Posted on 02/03/2005 4:40:31 AM PST by Robert Drobot
Rome (AsiaNews) – Mgr John Gao Kexian, unofficial Bishop of Yantai died in the evening of January 24 2005 in a hospital in the city of Bingzhou (Shandong). He had been in prison for the previous five years.
His body was cremated and buried the day following his death in the presence of police officers. No relative or faithful were allowed to attend the event. The Bishop died without any religious comforts and his body was not blessed.
Because of the news blackout surrounding his case and concerns about his health rumours about his death had already appeared in September 2004. The Vatican, which had received the news from a nun, had itself announced his passing on September 11, 2004. It is very likely that she had learnt about the Bishop’s rapidly failing health and had alerted the outside world.
This time, Bishop Gao’s death was confirmed by several sources in Shandong province. Relatives who wanted to visit him in hospital in Bingzhou found that he was already dead.
Police refused an autopsy and speedily proceeded to bury him.
The Bishops’ remains now lie in a cemetery on the outskirts of Gaomiaoli village, near Bingzhou.
(Excerpt) Read more at cardinalkungfoundation.org ...
Letter of the Sacred Congregation for Propagation of the Faith with which enclosed were the Directives On Some Of The Problems Of The Church In Continental China.
Since the Roman Pontiff in the Catholic Church is “a permanent and visible principle and foundation of unity of Faith and fellowship” (L. G. n.18) those who don’t profess or don’t preserve the communion with the Pope, cannot consider themselves to be Catholic. Communion with the Pope is not only a question of discipline but of Catholic faith.For this reason, the Holy See keeps in deep esteem and admiration the Bishops, priests, religious and lay people who in the course of time and in all the regions of the world have always maintained the integrity of their Faith, including their fidelity to the Roman Pontiff. And it encourages them to continue and to grow in the same Faith.
3. In so far as China is concerned, history records in 1957 the constitution of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association whose expressed intent was to renounce to the fundamental bonds with the Roman Pontiff and the Holy See and to place the community of the Faithful under the direct control of the civic authority.
The purpose of the visit was to outline CCCB involvement in ecumenical, ethical, pastoral and faith education programs in Canada, and to show how religious diversity in Canada, respect for each other's differences and the respective autonomy of Church and state were ways of ensuring religious freedom in Canada.
Amen, Rest in Peace my brother in Christ.
Oh, I don't know about that.
Declaration by Cardinal Etchegaray on the Church in China
The former president of the Council for Justice and Peace had no hesitation in affirming: “There is not a patriotic Church and a clandestine Church, one legal and the other dissident”, but two aspects of the same community who are trying hard to be faithful and at the same time to be patriotic”.
Levada in SF has brought the communist priests into his diocesan churches.
A retired Cardinal is now "Rome"?
It's too bad that Rome can't see it's own disharmony with Etchegaray. Where has been the fraternal correction from Rome?
Why must the Kung foundation and the SSPX point out such disharmony?
In short, Msgr. Nugent’s 2004 China guidelines are an unambiguous and forthright upholding of the Vatican’s 1988 China guidelines. This is precisely what I was requesting in my Open Letter. In the seventh section of my Open Letter, I wrote: “As noted in many of the questions above, this (1988 China guidelines) has been ignored. Have other directives been issued by the Holy See that render this particular directive obsolete? If so, the faithful, especially those in China, have the right to know. If this particular directive has not been rescinded, why has the Holy See not enforced it among members of the hierarchy?” Msgr. Nugent has now clarified this issue.
See Canticle of Deborah's post #28.
Msgr. Nugent is the envoy of the Holy See who holds authority over China.
And Bishop Levada is the envoy of the Holy See who holds authority over the archdiocese of San Francisco. See post #28.
You really want to claim that everything Levada does reflects Vatican policy, more than an official instruction of the Sacred Congregation for Propaganda which was approved by the Holy Father and recently confirmed as authoritative by the Holy See's actual envoy to the Catholic Church in China, viz., Msgr. Nugent?
What's really indefensible is the attempt to perpetrate what is simply a total untruth, as shown by LOTI's anemic attempts to defend his statement that Bishop Gao suffered from "pressure from the Vatican to merge with heretic bishops loyal to the Chinese government". His proof? Apparently the Canadian bishops and Levada are now "the Vatican", whereas an authoritative instruction to the faithful Chinese bishops is not representative of "the Vatican", even if confirmed by the Holy Father himself.
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.