Thank you, that helps. So it sounds like all the centers really have the same position now. Why did the one group move up to NH?
By "the same position," you might be misunderstanding by oversimplification.
The group that occupies the original Center house in Still River,
Massachusetts (not NY, not NH), is favorable to the NovusOrdo calendar, liturgy, innovations etc. (not doctrinal but by overt practice, and not including such things as communion in the hand, altar girls, liturgical dancing, 'baptism of desire', clown mass, and so on), all consequent to Vat. II: something that Fr. Feeney never supported. Whereas the "SBC West," the Center in Richmond, NH, and as I understand it the little house adjacent to the Still River Center house (about 50 yards down the street) are all loyal to the old (pre-Vat.II) calendar, liturgy, rubrics, Breviary and traditions. (I don't know about the group in Ohio.)
They all await Rome to return to the faith. Sound familiar? What has been going on in the St. Benedict Center since 1949 is now going on in the SSPX.
They are mirror images of each other, in many ways, with a few minor differences.
An overly simplistic outlook might contend that the SBC people all condemn 'baptism of desire' as a heresy, but that's a bald faced lie, as Matthew might say (if he understood the controversy). The SBC people (in all 5 groups) do no such thing. They simply say that 'baptism of desire' is not a defined dogma (which is objectively true).
If the Pope were to define 'baptism of desire' tomorrow, all 5 branches of the SBC would be the first in line to accept his definition. You OBVIOUSLY can't say that about the C-Z Dimonds. Therein lies the rub.
The most curious anomaly to my observation of this whole mess is that the SBC has managed to obtain from the local bishops to a large degree precisely what Bishop Fellay has long desired:
normalization. And they have done so without compromising in matters of doctrine. Interestingly, Bishop Fellay is willing to compromise on doctrine in order to achieve what the SBC has done WITHOUT doctrinal compromise.
Now, if the local bishops who have regularized the SBC in their areas were to believe that 'baptism of desire' were a matter of doctrine, why would they have regularized the "Feeneyites" who do not agree with that (false) proposition? In other words, the mere fact that the local ordinary of any diocese is willing to accept the SBC as a normal Catholic community (even while they continue to say, truthfully, that 'baptism of desire' is not a dogma), shows that the local ordinary does not teach that it IS a dogma.
That answers the question on another thread about whether it's
"de fide" or not.
You see, the real problem isn't 'baptism of desire' at all. The real problem is that ever since October 11th, 1962, when John XXIII gave his Most Regrettable Speech (M.R.S.), the Church in Rome has abandoned the practice of dogmatically defining ANYTHING. There has been a wholesale evacuation of the Holy See from the PRINCIPLE of dogmatic definition.
This is the key achievement of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the Vatican. They have somehow managed to install the innovation of LET'S-NOT-DO-ANY-MORE-DEFINING-OF-ANYTHING.
So naturally, when it comes to 'baptism of desire' (which can mean different things to different people even though they're all using the same words) there is no unity of purpose, there is no common truth in the Faith of Catholics, there is no solid basis for what to believe and what not to believe, because that would require DEFINITION, and Rome doesn't define anything anymore.
Have you heard the Pope define anything since John XXIII?
How about "Who am I to judge?" (Francis regarding ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs) -- is that definitive?
How about "There is no Catholic God." (Francis to an atheist, and he did not refute this) -- definitive?
How about JPII regarding the ordination of women? He had said in apparently the most solemn tones that women cannot be ordained, but as Benedict XVI explained years later, JPII did not have the intention of making a doctrinal definition on the matter at the time. We never had heard that before BXVI explained it. But the Pope lacking the intention to define arguably introduces ambiguity. We could say that the fact of the definition is a thing unto itself, and that the intention of the Pope who spoke it is another thing. Well, we can also argue that it is not legitimate to SEPARATE the two, but only to DISTINGUISH them. You cannot divorce the spoken word from the person who speaks them, but you can say that what was spoken did or did not carry with it a particular INTENTION of the speaker. So the distinction of what was meant from what was said is not the same thing as the separation of who said it from what he said. The bottom line is, this introduction of ambiguity raises doubts about the doctrinal clarity of any 'definition' in this matter of women's ordination, and ambiguity itself is inimical to doctrine,
per se.
So you want BoD to be defined, and everyone will be happy?? Good luck!!
Any way you slice it, there is a
reluctance of the Vatican to clearly define anything, (or should I say an obstinate REFUSAL?) and that naturally spills over to the topic of 'baptism of desire', which, BTW, has never been defined.
The "one group" who moved to New Hampshire (Richmond) was led there by Brother Francis Maluf, MICM, who was very proud to assure all comers that it was he who was Fr. Feeney's right hand man. Bro. Francis was a brilliant scholar, university professor, language expert, and historian who taught hundreds of classes for decades upon decades to anyone who would listen. He died recently and his is a most tragic loss for everyone. He was not in favor of the quasi-political coup that took place after Fr. Feeney died, and he lived to his dying day in hopes of unity in the Center, but that was not to be for him to see happen, sadly. There is a lot of suffering among the followers of Fr. Feeney, but they bear it with aplomb and grace.
Theirs is an edifying example for all with eyes to see and ears to hear.
.
Topic: Differences between St. Benedict Center Still River vs. New Hampshire (Read 4687 times)