One of Those "Is It Really Necessary to Write This Again" Articles
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Some articles are not really necessary to write. I write them nevertheless because they provide a break from the hard work that it takes to compose the longer articles, those that stress themes, although familiar, require careful elaboration, which is why this brief article has been entitled, "One of Those 'Is It Really Necessary to Write This Again' Articles."
What am I talking about? Ah, as always, my few readers are very inquisitive. Thank you for asking.
The report paste below will explain the truly superfluous of nature of such articles as these:
The Church of England national assembly decided Monday that women should be allowed to become bishops, making only minor concessions to theological conservatives who have threatened to break away over the issue.
Dioceses will now consider the draft law, which would leave it up to individual bishops to allow alternative oversight for traditionalists who object to serving under women bishops. The dioceses must report back by 2012 and a final vote by the ruling body, the General Synod, will still be needed, but supporters say a milestone has been passed.
"The decision to consecrate women as bishops has been taken," said church spokesman Lou Henderson. "Everybody recognized the importance of offering safeguards and assurances to those who find it very difficult (to accept women bishops), but in the end Synod as a whole was not prepared to go as far as the traditionalists would have liked.
The decision was not final and still faced many hurdles.
After the dioceses make a decision over the draft law, the Synod will need to hold a final vote to approve it. That could be complicated by the formation and desires of the next incoming assembly, Henderson said.
If approved, the first women bishops could be appointed in 2014.
The decision is an important step for the governing Synod, which has for decades been debating whether to let women become bishops with the same status as male bishops. Traditionalist Anglicans - believing that allowing women to be bishops is contrary to the Bible - oppose the move and say the decision could result in many leaving the Church of England. Others, however, argue that the church cannot afford to be seen as stuck in the past with out-of-date values.
Anglican churches in the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Cuba already have women bishops, Henderson said. The Church of England began ordaining women to the priesthood in 1994.
At a meeting at York University over the weekend, the Synod narrowly voted down proposals to impose restrictions on the authority of female bishops.
Traditionalists had proposed a structure that guaranteed more conservative parishes would be supervised by male bishops and led by male priests who were not ordained by a female bishop. Under that proposal, the alternative bishop would have had some legally backed independence from a woman bishop.
The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who leads the church, and Archbishop of York John Sentamu tried to rally support for that plan to keep the church unified.
But the ruling assembly rejected that proposal, which would create, in effect, "second-class bishops," Henderson said. Instead, the body decided that women bishops could choose to delegate their power to an alternative bishop if they so wish - and they will also have the power to dictate what functions the alternative bishop carries out.
Although campaigners in favor of women bishops rejoiced, some religious leaders said they faced hard decisions with the news and expressed concerns that traditionalists were running out of options.
"The scope for remaining in the Church of England is getting more and more narrow and the options are rapidly closing," the Rev. David Houlding, a leading member of the Catholic Group on the General Synod, told the Press Association.
"I am staying in the Church of England for the time being until I am driven out. I am not going willingly, I will only go if forced," he said. (Church of England paves the way for women bishops.)
As I am sure that readers of this site will understand very readily, this is all just utter nonsense as the "Church of England" is a false church that has no mission from the true God of Divine Revelation to do anything. Its clergymen, both alleged bishops and alleged priests, are bogus. They are nothing other than laymen, although conciliar "popes" have treated them as though they were ordained and have asked to them to join in the administration of a "Apostolic Benedictions" on numerous occasions. It is just remarkable that so few "conservatives" understand the contradiction between the conciliar church's "official" reaffirmation of Anglican "orders" and the de facto recognition that is given to the nonexistent "legitimacy" of Anglican "bishops" and "priests" by conciliar "popes" and "bishops" and priests and presbyters during joint meetings or in the sacrilege known as "inter-religious prayer services" (for a review as to why such services are sacrilegious, please see
Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion).
