Daily Archives: May 5, 2012
Important and reassuring message from Father Pflueger, Bishop Fellay’s First Assistant.
Speaking in Germany (as always, Rorate Caeli has the story), Father Pfluger made clear as follows:
1) Initially, the position of the SSPX was that there would be no agreement without a full theological reconciliation. Whilst this position may appear a bit too much Williamson-style, one must understand the possibility of a reconciliation without settling the doctrinal disagreements did not really seem in the card.
2) When it was clear – as it had to be clear from the start – such an agreement would not be reached, the possibility was sounded for the SSPX to be reconciled without the differences being settled. This is, I think, the general element emerged from the now famous joint press release in September. What other price was to be paid, we do not know.
3) The SSPX has complained on several occasions – and I have written about it – that there was the fear of being silenced, or being more or less tacitly expected to stick to the Vatican line after the reconciliation. This has, says Fr Pfluger, also gone away from the table. Personally, I think we are here rather in February/March, when it was clear Benedict was facing the very real prospect of going to meet His maker without any reconciliation with the SSPX, and wisely decided to yield.
4) At this point a rather strange situation was created: the Vatican offers the SSPX full reconciliation without the latter having to change a iota of what they believe, or having to be afraid for their autonomy of action: why should they refuse such a concession? Why would Archbishop Lefebvre have ever refused such an offer, had it been made in his own time? It is perfectly logical to say that to refuse reconciliation at these conditions would be tantamount as to consider the entire Church edifice as evil. This is, as Fr Pfluger very rightly points out, not traditionalism anymore, but outright sedevacantism, and seen in this perspective it does make sense the Pope should prospect a new excommunication if no agreement is reached. Not, mind, because there would be no agreement, but because there would be the refusal to have anything to do with Rome in the first place.
This, if I understand correctly, is the situation the SSPX found itself in when Mid-March came, with the reconciliation a fruit the SSPX only has to stretch its hand to pluck; unless, of course, it thinks the tree itself is poisoned.
This makes sense of a couple of things: the vague rumours of “excommunication if you do not agree”, which put in that way seemed the most childish threat ever made; the back-and-forth of an agreement discussed, then prospected, then refused when offered at the price of factual acquiescence, then offered again without strings attached; and lastly, the fact to this day Bishop Williamson has been to my knowledge admirably silent on the matter, hopefully recognising at this point resistance to the reconciliation would be tantamount to sedevacantism.
The last background on the talks comes from a person who was active part of the negotiations and is therefore highly credible. It is also, I believe, part of that concerted effort to prepare the SSPX troops to the reconciliation, reconciliation which to some of them must appear a bit like Italy’s 8 September 1943.
I can’t say Fr Pfluger words make for a bad reading. Actually, I found his arguments highly enjoyable, and the reasoning highly practical. More surprisingly, I found the other side highly practical and very wise too, though I would personally attribute this more to a personal decision of a Pontiff knowing his time might be rather limited, than to a substantial and determined pro-SSPX fraction in the corridors of the Vatican.
We shall see; but I think we’ll very much like what we see.
In a moment of desperation, you may think only Catholic bishops may be so ill with political correctness as to suspend one of their own because he had the temerity of defending Christian values, as Cardinal Wuerl did with poor Father Guarnizo. Still, a moment of quiet reflection would then rapidly persuade you if the Only Church has such people, the church imitations scattered around will probably not be immune from them.
This is what has now happened with the organisation calling herself “Church of England”. The churchofenglanders apparently have “lay preachers”, and I assume these are people who talk at length to their faithful about Christianity, probably outside of a liturgical setting.
From what I understand, the status of lay preachers must be reviewed and confirmed every year; which makes sense, because if the lay preacher has left his wife to live more uxorio with the fruity coworker, or suddenly start to talk about the holiness of so-called civil partnerships, even the CoErs will probably decide to put an end to his preaching. Up to here, all should be rather logical.
Where things become somewhat surprising is where a chap who has been a lay-preacher for 50 years is suddenly suspended because he dared to defend marriage. The heretical, but rather well-written blog Cranmer informs us a lay preacher for 50 years was suspended just for that. This being the so-called church of England things were, of course, rather slimy, and more than a bit oily.
