Bishop Levada to be "keeper of the faith?!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What qualifications does Bishop Levada have to become the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith? He is most likely a good scholar and by that I mean that he has a well rounded theology scholarship. He has more then likely been a member of the commission for a period of years. If this is the case then Benedict XVI knows his orthodoxy. Yet there is one more qualification: he helped to craft the statement issued in Ratzinger’s name concerning the issue of Catholic politicians advocating in favour of abortion and euthanasia.

The other issues that have been mentioned are important to some, but the architecture of individual churches is not relevant to our Catholic faith. All we really require is God’s Presence amongst us. If you saw the ugly architecture of the Cathedral at Parramatta here in Sydney, you would understand precisely why it does not matter one jot. I will add to my comment. The Bishop of Parramatta is seen as one who is “orthodox”. The original Cathedral was burnt in a fire and had to be rebuilt. There is an original chapel in a portion of the building that remained after the fire. The Eucharist resides in this chapel. Then there is the other portion of the building, and it is extremely ugly in my view. The acoustics in that room are terrible, and if you have a sore neck then you will come out of a Mass at that place with one terrible pain, that includes an extremely bad headache that will last for days on end.

Just because something is not to our taste does not mean that we can continue to make such comments.

I do not know Archbishop Levada. I am surprised by the choice, but he must be well-known to Joseph Ratzinger to have been the preferred choice over Cardinal George Pell.

MaggieOH
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
What qualifications does Bishop Levada have to become the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith?
I do not know Archbishop Levada. I am surprised by the choice, but he must be well-known to Joseph Ratzinger to have been the preferred choice over Cardinal George Pell.MaggieOH
Dear Maggie,

Here’s something that might make you feel more content with Levada:

He was an active participant in the construction of the Catechism. This in itself might sound pretty boring, but it’s very important in the US, because people whose fame and fortune (and desire to appear often on TV news programs as “Progressive Catholics”), were dead set against ANY Catechism, and saw to it that it got shelved where ever possible.

They taught the Directors of Religious Education to ignore it, and every time a modification or a directory on its use came out, they insisted that no one use it! People in RCIA were told that it was too difficult, and that they shouldn’t refer to it!! You may have read some of their terrible RCIA stories on these threads.

Besides, he worked with then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the project. That makes me feel less worried, and I hope it helps you.

Gods bless,

Anna
 
I really don’t get the angst here.

Levada spent six years on the staff of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, including a year or so when Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation. Archbiship Levada has been a bishop-member of the Congregation for the past five years.

In other words, the Pope has worked with this man – extensively – on the work of the Congregation. I think it’s reasonable to assume that he has some idea what Levada brings to the table – almost certainly a much better idea than random Catholics who worry about the shape of a church in San Francisco.

Further – what kind of an argument about Levada’s “orthodoxy” can one make using possible reluctance to promote an indult mass? The basis of an indult is to grant permission to do something that is unorthodox. I know this doesn’t sit well with some very traditional Catholics – but the Tridentine Mass is not orthodox; it is permitted (by indult), but it is not the standard. Preference for it isn’t heterodox, per se, thanks to the indult, but such preference is certainly resistant to the teaching and will of the Magisterium. And pining for pre-Vatican II Catholicism is not something the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is likely to want to promote – we need unity in the Church, not disunity, whether driven by “progressives,” or by “traditionalists” who challenge the contemporary authority of the Magisterium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top