It only makes sense to give significantly more weight to what was written 6 months ago rather than what was written nearly 15 years ago. Yes, the manner in which the new Mass was created was different, but it is not a “rupture.”
The ‘horror’ or the miscalculation?
Some folks keep insisting that the m.p. was directed at communities already attached to the older form. With all due respect, this is absurd. In dioceses such as mine where there has been a de facto ban on the TLM, no such community has been allowed to exist! The words of the Holy Father make it clear that it was his intention to liberate the older form for the WHOLE Church not just for a few.
If ‘all of us’ is such a vital comment why does the MP not indicate wholesale reintroduction of the TLM?
In time, my child, in time.
Well, you’ve got to call it something. I’d rather be extraordinary than ordinary.
Nothing in the m.p. prohibits it from simply being “put out there for them.” However, the Holy Father is a realist. He knows all too well that many of our modernist priests and bishops would never start offering the TLM on their own volition. Thus, he provides a mechanism by which the faithful can request it.
The jury is still out on the extent to which requests really can be refused.
Ah, but there is a middle way - a bureaucratic way in which the bishop can neither confirm nor deny the MP. He merely “acknowledges” it and gets the chancellor of the diocese to write a scathing editorial in the diocesan newspaper a week after the MP which basically said “nobody really wants this”. It is known in bureaucratic circles as the “chilling effect”. Things are quite icy around here.
Was the whole “for those who are attached to” spin a lie?
Not a lie, but not the whole story.
These would also be considered ‘attached’ - though how they developed it would be different than those fitting the ‘older generation which had grown up with it’.
I have to confess that I’m not following you here. What do you mean that the younger group “has had time to bring in others”? Youth is fleeting. New young people are being born every day while any “established group” of young people will inevitably age.
Well, “my son”, then let’s not make it more than it is. If spin is not a lie, but merely an omission, than omission, while not a lie, is surely spin. Since I think much better of Pope Benedict, I believe it is best to take MP at face value. It is very good for all Catholics to preserve the TLM and make it available to those attached to it. If you resent those who try to quash it (and you should), understand their resentment for those who try to push it to become ordinary.
This is a red herring, as there’s not a diocese in the Western world where’s this is even close to happening at this point. No one who prefers the ordinary form has anything to worry about. I do believe that, God willing, the TLM will eventually regain its position on its own merits, not because it was forced on anyone. It will likely take decades, but I do believe that it will happen. As I’ve said before, though, I hope and pray that when that day comes, the folks who adhere to the Novus Ordo will be treated with more fairness and charity than those of us on the other side experienced.
Were those who discovered or legitimized their attraction to the EF (as in no longer needing to make do with Mass at schismatic churches using the EF) from 1988 till the issuance of the MP keeping this a secret? Not letting others know or allow others to attend ‘their’ masses?
If I have misunderstood you, I aplologize. There have been some who have made this claim, but I know it is not a reasonable reality.
IF it does, yes it should be on its own merits.
You mean like converts?
Converts, Cradle - the idea is to ask for it not just ‘run it up the flagpole and see who salutes’ kind of method.
Well, what I meant was that if we were able to “run it up the flagpole” we might be bringing in converts (hey, certainly worked in the past).
Then put those already attached to work on it.