Let us see the concatenation of events: lay preacher suggests the faithful support the coalition for marriage; some other lay preachers disagree with him (Yes! Yes!! They disagree with him!.. I know!!) and then run to the prof to say how wicked he was. The prof (in this case calling himself archdeacon; but this is irrelevant, as they all have no valid orders anyway) then informs the poor chap he is suspended for two months; no wait, this is the so-called coE, and nothing is made openly and with clear words. The poor preacher is, then, told he is not to preach for two months, but he is not suspended; erm, well, not really, is he now? He just can’t preach, which is different… of course…. I mean…. right?
This “suspension that is a suspension” is ordered so that the controversy may abate, but the unChristian lay preachers are not suspended.
When above mentioned Cranmer (the blogger) points out to the fact, the matter enlarges itself. In the meantime, the poor lay preacher silenced for being Christian and defending marriage (which is the official position of the so-called c of E, so far as they can ever have a position) has recurred to the head master (in the c of E, they call themselves “bishops”; see above) and the headmaster has said the prof hasn’t really suspended the pupil, has he now…. and we only want to give everyone time to reflect… and we shouldn’t quarrel about such secondary things as Christian values… so divisive, you see…. and yes, he can’t speak, but really this is not due to him being a Christian, but is rather to do with…erm…aahh.. other issues….
Really, who does this head master think he is: Cardinal Wuerl?
So, Boris made it.
As largely expected and notwithstanding a desperate attempt of the communist drunkard to exploit and foment social divisions as he did his entire life, Boris managed to sign another four-year tenancy agreement in City Hall; which, by the by, puts him in a very good position to sign another agreement for an even more prestigious building the other side of the river at some point in future.
But now that Boris did it, and the danger of the red madman has been averted, it is fitting to point out to the shortcomings of the man, and to the danger this means for true Conservatives.
Firstly, Mr Johnson has in the last four years developed an unpleasant tendency to try to compensate his public blunders with a show of political correctness and “sensitivity” simply unknown to him before he was elected mayor.
Boris the Mayor participates to so-called “gay pride” parades and says he is now the Mayor of all Londoners so it’s par for the course. Interesting. So, the day we get “incest pride parade” will he be there, too?
Then there is the recent episode with the Christian adv he has banned, showing an understanding of democracy and freedom of expression not far from Pol Pot’s, and sailing perilously close to the wind in times his boss the other side of the river is increasingly in trouble – among many other things – because of his anti-Christian “sensitivity” crap.
My impression is that whilst the man remains a talent, generally speaking a sound Conservative, and one of the best politicians around, we risk to lose him if he stops being the good old Boris we all knew and loved and tries to transform himself in another sanitised, harmless nincompoop spitting politically correct slogans because his adviser told him so.
Today, Boris is the one the entire nation looks at. It is clear that he is the designated alternative to the Chameleon, and that his content in Conservatism is vastly bigger. Yesterday shortly before midnight, Boris made his official entrance in Number Ten’s waiting room, and he seems destined to stay there until the current tenant is evicted.
But please, please Boris, be true to your real character and do not become just another chameleon desperately in search of votes.
Reblog of the day
We all knew Boris Johnson was prone to say controversial things, but generally they were controversial for the right reasons.
To refresh your memory, the man is on record with the following pearls:
“we don’t want our children being taught some rubbish about homosexual marriage being the same as normal marriage”
The expression “pulpit poofs” for homosexual clergy is also his. The most famous is probably the one that if we allow marriages between a man and a man, then why not between three men, or indeed three men and a dog.
This was, of course, before the man was brainwashed by supposed “experts” and transformed in another little slut of politics, like Cameron. With the result that from un-PC and popular he is rapidly becoming sanitised, politically correct and increasingly criticised from those he needs more: the Conservatives.
Yesterday, Boris made a big mistake: he decided to try an…
View original post 416 more words
If you have any doubt concerning the mentality of the modern witches of the LCWR, you only need to read here.
This is an almost octogenarian woman who appears to have thrown away her life in total opposition to basic Christianity and elementary decency. I would expect a lady of that age to see things with a least a trace of that gentleness which should be one of the advantages of old age.
