In the current (March) edition of Flourish, the official publication of the Archdiocese of Glasgow, Archbishop Conti reports on the recent ad limina visit of the Scots Bishops to Rome. The whole report seems to be a case of trying to make the best of a bad job, but that’s not really the main point of this thread. The main point of this thread is the fact that, in his comments about papal authority, Archbishop Conti misrepresents Vatican II teaching to argue that the Pope needs the bishops to “complete” his authority. Not so.
Read the Archbishop’s words for yourself:
“Pope Saint Leo the Great has left us a sermon which the Church has incorporated into the Divine Office for this Feast: “One man, Peter, was chosen out from the whole world to preside over the calling of all nations, over all the Apostles and all the Fathers of the Church. So, although in the People of God there are many priests and many pastors, Peter was to rule by his own authority overall, and over them also.” Clearly, Pope Leo had a sense, as Successor of Saint Peter, of his own authority and responsibility as teacher. At the same time, he recognised that the authority that had been given to him, and his commission to feed the whole flock of Christ, was shared by the other apostles… There is a collegiality among all the bishops, which is not complete without Peter, any more than Peter is complete without shepherds who share the power and commission which was given to him, the Prince of the Apostles. The example of Peter is put before all the leaders of the “Church.” Click here to read the entire article
Now read what Vatican II teaches on the subject…
“…the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys (this infallibility) in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)” Lumen Gentium 25. Click here to read the entire Vatican II document
So, Vatican II unequivocally re-states traditional Catholic teaching on papal authority. In short, the bishops need the Pope but the Pope – by virtue of his office as “supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful” – does not need the agreement of the bishops to pronounce on matters pertaining to the Faith.
So, is there an innocent explanation for this grave error on the part of the Archbishop of Glasgow?
Tags: archbishop conti, Glasgow, heresy, lumen gentium 25
-
As the ambiguosity experts of the Vatican II would have said about whether there is a simple explanation: Yes and No.
“Yes”, the explanation is that the bishop does not know his onions. Did he ever receive a proper formation in the teachings of the Church?
“No”, he is deliberately trying to obfuscate what should be a simple matter of dogma: When it comes to saying what is to be done or not done, the bishops need the pope, but the pope does not the bishops.
-
This is the same error publicly stated by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor a while back, when he said “Never the eleven without Peter, never Peter without the eleven”.
-
This is a question of basic Catholic theology…do they not teach that in seminaries any longer?
The Pope can proclaim a matter of faith and morals on his own authority as Sucessor to Saint Peter, the Supreme Pastor of the Catholic Church, without the consent of the bishops (although it may be best to have their support). The individual bishops are not infallible. Nor is a ‘college’ or bishops infallible.
The bishops can not, either individually or at a whole (a ‘college’) define a matter of faith and morals. If they come up with anything, they have to ask (or beg) the Holy Father about this matter.
-
“3. But We, who are charged with the care of defending and developing the Kingdom of Christ, have at the same time to exercise continual care and vigilance to keep away everything adverse to this Kingdom, and to support whatsoever may promote it. Therefore, from the beginning of Our Pontificate, we had to examine most carefully whether it would be lawful, convenient and useful to support with Our authority the above mentioned petitions. We have not neglected and do not at present neglect to offer insistent prays to God that He might clearly manifest the will of His ever-adorable goodness in this instance.
4. In order that We may receive the gift of heavenly light, do you, Venerable Brethren, in pious competition, unite your entreaties with Ours. But, while paternally exhorting you to do this, thus following the example of Our Predecessors, and particularly that of Pius IX when about to define the dogma of the Mother of God’s Immaculate Conception, we earnestly beg you to inform us about the devotion of your clergy and people (taking into account their faith and piety) toward the Assumption of the most Blessed Virgin Mary. More especially We wish to know if you, Venerable Brethren, with your learning and prudence consider that the bodily Assumption of the Immaculate Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith, and whether in addition to your own wishes this is desired by your clergy and people.
DEIPARAE VIRGINIS MARIAE
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
ON THE POSSIBILITY OF DEFINING THE ASSUMPTION
OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY AS A DOGMA OF FAITH
TO THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, AND OTHER ORDINARIES
AT PEACE AND IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.*Given at Rome at St. Peter’s on the first day of May in the year 1946, the eighth of our pontificate.
