J
JSmitty2005
Guest
And if someone unknowingly preaches against a Catholic teaching, they must, when rightly informed by a knowledgeable party, submit to the Church.
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I will as the same sort of question I asked in the last thread that has been removed.
Who determines orthodoxy?
This one I will answer.
The Church and the Holy Father do. As the Holy Father has named them Cardinals, then I have no problem with these men.
Who determines orthodoxy?
This one I will answer.
The Church and the Holy Father do. As the Holy Father has named them Cardinals, then I have no problem with these men.
N
ncjohn
Guest
Amen!
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Just thought I’d repeat this:
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Repeat all you like, this does not make you the competent authority to judge such things, nor is the person you quoted.
You and others may think they have erred but the Church is the only competent authority to rule in such manners.
Only when it rules that a bishop is schismatic or a heretic are we free to call them such and not listen to them when we live in their jurisdiction.
Just because you don’t like what a bishop says or does, does not make that bishop heterodox, there is much leeway in the Church on some matters.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
With all due respect,
being named a Cardinal by the pope is unfortunately no guarantee of a man’s orthodoxy or sound Catholic teaching. Walter Kasper, for example, doesn’t believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus.
He says so in his book Jesus The Christ. So those who are attacking the OP might want to tone it down a little.
As to the OP’s original question regarding the men named by Benedict XVI, I have heard nothing negative about any of them doctrinally speaking.
Love,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
being named a Cardinal by the pope is unfortunately no guarantee of a man’s orthodoxy or sound Catholic teaching. Walter Kasper, for example, doesn’t believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus.
He says so in his book Jesus The Christ. So those who are attacking the OP might want to tone it down a little.
As to the OP’s original question regarding the men named by Benedict XVI, I have heard nothing negative about any of them doctrinally speaking.
Love,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
S
Sherlock
Guest
I would echo what Jaypeet says here. Being named a Cardinal is NOT a guarantee of orthodoxy. I would guess, too, that the pope may have to rely on the advice and recommendations of others who may have their own agendas.
I have heard good things about O’Malley; I’ve heard concern expressed about Levada. I’m afraid I don’t know anything about the others.
P
prodigal-sun
Guest
I don’t know any of these men personally but if they are good enough for our holy father Benedict XVI they are certainly good enough for me. The only thing I can do for these men and of the religious is to keep them in my prayers.
Peace!
Peace!
S
Sherlock
Guest
Good advice!I don’t know any of these men personally but if they are good enough for our holy father Benedict XVI they are certainly good enough for me. The only thing I can do for these men and of the religious is to keep them in my prayers.
Peace!
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Thanks, I’ve been getting it from them all day
, it’s nice to get a little support for once 
. I’m only asking out of concern for the Church, so I don’t see what the big deal is. 
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I will ask it for a third time, who determines orthodoxy?Thanks, I’ve been getting it from them all day
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Tradition.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
And who has the authority to interpret Tradition?ByzCath:
Tradition.
The Magistirum.
And who makes up the Magistirum? The Holy Father and the Bishops of the Church in union with him.
Who determines that union, the Holy Father and the Church.
Puting ourselves in judgement over orthodoxy of bishops is exactly what the protestant reformation was.
I have seem many people on this forum, and others, complain about some things bishops have said said yet the bishops were in correct. These people either didn’t understand or misinterpreted what the bishop was saying.
If these men are good enough for Pope Benedict then who are we to ask?
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
ByzCath, if a Bishop says that Jesus is not present in the Eucharist, we are bound under penalty of sin to judge that that teaching is unorthodox. We are bound under penalty of sin to recognize that that bishop is dissenting from Catholic teaching. We cannot label the person a heretic (although technically, we can label them a material heretic, or say a person is in material schism, as opposed to formal heresy or schism, but I am not going to push this).
We must determine orthodoxy for ourselves by judging what is in accordance with the Magisterium. If we simply listen to every bishop without thinking critically, we will be led to believe all sorts of crazy things. Remember, a bishop only teaches with authority when he is in union with the college of bishops and the bishop of Rome. We must always ensure that our bishops are.
