The Chairman's blog
Whilst, in the past, I have not always seen eye to eye with you, or indeed agreed with many of your attitudes, I must commend you on a well presented & forthright interview which did, in many ways, encapsulate the thought processes of the traditional community through the LMS. I still wonder what effect or use these symposia are or have for the way forward. We all know & agree that the way forward for our love of the EF Mass is dependant on who our bishop is. But does this 'talking shop' leave us any nearer to having any influence on future appointments or are we simply relying on the fact that the 'old fashioned post Vat2' bishops are going? Your comment regarding the 'leave us alone' situation does not fill me with joy as we must, IMHO, always continue to press for more & more celebrations of the EF Mass. Whilst it is great to see the FSSP & ICKSP doing so well & allowing us to retain important churches it should surely be the aim to have more diocesan clergy presenting the EF Mass to more Catholics! It surely is common sense to see that those 2 orders which are attracting so many vocations are doing so because of their charism in celebrating the sacraments in the traditional form & we can only increase diocesan vocations by reminding Catholics of what they have lost.
Do you really think God is calling men to be part of the new church, David? That they could have a true vocation to be invalidly ordained by an invalidly consecrated 'bishop' to offer an invalid rite (while occasionally simulating the Traditional Mass, perhaps)? Even the semi-traditional societies have the first problem. As the late Father Carl Pulvermacher is reported to have said 'Once there are no more valid priests, they’ll permit the Latin Mass'.
Sedelondon: There is no remotely plausible argument against the validity of the sacraments with the reformed rites. David: I didn't mean we wouldn't ask for things! In do that in the way you'd expect, as the LMS always has.
It is unsurprising that the Chairman of an organisation which depends for its existence upon priests and bishops ordained and consecrated according to the new rites would find arguments against their validity implausible. Your lofty dismissal of these arguments does not carry much weight. But I could direct my original question to you: 'Do you really think God is calling men to be part of the new church?'
Sedelondon. I really don't understand your remarks following my comment. That is unless your blog name means you are a sedevacantist! If that is the case I pray for you.
Thanks for this, I'll look out for the other reports from the Roman Forum at The Remnant.Was HJA Sire there, perchance? I'm rather a fan of his.I thought your comment about the direability of benign neglect was spot-on. As recent discussions have shown, a new Pope who was very keen on the Old Rite might actually prove problematic, so it might be fine just to have the breathing space for the traditional movement to keep growing quietly.
Henry Sire wasn't there this year.
Praying for benign neglect. Michael's follow-up remark echoes what we're thinking; that, left alone, the movement will grow stronger. These gatherings, for the symposium and the like, seem to be an excellent way to take stock of things and build-up friendships, networks and alliances; not mere 'talking shops'.Recent Vatican rumblings just a day after this was published suggest benign neglect may not be certain. But, this is 'overheard information', apparently (recent lifesite article).