PIUS XII
-
I get the impression that the Archbishop is not too happy with this Pope. Maybe he has had a ticking off in Rome and this is him trying to assert himself once again. He would make better use of his time putting his own house in order.
-
Benet,
would you explain why you posted that extract from the encyclical of Pope Pius XII on the Assumption of Our Lady? I don’t really understand your point.
If you don’t mind me saying, since I see you do this a lot, it would help if you would explain why you are posting a quotation. I am guessing that you think this quote shows that the pope has supreme authority but that he consults the bishops, but I’m not really sure. Thanks in advance for your explanation.
-
James, I forgot to say that I get the very same impression about Archbishop Conti. Since he came back from the ad limina, he’s not at all happy with the pope. I wonder exactly what was said, as if we’ll ever find out!
-
How you get from A (“…Peter was to rule by his own authority overall, and over them also.”) to B (“At the same time, he recognised that the authority that had been given to him, and his commission to feed the whole flock of Christ, was shared by the other apostles… “) is beyond me. Perhaps a certain excessive level of blood alcohol is responsible? You know, the “spirits” of Vatican II?
I am reminded of the Scripture which accompanies the first Glorious Mystery of the Holy Rosary:
But go, tell his disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee: there you shall see Him, as He told you.
Clearly Peter is set apart from the disciples by this.
-
Ita,
I thought the quote spoke for itself but you put it well by saying:
“I am guessing that you think this quote shows that the pope has supreme authority but that he consults the bishops…”.
A quote from a Papal Encyclical which addresses the topic under discussion is, you’ll agree, authoritative. Anything I might write would be just an opinion.
-
I think the scriptural quotation from 2 Timothy 4:3 “For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables” applies to this situation. Bishops too, have heaped to themselves teachers of false doctrine – this does not just apply to laity.
-
Benet
I’m sorry, but to drop that quote in with no explanation is misleading. I don’t think it speaks for itself either. By all means use quotes from encyclicals etc., but you must make your position clear.
Of course the Pope is free to ask the Bishops for their thoughts and advice, but that doesn’t mean to say that he MUST. Archbishop Conti seems to be suggesting that the Pope cannot act without the Bishops. This is nonsense.
Archbishop Lefebvre had huge problems with the text of the schema entitled “The Church”. He felt that ambiguity could weaken the power of the Pope, as single pastor. In fact, His Grace submitted this alternative text:
“According to the Gospels, Saint Peter and the other Apostles founded a college, instituted by Our Lord Himself, insofar as they remained in communion among themselves under the authority of Saint Peter. Similarly, the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are united among themselves.
Holy Scripture and Tradition of the Church teach us that in only extraordinary cases did the Apostles and their successors meet together in Councils, and act as a collegiate body under the guidance of Peter or the Roman Pontiffs. The Apostles, in fact, fulfilled their mission personally and transmitted their powers to their successorsas they themselves had received it from Our Lord.
The Holy Council of Trent, basing itself on these sacred traditions, that the Roman Pontiff alone possesses in his own person a full, Ordinary episcopal power over the universal Church. As to the bishops. As successors to the Apostles, as true pastors, they feed and govern their own flock,each bishops with a personal power, direct and complete, deriving form sacred consecration.
Thus at times the bishops also, either some of them or altogether, upon a summons from, or with the approval of the Roman Pontiff, meet as a true and proper College, acting with a sinlge authority to define and rule in the interests of the universal church or individual churches.
It is true that present circumstances make it advisable for bishops to meet more frequently, united in the chairty of Christ, in order to share in common their thoughts, desries, decisions and pastoral cares, keeping always perfect unity, however, without diminishing the power of the Roman Pontiff or the individual bishop.”
As a result of this intervention, a “nota explicative” restored the traditional teaching. What is clear is that only in extraordinary circumstances do the bishops meet together in College and even then, the Roman Pontiff still enjoys full and Ordinary jursidction over the universal church.
Of course, this teaching has been almost totally ignored by modern bishops, including Archbishop Conti. The modern phenomena of “Bishops’ Conferences” now see bishops making corporate decisions and acting like Boards of Directors. This is not Catholic.
