Bishop Thomas Gumbleton at Syracuse, NY

[Brendan]

He continues to serve on the congregation of bishops, the group that submits candidates to the Pope for the dioceses of the world. He also has membership on other congregations in Rome.

.

The submission of canidates to the Episopacy comes from the local bishops who submit names to the Papal Nuncios of their respective countries.

The Papal Nuncio researches the canidates and submits their own, compiled, lists to the Holy See.

The Pope then makes the decision from these lists, and with (name removed by moderator)ut from others as he sees fit (which may, or may not include the Congregation of Bishops).

The Pope is the final authority on the matter.

 

[frommi]

The submission of canidates to the Episopacy comes from the local bishops who submit names to the Papal Nuncios of their respective countries.

The Papal Nuncio researches the canidates and submits their own, compiled, lists to the Holy See.

The Pope then makes the decision from these lists, and with (name removed by moderator)ut from others as he sees fit (which may, or may not include the Congregation of Bishops).

The Pope is the final authority on the matter.

OK…if we need to split hairs on the matter…yes, the Pope makes the appointments…

But the larger point is…what the heck is Cardinal Law doing with ANY say in that process?

 

[Brendan]

OK…if we need to split hairs on the matter…yes, the Pope makes the appointments…

But the larger point is…what the heck is Cardinal Law doing with ANY say in that process?

Frommi,

I’m surprised with you! You are always the first to advocate collegiality among bishops. That decisions should be made by discussion among ALL bishops

Are you now saying that some bishops are now to be excluded from the collegial process??

 

[frommi]

Frommi,

I’m surprised with you! You are always the first to advocate collegiality among bishops. That decisions should be made by discussion among ALL bishops

Are you now saying that some bishops are now to be excluded from the collegial process??

Well first of all…not ALL bishops are part of the congregation of bishops…

And yeah, I do have an issue with someone who moved child molesters around an archdiocese being looked to for guidance about who should be the local shepherds for the dioceses of the world.

 

[Brendan]

I, on the other hand, am encouraged by the appointment.

It gives Cardinal Law an opportunity to learn under the direct supervision of the Holy Father and from his fellow bishops, the CORRECT procedures for the appointment of clergy.

The Church should be about correction and instruction.

And if we could make a similar arragnement for +Gumbleton’s homilies, such as being able to make no pronouncements on the Church’s teachings on homosexuality on on the Church’s actual position on social justice without the direct approval of the text by the Holy Father, that too would be proper instruction.

 

[frommi]

I, on the other hand, am encouraged by the appointment.

It gives Cardinal Law an opportunity to learn under the direct supervision of the Holy Father and from his fellow bishops, the CORRECT procedures for the appointment of clergy.

Sorry…that’s just delusional…the idea that a 75 year old bishop is on the congregation as some sort of remedial assignment is foolhardy.

He held that post prior to resigning his see…and he was not forced to give it up…and he should have been.

I simply see no difference in your complaints about Bishop Gumbleton and my misgivings about Cardinal Law…

Who was correcting Cardinal Law when he was allowed by church law to vote for the new pontiff?

Can we honestly say someone who was so delinquent in his responsibilities as a shepherd should have been electing the supreme shepherd of the church? what a joke

 

[Crumpy]

Bishops are supposed to be in unity with the Pope and with the teachings of the Church. I’m not an academic person with all the references to where it says this, but I’d suggest that people take a look at the documents of Vatican II to confirm this.

There is certainly nothing that can be cited to justify bishops like Gumbeton taking positions at odds with the Church. He simply is a dissident and that’s that.

His notoriety is simply because he does stake out such dissident positions. If he was “following the party line” of church doctrine, he wouldn’t earn a single speaking fee. ho hum.

 

[johnnykins]

Sorry…that’s just delusional…the idea that a 75 year old bishop is on the congregation as some sort of remedial assignment is foolhardy.

He held that post prior to resigning his see…and he was not forced to give it up…and he should have been.

I simply see no difference in your complaints about Bishop Gumbleton and my misgivings about Cardinal Law…

Who was correcting Cardinal Law when he was allowed by church law to vote for the new pontiff?

Can we honestly say someone who was so delinquent in his responsibilities as a shepherd should have been electing the supreme shepherd of the church? what a joke

Good to know you equate Bishop Gumbleton and Cardinal Law. It does make me wonder why you seem to run to defend Bishop Gumbleton, however.

 

[frommi]

Good to know you equate Bishop Gumbleton and Cardinal Law. It does make me wonder why you seem to run to defend Bishop Gumbleton, however.

