Bishop Fellay’s reaction to Bishop Williamson and the future of the NO
The current mood within the SSPX
Gun powder smell at the SSPX after the controversial newsletter of Bishop Williamson reported here
The Remnant has an exclusive interview with Bishop Fellay, interesting under several profiles. First of all, Bishop Fellay denies having knowledge of a motu proprio as described by Williamson. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t one in the offing of course and Bishop Williamson’s sources could simply be better informed; still, one doesn’t find it very probable that Bishop Fellay would be kept in the dark whilst he is leading the talks with the Vatican. Bishop Fellay’s dismissal of the rumour as “gossip” shows that he is pretty confident that he is not out of the loop.
Secondly, Bishop Fellay issues a clear advice to Bishop Williamson to, well, mind his own business and not intervene in such a way in matters not concerning him in his duties as SSPX Bishop. Of course Williamson would say that it is his own business, but you get the drift.
Thirdly, Bishop Fellay says that the talks are going “smoothly and according to plan”. One would like to know a bit more about that, though understandably we are not allowed to get further details on the matter. On the other hand, this obviously diplomatic statement would have been issued even if the negotiations were not going absolutely anywhere, so take it with a pinch if salt….
From the Remnant article further interesting elements emerge; I will mention them only briefly.
1) The SSPX needs a new seminary. Vocations continue to be massive, money is clearly not a pressing problem.
2) The SSPX is talking to various Church authorities in the US to sound the possibility of acquiring one of their own unused structures or land (say: a now-closed seminary, or some land they own). It would appear that in the past the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) has encountered refusals to sell property to them because of their “ideological” stance, and besides being in full communion the FSSP are certainly “moderate” compared to the SSPX. I suppose that for many Bishops if you are in favour of the Tridentine Mass you are anathema anyway.
3) Dulcis in fundo: Bishop Fellay confirmed that when Summorum Pontificum was issued, an unnamed “high-ranking prelate” gave the Novus Ordo not more than another 20-25 years. Whilst one doesn’t know how high the prelate ranks, it is highly indicative that he said so to Fellay, clearly sending the message that as soon as the ’68ers have gone the Novus Ordo will follow them rather fast. As we all know that lex orandi, lex credendi the idea that Vatican II ideology may survive after the Novus Ordo has gone is rather naive.
Better days ahead.
Mundabor
Share this:
Posted on August 26, 2010, in Catholicism, FSSPX and tagged Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson, Catholicism, Conservative Catolicism, FSSP, Novus ordo, SSPX. Bookmark the permalink. 60 Comments.
Mundabor's Blog 
“…an unnamed “high-ranking prelate” gave the Novus Ordo not more than another 20-25 years.”
If that feeling is really pervasive in the Vatican I wonder if that is the reason for this new translation, ready to be vomited out at us on the First Sunday of Advent. Perhaps they hope that this New New Mass will buy them another forty years.
Gosh, I hope I’m wrong.
Schmenz,
personally I have the impression that the contrary is what is happening: that they feel that the Novus Ordo will be left to die in 20 years’ time, but also that they can’t allow the worst parts of the English translation to go on for so long. It makes sense to me also because it allows – at least in the english speaking countries – a gradual return to sanity.
M
I hope the “prelate” is right, but as he is unnamed and the source is not unbiased then one has to wonder about this. Nonetheless, I am with you Mundabor on the reason for the new translation. It is surely felt that a better rendering of the Latin is necessary. Frankly why they don’t just use the one we have in the right hand of the Missa Tridentina text I don’t know but there you are. Speaking of which, how does the new translation translate “pro multis”?
I think “pro multis” is now “for many”, it is certainly not “for all” anymore. The “God Lord of Hosts” is also back 😉
I think they were afraid that by simply usig the old translation from the Tridentine they would have exposed themselves to the “accusation” of wanting to reintroduce the Tridentien from the back door (absurd, we know it; but can they really see the difference?).
Personally I prefer it this way, it is still very muich adherent to the Latin text but a healthy distance from the Tridentine is maintained. If the two were to become too similar, I think this might be “too close for comfort” as someone might come to the idea that the revised NO makes the Tridentine superfluous.
