V
viktor_aleksndr
Guest
I cannot consider Cardinal Rosales of Manila to be an orthodox… Coz i think orthodox bishops are not that popular here. Maybe Radical bishops. LOL
- Status
I
InnocentIII
Guest
Agrazing Mace:
I am intrigued by the course of this thread. I have heard several aspersions cast at such bishops as Bruskowitz that they are “too orthodox” yet if anyone casts aspersions on a bisops orthodoxy we get told to stop being uncharitable. It reminds me of the cry of “stop being divisive” when someone questions the changes of Vatican II. We are all grown up here and the horror stories that can be told here in Australia as well as the US and elsewhere in the Western world of Prelates pushing their own agendas and abusing their authority to teach and practice contrary to the Magisterium are legion. Let’s not be naive. There are over 5000 bishops in the Church - do you think HH knows all of them? He relies heavily on advice from Nuncio’s and Metropolitans many of whom might have their own agendas. Here in Oz the entire Queensland heirarchy is infected with dissent … because they are all part of the same boy’s club. I trust the Holy Father, but that is not to say he cannot err in the appointment of Cardinals. Indeed as a historian I could list page after page of cardinals who did not deserve the Red hat for everything from moral laxity to outright heresy to plotting the Pope’s murder. The OP merely asked for information on the new Cardinals. He made no accusations. It seems to me that part of the problems in the Church since Vatican II have been caused by our tradition of blind obedience (remember VII was supposed to cure us of that) that led us to just do as the priests and bishops told us instead of questioning all these new fangled ideas intoduced without any authority from the Council. This is a valid question and those who do not wish to discuss it don’t have to respond to this thread while those who don’t want it discussed might reflect on the need for an informed faith.
C
CindyGia
Guest
I have to agree with JSmitty’s concern here. I’m debating starting a new thread with the quote below. It’s from a book I just finished reading; a book whose title I can’t reveal unless asked in a PM. What I read (quoted below) really concerned me and I believe because of liberal modern clergy, is the reason the Church is in the awful state it is today. Here is the quote:Yes actually I am. Have you ever heard of people like Archbishop Rembert Weakland? How about Cardinal Keeler and his rejection that Jews need to be evangelized? What about the French bishops that are currently asking the Vatican to reconsider its teaching on contraception because the pope didn’t directly address the issue in his encyclical! They act as if every new document is supposed to have some novel teaching in it, when in reality, the Church has not and should never tolerate novelty. The Church has been given the task to guard and protect the Deposit of Faith at all costs (heresy is a graver sin than murder!). These bishops seem to have forgotten that there is a 2000 year Tradition that we have to look to.Finally, all that I asked was, “What do you guys know about these new cardinals?” Give me a break.
Please see next post. Too long…
C
CindyGia
Guest
CONTINUED FROM LAST POST…
Well, that gave me hope. But the state of the Church today is not good because of liberal Bishops, priests and clergy. If not corrected, there will be terrible chastisements as we are already seeing all over the earth.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
The Latin liturgy does not go back to Apostolic times. That in and of itself is enough to discredit this author.
But on top of that is the fact that Emmerich made very clear that her writings concerend her current day, not the future.
But on top of that is the fact that Emmerich made very clear that her writings concerend her current day, not the future.
C
CindyGia
Guest
From what I’ve read on Emmerich’s writings - and they are many - were visions and locutions of our Lord’s Passion.
In Emmerich’s time, Mass was not celebrated in “many languages” only Latin. Jesus specifically says “the Mass in many languages.”
This was a future prophecy given to Emmerich. It had noting to do with her own times.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Then why did she claim that it did?
What’s more, you seem to be unaware that the Mass has always been celebrated in many languages, even in the Latin rite of the Church.
C
CindyGia
Guest
I don’t want to go off-topic from this thread so I’m not going to go into lengthy discussions here. However, Emmerich didn’t “claim” in “that” particular writing that it had anything to do with her own times.
And according to the priest who taught my RCIA class two years ago, the Mass was celebrated in “Latin only” for centuries everywhere in the world. When I asked why, he explained that the mass remained the same for everyone in every nation, celebrating the sacrifice in “one tongue”.
