Posted on 06/29/2024 12:58:23 PM PDT by ebb tide
People tend to think of the pope as the head of a large company with the ultimate power to
make all the decisions and impose them on his underlings beginning with the heads of the various departments. They can express their opinions to him, but he is the ultimate authority and if they disagree they can obey anyway or "off with their heads!"
That is not a proper image for the Catholic Church.
The pope is not a dictator with the ultimate power to throw out bishops on a whim because he doesn't happen to like them. Unfortunately, the bishops themselves have promulgated that image by the unjust treatment some have dished out to their spiritual sons. Cancelled priests are a growing problem. I know some of them and it is disturbing to see how unjust some bishops are. The sad truth for those bishops is that you reap what you sow. They will be measured out the same measure and rotten fruit they've dished out to others. Get ready for it, Your Excellencies!
Crisis Magazine has an interview with Peter Kwasniewski that explores this issue of the proper way to look at the pope's role and his relationship to the bishops. The interview addresses a recent book of essays edited by Kwasniewsk rooted in the pope's treatment of Bishop Joseph Strickland, Unresolved Tensions in Papal Episcopal Relations: Essays Occasioned by the Deposition of Bishop Joseph Strickland. The title of the piece Should Bishops Ignore the Vatican? certainly pertains to the recent situation with Archbishop Vigano as well. So let's look at some of the points, first how the Church looks at the role of the bishops in relation to the papacy: So obviously, it's possible that either the pope or a bishop can "overreach" his authority. Basically, what we have to understand is that the church teaches, and teaches consistently, that the bishops, no less than the pope, are successors of the apostles...they’ve been appointed by the pope and they have to be consecrated, but once they’re in possession of that episcopal office, they rule and they teach and they sanctify with a rite proper to them...They’re not like branch managers hired by the CEO of a corporation who can hire and fire at will. That’s not the way the church has ever thought about it. In fact, throughout church history, some of the points of tension, which have arisen from time to time between the episcopacy and the papacy have precisely to do with an overreach, either on the part of the one or on the part of the other.
There have been times when popes have tried to dictate to bishops, “This is the way you’re going to rule your diocese. You’re going to establish or disestablish this religious community or this monastery. You’re going to appoint my favorite nephew into one of your posts.” The bishops have had to say, “No, with all due respect, Your Holiness, this is going too far. You don’t have the authority to do whatever you want.”...the pope is subject to the constitution of the church. There are certain rights and responsibilities, duties, obligations that the pope has, given the nature of the Church of Christ, that he can’t simply sidestep because he doesn’t feel like it. He’s not omnipotent. He’s not absolute in that sense...What I mean there is the divine constitution of the church. What our Lord, Jesus Christ, wills for His church. In terms of what her common good is, what her sacramental structure is, what is the role of tradition in the church, this is also part of the divine constitution of the church, and I don’t just mean scripture and tradition as revelation, as divine revelation, but I also mean the normative value and function of tradition of, “I hand on what I have received,” that very important principle which is fundamental to Catholicism.
Many Catholics seem to think every pronouncement of a pope is a Church doctine. It's not! And in fact, we've had a number of evil men sitting in Peter's chair. Nothing we are experiencing today is a first! In the award for worst pope ever contest, Francis has a number of rivals. However, he seems to be leading in the "Sack the bishops you don't like" category.
And, not only does he sack them, but they are generally deprived of their canonical right to a trial. Archbishop Lefebvre also experienced the grave injustice inflicted on Bishop Strickland. No trial, no real hearing, just the hobnailed boot.
Kwasniewski mentions two questions from a book by Bishop Athanasius Schneider scheduled for release in mid July, Flee from Heresy. It addresses the laity's sensus fidei about obedience to dictates from the pope or a bishop:
Alerted by his sensus fidei, the lay faithful may deny assent, even to the teachings of legitimate pastors when these appear evidently contrary to right faith or morals, or undermine their integrity. St. Paul warned even of bishops who would teach error as ravening wolves, Acts 20:29, formulating this principle for both clergy and lay faithful. Even if we or an angel from Heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be a curse. As we have said before, so now we repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be a curse, Galatians 1:8-9.”
Then his next question is exactly what you said. Isn’t this sinful disobedience, dissent from the Magisterium and a form of Protestantism? That’s the next question. And he answers, this is a short answer, “No. Rather than treat oneself as the ultimate criterion of truth, which is a form of Protestantism, the faithful Catholic, faced with a disturbing, yet ‘authorized’ teaching, merely defers to the superior authority of the universal perennial traditional teachings of the church, rejecting what departs from it.”