I prefer the Kia to get a revised engine and a six-speed gearbox, but without ever trying to become the Bentley 😉
M
“would appear that in the past the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) has encountered refusals to sell property to them because of their “ideological” stance, and besides being in full communion”
Indeed, I found that quite shocking, and if even the not-exactly-traditionalist Bishop of Portsmouth permits the FSSP in his diocese one has to wonder just what depths of heterodoxy these bishops who would not have plumbed…
I might be wrong here but I think the real fear behind the ideology could be of a different order: that such an establishment would draw people from very far and cause a heart attack in the collection plate of the surrounding parishes.
It would appear that in Padre Pio’s time the problem was felt by the parish priests of the region in the extreme (that was before the Concordato, that is: no dough from the Government), with Padre Pio’s abbey being the magnet for the collection cake of the entire region.
They know how mediocre they are. They know what effect the FSSP could have around them. They’d be exposed.
M
PS re Fellay – someone please give him a Red Hat.
The poor man deserves it just for being responsible for keeping Williamson under control. And doesn’t he always seem so sensible and sober? Fellay, that is, not Williamson.
But using the Tridentine, but in English, would BE the Tridentine – but in English.
Of course I prefer the Latin, but if one must vernacularise…
at least in the Tridentine there would be no errors. “For all”, indeed.
and no sign of the peace.
The Oratory’s rendering of the NO in the Solemn High form is very good, but I loathe the words “Offerte vobis pacem” quite as much as whatever the English form is (I haven’t been to Mass in English for long enough to not be able quite to remember…one is spoilt by being an Oratorian parishioner!)
I am not sure about that, Afcote.
As far as I know, the Tridentine is in Latin. The English is just a help to the understanding. I wonder whether in the past vernacular versions have been authorised for particular occasions, but on the spot I’d answer in the negative and tend to see in the Latin language a constitutive element of the Tridentine.
Might be wrong.
M
“They know what effect the FSSP could have around them. They’d be exposed.”
Reading, it strikes me, is very fortunate, with an FSSP house and also Douai Abbey not far away.
(I would also urge anyone in the vicinity of Stoke on Trent to visit the Franciscans of the Immaculate at St Joseph Burslem, and the nuns of the same congregation at the monastery of Lanherne in Cornwall).
However, I regret that the rest of the diocese of Portsmouth is not so fortunate.
I lived in the Channel Islands for a couple of years (Labour, tax, and I did not get on) and the state of the Church there is quite depressing, in Jersey at least. The main church in the capital, Saint-Helier, is magnificent, and quite appositely nicknamed “La Cathedrale”, but one had to positively dodge the Extraordinary Ministers ( I grant you, there were hundreds of people at Mass, but still, 10 to 15 of them?!) and once the Gospel had been read in English a laywoman would read it in Portuguese. Yes, that’s right, a female lay person read the GOSPEL. This was despite there being a Portuguese mass later in the day. I know much of Jersey’s Catholic community is Madeiran (weird, but true…agricultural workers you see), but please. Furthermore, when I asked the priest there about the motu proprio, he suddenly had to talk to someone else, and conducted a witchhunt against a trad priest from France whom he labelled a Lefebvrist, although this was never established, who had come over to say the EF.
Don’t even start me on the diocesan initiative to make us all “Christian Stewards”. I sat there in a room being told what it was all about for three hours, and I am still unclear as to what it involves other than spending large sums of money on promotional materials.
Good Lord!
A female lay person reading the Gospel? Is this not a huge liturgical abuse?
Next time you are proposed to become a Christian steward you might tell them that you prefer to be a “Christian Crusader” and if that’s all right 😉
M
Mundabor:
Nobody could ever mistake the Novus Ordo, whether in Latin or English, for the Tridentine Mass. They are sustantially different. The NO was originally fabricated in Latin and no matter how many revised translations appear, it remains the Novus Ordo!