If a person were to travel anywhere in the world, the mass would be the said the same in Spain as it would be in New Jersey. Then I realized why, when I was in high school, Latin was a very important language to study - however, I never could understand why anyone would want to learn a language as Latin.
Today, the mass is celebrated in the native tongue of each country. Latin has been done away with. This in my own opinion, was good for me, because if the Mass had stayed in Latin, I probably never would have converted. Having to learn another language just to go to church was, and would have been, the obstacle which ultimately would have kept me away from the one true Church of Christ.
When I was a child, my Aunt I believe took me to a Catholic Mass. I remember sitting there being all confused as to why they were speaking in another language. I couldn’t wait to get out of there!
But I am looking into your claims that mass was always celebrated in other languages.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
The priest is correct that it was celebrated in Latin for hundreds of years, however this did not begin right away. The Mass was first celebrated in Greek, and also Aramaic in some locations. Even before Vatican II, the Mass is celebrated in different languages in the Byzantine rite, the Coptic rite, the Meronite rite, and so on and so on.
Be careful what they tell you in RCIA! They are getting better, but it is still the case that RCIA is a grab bag in terms of if you end up in a good program. You would be shocked at some of the things people say they learned in RCIA around here.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Now, now, you don’t have the authority to be uncharitable towards RCIA.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
:whacky:Now, now, you don’t have the authority to be uncharitable towards RCIA.
B
Brendan
Guest
I’ve not actually met the Archbishop of Seoul, but I’ve been to Mass at this Cathedral and I been very impressed.
All the women wear mantillas, and before the 6:00pm Saturday Vigil Mass, the whole congregation recites the Divine Office and has a 6:00pm Angelus before Mass starts.
All the women wear mantillas, and before the 6:00pm Saturday Vigil Mass, the whole congregation recites the Divine Office and has a 6:00pm Angelus before Mass starts.
L
Loy
Guest
I have some problems with the manner in which Smitty raises questions. However, there shouldn’t be any problem with a respectful inquiry about the teachings of the bishops that the pope has chosen. There also shouldn’t be anything wrong with comparing their individual teachings with the teachings of the Church. But taking it upon ourselves to judge them outside the faith is beyond the laity’s authority.
L
Loy
Guest
Lazerlike, if you would reflect on the very last statement that you just said, even taken within context, you might understand the concerns that some of the posters have with your posts. It is not up to the laity to ensure that the bishops are in union with the pope. We certainly have our rôle to play, but the authority to ensure faithfulness to tradition belongs to the magisterium, not to us. An individual’s duty is to ensure his or her own faithfulness, not the Church’s faithfulness.
As long as one’s understanding of orthodoxy is in agreement with the bishops and the pope, obviously there is no problem. Certainly if — hypothetically speaking — a bishop were to explicitly denounce the authority of the pope, or explicitly refuse to obey a lawful order of the pope, we should call a spade a spade. The pope should have the confidence of knowing that the faithful stand behind his authority, and will not be scandalized if the pope were to discipline the errant bishop.
What if, on the other hand, a bishop appears to be straying from Church teaching, but the pope remains silent the whole time? It’s not up to the laity to declare him a material heretic. There are numerous reasons why. For example, what an individual understands to be Tradition, might not in fact be Tradition. Or one might have misunderstood what the bishop has said.
One doesn’t have to remain silent, though. I encourage everyone to remember the example of the Blessed Virgin Mary when the angel of the Lord declared unto her that she would be with Child. She responded, “How can this be, since I know not man?” She didn’t say that that the angel was wrong. Instead she expressed her honest and heartfelt emotion of confusion by the angel’s message.
If one believes that a bishop is teaching that Christ is not present in the Eucharist, and Rome seems to take no interest in the matter, one could respectfully ask, “How can this be, since the Council of Trent (etc.) has expressly taught this?” There shouldn’t be anything wrong with asking others the same question, and perhaps they might be able to clear up some misunderstandings. But if enough people are asking, it would provide the bishop with an opportunity to clarify himself, or if he refused, Rome might finally take notice and act. But asking questions is far more effective, and faithful, than usurping the authority of the magisterium and declaring the bishop a material heretic.
