Rorate Caeli

Banning even the DISCUSSION of the Motu Proprio?

The language of this article from our Italian brothers is very strong and is not what we in RC would use, but the sheer absurdity of this act of episcopal defiance versus the Holy Father moves me to post this, so that the whole world may know. CAP.


From the blog of Messainlatino:


The tyrannical Archbishop of Cagliari in Sardinia prohibits a meeting on the reform of the Holy Father to be held in the parish of Mandas. And what reason is given? NONE!



Meeting on Summorum Pontificum (Giornate Summorum Pontificum) in MANDAS on August 9-11 2009

COMMUNICATION FROM THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

We hereby inform you that His Excellency Rev. Mons. Giuseppe Mani, Archbishop of Cagliari, has “formally forbidden” [in writing] (formalmente proibito) the holding of the meeting which this Committee had wished to dedicate to the studying and deepening understanding of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

We regret to inform you that this will mean that we will not be able to reflect on the Magisterium of the Holy Father, on the beauty of liturgy and on the best way to realize the co-habitation of the two forms of the one and only (Roman) Rite.

We hope that we will be able to meet again in a time not too long in coming and thus make it possible for priests and faithful to get to know the Holy Mass in its extraordinary form, to learn to celebrate it and to participate in it in a fruitful way.

The organization committee


Comment of Missainlatino.it: As the rebellious feudal masters who did not give a damn about the Emperor and the king, this is the situation of the Church in Cagliari – and that is not all. The worst is – and this is something which cries for revenge in the name of God, is that this bishop without any shame did not even bother to find a reason for his arbitrary and hateful ukase. Stat pro ratione voluntas (my pleasure stands for a reason or let the will take the place of reason -- CAP): the mere caprice of our Caligula of today is what is behind the completely insane wish to oppose that of the faithful and of the Holy Father. But certain insults against common sense and against justice, even more than insults against the Pope and the People of God (the initiatives of whom, like this meeting, according to the Second Vatican Council are to be encouraged and promoted: great is the consistency of our Bishop in this!), will not go unpunished. He will see one day, and that day will not be long in coming...

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

Where in canon law can a local ordinary formally forbid a meeting to discuss an official promulgated papal document? The hubris here cries to Heaven for vengeance....

Rick DeLano said...

A canonical action seems immediately necessary, and entirely appropriate here, given the extremity of the injustice.

Anonymous said...

This situation will not last long.

Paul Haley said...

One more to add to the list posted previously in this forum as justifying the claim to a state of necessity..."A Bishop forbids even the Discussion of the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, in one Sardinian diocese."

What we need here is a "God Squad" of curial officials empowered by His Holiness to remove recalcitrant bishops on the spot. And, not only for this offense but the many others included in the youtube video posted earlier. Imagine the effect of such a "God Squad" removing just one of the offending bishops. Yes, I know, it's not going to happen.

Anonymous said...

The Pope needs to defrock a few defiant bishops, such as this one to serve as an example to the others, saying that hindering those who wish to follow the wishes of Peter, and openly defying Peter will not be tolerated.

Anonymous said...

He's the diocesan bishop so no surprise he wants to execute authority in his diocese.

There are no penalties for ignoring Summorum Pontificum, and his conscience tells him to do so, so he's doing it.

From ecclesiological point of view diocesan liturgy is only bishops job.

Don't be pharisean, my friends.

Paolo said...

Does anyone know whether a canonical action is being considered by the victims of this dissenting bishop?

Paolo

Lucius said...

This cannot be a lawful command of the bishop and hence does it even bind under the 4th Commandment and the promise of obedience to the bishop made at ordination? In the civil law the bishop's action would be considered ultra vires.

Pablo the Mexican said...

This Bishop point blank, beyond a shadow of a doubt, made his statement clear and unchallenged even by the Holy Father.

He did not tuck his tail between his legs and put a fellow Bishop under house arrest or give some of his Priests the boot to placate his enemies; if anyone, anyone, does not like what he did, tough luck.

