Hamlet III, ii, 239

The always vigilant Rorate posted a fascinating statement issued by the French bishops’ conference at the end of their plenary. Read this and think about it. Is there anything about this that seems a little weird to you? (My emphasis)

Conference of the bishops of France
Plenary Assembly – November 2006

Message of the Assembly of the bishops of France
to Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard,
President of the Conference

Assembled in Lourdes for their Plenary Assembly, the bishops of France wish to express their communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

With him, they recognize the riches of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, fruit of the living Tradition of the Church.

With him, they wish to proceed with the reception of the various faithful of Christ attached to the liturgical forms previous to this Council.

With him, they share the desire for the reconciliation of the priests and lay faithful which have separated themselves from ecclesial communion after this Council.

 

The bishops expect from these faithful a gesture of unequivocal assent to the teachings of the authentic Magisterium of the Church. French history has its own complexity; the liturgical question is not the sole source of difficulties. In its Tradition, the Church has always associated the liturgy to her faith.

The bishops affirm their attachment to the liturgical renewal willed by the Second Vatican Council, whose implementation, [which is] always to be promoted, testify to the fidelity both of priests and of communities.

The Assembly expresses its fraternal confidence to the President of the Conference, Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard. It restates to the Holy See the will of the bishops of France to work for reconciliation in truth and in charity.

November 9, 2006
In the feast of the Dedication of Saint John Lateran
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Hamlet III, ii, 239

  1. John says:

    Sounds like a polititian saying that now that his Party lost he is willing to work with the loyal opposition on the difficult issues for the good of the country. Is that right?

  2. B. says:

    It is interesting that “unequivocal assent to the teachings of the authentic Magisterium of the Church” is only expected from a special group of the faithful.

  3. Fascinating…

    French history has its own complexity; the liturgical question is not the sole source of difficulties.

    I suspect that for the French in particular it’s particularly important that any liberalization of the use of the Tridentine rite not carry with it any political baggage.

  4. Jordan Potter says:

    If “these faithful” have separated themselves from communion with the Church, in what way are they “faithful”?

  5. Jordan: One might also ask this question: If they are “faithful” why do they say they are “separated”?

  6. Jon says:

    “French history has its own complexity; the liturgical question is not the sole source of difficulties.”

    Complexity indeed.

    “. . . out of the tomb of the murdered monarchy in France has arisen a vast, tremendous, unformed spectre, in a far more terrific guise than any which ever yet have overpowered the imagination, and subdued the fortitude of man. Going straight forward to its end, unappalled by peril, unchecked by remorse, despising all common maxims and all common means, that hideous phantom overpowered those who could not believe it was possible she could at all exist.”
    — Edmund Burke, Letters on a Regicide Peace (1796)

  7. Paul Haley says:

    If “unequivocal assent to the teachings of the authentic Magisterium of the Church” is required of those who are attached to the previous liturgical form and, if the bishops have to profess their union with the Pope, they must consider themselves to be in some way separated from the rest of the “faithful” and, perhaps even from the Pope himself. As to the demand for “unequivocal assent”, why is their emphasis on the 2nd Vatican Council which proclaimed, according to Paul VI, no new doctrine, instead of all the previous doctrinal councils of the church? They appear so afraid that their house of cards will come crashing down.

  8. Henry Edwards says:

    The bishops expect from these faithful a gesture of unequivocal assent to the teachings of the authentic Magisterium of the Church.

    And I suspect many of their faithful might be reassured by a gesture affirming as well their bishops unequivocal assent to the teachings of the authentic Magisterium of the Church.

    The bishops affirm their attachment to the liturgical renewal willed by the Second Vatican Council, whose implementation …

    And also by their bishops not only affirming atttachment to but actually acting to implement the liturgical renewal as willed by Vatican II.

  9. Siobhan says:

    They want to “express their communion” with Pope Benedict XVI? That is beyond bizarre as a way to “express” one’s fidelity to the Holy Father. It sounds like statements made by breakaway Anglican groups who would state their “communion with Canterbury” with no such thing existed. Maybe it is simply striking me in the wrong way, but I got the same sense of it in French, and it disturbs me.

    Perhaps they realized they better get on board in some way or Pope Benedict would jettison them and recognize the SSPX as the only Church in France. Now I know that sound nuts from the outside, but these French bishops are living derelicts of the false “spirit of Vatican II” (which needs to exorcised once and for all in favour of reading the Pastoral Council’s texts in light of the tradition and Magisterium of the Church.

  10. michigancatholic says:

    You nailed it Siobhan. They sound like no more than the opporosition of the traditionalists. What’s more, with all that V2 talk in there, they almost sound like they’re trying to tell the Pope what to do!!

  11. michigancatholic says:

    Sorry–opporostion = opposition. My comments keep running off the end of the page for some reason and I have to trust my typing for a word or two which is hazardous in the extreme.

  12. Jeff says:

    I don’t think the canard that the Vatican Council didn’t teach doctrine can stand. (Or waddle, or whatever ducks do.) Yes, yes, Pope John, I think, made some introductory remarks saying that the Council wasn’t called to teach “new doctrine” or something. So what? It did anyway, regardless of what the original vision of that Blessed Pope was.

    There are two “Dogmatic Constitutions”, for example–those sound like teaching documents to me! There are not infallible definitions or anathemas attached, that’s true. Therefore, they are vague and amorphous and without ascertainable value I’m told, like–I guess–that similarly optional and non-authoritative piece of ambiguity, the Sermon on the Mount.