Posted on 01/05/2005 5:49:28 AM PST by netmilsmom
"Some traditionalists act like they have just given up."
Speak for yourself. I contacted the Archdiocese over two weeks ago regarding that bulletin and, to date, have received no response.
http://www.archstl.org/contact.html
Putting aside the very real possibility of stupidity/being given mis-information/lack of sufficient inquiry, etc.........if you or i can know of such things, so can any Diocesan Ordinary. There are always ways to find out. There are always methods to circumvent lying chancery beaurocrats, and find out the truth from other parties.
Again - barring gross stupidity - your Bishops bloody well knows what is going on. If he sides not - he should make the effort to learn. I cannot accept ignorance as a valid excuse - because knowing Chancery power structures as I do, it simply does not happen with regard to Bishops.
As to "right of abuser under Canon Law"......screw 'um! Just fire the buggers, and then let them duke it out later. Were I a Diocesan Ordinary, I would simply fire those who are obviously guilty. Very simple - get off Diocesan property immediately! No salary, benefits...nothing!
You know, even if a Bishop were to be forced by circumstance or civil/canon law to continue salary & benefit payments to a priest, he is not under any obligation to employ them in any position, or let them live for free in a rectory.
Ok, Fr. Effeminate......you may have your salary/benefits for the rest of your life.......but I will not assign you to any parish, teaching position...period. Go live elsewhere - not on my property. You may not preach in my diocese, say mass, or hear confessions. But you can keep your salary.
Let them sue all they want........but they are OUT on their behinds. End of story!
To me, this would be a small price to pay for orthodoxy. And the salvation of and welfare of souls is so much more important then Canon or civil law........and thus also the laws of God, which a Bishops i sworn to teach, defend, and preach.
Thanks for your reminder of Scriptural admonitions.
Since you and I are obviously in conformance with the advice of Christ on perfection, however, should I hold YOU responsible for your neighbor's lack thereof?
While a Bishop should be obeyed by his priests (see the story re: Olmstead, today, FR)--it is not always the case that such obedience is given.
Further, laymen are even LESS inclined to obey their Bishops (obvious from the thread-head story here...)
Thus, those who imply that Bishops are deficient because they have some disobedient or mentally-disturbed priest in their Diocese are asking for a lot, no?
Even Judas, who was PERSONALLY picked by/instructed by Christ, didn't seem to make the SSPX-demanded grade.
So Christ was a failure?
I believe that the Catechism (pick any one you like) refers to Pentecost as the "birthday of the Church;" before Pentecost there WAS no Catholic Church.
But Judas was an Apostle. I don't know if he was given the power to consecrate (when, exactly, did he leave the Last Supper?)--
Further, Judas was NOT present when the "whose sins you shall forgive..." was conferred. (Jn 20/23.)
Thus, I question whether Judas was actually "ordained" in the typical sense of the word...
I agree (don't be surprised) with your summary.
We are not even likely to quibble over "obviously guilty," but there IS a requirement for trial. After all, the Church does believe in justice.
Thank you for telling me.
Yes, clergy are entitled to a Canon Law trail. But that does not prevent the Bishop from suspending their faculties. And of course we all know those things can be let to drag on for years. And the bishop can keep inventing new charges. That all makes my idea more fun!
And I really like my idea of throwing them off Diocesan property. "Go live elsewhere". There is really nothing they can do about that.........nor about the Bishop refusing to assign them to a parish, or teaching position. If I am an incardinated priest, the Bishop does not HAVE to give me a position.
The Bishop can also allow the priest to hear confession, but not to say mass. A unique twist, eh? What modernist priest wants to hear confessions? HAHAHAHA!
I love the idea of letting them keep the salary and benefits......as long as they just "go away".
Let's run it past the Canonist...
"Nonetheless,if scripture and revelation are to believed and if Christ did not lie,and if he established a Church on earth then we must follow the Vicar of Christ and those Bishops (Apostles) who follow him follow Him."
This is normally the case. But we are not living in normal times. Innocent III warned Catholics not to follow a pope who would change a universal custom of the Church. The great Suarez and his predecessor Torquemada, the official theologian of the Council of Florence, both insisted that if a pope ever changed the liturgical ceremonies, he would fall into schism. This is later echoed by Trent, session 7, Canon 13: "If anyone says that the received and approved Rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments can be changed into other new Rites by any Church pastor whatsoever, let him be anathema."
So your casual assumption that we must follow these radical popes, Paul VI and JPII, in all that they do is false. The Church has always prohibited any radical major alterations of the Liturgy, for instance. And it has always prohibited encouraging the worship of false gods, let alone offering our Catholic altars to other religionists to do so. To ignore such shocking violations of tradition, and to further assume that popes somehow have a pipeline to the Holy Spirit is itself radical and sheer nonsense. Popes have divine protection from error only under very limited circumstances. Otherwise they make mistakes like all men--and can even embrace heresy or fall into actual schism.
If that Canon said what you claim, repeating the thesis of Torquemada, how then could you claim that Paul VI or John Paul II were true Roman Pontiffs? He who is not a member of the body of the Church - such as a schismatic - cannot be her Head.
Of course, "any Church pastor whatsoever" doesn't mean what you claim, or it would contradict the Tridentine Decree on Communion Under Both Species: "this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,--or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient".