One thing about bad Bishops, they got some cajones.

He knows full well the fires of Hell await him.

Pray that he repents.

Pray for the Holy Father.

Santa Maria de Guadalupe, ora pro nobis!

*

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 18.59,
A bishop's job in regard to the liturgy, previous to the second vatican catastrophe, was to ensure that the norms for the liturgy were being followed. The Catholic liturgy is something which is handed down (as the current pontiff has said) and which we participate in according to the norms laid down. Only since VII has the local ordinary been able to hack the tradition of the Church about at will. It has nothing to do with pharisaism and much to do with the pseudo dogma of collegiality.

Anonymous said...

Remove this bishop from his palace by force. It is more than justified.

Anonymous said...

As stated above, there is no legal penalty for ignoring Summorum Pontificum ( as we have seen worldwide ) albeit morally, there is also no penality for ignoring the bishop either. No layman is required to follow that bishop's nonsense regarding not even discussing it.

A priest also has the Holy Father's permission ( which supersedes any bishop ) to say the Tridentine Mass, but administratively, many bishops strong-arm their priests into not saying EF Masses.

Louis E. said...

Archbishop Mani (a former auxiliary of Rome and Italian military ordinary) is 73,I expect the meeting organizers will be able to wait out his tenure.

Anonymous said...

Would that all the opponents of Summorum Pontificum declare themselves so openly!

I know of a situation where a few seminarians would, on their own time, travel down to an "ecclesia dei" sanctioned church once a week. The rector of the seminary immediately "reported" them to their home bishops just as he would have done if they had been caught binge-drinking at parties.

That's the stuff that really worries me. "What you like the Latin Mass? That's wonderful..." A month or two later, "We regret to inform you that the Church does not find you suited to be a priest."

- Just a Thought

Anonymous said...

They would treat this subject like UFOs...!



Sorry, I could resist :)

Anonymous said...

" our Bishop in this!), will not go unpunished. He will see one day, and that day will not be long in coming..."

Don't be surprised if this man is quietly asked to resign (he's 73), or is reassigned.

Anonymous said...

They should meet anyway under a different venue...This Bishop should be cut away with the rest of the rot....What undo hatred he has probably brought upon himself and for what? What a wonderful way to show your support for the Pope and Rome...I look forward to coming back and reading the posts on this one...Isn't Bugnini's post in Iran open??

Anonymous said...

This command is ultra vires. It has the same force in law as an order forbidding his subjects from urinating when the need arises.

By the way, I wish the translator would get his shalls and wills straight.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

This Bishop seems to have fallen down and bumped his head. As a faithful lay Catholic who understands everything our excellent Holy Father is trying to do, this disobedience enrages me. We've seens what years of disobedience have wrought: a culture of death and a world teetering on the abyss. Pray for this Bishop that God kicks his butt!

Anonymous said...

As others have said, the days of these holdovers from the 60s and 70s are numbered. Yes it is upsetting, but #1, bishops like this are not getting ordained today and, #2, on a deeper level, it is through offering our sufferings that victory is won in the spiritual realm.

Anonymous said...

I think that this incident just goes to show that H.H. will have to do more. But I don't think that the Pope will be slapped down by miscreants like this.

Someone said that he was enraged by this. Really, I am more amused than enraged. Consider that most Italian bishops ignore the Pope on S.P. So this one's wild proclamation just looks mad. It makes the rest of the liberal bishops look desperate, frankly.

P.K.T.P.

BJR said...

In a way it is refreshing that a bishop has the intelligence and will to make a decision for himself and the diocese with which he has been appointed.

So many bishops, particularly following the centralisation that has taken place with regard to episcopal appointments since the mid-nineteenth century, are no more than brain dead muppets who blindly obey, like a reflex action, instructions from Rome.

If there had been more bishops capable of independent thought in the 1950s and 60s we would not be in the mess we are today as the bishops would have looked at the novelties issuing from Rome and simply rejected them.

Anonymous said...

Remove this disobedient bishop. Since when is the vow of obedience gone? Defrock him.

