Pope John Paul II ... a far different call
Upon Pope Benedict XVI's appointment of Father Gerhard Maria Wagner as Auxiliary Bishop in Linz, Austria, Associated Press (AP) reported on February 1, 2009, the following:
Indeed, in a remarkable demonstration of disunity with the Holy See, "Salzburg Archbishop Alois Kothgasser said the Church must not shrink into "a sect ... with few but strictly obedient members" -- a veiled criticism of Pope Benedict, who once suggested the Church might have to reduce to a hard core to survive the secular modernist age."1
The Pope, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth, clearly stood in need of edification, and "instruction" from a "Priests' Council", a "Dean", a "men's movement", and, of course, Archbishop Kothgasser when he is not dancing with clowns.
The Austrian Priests Council took issue with Pope Benedict on his appointment of Father Gerhard Maria Wagner as Auxiliary Bishop of Linz. Indeed, they not simply took issue, nor were they simply displeased with his choice as so many petulant children, but they were "appalled"! "Why, this Priest does not even dance with clowns!"
So vitriolic was their opposition to the Pope's appointment, "without consultation with local churches"1, that a "crisis session" was called, since "the uproar had caused "irritation and resignation" and the Church needed "damage control" for the sake of its future." (ibid.)
und Schade ...
"Inexplicable" ... pity. That such a nomination to the episcopacy by the Pope should be inexplicable (unerklärlich) to the "good" bishop — who appears to understand the Church as little more than a democracy nominating its leaders by plebiscite or popular consent, or at least "in consultation with local churches" — is either attributable to an acute attack of stupidity or invincible ignorance. But let us be forthcoming. Bishop Iby's perplexity itself is not "inexplicable"; it is inexcusable.
Indeed. Since when was the sake of the future of the Church entrusted to the bishop, priests, and people of Linz?
This notion had historically been regarded as the prerogative of God — and entrusted by Him to the Vicar of Jesus Christ; in other words to Rome — not to Linz.
It would seem that Boston and Linz sadly have much in common, especially in the way of hubris, insolence and disobedience. Both appear ready and willing to steal the Keys from Peter, and to set up and "alternate and autonomous church"; one which would govern by consensus, correctitude, and prevailing social agenda.
You cannot, however, steal the Keys, and you cannot change the Lock. Both were forged by God, not man; and for all your petty insolence and childish whining, you cannot construct a church of your own making, molded to the corrupt desires of your hearts.
In both cases, the "illuminati", together with all "enlightened and progressive Catholics" (largely of the "We are Church" type) of each diocese appear displeased with God's choice for the seat of Peter. Is it any wonder that they would be displeased with choice of the Servant whom the Master chose to keep the Vineyard until He returns?
The analogy is entirely apropos. The Master sends His servant who is then beaten, and the servant of the servant whom they expel from the Vineyard. What did the Master then do?
This is the Parable of Linz, Austria ... no less than Boston, Massachusetts.
So ask yourself two questions, since you are so wise. Did their behavior please the Master? And what did the Master do?
Did not Jesus already tell us? "He will give the vineyard to others." 3
Your insolence, O Linz, may even exceed that of Boston!
Schande! Schande! Schande! Shame! Shame! Shame!