I don’t like to be seen as too negative, but I think some things here and there need to be answered. We got this comment today on The Anglo-Catholic from a Church of England cleric who took our previous criticism of his position personally:

The comments on this blog reveal a serious lack of comprehension of the Catholic movement in the Church of England, for which the article was written. It describes attitudes here as they are, rather than as wishful thinking would like them to be.

Anglicanorum Coetibus does seem to be designed principally for the Church of England, rather than TAC. Cardinal Kasper has said so. The announcement was made in England, with the Archbishop of Canterbury on the platform, not representatives of TAC.

AC needs to be appraised realistically. Will it be viable in England? I note the very subdued expectations on this blog about its reception by Anglicans in N America.

I would answer simply by saying that if this priest is right, the Pope is truly poaching – and that makes nonsense of his assurance to +Rowan that ecumenism would continue. Perhaps His Holiness is lying? We have already commented on Cardinal Kasper’s comments, which are totally misleading and irrelevant. The Pope and Cardinal Levada trump Cardinal Kasper. I suppose Father doesn’t have an ace up his sleeve? See the comments on the original posting.

Another couple of titbits I picked up today concern Evreux and France. In the official review of the diocese of Evreux, we find a curious position on the Eucharist for a Catholic priest.

When one speaks of the Real presence, the idea expresses the real presence of Christ in his Church.

That seem somewhat ambiguous and fairly harmless, but this priest has the kindness to make himself clear – source: "Let us not imagine we eat the flesh of the man Jesus … The flesh spoken about in St John’s Gospel “My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John vi. 51-53.) is the flesh of the resurrected, the body of Christ, a “spiritual body”. What is the mode of presence of a “spiritual” body? Not a physical presence but a sacramental or symbolic presence. The Sacrament, the symbol, uniting the human and the divine, the most material (bread) and the most “spiritual” (the body of Christ)".

This is pure Gnosticism (dualism between flesh and spirit). Here is also a site on Gnosticism from the point of view of those who promote it. I would advise against reading the latter site unless you have a good grounding in Catholic theology. The characteristic of Gnosticism that is at issue here is that matter cannot participate in spirit (and vice versa). Thus the Incarnation and any consequence of the Incarnation would be impossible.

It gets better. The priest appointed to take Fr Michel’s place has had this to say:

Encouraging the commitment of each person in the service of the common good. Favorising la unionisation of persons to contribute to the social dialogue. Supporting elected authorities [preferably socialists?] in their initiatives to favour employment. Getting close to the most fragile. Interrogating those who have a certain power over cashflows to make money a means of development for all and not a source of personal enrichment. Maintaining international actions of solidarity. Avoiding  making of our religion a disincarnate form of pietism and ceasing to live as if the way of God did not go though man.

This, though capable of a Christian interpretation, is pure left-wing politics.

These things are so many red herrings designed to weaken our resolve and confidence. Pope Benedict XVI is not senile or out of touch with reality. He would not put his entire credibility on the line for something designed to fail. He knows perfectly well what is going on. His purpose is one of restoration and a true Catholic movement to sweep away all this tired-out Establishment nonsense.

* * *
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!