Since some have questioned Pope Benedict's commitment to collegiality etc. here is just a comment cut and pasted from the blog on the Pope's dropping of the title "Patriarch of the West," chopped up a bit for length:
"Here is a post from the Orthodox site Monarchos
When the Pope was yet Joseph Ratzinger he pointed out the
need to disentangle the confusion between the patriarchal and primatial roles of the bishop of Rome and to break up the Latin patriarchate, replacing it with a number of ""patriarchal areas," that is, regions with an
autonomy similar to that of the ancient patriarchates, but under the direction of the episcopal conferences.
In an essay entitled "Primacy and Episcopacy," Ratzinger developed the theme at greater length:
"The image of a centralized state which the Catholic church presented right up to the council does not flow only from the Petrine office, but from its strict amalgamation with the patriarchal function which grew ever stronger in the course of history and which fell to the bishop of Rome for the whole of Latin Christendom. The uniform canon law, the uniform liturgy, the uniform appointment of bishops by the Roman centre: all these are things which are not necessarily part of the primacy but result from the close
union of the two offices. For that reason, the task to consider for the future will be to distinguish again and more clearly between the proper function of the successor of Peter and the patriarchal office and, where necessary, to create new patriarchates and to detach them from the Latin church. To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communion, in which the pope is acknowledged to have the power to give binding interpretations of the revelation given in Christ whose authority is accepted whenever it is given in definitive form."
After exploring the ecumenical implications of this vision, Ratzinger concluded: "Finally, in the not too distant future one could consider whether the churches of Asia and Africa, like those of the East, should not present their own forms as autonomous 'patriarchates' or 'great churches' or whatever such ecclesiae in the Ecclesia might be called in the future."
The person who posted this called himself Hieromonk Ambrose.
Susan Peterson"
Combine this with his past criticism of the idea of making lots of ex cathedra statements and his word and actions so far as Pope and it is clear that he does not take the Papal Dictator attitude. That is just not a good interpretation of Papal Primacy. It's not a matter of him biding his time, it is a matter of him respecting the authority of the other bishops. He may well be hesitant to make any changes too soon, as this would give the opposite impression and also be disrespectful to his predecessor. The issue though is that he is no authoritarian.

Keep in mind that when he was in Germany, then-Card. Raztinger waited a full year to begin any changes he saw as necessary. Well now it's been a year, so hopefully he'll do what's neccessary to bring people back to the Faith. I'm not saying that he should come out kickin' and screamin', but the Church seems to be a little weak in the knees right now.
What we really need is some:
Church Militant!

tim, I agree with your last post as you have posted it (except of course the strenuously disagreeing with me). My consern is the attitude many people, especially on the general "right" have toward authority. We need real leadership, and yes Andrew S. we need a Pope with guts.
We also need charity and to listen to people's conserns. We can not forget what the Church is all about.
Episcopal collegiality is an essential principle in the structure of the Church. I would be supprised if you could find one bishop that will say otherwise. The Pope has an ultimate primacy, which he must use prudently to guide the Church, but as much as possible he should be working with his brother bishops.
Once again I am not arguing against any particular idea. Sometimes a Pope must do unpopular things, because they are right. Probably we are in a time in the Church when that is particularly necessary. That does not change the fact that a spirit of love, respect, fraternity, interest in the conserns of others, and ultimately collegiality always needs to be the rule. You don't "skip over that sentimental crap" to get things done. Pope Benedict's papacy so far and statements he has made in the past show he understands this well.

Hmm... there were plenty of Popes who got things done by being authoritarian. Think of Pope St. Pius X - "Hammer of the Modernists". I think all the Pope needs to do is show some guts, and maybe some of our problems will be solved.

