Although one never quite knows, no one really expects any women or other surprises on the forthcoming list of new Cardinals. Pope Francis has only been in office for eight months. But the kite has been flown.
Complainants will need to be directed to the creation of a Personal Prelature for Opus Dei, of the special Statutes for the Neocatechumenal Way, of a Pontifical Commission for those who did not wish to follow Lefebvre into schism, of the arrangements in Campos, of a universal permission to celebrate the Extraordinary Form, and of the Personal Ordinariates. Next to those, the appointment of women as Lay Cardinals will be very small canonical beer indeed.
Not only, although primarily, will the Princesses of the Church drive the self-appointed voices of Catholic womanhood up the wall by their identities and by their articulation of Catholic Truth, but the reaction to their very existence will be yet another exposure of the fact that the Lefebvrists are irreconcilable.
What, then, will become of these bearers of the spirit of Jansenism and Gallicanism?
The rise of Unitarianism among the English Presbyterians, the Dutch
Remonstrant Brotherhood, the Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church of
Ireland, the Socinian 'New Licht' within the early Free Church of
Scotland, and the descent of New England Puritanism into little more
than "the Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of Man, and the
Neighborhood of Boston": all alike are stark and timely
warnings of the perils of hyper-Augustinianism.
Efforts at Catholicism-without-the-Pope, always of the view that they would in principle accept the Papacy if it did this or that of the schismatics' own haeresis, have similarly sorry histories, past and present.
Doctrinal error (Kenoticism and Universalism are both endemic even among supposedly traditional Anglo-Catholics, and an official Ordinariate publication has already propagated at least one of them), political extremism of various kinds, sexual deviancy and the attendant cultural features, an obsession with the minutiae of ceremonial, alternatively a disregard for the importance of such matters, a retreat from normal life: it is all happened before.
Doctrinal error (Kenoticism and Universalism are both endemic even among supposedly traditional Anglo-Catholics, and an official Ordinariate publication has already propagated at least one of them), political extremism of various kinds, sexual deviancy and the attendant cultural features, an obsession with the minutiae of ceremonial, alternatively a disregard for the importance of such matters, a retreat from normal life: it is all happened before.
The Old Catholics, with their Jansenist and Gallican roots, have combined both fates. So, too, did the Petite Église of always Gallican and often Jansenist dissidents from the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and from the Napoleonic Concordat.
Like a section of the Russian Old Believers, the Petite Église ended up with no bishops and thus no priests, so that instead the local congregation chose its leading layman to administer Baptism and to lead a service of popular non-sacramental devotions. Slow but inexorable decline followed.
The Old Catholics are not far from that. The Lefebvrists are not quite there yet, but they are only a couple of generations behind the Old Catholics, if that.
Or else they will apply their purported argument from necessity to the conferral of sacramental Ordination by certain abbots, including one in England, to whom Medieval Popes had granted that privilege, which the four Cistercian Proto-Abbots were exercising without hindrance in respect of the Diaconate into the seventeenth century.
Of course, they would simply ignore the need for a special exercise of the Papal power for the valid exercise of this potestas ligata contained, like that to confirm, in the priestly power of consecration. If, that is, any such potestas ligata exists at all. It would exist to them if they said so, and woe betide anyone who said otherwise.
In either event, their adoption of a presbyterian or a congregational polity alongside the advanced liberal theology of those who were once Augustinian, but who had had no Magisterial restraint on their pursuit of that system to whatever fallacious conclusion, will conform to a very easily recognisable historical pattern.
As will, and as already does, their accumulation of theological, political, sexual and general oddballs who believe that there ought to be a Pope, so long as he agrees with them. In the absence of which, they just do as they like, and scorn everyone else. The line between the most exaggerated devotees of Saint Augustine and the perennial re-emergence of Donatism is always a very, very fine one, indeed.
It is an old, old story. The Lefebvrists are about to become, and are already becoming, only the latest in the long, long line of those who have acted it out. With our without women as Cardinals.
Like a section of the Russian Old Believers, the Petite Église ended up with no bishops and thus no priests, so that instead the local congregation chose its leading layman to administer Baptism and to lead a service of popular non-sacramental devotions. Slow but inexorable decline followed.
The Old Catholics are not far from that. The Lefebvrists are not quite there yet, but they are only a couple of generations behind the Old Catholics, if that.
Or else they will apply their purported argument from necessity to the conferral of sacramental Ordination by certain abbots, including one in England, to whom Medieval Popes had granted that privilege, which the four Cistercian Proto-Abbots were exercising without hindrance in respect of the Diaconate into the seventeenth century.
Of course, they would simply ignore the need for a special exercise of the Papal power for the valid exercise of this potestas ligata contained, like that to confirm, in the priestly power of consecration. If, that is, any such potestas ligata exists at all. It would exist to them if they said so, and woe betide anyone who said otherwise.
