Rorate Caeli

Evolutio

Well, well... We are evolutionists here at Rorate Cæli! For instance, we notice a clear evolution of Mr John Allen Jr. -- who barely a year ago considered the liberalization of the Traditional Mass by a personal act of the Pope as a kind of myth and now writes an Op-Ed piece about the document in The Aborti --oops, The New York Times.

Mr Allen's op-ed piece could be described as "realistic lite"; the myth is real, he does not like it, now he will explain to his fellow liberals how to receive the future document: not a big deal, or, in his words, or rather still, in his depiction of what he believes the Pope believes regarding the matter, "not earth-shattering". Typical Allen; as we have said about him twice here:

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.

Well, he lived up to it once again. His article could be summed up as: "Those terrible 'conservatives' will hype it as tremendous; those 'immoderate liberals' will despise it as retrograde; I, the establishment moderate liberal, representative of the enlightened Catholic 'Via Media of the 21st Century' annoint it 'not that big a deal'."

Who knows? Perhaps "Not a Big Deal" will be the name of the document...

13 comments:

  1. Ad augusta per angusta

    ReplyDelete
  2. NYT, wow, the secularist "Holy (?)" Spirit speaking. Something is cooking.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said, New Catholic.
    Bravo!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I will disagree once more and far from sharing Mr. Allen's agenda, God forbids !, I think his paper is very well written and realistic.

    During years, the "universal indult" now "motu proprio" was debated. If it is a "big deal" at symbolic level yes, it's not a big deal at all at practical level.
    Even with a really fair motu proprio - beware gentle folks of the various capitulations of the pope in 2 years -, the Canon code is strictly limiting the field for a free TLM. Priests are forbidden to say more than a very limited number of Masses without episcopal permission. So NOM being as John Allen writes the vastly dominant rite in the parishes, priests will be required to celebrate NOM first. It won't left much time for TLM.
    Moreover chanceries have many ways to DETER any willing priest, especially young priests, to use his new freedom. The TLM-friendly diocesan priests are TODAY under strict watch and incur often a sort of "quarantine". Not every priest, far from that, has a spirit of martyrdom... and I won't blame them.
    So as J. Allen says rightly, the motu proprio will have virtually no serious consequence in the short term. It will be influential to foster reverence and encourage semi-trad NOM priests ; it will create a roadblock on the anti-TLM teachings in seminaries and faculties of theology or at least, a little brake.

    Like I've often said, better 1000 trad-friendly bishops and no new motu proprio, than a (maybe ??) motu proprio and numerous bad bishops as those too often appointed by Benedict XVI in 2 years.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous2:27 PM

    My first thought after reading the article:
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
    The article smells a little bit like capitulation to me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous7:03 PM

    Whatever else can be said, I appreciated Allen's frank assessment of how the media will dramatize the story for economic gain. And I also liked the positive (or at least not negative) way he articulated the pope's supposed desire for the Tridentine Mass to slowly correct the new.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Alsaticus,

    We did not say it was not "well written and realistic"...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous10:25 AM

    So, according to Mr. Allen, the MP is absolutely no big deal, few care anything about it, its not going to make any difference to anything - well that explains why the notoriously secular NYT is wasting column inches on an op-ed piece on Catholic Liturgy then.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous6:18 PM

    "Even with a really fair motu proprio - beware gentle folks of the various capitulations of the pope in 2 years -, the Canon code is strictly limiting the field for a free TLM. Priests are forbidden to say more than a very limited number of Masses without episcopal permission. So NOM being as John Allen writes the vastly dominant rite in the parishes, priests will be required to celebrate NOM first. It won't left much time for TLM."

    You forget that a Motu Proprio has the immediately force of canon law, so it doesn't matter what the Code of Canon Law says prior to the Motu Proprio, if the Motu Proprio changes what the Code says.

    Of course, in a practical sense, priests may find it difficult to accommodate requests for the Tridentine Mass. But it wouldn't be a matter of what the law says or doesn't say.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous6:19 PM

    "Immediate," not "immediately." What is it with me and adverbs?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous5:33 AM

    Allen once againg proves he is very adept to the speak of the media lefties. My Sweet Lord three things I pray. I am very glad to know that my Lord knows the hearts of men

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous5:39 AM

    Allen once again proves that he is wise in the way of the world... and lefty media speak. He plays his Texas Hold 'em cards not so close to the vest as he asserts his views. Well thank God and my Lord and
    Savior Jesus Christ that he plays for that side. We will certainly see as my daughters grow to learn the classics... and I am a Hollywood producer.. that they {the classics} will grow... as will Latin and the love of Jesus' liturgy for the many

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!