I agree with Afcote. The Tridentine Mass should be, and indeed has been, translated into the Vernacular precisely from the Latin. Any parish priest should then have the right to say the Tridentine Mass in either Latin or the vernacular or even a mixture of both languages. At the same time the rubrics of the Tridentine Mass should be adhered to, which means Communion under one kind, kneeling and on the tongue, male altar servers, no extaordinary ministers, in fact no laity in the sanctuary at all.
That would sort out everything in one go!
Misericordia,
I personally would be thoroughly opposed to giving the priest the possibility of celebrating the Tridentine in vernacular.
As the liberal priest (wanting to celebrate in the vernacular) is accustomed to “contributing” to the Mass, this would in my eyes create a flood of liturgical abuses. Furthermore, the Tridnetine should in my eyes be exclusively in Latin.
Or you could put it in another way: the problem is the “vernacular mentality”. As long as the mentality is there, no rubrics will be adhered to. The solution is, in my eyes, the brutal return to the past dfor the Tridentine, and an improved Kia until the sixty-eighter meet their Maker..
M
Nobody could ever mistake the Novus Ordo, whether in Latin or English, for the Tridentine Mass. They are sustantially different
yes, for us I believe it. But I doubt that a “Tablet” reader or guitar-strummer would see it that way. To them, “and with your spirit” is “mass of Pius XII” already.
Were it not so, I do not think they would have made so much resistance to the proposed changed which, as you say, still leave the two Masses fundamentally different.
M
“A female lay person reading the Gospel? Is this not a huge liturgical abuse?”
I would’ve thought so, yes, even though the priest has already declaimed it in English. I remember it chiefly for the sheer physical misery of having to stand for the length of time it took to read it in both languages. Long gospels were a penance!
No-one’s going to propose Christian stewardship any more – I no longer live in the Portsmouth diocese, but instead attend the Birmingham Oratory 🙂
I will no doubt add to your horror when I inform you that the church hall was hired out to the Islamic heathen on Fridays. Yes, the very few Muslims in Jersey used Church property as their mosque.
One despairs.
I do dispair.
I hoped this has stopped.
If you know for certain that it hasn’t, I’ll take care to write a letter in Rome, in nice Italian… 😉
In my eyes, how many times the priest reads the gospel first is not relevant. Did the priest say it was okay? This might go into the letter, too 😉
M
Good night Afcote.
Beautiful, if scary ;), exchange.
I’ll dream of Masses interrupted by the muezzin calling to prayer, for sure.. 😉 , with the priest saying “make an applause for our friend abdullah”…
M
“the Tridentine is in Latin. The English is just a help to the understanding. I wonder whether in the past vernacular versions have been authorised for particular occasions”
But if a vernacular version must be used, surely better that than the NO?
In my eyes, no.
Allow me to make a comparison taken from the macho society I grew up in: if you really want to amuse yourself with a mistress, always take care that she is never confused with your legitimate wife.
I think you get where I’m coming from 😉 The treidentine is sacred and must remain in its purest form, waitign for the moment where it will be the only mass again, as it was, in Latin, and no mistresses around 😉
If you allow a vernacular version of the Tridentine you might never get rid of it, because this is a mistress which has started to look and behave like a legitimate wife.
M
For ecclesiological reasons I have never had truck with the idea that the NO might be invalid – but I have nonetheless had queasy moments when I have heard the words “for all” pronounced at the consecration.
A translation of the Tridentine would not permit this. Liturgical abuses could not happen, as the rubrics would have to be observed, exactly as they are in the Latin. Mistranslations could not happen, as the words to be used would be set out and would have to be followed.
I cannot regard the NO, with its susceptibility to abuse, as preferable.
OK? He stood aside and allowed it.
Indeed, called her up.
I have not lived there since last year – but when I did, yes, laywomen provided the translation of the Gospel (the excuse will be that this is a translation and that the READING was done by the priest) and Muslims prayed in the Church hall (the excuse will be that they hired it on a commercial basis like anyone else).
Don’t expect anything from the bishop. He is the only English bishop to have come into office with a part of his diocese not permitting abortion. It was only legalised in Jersey in 1997. Did the bishop take any interest in the campaign against legalisation? Did he hell. Just as he takes no interest in the continuing campaign to repeal the legalisation. He is as useless as the proverbial chocolate teapot. As for other issues…as yet, civil partnerships are not legal in Jersey.