Thankfully, we have seen some examples of even modern popes ignoring this false Collegiality. Pope Paul VI’s “Humanae Vitae”, Pope John Paul II’s “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” and, more visually and dramatically, Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”. We wouldn’t have Summorum Pontificum if Pope Benedict had acted “collegiately”. Thanks be to Gdo that he didn’t.
-
When is +Conti retiring anyway?
No, wait, +Tartaglia will be transferred there anyway so it matters not!?!
-
How arrogant to elevate himself – where’s his humility?
-
Petrus, you put it exactly right -
“Of course the Pope is free to ask the Bishops for their thoughts and advice, but that doesn’t mean to say that he MUST. Archbishop Conti seems to be suggesting that the Pope cannot act without the Bishops. This is nonsense.”
That’s what I meant when I asked Benet to explain. He just quoted the encyclical without saying what it proved. It’s obvious that the pope will consult the bishops sometimes but he doesn’t need to. I am not sure if Benet believes this or not.
I also agree with kevin1 that 2 Timothy 4:3 just doesn’t apply to laity, but to bishops.
-
Michelangelo,
Maybe it is because he is due to retire soon that Archbishop Conti is not bothered about showing his real feelings about this pope.
Kevin1,
I, too, remembered Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor saying “never Peter without the eleven, etc”. The bishops just don’t believe Catholic teaching. That’s it. They’re Protestants.
-
Perhaps Abp Conti should read Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus,
“So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”
Sometimes I wonder if the See of Glasgow is already vacant.
-
Archbishop Conti is too much into this false collegiality, and it gives me the impression that he is in denial of Traditional Catholic teaching of Infallibility.
Schismatic?Grignion, that is a thought – ‘wondering if the See of Glasgow is already vacant’.
-
Grignion
I think you are right to ask if the See of Glasgow is already vacant. When you put Archbishop Conti’s errors on the pope’s authority together with his permission for an ex-priest to lecture priests and teachers (Professor Groome) and add in his comments about the role of the priest at Mass in the second of his SCO articles on the Mass, when he wrote about “presiding over the assembly and of directing prayer” and said that the right place for the celebrant’s chair is in the centre facing the people (not the tabernacle facing the people), it is a fair question to ask, in my opinion.
I think it is very clear that Archbishop Conti is an out and out modernist.
-
I don’t think it’s helpful to suggest that the See of Glasgow is vacant. Just because Archbishop Conti has heretical views, does not make him a formal heretic. This is the same line of thought as the sedevacantists. I deplore sedevacantism and I think we really need to be on our guard. Wild suggestions or insinuations will only hand them more ammunition.
-
I think some contributers here should be ashamed of themselves in their personal attacks on the Archbishop. In the same vein that the Editor rightly forbids personal attacks on fellow bloggers we too must apply the same respectful standard to others. He may say things which are not liked, or regarded as almost heretical in some quarters, but I ask you to pause and consider this:
are you not guilty of “confirmation bias”.
Reading comments recently on the homily preached by Cardinal Brady at the recent consecration of the FSSP seminary chapel in America he too was taken to task for some of his supposed ‘modernist’ statements, quite unfairly according to many theological thinkers. So, can we all just take a breath and study his speech again. If we comment let us keep to philisophical arguament.
-
The comment I made last night at 11:32 was not helpful. Whilst I am not a Sedevacantist myself, I can still appreciate their position. However, I am not qualified to decide if Abp Conti’s statements are defniitely heretical or not.
-
Benedict,
I tend to agree with you (don’t fall down with shock now). I think we have to be very careful, and I include myself in that.
Grignion,
I find it really difficult to appreciate the position of Sedevacantists. They have a poor understanding of the papacy in general, particularly Papal Infallibility. For all the horrendous things modern popes have said and done, they have never attempted to impose an erroneous doctrine. They have always fallen short of trying to make an error binding. Why not? Quite simply, the Holy Ghost will not allow a true pope to do it. An anti-pope would have no problem attempting to do this, because he would not have the special graces of the Petrine Office.
I can think of two or three occasions in which the Holy Ghost has inspired a modern pope to act by virtue of the unique authority given to the Successor of St. Peter. Pope Paul VI’s ‘Humanae Vitae”, Pope John Paul II’s “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” and Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”. As I said on another thread, these popes ignored the erroneous doctrine of collegiality on these occasions. Only a true pope could do so.
