15 New Cardinals - are they Orthodox or not?

[JSmitty2005]

Loy:

JSmitty2005:

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!

Lazerlike42 said that, not me…even though I agree with it.

 

[Loy]

Lazerlike42:

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?

If something a bishop says appears to manifestly conflict with the teaching of the Church, respectfully discuss that.

And if he retracts it, don’t keep holding it over his head.

If he continues to say things that conflict with Church teaching, then approach it from the standpoint that it scandalizes you. But he still has authority from Rome, and his legitimate authority must be obeyed.

Lazerlike42:

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.

I seem to recall that is how Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre justified his consecration of three bishops without permission from the pope.

Everyone has his or her place. Be grateful that current Church law allows the laity to discuss these things. Understand, however, that we can examine the actions of an individual, but not judge the individual.

 

[Loy]

JSmitty2005:

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.

JSmitty2005:

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
The U.S. bishops have criticized his book and disapproved it for use in Catholic teaching. I would hope that you spread the word.

**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
I have a problem with that and so do you. As laity we are able to discuss this, but the final determination belongs to the magisterium. Anyway, it’s the book that should be discussed because the man has passed on.

JSmitty2005:

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
Rome has dealt with this situation, and to the best of my knowledge that practice has ceased. Let’s move on.

**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
The current pope, when he was prefect of the CDF, removed Kung’s faculties to teach theology. I hope that you would spread the word.

**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
I have problems with this and so do you. We may discuss it, but a final determination is up to the magisterium.

 

[Loy]

JSmitty2005:

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

Maybe it is “very powerful”, but I really don’t care. I don’t think it was very prudent of the Archbishop to do this. It appears to endorse the film and give credence to the homosexual lifestyle. But I’m not going to judge him on the basis of one statement. I don’t even know what he meant by it.

JSmitty2005:
Sodomites were given blessings for Saint Valentine’s day. - lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06022007.html
There should be no problem discussing that this appears to conflict with Church teaching. I would hope that the Archbishop of Vienna does something about this, but the matter is in his hands. Perhaps the fact that some Americans are terribly scandalized by that action might influence his decision, I don’t know.

JSmitty2005:

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”

This is being strongly debated by the current pope and the curia. How to deal with this is in their hands. As laity, all we can do is question how this could comply with Vatican II and other Church teaching. We can’t make any final determinations.

JSmitty2005:

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.

We can discuss this issues. We can discuss what the Church teaches. But it’s up for the magisterium to deal with the individuals and make determinations about how they might or might not comply with Church teaching.

 

[CindyGia]

Lazerlike42:

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.

I received my answer from a very reliable source about the Latin Mass, and this is what he said:

Hi Cindy:
The mass was said in latin everywhere. I recalled how wonderful it was to go to any country and be able to understand the mass because the whole church celebrated it in latin.

So what was taught by the priest in RCIA was absolutely correct. The Mass has been said in Latin for centuries everywhere on earth, which is why Emmerich’s prophecy was directed toward this universal language [of the one true Church] being changed to “suit” native tongues from nation to nation. At the time of Emmerich’s prophecies, Latin was the only language spoken in the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Nevermind the other rites. Emmerich had no need to prophecy for other Christian rites outside of the Roman Catholic Church, so I’d have to say that your argument that her prophecy was incorrect is pretty weak.

And, to reiterate on Emmerich - her prophecy(s) and visions were directed only at the Holy Roman Catholic Church. She would have no need to include the other “rites” and “their” languages simply because her prophecies only involved the one true Holy Catholic Church. Not the other rites.

 

[MrS]

Loy:

Everyone has his or her place. Be grateful that current Church law **allows **the laity to discuss these things. Understand, however, that we can examine the actions of an individual, but not judge the individual.

sorry… canon law expects and requires it… not just allows.

If anyone (even a bishop) pushed another off a tall building to his/her death, …
are you saying we could only call the death murder… but should not judge the individual as a murderer??

 

[JSmitty2005]

Loy:

This is being strongly debated by the current pope and the curia. How to deal with this is in their hands. As laity, all we can do is question how this could comply with Vatican II and other Church teaching. We can’t make any final determinations.

I think that Kasper was wrong. Here’s what Pope Benedict XVI said to the World Methodist Council (Dec. 9,2005):

“I have been encouraged by the initiative which would bring the member churches of the World Methodist Council into association with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999. Should the World Methodist Council express its intent to associate itself with the Joint Declaration, it would assist in contributing to the healing and reconciliation we ardently desire, and would be a significant step toward the stated goal of full visible unity in faith.”