Not the case here: the woman is seriously bitter, and she gives you a clear insight into what her entire life must have been, and what her eternal life will probably be.
The rudeness of saying “I still call him Ratzinger, that fits him better” is not only what she calls “bias”, but indicates a clear refusal to accept the Holy Father as Pope.
The lady is – not, I think, because of her age – also confused about the basics of Vatican authority:
I think they are overstepping their jurisdiction to expect that nuns are going to think as they tell us to think.
Well no, sister; they cannot tell you what you have to think, can they now? But they can at least tell you to shut up, and to behave in a halfway acceptable way. This they can, because you owe obedience to them. It’s as simple as that.
Then there is the passive-aggressive part: bad, bad macho man is threatening defenceless old woman:
I can’t even begin to imagine what he could say or do that would change religious women’s beliefs. I don’t know how he plans to change that. That is of concern. That could be scary — what will he do to change our beliefs. You know, that scares me.
The “scary” part is clear. “You are the aggressor. I am the Panda. The world should protect me from you”.
The “belief” part is rather funny and the woman basically says “we are heretics , we are going to continue to be it, and there’s no way you can change that”. I rather agree with this, and think the thing to do – and the best way to try to save these witches from a very probable damnation – is to kick them out of their order and put them on the street, so that they can stop scrounging on the generosity of real Christians of the past and may start to experience a bit of the welfare state they seem to like so much.
Again on the “I am so defenceless” part:
More than half of us are over 75. We are almost an endangered species now. If he is trying to really change the church, he should start at the level with youth and talk to youth groups or something like that.
The Panda theme pops in again. That her soul be at stake, and be of concern for the Vatican, does not enter her mind. Why is it that only old witches have remained is also not asked by the intrepid ultra-feminist interviewer. The entire tone of the iterview is so stupid it’s embarrassing.
It gets even worse. There is an enlightening Q&A exchange:
Q: Can you speak a little bit more about that, the difference between changing your belief and silencing you, and where that line gets murky?
A: You are right, those are two different issues. If he wants us just to shut up about how we believe and don’t put it out in public, that is one issue. Or if he is really trying to get us to make statements that are opposite of our beliefs, I don’t know what his motivation is for this. Other than control, I don’t know what his motivation is.
The reasoning goes this way: even admitting that you may want to force me to shut up, what is worrying is that you want me to reform. This cannot, of course, be due to Christian charity and desire to save the woman’s soul, for which it seems not much time is left, and a lot is to do within this time. No, this must be an issue of control.
Almost eighty years old. Would you believe it?
Truly scary, though, this thing of wanting to reform people. Who does the man think he is, the Pope?
Then there’s the “you can’t touch me, you brute” part:
The nuns that I talk to aren’t really afraid, because they can’t see or they can’t imagine what he would do to change us. I mean, like, excommunication? That is a thing of the past. You can’t excommunicate hundreds of nuns.
Wouldn’t that be kind of funny? Excommunicate the whole order! It is irrational. I don’t know what other consequences there would be.
Here, the lady is factually wrong, and I mean seriously wrong. An order can be closed down, and the Vatican can seize all the assets.
Yes, they can. No, sister, they really do.
As to the excommunication, an order cannot be excommunicated, but certain individuals can. She herself would be a prime candidate, methinks.
But as to what can be done, most concretely what can – and should – be done is to kick her out, or shut down the shop altogether. The female in question seems not to notice it. She has been so spoiled by decades of Vatican inaction, that the idea of perfectly possible, legitimate sanctions does not even present itself to her angry imagination.
It is truly sad that assets bought with the sacrifices and generosity of past generations of faithful should be used to allow these heathenish, ungrateful witches to bitch around until their very last breath; I also cannot see how the gentle rebukes coming from the Vatican can truly do anything for their clearly gravely endangered souls: if the Vatican allows them to keep title, good standing and material comforts, where is a witch like this going to find the motivation to reform?
The only way to try to change these depraved souls is, if you ask me, to pose them in front of the alternative: public abiura and strictest traditional discipline, or out on the street.
The church of the past knew this very well and realised in case of hardened heresy only a shock therapy can help.
The church of today helps heretics to go to hell, in order for her not to be perceived as too harsh.