Bishops want to assert authority on those who claim "More Catholic than the Bishops"

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
long overdue…

For several years now, a local private school has refused episcopal oversight of their RE curriculum. They claim to be a Catholic School, and are a member of the NACS. Their founding board was mostly lay adherents to the Lefebvrist movement. And yet, year after year, they desperately try to draw in Catholic families.

Likewise, Rep. Pelosi should have been excommunicated decades ago, as should Sen. Kenedy and Biden.
 
maggiemay2u said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…It’s that second part that seems to cause so much grief to secularists, and secularists cause so much grief to others twisting the intent…
Click to expand...
A secularist is not necessarily one who disrespects or denies the freedom to exercise religion. The secularist correctly wants secular laws not dictated by an Imam, a Buddhist priest, the Dalai Lama, or any bishop of any faith. It’s very relevant to the Tobin discussion. The intent of hte Constitution and Declaration is not to allow intrusions of religion into the public square. It’s to keep maximum religious freedom, but not overlap it with the political sphere. That doesn’t prevent Tobin or the Dalai Lama from trying to exercise influence over a congressperson or over a secular Congress, which it is…secular. You seem confused about that.
 
maggiemay2u said:
There wasn’t an investigation, IMO, this is just an unfounded attempt to besmirch a good and holy woman.
Click to expand...
I’m not besmirching anyone. I’m pointing out the irrefutable fact that Mother Angelica openly disobeyed her Bishop and advocated the people of the diocese of Los Angeles to disobey their Cardinal. I’ve provided sources to back it up.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I’m not besmirching anyone. I’m pointing out the irrefutable fact that Mother Angelica openly disobeyed her Bishop and advocated the people of the diocese of Los Angeles to disobey their Cardinal. I’ve provided sources to back it up.
Click to expand...
You claimed she resigned becuase of a Vatican investigation.,There was not invetigation. You didnt provide any evidence she disobeyed her Bishop. Although I think her criticisms of Cardinalp Omally were not without merit I dont think it was her place to make them.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
A secularist is not necessarily one who disrespects or denies the freedom to exercise religion. The secularist correctly wants secular laws not dictated by an Imam, a Buddhist priest, the Dalai Lama, or any bishop of any faith. It’s very relevant to the Tobin discussion. The intent of hte Constitution and Declaration is not to allow intrusions of religion into the public square. It’s to keep maximum religious freedom, but not overlap it with the political sphere. That doesn’t prevent Tobin or the Dalai Lama from trying to exercise influence over a congressperson or over a secular Congress, which it is…secular. You seem confused about that.
Click to expand...
Who is claiming that any religious leader seeks to dictate laws? It is the right and duty of the Catholic magesterium to inform its members on what is good and just and what is wrong and unjust, regardless of whether the members are janitors or Congressmen. The separation of Church and state means that no particular religion must be adhered to, not that religious values and sensibilities cannot be aired in the public square or in the formation of human, secular laws. It is the 1st Amendment RIGHT and God-given DUTY of bishops to speak out on important moral issues, and it is the 1st Amendment RIGHT and God-given DUTY of the laity to form just laws when they are so important to morality. Now, you may want to try to claim that only religious have to adhere to the moral law, but you would be wrong. Laws against murder and theft and lying, as well as all other important moral issues, are bindng upon all people always.
 
estesbob said:
YYou didnt provide any evidence she disobeyed her Bishop.
Click to expand...
Read the link I provided in regards to the review or if you don’t want to read the whole thing I’ll provide a relevant snippet:

“Unfortunately, Mother’s last stand came in 1999 when David Foley, the bishop of her diocese in Alabama, demanded that no masses in Mother’s new Hanceville shrine (which she built from the ground up with her own money) be celebrated with the priest facing away from the people. As was her common practice, Mother refused to buckle under this flutter of Foley’s peacock feathers. Foley responded by calling the ad orientem posture an “illicit innovation or sacrilege,” implying that those who insisted on doing so were sinning, mortally. At the dedication ceremony of the Shrine, which Foley, being the local ordinary, had to preside over, Mother Angelica refused to attend. Foley, representing himself for the USCCB, then complained to the Vatican, demanding that Mother capitulate to their control. The determined Foley then implored the Vatican to send an envoy to investigate EWTN.”
estesbob said:
Although I think her criticisms of Cardinalp Omally were not without merit I dont think it was her place to make them.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a problem with criticisms so long as they are constructive. I do have a problem with some comments she has made namely the one associated with this issue; “I’m afraid my obedience in that diocese would be absolutely zero. And I hope everybody else’s in that diocese is zero.”
 
estesbob said:
I disagree-the Bishops need to make it clear that affirming the teachings of the Church should not be considered a controversial postion. We have way to many “Catholic” politicans who distort Church teaching. To let their clams go unchallenged by the Bishops can lead catholics astray
Click to expand...
The best thing that the bishops could do would be to dissolve the USCCB and fire its staff.It is a political, not a religious body.
 
estesbob said:
If “catholic” politicans were not distorting the teachings of the Church there would be no need for the Bishops to correct. them. But if politicans publicly do so the Bishops must respond in kind.

