There is a comment on Fr.John Zuhlsdorf's blog.
Patrick's Archbald's article was removed by the Editor of the National Catholic Register since the subject was 'sensitive' and did not meer the NCR's theological position on this subject.
Vince K says: I asked the Register why the article was taken down. The Managing Editor said, “The bottom line is that there was one last theological review in order because the post covers a sensitive topic. There was a miscommunication about this and the post went up without that review. Once it went live the situation took on a life of its own. Pat’s call to extend grace for reconciliation is laudable and we certainly have no disagreement with it. As it is, the related challenges that ensued resulted in the perception that we disagreed with Pat’s expressed desire for the healing of the schism, which is not at all the case.” I then asked, “Is it possible that the article will be posted after a satisfactory theological review or has it already went through the theological review and was found lacking? In either event, I believe some sort of public clarification is in order, in my humble opinion.” He stated, “Patrick posted the article on Creative Minority report. So we won’t be posting that particular.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/02/could-pope-francis-be-the-one-to-reconcile-the-sspx/
'Once it went live the situation took on a life of its own.'
There were protests and threats from the leftists citing leftists laws that seem specifically made to control the Catholic Church and to change Catholic doctrine.
'I then asked, “Is it possible that the article will be posted after a satisfactory theological review or has it already went through the theological review and was found lacking?'
No.
There will be no clarification.
According to the politically acceptable with the Left, editorial policy of the National Catholic Register, Vatican Council II is to be interpreted with an irrational premise , which makes the Council liberal, non traditional and then-acceptable. This would mean non Catholics do not have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. This is the acceptable theological position of the NCR.
It contradicts Catholic teaching but to it has to be accepted by the management of NCR and EWTN.
The SSPX is refusing to accept Vatican Council II with this irrational premise and which is the only interpretation of the Council they seem to know. So the SSPX is to be criticized is the editorial policy.Also anyone supporting the SSPX could be labeled anti Semitic, racist etc.
The Jewish Left rabbis have in public opposed the entry of the SSPX into the Catholic Church with full canonical status since, the SSPX says the Bible and Tradition tell us that Jews and other non Catholics need to convert for salvation.
So the Editorial policy of the NCR also does not allow a discussion on Vatican Council II and how it affirms the traditional position of the SSPX.
The editorial policy of the NCR is not opposed to Tradition or the Tridentine Rite Mass, as long as there is no 'ideology' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus .They cannot affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation.They are not allowed to say that it is in perfect accord with Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Vatican Council II and the dogma on salvation is in Agreement with the traditional values of the SSPX. They are not allowed to show how Vatican Council II is traditional on the issue of other religions and Christians communities.So the SSPX has a natural right to canonical status.
The Managing Director possibly has not received permission to announce why the report was pulled down, something which is very common on other Catholic media e.g The Catholic Herald, U.K, the website Rorate Caeili etc.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
