A few Days ago I post on a shocking display of resistance to the Pope MP on the Latin Mass at my post The MOST BIZARRE DEFIANCE Of The Pope's Summorum Pontificum- Muslim Prayers OK. Trad Mass Not .
It appears the Vatican, through friendly voices on the Italian Bishops Conference, is telling certain Bishops in Italy to quit the stonewalling and get on with the Pope's decree. The Ratzinger Forum has translated a Italian Newspaper piece into English that deals with this issue on this thread here. I shall post the entire article. What is in Black Italics is comments that the poster and translater added as their own commentary. I am including that. I think this is pretty useful to read. Perhaps American Bishops and the various Liturgical Terroist we read it also and spare us their delay tactic.
Here is a translation of Mons. Stenico's commentary in PETRUS today on the report about some leading Italian bishops objecting to the Pope's Motu Proprio on the traditional Mass:
About the dissent in CEI towards the Pope's Mass MP
By Monsignor Tommaso Stenico
VATICAN CITY - The media have reported that at the start of this week's meeting of the Permanent Council of the Italian Bishops conference (CEI), there was a discussion on the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and the execution of its provisions.
That in fact, some bishops expressed their objections to the Motu Proprio and requested that the CEI issue an interpretative Note about the papal directives specifically for the Church in Italy. But that proposal was voted down. [NB: The Pope - trustful that all bishops would understand the spirit and intention of the MP, as he asks them to do in the explanatory letter he issued along with it - had left it to the bishops individually to transmit the papal directives, as well as his explanation, to their respective flocks, because that is part of a bishop's duties, and in fact, as many bishops all over the world have done, each according to their personal take on the MP.]
Those who are said to have expressed their objections to the MP were Carlo Ghidelli, Bishop of Lanciano-Ortona; Bruno Forte, archbishop of Chieti-Vasto; Benvenuto Italo Castellani, Archbishop of Lucca; the new Archbishop of Palermo, Paolo Romeo; Felice Di Molfetta, bishop of Cerignola and president of the episcpal commission for liturgy.
According to these prelates, Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio risks creating difficulties because the ecclesiology of the traditional Missal is 'incompatible' with that of Vatican II. [What a strange statement for the bishops to make, especially in view of the CDF statement last July explicitly pointing out that Vatican II had not changed the ecclesiology of the Church in any way! Also, they forget that the traditional Missal continued to be used by the Council throughout its three years, although they promulgated Sacrosanctum Concilium - the Vatican-II Constitution on the liturgy - in 1963, at the end of the first year's session!]
Therefore, they asked the CEI to issue a Note 'to interpret the Papal text'.
I respect the observations and opinions of such brilliant bishops, but I agree with the majority of the Council that believes a note from the CEI is unnecessary and superfluous, and I am happy that it was voted down. I don't know if it is from an excess of zeal or from sheer forgetfulness that these enlightened bishops don't remember or ignore that the Note they are requesting already exists, and that it was written by Benedict XVI himself!
In fact, I remember one of these bishops commenting that the Pope's explanatory letter was much longer than the Motu Proprio itself. Personally, I saw in the Explanatory Letter's length all the trepidation, the concern and the solicitous care of the Pope that his gesture of openness and dialog and communion within the Church should be correctly understood.
He starts out by writing, "With great trust and hope, I place in your hands as Bishops the text of a new Apostolic Letter motu proprio given on the use of the Roman liturgy anterior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of long reflection, multiple consultations and prayer." The Pope was well aware that there would be "widely divergent reactions ranging from a joyous acceptance to hardline opposition."
Indeed, the Bishop of Rome goes directly to the obvious fulcrum of any possible doubts: "There is fear that this will erode the authority of Vatican-II and cast doubt on one of its essential decisions - liturgical reform. Such fear is unfounded." With great sensitivity, the Pope proceeds to describe the reformed liturgy decreed by Vatican-II as the ordinary [in the sense of normal] form of the Roman Missal, and the traditional Mass as the extraordinary form. Therefore, the Pope says, "It is not right to speak of these two forms of the Roman Missal as if they were 'two rites.'" Rather, there would be "two valid forms for one and the same rite."
The Pope goes even further to state that "these norms are also intended to free the bishops from having to decide anew every time how to respond to different situations." But it is the desire to "reach an internal reconciliation within the church itself" that the Pope ultimately addresses with his Motu Proprio. It is for this noble end that he invites everyone "to make every effort so that it is possible for those who truly desire unity to remain in unity or to find it again."
The Pope assures the bishops that "these new norms do not diminish in any way your authority and responsibility either on liturgy or in the pastoral care of the faithful. Every bishop, in fact, is the moderator of liturgy in his own diocese (cfr SC 22). Therefore, nothing is taken away from the Bishop's authority whose role remains, nevertheless, that of being attentive that everything takes place in peace and serenity." In all honesty, I must ask the bishops who requested it - what could any Note from the CEI possibly add to what the Pope has already said?
The poster give more commentary and resources at the above link. I thought this was very well said. I would hope that any American Bishops hoping to do similar stonewall tactics will see that it is pretty fruitless. Move On.
No comments:
Post a Comment