I found this at: zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=81405

In addition to that, all you have to do is look to many of the pre-Vat 2 encyclicals that spoke out against this approach. Or, you could just open your Bible.

 

[Maranatha]

MrS:

sorry… canon law expects and requires it… not just allows.

If anyone (even a bishop) pushed another off a tall building to his/her death, …
are you saying we could only call the death murder… but should not judge the individual as a murderer??

No, i don’t think that’s what it means. Obviously a person who committed murder is a murderer. What we can’t judge is the state of a person’s soul. We can’t say that any particular murderer will automatically go to hell.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Maranatha:

We can’t say that any particular murderer will automatically go to hell.

If he doesn’t go to Confession he will, won’t he? Also, if someone is excommunicated and they do not reconcile themselves with the Church, they will since there’s no salvation outside the Church. What about guys like Luther and Muhammed? I forget where I saw it, but somewhere on the net is a picture of a sculpture in a church where the Blessed Virgin Mary is thrusting the Luther and another “reformer” into Hell. Also, in another church, Muhammed is shown burning in the eternal fires. He was even depicted there in Dante’s Divine Comedy, a favorite of Pope B16’s. They knew better, and even though the Church will never officially say so, I would venture to guess that those two fellows are damned.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Loy:

The U.S. bishops have criticized his book and disapproved it for use in Catholic teaching. I would hope that you spread the word…Rome has dealt with this situation, and to the best of my knowledge that practice has ceased. Let’s move on.

I agree that if these things are officially dealt with that it’s time to move on and even commend the individuals if they recant their former statements, but not everyone knows that these things are not approved by the Church. These books are still sold in bookstores along side the Catechism, and the dissidents that are still living that have been dealt with still parade around calling themselves Catholic. It’s just my concern that people will be negatively influenced by them and their works.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Lazerlike42:

JSmitty is clearly concerned with the orthodoxy of the Church. He is making a perfectly appropriate inquiry into the orthodoxy of these men. The very reason that our Church is in such crisis now is due to a slew unorthodox cardinals and bishops whom held power in the Church for decades. It is entirely appropriate to consider these men in an effort to be more certain of the orthodoxy of the Church in the future.

I would respectfully ask what your deal is. You seem to be against any attempt to locate and avoid unorthodoxy or poor doctrine. This would suggest to me that you are in favor of unorthodoxy. I do not accuse you, I only ask. May God bless you.

Since when did the laity get the job of second-guessing the Pope’s appointments?

How can anyone claim to be orthodox while openly questioning the authority of the Holy Father?

What does orthodox mean? Miserable? It doesn’t mean faithful to Rome apparently because to earn that label one would have confidence in the Bishop of Rome if one were.

Oh I get it. We know more about the spiritual lives of these people than the Pope, so were are in a better position to judge. :whacky:

Alan

edit>> if we don’t believe in the authority of the Bishop of Rome, then perhaps we need to start a new Church.

 

[Loy]

JSmitty2005:

Lazerlike42 said that, not me…even though I agree with it.

I’m so sorry! I was trying to edit very quickly!

Anyway, I hope you read my response at post # 59.

 

[Loy]

MrS:

sorry… canon law expects and requires it… not just allows.

If anyone (even a bishop) pushed another off a tall building to his/her death, …
are you saying we could only call the death murder… but should not judge the individual as a murderer??

Please cite me the canon law section to which you refer.

This thread is about orthodoxy. If a bishop committed murder, that one single act would not render him, as a whole, unorthodox. Although it would be serious, although it would be prudent for the pope to remove the bishop from his see, and although the laity may express their preference for his removal, the final decision is for the pope alone, not the laity.

 

[Loy]

JSmitty2005:

If he doesn’t go to Confession he will, won’t he? Also, if someone is excommunicated and they do not reconcile themselves with the Church, they will since there’s no salvation outside the Church. What about guys like Luther and Muhammed? I forget where I saw it, but somewhere on the net is a picture of a sculpture in a church where the Blessed Virgin Mary is thrusting the Luther and another “reformer” into Hell. Also, in another church, Muhammed is shown burning in the eternal fires. He was even depicted there in Dante’s Divine Comedy, a favorite of Pope B16’s. They knew better, and even though the Church will never officially say so, I would venture to guess that those two fellows are damned.

Smitty, this is another example of you venturing into areas in which you do not have authority. We do not know whether a person might be excused for the killing of another person due to mental infirmity, etc. We don’t know if a person would be absolved by having perfect contrition and being unable to go to confession. That’s God’s jurisdiction, not ours. What if Martin Luther was insane? What instead if God gave him the opportunity and Luther fully repented before he died? What if Muhammed came to know the truth and was baptised before he died? We don’t know any of these things, despite the Divine Comedy and pious sculptures.

