Rorate Caeli

New Meeting with the heads of Dicasteries

The Italian news agency ANSA informs (see similar dispatch at Corriere della Sera) that a new meeting of the heads of Dicasteries would have been called by Pope Benedict to discuss the current situation of the "Lefebvrist" question, as it happened last April 7.

The meeting is scheduled for November 16, next Thursday and would also involve a discussion on the question of "Viri Probati", related to the "Milingo Crisis".

Update (2100 GMT): France-Presse (AFP) states that "the Vatican spokesman" said that the ANSA story is incorrect and that "only" the "Milingo situation", "the requests for dispensation from the celibacy obligation", and "the demands for readmission into priestly life from married priests" (see APcom dispatch - APcom is the Italian branch of The Associated Press) will be discussed in the Thursday meeting.


10 comments:

  1. Why "crisis"? Do they mean crisis of empty and closing seminaries with rapidly declining numbers of presbyters? Is there an agenda to introduce married priests? What is there to discuss - priestly celebacy is untouchable is it not?

    Now wait a moment. In the post-conciliar church nothing remains untouched - everything has to evolve cosmologically according to the mood of the times. Therefore, when the ruling elite or do we mean the well-organised aggressive liberal etc minority pressure group want more novelties then we all "obey" the new dictat even if it is un-Catholic - convergence and universal salvation, un-Catholic liturgies and women/girls on the sanctuary spring to mind, among many others since the 1960s.

    The notion of married Catholic clergy brings to mind what has transpired among protestant sects. A recent protestant fundamentalist is a graphic case - married with 5 children he has consorted with sodomite prostitutes. Then there will be gay "married" clergy and lesbian priestesses and divorced remarried clergy and adulterous clerics and............. What is there really to discuss? Is this what The Church wants? If not, then why keep opening the door to even more dangers?

    Evil times indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The report is probably incorrect.Why would they discuss admittting married men to the priesthood when at the recent synod that very thing was proposed and then shot down by the synod fathers?

    ReplyDelete
  3. How about: readmit Archbishop Milingo and his following of married priests but only give them faculties to offer the Missale Romanum, 1962?

    ReplyDelete
  4. mack,

    as a Catholic you should no better than to spout such garbage.

    The notion of married Catholic clergy brings to mind what has transpired among protestant sects. A recent protestant fundamentalist is a graphic case

    Just as celibacy has nothing to do with the scandal of priests (even pre-Vatican II ones) molesting teenage boys, non-celibacy has nothing to do with a protestant man cavorting with sodomites.

    It seems clear to me that, the French episcopate wants the schismatics returned as soon as possible... not the LeFebrite ones, but the Milingoists...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another sign of dysfunctional Rome. Is it possible to mantain sanity in the Catholic Church?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Matt

    Time to reflect at deeper levels & stop the wishful thinking. All these issues are intricately intertwined as part and parcel of a crisis of sexual & gender identities which has had its own effects upon the catholic priesthood and seminary life. I certainly am not ignorant here.

    One door opens to another - as we have discovered with NO church in the last 45 years. If you want to understand what will happen to NO church if she continues along her current crooked pathway now, just look across at what has occurred in the Anglican/Episcopalian sect. Women are not only readers but have become "priestesses" & "bishops". So-called 'gay' male & female clergy have added to the state of utter confusion amongst anglicans. Already NO service has altar servettes and we have quasi-priestesses next to the presbyter assisting when he is at the table. They shovel out the communion host. There are women giving the sermon, too. To believe these issues have had no effect upon the NO presbyter or those who think they have a religious vocation is not being realistic.

    Moreover, on the question of married Catholic clergy, regard the protestants! In view of the contemporary relativistic philosophies on sexual and gendered identities allowing married men as priests will solve nothing. The perverts will keep arriving on the emptying seminary & convent doorsteps and there will be even more potential routeways to achieve their twisted desires. It will only create even more problems than the church has at present. Milingo & his like are best left where they are. What happens if such characters go off with another woman? or decide they want to live with another man? or make a come back as divorced presbyters?

    ReplyDelete
  7. ... just look across at what has occurred in the Anglican/Episcopalian sect. Women are not only readers but have become "priestesses" & "bishops"...

    I have seen a priest and a nun alternate saying the priest's words from the Mass. Fortunately, I've only seen that particular abuse one time, and that was more than 15 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There might be more here than meets the eye.

    I was puzzled why the Holy Father would convene an interdicastrial meeting on such two divergent issues as the indult and the "Milingo crisis." But apparently he sees an opportunity that I missed.

    I stumbled on this earlier today - http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2006/11/pope_throws_ope.html

    Take a look especially at the second to last paragraph.

    Is it possible that Benedict is contemplating a PAA for the Anglican Use liturgy (which, remember, doesn't exist simply in English) to facilitate the return of married priests while at the same time freeing the TLM for the entire Church?

    Would doing these things at the same time make doing either more palatable? Is it logical?

    Freeing the TLM would of course not bring home all the discontented trads. Establishing a worldwide PAA for the Anglican Use would not reclaim the vocations of all married priests. Benedict surely knows that. But would it reconcile most, while at the same time wrenching the Church back mightly in the direction of traditional worship?

    I'd love to hear your thoughts, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry, the link won't post correctly. Here it is again:
    http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2006/11/
    pope_throws_ope.html

    I'm afraid you'll have to cut and paste it in sections. It's to Ruth Gledhill's most recent Timesonline column.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I thought that this was already the practice in the Church, to allow Anglican"priests" to enter in communion with the Holy See. I read that back in 1979 JPII allowed anglican priests married, to enter in communion with the Holy See, even allowing them to celebrate the Anglican Mass (?). So nothing is new. AMDG.

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!