This is, of course, to say nothing about the remarks made on numerous occasions by Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, the now retired president of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity, that have said quite directly that is possible to "re-read" Pope Leo XIII's infallible declaration of the absolute nullity of Anglican "orders," made in Apostolicae Curae, September 18, 1896, in light of the 'advances" that have been made in "ecumenical dialogue." Here is one such occasion:
As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole; together they received the promise that Jesus Christ will be with them till the end of the world (Matt 28, 20). So after the death of the historical apostles they had to co-opt others who took over some of their apostolic functions. In this sense the whole of the episcopate stands in succession to the whole of the collegium of the apostles.
To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain but of collegial membership in a collegium, which as a whole goes back to the apostles by sharing the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission. The laying on of hands is under this aspect a sign of co-optation in a collegium.
This has far reaching consequences for the acknowledgement of the validity of the episcopal ordination of another Church. Such acknowledgement is not a question of an uninterrupted chain but of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission.
It is beyond the scope of our present context to discuss what this means for a re-evaluation of Apostolicae Curae (1896) of Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican orders null and void, a decision which still stands between our Churches. Without doubt this decision, as Cardinal Willebrands had already affirmed, must be understood in our new ecumenical context in which our communion in faith and mission has considerably grown. A final solution can only be found in the larger context of full communion in faith, sacramental life, and shared apostolic mission.
Before venturing further on this decisive point for the ecumenical vision, that is a renewed communio ecclesiology, I should speak first on another stumbling block or, better, the stumbling block of ecumenism: the primacy of the bishop of Rome, or as we say today, the Petrine ministry. This question was the sticking point of the separation between Canterbury and Rome in the 16th century and it is still the object of emotional controversies.
Significant progress has been achieved on this delicate issue in our Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues, especially in the last ARCIC document The Gift of Authority (1998). The problem, however, is that what pleased Catholics in this document did not always please all Anglicans, and points which were important for Anglican self-understanding were not always repaid by Catholic affection. So we still have a reception problem and a challenge for further theological work.
It was Pope John Paul II who opened the door to future discussion on this subject. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995) he extended an invitation to a fraternal dialogue on how to exercise the Petrine ministry in a way that is more acceptable to non-Catholic Christians. It was a source of pleasure for us that among others the Anglican community officially responded to this invitation. The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity gathered the many responses, analyzed the data, and sent its conclusions to the churches that had responded. We hope in this way to have initiated a second phase of a dialogue that will be decisive for the future of the ecumenical approach.
Nobody could reasonably expect that we could from the outset reach a phase of consensus; but what we have reached is not negligible. It has become evident that a new atmosphere and a new climate exist. In our globalized world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. Old polemical formulas stand at odds with this urgency; fraternal relations have become the norm. Extensive research has been undertaken that has highlighted the different traditions between East and West already in the first millennium, and has traced the development in understanding and in practice of the Petrine ministry throughout the centuries. As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.
These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches. But there is at least a wide consensus about the common central problem, which all churches have to solve: how the three dimensions, highlighted already by the Lima documents on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), namely unity through primacy, collegiality through synodality, and communality of all the faithful and their spiritual gifts, can be brought into a convincing synthesis. A Vision of Christian Unity for the Next Generation
Here you have an instance of a representative of one false church, the counterfeit church of conciliarism, who dares to represent the teaching of the Catholic Church to representatives of another false religion, the "worldwide Anglican Communion," in order to forge what he calls the bonds of "full communion" according to the dictates of a "renewed communion ecclesiology." Kasper's claim that "apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain" is pure apostasy, for which he was never reprimanded by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II at the time and something that did not prevent Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI from reappointing him to his position, which he used until his recent retirement as an indefatigable supporter of all manner of conciliar "ecumenical initiatives," including The Ravenna Document, October 13, 2007.