As yet. But:
In August 2009, it was announced by the Chief Minister of Jersey that a Civil Partnerships Bill 2009 would be drafted and be due for introduction to the Jersey House in October 2009.[1][2]
On October 20, 2009, the States of Jersey voted in favour of moving forward with civil partnerships. The vote was 48 in favour, 1 against and 4 abstaining. Legislation implementing civil partnerships will now be drafted, which must be approved by the Privy Council before going into effect.[3]
And from his Lordship what comment comes there? None.
You are right Agcote, I never expect anything of the bishop.
I was referring to the relevant congregation in Rome (Congregazione per la difesa del culto”). I think they’d be slow to move, but they’d move alright.
The bishop might in case receive a CC to show one doesn’t trust him to do anything….
I thought jersey still had a feudal system? Has it been canned or was I wrong? Civil partnership? What is next: Cameron? 😉
but I have nonetheless had queasy moments when I have heard the words “for all” pronounced at the consecration.
I think “for all” is theologically very fine.
Jesus did die “for all”. Not so that all are saved of course, but that all have the chance to work towards their salvation. The door is kept open for all, but not all will make it past them…
There was a beautiful homily at the Oratory about this, with abundant Calvinist-bashing ;). I found it very reassuring as to the theological correctness of the translation.
Even Romano Amerio, the author of “iota unum” had no theological problem with the translation, merely one with the way the priests have strated to deal with the issue afterwards 😉
Click to access 36006-44801-492009.pdf
“Has it been canned or was I wrong?”
That’s Sark. No longer, I fear – the Barclay brothers, owners of the Daily Telegraph, did for it.
Ah, sark… that’s where they don’t want cars but have a lot of extremely noisy tractors, isn’t it 😉
Looks like your typical “green” paradise: stupid, but very proud to be so…
Am I out of date that in teh Isle of Man homosexuality is still punished with prison? Jeremy Clarkson must have said that I think. No speed limits outside towns, too. Nice people all round 😉
Well if you’re writing to Rome, can you ask them to remind His Lordship of Portsmouth that is is his duty to oppose civil partnerships in Jersey as once they are legalised it is too late.
Frankly, any bishop who allows abortion to be legalised in his diocese without opposition doesn’t deserve his mitre. Any bishop who allows abortion AND gay marriage to be legalised in his diocese on his watch without a squeak…well…
I know the field of competition is stiff indeed, but on the above basis Portsmouth has quite simply got to be the worst of all the English bishops.
Yes I think Portsmouth takes the brownie. One hopes in the demographics. I must say Nichols is a disaster, if you go on splintered sunrise he has apparently said on tv that who knows, the Church may bless homo couple sin the future. Can’t believe he is as stupid as that, but the problem is: I can believe that he is as slimy and opportuistic as that…
M
“What is next: Cameron?”
Worse: Ozouf. Google him, if you dare.
I am no fan of Nichols, Mundabor, not at all, especially if one believes the allegations made over at Catholic and Loving It concerning his role in the Oratorians’ exile – I don’t know what I believe on that score – but to equal Portsmouth he would have to be much much worse. Perhaps speaking out in favour of legalising abortion in Eire, popping along to a Soho Mass and “marrying” a gay couple and renting out the Throne Room in Archbishop’s House to Muslims as a mosque would do it, but unless he does all of that he is still lagging rather badly behind Hollis. If the rumours are correct, Hollis was all packed and ready for translation to Southwark at one point when the then Cardinal Ratzinger vetoed the move…and Ratzinger has never vetoed Nichols.
Nichols is terribly ambitious, though, so yes he may well say anything to promote himself.
As for the Isle of Man, I have never been there, but I cannot imagine that you are correct re homosexuality and prison as they are subject to the European Courts which would never allow it. I remember a case where they were forced to stop caning.
Well yes I’ll agree there are people worse than him. But we have to sink very low indeed to find them. He is the leading man, should be more than a careerist.