Anonymous said...

"BJR said...

In a way it is refreshing that a bishop has the intelligence and will to make a decision for himself and the diocese with which he has been appointed."


Refreshing that this bishop has the 'courage' to make a nonsensical decision?!?!? Would it be as 'refreshing' if he also forbade the local Rosary Society from discussing the Sorrowful Mysteries just because he felt like it?

Brian said...

Certainly intelligent fidelity to Truth and Tradition and the willingness to proclaim that Truth in season and out of season is a virtue. Independent thought and will for it's own sake is certainly not a virtue.

It would be nice to think that our Holy Father is "enraged" by this rebellion. When Summorum Pontificum was first released I believed that Pope Benedict XVI was a champion for Truth and Tradition. Given the meager to non-existent follow-up over the past two years, including no clarifying letter and no public celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass and public prayer with various religious groups, it is increasingly difficult to maintain that belief. It would be nice to think that "this situation will not last long," but I have my doubts.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:12

You understand everything excellent Benedict XVI is trying to do?

Quite impressive!

Anonymous said...

New Templar: The norms are not universal (there was no universal Missal until the protestant heresy has appeared). Also it's a legitimate development. If NOM is legitimate development based on hermeneutic of continuity (99.9% bishops will tell you so), there's no need for the TLM, just as there's no need for revival of the liturgy in its state from, let's say, 8th century.

Local bishop is the one and only liturgist (der Liturg) in a diocese. Priests act only when it is impossible for the bishop to serve all his subjects due to their number or territorial spreading.

Priests are only substitutes for the bishop, so Summorum Pontificum caused a situation of smouldering revolt for the mere sake of appeasing the SSPX. No wonder then that SP does not provide any penalties. It's appeasement only.

If the Pope had had wanted to restore traditional liturgy he would have enforced it just like NOM was enforced.

If he had had an interest in restoring the Traditional Roman Rite he would have began with restoring the Traditional Papal Liturgy to make a shining example. But the Pope always celebrates NOM.

What does debating about enforcing liturgical changes behind the backs of archbishop Mani mean? It's a clear insult, and it's in full concordance with the spirit of collegiality.

Archbishop Mani has just broken with that spirit in a Catholic, preconciliar way.

See that you, the sheeps, are trying to dictate the shepherds what they should do. It's purely postconciliar.

That's why your laments are hypocritical.

Anonymous said...

B.J.R. must have been asleep for most of his life. Independent thought and action was the problem in the 1960s. It's why, for example, the Diocese of Duluth famouosly introduced a vernacular Mass even *before* this was legal. It is why most of the bishops introduced Communion in the hand when this was completely illegal. Rome decided to make legal after the fact what these disobedient hirelings did on their own.

If we had had more obedience from the bishops, the wild excesses following the Council never would have seen the light of day.

B.J.R. is a refreshing presence here. It's nice to see that some people are not just wrong but preach the EXACT OPPOSITE of the truth. If we are to be wrong, why accept half measures? Let our error be maximum error.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Nobody in Sardinian need worry. The solution is simply to ignore the bishop and have the meeting off diocesan property. He has no authority to ban such a meeting. No more than if he had banned the discussion of yellow shirts or whether tea should be served at a high table or a low one.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

No Anonymous, not all that impressive, you just need to read and listen with an open, faithful heart and you'll understand it all too. If you do this and still get no result, ask the Holy Spirit to assist you. I do, and He does.

Anonymous said...

Some clown wrote this:

"If the Pope had had wanted to restore traditional liturgy he would have enforced it just like NOM was enforced."

Well, he already has begun enforcing it. Ask the Bishop of Killala.

As for the N.O.M., it's not a development, legitimate or otherwise; it is a banal product concocted in committee. Its Offertory and new Eucharistic Prayers are composed out of the blue. Some have some minimal basis in antiquity but were not known to be used liturgically. Development is not a synonym for invention.

Also, we don't know what 99.9% of bishops might say, and most of them haven't considered the questtion for one second.