Imagine how it would change the spirit of dissent within the Church if everyone were to adopt this attitude?
What if “liberals” would respectfully express to their pastors that they find the Church’s teachings on birth control and homosexuality difficult to follow, instead of denouncing and disobeying the Church? Our bishops would have the opportunity to sympathize with their problems and to try and confort them, while doing their best to help those people to embrace the teachings of the Church within their hearts.
What if “traditionalists” would have sincerely explained to the pope their heartfelt feeling of scandal from the Assissi Conference, rather than taking it upon themselves to consecrate their own bishops in disobedience to the pope? Perhaps the pope might have had the opportunity to better explain what he was doing, or perhaps to even cease the conferences altogether.
I’m not saying the bishops are without fault in this. But I don’t know where the fault lays, precisely, because I’m not in their shoes. It would be wonderful if the bishops communicated effectively with the laity when the laity have legitimate concerns. But if I were a bishop I would find it much more difficult to respond to people who are condemning me, rather than simply asking questions.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I don’t entirely disagree with you, but I do have a minor problem, and that is that there are a lot of blatantly dissident bishops that Rome does not address. Perhaps this will change with Pope Benedict, but thus far even he has let many bishops get away with a lot. Many of these bishops have been obstinant even when people have approached them about their dissidence. It would be incredibly dangerous to the faithful to simply ignore cases like this, or to downplay them.
L
Loy
Guest
One shoud carefully discern before making conclusions about any individual bishop. Again, however, approaching the issue from the standpoint of scandal is preferable to assuming the authority reserved to the magisterium.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I’m referring to bishops who openly support gay marriage, abortion, and openly support doctrines opposed to Rome. Why is it so hard to accept that when a bishop comes out and says what he believes, that that is what he believs?
The act of discerning that someone is dissident from the Magisterium is not an authority of any kind, and certainly not one reserved the the Magisterium.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
The reason that we have things like the Catechism is to know what the Church teaches. If individual members of the Church err, whether they are in leadership positions or not, they need to be corrected. Considering some of the things that these people say, it doesn’t take a theologian to see that they’re not in line w/ the Church’s teachings. Here are a few examples.
On the topic of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, **Father Richard McBrien ** writes this: “Not only was it an unwise gesture (the ecumenical implications were clear enough), but it theologically unjustifiable.” (p. 187 of his book Do We Need the Church?) - sspx.ca/Angelus/1985_January/Fr_McBriens_Church.htm
**Father Karl Rahner ** (who I believe was influential in the Second Vatican Council) proposes a “transfinalization” or “transignification” which claims the “meaning” of the bread changes after Consecration - a symbol - rather than the Bread really and truly changing into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. - ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/disspeop.htm
Recent statements by Cardinals George Cottier and Javier Lozano Barragán that condom use is legitimate in certain circumstances to prevent the spread of AIDS are creating confusion among Catholics worldwide and causing enormous scandal. - tfp.org/TFPForum/catholic_perspective/can_the_church_change.htm
**Hans Kung ** (appointed peritus by Pope John XXIII, serving as an expert theological advisor to members of the Second Vatican Council) claims that Islam is a path to salvation, Muhammad is a prophet, and that the Qu’ran is the word of God. “First, we Christians can no longer look upon Islam as a path to hell – as did the earlier Catholic teaching and as many conservative Protestant churches still do today. Rather, we should view it as one possible path to eternal life (which, since Vatican II, is possible for the Catholic Church, but is still disputed by some within the World Council of Churches). Islam, too, is therefore a path of salvation. Second, we may no longer dismiss the prophet Muhammad as a false prophet, but rather must pay conscientious attention to his prophetic function, which has been extraordinarily successful in bringing hundreds of millions of human beings who live in the gigantic area between North Africa and the Soviet Usbekistan and from there to Indonesia to the faith in one God. Muhammad, therefore, is a post-Christian prophet, a “warner” of the one God of Abraham. Third, we may not discredit the Qur’an as a derivative mixture from old Arabic-Jewish-Christian ideas, but rather we should place its obvious power as the word of God for the faithful in a correct light: the Qur’an is an effective word of the all-forgiving, merciful God for believing Muslims.” - religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1920
**Cardinal Keeler ** said that we don’t need to evangelize Jews even though that’s who Christ came for! - catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0210fr.asp
Newly appointed **Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco ** calls the sodomite propaganda film Brokeback Mountain “very powerful” despite the fact that the USCCB (finally!) changed its rating on the film to ‘offensive.’ - lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021306.html
Sodomites were given blessings for Saint Valentine’s day. - lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06022007.html
In February of 2001, **Cardinal Kasper ** had this to say about ecumenism: “Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’… each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved, and not in the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’, or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II”
Those are just a few that I could come up with quickly. Do you really think that we can’t say anything about that? Is it really out of our place to try and defend the Faith from statements like those? I certainly don’t think so.
