Abp Weakland STILL At It

...dissent, that is.

Sadly, Abp Weakland was asked to speak at the recent priests' gathering out in Lake Geneva (or wherever resort.)

As the acutely observant "Mike" points out, ol' Rembert still manages to sow his seeds:

There is but one Christ. Paul is upset with the Corinthians where one says he is baptized by Apollo, another says he is baptized by Paul. He finds that kind of designation divisive. (Is it wise today to say - as I heard someone say the other day on EWTN - I am a Pope-John-Paul-II Catholic?) quoth Rembert.

Like Mike, I ask whether the term "in union with the Pope" is familiar to Rembert...

Or how about this one:

Besides, argued Weakland, the church can reinterpret the meaning of the sacraments over the ages. When confirmation got out of the original sequence in the fourth century, he asked, "could this not have been under the guidance of the Spirit? Could this not have been an enrichment of our sacramental system and a logical evolution?"

Yah, maybe. And maybe it's JUST as logical to move Confirmation back to where it was. Moreover, the imprecision of the phrase "...can reinterpret the meaning of the Sacraments..." is serious. The Church cannot change the meaning of the Sacraments, although there is some room for changes in emphasis. Thus the migration of Confirmation from co-incident-with-Baptism to around the age of 12, then around the age of 16 (as is current here in 2006.)

But if the meaning does not change, why not change the age of administration?

Weakland is attempting, once again, to guide his successor's actions, because there is a significant effort on the part of laypeople to move the typical age of Confirmation back toward 12 years or so--it was under Weakland that the age moved up to 16.

There's more at Get Up, and Get Moving.