Posted on 02/03/2005 4:40:31 AM PST by Robert Drobot
This is false and I retract it. It was Robert Drobot's statement.
Can you not admit that the Vatican ignores prelates such as Levada, Mahoney, Pilla, McCarrick, Hubbard, Flynn, et al?
Where has been the "fraternal" correction/discipline?
How in the world could anyone discern "Vatican policy" with it's toleration of such "men" in office?
No matter how many times this is pointed out to you, you pull out a quote and stick your head in the sand. The thing that makes me most angry is that it is those who consider themselves the conservative Catholics that do this. I don't give a hoot about the out right heretics.
You defend the modernists on this forum against the Traditional Catholics, even when I know, that if you have any faith at all you can't really agree with them. As long as you support this you are giving the hierarchy power to destroy the Church structure right before your very eyes. Sometimes I feel like shaking you and saying WAKE UP!
I'm not saying this because I want to pick a fight, if I thought you were a lost cause I wouldn't bother, but I think deep down you know things are worse than you let on.
Look, you have presented nothing to show that Bishop Gao suffered from "pressure from the Vatican to merge with heretic bishops loyal to the Chinese government". That is simply untrue. Canadian bishops, Levada, et al are no more "the Vatican" then you or me, if they in fact pressured Bishop Gao, which we have seen no evidence of, but only of their disobedience to Rome by welcoming CCPA clergy - which does not constitute Vatican pressure on Bishop Gao to "merge with heretic bishops".
I have never attempted to do so. You're barking up the wrong tree.
Ever heard of Leonardo Boff? Jacques Dupuis? Tissa Balasuriya? Hans Kung? We could go on ... they've all been "disciplined or corrected".
You are greatly exaggerating. Admittedly, it's true that JP II hasn't rushed around firing off excommunications.
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/globalpers/gp070203.htmThen in 1984, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith condemned liberation theology in an extraordinarily severe document. This theology was treated as if it were a synthesis of all heresies. In 1985, the pope wrote a letter to appease the Brazilian episcopate, but liberation theologians were more or less persecuted; they were excluded from the large majority of dioceses and from all the seminaries and clerical formation centers.
The basic Christian communities were discredited, treated with suspicion and finally, suppressed in many dioceses. The new way of reading the Bible was condemned and since then has been restricted to a few dioceses. The pope's victory is almost complete. What he persecuted exists now clandestinely or in a few independent dioceses.
... In the first place, the Vatican curia strived to devaluate the Latin American bishops' conference (CELAM) that had promoted the assemblies of Medellin in 1968 and of Puebla in 1979. The curia took controlled the election of the directory of the conference in 1972. This did not cause a disruption at the assembly at Puebla, but it did make the assembly at Santo Domingo in 1992 insignificant.
The curia's best inquisitor, Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, ruled the conference with an iron hand. After this, little has been heard from CELAM. It still exists formally, but it has become totally irrelevant. It takes no more initiatives and simply applies the decrees that come from Rome. CELAM as an institution is dead.
... Nowadays, the Latin American bishops are almost completely different from what they were 24 years ago. Pope John Paul has systematically chosen bishops who are against this spirit that permeated Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s. The bishops appointed under this pope have weaker personalities and are completely submissive to the authority of the Holy See. They lack initiative and have no social commitment or option for the poor. Furthermore, the nunciatures in each country keep close watch over the clergy and does not permit any priest with personality or clearly defined social positions on to the list of candidates to the episcopate.
... Bishops who followed the inspiration of Medellin have almost always been replaced with bishops who were contrary to this spirit. Their mission was to destroy everything that their predecessors had done. Some of these cases were scandalous. For example, in Brazil, we saw this happen with the successor of Archbishop Helder Câmara in Recife, and in São Paulo, Goiânia and Fortaleza.
Outside of Brazil similar situations transpired in San Salvador, Lima, and Santiago. We saw it with the succession of Bishop Samuel Ruiz in San Cristobal de las Casas, Mexico. These are some of the worst cases, but the same thing occurred in hundreds of less known and less important dioceses. One can only imagined how many human and pastoral dramas were the result of these destructive successions.
Now that sounds a bit different from the idea that Rome is just sitting around doing nothing, doesn't it?
Okay, that was Drobot's statement. I took issue with it and then you took issue with my post protesting it. If your point is simply that there are disobedient bishops, I willingly grant it.
I did no such thing. You'd better get your multiple personalities on board with each other.
"Multiple personalities", LOTI? In any case, you responded and (apparently) criticized my question to Drobot. If you agree with me that he was wrong to accuse the Vatican of pressuring Bishop Gao to convert to the CCPA, I misunderstood you. My apologies, and since we've apparently been agreeing the whole time on the issue which I posted about (this is a thread about Bishop Gao, after all), we can drop this discussion.
The late Cardinal O'Connor brought the Communist priests to his seminary in NY, and thence to his parishes in NYC!!!!
I was amazed to stumble over this about 15 years ago! Of course they were from the Commie church, as nobody else could possibly get travel documents out of China at that time! Amazing! And done at the REQUEST of JPII!
What it sounds like is:
"you pulling out a quote and sticking your head in the sand"
Sigh.
"As subsequent events made only too clear, the Pope had no means silenced Hans Küng, in fact it prompted this far from taciturn Swiss cleric to a degree of unprecedented loquacity. The removal of Küng’s mandate to teach as a Catholic theologian also prompted Liberal theologians in a number of countries to considerable loquacity in defense of a colleague they clearly regarded as a martyr for truth. Similar support came from his many Protestant admirers who had come to imagine that the Catholic Church no longer objected to Protestantism, as Küng had been allowed to preach Protestant theology for so many years in his official capacity as a Catholic theologian. Küng was soon to embark on what appeared to be a triumphal international tour to receive in person the fulsome tributes of his admirers and to express his contempt for the Vatican and for the teaching of the Church, sometimes even within Catholic institutions. The 14 January 1982 issue of The Wanderer reported that on 7 December 1981 Küng gave a lecture to a standing-room only audience at the University of Notre Dame, the foremost Catholic university in the United States. He was introduced by Father Richard McBrien, Chairman of the Theology Department at the University, as “a fellow Catholic theologian,” a statement which can only be described as an insolent and cynical rejection of the judgment of the Sacred Congregation. Needless to say, the audience considered Father McBrien’s statement highly amusing and he received loud applause. McBrien himself is the author of a two volume work, Catholicism, which should, in fact, entitled Modernism. It is a menace to the faith of any Catholic who reads it, but is now a standard textbook in many English-speaking seminaries, and receives praise from bishops. It is hardly necessary to remark that under no circumstances whatsoever would Archbishop Lefebvre have been permitted to speak at Notre Dame University, or on any other Catholic campus in the English-speaking world. Liberal-Catholic belief in academic freedom is restricted to those propagating views acceptable to Liberal Catholics."
And the SSPX is still occupying St. Nicholas du Chardonnet.
What are you saying? That the pope, is not exercising his authority to do something about it? Why I am shocked, just shocked I tell you. ;-)
A friend told me the Church functions differently in France. I don't think the dioceses own the property, therefore the laity have some say in the priests who minister to them.
IOW, it ain't an occupation.
May his soul rest in peace.
I fear to imagine what horrors he endured.
Thanks for the news. If it weren't for the Cardinal Kung Foundation, the world would be at a loss for the information they provide. It's a sad commentary on our times that this is the case, for not even the Vatican seems willing to publish such news. Welcome to the eve of tribulation.
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.