Next, S.P. obviously does set universal norms, since they are addressed to all and are not restrictred. Penalties should not be needed: priests can just ignore their bishops and not even inform them before celebrating the Mass of the Ages.


I note also that, under Article 12, it is the P.C.E.D. and not the local bishop who is the one to implement these norms. Your contention that the local ordinary is the only liturgical authority in a diocese is totally false, since the Pope has both universal and immediate authority in all things. Try reading Pastor Æternus. While bishops do enjoy an autonomous and not merely vicarial authority coming directly from the Apostles, it can only be excercised together with the primatial papal authority from St. Peter.

"If the Pope had had wanted to restore traditional liturgy he would have enforced it just like NOM was enforced."

What S.P. settles is that that very enforcement, as contained in De Missali Romano, was ultra vires---illegal.

Lastly, meeting and debating the place of S.P. does not constitute some scheme behind the bishop's back. Since priests have the right to celebrate the T.L.M. under S.P., they have every right to discuss and debate such matters. It's none of the bishop's business, and there is nothing preconciliar in his behaviour at all. Tyranny is not the proper form of authority in the Church but authority in service. Some matters are not in the province of the bishop. For example, even when saying the N.O., every priest has the right not to use Altered Boyettes, even if the Bishop orders otherwise. The Bishop can allow boyettes but not impose them. Get informed.

P.K.T.P.

Confitebor said...

Re: the words "some clown," let me remind everyone to attack the ideas rather than the person, even if the ideas are ridiculous or foolish.

Anonymous said...

LOL
Why would H.H. do anything about this Bp considering H.H. has not to date shown an inclination to celebrate the Extaordinary form himself? The MP is only seen as a temporary thing anyway.
Get over it, the Bps do as they wish even if papal documents say otherwise.
For example nothing much has happened to all those Bps who still dissent over Humanae Vitae since 1968. Why would anything be done about Bps who ignore and flout the Motu Proprio?

Anonymous said...

Regarding the L.O.L. poster, who is only pretenting to laugh: What has actually happened since the motu proprio was issued? Answer: there was an enormous increase in Traditional Latin Masses in most Western countries, as reported on this blog by several sources, including me. Even in terms of numbers of dioceses offering the Traditional Latin Mass, there has been an impressive increase in many important cases. For example, 30 new American dioceses gained their first every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses in just first year after publication of the motu proprio. Today, over 80% of them have this Mass every Sunday, and the hold-outs are mostly Protestant and underpopulated areas (e.g. Dodge City, Grand Island, Juneau).

The increase in Germany was mind-boggling. On 7-7-07, only one-third of the dioceses had an every-Sunday T.L.M.; today, more than three-quarters of them have it, and hte hold-outs are mostly dioceses in the norh-east where the Catholic population is tiny and scattered (i.e. old Lutheran areas such as Erfurt and Magdeburg). The effect was less dramatic in France only because most of the dioceses in that country already had this degree of provision for the Latin Mass when the m.p. was published. (Most of them were gained under the 1988 m.p.)

What has happened is that the younger bishops, always preferring promotion to demotion, have quietly made provison for traditionalists. The hold-outs, like this bishop in Sardinia (aged 73) are old liberal has-beens. Their time is over, they failed in their quest, and I'm laughing out loud about it.

The main question now is what further provision H.H. will make for traditionalists, given the defiance of so many of yesterday's bishops, especially in Italy and Portugal and in Latin America. I have VERY good reason to believe that more is coming. We can sit back and watch, laughing out loud as it happens.

The second question is what steps H.H. will take to turn that Protestant singalong joke called NewMass into a real Catholic liturgy. Tick, tock. When something can't get any worse, it can only get better.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Quote "LOL
Why would H.H. do anything about this Bp considering H.H. has not to date shown an inclination to celebrate the Extaordinary form himself? The MP is only seen as a temporary thing anyway.
Get over it, the Bps do as they wish even if papal documents say otherwise.
For example nothing much has happened to all those Bps who still dissent over Humanae Vitae since 1968. Why would anything be done about Bps who ignore and flout the Motu Proprio?"