How, indeed. In the same article from which I gleaned those citations, Fr. Paul Kramer shows specifically that the Novus Ordo was never legally promulgated by Paul VI. Typical of modernists everywhere, the Pontiff instead proceeded by praxis, not by actual declarations. The Missale Romanum of Paul VI states that what had been decreed "will go into force next November." But as Fr. Kramer proves, when you study the content of the missal, the actual decrees only cover three new eucharistic prayers and the words of Consecration to be used in all four eucharistic prayers. In other words, no new Mass was being decreed at all. Yet a second letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship gives the deceptive appearance that a new Rite of Mass had actually been decreed and promulgated. My point is that Paul VI never formally stepped over the line, though his subordinates made sure what he wanted was carried out in practice. It is in a similar way that JPII goes about changing the Catholic faith on the ground--not by decree but by praxis. Little by little indifferentism has taken hold within the Church, Assisi having made its indifferentist point--twice. Nevertheless, if the Pontiff were to be legally charged with anything--he has plenty of documented ammunition for cogent denials.
You and Sinkspur make me laugh with th limitations you put on the Pope. As I see it,according to the two of you,they have spoken infallibly only two times in the last hundred years. I am grateful that you both agree with the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. Like it or not the Pope is vested with legitimate authority to govern the Church which does not mean that everything he does or says is perfect. As Jesus told the young man in Luke," only God is perfect".
The passage from Jn. is not relevant to this discussion. It had to do with when and how Peter was to die--by crucifixion like Jesus--before Peter was advanced in age. John would survive into very old age.
You make too much of papal power. It is hardly absolute and is very much circumscribed. No pope may flaunt tradition, nor is any pope its Lord. The papal coronation oath, affirmed by the Catholic Church since the seventh century, prohibited any pope from changing anything of the received tradition. Whether JPII actually took this oath or not is of little consequence. What IS of consequence is that it shows clearly the intention of the Church--that popes submit to the tradition they have received--and pass it on intact. If they do not, but instead seek to impose a new religion, they should not be followed.
"Of course, 'any Church pastor whatsoever' doesn't mean what you claim, or it would contradict the Tridentine Decree on Communion Under Both Species: 'this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,--or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient'.
Not at all. One has to do with replacing the traditional rite itself with a whole new rite; the other has to do with the way the Church chooses to dispense the sacraments. The two are not in contradiction, they deal with separate issues.
Thanks for the info.
Some priestly faculties come by virtue of canon law, whereas others must be delegated by the diocesan Bishop. For example, the faculty to celebrate Mass comes by law, whereas the faculty to hear confessions must be granted by the diocesan Bishop.
A bishop can remove faculties, but only those that he delegated or granted to begin with. He cannot remove those faculties that come by law.
The bishop also cannot suspend faculties without a proper trial, unless the offense is one that carries an automatic censure (suspension, interdict or excommunication) under canon law. In this case, the bishop simply declares the penalty.
There is a subtle difference between the act of suspending and the act of removing faculties.
Update info. You can find it here.
Furthermore, Sister Lucia herself has maintained that she - NOT the Mother of God - decided on the year 1960 for the Pope to open it, and for him to choose how to proceed from there.
Additionally, Sister Lucia has also maintained that the consecration has been done.
Hence the TTGC;)
By the way, you know how the London bridge was moved to AZ? That was just a dress rehearsal! I'm currently working on plans to move your Basilica Cathedral to Phoenix. We have a new Bishop that needs it. Share, share alike as the saying goes.
Of course, Desde has a real attitude problem with these plans...
You are utterly amazing! If I didn't think you took delight in confusing people,I would respond with the hope that you would gain some insight and understanding and join the fight to save the Catholic Church in western civilization. I used to think that it was just possible.
Why are you confused? Tradition is right. The Pope is wrong. It is very clear. The only reason you are confused is that you place the papacy before Catholic Tradition.
The following is excerpted from what I posted on another thread: The 1988 Consecrations--Part 2:
"But it is the pope himself who is favoring or promoting a course for the Church infected by neo-Modernism which threatens the goods fundamental to souls, goods indispensable for the salvation of souls, e.g., faith and morals. If the pope himself is the cause or partial-cause, and even, given his supreme authority, the ultimate cause of the grave and general spiritual necessity in which there is no hope of help from the lawful pastors, then what effect will recourse to the pope obtain in such circumstances? He will be physically accessible, but morally inaccessible. Recourse to him will be certainly physically possible but morally impossible, and if it be attempted, it will result naturally in the pope’s saying "No" to the act which the extraordinary circumstances require "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the grave general necessity of souls. Any different behavior on the part of the pope presupposes, in fact, repentance and a humble admission of his own responsibility given that the act in question -- i.e., the consecration of bishops -- would not be required if the pope himself was not in some measure co-responsible for the state of grave and general necessity."
To those who object to this analysis on the basis of obedience to the Pope, there is this:
"In reality, these unjust critics are making the primacy of Peter into the supreme law of the Church, which it is not, because that primacy has for its purpose the saving of souls. These critics are bringing papal primacy down to the level of a tyranny and the obedience due to the pope to the level of slavery, and they are making obedience the greatest of all virtues, which it is not, at least according to Catholic doctrine, for which obedience, even to the pope, is subordinate to the exercise of the theological virtues, charity being in the first place."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.