Daily Archives: April 12, 2012
You would expect the tambourine-plagued sectors of the Church would not be pleased at the prospect – in which I still do not believe, and let us hope I will be proved wrong – of a full reconciliation between the SSPX and the Vatican.
Punctually, a French daily near to the French bishops, La Croix, examines the situation as follows:
Among the possible scenarios, one or several Lefebvrist bishops could refuse to join, in which case they would be excommunicated once again.
The absurdity of the assertion is breathtaking: it is as if a bunch of three-and-a-half year old would decide that either you play with me, or I do not talk with you anymore. Really? Seriously? Of course, this is portrayed as one among “possible scenario”, basically an excuse to spread around some legends. Congratulations.
Not more intelligent are the reported assertions from the French vice-Dean of the University of the Holy Cross in Rome:
“If they say no, it will be necessary that they explain why not and, in such case, their refusal will involve doctrinal questions. They thus risk not schism anymore, but heresy,”
One is tempted to despair at such superficiality, unless of course the words of the vice-dean have been willfully misrepresented by the usual suspects. In this scenario the SSPX “would have to explain” why they oppose a reconciliation, as if they had not been screaming this (in charity, of course) in the deaf ears of the Vatican for many decades. The one with the doctrinal questions is also very funny: yes, of course there are doctrinal questions, it’s not that the SSPX doesn’t like the colour of the Pope’s shoes. And yes, of course the differences in the interpretation of Catholic doctrine are rather well-known to everyone who took the time to examine them, and it is not known to me the SSPX was ever shy in explaining them or refused any possibility of doing so. What is still not clear is how an organisation so orthodox that it is not possible to even declare it schismatic without, in fact,declaring two thousand years of Church “schismatic” should now, for reasons not explained, be declared “heretic”. Throwing around adjectives will certainly not help anyone to be taken seriously.
Be it as it may, it appears clear to me the mainstream French episcopacy is rather nervous at the prospect of what might happen on Sunday, particularly if the SSPX will be offered reconciliation without any substantial concession on their part. The blow for the tambourine men – who have, no doubt, slandered the SSPX in every possible and impossible way, as is the usual way of the tolerant V II crowd – would be a rather painful one. I can imagine Bishop Nourrichard in great distress, asking his favourite Buddha statue what to do (see above).
I say it once again: if years of doctrinal discussion have not brought to an agreement, I cannot see why three weeks should now solve every problem. On the other hand, it is barely thinkable – as the protocols have not been made public – the differences were not so relevant as hinted by both sides, so that a positive conclusion might now be near. Don’t hold your breath, of course, but please do not fall into a girlish fear the Vatican could now become seriously nasty to the SSPX (which, cela va sans dire, would not have any consequence on them, and would probably cause their ranks to increase).
Very simply, the SSPX is nothing else than the Church before V II, looking critically – in obedience to the Pope, as long as practicable; and to the Church, when the first is no longer practicable – at the antics of the Church post V II. I can’t see how the SSPX could be declared schismatic, or heretic, more than S. Pius X could be declared schismatic or heretic himself.
“What Catholics once were, we are. If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong.
We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then. If you were right then, we are right now”.
“Yes, I have received emails and other communications from lay faithful who say that they are supporting their bishops 100% and they have communicated to their bishops their gratitude and assured them that they want them to continue to be courageous and not to be deceived by any kind of false accommodations which in fact continue this same kind of agenda which sadly we have witnessed for too long in our country which is totally secular and therefore is anti-life and anti-family.
These are the very words of Cardinal Burke, on EWTN o Wednesday.
The Cardinal’s cannons shoot here in several directions:
a) By fully supporting Cardinal Dolan’s stance, he sends a clear message there will be no cave-in on the HHS matter.
b) By making clear there will be no consent to “accommodations”, he promises Obama & Co. will be given no easy escape and face-saving pretend solutions.
c) By explicitly mentioning a less-than-glorious past, he makes it clear the Church hierarchy has (finally) understood silence in front of a secular agenda is going to end up in a disaster, and reacts accordingly.
There are other elements of this always so pleasantly outspoken prelate I would like to point out to:
I admire very much the courage of the bishops. At the same time I believe they would say it along with me that they are doing no more than their duty.
Wow, this is setting a standard much different from what has been witnessed in the past all over the West. Possibly the fiercest confrontation between Catholicism and secular power since Vatican II is “no more than their duty”. Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols should be crying out of sheer shame, but someway I doubt he will.
Or look at this Q&A (emphases mine):
Thomas McKenna: “So a Catholic employer, really getting down to it, he does not, or she does not provide this because that way they would be, in a sense, cooperating with the sin…the sin of contraception or the sin of providing a contraceptive that would abort a child, is this correct?”
Cardinal Burke: “This is correct. It is not only a matter of what we call “material cooperation” in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also “formal cooperation” because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people. There is no way to justify it. It is simply wrong.”
This is what is called burning bridges. There is no way the Church will agree to a lazy compromise. It’s just not going to happen. By putting his weight behind the controversy, the most prestigious (I dare say) American prelate also clearly indicates the line Dolan & Co. are going to follow. If I were cynical, I’d say this is meant to burn the bridges behind Dolan and make clear to me he is expected to fight to the end; but I ain’t, so I don’t… 😉
Many thanks to Cardinal Burke.
What a great pope he would make.
Reblog of the day
This man is truly a plague. An unspeakable disgrace. A heathen. An enemy of the Church.
Read from the “Telegraph” what he has now the gut to say, utterly unafraid of sanction from incompetent people in Rome.
The Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, said he appreciates some same-sex couples want to be joined in wedlock
When ever have you heard, in the entire history of Catholicism, an Archbishop saying such things?
Asked what he would say to a gay Catholic couple who approached him for marriage within the Church, the Archbishop said: “I would want to say to them that I understand their desires, that I understand their experience of love is vitally important in their lives…”
experience of… WHAT??
Has the Archbishop ever heard of sodomy? Or does he pretend not to know what happens during the “experience of love”?
View original post 402 more words