This is the very reason why I'm an Eastern Christian now. You all preach about Papal infallibility. But your Bishops care less about what the Pope says anyway. The Eastern Orthodox will never be in communion with liberal western Bishops who care less about tradition. And the western church does nothing to remove liberalism. But they will do all they can to stop traditionalism. The East and West may be the two lungs. But the Western lung has cancer. Which needs to be removed before the church can breath again.

Confitebor said...

This is the very reason why I'm an Eastern Christian now. ***

I hope that means you are a member of an Eastern Catholic Church rather than one of the schismatic or heretical Eastern Churches. The Catholic Church breathes with a Western and an Eastern lung, to use John Paul II's metaphor, but it is the Eastern Catholics, not the Eastern Christians in general, who fully and properly constitute that "lung."

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, name me one Eastern Church that is heretical. They may be in schism, in Romes eyes, but not heretical. Protestants are heretical. And from an Eastern Orthodox view the Roman Catholic church is also schismatic. Separated from Orthodoxy. And by reading this article, it shows me that this Bishop is not in communion with the Pope either, by banning a discussion of a Papal document. When you have Bishops who are parading around like this, than the Roman Catholic Church is the last church that should be talking about schisms and heresies. Since they do nothing about it.

Anonymous said...

Eastern Orthodox said, "The East and West may be the two lungs. But the Western lung has cancer. Which needs to be removed before the church can breath again."

Rather the western lung is full of smoke from you know who, admitted by Paul 6. The aggriomento (sp) doesn't want discipline. Sad state indeed, it is time to exhale violently and get rid of the smoke and phlem of NOM and V2.

Perhaps you are justified in your stance. Note however that there are faithful traditional Catholics that can guide you into the Catholic Church w/o compromise to the Traditional Catholic faith and obedience to the Pope. Fear not. I pray your conversion.

Ruers

Confitebor said...

Jordanes, name me one Eastern Church that is heretical. ***

Any Eastern Church that does not affirm the formula of Chalcedon is heretical. Again, any Orthodox Church that does not accept the dogmatic definitions of the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, or the Assumption is also heretical.

They may be in schism, in Romes eyes, but not heretical. ***

When has Rome ever formally declared that they are not heretics? In the modern era of ecumenism, Rome does not wish to underscore their schismatic or heretical status, but that's not the same thing as the See of St. Peter pronouncing that they aren't in schism or in heresy.

And from an Eastern Orthodox view the Roman Catholic church is also schismatic.

True, but their view is erroneous, as the Catholic Church cannot be in schism from herself, whereas people can be in schism from the Catholic Church.

When you have Bishops who are parading around like this, than the Roman Catholic Church is the last church that should be talking about schisms and heresies. Since they do nothing about it. ***

On the contrary, the Catholic Church is the only church with a right to talk about schisms and heresies. She is doing something about it too: but experience has been showing the response to be inadequate at best, counterproductive at worst.

Anonymous said...

These Bishop have long lost their faith. They are modernist not Catholic.

Anonymous said...

"These Bishop have long lost their faith. They are modernist not Catholic."

They would make better Anglicans/Episcopalians. I'm sure Presiding "Bishop" Jeffers-Schori of the USA Eppiscopal Church or others would welcome these nutcases with open arms.

BJR said...

PKTP,

I may have fallen asleep and missed your 'Apostolic Administration' or there again it may be more probable that you are the one dreaming.

If bishops had resisted the changes from the beginning things would have been very different.

A relatively large minority of priests in the North-West of England quietly ignored the novelties of the mid-1950s and carried on with the Tridentine Holy Week for example. No doubt these men thought the novelties would die out and 'normal service be resumed shortly.'

Little did they know...

Anonymous said...

B.J.R. writes:

I may have fallen asleep and missed your 'Apostolic Administration' or there again it may be more probable that you are the one dreaming.


I'd be careful about that. You may have to eat your words.