A similar view of the "Petrine ministry" was expressed in The Ravenna Document, which the product of
The Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the [what the conciliarists believe is] Roman Catholic Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The Ravenna Document is one of those "unofficial" conciliar documents that "bind no one" (as were told by defenders all things Benedict in 2007) even though Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself made public reference to it just forty-three days after its issuance, going so far as to "thank God" for the document despite the "difficulties" that the members of the "joint commission" encountered as they attempt to be faithful to the "Gospel and Tradition:"
This year we thank God in particular for the meeting of the Joint Commission which took place in Ravenna, a city whose monuments speak eloquently of the ancient Byzantine heritage handed down to us from the undivided Church of the first millennium. May the splendour of those mosaics inspire all the members of the Joint Commission to pursue their important task with renewed determination, in fidelity to the Gospel and to Tradition, ever alert to the promptings of the Holy Spirit in the Church today.
While the meeting in Ravenna was not without its difficulties, I pray earnestly that these may soon be clarified and resolved, so that there may be full participation in the Eleventh Plenary Session and in subsequent initiatives aimed at continuing the theological dialogue in mutual charity and understanding. Indeed, our work towards unity is according to the will of Christ our Lord. In these early years of the third millennium, our efforts are all the more urgent because of the many challenges facing all Christians, to which we need to respond with a united voice and with conviction. (Letter to His Holiness Bartholomaios I, Archbishop of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch, on the occasion of the feast of St. Andrew,November 23, 2007.)
Ratzinger/Benedict has just high praise for the "unofficial" Ravenna Document because it incorporates almost word for word his own apostate and delusional views on the how the "Petrine ministry" was "understood" and practiced in the First Millennium, views that Kasper had expressed to the Anglicans in the May 24, 2003, speech cited above. Here are two paragraphs from The Ravenna Document about the "Petrine ministry" that are almost identical to what Kasper expressed in England to what the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger wrote in his Principles of Catholic Theology:
It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.
We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and that it provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together. (The Ravenna Document)
Readers of this site can judge for themselves how "faithful" these passages are to "the Gospel and Tradition," especially in light of the misrepresentation of the history of the First Millennium, which was understood clearly by Pope Leo XIII when he issued Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1894:
The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ's Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs. Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood. The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known. Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.
And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, "in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report"; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began. Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.
We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of kindly feeling. To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.
Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: "What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified? What will our defense be in the eyes of posterity? Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren."
Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.
Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation. On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased. May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: "Make the schisms of the Churches cease," and "Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West.
There were no such thing as "Eastern Orthodox churches" in the first millennium, only churches in the East that recognized the Primacy of the See of Saint Peter, the See of Rome, over the universal church. The "patriarchs" of the East are not the equal in authority or governance to a true and valid Successor of Saint Peter. The conciliar distortion and misrepresentation of the true history of the Church in the First Millennium is, however, a critical building block in false ecumenism, feeding into the view by many conciliarists that the "Anglican Church" is a true church that has a true apostolic mission and is thus on a par with the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church now headed by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and the Orthodox churches.
The truth is, of course, the the Anglican "church" is an apostate creation of a lustful king and the Catholic bishops who enabled his carnal lust and his lust for personal power. It was born in the shedding of the blood of over 72,000 Catholics who remained faithful to the See of Saint Peter and thus the Catholic Faith that took place between 1534 and 1547, the time of the death of the wicked, venal, bloodthirsty King Henry VIII. Some of its liturgical rites, which were declared heretical by Pope Saint Pius V in Regnans in Excelsis on March 5, 1570, are, quite nevertheless, going to be used with the full "blessing" and approval of the conciliar authorities by the "Anglo Catholics" who are exchanging their places in the One World Ecumenical Church from the false Anglican sect to conciliar sect.