I’ll soon stop readig the unbelievable gossip about the Oratorians. It’s the blind gossiping with the blind. But I know the London Oratorians and they are excellent people, I assume the Birmingham ones are not much different. There is an amount of perceived “ownership” from the parishioners that is unbelievable. That’s another efect of the x-factor society, if you ask me: everything is public, everything must be discussed on the public square, the “viewers” have the right to be as nosy as they please.
I thought the Isle of Man was not even EU, so if they are subject to some strange european court is because they have signed some strange treaty to get, perhaps, some strange subsidy. Just pick me as Bailiwick (or however he is called) and see how that changes 😉
(wonder who picks the bailiwick, anyway… ) 😉
M
“I thought the Isle of Man was not even EU”
It’s not, but many countries are subject to the European Courts which are not in the EU as the two are not commensurate. They are separate institutions. In the case I remember reading at law school, as the UK handles the IoM’s foreign affairs the UK was potentially responsible in the eyes of the ECHR for the IoM’s corporal punishment, so it had to stop.
This was in fact the same argument which was used by the Major govt when it bullied Jersey into legalising homosexuality in 1990.
“Just pick me as Bailiwick (or however he is called)”
Bailiff, or in French bailli, but these are only in place in Jersey and Guernsey. They are chosen by the oligarchies which rule those islands and the names are rubber-stamped by the Crown, but they have no power in the political sense, and their main role is as chief justice.
I fully agree,
but if they are EU they will probably not feel so free to invididually decide to go out as Jersey or the Isle of man could do. This is the reason why I said yesterday that I suspect money motives behind such participations.
In case you had not read it, I had written here about the Europe’s Human Rights Court (and that it is not an organ of the EU), but I thik the problem of the peer pressure remains.
M
Interesting about the bailiff, but then once wonders; who picks the oligarchies? Can the bailiff create them like a Pope creates Cardinals or are they hereditary rights given only to certain families? And how is the political power distributed? Democratic election, I suppose?
M
“I’ll soon stop readig the unbelievable gossip about the Oratorians. It’s the blind gossiping with the blind. But I know the London Oratorians and they are excellent people”
It is and they are. Who knows what has happened. I agree that in the main religious congregations should be allowed to sort out their own affairs. However, I would make three points here, which are the reasons why the parishioners are so concerned.
1) it is the perception that it is not an internal matter, but external persecution, which is why the people have risen in the defence of their much-loved pastors
2) it is the damage to the reputations of those sent away, a stain which is not removable without the removers stating that they are not at fault (in a secular criminal sense, anyway)
3) it is the sheer inconvenience of losing half the clergy in one go. the remaining priests can barely cope.
Afcote, my replies to that are as follows:
1) perceptions are highly subjective. As I have written here, if one trusts the oratorians one shouldn;t have such “perceptions”; if he has, he should say clearly that he does not trust them .
2) The removers have expressly stated that no one of the three is at fault in any way. That the protests still continue says a lot about the nosy self-importance of the protesters.
3) I do not think this is the problem. At least, it is not stated that way. But even in this case, I think to judge that the Oratorians can decide for themselves what is best is the very minimum. Besides, Fr Chavasse will soon be back I understand.
I see in this a sense of “ownership”, of “need to know” mentality showing lack of trust in the Oratorians and the usual post-V II “we are Church” frame of mind.
M
The main problem in all of these jurisdictions is the pressure which UK governments place on them to conform to policies which the UK wants to see implemented.
For example, the UK would not sign a taxation agreement with Guernsey until Sark (a dependency of Guernsey) became democratic. But Guernsey had no power to make that happen. As the Chief Minister said in frustration at the time “What do they expect us to do? Send gunboats? This isn’t Antigua”.
The problem, I fear, is Britain. But that does not excuse the failure of the Bishops to defend Church teaching when such legislative changes are proposed.
Very interesting, but I can at this point not avoid wonderign how big would be the damage in the loss of the taxation agreement. Jersey not being UK, it can always decide for itself how much income taxes his citizen pay and if provoked become rather a pain in the neck of the UK government. Besides (but I am being cynical here) I think that every Uk governments wants tax heavens to exist. No one more than the UK government.
