Rome has so thoroughly debunked the “Emergency measure” that it is really beyond discussion. Again, one has only to look at where the discussion has been moved to to ascertain that this is not going to be a “Rome repentance”.
I agree with you. When this thing is handed over the the Congregation for the Faith aka the Inquisition, you know that you’re in for a fight. The folks at the Congregation are there to defend the faith, not apologize for the Church. These are tough guys who play rough and they have the full confidence of Benedict XVI and the authority to speak in his name.
I don’t think so Maurin. But what I’m hoping for is that Bishop Fellay (I think I always mispell this poor man’s last name), anyway, I hope that he tones down his rhetoric. He asks some very good questions. But when I read his interviews I often come away with a feeling that he is very arrogant in his presentation or tone.
that’s only because you’ve bought into, I suspect, some of the modernist interpretations of the Council, JR.
this doesn’t make sense to me. especially in light of what you say not in the next, but the paragraph after the next one.
he’s not. he’s a Catholic.
so basically what you are saying is that your perception can quite possibly–and frankly–be wrong.
tough? ask Herr Kung how tough they are. Or Bishop Weakland. Or Sister Joan Chitterston.
quite right. the Council lasted 3 years, I believe? and it took until, what? 1970 for Paul VI to save the Roman Canon from Bugnini?
Br. JR, OSF
In a nutshell, of course my perception can be wrong. I’m just sharing my perception. I don’t know this man. It is not fair to judge someone I don’t know. I can only describe how I walk away after reading his interviews and his writings. As I said, he asks good questions. At least, I think they’re good.
You know, Br. JR, I have read a lot of his interviews and writings too. I don’t get the same “feeling” you do. I get the feeling that he is crusading for God…that he has a “fever” of sorts, to proclaim God’s truth and to honor God. I find him and his group to be very interesting, very educated and pious. (There may be a few who are arrogant…I dunno) Perhaps they are a little too stuck in some traditions without flexibility to see other paths…other liturgical methods…but he seems to be a real warrior for what he sees as justice in regards to the tradition of our holy church and in adoration of Our Lord. After all, tradition is what has kept our church alive all this time…in a time when people were illiterate…it was traditions that helped people to keep the faith and know the path to God. It was traditions that helped them pass on the faith from generation to generation. It is traditions…our sacramentals, art, etc., that help keep some us centered on the Lord. (We can drift easy…we humans.) Fellay can also quote Encyclicals of past popes, etc. to explain why they feel they are defending what they are defending. Its not arrogance…to him (them) they feel that they speak truth…so they hold their head high in God’s defense.I don’t think so Maurin. But what I’m hoping for is that Bishop Fellay (I think I always mispell this poor man’s last name), anyway, I hope that he tones down his rhetoric. He asks some very good questions. But when I read his interviews I often come away with a feeling that he is very arrogant in his presentation or tone.
This may be just a cultural thing. I hope it is. You know what I mean by a cultural thing? How we always say that the French are arrogant and Europeans always say that Americans are aggressive. Neither is really true. It’s the way that we present ourselves that creates those impressions.
I’m hoping that the bishop is not really arrogant or defiant, but that it’s just his manner of speaking. The truth is that I have never met the man nor have I heard him speak. I have only read his speeches and interviews.
On the other hand, if he is arrogant and defiant, the Congregation for the Faith is a tough group of men and women. They have a history for not taking prisoners and never offering an apology. I understand why they have to be tough too. They have the most delicate job in the Church, the propagation and protection of the faith.
This is all a matter of wait and see. Nothing is going to happen over night. The problem was not born over night and it’s not going to go away over night either. Both sides have to be very sensitive to this. These issues not only involve Church teaching and authority. They also involve personal feelings. There are many innocent people in the middle. I don’t envy either Fellay or Levada and I pray for both of them.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
You may feel that. But let me put it another way, since I appear not to have made myself clear.
Wouldn’t it be more more fair to say you are uncomfortable with his tone, rather than saying he is arrogant and defiant? Poor choice of words I’d expect from me, JR, not from you.In a nutshell, of course my perception can be wrong. I’m just sharing my perception. I don’t know this man. It is not fair to judge someone I don’t know. I can only describe how I walk away after reading his interviews and his writings. As I said, he asks good questions. At least, I think they’re good.
I’m only trying to be honest and fair here.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Yes. Dixie. We realize you have your critically analytically trained mind made up, and don’t wish to confuse you with any facts.
Beyond discussion, you wish. Why is it still in Canon Law? You might have a case if it were an afterthought but I believe the Archbishop used it BEFORE the consecrations. And please no more about who the Decider is. He writes the laws, he should carry them out, not act like he really didn’t mean it that way. He’s not that infallible that he can’t contradict himself. Without this canon law maybe no consecrations. If there is any problem, it’s the wording. And the Archbishop used it to his advantage but the Pope didn’t like it. Whose fault is that?
Considering that I am not impacted one way of the other, It is not so much a matter of having my mind made up as it is having watched the history of this from the sidelines instead of the trenches. When one is in the trenches, one’s perception of the ongoing battle is quite different from the independent observer. Instead of being in the heat of a battle, one has the ability to look at the whole war.
Not really, arrogant and defiant are the words that I would use to describe how I perceive his answers in his interviews. He does not make me uncomfortable at all. As I have said, some of his questions are well thought out and I would love to hear the answers to them as well. It’s the way that he puts forth the question that I find arrogant and defiant.
Me, wish? No, I am neither a Canon lawyer nor a member of any of the dicasteries. It is not me wishing; the answer was given by JP 2 and reinforced by then Cardinal Ratzinger, who just happens to be the Pope, and who has made it crystal clear by his specific choice of action that there was no emergency.
In defense of many priests who went out to do their jobs after Vatican II…it was their job to begin to mend the rift between Catholics and Protestants. Where do we start? We start by asking what is it that they protested? The first person to examine would be Martin Luther. He vehemently opposed many of our Catholic traditions. He felt that our sacramentals, statues, art, and indulgences were not of God. So, of course, this is why many priests, attempting to bridge the gap between our religious cultures…did what they did…remove them from our churches, or make them less obvious. Some just went too far and forgot that the faithful need these things…so they lost many of the faithful in the process.
I’m glad you’re finally beginning to figure it out–it’s what we’ve been trying to tell you for 40 years!
If you want to discuss, fine, if you want to joust, not so fine.I’m glad you’re finally beginning to figure it out–it’s what we’ve been trying to tell you for 40 years!
oy, you’re really caught up with your own perceptions, JR. I didn’t suggest that the Bishop made you uncomfortable. I said saying his tone made you uncomfortable is preferable to you saying he is arrogant–which he is not, and I HAVE heard him speak (on interviews)-- and defiant, but only of the modernist errors.
If you want to speak condescendingly, fine. But if you want to “set yourself up” as some kind of expert because “you have been trained in…” without providing ANY credentials: not so fine.