So much for the blood of the English Martyrs. So much for Catholic truth, the attack upon which is, as been noted ceaselessly on this site, at the very foundation of the apostate conciliar view of the Faith and even an honest understanding of church history. After all, it's a relatively easy thing to invent delusions about history when one has relativized dogmatic truth. (See Defaming The English Martyrs, Still Defaming The English Martyrs and; for a discussion of the general nature apostasy as the building block of "reconciliation," please see
Red China: Workshop for the New Ecclesiology and
Apostasy: A Model of Reconciliation.)
Yet it is that despite the willingness of the conciliar Vatican to accept the "Anglo Catholics" more or less on their terms, save for the de novo "consecrations" of their "bishops" and "ordinations" of their "priests" that are as sacramentally worthless as the Anglican rites themselves, major figures in the conciliar Vatican still consider the Anglican sect whose "bishops" in their "Church of England" mother ship has just voted to permit the "ordination" of women "bishops" to be an inheritor of Apostolic Tradition, a true and valid "church" that simply needs to be in "full communion" with the mother ship of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Consider this recent interview with "Bishop" Brian Farrell, the Secretary of the "Pontifical" Council for Christian Unity, who has worked under Walter Kasper since December 19, 2002:
ROME, JULY 15, 2010 (Zenit.org).- After a bitter vote, the Church of England decided Monday that women can be consecrated as bishops. But the secretary of the Vatican's unity council says ecumenical dialogue will continue as before.
The synodal decision must be put to a referendum within a year by another similar synod; nevertheless it is a vote that marks an important point within the history of the Church of England.
The vote was noteworthy in another regard: a conciliatory amendment proposed by the archbishops of Canterbury and York, Rowan Williams and John Sentamu, was rejected.
Bishop Brian Farrell, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, told ZENIT that the Anglican decision does represent an "enormous obstacle." Nevertheless, he said, the effects of this vote must be kept in a proper perspective.
ZENIT: The Anglican synod of York approved the ordination of women bishops, a decision that is being imposed gradually in the whole Anglican Communion, against the conviction of the so-called traditionalist communities. This decision can be considered firm, although the final vote will not take place until 2012. Can this decision still change, or can one expect that it will be definitive?
Bishop Farrell: The synod just held in York is the synod of the Church of England and it has no authority outside of England, not even in Wales or Scotland. The Anglican Communion is made up of 38 independent provinces, of which England is one. Several provinces already have women bishops. The synod introduced legislation that would allow this in the Church of England. Undoubtedly the process will continue, because the majority wants this.
ZENIT: One of the great "defeats" of this synod was the rejection of the compromise proposed by the archbishops of Canterbury and York. After the vote, many analysts considered the communion between Anglicans broken. Is this so?
Bishop Farrell: The situation is very complex and even paradoxical. If the compromise had been accepted, one would be faced with a situation in which, for example, a parish or a group could reject the authority of a woman diocesan bishop and place itself under the authority of another male bishop. Thus, that parish would not be in communion with the other parishes of its diocese. In a certain way it would be a structural schism, even if it isn't called that.
Now at this moment, that way of proceeding isn't possible, and the parish only has the option to stay in communion with its own bishop or leave the Church of England. Speaking specifically, that would occasion the loss of members, but not a schism within the Church of England.
ZENIT: In previous meetings, the Vatican warned that the decision to consecrate women bishops would compromise ecumenical dialogue with the Catholic Church. What is the present situation of this dialogue, in the wake of the synod's decision?
Bishop Farrell: All the Churches of the first millennium, Catholic, Eastern and Orthodox, state that only men can be ordained. These Churches see the ordination of women as an illegitimate abandonment of authentic Tradition.
In regard to ecumenical dialogue, as was said earlier, some Anglican provinces have had women bishops for some time, and the dialogue has gone ahead.
Naturally, the dialogue must take account of this situation, and recognize that an enormous obstacle has been created for attaining the objective of the dialogue itself, which would be total and visible ecclesial communion. The Catholic-Anglican dialogue will continue within these parameters.
