I was very glad to read the recent text delivered by PF in which he encouraged the disregarding of ancient traditions, as the Holy Spirit leads us on. I will not criticise his words, because, as you would expect, Father Zed has already done one of his own very thorough demolition jobs.
I welcomed PF's words because they provided yet more material for my thesis that this sort of talk, and these sorts of claims, are at the very heart of the Error of Begoglianism; already condemned as it is in the decrees about the Roman Pontificate in the documents of the First Vatican Council. And I am afraid that I might be betrayed into letting my weakness for satirical rhetoric so run away with me that I might make a joke which counted as Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit. Absit.
But I would like to remind readers of one little matter, in which I am at one with the expressed views of Cardinal Kasper.
It is customary for curial officials, including Nuncios, to be made Archbishops ... archbishops of non-existent churches. For them to be made bishops would be bad enough.
In Anglicanism, Archbishops are rather rare and very elevated phenomena. I know that in the Catholic Church, Archbishops are two-a-penny; but this is still an ecclesiological corruption.
A Bishop is the nodal centre of a particular Church, made up of his presbyterium, his diaconia, and his laos.
To use sacramental consecration as a means of giving status to pen-pushers is ... I would go so far as to characterise it as a corruption. It is certainly a very extreme sort of clericalism.
I wonder why PF doesn't pay any attention to Kasper's views on this.
Father,
ReplyDeleteAs you know, the Holy Spirt doesn't lead us away from the Truth and Tradition, another sort of spirit, not holy, does.
Dear Father,
ReplyDeleteBravo for this, and your admirable restraint. Pluribus Annis!
I am too slow (lazy?) to look for Xavier Rynne's report on the 20th century Vatican Council.
Yet my memory recalls his recording that contemporary bishops present in Rome for VatII, expressed their discomfort at having to present reports and receive instructions from inferior orders of prelates in the Curia who were acting for the Holy See with the authority of its Bishop.
This was used to justify the new rule that Cardinals had to receive episcopal consecration. In a gentler age, Blessed John Henry Newman was spared the dilemma you describe.
But the Patrimony can surely give us another insight in this question you raise. When the Primates of England resign their see, they revert to being bishop (surname) - with a life peerage for restored secular status. This resembles an unreal but popular claim among converts to Orthodoxy, that in the (Orthodox) Church all bishops are equals. Bishop is seen as the highest position in the Sacred hierarchy of God's Church, and all other superior titles are administrative and personfactured (forgive a wry feminism). Once you retire from administrative functions, why would you keep, or need, the title? Our Religion preaches the Truth, and should reflect reality as far as possible. It most emphatically is not a game of "let's pretend", played by the chronically immature. Having found the Truth, we should confess and represent the truth in word and deed to the best of our ability.