I think the more vile attacks on Bishop Gumbleton are uncalled for because of the office he carries. I also think his words get twisted around and taken out of context by a lot of folks around these message boards…which I don’t think is fair or intellectually honest.

I also think that the same standards are not being applied to bishops/cardinals across the board here…

If you said:

Person A: Failed to take action to protect children

Person B: Makes public statements which some perceive as outside the known teachings of the church

And then you were asked to fire one of them (being dramatic on purpose here)…who would you fire?

Instead, Bishop Gumbleton, who was content to pastor a parish no one wanted for the last 25 years was put out to pasture…Cardinal Law gets to be archpriest of a st mary major and vote for popes for the next 5 years or so.

It doesn’t seem correct to me.

 

[Corki]

Given the facts above, I would fire Person B. Assuming that our goal is to save immortal souls and not just satisfy the media, that is.

 

[Brendan]

I simply see no difference in your complaints about Bishop Gumbleton and my misgivings about Cardinal Law…

I don’t disagree with you.

I feel both need direct Papal supervision on all actions that might affect Christ’s faithful. And neither should be allowed to interact with the public without the Pope reviewing their statements.

 

[frommi]

I don’t disagree with you.

I feel both need direct Papal supervision on all actions that might affect Christ’s faithful. And neither should be allowed to interact with the public without the Pope reviewing their statements.

And yet that’s just not how the church works…nor how it has ever worked…

The Pope can’t provide direct supervision to bishops the world over, and I’m sure it wouldn’t surprise you to know that I would not advocate for such a stance to be taken.

It’s up to the bishop of a diocese to decide who can interact wth the faithful who live there…thus in many cases, Bishop Gumbleton is not welcomed for a variety of reasons, some valid, some just pandering in nature.

Cardinal Law, in theory, now takes up residence in the diocese of Rome, so I suppose the Pope has a direct role in his day to day operations…but that direct supervision probably falls more to the Vicar of Rome than anybody else.

Papal ‘supervision’ is not what any church documents really lay out as the way this is all supposed to work.

In that regard I do agree with Bishop Gumbleton…the pope is not 'Bishop of the Earth"…he’s the ‘Bishop of Rome’…and that title carries with it some unique responsibility to maintain the unity of the church…which I don’t think Bishop Gumbleton or Cardinal Law have really attempted to break.

 

[frommi]

Given the facts above, I would fire Person B. Assuming that our goal is to save immortal souls and not just satisfy the media, that is.

Wow

 

[fix]

In that regard I do agree with Bishop Gumbleton…the pope is not 'Bishop of the Earth"…he’s the 'Bishop of Rome

I see this type of statement from Bishop Gumbleton, and his supporters, as a way to emphasize only one aspect of the truth of the matter. It almost seems a way to de-emphasize the role of the pope.

882The 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."402 "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."403

 

[otjm]

I see this type of statement from Bishop Gumbleton, and his supporters, as a way to emphasize only one aspect of the truth of the matter. It almost seems a way to de-emphasize the role of the pope.

While I am in no way getting into the rightness or wrongness of the Bishop’s statement, neither is it a hidden secret that there has been and continues to be discussion as to how the Pope should and will exercise his office, to wit: issues having to do with both the Eastern rites and the Orthodox, and having to do with various future possiblities of reconcilliation with osme of the Protestant Churches.

That "“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.” is a correct statement, but may not be the only way that it is stated; nor is it necessary that he exercise it in exactly the same manner through the various rites and future possible reconcilliations. That may or may not be part of what the bishop was alluding to.

 

[fix]

This is from the OP link:

“We’re not a church of hierarchy. We’re a pilgrim church — a community of disciples of Jesus,” Gumbleton told the people at St. Lucy’s. “And everyone is equal in the community of the disciples of Jesus.” He also said that the pope is the bishop of Rome, not the bishop of the world. “That might be in conflict with popular Catholic thinking. Most people think it goes ‘God, Christ, the pope, bishops, priest and laity.’ This view is false but it has taken deep root in popular Catholic thought.” Bishop Gumbleton said that most Catholics regard Rome as the “headquarters with branch offices around the world.” Then, in turn, parishes are viewed as franchises within the diocese. “Everyone obeying what comes down from the top,” he said.

The Spirit, he explained, acts through all the people of God to develop doctrine. When persons disagree with something, it should not be assumed that it is always only that person’s opinion. “We cannot be a teaching church unless we are a listening church,” Bishop Gumbleton said. He referred frequently throughout his talk to the sensus fidelium, the sense of the people. In clarifying this reference, Bishop Costello said that the sensus fidelium means that “we ought to be listening to the convictions of the people.”

