Bishop Robert Carlson - Sioux Falls

[singerlady]

Hestia:

A lot of the people who post here don’t really know the Diocese of Saginaw nor Bishop Untener - they only know the opinion posted by single-minded people in these chat rooms. Even Bishop Carlson will tell you that the Diocese of Saginaw does not deserve the reputation that is has around the country. I hope you folks aren’t too disappointed if he doesn’t make all the changes you feel need to be made!!

A lot of us who post here ARE from the Saginaw diocese and most of what we are asking for is not all that complicated. There were a lot of “changes” made during Bishop Ken’s time. What we are asking for is valid matter used in the confection of the Eucharist, and a little more faithfulness to the documents in regard to non-ordained persons giving the homily. A crucifix in the sanctuary would be nice.

 

[fix]

Hestia:

My question is if the Pope can “fire bishops” and if Bishop Ken was a “heretic”, why didn’t Pope John Paul II fire him, or call him to Rome during his 24 years to censure him for his teachings?

The most common answer I am given is that the church tolerates heresy, but abhors schism. She allows dissenting, trendy, heterodox vicars go on and on because She fears disciplining them may lead to a formal schism.

Personally, I would like to see the Pope come over here and start publicly chastizing the rebellious adolescents.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

Interesting assertions…

Let’s try this…

First…

In the funeral Mass for a pope, he is referred to as the vicar of Peter: “May your servant [name], our Pope, vicar of Peter, and shepherd of your Church, who faithfully administered the mysteries of your forgiveness and love on earth, rejoice with you forever in heaven.”

Interesting translation…

Let’s try looking at the original Latin…

“…præsta ut famulus tuus Papa noster Ioannes Paulus, quem Petri constituisti successorem et Ecclesiæ tuæ pastorem, gratiæ et miserationis tuæ mysteriis, quæ fidenter dispensavit in terris, lætanter apud te perpetuo fruatur in cælis.”
(Taken from the funeral Mass of His Holiness Pope John Paul II)

Frommi, Could you please provide a source for your English translation, which seems to be errant?

And once again, a distinction does exist between “Vicar” and “vicar”. It is similar to “Tradition” versus “tradition”. When one word is used to describe two different things, one way to differentiate is by making the greater of the two a proper noun (i.e. capitalized).

 

[frommi]

msproule:

Interesting translation…

Let’s try looking at the original Latin…

“…præsta ut famulus tuus Papa noster Ioannes Paulus, quem Petri constituisti successorem et Ecclesiæ tuæ pastorem, gratiæ et miserationis tuæ mysteriis, quæ fidenter dispensavit in terris, lætanter apud te perpetuo fruatur in cælis.”
(Taken from the funeral Mass of His Holiness Pope John Paul II)

Frommi, Could you please provide a source for your English translation, which seems to be errant?

And once again, a distinction does exist between “Vicar” and “vicar”. It is similar to “Tradition” versus “tradition”. When one word is used to describe two different things, one way to differentiate is by making the greater of the two a proper noun (i.e. capitalized).

My translation comes from the ICEL 1973 translation of the roman missal. I have no idea if it has been changed in the latest round of translations.

Now…let’s look at some of the other things people are pilloring me over…

“Bishops govern the particular churches entrusted to them as the vicars and ambassadors of Christ . . . The pastoral office or the habitual care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely. Nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff, for they exercise an authority which is proper to them.” (LG 27)

            **The Church of       Christ is not divided up into parts like a pie, one piece to this diocese,       another to that, but found truly in each local church**. "*The Church of Christ is       truly present in all legitimate local congregations of the faithful*. .       ." [LG 26] And, "*A diocese       is a section of God’s people entrusted to a bishop to be guided by him       with the assistance of his clergy, . . . it constitutes one particular       church in which the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Christ is       truly present and active*" [CD 11].

      All local churches belong to the communion of churches.       "*In and from such individual churches there comes into being the       one and only Catholic Church*" [LG 23]. And, the bishop is head of       his own local church, "*The individual bishop is the visible principle       and foundation of unity in his particular church*. . ." [23] As       the ecclesiologist       Jean-Marie Tillard has said, we are a "church of       churches".  A creative and fruitful tension       would require strength on the part of both episcopacy and papacy, rather       than subordination of one to the other.

 

[InnocentIII]

frommi:

My translation comes from the ICEL 1973 translation of the roman missal. I have no idea if it has been changed in the latest round of translations.