I too trust Benedict, but we must be careful. For instance, three of the Cardinals named were named not for their merits, but for their years of service! In other words, these men could have believed that Jesus was a duck and it wouldn’t have mattered. Benedict is counting on them dying before the next conclave, but this is a risky gamble to take!
A
ABsitively
Guest
Just wanted to echo the good things said about Cardinal O’Malley. I have heard him speak at several pro-life events here in Massachusetts. He is under tremendous pressure because the press here are ready to jump all over him for any “perceived” mishap. (Of course, the press’s definition of a mishap and mine differ vastly!). I even met him once but I was too speechless to say anything intelligent
. He just gives off an air of humility that is hard to explain.
Anyways, my husband and I were very happy to see him made cardinal:clapping:
.
. He just gives off an air of humility that is hard to explain.Anyways, my husband and I were very happy to see him made cardinal:clapping:
.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
And which of these, or any bishop, has said that Christ is not present inthe Eucharist?
Which three and can you show me where it states that this was done solely for their years of service?
Becuase if this is true then I wonder where in Church Teaching is says that you make it so many years you get to be a Cardinal. Hmmm, could I then say that the Pope is not being orthodox enough?
its a slippery slope here. This whole questioning their orthodoxy with out any charges is very uncharitable.
I am going to stop here before I get uncharitable myself.
I most likely will not look back at this thread for a couple of days so if anyone has any pressing comments for me on this topic PM me.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I did not say any of them did this. I was citing an example of what one would have to do if that happened. Remember, this thread was not made to attack anyone, but because the OP was curious about the bishops because he does not know about them. He is trying to see if any of them have done anything of that sort.
I would also point out that the use of the term “faithfullness” here does not necessarily mean faithfullness to Church teaching. In fact, it almost certainly doesn’t. If these men really were so great and faithful, why did he have to make it a point to put the men into a different category? The very fact that the Pope specified that he was elevating them because of their years of service discounts the idea that they were elevated by their merits.
He is not doing it out of some obligation, he is doing it for the same reason that companies used to give nice watches to their old employees - to be nice and show appreciation for so many years of service.
Nobody is questioning anybody’s orthodoxy. JSmitty asked what we knew about these men. He is wondering if they are in fact orthodox. There is nothing wrong with this. He is not questioning them, he is wondering if there are any charges. Even the Apostles questioned St. Paul before they would accept him. Lately, the word “charity” has been very much abused around here. It seems like every time somebody points out an error, they are labeled as uncharitable. Something evil has gotten into these forums: the spirit of indifference.
A
Agrazing_Mace
Guest
I believe the most unfortunate thing here is the bantering back and forth as if this were politics. People- listen… the Magisterium and other links in the hierarchy should not be spoken of in such flippant tone. As another has already mentioned in this thread, I think prayer and faith that these good men will do right is what we should be focused upon. Participate in Catholic life to better it, no to shoot holes in it- we have plenty of non-Catholics doing a good job of that already.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
In case anyone is interested, and remembers that other thread of mine , here’s a link to a list of dissidents since everyone here was too “charitable” to mention any names. 
(this site just happens to have the highest fidelity rating of “excellent” from Catholic Culture)
ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/disspeop.htm
BTW, it was a quick count, but I got 18 bishops, archbishops, or cardinals on that list.
, here’s a link to a list of dissidents since everyone here was too “charitable” to mention any names. (this site just happens to have the highest fidelity rating of “excellent” from Catholic Culture)ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/disspeop.htm
BTW, it was a quick count, but I got 18 bishops, archbishops, or cardinals on that list.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Agrazing Mace:
Nobody is being flippant but those whom are critical of this thread. All the OP wants to do is learn about the Cardinals to know if they are good choices, just like everyone who didn’t know about Ratzinger were curious about him when he was elected. It is not criticism, it is curiosity.
- Status