“who picks the oligarchies”
They are born. The same families, for centuries. A bit like Venice!
You are going to wish you hadn’t asked me about Jersey’s elections.
Jersey has several types of States member.
1) 12 Senators. These are elected on an islandwide vote and they tend to dominate the government. The elections for them are called “senatorials”. As there are no political parties, and all elections are fought as individuals, only the wealthy and influential have the clout to win election and fight a decent campaign.
2) Deputies. These are elected for constituencies, in different elections to the senators, and sit for a different length of term. The elections for these are called “deputorials”. Usually one must have sat as a Deputy before one can hope to be elected as a senator.
3) Connetables. These are the chief citizens of each “paroisse”, or civil parish, of which there are 12. They are elected, again, in different elections, for a different length of term, and not all at once! 6 at a time. They tend to take less of a role in national government as they run their own administrations in the paroisses.
4) There are also ex-officio members. The Bailiff (who is speaker of the States as well as chief justice in the Royal Court), the Deputy Bailiff (who usually becomes the next Bailiff), the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Anglican Dean (who can speak but not vote).
🙂
Thanks Afcote, Fascinating!!
““we are Church” frame of mind”
Trust me, no-one who goes to the Oratory has the slightest tinge of Wir sind Kirche.
It is concern, and I agree that it has gone too far – but if you had seen, as I have, the remaining few members of the community rushing around, unable to cope with everything they have to do – they have a papal visit to organise whilst at half-strength, for heaven’s sake – looking exhausted, having to rely on visiting priests, making the 88 year old ex provost (who is half deaf and can barely walk) celebrate Mass and even on one occasion having to bin the Sunday Solemn High Mass due to lack of priests and have a missa cantata instead – then you would understand why people are worried and want the missing clergy back.
Afcote,
for what i can read around the people are not worried, but angry. There is a blog called “free the Birmingham three” or the like, implying that they are kept prisoners. Another blogger had appeared on Homo Smoke with the most atrocious half-accusations. Splintered Sunrise also has people making such accusations. All very vague, of course, and unrepeateable. But all very different from a discomfort for the shortage of hands and a desire to see them back. What I criticise is this “ownership” attitude, not legitimate concerns which must, anyway, left to the better judgment of the Oratorians.
I’d also say that the organisation of the papal visit does not rest on them, AFAIK they are only involved in the beatification mass. But in general: one thing is to notice that there’s a problem, a completely different one is to want to impose the solution. And to demand that they tell the parishioners what they do and why. And to make the basest insinuations about the Oratorians who have remained.
M
M
“become rather a pain in the neck of the UK government”
There is one ferociously leftist senator, Syvret, who wants the island to change and went into exile in London after a police raid on his property (he was sacked as Health Minister, or was it Home Affairs, after publicly criticising his own department, and things went downhill from there) who has actually called for the UK to invade Jersey and impose “regime change”!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/08/britain-should-invade-jersey
“AFAIK they are only involved in the beatification mass”
No they aren’t involved in the mass. But the pope is going TO the Oratory. They have a literal papal visit, to their Church and house, to deal with.
Yes you are right, I mean they are not involved with the visit in general, this is Summersgill & Co.
As to the allegations, if they are true (I want to assume here that they might, because this is in my eyes not damaging to the reputation of the Oratory in any way) I wouldn’t say the Oratorians have dealth with the situation in a bad way. They haven’t chosen Nichols, nor can they demand that he be kept out so they could only work on their side of the equation. They wouldn’t want to ask the three to make compromises with their conscience, but wouldn’t want to cause a public controversy either. If this is what has happened, I think it has been a wise decision. Again, I deal with the rumour only because I think it would not be damaging to their reputation at all.
M
Well certainly if the allegations made concerning Nichols having them removed out of chagrin at their opposing him over the CSF bill, and so that they cannot present an orthodox view of Newman at the time of the papal visit are even half true, then I am personally furious. It is this perception of external persecution that has galvanised reaction. But of course one cannot know what is true and what is not.
“And to make the basest insinuations about the Oratorians who have remained. ”
Well that I will not have. They are excellent. If Nichols is involved, they are probably also scared!