With the bombs already dropped on the TLM and the other traditional sacraments and the likely nuke coming soon, Kwasniewski supports the legitimate approach of continuing to attend the TLM where it is offered with the caveat of remaining in union with the Church:
For me, the number one principle is that we, as Catholics, need to adhere to our traditional lex orandi lex credendi lex vivendi. We have to do that. That is...it’s not just about a liturgical preference. It’s about the entire religion. Everything is connected to this. If people want to see why that’s the case, they should just check out my book, The Once and Future Roman Rites. That’s really where I make the case most fully....Law has to be rational or reasonable in order to go into force and to have binding force on us. That’s another point here that we have to bear in mind. When Pope Francis says, “The Novus Ordo is the only form of the Roman rite, the unique form of it.” That’s false. That’s a falsity. It isn’t even the Roman rite. That’s what my book, The Once and Future Roman Rite demonstrates. There’s the Roman rite and then there’s the modern rite of Paul IV and they’re not the same rite. They’re two different rites. That can be shown by all of the criteria that liturgists use to define rites.
There's much more in the interview, but I'll stop here with a plea to faithful Catholics to study the faith. In a time of confusion, that becomes an absolute necessity. You can't keep the faith if you don't know the faith. I always start my day with the prayer to the Holy Spirit, the source of wisdom. Remember from your Confirmation the seven gifts. Wisdom is always mentioned first. As confirmed Catholics let us strive for the gift of wisdom followed by those of understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord. God will always say yes to those who pray for the gifts. Let us beg for them in great abundance!
Holy Spirit, have mercy on us.
Mary, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us.
St. Joseph, patron of the universal Church, pray for us
My comments are about the church making sure that the church's teachings are in the common languages. I used Scripture translation to make the point (surely Catholics would want people to understand mass too).
I guess I was wrong.
John Wycliffe translated the Bible to English a century and a half before Luther and Tyndale ... against the wishes of the RCC. It was banned and almost all copies destroyed. Control-freaks in the RCC didn’t want the average Joe Christian to know how far the RCC had deviated from Scripture.
You’re ignorant. The TLM features the vernacular language on the opposite page of Latin. There’s NO reason why somebody can’t follow along and understand clearly what’s being said!!
Most US Catholics who attend the TLM own Latin-English missals. In many churches, paperback missals are available for free use during the Mass.
So yes, you are wrong, again.
And for you information the first printed vernacular Bibles were printed by Catholics, not Luther and his band of merry heretics.
For ONE THOUSAND YEARS! the RCC wanted people to be in the dark on the Bible's teachings while the RCC's Latin faded into obscurity. And you have the audacity to say that the RCC deserves credit for getting the Bible into people's hands?
Once again, you are wrong. Strike three.
Look up Johann Mentelin and his vernacular German bible.
Latin was the universal language of scholars. Using it in every corner of the globe made it possible for the faithful to hear the same prayers anywhere in the world. It was God’s reversal of Babel.
Of course it was banned.
Why shouldn’t an unauthorized translation be a guy with an axe to grind?
You ignored the multitude of approved translations that were in the local vernacular. You also ignore that the homily was in the vernacular, and that the priest would have spoken both Latin and the local language.
Your claim is old and easily debunked. Check the link I posted earlier.
So I guess only scholars should have been able to read the Bible?
The world's literacy rate was quite low until the 1600's. But I guess you'll just ignore that fact to perpetuate a protestant falsehood.
I have said this from day one of Frank’s Fake Papacy.
HE HAS NO RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING...NO POLITICS, NP STATEMENTS OF LAW, NO REFERENCE TO WHAT THE CULTURE IS,
NOTHING...NOTHING BUT THE TENETS AND BELIEFS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
ANYTHING ELSE...ANYTHING...IS JUST TWADDLE, CRAP, MISINFORMATION, DISIFORMATION...
HE SHOULD JUST SHUT UP UNTILL IT IS TIME FOR HIM TO ...GO.
Which he either refuses to do or outright contradicts them.
And that would hopefully be his DOWNFALL.
Any one who actually could read, read Latin. That wasn’t a lot of people. Try looking at history from a broader perspective and you might learn something. If all yo know about the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is what its enemies tell you, you just might be missing out on something.
Would you read Karl Marx to learn about capitalism? Or Mao’s little Red Book to learn the history of the United States?
Completely untrue. However, it must be noted that movable type wasn't invented until the mid 15th C., so books were very expensive. That meant that complete "Bibles" in any language were rare. However, books containing, e.g., the Gospels and some of the Psalms were not as rare. (The English called them "primers".)
"Latin faded into obscurity" ... Latin wasn't "obscure" in the West until about 1850 or so. It was the common language of literature and learning for the first 1500 years of Christianity's existence.
Oh, and everyone who is informing you that absolutely nothing about the TLM is "obscure" or "secret" or "hidden" is absolutely right. Anyone who wants to can buy a missal with every word translated to English (or any of a number of other languages).
Take it up with your hero Luther, who complained that now every stableboy and milkmaid was reading the Bible and coming up with their own doctrine. (Not necessarily in agreement with his!)
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.