I do understand your point, J.R., I just strenuously disagree. The Church is in need of real leadership right now, perhaps more than at any time in the last 500 years.
We have a Pope. He has correctly identified the problems facing the Church. Now we need him to act.
Pray for him. Mary, help us!

tim,
Don't read more into my post than what is in there. No one is denying Papal primacy here. Neither am I saying we need to take a vote any time the Pope wants to make a decision, nor that the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" trumps anything from before that pastoral council.
I'm just trying to be Christian here. Just as racisim is an abuse of race so is traditionalism an abuse of tradition and authoritarianism an abuse of authority.
Now don't misunderstand me!
Many people who know me would lable me as a "traditionalist" because of all the attention I give to tradition (T&t) and maybe call me authoritarian because I think "who cares if practically all the church thinks contraception etc. is fine, its wrong and the Pope doesn't have to give an inch to dissenters."
Now what is the proper Christian response to all the dissent and liturgical nonsense in the Church. Should our attitude be "get out that wip, B16, there's some dirty work that needs doing, and quick! Nasty d*** liberals, this'll show them. Har Har."
Should the attitude not rather be more like "God is Love." Of course it should. You don't fight darkness with darkness.
Collegiality is essential to the Church. Always has been, always will be. You can't just have Popes acting like dictators. Things will go downhill real fast with that attitude.

J.R.,
You said, "I'm not arguing against any given action (see my post above) but against the authoritarian model of the Papacy and the Church that some people seem to want."
Huh?
I think that "authoritarian" model of the Papacy was "seemingly" "wanted" by some guy named Jesus Christ. Check out Matthew 16. Oh, and the "authoritarian" model of the Papacy was dogmatically defined at the First Vatican Council. Now, I know that the writing of the Gospel of Matthew and the deliberations of the First Vatican Council both occured prior to Vatican II, but that doesn't mean they don't count anymore.
And I think B16 might be surprised to hear from you that he has always "been critical of the authritarian use of power in the Chruch". In fact, I think he complained that there were those who made Vatican II into some super council and interpreted it apart from the continuous Tradition of the Church. Something about hermeneutics of rupture.
But, if the spirit of Vatican II calls for a roll call vote of more important bishops to ratify the decisions of the Vicar of Christ, hey, don't let Church teaching stand in the way.

"I would hate to derail it by having the TLM offered all over the place offering a haven to those people who should be driving the renewal."
Having first hand seen the fruits of the TLM both in terms of faith and vocations I would hate to see the TLM not offered to every Catholic who wants it. That being said, the TLM being offered alongside the NO can do nothing but drive the renewal in the NO. For example, look to the diocese of Lincoln which allows the TLM, is even home to the FSSP Seminary, but also is producing vocations in its NO parishes, which have very reverent services, like no other diocese.
You fears are unfounded.

I once attended not to long ago a baptism at a traditional chapel and I was completly amazed at how things were done, the reverence, the dress and the announcement made before communion that no one who is not in a state of sanctifying grace, attend the traditional mass, kneeling, and how to receive communion-I was amazed at the true reverence and respect these tradionals have for the body of Christ. I then asked him if he ever gets upset that the traditionals dont have the huge coffers of the Vatican and have to make do with donations and the actual labors of the laity and he said something that would stick with me. He said that the world was changed by Christ and his 12 Apostles-and one must fight for the faith at any cost and never compromise, even 1% as then the followers would doubt the other 99% as well, and they feel as traditional priests they are offering the true mass and sacraments without compromise and that in due time this would indeed change the church. I once read where Cardinal Ratzinger once said the biggest danger and threat to the Catholic church is not Islam, secularism, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc etc-But the TRADITIONALISTS and they must eventually be dealt with. I can see why now as they actually are what the church WAS