Sedevacantists also have a poor understanding of Authority in general. Only a future pope or Council has the authority to declare a pope an “anti-pope”. It’s an act of great pride to declare the seat of Peter vacant.
I apologise for going on a bit about this, but I really think Sedevacantism is the work of the Devil.
-
Hi folks,
It’s been a while, and I can’t say that my present circumstances will allow me the freedom to be as frequent a blogger as I once was, but hang on a wee minute! Archbishop Mario Conti is a very dangerous man.
Let us not confuse sedevacantism, e.g., a forbidden judgment on the papal soul, with Catholicism, e.g., the duty of weighing fruits, upholding tradition and avoiding occasions of sin.
We all know that there are two kinds of heresy. There is material heresy, e.g., that which is not willful, and there is formal heresy, e.g., that which is willful.
The Church must ultimately declare whether the former or latter is the case with any individual. We must simply refuse the heresy and avoid the one who spouts it, presuming of course that sufficient, though unsuccessful, effort has been made to correct the one in error.
It seems to me that Archbishop Conti has gone out of his way to destroy all remnants of traditional Catholicism in Scotland. He has clearly resisted papal instructions that would see the traditional Mass restored, has declared a Protestant belief in the Mass, e.g., that he is ‘Presider’ over the ‘Assembly’ when he celebrates the ‘Last Supper’ (read Lord’s Supper), has declared falsely in the matter of collegiality and permitted a host of priestly scandals during his tenure.
Now I may not be permitted to declare on the state of His Grace’ soul, nor would I wish to do so. But I have a duty as a Catholic to advocate against His Grace’ clear heresy, material or otherwise, and to advise all Catholics to reject his false teachings as they would reject the teachings of Martin Luther, John Knox or any other doctrinally deviant clergyman.
Catholics who sit on the fence pretending some kind of false respect for such wayward prelates will answer equally before God for their complicity in the errors of the aforementioned. We have all become far too complacent with error and far too lethargic in challenging it.
It is Our Lord’s honour we defend, His sacrifice on Calvary for us, His truths, the sacred traditions that have been passed down to us, for which the martyrs died. These modernist prelates are throwing all that to the wind. They dishonour God with ecumenical lies and doctrinal half-truths, they allow scandal after scandal to occur, thereby bringing disgrace upon disgrace on the Mystical Body. They encourage laxity in priests and faithful in respect to the most sacred liturgical rites, the sacraments, morals and the truths of the Catholic religion.
There was no human respect in Our Lord, no fence sitting. Neither should there be in any Catholic. St. Paul confronted St. Peter in public when the latter erred. This is our example. Never mind the false respect and the claims that we should be ashamed for stating the truth and defending Our Blessed Saviour against heresy. This is both our right and our duty, that is if we value our own eternal destiny. To remain silent is to concur!
-
Athanasius, you have said it all, so clearly and I agree with every word.
We should copy Our Lord’s example in no fence sitting. Archbishop Conti has spoken heresy about the Pope’s authority and heresy about the priest’s role during Mass. It would be a sin to say silent when we should be warning others. He is, as you say, “a very dangerous man”. -
Ita
The great tragedy is that the editors of the so-called Catholic papers, the SCO, Catholic Times and others, are failing gravely in their Catholic duty.
Their failure is threefold. First, they publish the errors of these wayward clergy. Secondly, they fail themselves to correct them. And thirdly, they suppress all opposing articles and letters. I know this from experience with both papers. These people have much to answer for. God alone knows how many souls have been led away from the truth as a result of their willful negligence.
-
Athanasius
It’s good to have you chatting with us again!
-
Thank you for post in which I agree wholeheartedly. We all must answer to God for failures in keeping silence and not defend our Faith.
Though I must say that I do not hold sedevacantism views. To my knowledge, the only time that sedevacantism exists, is where the Pope dies and Cardinals gather in Conclave in order to elect the next Pope. -
Gloria,
“We all must answer to God for failures in keeping silence and not defend our Faith.”
Well said.