Now…let’s look at some of the other things people are pilloring me over…

“Bishops govern the particular churches entrusted to them as the vicars and ambassadors of Christ . . . The pastoral office or the habitual care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely. Nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff, for they exercise an authority which is proper to them.” (LG 27)

            **The Church of       Christ is not divided up into parts like a pie, one piece to this diocese,       another to that, but found truly in each local church**. "*The Church of Christ is       truly present in all legitimate local congregations of the faithful*. .       ." [LG 26] And, "*A diocese       is a section of God’s people entrusted to a bishop to be guided by him       with the assistance of his clergy, . . . it constitutes one particular       church in which the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Christ is       truly present and active*" [CD 11].

      All local churches belong to the communion of churches.       "*In and from such individual churches there comes into being the       one and only Catholic Church*" [LG 23]. And, the bishop is head of       his own local church, "*The individual bishop is the visible principle       and foundation of unity in his particular church*. . ." [23] As       the ecclesiologist       Jean-Marie Tillard has said, we are a "church of       churches".  A creative and fruitful tension       would require strength on the part of both episcopacy and papacy, rather       than subordination of one to the other.

Frommi I posted this in another thread but I will repeat it here. You do not seem to want to accept that there is a specific distinction between vicar and Vicar. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states clearly

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

Quoting references to the office of bishop does who are vicars of Christ within their own dioceses does not equate them to the Pope who is the Vicar of Christ for the universal Church.

 

[frommi]

InnocentIII:

Quoting references to the office of bishop does who are vicars of Christ within their own dioceses does not equate them to the Pope who is the Vicar of Christ for the universal Church.

Let’s look at some things here…

I am quoting documents of the second vatican council to make the point that a local bishop is indeed a vicar of Christ to his local church. It is a title proper to him.

Now, maybe it would help to go a little further into what the Pope is and what the Pope is not.

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. By virtue of that See he occupies the Petrine office which is obviously of great importance to the worldwide church because he has the function of maintaining unity. It was once given to me in analogy that the pope would be the person who keeps everyone rowing at the same pace, he would be at the head of the team, but not the coach of team if you will.

A bishop is a bishop by virtue of ordination. There is no level of holy orders called “pope”. In fact Pope was a title used in the earliest days of the church in reference to all bishops, over time it became the title of the Bishop of Rome.

If a Pope were to perhaps resign, he would no longer be vicar of Peter, but would continue to be a vicar of Christ.

I worry that when you say there is only one Vicar of Christ that you believe that Jesus Christ has retired and is letting one of his sons run the family business. That itself is heresy. Jesus Christ does not need a successor, he’s still here.

Futhermore, the point is that each individual diocese is a FULL CHURCH. That is the point you seem to want to gloss over. We are not a worldwide church interconnected. Each Church is the Catholic Church.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

I am quoting documents of the second vatican council…

Please provide references. Thanks!

 

[fix]

2.** In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution.** Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches.

**The bishops themselves, however, having been appointed by the Holy Spirit, are successors of the Apostles as pastors of souls.[3] Together with the supreme pontiff and under his authority **they are sent to continue throughout the ages the work of Christ, the eternal pastor.[4] Christ gave the Apostles and their successors the command and the power to teach all nations, to hallow men in the truth, and to feed them. Bishops, therefore, have been made true and authentic teachers of the faith, pontiffs, and pastors through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to them.[5]

1. By virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college, bishops are constituted as members of the episcopal body.[1] “The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in teaching and pastoral direction, or rather, in the episcopal order, the apostolic body continues without a break. Together with its head, the Roman pontiff, and never without this head it exists as the subject of supreme, plenary power over the universal Church. But this power cannot be exercised except with the agreement of the Roman pontiff.”[2] This power however, “is exercised in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.”[3] Therefore, this sacred synod decrees that all bishops who are members of the episcopal college, have the right to be present at an ecumenical council.
2. Collegially, the order of Bishops is, “together with its head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without this head, the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church”.[43] As it is well known, in teaching this doctrine, the Second Vatican Council likewise noted that the** Successor of Peter fully retains “his power of primacy over all, pastors as well as the general faithful. For in virtue of his office, that is, as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he can always exercise this power freely”**.[44]

 

[frommi]

msproule:

Please provide references. Thanks!

Lumen Gentium from the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Church is where much of that came from.

And, I should say, that Lumen Gentium does provide for distinction between the papacy and the episcopacy. However, the council never really answered the question of how the two elements were to mesh…thus for the past 40 years the authority of the papacy has expanded, while the episcopacy’s authority has shrunk.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

Lumen Gentium from the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Church is where much of that came from.