Bishop Gumbleton spoke about Pope Paul VI’s commission to study the issue of birth control in 1964. The commission included laity and clergy and Bishop Gumbleton said their findings were overlooked. Instead the pope came out with his encyclical, Humanae Vitae, in 1968. Pope Paul VI, he said, squelched the sensus fidelium in that case. “People will not accept a teaching that is not credible, an argument that is not compelling,” he said.

His point is clear here.

We do obey what comes from the Pope. If anyone contradicts the pope’s teaching he/she is in error and we ought not follow that dissenting view.

As for reunification all I can say is that Peter is will always be Peter. There will always be that living authority. As for the quote from the Dogmatic constitution on the Church I would not wait for any reversing of that. People have been clamoring for license from the start. The Church is still here and they are gone.

 

[otjm]

This is from the OP link:

His point is clear here.

We do obey what comes from the Pope. If anyone contradicts the pope’s teaching he/she is in error and we ought not follow that dissenting view.

As for reunification all I can say is that Peter is will always be Peter. There will always be that living authority. As for the quote from the Dogmatic constitution on the Church I would not wait for any reversing of that. People have been clamoring for license from the start. The Church is still here and they are gone.

Thanks; I had not gone clear back to the OP. I stand by my comment concerning the issue of how the papcy will be exercised in the future, but certainly withdraw any reference to the Bishop referring to that.

 

[fix]

1. On the basis of the New Testament witness, the Catholic Church teaches, as a doctrine of faith, that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter in his primatial service in the universal Church;[13] this succession explains the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome,[14] enriched also by the preaching and martyrdom of St Paul.

1. The exercise of the Petrine ministry must be understood — so that it “may lose nothing of its authenticity and transparency”[31] — on the basis of the Gospel, that is, on its essential place in the saving mystery of Christ and the building-up of the Church. The primacy differs in its essence and in its exercise from the offices of governance found in human societies:[32] it is not an office of co-ordination or management, nor can it be reduced to a *primacy of honour, *or be conceived as a political monarchy.

1. In recalling these essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy of Peter’s Successor, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is certain that the authoritative reaffirmation of these doctrinal achievements offers greater clarity on the way to be followed. This reminder is also useful for avoiding the continual possibility of relapsing into biased and one-sided positions already rejected by the Church in the past (Febronianism, Gallicanism, ultramontanism, conciliarism, etc.). Above all, by seeing the ministry of the Servant of the servants of God as a great gift of divine mercy to the Church, we will all find —with the grace of the Holy Spirit — the energy to live and faithfully maintain fall and real union with the Roman Pontiff in the everyday life of the Church, in the way desired by Christ.[45]

*** Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
*Prefect
**** Tarcisio Bertone Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=711

 

[frommi]

This is from the OP link:

His point is clear here.

We do obey what comes from the Pope. If anyone contradicts the pope’s teaching he/she is in error and we ought not follow that dissenting view.

As for reunification all I can say is that Peter is will always be Peter. There will always be that living authority. As for the quote from the Dogmatic constitution on the Church I would not wait for any reversing of that. People have been clamoring for license from the start. The Church is still here and they are gone.

I think the point he is making is more about human nature than anything else…if an argument for or against something is not compelling, it stands little chance of being accepted.

I’m not suggesting that the church should be governed on a ‘majority rules’ standard, because indeed the majority can be wrong.

But there is more to ‘law’ than simply making a statement…the law has to be received as well by those hearing it.

Then there is the fact that anything the pope ‘says’ does not become something i personally have to ascent to.

The Pope can say that he thinks chant is very nice and lovely and the voice of the angels, etc etc…but I’m not compelled by papal authority to select those songs for this Sunday’s liturgy…I can make a compelling argument to use other music and still be Catholic.

 

[fix]

I think the point he is making is more about human nature than anything else…if an argument for or against something is not compelling, it stands little chance of being accepted.

I’m not suggesting that the church should be governed on a ‘majority rules’ standard, because indeed the majority can be wrong.

But there is more to ‘law’ than simply making a statement…the law has to be received as well by those hearing it.

Then there is the fact that anything the pope ‘says’ does not become something i personally have to ascent to.

The Pope can say that he thinks chant is very nice and lovely and the voice of the angels, etc etc…but I’m not compelled by papal authority to select those songs for this Sunday’s liturgy…I can make a compelling argument to use other music and still be Catholic.

Well, let us be honest. The proscription regarding contraception is binding and infallible. The constant talk of “dialogue” is disingenuous.