*Here is an extremely revealing Tradition Days' Conference address by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, SSPX. In addition to revealing some details about Rome's refusal to grant canonical recognition to the Society of St. Pius X, His Excellency makes clear his support for Bishop Fellay and the General Council; so much for those who think Bishop de Galarreta is in the "Williamson Camp". It is apparent that there isn't the division in the SSPX that some have been fantasizing about.
*It's official: Bishop Richard Williamson has been removed from the SSPX. There's a regular tizzy over this at CathInfo. There are no little conspiracy theories, not the least of which was one that speculated a secret deal has already been struck between Rome and the SSPX. As I've said before, the only people who think there will be a Rome-SSPX deal are the folks over at CathInfo. HOWEVER, maybe there are one or two people in the Vatican too...
*The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei releases this rather positive update on the Rome/SSPX "discussion", which is characterized as a "positive process". In his latest "Eleison Comments", Bishop Williamson speculated that his "exclusion may or may not have been a pre-condition set by Rome for a Rome-SSPX agreement, but in any case it certainly favours one." Given the sudden flowery words of the PCED on the heels of Bishop Williamson's exclusion, I think I might just be inclined to agree with His Excellency. Unlike Bishop Williamson, however, I don't think this is bad.
*Some of my friends have long ago dismissed Cardinal Francis George as a hopeless case, but I've always thought that given his current medical condition (please continue to pray for this Prince of the Church) that he is now in a position to be more truthful than others of equal office. Recently, and I think significantly, Cardinal George re-iterated his dire prediction about secularism and a coming persecution of the Church in America. The recent Synod on the "New Evangelization" (a phrase that is tired and worn out) discussed the obstacle of secularism in the Western world. Cardinal Donald Wuerl upon exiting the synod described secularism as a destructive "tsunami" that wiped away "foundational concepts" such as family, marriage, right and wrong, the common good, and objective order. Maybe it's time to set aside all the hermeneutics and give Tradition a try as an antidote to the ravages of secularism.
*Could it be that our prelates are simply too stubborn to concede the plain and simple fact that on the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council that they are celebrating a catastrophe?
*God's wrath against the Modernists, or just a strange coincidence?
*Obama's dream of a perverted sex paradise where women and girls, at any post-pubescent age, are completely objectified and used solely for male gratification has become a reality in France.
*The truth about contraception:
As what I would assume to be a rather impartial observer (I am not a regular SSPX attendee, etc.), I must admit that I did not find the interview with Mr. Krah all that convincing.
ReplyDeleteHe seems to obfuscate the real question about the State of Israel by refusing to address the theoretical question and instead stating that the practical situation is not so bad so we ought not to worry. That does little to dispel accusations, be they factual or not, of him being a Zionist.
Furthermore, his last point about how he would attend another Friends of Tel Aviv even, comes across as immature and confrontational. He ought not to be supporting such a group, and even if going to a reception is not supporting them per se, plenty of folks quite understandably interpret it as such, so why the insipid and childish "I will do what I want" trope?
Also, if Mr. Krah has no share in internal affairs of the SSPX as he states, and those things are solely within the purview of the SSPX authorities, then why does he feel the need to insert his editorial comment about +Williamson having "openly underminded authority and hierarchy?"
He basically seems to think that Catholics=Republicans, and that Jews now are the same sort of Jews as Our Lord, Our Lady, and St. Joseph. As I said, unconvincing.
Mr Krah's comment about the State of Israel betray a baffling naivete. I cant think of one other soi disant traditionalist who is so sanguine about that criminal state and its war crimes. And, of course, in the early Catholic Church the jews sat up front as the first Catholics were primarily Jews whereas the Jews of today are Jews due to their rejection of the Messias; that is, being a Jew is a matter of belief, not race.
ReplyDeleteThe Law of Return in Israel ceases to consider as a Jew a man born of a Jewish Mom if he converts to Catholicism although he is still considered a Jew if he converts to, say, Buddhism.