It's certainly true that S.P. needs to be enforced more. But I am confident that something is about to be done about it fairly soon. Let us wait and see on this.

In the meantimes, priests all over the world are continuing to discover their new rights under S.P. As a result, there has been a huge increase in numbers of Traditional Latin Masses. As the old liberals retire and die off, the m.p. will gradually be accepted more and more.

But I do agree with you if you are claiming that the m.p. has 'hit the wall'. Indeed, there was an enormous increase in the numbers of Masses in the first year but it has slowed to a crawl since then.

P.K.T.P.

Andreas said...

http://www.traditionalcatholicmedia.com/flash/Misc/Fellay01_56k.html

If you listen to Bishop Fellay speak in this conference, he states that there was never a concrete proposal from Rome in 2000, and thus Bishop Fellay could not have refused something which was never offered.

So I wonder where P.T.K.P. gets his information concerning the year 2000 proposal, and why he keeps insisting that the state of necessity does not exist (which it does).

Hail3N1 said...

There was recently a bishop from Ireland who also refused the Latin Mass in his diocese; the people went to Rome with their complaints and he was made to allow it. They are really defiant. We have the same thing here just like most everywhere. people, if you don't STAND UP and MAKE YOURSELVES HEARD, then how can you expect a favorable outcome? don't let them get away with it any longer!

Anonymous said...

Andreas:

I never said that there was a concrete proposal. What happened is the Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos suggested this solution and assured him that it could be arranged. It never got to the concrete proposal stage because Fellay refused to accept it from the beginning. On other threads of this blog, I have provided the quotations to prove the case. To my recollection, they date from 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006 and this year of 2009. I also have hard copies now, since I find that there are more amd more people about who will swear on the Bible that red is really blue and grey is a fine shade of green. However, I am not going to republish this over and over and over again. Search for it on this blog and ye shall find.

It was in a DICI article of 2003 that Fellay called the proposal a 'Rolls Royce structure'. The reason that the VERY SAME STRUCTURE was granted to he Campos priests in January of 2002 is because Fellay refused to consider the idea in 2000.

I urge others on this blog to confirm that I have published a number of the direct quotations on this, and recently. I'm getting tired of re-posting again and again.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Summorum Pontificorum at its heart is a temporary solution for the sake of souls. The indult upon which SP is built was for the sake of those attached to the ordo antiquus. JP2 noted the suffering of so many Catholics attached to the extraordinary rite and so the indult was granted. But he, like the present pope see a time when there will be one calendar, one breviary, one mass based on the novus ordo.

It is quite clear that the general aim of the Holy See is to merge the ordinary and the extraordinary into some form of hybrid. H.H. even recommended the procedure: in new editions of the 1962 books prefaces from the ordinary rite should be included. In some places this is already being implemented. For example in Melbourne Australia these ideas have been implemented in a mass book being sold in that city. Some years ago Fr Fessio introduced his own form of the hybrid mass under the general aegis of 'reform of the reform'.

Whether more bishops, priests and laity are taking up the SP offer or not is beside the point. H.H. and JP2 made it clear that there will be no return to what prevailed before V2. It appears the majority of the cardinal electors are of a similar mindset and will reflect this policy in the choice of pope in next election in the years ahead. In other words, it seems to me the change is part of a long term strategy to keep the ecumenical revolution going.

The synod on the eucharist a year or so ago lamented the lack of reverence and respect in the NO after 40years or so but there was no dissent as to whether it was lacking in the TLM. So it makes sense to have a merging of the two. The process make take some years to achieve the end, but there is no doubt that another form of the mass will emerge.

If H.H. deems more changes need to be made to the 1962 missal in line with what he has put forward so far, there can be no argument with him. My only point is that the antics of many bishops vis a vis MP or the lack of enthusiasm of many for the MP has a certain logic to it. They can see that there has to be compromise in the future. On the one hand they don't want to give up the NO as is, nor do they want to go the way of the MP. But if H.H. puts forward a merged form, utilising what he sees useful in the NO with what is useful with the TLM, then perhaps a way forward to unite all under one liturgy will have been found with which no one will be quite happy.

