Going into Reverse

Francis said...

Good for the bishops.

I wonder whether the decision to "reverse" was partly influenced by the gradualness of the change, coming when it does. Moving Ascension day back to Thursday takes effect immediately, of course.

But we won't notice the Epiphany being a holy day of obligation again until 2021. Between now and then, 6th January falls on a Saturday, a Sunday and a Monday - so the celebration of the (OF) feast will fall on a Sunday.

Salami tactics!

3/9/17 8:17 am

...

Nicolas Bellord said...

Why this pathetic half restoration of the Epiphany? Why should it be transferred to the Sunday just because it falls on a Saturday or a Monday? Does it interfere with the clergy's golfing? Utterly asinine.

3/9/17 12:44 pm

...

Liam Ronan said...

'Irreversible', Father? The Servant of the Servants of God publicly holds forth that worldwide 'climate change' is reversible with a concerted effort. It would seem therefore that reversing liturgical change would be small beer by comparison for the Bishop of Rome.

4/9/17 1:27 am

...

Scribe said...

We were delighted at our church to celebrate the Ascension on the Thursday. Four Masses were offered, and I attended the noon Mass. Over 400 people crammed into the church for that Mass alone; a gentleman whom I'd never seen before said how marvellous it was to celebrate a feast on the correct day. I sometimes think that the "high ups" in Rome have no idea what ordinary Catholics think about these things.

4/9/17 6:31 pm

...

Cosmos said...

Palincor,

Infallibility is not a super-power by which the Pope can square circles. The term "rupture" has to be defined within an argument and, once defined, the Novus Ordo either did or didn't rupture with Tradition based on the rules of grammer and logic. Nothing the Pope can say can change that.

What the Pope can do is speak with absolutely authority on the Church's doctrine pertaining to faith and morals.

For example, he could infallibly state that Jesus died for "the many," rather than all. Or that he died for "all," in some other sense, even if those were not the words used at the Last Supper. So turning to the Novus Ordo, were the translations that said "for all" a rupture with tradition? Say the tradition was unclear at the time... It could have been the intention of the drafter/translator to make a true/false assertion, and the people could have understood it right/wrong. The Pope can't change that history by decree.

4/9/17 7:37 pm

...

David O'Neill said...

Surely Pope St Pius V said almost the same thing! Why hasn't his decision remained inviolate?

5/9/17 9:52 am

...

Nicolas Bellord said...

This statement by Pope Francis, taken on its own, is gnomic i.e. mysterious and difficult to understand. However if one reads the whole talk I think all he is saying is that Sacrosanctum Consilium is irreversible in itself but what has happened subsequently in its implementation needs to be reviewed.

5/9/17 10:46 am