Most Popes reign for 1-5 years

source

Most Popes reign for 1-5 years, so eight years is perhaps no too short a reign. For a Pope who values continuity living in a Vatican granny-flat might ensure that Pope Benedict's successor continues much what has been done. I rather like the idea of Pope Callistus or Leo popping round for tea and buns and a little advice with his predecessor.

I think that occasionally Pope Benedict uses the idea of "stampede", to get things going, he did this with Summorum Pontificum, and Regensburg speech, this is his last stampede.
There are things that are impossible for a Pope in his eighties to do, like reforming the Vatican, which presumably any future Conclave will see as a priority, and which will mandate our next Pope to carry out.

Some of the things he set in place that are not going to be changed but need another hand to move them forward, such directing ecumenism towards the East, seeing Vatican II in terms of continuity, recognising the need to reconcile the Church's present with its past, both Liturgically anf theologically.

Pope Benedict has appointed most of the Cardinals in the Conclave, he has appointed all the leading members of the Curia, and he himself will be alive, so continuity is to some extant guaranteed.

What hasn't happened in this Papacy, is the factionalising and jockeying for position which was such a feature of John Paul's dying years, when the See of Peter was effectively vacant for years, the remnants of which have blighted the reign of Pope Benedict and manifested themselves in "Vatileaks".

So, apart from my initial shock, I think this a wise move by a wise Pope.
As my old aunt used to say, "Knowing when and how to leave is the sign of a gentleman"..

Pope resigns: now say some prayers

I am really saddened by the Pope's resignation. I love and admire him, at the moment I am a bit angry and yet I trust his judgement.

There have been rumours that he has been ill for some time, possibly the beginnings of Parkinson's disease. I am sure that the leaks in the Papal household haven't helped but then I trust his judgement. I am sure that he made the decision to resign coolly and without emotion, considering what is best for the Church and the See of Rome.

Now, I am going to say some prayers, for him and the Church, and commend all this to the Lord and the intercession of the Holy Mother of God and I suggest you do the same.

Pope to Resign

BBC have just anounced that Pope Benedict is to resign later this year - I hope this is a hoax

Apparently Fr. Lombardi said: "The pope announced that he will leave his ministry at 8:00pm (7pm UK time) on February 28."

Is Liturgical Renewal Possible?

Fr Gary Dickson asks some poignamt questions in a post, which asks the poignant of all: Liturgical Renewal – is it possible?
I am beginning to think every priest is a law unto himself. Before any real Liturgical Renewal is to take place, we need to agree on what the purpose of the Liturgy is. Some might suggest the various doctrinal statements of the Church down the centuries, that Sacrosanctum Concillium of VII and subsequent documents spent a great deal of printers ink making this clear but the truth is in a city of a couple of dozen parishes there are a couple of dozen different ways in which is Mass is celebrated, with the implication that there are a couple of dozen different theologies behind it.
The Traditional Mass didn't guarantee theological orthodoxy, otherwise there wouldn't have been the rise of either Protestantism or Modernism but it did suggest a certain essential unity in Catholicism, the various options of the Novus Ordo, where "choice" is central, actually serve to destroy unity. One of the key problems is that those rubrics which do exist are really considered to be pious suggestions rather than have the force of Law.
I hope he does not mind but reproduce Fr Dickson's post here:

We are told a new handbook on how to celebrate Holy Mass will be published this summer. While Redemptionis Sacramentum was dead on arrival, I suspect the proposed handbook will be still-born. The only thing that can resuscitate our liturgy is clear positive legislation backed up by action.

We have spent fifty years ‘advising and encouraging’ clergy at all levels -from Cardinals down to associate pastors and deacons- to follow liturgical norms, but we have had very little success with such exhortations. Why? I think because if we were to follow even the norms that are in place now for the Missanormativa of Paul VI, we would have a very different kind of liturgy than we currently have in most parishes. Some questions we can ask ourselves about the liturgy in our own parish to see if we are following norms or not are the following. All of these questions should be responded to with a ‘Yes’ if we are following norms; a negative response means we are not following the norms (according to the General Instruction and Redemptionis Sacramentum).

• Do we ever use Latin for the Ordinary of the Mass? (cf. RS #112; GIRM #41)
• Do we retain use of the Communion Plate? (cf. RS #93)
• Do we use Extraordinary Ministers only in exceptional circumstances? (cf. RS #151)
• Does the celebrant stay within the sanctuary at the Sign of Peace? (cf. RS #72)
• Do we omit the chalice if the greater proportion of the congregation does not receive from it? (cf. RS #102)
• Do we allow/encourage Communion kneeling and on the tongue? (cf. RS #92)
• Do we keep the Church and adjoining rooms quiet before and after Mass? (cf. GIRM #45)
• Do we omit hymn singing to have an organ voluntary at the end of Mass? (cf. Celebrating the Mass, Bishops Conference of England & Wales, #225) 

