I do not allow comments which even the most sensitive members of an episcopate might categorise as an attack. Sometimes very worthy contributions fall victim to this principle; for example, one recent piece used the phrase 'a certain, ahem, episcopal Conference'.
Nor do I allow pieces which might be hurtful to Ecumenical Partners with whom we are in dialogue; for example, comments which imply that Anglican Orders are invalid.
Yes, I know this is censorship; but it is my blog.
To be sure it is your blog. You can censor anything you like. But please don't pretend it is a matter of avoiding causing pain to "to Ecumenical Partners with whom we are in dialogue".
ReplyDeletePull the other one.
What about not causing pain to those members of the Anglican communion who do vigorously deny that their clergy share in the errors (as they see it) of the Council of Trent and the Pope, who regard transubstantiation as overthrowing the nature of a sacrament and the sacrifice of the Mass as a blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit (you do know that figmenta only acquired its blasphema AFTER Trent anathematised anyone who called the Mass a blasphemy?)
And what about your sneers against "Proddy morality" here?
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/ill-let-you-into-secret.html
Fair enough. My reason for my practical illogicality is that I have in mind those who do read the blog, not those who would be very unlikely to do so because they would so terribly hate every word and every presupposition.
ReplyDeleteThank you for publishing my comment, Father.
ReplyDeleteAs I say, it is your blog, but even those Anglicans who are your more likely readers are going to realise, sooner or later, that Summorum Pontificum and Anglicanorum coetibus on the one hand, and the SCDF's Observations on the Final Report of ARCIC (quashed notions of a "new context" for recognising Anglican orders) and the CDF's commentary on the Profession of Faith (Apostolicae Curae is a dogmatic fact) were all signed by the same man.
Nice bit of rhetoric but with one or two dodgy bits. E.g. You ignore the 1994 document Clarifications, and the accompanying letter from Rome, agreed to by all the relevant dicasteries, concluding that 'no further study would seem to be required at this stage'. And as for what has been 'signed by the same man', you seem to forget that after Bishop Leonard sent to Rome all the documentation about the Dutch Tutch, S JP2, on the advice of a Cardinal Ratzinger, deleted the requirement for him to be ordained to the diaconate and ordered that his ordination to the presbyterate should be private and conditional.
ReplyDeleteI'm having the last word on this! God bless.
What a major slip-up in my previous comment! of course Anglican orders are invalid, it's infallible, and it shouldn't matter to you, Reverend Father, if somebody doesn't like that...your office is to proclaim the Truth of the Catholic Faith...
ReplyDelete