Just after I read a silly piece from the ridiculous Hans Küng over at the Fishwrap (National Schismatic Reporter) about completely rehabilitating Martin Luther, I flipped over to the National Catholic Register and saw Ed Pentin’s long interview of Card. Coccopalmerio. It concerned mostly his somewhat tangled attempts to explain his little book.
However, Coccopalmerio’s answer to one of Pentin’s question shows somewhat … problematic views on areas outside marriage:
PENTIN: One last topic: At a recent plenary meeting with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, you reportedly encouraged the members to push for a less rigid understanding of the priesthood, essentially telling them to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of priesthood. Your notion was that as we have an understanding of different levels of communion with the Church among the baptized, we should have different degrees of the fullness of priesthood, so as to permit Protestants to minister without being fully ordained. What exactly did you say, and why did you say it?
CARD. C: I was saying we have to reflect on questions. We say, everything is valid; nothing is valid. Maybe we have to reflect on this concept of validity or invalidity. The Second Vatican Council said there is a true communion even if it is not yet definitive or full. You see, they made a concept not so decisive, either all or nothing. There’s a communion that is already good, but some elements are missing. But, if you say some things are missing and that therefore there is nothing, you err. There are pieces missing, but there is already a communion, but it is not full communion. The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis. Maybe there is something, or maybe there’s nothing — a study, a reflection.
Huh?
This sounds like creeping incrementalism.
The moderation queue is most definitely ON.