Can someone please explain or give me a link to an explanation for the resistance to the universal indult for the TLM. I’m new to this subject and I’m having difficulty understanding the resistance. I’m just a lay Catholic and personally I would love to attend TLMs.
Don't disparage yourself, I also am a lay Catholic, but I'd like to let you know why I who love the TLM would not like to see a universal indult.
Before my daughter was confirmed, I approached our pastor and asked him if I could home-school my daughter for her last year of religious ed. She was not learning anything new, and I figured this would be best for both of us.
As a religious ed. "field trip", I took her to our local indult TLM. She had never experienced the Latin Mass (as I did as an altar boy) so this was really an historical experience for her.
What I found most striking was the feeling that I had that this parish was not one faith community, but two. There were the "Latin Mass people" and the "other people".
So with something as good as the Latin Mass, came a "fracturing" of the community. One of the reasons that I believe they offered the TLM only via indult in the first place.
Another problem we're going to have is that if a universal indult is offered, those who love a prayerful, worshipful Christ-centered Mass will flock to the TLM, leaving the trendy corner parishes to their innovations without the even keel that these people provide causing them to spin more and more out of control in their quest for greater and greater entertainment at mass.
I think that had the Novus Ordo been celebrated in the manner it was designed, there wouldn't be such a pining for the TLM. Were we still using Latin and chant (even with the occasional appropriate Haugen or Haas song) the people who long for the TLM would be spiritually fed. It wouldn't be the filet mignon of the TLM, but it would be a nice steak and potatoes rather than the dumpster leavings of some of the more radical, "innovative" Novus Ordos.
I think liturgical renewal is happening. It's happening as more orthodox priests are being ordained and our more heterodox clerical bretheren are retiring and facing Jesus.
I would hate to derail it by having the TLM offered all over the place offering a haven to those people who should be driving the renewal.

Clap! Snap! the black crack!
Grip, grab! Pinch, nab!
And down down to Goblin-town
You go, my lad!
Clash, crash! Crush, smash!
Hammer and tongs! Knocker and gongs!
Pound, pound, far underground!
Ho, ho, my lad!
Swish, smack! Whip crack!
Batter and beat! Yammer and bleat!
Work, work! Nor dare to shirk,
While Goblins quaff, and Goblins laugh,
Round and round far underground
Below, my lad!
OK, so that is pretty irrelivant to the conversation isn't it. In the details anyway, but I couldn't help but think of it when reading some of the attitudes people have about consensus and collegiality in the Church.
How about this?
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave
Now we're getting somewhere.
I'm not arguing against any given action (see my post above) but against the authoritarian model of the Papacy and the Church that some people seem to want. That is not the spirit of Christianity, nor is it traditional in the Church. Fortunately B16 has ever been critical of authoritarian use of power in the Church.

Mark habemus Papem! He just needs to enforce and carry out true Liturgical reform.

Gymnasium?..We dont even call Altars an altar anymore! The first few parishes I attended called the altar the table (I guess that is why the at unfold a table cloth and set plates during the Mass!!) Another had tree trunk as the altar. I figure be long we will pass jesus around and not even approach the altar. Consenus is what got us into this mess. Consensus will not help us out. If this were GM, a board meeting works; BUT THIS is ROME! We dont need a manager or a CEO. We need a Pope.

momof6--
That is one HUGE reason exactly why those round gymnasium self-celebrating churches were constructed. The revolution never looks back.

Regarding the orientation of the priest for Mass: what should the Pope direct as far as facing toward/facing away from the people/crucifix on the altar when it comes to these queer-looking round churches? I'm assuming that's something that wasn't around the first time the orientation was changed.

I can see how "constant activism" is bad. I don't want to disaree with B16, even with him before he was elected, but I can't help but think this: if a change was bad, as he seems to acknowledge having the priest faceing the people is, is it not better to correct the situation before it becomes a deep-seated tradition older than living memory? If such things are ever to be changed, the sooner the better it seems to me, if you want to minimize shock and discontinuity.
Note that the Pope's opinion on the matter may have changed. In his interview with Raymond Arroyo about a year I think before he was elected Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger said ad orientem "could be a help" and explained why, not suggesting at all that he thought the change would be more harm than it is worth, as far as I remember.
Of course, the private speculations of a theologian and liturgist and the actions the same person will find prudent as Pope are two different things, and I would not want underestimate the importance of episcopal collegiality. We can't afford to have an overly autocratic papacy, especially since it is not likely we will always have as "traditional" a Pope as this one.

