tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post6329909941047143460..comments2009-10-08T23:10:25.043-04:00Comments on Summorum Pontificum: Another SSPX bishop undermines efforts at rapproac...Patrick Archboldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13230114519933936165noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post-25357122218710901922008-06-27T17:33:00.000-04:002008-06-27T17:33:00.000-04:00Bishop Corti, in Novara-Italy, has not defied the ...Bishop Corti, in Novara-Italy, has not defied the Pope at all. He has simply set a limit to a misinterpretation and an illicit implementation of the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum" made by three priests. Moreover, he has done this after consulting Rome.<BR/>The truth is: a) there are some resistences against the Motu Proprio in the Mons. Corti's environment, but not by the Bishop himself; b) the three priests have openly defied the Pope, deliberately ignoring the accurate instructions of Motu Proprio and as a matter of fact acting like members of the SSPX inside the parishes they were entrusted with: they actually have damaged the cause of the Tradition.<BR/><BR/>F.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post-75707086686274189932008-06-27T14:26:00.000-04:002008-06-27T14:26:00.000-04:00Bishop de Galarreta has always been the least-outs...Bishop de Galarreta has always been the least-outspoken of the four Society bishops. His negative response is a clear signal that Bishop Fellay will not sign. De Galarreta apparently believes that the five point statement is only a prelude to regularisation prior to doctrinal discussions, which the Society has doggedly opposed. Presumably, the bit about a proportional response to the Holy Father's generosity refers to the Holy See's plan to offer a juridical structure. They won't take it until doctrinal problems have been resolved, which means never, because you can discuss those until the cows come home.<BR/><BR/>I don't care to speculate whether or not the Pope will now excommunicate the whole lot of them for formal schism. Williamson has told us that that is the Cardinal's threat, although we don't know if he framed it as a promise or only as a possibility.<BR/><BR/>But whether the Pope does this or not, now would be the ideal time to erect the international diocese so that Society priests who want to co-operate with Christ's Vicar may do so without the interference of the local Mahonys. <BR/><BR/>What happened in 1988? By "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta", the Pope declared the excommunications but then, in order to show pastoral solicitude to obedient traditionalists, he widened the Indult of 1984. The result was a growth explosion of new Traditional Latin Masses from about 1988 to 1993 (the rate of increase levelled off after that).<BR/><BR/>We have recently seen how some local bishops have defied the Holy Father over "Summorum Pontificum". I mention Archbishop Rivest of Chicoutimi, in Canada; Bishop Rodi of Biloxi (now promoted to the Archdiocese of Mobile, where he might do even more damage), U.S.A.; Bishop Conry of Arundel and Brigton, in England; Bishop Corti of Novara, in Italy. There are many others, especially in Italy and in north-east France. Now is the time to reinforce S.P. with a juridical structure. If the S.S.P.X won't take it, the rest of us will.<BR/><BR/>The Pope has another reason to do this. According to Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, a non-Catholic bishop, writing on behalf not only of many priests but even of other bishops, has asked to be reconciled so as to use only the 1962 Latin Mass. Obviously, this bishop does not want to become subjected to miscreants such as Cardinal Baloney of Los Angeles. The new mystery group, along with the Institutum Boni Pastoralis, the Transalpine Redemptorists, the Oasis of Jesus the Priest, and others, could be incorporated into an international diocese for particular persons attached to the old Mass (cf. Canon 372.2). It could be a diocese, an archdiocese or an apostolic administration. It would be directly subject to the Holy See. The Campos structure is the precedent; it need only be a Campos writ large so as to cover much of the earth. The F.S.S.P. and I.C.R. might also choose incorporation in it, although it might be more practical for them to be able to work under its auspices in some places and those of the local bishops in other cases.<BR/><BR/>P.K.T.P.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post-74863851330913613262008-06-27T12:20:00.000-04:002008-06-27T12:20:00.000-04:00I stole the following from a poster, Lorenz, at WD...I stole the following from a poster, Lorenz, at WDTPRS. I thought it was an interesting commentary about Bishop Williamson:<BR/><BR/>Bishop Williamson was born and raised Anglican, converted to Catholicism in the early 70s, studied for the priesthood and was ordained shortly after, and then was consecrated a Bishop in 1988. In his case, the boy was taken from protestentism but protestentism could not be taken out of the boy. It is doubtful he will let go of his anti-Roman attitude. Of the 1988 bishops consecrations, Williamson was the worst mistake and now the SSPX has grown into quite a different animal then Archbishop Lefebvre intended.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com