I don’t think it’s helpful if we start speculating if the See of Glasgow, or any other See, is vacant. As Athanasius said, we do not have the authority to distinguish between material heresy from formal heresy.
-
Athanasius,
I find your opening sentence in itself “dangerous”. You have laid yourself open to litigation in making such a presumptuous, unsubstantiated and unqualified statement. However happily for you prelates, like our beloved Pope Benedict XVI, do not publicly defend themselves from detractors’ defamatory statements. Your attack, for that is what it is, is an attack on Holy Mother Church itself. Irrespective as to your very honest, frank and forthright views no matter how dearly held, they are nonetheless calumnious.
You state that all Catholics should reject his false teachings. I would be interested in knowing where and when he preached in such a manner concerning Protestant beliefs. That he has openly declared his viewpoint does not amount to preaching to his flock by any stretch of the imagination. I personally know of no instruction, implied or otherwise, to his clergy stating that they must now call themselves a ‘Presider’ at an ‘Assembly’. If you do know please pass on the information to me and I too will roundly denounce this teaching; but not until then.
I do not disagree overmuch with the import of your posting and totally agree that he has placed himself at odds with the Papal instruction concerning the Traditional Mass, and I know of more than one young priest who is very frustrated in not being permitted to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. I also agree he, like many Bishops, have stood by whilst grave sins have been committed in their diocese. However the manner in which it has been said is, in my opinion, plain wrong.
-
Athanasius,
Thank you for that post. I agree with every word you say, and it’s good to have you blogging.
Like I say, I’m not a sedevacantist and do not promote that position. However, Abp Conti has promoted heresy on these two counts. I don’t know if that’s material or formal. However, I do know he won’t be pulled up for it.
-
Benedict
Archbishop Conti made his heresy public in two separate publications. He doesn’t have to send special heretical instructions to his priests in order to be identified as a danger to souls. His public utterances combined with the bitter fruits of his tenure as Archbishop of Glasgow and his dissent from the papal will should be enough for any Catholic to want to stay well clear of him.
I’m afraid your attempted defence of the indefensible in this case borders on sycophancy. There was no libel, calumny or detraction in my previous post, just a statement of the obvious and a call to action on the part of the Catholic who knows the difference between true and false obedience to superiors.
I’m sorry if my comments hurt Archbishop Conti’s feelings, but His Grace has damaged more than the feelings of many of the faithful and I refuse to shut my face on that score out of some pretended charity that is no charity at all. Frankly, I’m sick to death of these heretic prelates and their lapdogs.
-
Ath,
Great post and great to have you back.
ps. Did you get my email?
-
Grignon & MCS
Thank you both for the kind remarks.
-
Petrus
Thanks. I haven’t checked my email for a few hours. Shall do it now.
-
Benedict,
Athanasius has not said anything remotely calumnious. I was surprised to read in one of the posts above, comments from the Archbishop about “presider” and “assembly” because, although this pseudo-theology is commonplace now, I’ve never read anything to date spouting this nonsense openly. So, I went searching my back copies of the SCO just now and found the second of the Archbishop’s two articles on the Mass, quoted by someone (Ita, I believe) above and lo and behold, she’s right.
So, if you check out page 15 in the Scottish Catholic Observer dated 19th February, 2010, you’ll find an article headed “Move forward in unity for a stronger Church…Archbishop Conti provides the second, and final, pat of an insightful feature in the history and future of Mass celebrations.”
In this article, the Archbishop explicitly states that the placing of the celebrant’s chair in the centre of the sanctuary “should express his office of presiding over the assembly and directing prayer…” He claims to be quoting the General Instruction of the Roman Missal but, whatever he’s quoting, it is completely at odds with authentic Catholic theology on the sacrificing priesthood. Don’t know about you, Benedict, but I reject this false teaching – big time.
I think, with respect, Benedict, that you are being disingenuous in saying that you want evidence that the Archbishop has instructed his priests to call themselves Presiders over an Assembly. If you know anything at all about the state of Scotus, now closed, you’ll know that new priests were fed this baloney throughout their training. This is now par for the course.
We’ll soon be calling them President John instead of Father John.Archbishop Conti has destroyed what little Catholicism, Cardinal Winning inadvertently left intact in Glasgow. His actions in defying the Pope over Summorum Pontificum and even misleading lay correspondents by giving the impression that the novus ordo in Latin at St Patrick’s was a “Latin Mass” (knowing most people would presume it was a TLM) speak for themselves.