In either event, their adoption of a presbyterian or a congregational polity alongside the advanced liberal theology of those who were once Augustinian, but who had had no Magisterial restraint on their pursuit of that system to whatever fallacious conclusion, will conform to a very easily recognisable historical pattern.
As will, and as already does, their accumulation of theological, political, sexual and general oddballs who believe that there ought to be a Pope, so long as he agrees with them. In the absence of which, they just do as they like, and scorn everyone else. The line between the most exaggerated devotees of Saint Augustine and the perennial re-emergence of Donatism is always a very, very fine one, indeed.
It is an old, old story. The Lefebvrists are about to become, and are already becoming, only the latest in the long, long line of those who have acted it out. With our without women as Cardinals.
What official Ordinariate publication has propagated either Kenoticism or Universalism? Sources, please.
ReplyDeleteThe article on Gore beginning on Page 9 here at best does not correct his Kenoticism - http://www.portalmag.co.uk/portal/portal-2011-01.pdf
ReplyDeleteAs you know, Universalism is endemic among Anglo-Catholics. It will be in the Ordinariate, if it sees itself as the bearer of the tradition that began with Lux Mundi.
The Pope won't do this now-it's too soon.
ReplyDeleteBut, I fear, he will soon prove to be the liberal leftist that his US critics allege is hiding beneath those papal garments.
Radicals are very clever about waiting to reveal their intentions-and there is no institution that left-wing radicals would like to revolutionise more than the Catholic Church.
The entire British Left (normally devout secularists and atheists)besieged and barracked the Church of England over female bishops-.
Every single right-on Labour MP, BBC presenter, human rights lawyer and quangocrat in the land was all over themselves screaming about the Church's "sexist discrimination".
I've never heard so many non-Christians getting so exercised about the inner workings of a Christian Church.
These radicals are very, very intolerant-and they can't allow any institution to disagree with their ideals for long.
The Catholic Church may be next to bow to the Gods of "Equality and Diversity".
She cannot do so. That is the fundamental difference with the Church of England.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church is well to the left of the American Right and always has been. For some reasons, it notices when this Pope says so, whereas it didn't when the last two did, as they did all the time.
On the contrary, the Church is to the Right of the American Right-it's actually more hardline on, say, contraception even than the once-vibrant Evangelical wing of the Republicans.
ReplyDeleteLiberals called Bush "extreme right-wing" for funding abstinence programs and banning stem-cell research-the Catholic church is way, way to the Right of any of that.
Nothing to do with it. The Popes invented the Living Wage. The whole concept.
ReplyDeleteTry pitching that one to the Evangelical wing of the GOP, a wing and a subculture which are in any case in rapid decline within the party and the country respectively. History will judge that it achieved absolutely nothing.
The big story will be the reawakening of the Catholic giant within the Democratic Party. Upon and around the present Pope's reiteration of the teachings of his predecessors, teachings that would and will be screamed down as "Marxist" by the losers.
That whole thing is already starting.
On drug legalisation, this Pope is further to the Right than many Republicans-who have been humiliated while Obama and the Democrats legalise marijuana across the US.
ReplyDeleteDrug legalisation is the single most defining issue for the rising libertarian wing of the GOP, which is driving out the Christian Right rapidly and mercilessly.
ReplyDelete""The big story will be the reawakening of the Catholic giant within the Democratic Party""
ReplyDeleteNo reawakening necessary-the Democrats have always duped (or bribed) Catholics into voting for them, despite the fact they are the most anti-Catholic party in world history.
Clinton successfully used his noisy support for Sinn Fein/Gerry Adams against Britain, to lure back the Irish Catholics who despised the Democrats pro-abortion fanaticism (John Major was so outraged with his pro-IRA behaviour that he refused to take any of Clinton's calls for a week afterwards).
The Democrats cleverly bribe Latino Catholics to vote for them (with immigrant 'amnesties' and welfare handouts)- even though Latino Catholics are far closer to the Republicans on abortion, gay marriage, (and almost any other moral issue) than they are to Nancy Pelosi and Obama.
The Democrats even won over 90% of the Southern blacks with bribes- despite the fact many of them (particularly the black Churches) are historically Republicans and are far to the Right than to the left-as they showed with their recent opposition to Obama's gay marriage drive.
You are out of your depth again.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats have always successfully won over Catholic voters-whilst being utterly anti-Catholic teaching.
ReplyDeleteNobody has ever been "out of their depth" on this blog-It's just not possible.
The place has morphed into some sort of automated Labour sycophant machine-the Whips Office are obviously typing most of the gibberish on here.
whilst being utterly anti-Catholic teaching
ReplyDeleteDepends which ones.
And while the Democrats don't do much about social justice, they do at least do anything. The Republicans have consistently done absolutely nothing about abortion. It's a con.