The head of the Anglican Communion, what they call their Archbishop of Canterbury, although that see is vacant from the Catholic point of view or canons, is in no way a deacon, priest or bishop—she simulates being so.
Since Anglicanism separated from Catholicism by decree of a secular king who then declared himself the head of the Church of England, that Church, her deacons, priests, bishops, religious and laity became schismatic and I presume excommunicated—please correct me if I am wrong.
Yet, because of ecumenical sensitivities, Pope Leo and all popes since Paul VI and including him have met with schismatics, prayed with them and allowed them to use Catholic Churches and basilicas for their liturgies.
My former parish of Saint Anne in Richmond Hill, Georgia in the 1980’s allowed an Episcopal parish, Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, to rent their original church for their Eucharist and use the Catholic altar in that church. Their pastor was a female “priestess”.
I am not opposed to ecumenism and have been quite ecumenically friendly in my priestly ministry. I think it is a necessity in the Bible Belt.
But the cozy relationship popes and the Catholic Churches have with schismatics, like the Orthodox, the Protestants and the Anglican Communion allowing them to even bless Catholic bishops, makes me wonder why there is such concern about the FSSPX and their upcoming schismatic act of ordaining new bishops, validly but illicitly. These schismatic bishops are more Roman Catholic than any Eastern Orthodox Bishops. They are validly, though illicitly ordained unlike the Anglican Community where their orders are not just illicit but invalid.
Why not embrace the newly ordained FSSPX bishops with the same love and admiration and privileges as the Archbishop of Canterbury whoever that might be, male, female, trans or whatever???????
That’s the question I would like to pose and hear an answer. Thank you.
2 comments:
Speaking of the SSPX:
=======
In regard to the Archbishop of Canterbury's visit to Rome:
I wonder whether Father David Father Pagliarani, SSPX Superior General,
will utilize Pope Leo XIV's actions and address as his (Father Pagliarani's) Assisi I.
That is, Archbishop Lefebvre/SSPX employed Assisi I as "proof" that Rome had lost its head...that it was obvious supposedly that "Modernist Rome" had fallen into such a deep crisis that the SSPX had every right and reason to consecrate bishops against Rome's will.
It may be that the above is unnecessary as Father Pagliarani has insisted that under Pope Leo XIV's leadership, the "crisis" within the Church is as pronounced as ever.
Father Pagliarani has portrayed Pope Leo XIV as a ruinous Pope...Pope Francis (requiescat in pace) 2.0.
Father Pagliarani:
"With the legacy left to us by Pope Francis, the fundamental reasons that justified the consecrations of 1988 still exist and, in many respects, impel us with renewed urgency.
"The Second Vatican Council remains more than ever the compass guiding today’s churchmen, and they are unlikely to change course in the near future.
"Furthermore, the major orientations already taking shape in this new pontificate...only confirm this.
"An explicit determination to preserve the line of Pope Francis as an irreversible trajectory for the entire Church is discernible."
=======
Nevertheless, just for good measure, Father Pagliarani may utilize Pope Leo XIV's red carpet treatment yesterday of Archbishop Mullally as his Assisi I...to bolster his argument that it's imperative that the SSPX consecrate bishops even without Papal mandate.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Absolutely! Just as Martin Luther did, the Eastern Orthodox do and the Anglican Communion does, all with their own brand of gripes with the pope. The FSSPX should be treated no differently than the popes treat the older schismatics, the historic ones. We agree! Wow! đŸ¤¯
Post a Comment