I guess I should have seen the (LG 27) after your quotes. Oops!

And, I should say, that Lumen Gentium does provide for distinction between the papacy and the episcopacy.

It does so quite clearly in paragraph 22:

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church…

However, the council never really answered the question of how the two elements were to mesh…thus for the past 40 years the authority of the papacy has expanded, while the episcopacy’s authority has shrunk.

On what do you base this conclusion?

 

[msproule]

frommi:

My translation comes from the ICEL 1973 translation of the roman missal. I have no idea if it has been changed in the latest round of translations.

I guess I would like to know if the Latin upon which the 1973 ICEL translation is based says “vicar” or “successor”. They really mean two different things.

Since the funeral rite is written and said in Latin, I would hold that version above the English version. We all know that the ICEL translations leave much to be desired, which is currently one topic of discussion at the USCCB meeting in Chicago.

 

[frommi]

msproule:

On what do you base this conclusion?

The fact that many many catholics still have a corporate vision of the church…Pope as the CEO…Bishop as branch manager.

There have been calls for modification of the petrine office by folks such as Archbishop John Quinn…even Pope Benedict wrote (when he was head of the CDF) that the Petrine office was modifiable.

From a practical standpoint, the Late Pope John Paul II used various forms of media to expand the reach of the papacy. His natural charisms and perhaps even his sense of the theatric really had a lot to do with this.

I believe that one of the great challenges facing the church is how to allow Bishops and Bishops conferences the freedom to teach and lead their local churches without roman interference. Right now, it seems very easy for one or two dissenting bishops to get the ear of rome and put the brakes on translations, reforms, statements, etc.

 

[fix]

frommi:

The fact that many many catholics still have a corporate vision of the church…Pope as the CEO…Bishop as branch manager.

There have been calls for modification of the petrine office by folks such as Archbishop John Quinn…even Pope Benedict wrote (when he was head of the CDF) that the Petrine office was modifiable.

From a practical standpoint, the Late Pope John Paul II used various forms of media to expand the reach of the papacy. His natural charisms and perhaps even his sense of the theatric really had a lot to do with this.

I believe that one of the great challenges facing the church is how to allow Bishops and Bishops conferences the freedom to teach and lead their local churches without roman interference. Right now, it seems very easy for one or two dissenting bishops to get the ear of rome and put the brakes on translations, reforms, statements, etc.

We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function.No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.It happens that with some bishops there is a certain lack of a sense of individual responsibility, and the delegation of his inalienable powers as shepherd and teacher to the structures of the local conference leads to letting what should remain very personal lapse into anonymity.I know bishops who privately confess that they would have decided differently than they did at a conference if they had had to decide by themselves. Who is this critic, who dares to speak ill of the bishops’ conference? His name is Benedict.
cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=2787

 

[fix]

frommi:

I believe that one of the great challenges facing the church is how to allow Bishops and Bishops conferences the freedom to teach and lead their local churches without roman interference. Right now, it seems very easy for one or two dissenting bishops to get the ear of rome and put the brakes on translations, reforms, statements, etc.

I think the challenge is to find orthodox bishops who will be loyal to Rome and not be dissenting, left leaning liberals.

 

[InnocentIII]

frommi:

The fact that many many catholics still have a corporate vision of the church…Pope as the CEO…Bishop as branch manager.

Read the previous posts quoting Lumen Gentium and The Catechism of the Catholic Church. The bishop has authority in his diocese but only UNDER the Pope as pastor of the Universal Church. The bishop is not just a branch manager but neither is he independant of the Pope (who appoints all bishops after all).

There have been calls for modification of the petrine office by folks such as Archbishop John Quinn…even Pope Benedict wrote (when he was head of the CDF) that the Petrine office was modifiable.

There have been calls for many things, including marries clergy, female priests and same sex marriages. They are just that “calls” , generally by people with their own agendas. The teaching of the Church is clear in LG and the Catechism, the Pope BY VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE as Vicar of Christ is the supreme head of the Church. The fact that some people want a change does not make it so.

From a practical standpoint, the Late Pope John Paul II used various forms of media to expand the reach of the papacy. His natural charisms and perhaps even his sense of the theatric really had a lot to do with this.

