RU-486 (aka The Bitter Pill aka The Tablet) has an piece by – what could go wrong with this? – a papalatrous ensign of the New catholic Red Guards (aka Lambchop – biretta tip Eccles o{]:¬) ) sort of with and about Archbp. Roche, former and not-so-successful head of ICEL, now head of the CDW.
It is not an interview. Lamb quotes Roach on and off.
Some lowlights.
No… there are too many for one post.
It is a sad fact that when people say outrageous things, it takes ten times the number of words to refute them. That is the case here. Hence, I will limit myself in this post to just one of many. It was hard to pick the first one, since so many deserve the drill.
Mind you, the piece is a stewy mix of Lamb and Roach. It is hard to tell where the editorializing of one leaves off and the notions of the other begin. Let’s assume that they are in a kind of Vulcan mind meld. No… better… let’s assume that they are both tuned to that special call sign on a radio frequency, 1968MHz, which only they and their circle can hear, let’s call it GNØSTC. My emphases and comments:
[…]
It’s not uncommon for newly-ordained priests coming out of seminaries in the Western world to almost immediately start celebrating the Tridentine Mass. [Of course. That’s because they want to give thanks to God in a more perfect way and also to complete their priestly formation.] Roche’s congregation is calling on seminaries to teach the “richness of the liturgical reform called for by the Second Vatican Council”, [Oh boy. See below.] and any newly-ordained priest wishing to celebrate the Mass using the pre-Vatican II liturgical books will need permission to do so from the Holy See. [Good luck with THAT!] “The Holy Father is concerned about formation,” Roche says, and two years ago he asked the members of his congregation, [See the list HERE – talk about the Lost Boys of Neverland] who include bishops and cardinals from across the world, to discuss the issue. “All of them [Uh huh!] thought that formation was pretty inadequate within seminaries in general as well as within the life of the Church,” and as a result a document is being prepared that Roche says will address the issue.
[…]
There is little question that formation is “inadequate” in seminaries “in general”. By definition it is limited and priesthood is huge, and a lifetime follows.
However, who thinks that the formation in seminaries in general ignores or runs down Vatican II?
On the other hand, who thinks that formation in seminaries in general goes on and on about Vatican II?
I suspect that seminarians hear “Vatican II” so often that they are a little too saturated with it. They have been formed by it and… they are choosing to say the Vetus Ordo “almost immediately”.
Do you see the disconnect?
The libs have had their way with seminaries for decades. There was a bit of an overhaul of seminaries back in the direction of the Catholic Church, but even then the formation of seminarians had a great emphases on Vatican II, it’s just that when the adults were in charge again, they gave seminarians the good stuff about Vatican II, they had them read documents. And now, the seminarians choose almost immediately to say the TLM. It’s not that they don’t know about Vatican II: they know it all too well. I dare say they may have a better perspective on it than Roche, since he is locked into a certain generation.
Let me put it this way.
The seminarians learned all about Vatican II. If they celebrate the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo, they must think that the Vetus Ordo is not out of harmony with Vatican II. Perhaps it even expresses certain aspects of Vatican II better than the Novus Ordo. That said, perhaps they have merely put Vatican II into perspective: just one more Council and, perhaps, not as important as the previous two generations thought.
That said, you can imagine the outrage that will erupt from the Keepers of the Spirit huddled jibbering to their official Synod-approved authentic replica Pachamama figurines.
“NoooooOOOO! You have it all WRONG! **wrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrong** WEEEE get to say what Vatican II means…..ggggrrrrr…..HEEEEEE HEE HEEEEE!“
For example… get a load of this from Beans from his profound simmering Villanovan crockpot. Beans is referring to the famous, important address of Pope Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia in Dec. 2005, in which he spoke of interpretations of the Council. It was, in fact, a long speech also against Rahner.
So… no one but Beans and few others know what that speech really said. As a matter of fact, not even Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI knows what it means! Bean & Co. will no doubt be telling us that rupture with the past instead of being rupture with the past, is really continuity with the past.
Mind you, that B as in B, S as in S from Beans reflects another notion of his, namely, that the Council is an interpretive lens (hermeneutic) through which all of previous Cult, Code and Creed, must not just be interpreted, but reinterpreted. Hence, for Beans et al., the Council becomes the measure of continuity over and above everything that comes to us via Tradition. This is one reason why the egg-heads are attacking the TLM… no… the people who want the TLM so viciously.
If you can unmoor Cult, Code and Creed from the past and Tradition, you can reduce the supernatural to the nature without oppositions, make the Church into an globalist NGO, and secure statements of approval for all manner of activity, including sodomy.