Arieh:
Well, he says: "Nothing is more harmful to the liturgy than a constant activism, even if it seems to be for the sake of genuine renewal."
"To the liturgy" (and, hence, to the faithful who participate in it) - not to the parish budget.

Kevin,
I guess I read "rearranging everything all over again" and "Where a direct common turning towards the east is not possible" as speaking more to moving furniture than disturbing the faithful. He does seem to be fairly adamant about mandating at least an ecclesiastical east, which I would assume would have some pastoral implications if the priest was now obscured by a crucifix.
Maybe I am reading too much into what he wrote, but I think Benedict may eventually surprise us by how much he rocks the barque (at least liturgically).

The Pope should do what is right, and that is to restore the One True Mass and not the counterfeit mass, though legit by all accounts, of mass that is presently in use
One can only suppose these Cardinals like the irreverence and lack of morality that has taken over the church, what was once catholic 40 years ago is not longer Catholic today-hence the Visibility of the church is no longer so and a defection is clear. The church has always withstood and we all know she shall prevail even over these apostates that have control over our beloved church property, we can only be sure to teach our children on our own as they need the true church teachings and not the DaVinci Code/Vatican II anyone gets to heaven version

Kevin Miller said:
"it hardly follows of necessity from that that [B16] will act against a consensus on a matter like this one - a disciplinary matter which obviously has significant implications for the internal life of dioceses around the world."
Quite right. Benedict XVI is prudent.

Upon further reflection - I think I was thinking of that chap. in Spirit. I must have read it longer ago than I had realized. And as is indicated in the quotation that Vincent adduces, for Ratzinger, the concern isn't only or primarily financial.
Again, you can agree or disagree that his is a valid concern. I'm ambivalent myself. But my point is simply that he has (or at least has had) the concern about the altar issue. And I think that calls into question whether he'd do something as potentially radical/disruptive (even if, in principle, desirable) as allow any priest any time to celebrate Mass using the old Missal - i.e., without having to get any sort of permission from his bishop (see JD's comment for a couple of interrelated reasons why that permission might be theologically/canonically important) - and especially whether he'd do that apart from a consensus in favor of that move on the part of, at least, the college of cardinals (and perhaps also the world's bishops).
JD - doing well, thanks - hope all's well with you also at (I assume) CUA.

kevin, you may be thinking of salt of the earth by cdl. ratz.
the "universal indult" (just keeping the quotes for legal purposes because i doubt jimmy wants an extended discussion of whether such an indult is necessary, in light of quo primum) can't come soon enough!
Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Benedicto-
Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum, et beatum faciat eum in terra, et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius.

"Does the consensis refer to that of the Cardinals, bishops or all Catholics?
I wouldn't be suprised if many Cardinals and Bishops (especially those of a particular "spirit of VII" bent may be quite out of touch about what the rest of their flock thinks."- Bec.
Well- while there are more than a few bishops whose readings of Vatican II are a bit off keel, if you ask me, its important to know that there is probably more than liberalism behind hesitancy on the part of universal episcopate.
Diocesan bishops, after all, have the ultimate responsibility for the liturgy in their diocese (see canons 375, 381, 382, 391, 392 just for SOME examples of bishop's responsibilities). In a lot of places, the Tridentine Mass is a divisive issue, and bishops, those on the scene of the diocese, try to make prudent decisions about how and when it will be used in the diocese with causing faction. Certainly, some bishops, those with a more "spirit of Vat II" bent, might abuse their power and limit the Tridentine liturgy needlessly, but, in principle, allowing bishops to exercise prudent authority over the liturgy in their dioceses is smart policy (and, incidentally, demonstrates respect for the particular church and the principle of subsidiarity).
It could happen that a universal indult will cause chaos, and faction, and the fallout might confuse and scandalize many of the People of God. It won't definately happen, but it could. And, I think the episcopate is wise to be wary of that possibility.
Now, that being said, it should also be noted that BenXVI's ecclesiology values the collegiality of the episcopate and communio of the church highly. So, his concern for some consensus isn't all that surprising.
Ed- It's fun to be a canonist- I'm enjoying learning just how many angles we can come at an issue from.
KMiller- How goes the courseload? I saw the author of "Heart of the World" at Mass the other day and thought of your course!