Mind you this is not my merge theory. I found the idea in a work by Fr John Mole OMI (deceased) some years ago. He lamented the truncating of the TLM, but saw that in the future a new form would emerge in the years ahead based on the two rites. He surmised quite a long period of organic development. Given the dominance of novelty in our present age, my surmise the changes will be sooner than later. It didn’t take too long to decree the new form of words re the Jews in the 1962 missal or even the idea of communion in the hand, or altar girls being accepted etc etc.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:01 said, "He surmised quite a long period of organic development."

Organic to some, innovation to others...

Your supposition (if proven true) won't sit well with Traditional Catholics such as SSPX, in my opinion.

H1N1

Anonymous said...

Bio of Fr. John Mole, OMI

http://www.wordofgodhour.ca/front/about-a.htm

Anonymous said...

Anonynmous writes:

"But he, like the present pope see a time when there will be one calendar, one breviary, one mass based on the novus ordo. ... It is quite clear that the general aim of the Holy See is to merge the ordinary and the extraordinary into some form of hybrid."

This is not clear at all and this view is wildly simplistic. I've been following these problems for some time. I'll respond in point form:

1. It is true that some forces in the curia have strongly favoured merging the two rites into one. These include Msgr. Perl. It came out some years ago that he favours a 'Classical Rite' which would achieve this. He tried to amend the T.L.M. in a series of 'baby steps' in the late 1990s but met a wall of resistance and really got nowhere. Most of the attempts at merging have been completely rejected by the people. (One or two very minor points have been neither accepted nor rejected, just ignored.) A good example of this is the attempt to import the New Lectionary, made since 1991. It's been tried at Warsaw and dropped (but is now being tried at another Polish diocese); tried at Oakland (U.S.A.) and dropped; tried in one diocese in Florida and dropped; it is currently being tried at Verdun once per month but is very unpopular.

2. Frs. Fessio and Harrison and the Hitchcocks have gotten nowhere with their Adoremus Movement, thank God. Its hymnal in modern notation was approved by Rome but rejected in the pews; its Missal was rejected by Rome. It has no following.

3. Very few attempts have been made to introduce Altar boyettes and Communion in the hand into the T.L.M. Most celebrants just assume that they're not allowed. Those who try it find a wall of opposition in the pews, followed by a massive fall in contributions.

4. Even Perl's attempt to enforce the 1962 removal of the server's Confiteor just before distribution of Holy Communion has failed in many places, and this was allowed even in 1962!

5. The 2008 change for the Good Friday Prayer will be largely ignored by the faithful. They will simply read the 1962 words while the priest intones those of 2008. E-books will make it impossible for Rome to enforce that change in the near future. Most won't even be aware of the change. The old Mass has a way of preserving itself. It's the Latin; it's a barrier to reform.

6. While there are many in the curia who favour a merged Rite, there are now prominent others who oppose this vehemently, including Frs. Buz and Vitielli and Lang. It is not as simple as saying that Rome is taking this view or that. There are different currents of thought on this. Rome will do what is expedient. She has other problems to concern herself with and sees no reason for incensing traditionalists over minor things.

7. Benedict XVI loves the New Lectionary and mainly just favours importing it (with perhaps some prefaces) into the T.L.M. However, almost nobody in the traditionalist movement wants to receive this. When the issue has come to a head locally, in one case, Rome said that 'nothing should be forced on an unwilling congregation". And so it was dropped.

8. The S.S.P.X is key to the future of the T.L.M. and it won't even admit the Good Friday change. Rome will do nothing more to prevent it from signing a deal. The reason for the Good Friday change was Rome's desire to please the international press and the international Jews.

9. Whatever the Pope and SOME curialists may want, the Holy Ghost may have other ideas. The Society of St. John wanted adaptations to the 1965 norms and it got them from Perl. Where is it now? In the jungles of Paraguay.

P.K.T.P.