This is exactly the problem. If you go around blogs, you’ll read hints of the most depraved sort. I wonder why they don’t go to the police and say so. This is also the reason why I think the Oratorians should say nothign at all. People prone to gossip would never stop gossiping anyway.
M
“not legitimate concerns which must, anyway, left to the better judgment of the Oratorians.”
I know this is being presented as a visitation by an Oratorian provost from another house, and therefore an internal matter, but it is precisely the point that the rumour is that it is NOT the Oratorians who have done this, but the archbishop of Westminster, who is pulling the Viennese provost’s strings, as it were.
Might be, but frankly I think the Oratorians should carry the responsibility of whatever decision they approve, whatever pressure there might have been behind the scenes. They have what is called (I Think), “papal privilege” and therefore do not depend from the bishops. If they have been gracious by consenting to move the three for the time being, I think they have earned a lot of kudos in Rome and ++ Quisling Nichols has lost his face once again. To be seen as such an embarrassment as to cause a major disruption through people universally seen as above suspicion is not what he wants to be remembered for….
M
There is one report written by a respected Irish journalist who is a personal friend of one of the exiled men. It contains no wild slurs, but reasoned argument. It may or may not be along the right lines, but I think it is likely to be the closest to the truth of any report I have seen.
http://www.ruthdudleyedwards.co.uk/journalism10/Standpoint_0910.html
Afcote, I read the article and I found it truly horrible.
No time for detailed comments now but I have made other comments on “splitered sunrise”, 15 august entry.
The lady doesn’t give a single argument why the Oratorians should speak. The only relevant point of the article (but she’s a jopurnalist, so who knows whether it is true) is that about Nichols. That the wildest allegations exploded (as said by me yesterday) proves once more that such idiots must not be fed with information. Silence is the best answer.
And I found particularly despicable that the woman would dare to say that the reputation of the Oratory (and that of fenlon) are “now in tatters”, which no sensible person not interested in gossiping would dream of saying.
The woman KNOWS NOTHING (as everyone else), but hey, she writes an entire article about the nothing she knows deciding about reputations.
Journalists truly think reality is what they make of it.
M
Mundabor, you’re quite correct about RDE’s fatuous article. She just repeats gossip from the blogosphere with little new information of her own. I know of someone who debated her at my uni (on something completely different); even my friend who sympathized with her POV found her incredibly arrogant and stuck-up.
Shane,
Her internet page has been suspended so I couldn’t check the text again, but I think she did even worse than repeat gossip.
As the let the casual remark drop that she has been a good friend of one of the internet three for many decades (two divorces, mind: she must not hear too much what he says) I read in her remark the hint that she might, just might, have been “fed” by him.
Now, Catholics who know the Oratory know that once an Oratorians has been ordered to shut up, he shuts up.
But no doubt many readers will have taken her remark in the sense that she is in the know from the very source but can’t say anything, also because the loyalty of loyal Churchmen is not found very often outside of the Church anymore.
M
I’ve enjoyed reading all these responses, even though some have strayed a bit (but not without interest) from the main subject. But nothing yet has, alas, changed my view that whatever comes out of Rome needs to be carefully scrutinized, and that we should refrain from jumping for joy with this new new Mass – or anything else for that matter.
When I read articles like the following, which I will link, I fall into despair. Of all the horrors that afflict the Church just now, THIS is what Benedict thinks is a crucial issue:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-and-ecumenical-patriarch-promote-protecting-environment/
God help us.
Thanks Schmenz,
extremely disquieting link which clearly illustrates one of the rare “JP II-moments” of the present Pontiff. Frankly I found the blabbering about the environment one of the weak points of “Caritas in Veritate”; as I have stated often, by all his merits the Pontiff is no Pius XII.
The environmental fashion will pass and with it, most surely, this utterly secular focus on “the environment”, which is the green version of the utterly secular focus on “social justice” of the so-called liberation theology.
On the other hand, Pope Benedict himself made an important intervention on another occasion criticising the deification of the environment typical of the modern times, which was very good.
If he wouldn’t make his part to encourage the process it would be, methinks, better still.
M
M