Can someone please explain or give me a link to an explanation for the resistance to the universal indult for the TLM. I’m new to this subject and I’m having difficulty understanding the resistance. I’m just a lay Catholic and personally I would love to attend TLMs.

So the Pope cannot mandate the practice of the priest facing ad orientem (liturgical East) because this might cause confusion among the faithful, when this change was mandated on the faithful without a pastoral need nor a request from the same faithful?
Perhaps "will not" is more accurate:
A more important objection is of the practical order. Ought we really to be rearranging everything all over again? Nothing is more harmful to the liturgy than a constant activism, even if it seems to be for the sake of genuine renewal.

"The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer" in The Spirit of the Liturgy

Spes semper est Christifidelibus, Timothe.

Does the consensis refer to that of the Cardinals, bishops or all Catholics?
I wouldn't be suprised if many Cardinals and Bishops (especially those of a particular "spirit of VII" bent) may be quite out of touch about what the rest of their flock thinks.
Not that it matters in the end........
Bec

Kevin: sorry to give the impression I was making that comment to you specifically... I know you're just passing it along.

I'm with Ed Peters.
Wait and see.
But I can HOPE, can't I?

Brad: I'm just telling you what he said.
Arieh: I don't think that's the book I'm thinking of, as I only bought it recently, and the point I'm thinking of is, I believe, in a book of his that I read longer ago.

Kevin,
Benedict mentioned the altar crucifix in "The Spirit of the Liturgy", but he mentioned it more in relation to recently rennovated churches. So, it seems that the concern was more financial than pastoral.

"I forget which book it's in, and I don't have my copies of those books here in the office - he considers the issue of the orientation of the altar."
It is "The Spirit of the Liturgy".
http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&...

So the Pope cannot mandate the practice of the priest facing ad orientem (liturgical East) because this might cause confusion among the faithful, when this change was mandated on the faithful without a pastoral need nor a request from the same faithful?

There's another thing that I think is also noteworthy. In one of his writings on the liturgy - I forget which book it's in, and I don't have my copies of those books here in the office - he considers the issue of the orientation of the altar. He asks whether we should return to the traditional practice wherein priest and people both face liturgical East. Although he agrees that this was in principle the right practice, he also says that the barrage of post-conciliar changes was a problem, and concludes that we shouldn't compound the problem by making yet another change, even if it's back to the traditional orientation. (He says that, instead, there should be a crucifix on the altar, visible to both priest and people, so that they can both focus their attention on God by focusing on that, rather than on one another.)
Now, I know no one is speculating that Benedict is going to mandate the old Missal for everyone. But allowing any priest to use it at will would still be an awfully significant change. In light of what he wrote about the orientation of the altar - although I certainly wouldn't rule out that he might grant universal permission to use the old Missal - I'm not nearly as confident as some are that his writings make it clear that that's what he wants to do.

The St. Blogs consensus seems to be FOR the universal indult: http://www.americanpapist.com/poll.php

He can do what he wants, of course, but it hardly follows of necessity from that that he will act against a consensus on a matter like this one - a disciplinary matter which obviously has significant implications for the internal life of dioceses around the world.

Sancta Maria, Mater Ecclesia, ora pro nobis

Marc is right: the Church is not a democracy. Pope Benedict has no more need of consensus than God has need for us.

In times like these, it pays to be from Missouri.

Fortunately, at least for those of us who have come to love and participate in the indult Latin Mass, the Church is not a democracy!