to ditch it, and "progressive" spin doctors will try to undermine its enormous significance, as they are already trying to do.
One last point: John Allen's piece gives us a glimpse into the double-pronged strategy that the enemies of the Mass will probably employ to undermine the motu proprio: (a) downplay the importance and reach of the document; (b) try to link the Mass with anti-Semitism.
