2 December 2009

It's none of my business but ...

I expect many of you will have read on Fr Zed about the RC bishop of Calgary and his clever dodge for making trouble with the FSSP about Holy Communion in the mouth. What price 'subsidiarity'!

Didn't the Holy Father, when he issued his motu proprio, assure his Venerable Brethren that there would be a review in three years' time of any problems that arose?

Could it be that this crafty b****r in Calgary is trying to get ammo by deliberately provoking a confrontation in the hope of getting an angry or 'disobedient' response?

BTW, the photo' makes him look just like the moustachioed Low Church Clergyman in Eric Mascall's poem.

9 comments:

Steve said...

There was at least one RC diocesan bishop in England who banned Communion on the tongue (as well as the common cup) when the "emergency" first arose. It would appear, from the absence of public sparks, that his priests and people simply submitted to his ruling.

(I think the whole reaction to swine flu was way over the top, both in our church and the RC church, but alas, in these days of the compensation culture, I can't find it in my heart to slag the authorities off for this.)

rev'd up said...

That Canuck is nothing but a d**m gypsy. In Canada the Church hierarchy, RC CofC etc., aren't sure who to serve first; themselves or the state. Canada's abysmal record on free-speech, akin to the USSR sans gulags, has hamstrung a seemingly willing Church - the state is ever nearing a ban on "anti-gay" & "anti-Jewish" portions of the Scripture and the Church there simply goes along with it. To me, the most interesting thing is that Bishop Fred's insistence on "communion in the paw" are people *not* in Canada.

rev'd up said...

To me, the most interesting thing is that Bishop Fred's insistence on "communion in the paw" is most upsetting to people who are people *not* in Canada.

johnf said...

With that moustache he looks like a used car salesman to me.

I've just been reading Fr Z's blog and the exchange where the Bishop states:

"the current pandemic circumstances do not warrant the non-reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord in favour of a spiritual communion".

What on earth does that mean? If you attend Mass, you cannot not receive Holy Communion in the hand?

David said...

I haven't yet gotten to Fr. Zd's blog but as a Canadian let me urge a little caution. Bishop Henry is not known as a man to pander to Caesar. It is reported that when he was translated from Sault Ste. Marie Ontario the then Premier of Ontario told the then Premier of Alberta that, "My gain is your loss" and before he was installed in Calgary he took on the provincial government on it's policies regarding gambling to raise revenue.

As regards the Federal govt. he is probably the most vocal of the Canadian bishops in opposing the elimination of the abortion laws as well as on the allowance of same sex marriage. With regard to the latter he didn't hesitate to tell the then Prime Minister of Canada (a Roman Catholic) that he was endangering his immortal soul.

Joshua said...

By now the fear of swine flu as the next great pandemic can be seen to be overblown.

I suspect that in all other places where such measures were taken as to stop the sign of peace, communion from the chalice, and to discourage communion on the tongue (as my own Archbishop did, well aware that he cannot forbid it under Canon Law), the Latin Masses - as in my own experience - went ahead just as before, since they don't have the sign of peace at large (and one can hardly forbid the liturgical pax in the sanctuary), nor communion from the chalice: and because the Trad. Mass slips under the radar, I daresay no diocesan fusspot even thought to consider the case; and note that of course communion in lingua cannot be forbidden. That silly Bishop is ultra vires, and should simply be ignored - isn't that part of the Anglican Patrimony that Benedict wants brought back into the Church?

Sirian said...

I wonder what Rev. Hunwicke will make of the SSPX's position on the new Anglican provision?

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29092

Little Black Sambo said...

"That silly Bishop is ultra vires, and should simply be ignored - isn't that part of the Anglican Patrimony ...?"
Excellent!

Monica said...

David - Bishop Henry was never a bishop in Ste Sault Marie. He was consecrated an auxiliary in London, Ontario, later becoming bishop of Thunder Bay, before his translation to Calgary. The sentiments may be accurate, but the place is not:

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bhenry.html