 

[Loy]

JSmitty2005:

I agree that if these things are officially dealt with that it’s time to move on and even commend the individuals if they recant their former statements, but not everyone knows that these things are not approved by the Church. These books are still sold in bookstores along side the Catechism, and the dissidents that are still living that have been dealt with still parade around calling themselves Catholic. It’s just my concern that people will be negatively influenced by them and their works.

You are right to be concerned. But you cannot make these things go away on your own, and it is not your responsibility. What you can do is cooperate with God’s grace and respectfully appeal to Catholic bookstores not to sell books that the bishops have disapproved. You can respectfully ask your pastors and your bishop to assist you. You can spread the word to other Catholics that the Bishops or the Pope or the Curia have disapproved these books. But you have to work within the structure of the Church, respecting your proper place.

If someone is teaching something that seems unorthodox, you, as laity, can compare what that person is saying to official Church documents, etc. Here also, you can appeal to your pastors and your bishop for assistance. But if you don’t get the results you seek, you must persevere working within the structure of the Church, and not publicly proclaim your private anathema.

 

[Lazerlike42]

CindyGia:

I received my answer from a very reliable source about the Latin Mass, and this is what he said:

So what was taught by the priest in RCIA was absolutely correct. The Mass has been said in Latin for centuries everywhere on earth, which is why Emmerich’s prophecy was directed toward this universal language [of the one true Church] being changed to “suit” native tongues from nation to nation. At the time of Emmerich’s prophecies, Latin was the only language spoken in the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Nevermind the other rites. Emmerich had no need to prophecy for other Christian rites outside of the Roman Catholic Church, so I’d have to say that your argument that her prophecy was incorrect is pretty weak.

And, to reiterate on Emmerich - her prophecy(s) and visions were directed only at the Holy Roman Catholic Church. She would have no need to include the other “rites” and “their” languages simply because her prophecies only involved the one true Holy Catholic Church. Not the other rites.

You are having some major misunderstandings. All of the various rites are part of the Catholic Church. You need one little peice of information that you are missing: the Holy Catholic Church, that Church which gives Her submission to the Roman Pontiff, consists of at least 27 different “rites.” The Roman Catholic Church is one of these rites, called the Latin Rite. There are other rites, such as the Byzantine Rite, the Meronite Rite, the Coptic Rite, and so on. All of these rites belong to the Holy Catholic Church, and are under the submission of the Holy Father. They also have always used different languages.

Also, I do not deny that Latin was used for centuries. What I deny is the false notion that it was always used. In fact, Latin may not have been used until the 6th century!

Please read the following article from the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm

 

[Lazerlike42]

AlanFromWichita:

Since when did the laity get the job of second-guessing the Pope’s appointments?

How can anyone claim to be orthodox while openly questioning the authority of the Holy Father?

What does orthodox mean? Miserable? It doesn’t mean faithful to Rome apparently because to earn that label one would have confidence in the Bishop of Rome if one were.

Oh I get it. We know more about the spiritual lives of these people than the Pope, so were are in a better position to judge. :whacky:

Alan

edit>> if we don’t believe in the authority of the Bishop of Rome, then perhaps we need to start a new Church.

Sir, we are not judging the spiritual lives of anyone, nor questioning the authority of the Holy Father. JSmitty simply wishes to determine if the selections are orthodox men. The crisis of the Church right now exists because many bishops whome were appointed in the 50s and 60s were not orthodox men. Nobody is questioning the Pope’s authority here. These men are Cardinals whether anybody likes it or not, and will be submitted to as such.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Loy:

You are right to be concerned. But you cannot make these things go away on your own…

I know I can’t do it on my own, I never said I could…

Loy:

You can spread the word to other Catholics that the Bishops or the Pope or the Curia have disapproved these books…

I’m trying to spread the word to other Catholics here…

Loy:

you must persevere working within the structure of the Church, and not publicly proclaim your private anathema.

I haven’t proclaimed any anathemas.

 

[Loy]

JSmitty2005:

I know I can’t do it on my own, I never said I could…
I’m trying to spread the word to other Catholics here…
I haven’t proclaimed any anathemas.

Okay, just trying to help! And if I’ve been too heavy handed, I apologize.

God bless you all!

 

[JSmitty2005]

Loy:

Okay, just trying to help! And if I’ve been too heavy handed, I apologize.

God bless you all!

No, not at all. Don’t worry about it. May God bless you too!