The non-negotiable Charter of Newchurch

It has been suggested both here in the comment section, as well as to me privately, that the real issue with Fisher More has to do with the way in which the content and impact of Vatican II is treated at the college.

Whether that means via curriculum, or simply the general attitude of the faculty, is unclear.

Blog for Dallas Area Catholics, for instance, has suggested that the problem concerns college president Michael King, who is allegedly “taking an increasingly severe stand regarding the Council and the changes that have occurred in the Church in the past 50 years.” (I resemble that comment.)

Whether or not this is all or part of the problem, I don’t know, but it certainly rings true.

It’s important to realize that the non-negotiable Charter of Newchurch is the text of Vatican Council II; ambiguities, misrepresentations and all of the confusion that comes along with it. It’s their version, or better stated, perversion, of the Oath Against Modernism.

Those who refuse in any way the required lockstep acceptance of the whole kit and kabboodle all but invite ecclesial sanction, even to the point of jeopardizing one’s claim to “full communion,” unless, of course, one happens to be a heretic in Catholic clothing, in which case one has all the qualifications necessary to be a card carrying New Evangelist.

This just so happens to be the primary reason the Society of St. Pius X is on the outside looking in, juridically speaking, as summed up well by Bishop Fellay:

“So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I wouldn’t sign such a statement for the simple reason that it’s simply not true, or as His Excellency said, “that’s not the reality.” Much of the conciliar text is indeed an integral part of tradition, but some of it isn’t, and the utter failure of the post-conciliar popes to clearly distinguish between the two, condemning the latter as a danger to the faith, is precisely why the Church in her visible structures is crumbling at our feet this very day.

As for the suggestion that Mr. King and some of the parents and faculty at Fisher More are having trouble getting along, that’s a pity, but since when does the Church consider withholding access to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from Catholics who are under no canonical penalties a disciplinary tool?

Oh, yea… since “crypto-lefebvrean tendencies” and the Pope of the People came along.

Share this post on:facebooktwittergoogle_plusreddit
Follow us on:facebooktwittergoogle_plusvimeo

Latest Comments

  1. Sean March 3, 2014
  2. ChronicSinner March 3, 2014
    • aroamingcatholicny October 30, 2015
  3. Theresa March 3, 2014
  4. Bosco March 3, 2014
  5. capt. morgan March 3, 2014
  6. Pooh Bear March 3, 2014
  7. Publius March 3, 2014
  8. Dumb_ox March 3, 2014
  9. Dumb_ox March 3, 2014
  10. Genevieve March 3, 2014
  11. rubyroad March 3, 2014
  12. Alphonsus Jr. March 3, 2014
  13. Halina March 3, 2014
  14. Halina March 3, 2014
  15. Rich March 3, 2014
  16. Nell March 3, 2014
  17. Halina March 3, 2014
  18. Halina March 3, 2014
  19. Rich March 3, 2014
  20. Halina March 3, 2014
  21. Andrew March 3, 2014
  22. Andrew March 3, 2014
  23. S.Armaticus March 4, 2014
  24. S.Armaticus March 4, 2014
  25. saluto March 4, 2014
  26. saluto March 4, 2014
  27. saluto March 4, 2014
  28. Catholic at Rome March 4, 2014
  29. saluto March 4, 2014
  30. Catholic Militant March 4, 2014
  31. saluto March 4, 2014
  32. saluto March 4, 2014
  33. c matt March 4, 2014
  34. Publius March 4, 2014
  35. ChronicSinner March 4, 2014
  36. Bosco March 4, 2014
  37. Michael Leon March 4, 2014
  38. S.Armaticus. March 4, 2014
  39. S.Armaticus. March 4, 2014
  40. saluto March 4, 2014
  41. Torquemada Tequila March 5, 2014

Leave a Reply