But why is it that the bishops and their defenders feel the need to threaten legal action at every turn? Why not stick with the key issues?
That Archbishop Conti has his problems even believing in God, was put on the record by no less an authority than himself, immediately he took office in Glasgow. His interview in the Scotsman newspaper at the time, was a stark warning to us all, that the solid episcopal leadership the archdiocese so desperately needed after the sterile Winning years, were not to be. And so it came to pass.
Grignion,
We needn’t worry ourselves – and cannot pronounce with authority – on whether the Archbishop’s heresy is formal or material only. All we know is that to deny the Pope’s supreme authority over the Church is a heresy. To reduce the Mass, the Sacrifice of Calvary, to a mere assembly with a president directing the prayer, is a heresy. That’s all we need to know. And we need to know, so that we can be on our guard.
On our guard to (a) reject these particular heresies and (b) like a judge in a court with a dishonest witness, on our guard when reading and listening to the Archbishop in future.
-
Petrus
Just checked my email and there’s no message from you. Can you send it again? Thanks.
-
editor
Thank you! A very concise post that puts divine truth before human respect.
-
Athanasius
It’s resent.
-
Hey you two, Athy and Petrus, what’s this? The local Post Office? Your own personal Mail Delivery Service? What next – the Catholic Truth Text Messaging Service?????
-
Yes, editor, and you can be the Postmistress General!
-
I suppose it beats being the Textmistress General!
-
Editor,
with respect I am not being disingenuous at all. How many times have bloggers been told by Athanasius and others to quantify their statements; that is all I am asking. As I said in my post there is a huge difference in expressing an opinion, whether it be in a newsparer, magazine or even over a cup of tea, and preaching especially from a position of authority. So, where are the preaching sermons instructing the laity? where are the written or verbal instructions to the clergy?
-
Editor,
If you wish I will send you an email so you don’t feel left out. At least then you can say that your text travelled much further.
-
Benedict, the publication of the two articles in the SCO were expressly for the purpose of instructing the laity. And anyway, the idea that the Archbishop of Glasgow could justify writing heresy in the national Catholic newspaper, on the grounds that he’s not actually meaning to teach that heresy, is nothing short of ridiculous.
-
That’s a deal, Benedict. I’ll check my inbox right now!
-
As well as being suspect on the grounds of Faith, Archbishop Conti is also suspect on Morals. Remember his article in the Scotsman?
-
Benedict
Are you suggesting that the Archbishop is a hypocrite who says one thing in a newspaper and something completely different to his flock? His Grace writes as he believes, unless you think he’s a liar or a mentally unstable man.
-
Petrus
It looks like you have the Pony Express for your mail service. I still haven’t received that message, will check again in the morning.
editor
Back 5 minutes and I’m in the doghouse for discussing emails with Petrus! We should really have exchanged our messages on the ‘Other Questions’ thread. I’m rusty and, yes, I know it’s a good name for the doghouse!!
-
Athanasius,
Are you trying to get me to be calumnious too? Tsk tsk. Bad doggy.
-
Calumnious, Benedict? No, just forthright! I merely drew the only logical conclusion from your statements.
I admit that I may occasionally be a bad doggy, but no one can ever accuse me of being a lap doggy or an ecumenical mongrel!
-
Athanasius,
Yes there is something about not being a lap dog etc. I too enjoy being my own man and not running with any pack or yapping in unison to any perceived particular top dog. Moi? ecumenical? no, but definately a mongrel; and proud of it.
-
Benedict
Sacred tradition is the top dog; the divinely revealed truths of the Faith and teachings of the Popes through the centuries.
None of us is our own man in this respect. We yap in unison with the Church’s Magisterium and we bite the ankles of all who yap against it or change direction to run with a heretic pack. Woof!
-
Hmmm..
Almost in agreemment, which is a nice way to finish off this evening.
Our Lord God is the top and sacred tradition of His Church runs second to Him.
-
Benedict,
Cardinal Newman never tired of reminding us that Christ and His Church are one.
Well, Athanasius, we’re dying to know – did Petrus’s email ever arrive?