ZENIT: Several accounts point to the possibility that traditionalist groups will take recourse to "Anglicanorum Coetibus" and enter into communion with the Catholic Church. There has even been news about a group of Anglican priests who were in contact with a Catholic bishop. Is such a movement foreseeable?
Bishop Farrell: The concrete outcome of what is outlined in "Anglicanorum Coetibus" remains to be seen. Anyone who professes the Catholic faith and has no impediment can ask to enter into Catholic communion. Anglicans and former Anglicans can enter into this communion through a jurisdiction that allows the preservation of some elements of the Anglican tradition. As they can also ask, simply, to be received in the local Catholic parish.
A particular problem of discernment arises when it is a question of groups. Not all groups have the same "ecclesial consistency." In the end, it is up to the episcopal conference of a country or region to study well what can and what must be done. I cannot tell if there will be many or few. What we should remember is that what some call "traditionalist Anglicans" usually are of the evangelical part of the Anglican Communion -- hence, far from the Catholic Church in their ecclesiological convictions.
ZENIT: Finally, with what feelings does the Holy See, and in particular the dicastery for Christian unity, receive the decision of the synod of York?
Bishop Farrell: Everything should be seen in its proper perspective. It saddens us that on this point the Anglican Communion has left what we consider the essential Tradition of the Church since its beginning. But the process began a long time ago.
We will continue the ecumenical dialogue with a realism that accepts things as they are and is aware that the road ahead is long and arduous. Knowing, however, that dialogue is a task imposed by Christ himself and sustained by the grace of the Holy Spirit, soul of the Church of Christ. (How Women Bishops Affect Anglican-Catholic Dialogue.)
This is madness. This alleged "bishop," Brian Farrell, does not see that he lives in a world of absolute madness, one of total insanity, by claiming that there "Eastern Orthodox" churches in the First Millennium (there were, as noted earlier, Eastern churches in full communion with true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter; there were no "Orthodox" churches) and by asserting that the "Anglican Communion has left what we consider the essential Tradition of the Church in its beginning" by voting to "ordain" women as "bishops," continuing that the "process began a long time ago." Well, that part is true, of course, except that there was no "process" by which the Anglicans left the "Tradition of the Church since its very beginning." That happened in an instant, in a veritable flash, when King Henry VIII had himself declared "supreme head of the church in England as far as the law of God permits." The only "process" that we have seen is the gradual unfolding of the inherent perfection of the degeneracy of a false sect's heretical teachings over the centuries. And this is leaving aside all comment of his absurd discussion of what constitutes "communion" with one's "bishop" in the "worldwide Anglican Communion." Madness. Just total madness. Anyone who cannot see this as madness
One will also note that "Bishop" Farrell disparages the forthcoming "reception" of the Anglican "traditionalists" into the conciliar structures in accord with Anglicanorum Coetibus, November 9, 2010, by saying that "concrete outcome" of that document has yet to be realized and by disparaging the ecclesiology of some of the "evangelically" minded Anglican "traditionalists." A hearty welcome the "sun deck," if you will, of the One World Ecumenical Church of conciliarism, has now been extended by a conciliar official to say to them, in essence, "Sure, sure, sure. You want to assert your privileges under Anglicanorum Coetibus, well, go ahead and do so. You are outside of the mainstream of your church and you are going to be outside of the mainstream of our church."
Ah, yes, what a welcome waits the soon-to-be members of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who think that they are joining the Catholic Church as they find out what it is to be as much on the "margins" of their new apostate masters as they have been under their apostate Anglican masters. Just a change of the scenery. Nothing other than that.