This is one of the lies of the late 20th Century. Go back and read about Popes such as Pius X, Leo XIII and others. Some Popes exercise more authority over the Church than do others. But the idea that JPII “created” the centralised Papacy is a lie put about by those in dissent from the Church. Both Trent and Vatican I, reaffirmed by Vatican II defined the petrine office as having supreme authority. JPII was just more visible.

I believe that one of the great challenges facing the church is how to allow Bishops and Bishops conferences the freedom to teach and lead their local churches without roman interference. Right now, it seems very easy for one or two dissenting bishops to get the ear of rome and put the brakes on translations, reforms, statements, etc.

“Roman interference”??? So you are finally ready to admit that you are in favour of an heretical vision of the Church in which each diocese goes its own way. Stripped of all the misleading quotes from Church documents this is what it boils down to - the desire to do what you wish rather than obeying the Magisterium.

And I love the use of “dissenting” bishops putting the brakes on reform. As generally used “dissenting” bishops are the ones who are pushing for “reforms”. Guess that shows which side of the fence you are. Those faithful to the Church and the Holy father are dissenting. And I am sure that the Holy Father gives more ear to the Holy Spirit than to “one or two bishops”.

Would you be so opposed to the power of the Pope if he was ramming through the reforms against the opposition of all those nasty conservative bishops? I think not. I appreciate you believe in your vision of the Church and that you remain a member of the Church but it is Christ’s Church and is guided by His wishes and commandments through the Holy Spirit acting through the Holy Father. Roma locuta est, casa finita est.

 

[frommi]

fix:

I think the challenge is to find orthodox bishops who will be loyal to Rome and not be dissenting, left leaning liberals.

If you think that just suddenly solves the problems of a very institution…you’re delusional.

Look…many bishops have vocally dissented about a variety of things that Rome has or has not done…but to my knowledge none have broken communion with the church.

Suggesting dialogue would be appropriate is not the same as dissent.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

The fact that many many catholics still have a corporate vision of the church…Pope as the CEO…Bishop as branch manager.

So we agree that your conclusion was a qualitative opinion and not based on fact. After all, I am not sure how one would quantify such a thing.

From a practical standpoint, the Late Pope John Paul II used various forms of media to expand the reach of the papacy. His natural charisms and perhaps even his sense of the theatric really had a lot to do with this.

Evidently, the late Bishop (Untener) employed the same techniques to advance his office, as well!

I believe that one of the great challenges facing the church is how to allow Bishops and Bishops conferences the freedom to teach and lead their local churches without roman interference.

I am of the belief that Rome “interferes” only when such teaching and leading starkly contrasts with what is best for the souls involved. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[HagiaSophia]

frommi:

I believe that one of the great challenges facing the church is how to allow Bishops and Bishops conferences the freedom to teach and lead their local churches without roman interference.

We’ve seen a lot of that since Vatican II and the state of the Church in many places speaks for itself. Perhaps a rereading of Apostolos Suos would refresh your memory somewhat.

frommi:

Right now, it seems very easy for one or two dissenting bishops to get the ear of rome and put the brakes on translations, reforms, statements, etc.

Y’know you’re partially right and that’s why when Benedict was elected – many said “the cafeteria is now closed” – the implementation by some dioceses and individuals of Vatican II was such a gross mismanagement of what was intended, what was proposed, that it has plunged the church into chaos, division, and pitted many Catholics against one another. I think the kindest description would be “excess”. Out of them was born the “church of what’s happening now” and the liturgical boondoggles. Let us pray that the time of the “do it yourself” church ends soon.

 

[frommi]

msproule:

So we agree that your conclusion was a qualitative opinion and not based on fact. After all, I am not sure how one would quantify such a thing.

Evidently, the late Bishop (Untener) employed the same techniques to advance his office, as well!

I am of the belief that Rome “interferes” only when such teaching and leading starkly contrasts with what is best for the souls involved. Maybe I am wrong.

I agree that my statement is not one of the most quantifiable of things…more of a ‘gut instinct’. I think it’s very much a ‘western way’ of thinking, that there must be someone at the top of the food chain…and yet while there is, it’s not the same as IBM or Microsoft. I think this can be proven by how people would sooner seek redress with Rome than with an individual Bishop, that Bishop’s metropolitan archbishop or even the papal nuncio.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

I think this can be proven by how people would sooner seek redress with Rome than with an individual Bishop, that Bishop’s metropolitan archbishop or even the papal nuncio.

I disagree. Most large companies do not have a means, other than direct e-mail, by which any regular employee can direct questions or concerns directly to upper management. One must go through the hierarchy.

However, the Pope does have an e-mail address…