Signed: Postmistress General.
-
Editor,
I was just about to say the same thing, but I couldn’t remember who it was who had said that. Thanks for reminding me.
You’re earning your money today – checking up on the mail? WOW! That’s what I call service.
-
I like this little gem;
“Our reports were not so much a case of proving that we were doing our jobs but as expressions of our shared responsibility as Shepherds of the Church of Christ.”
I am surprised that he did not add; “when I met the Pope I immediately put him at his ease.”
-
Lets hope and pray that when the pope comes to Britain he will show some authority and bring some of our wandering clergy back into the fold and not open it up wider to include those who share the same sentiments as Arb Conti.
Maybe in the so-called new version of the novus ordo rite they will bring back the prayers after mass for the pope which were thrown out at Vat 2/ -
editor & Petrus
No, the email never arrived. Who’s intercepting my mail???
-
Athanasius
it’ll be the Freemasons or the Communists!
-
Editor
I’m glad to know this blog is rated PG.
(Postmistress General)
-
Petrus,
Just post the email here – then we can all be put out of our misery!
Here’s the link to Damien Thompson’s Telegraph blog today sent to me by our beloved shane – Catholic Truth, not to mention my unworthy self, is getting it in the neck again!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100029876/catholics-have-you-ever-wondered-what-the-bishops-conference-actually-does/shane mentioned us first, then carlismo goes to town:
“Shane, Ah yes, Catholic Truth Scotland…that bitter hate site run by nerds and losers who are all very brave defenders of the faith but only from behind a keyboard.”
He’s obviously missed our various activities, most recently the leafleting outside St Catherine Laboure parish in Glasgow. Whatever…
Just to remind you all, here’s the Press Complaints Commission intervention on our behalf.
http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NDc0NA==The PCC links are all posted on our website, About Us section, so there is no excuse for the repeated churning out of The Times article(s).
-
Editor,
Only once in a blue moon do I visit Damien’s liberal and narrow minded site. But, I did just click on the provided link and it seems that they are projecting their distinctiveness ( nerds and losers) onto us. It’s the same ole song- ad hominem attacks minus addressing any contentions made. I considered it incredibly discourteous that they referred to you by your surname only.
-
Miles Christi Sum,
What these frequent regurgitations of those disgraceful full-of-errors Times articles always bring home to me is the fact that people like poor old Carlismo are so ready to believe everything they read in the newspapers. Here’s the latest example of where The Times got it spectacularly wrong
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10031506.htmlFactual errors seem to be commonplace now in that once very highly regarded London newspaper. Like The Tablet, The Times now relies on its past reputation to sell papers. It’s now no different from any of the tabloids.
-
Yes, Editor – more slurs from “The Times”.
-
Editor
Looks like +Conti, with his endorsement of Groome, has been taking lessons from Cardinal Mahony:
http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=1736afa6-2dc1-49b4-8011-ff09a5604e2a
-
Good old Ken Fisher (who attended our May 2008 conference) and good old California newspaper for publishing his remarks so extensively. Thanks for posting that link Torkay. That Archbishop Conti should be so clearly identified with the notorious dissenter Cardinal Roger Mahoney, says it all, really. So far, by the way, the Archbishop has not replied to my letter about Tom Groome. Surprise, no surprise…
Miles Christi Sum, we are agreed that The Times they are a-NOT -achanging! Same old, same old falsehoods!
-
Editor
I didn’t know you were a Bob Dylan fan!
-
Torkay, I’m a Bob-anyone fan – as long as they think I’m right about everything – see my latest comment on the L’Osservatore Romano thread – and blush with shame, Torkay. Blush, blush, blush!
-
An elderly Oratorian priest once opined that the true legacy of Vatican II was that it increased the power of the clergy. As prelates and priests have re-directed their roles away from inculcating the Faith to the social gospel, so they have stopped being motivated by ‘the power of love’ and instead by ‘the love of power’. This explains the current obsession with collegiality.
-
Iain Colquhoun, I agree with you. You put it very well – collegiality is about power right enough but I never thought of it like that before. They’re deliberately giving the impression that the bishops have the same power as the pope. The thing is, lots of people think that is true.
Comments are now closed.
70 comments