In many ways, of course, the new experience of isolation and marginalization in conciliar church that awaits the "Anglo Catholics," who are not being required to abjure their errors as they swear allegiance to the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" whose non-orthodoxy was documented by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X (see
The New Catechism: Is it Catholic?), after years of such isolation and marginalization in the Anglican sect is identical to the isolation and marginalization that many, although far from all, traditionally-minded Catholics have experienced from even recently appointed "bishops" in the conciliar structures, no less the old guard ultra-progressives still in power within those structures, ever since the issuance of Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007, as they are "tolerated" in some areas and forbidden altogether in others. A similar experience awaits the "Anglo Catholics" as they join the same false church that most people in the world, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, believe is the Catholic Church but is in fact her counterfeit ape. Some of the new set of false 'bishops" in their new false "church" will welcome them while others will be cold and indifferent. Same isolation and marginalization, only at a different address.
The "Anglo Catholics" are being permitted to retain some of their own doctrinally corrupt and heretical "liturgical books" to permit them to maintain their "traditions" that have earned "legitimacy" with the passage of time from the conciliar officials merely because those ":books" have existed from the time of the Sixteenth Century and are thus part of "Anglican tradition." It is quite interesting to note that those to be "received" into the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism from the Anglican sect will join a group whose "ordinary form" in its version of the Roman Rite that is itself corrupted and thus offensive to God and harmful souls.
Having been accustomed to accepting a "place at the table" in the Anglican sect, the forthcoming new members of the conciliar church will be grateful for the ability to keep their own customs in peace, joining those Catholics in the Motu world who are happy just to have to the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as it exists within the confines of a sect committed to apostasies and blasphemies that must be accepted or overlooked or find way to justify so as to be "at peace" by virtue of having a "place" in the big tent conciliarism. This is all a farce.
The Venerable Mary of Agreda related a vision of the battle between Lucifer and Our Lady that reminds us of the forces that are at work in the counterfeit church of conciliarism today and in the anti-Incarnational world of Modernity in which we live:
517. In such a fearful and horrid shape stood Lucifer,
and with him, in many other and various, all of them
abominable, shapes, stood his fellow-demons, arranged
in battle array around Mary, who was about to bring
forth in spiritual birth the perpetual existence and enrichment of the holy Church. And the dragon, in furious
envy, that this Woman should be so powerful in establishing and spreading this Church, and that She should,
by her merits, example and intercession, enrich it with
so many graces and raise so many myriads of men to their
predestined eternal happiness, stood in readiness to devour if possible, what She was to bring forth and to
destroy this new Church. In spite of the envy of the
dragon She brought forth a man-child, who was to govern
all the nations with a strong rod of iron. This manchild
was the most righteous and strong spirit of the
Church, which in the righteousness of Christ our God
holds sway over all the nations in justice; and likewise it
signified all the apostolic men, who in the same righteous
spirit are to judge (Matth. 19, 28) with the iron rod of
divine justice. All this it was that most holy Mary
brought forth, not only because She gave birth to Christ,
but also because through her merits and diligence She
brought forth the Church in holiness and rectitude,
nourished it during the time She lived in it, and even now
and forever preserves it in the manly spirit, in which it
was born, maintaining the uprightness of the Catholic
truth, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail
(Matth. 16, 18).
(The Venerable Mary of Agreda, The Mystical City of God: Book IV: The Coronation, p. 452.)
In the midst of the incredible apostasies taking place before our very eyes, we must, as always, have recourse to Our Lady as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit and as we keep her company in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and in our time in fervent prayer before her Divine Son's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.
As I noted three days ago in Chastisements Under Which We Must Save Our Souls, part three, while it is certainly true that each person must come to recognize this for himself (it took me long enough to do so; I defended the indefensible for far too long!), we must nevertheless embrace the truth once we do come to recognize and accept it without caring for one moment what anyone else may think about us as we make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. We are not here to be popular or to be respected or to "get along" with everyone for the sake of a false peace founded in a practical indifference to heresy and blasphemy. We must bear a witness to the truth of the Catholic Faith, especially by our actions with others, that is charitable while at the same time unyielding in its defense.
We must cleave to the Catholic Church, not to the counterfeit church of conciliarism, as we attempt to plant the seeds for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
What are we waiting for?
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints