Quote:"Yes, His Excellency is correct that it appears some Roman authorities may be planning to play with the Missal, mixing in Novus Ordo elements and options. Put another way, there appears to be a movement to replay the events of 1965-1969 all over again and gradually move the 1962 Mass to the Novus Ordo."
This real possibility explains the careful choice of wording by the Chapter. They state that the exclusive use of the 1962 Liturgy is to be guaranteed. They do not use the more ambiguous terms Latin Mass, Extraordinary Form, Ancient Rite, etc. which do not preclude a reissued 2013 Missal containing Novus Ordo intrusions.
The Chapter makes clear that it must have exclusive use of the 1962 Liturgy. They go on to clarify that this term includes all sacramental practices currently used by the Society. Since the Society does not currently use these yet-to-be promulgated changes and options apparently under consideration in Rome the condition makes clear the Society cannot be made to accept them. Again, His Excellency ignores the precise terms of the real condition and seems to be criticizing a differently worded condition, one that employs a less precise and more ambiguous terminology.
The Society’s sine qua non is that the 1962 version must remain in exclusive use by the Society. Again, since this very fact, refusal to compromise and in any way make use of any innovation dating after 1962 has been a source of persecution of the Society, the Chapter makes clear that the Roman authorities must foreswear future persecution on the basis of an exclusive use of the 1962 form of the entire Liturgy, including sacraments."_______________________________________________________________
Please, give me a break! The Motu Proprio
Summorum Pontificuм and
Universae Ecclessiae now formally
regulate the use of the 1962 missal to be what Benedict XVI says it is! Why is the SSPX stack on the 1962 missal? ABL himself would have abandoned it by now. The rumor that ABL signed an agreement with Rome to always keep the 1962 missal, if true, doesn't surprise me, but the last agreement ABL signed with Rome, lasted 10 hours because he saw the
danger!, If he were alive today, he would go back to the earlier pre-Bugnini version.
To play it smart, why can't they (SSPX) ask Rome for the use of a 1040's (pre- Bugnini) missal as a
right and see what the pope has to say? At least they wouldn't sound so absurd. What part of Summorum Pontificuм and Universae Ecclessiae don't they understand? How many times does the pope have to say that two rites are not practical and they 'will eventually have to be merged into one'. Benedict XVI has spoken formally on the 1962 missal through S.P. and U.E. which they plotted to bring about the "reform of the reform" and the SSPX into it with that leash designed for them as you can read in this article where the SSPX is mentioned by name several times. An article written just 9 months before Summorum Pontificuм was released
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2006/10/possible-future-of-tridentine-liturgy.htmlAgain, why did Rome change the agreement with the IBP? Was it not because now they 'have to be regulated by Summorum Pontificuм'?
You can only trust the Modernists to be Modernists. An agreement to them is only the means to an end: Modernism and even if "the Chapter makes clear that the Roman authorities must foreswear future persecution on the basis of an exclusive use of the 1962 form of the entire Liturgy, including sacraments" as Brian McCall says, it would only a farce to "reintegrate" the SSPX into the "New Evangelization".
Yes, I sound like a broken record, you don't need to tell me that. I am also tired of hearing myself trying to open the eyes of those who think they can keep a missal that will have to be made obsolete when the new 1962 missal kicks in. If the pope accepts Bishop Fellay's
"conditions" he can hope (naively) for the best but
prepare for the worst.
Topic: Wrong or right? Conditions for the SSPXs future (Read 10565 times)