On the topic of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, **Father Richard McBrien ** writes this: “Not only was it an unwise gesture (the ecumenical implications were clear enough), but it theologically unjustifiable.” (p. 187 of his book Do We Need the Church?) - sspx.ca/Angelus/1985_January/Fr_McBriens_Church.htm
**Father Karl Rahner ** (who I believe was influential in the Second Vatican Council) proposes a “transfinalization” or “transignification” which claims the “meaning” of the bread changes after Consecration - a symbol - rather than the Bread really and truly changing into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. - ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/disspeop.htm
Recent statements by Cardinals George Cottier and Javier Lozano Barragán that condom use is legitimate in certain circumstances to prevent the spread of AIDS are creating confusion among Catholics worldwide and causing enormous scandal. - tfp.org/TFPForum/catholic_perspective/can_the_church_change.htm
**Hans Kung ** (appointed peritus by Pope John XXIII, serving as an expert theological advisor to members of the Second Vatican Council) claims that Islam is a path to salvation, Muhammad is a prophet, and that the Qu’ran is the word of God. “First, we Christians can no longer look upon Islam as a path to hell – as did the earlier Catholic teaching and as many conservative Protestant churches still do today. Rather, we should view it as one possible path to eternal life (which, since Vatican II, is possible for the Catholic Church, but is still disputed by some within the World Council of Churches). Islam, too, is therefore a path of salvation. Second, we may no longer dismiss the prophet Muhammad as a false prophet, but rather must pay conscientious attention to his prophetic function, which has been extraordinarily successful in bringing hundreds of millions of human beings who live in the gigantic area between North Africa and the Soviet Usbekistan and from there to Indonesia to the faith in one God. Muhammad, therefore, is a post-Christian prophet, a “warner” of the one God of Abraham. Third, we may not discredit the Qur’an as a derivative mixture from old Arabic-Jewish-Christian ideas, but rather we should place its obvious power as the word of God for the faithful in a correct light: the Qur’an is an effective word of the all-forgiving, merciful God for believing Muslims.” - religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1920
**Cardinal Keeler ** said that we don’t need to evangelize Jews even though that’s who Christ came for! - catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0210fr.asp
Newly appointed **Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco ** calls the sodomite propaganda film Brokeback Mountain “very powerful” despite the fact that the USCCB (finally!) changed its rating on the film to ‘offensive.’ - lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021306.html
Sodomites were given blessings for Saint Valentine’s day. - lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06022007.html
In February of 2001, **Cardinal Kasper ** had this to say about ecumenism: “Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’… each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved, and not in the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’, or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II”
Those are just a few that I could come up with quickly. Do you really think that we can’t say anything about that? Is it really out of our place to try and defend the Faith from statements like those? I certainly don’t think so.
L
Loy
Guest
The pope put these men in a separate category because they will have no voting authority. Cardinals who are 80 years of age or older may not vote in that conclave. Creating these men as princes of the Church is merely an honorarium. The pope made the special effort to point them out and explain why he chose them, because the ordinary person would wonder why the pope would name someone who has no possible chance to vote in a conclave.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
You are correct.
- Status