Pages

Wednesday, 5 September 2012

Dreadful Church teaching defender Bishop to address Catholic priests

The forthcoming Colloquium of the British Province of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy will take place from 23-24 October. I mentioned before that my good friend Bishop Philip Egan will be there. He is celebrating Mass on the first day and preaching. The talk on the first evening will be given by Fr Uwe Michael Lang, on the subject of the 50th anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium, "Towards a New Liturgical Movement"

The second conference, on the New Evangelisation, will be given by Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, the recently-appointed Vice-President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. He will be celebrating Mass at which Mgr Keith Newton, the Ordinary of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham will preach.

Finally, Fr Andrew Pinsent, Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Religion and Science at Oxford University will be speaking on "Science, Grace and Catholic Enlightenment."

Vatican II, the New Evangelisation, Science and Religion - for any moderate, Church-loving priest who wants to engage in the Year of Faith, what's not to like?

For the Tablet, quite a bit, it seems. The Notebook observes that Bishop Egan's appointment was seen as "part of a trend to appoint outspoken defenders of Church teaching to dioceses in England and Wales." How dreadful! Fancy appointing Bishops who are outspoken defenders of the teaching of the Church! Most of us might see the defence of the teaching of the Church as an uncontroversial requirement of Canon Law for the appointment of Bishops. In Tablet-speak it makes him a "rising star for the conservative wing of the Church in England and Wales." Can they really mean that the other Bishops are generally not outspoken defenders of the teaching of the Church? Perish the thought!

In classic Tablet style, the Notebook piece was used as a dolly-up for a thunderous letter the following week (everyone I know who has ever written or tried to write to the Tablet has told me of the close editorial control of the letters page.) Mr Angry refers to Bishop Egan's nefarious role as Church teaching defender, along with his guilt by association with Bishop Mark Davies. He reckons that
The plans and purposes of this confraternity should be made known as widely as possible, openly debated and wherever necessary vigorously opposed.
You can see the full text of the letter in the comment from Richard Duncan at Fr Ray Blake's post CCC Colloquium: 2012. I refer priests to it especially because you may find that it motivates you to attend the Colloquium. Here is a link to the Booking form.

And here is another graphic that has been too long absent from the blog:


10 comments:

Trisagion said...

I am reliably informed that the editrix threw what FrZ would call a "spittle flecked nutty" when she learned of the appointment.

Recusant said...

Having read said letter, I really don't understand the part that says: "[The CCC] is totally unable to distinguish between its version of ecclesiology, the sacraments, male and female relationships, and so on from what is also now on offer, and has been for many centuries, in the Universal Church."

Maybe that's because there is no difference between the CCC's version of ecclesiology, the sacraments, male and female relationships, and what is now and has always been the teaching of the Universal Church.

Or does Irate of Cheshire understand the sacraments in a similar vein to Magnums, with new flavours coming out regularly, subject to availability of course.

vetusta ecclesia said...

I became a lay member of CCC as soon as I read this piece!

Amfortas said...

I once managed to get a letter praising the new English translation of the mass published in The Tablet. It was heavily edited and, as such, a key part of my argument was excised. It appeared alongside a very long letter from Una Kroll or some such person. I still buy The tablet for the international news coverage and book reviews. I know I shouldn't but I do.

Amfortas said...

The Bitter Pill has been full of letters about Fr John McDade SJ, following the announcement that he has asked to be released from his vows and the priesthood. Apparently he may marry. The correspondents, of course, argue for married clergy but ignore the fact that the man in question is a religious. These people would simply abandon anything, including any notion of sacrificial love or service, in their desire to protestantise the church.

Supertradmum said...

Thanks for sharing this. I hope the CDF goes for the Tablet.

It is not even worth the paper it is published on.

This magazine is all over retreat centers and schools, libraries and in the back of churches.

tempus putationis said...

A word of warning to lay Catholics attracted to the Conference by this exhilarating programme: only ordained members may attend! This is what I was told last year, to my great disappointment.

Fr Tim Finigan said...

Yes, it is a Confraternity for priests. I hope that in due course the Confraternity will have the resources to offer an open lecture as happens with the Australian CCC.

Padre Giovanni Trigilio said...

By Divine Providence, CCC are the same letters of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Dissident priest groups dissent from that Catechism while the faithful sons of the Church in the UK staunchly adhere to the Code of Canon Law and totally embrace the teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Your American cousins (CCC in the USA) send three cheers to the British Province. Saint Augustine of Canterbury would be proud of you. May he and Our Lady, Regina Cleri, protect you

Fr Tim Finigan said...

Many thanks indeed, Father.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...