These may seem paltry things to some, but if they are so paltry, why refuse to follow them? It takes so little to put them into place, other than a sense of humility and obedience.
My personal reasons for taking liturgical norms seriously are two-fold. My first reason, in all honesty, is that I am not able to successfully subordinate my self-will to the will of God in all situations (i.e., I still sin), making liturgy the one area of my life where by the following norms I can subordinate myself with a measurable amount of success. Second (and this is a requirement of justice) because the people have a right to the liturgy with which the Church seeks to provide them. Justice is, after all, more widely applicable than just to issues of social poverty and/or oppression.
I return to a long-stated opinion here: if the Novus Ordo were celebrated exactly in accord with the Missal as provided by Pope Paul VI in 1970 in accord with liturgical continuity and the actual decrees of Vatican II, ie., altar-facing (rubric 133) with Latin (Sacrosactum concilium of Vatican II #54,116) and Communion on the tongue while kneeling (1970 GIRM 247) we would see significantly less hostility to the Church’s ancient form of Mass.

Priest's Voices

I was told that an English religious community wrote to the CDW asking for permission to say the Canon of the Mass silently in the Ordinary Form. The CDW replied with a firm, "No", as one might expect. Pope Benedict suggested the return to the more ancient practice in "Spirit of the Liturgy", it was one of his solutions to what others had described as a "crisis in the Eucharistic Prayer".

Presumably they would have received an affirmative response, if they thought it necessary to ask, to say it quietly. In the Extraordinary Form it is not actually said "silently", if it were it would not be necessary for the deacon or MC to stand aside so they cannot hear the names at the momentoes. The current OF rubrics speak about a "clear and distinct voice" being used for the words of consecration, this presumably indicates a different voice for the rest of the prayer, one that is at least less clear and less distinct, quite what this voice is isn't specified. Nothing is said about its volume and more importantly nothing is said about whether the voice should or for that matter should not be microphoned.

Outside of the Latin rite the voice used for the Canon seems to be that it is audible to the immediate bystanders, in Eastern Rites, to concelebrants.

Now, we realise the "Spirit of Vatican" stuff was pure folly, and indeed contrary to the actual documents, isn't it about time to look again at the rubrics of the Mass. Cardinal Arinze, when Prefect of the CDW famously offered turkeys to those who could tell him where sanctuaries were to be modified, or Latin and chant was to be ditched, or altars were to be turned around, maybe we do need clarity about the various voice levels.

If it is permissable to say the Canon in a low voice, as Cardinal Piacenzo Prefect for the Congregation of the Clergy apparently does, is it permissable for any form of communal prayer to be sung by the people to ensure the actively participating whilst this is happening. I always wonder what is supposed to happen in vast cathedrals when the mics fail or are simply not present or switched off.

The of course there is always the issue of "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful" and "mutual enrichment".

Marriage Minutes: Impact on schools

Subsidiary Legislation

The Big Pulpit has an interesting collection of stories on SSM.
Now, I think we ought to look to the future, Maggy Thatcher was not for turning but Cameron's government is about U-turns, this morning the English Baccalaureate was dropped, House of Lords reform has been dropped, I am not suggesting SSM will be dropped but much of the subsidiary legislation might well prove just too complicated.
It seems that behind the legislation is really an attempt to be so equal that the intention is to abolish gender, which the Pope spoke about on 21 December 2012, we can expect a whole raft of legislation to do just that.

In Brighton there was a rather crude attempt to render us all gender neutral late last year. Although gender seems to be an affront in ou brave new world, sexual orientation is not, I am told that job applicants and even "service users" are generally asked if they heterosexual, homosexual, transgender, bi-sexual, etc., etc. There seems something quite odd in all this.

In Spain the terms "Father" and "Mother" are being replaced by "Parent 1" and "Parent 2". Hollande, in France, is sneaking in an extension of laws regarding surrogacy and IVF, on the basis that equal marriage, if it is going to be truly equal is going to demand equal rights to children, that is of course going to demand a third party, either a woman willing to rent her womb or a man to donate his sperm. It seems likely subsidiary legislation will focus on transgenderism and bi-sexuality.

One big issue will be the future of the Cof E. One interesting are question which we as Brits will have to address, because we are Brits, is Royal succession. I am sure the Queen is worrying about what will happen about surrogacy and the Royal Family, what title should be given to the overtly lesbian lover of a future Queen.

A little later, not immediately, I think pressure will be brought to ensure Churches "get with programme". It will probably happen not through Parliament but through the Courts. Can an organisation that promotes a "phobic" message really continue to be allowed have control of such a large portion of the education sector? Will we not have to have a representative transgender person on our governing boards? Will we be allowed to continue to be allowed charitable status. Are we going to be allowed to forbid the use of church premises to organisations which promote legal lifestyles which are repugnant to us. Will such reactionary groups be allowed control of some of the more important cultural and historic buildings? Will any organisations that are not with the programme receive government funding in its care for youth, the old, immigrants, the homeless, exiles, the sick?