Our “house”, BTW, is in order. Christ promised us that when he founded it. I am a bit wearisome with veiled (or direct ) references to the homosexual Priest scandal everytime the Church says something that makes people uncmpfrtable.
Click to expand...
YEP, you said in all! 👍
 
Discerning – your have touched a core point in your comments. I am weary of the political comments from the Bishops and would rather they focus on the “truisms” of the Faith. Worrying about who is president or who is speaking at Notre Dame is so much NOT the needs of the laity. We need faithful leadership dealing with the core teachings of the Church and less focus on the political. I pray that the Bishops focus more on how we can provide sustanance to the poor, inspire our young people to celebrate the joy of our Faith, and so many other pastoral issues within the Church.
 
Pamm said:
Discerning – your have touched a core point in your comments. I am weary of the political comments from the Bishops and would rather they focus on the “truisms” of the Faith. Worrying about who is president or who is speaking at Notre Dame is so much NOT the needs of the laity. We need faithful leadership dealing with the core teachings of the Church and less focus on the political. I pray that the Bishops focus more on how we can provide sustanance to the poor, inspire our young people to celebrate the joy of our Faith, and so many other pastoral issues within the Church.
Click to expand...
They are focusing on truisms of faith-that life is Gods primary gift to us and that without the right to life all other rights are meaningless. It is ironic that you on one hand ask that our Bishops inspire our youth while at the same time criticizing them for pointing out the terrible example ND gave our youth by honoring the most pro-abortion President in history. You dont inspire our youth by honoring those who support intrinsic evil.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Read the link I provided in regards to the review or if you don’t want to read the whole thing I’ll provide a relevant snippet:

“Unfortunately, Mother’s last stand came in 1999 when David Foley, the bishop of her diocese in Alabama, demanded that no masses in Mother’s new Hanceville shrine (which she built from the ground up with her own money) be celebrated with the priest facing away from the people. As was her common practice, Mother refused to buckle under this flutter of Foley’s peacock feathers. Foley responded by calling the ad orientem posture an “illicit innovation or sacrilege,” implying that those who insisted on doing so were sinning, mortally. At the dedication ceremony of the Shrine, which Foley, being the local ordinary, had to preside over, Mother Angelica refused to attend. Foley, representing himself for the USCCB, then complained to the Vatican, demanding that Mother capitulate to their control. The determined Foley then implored the Vatican to send an envoy to investigate EWTN.”

I don’t have a problem with criticisms so long as they are constructive. I do have a problem with some comments she has made namely the one associated with this issue; “I’m afraid my obedience in that diocese would be absolutely zero. And I hope everybody else’s in that diocese is zero.”
Click to expand...
Please stop talking about how EWTN is “bad” and please be happy that such a Holy Woman is doing good work for the Church.

I also think that the priest facing away from the people is something that can be done in the Ordinary Form. Mother Angelica would not argue something that cannot be argued.
 
Stylites said:
The separation of Church and state means that no particular religion must be adhered to, not that religious values and sensibilities cannot be aired in the public square or in the formation of human, secular laws. are so important to morality.
Click to expand...
I agree. But there are several posters who go farther than that in their assumptions and statements, in terms of being controlled by, dictated to by clerics, and publicly so. That is not the same thing as an honest well-formed, dutifully-informed (etc) conscience. A well-formed Catholic conscience will be by definition in accord with Catholic principles, but there is a difference in the location of the source, particularly in terms of public perception.
Now, you may want to try to claim that only religious have to adhere to the moral law, but you would be wrong.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t want to claim that. Nor have I ever claimed that.
🤷
 
fish90 said:
Please stop talking about how EWTN is “bad” and please be happy that such a Holy Woman is doing good work for the Church.

I also think that the priest facing away from the people is something that can be done in the Ordinary Form. Mother Angelica would not argue something that cannot be argued.
Click to expand...
If we were all as good and obedient as Mother the church would be a very Holy place

You can’t define someone’s entire life of service by one sentence or incident
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Read the link I provided in regards to the review or if you don’t want to read the whole thing I’ll provide a relevant snippet:

“Unfortunately, Mother’s last stand came in 1999 when David Foley, the bishop of her diocese in Alabama, demanded that no masses in Mother’s new Hanceville shrine (which she built from the ground up with her own money) be celebrated with the priest facing away from the people. As was her common practice, Mother refused to buckle under this flutter of Foley’s peacock feathers. Foley responded by calling the ad orientem posture an “illicit innovation or sacrilege,” implying that those who insisted on doing so were sinning, mortally. At the dedication ceremony of the Shrine, which Foley, being the local ordinary, had to preside over, Mother Angelica refused to attend. Foley, representing himself for the USCCB, then complained to the Vatican, demanding that Mother capitulate to their control. The determined Foley then implored the Vatican to send an envoy to investigate EWTN.”
Click to expand...
You have managed to source an assertion with a document that itself is not sourced. It’s a review, not an investigative piece. The reviewer has an obvious ax to grind with EWTN, as he himself noted he hasn’t been recruited as a contributor for a number of years. I have looked for anything that supports the reviewer’s speculation as to the events. I can’t find it. If all it takes is an option to form reality, then I would have to say Mother Angelica was never told by Rome to do anything–that is based on my opinion that Mother Angelica, in her humility, would have made a rebuke from Rome public to instruct others.

Back to the topic. I can’t help but wonder which bishops are thinking what. I’m sure some of the progressive types are aghast that the flock is requesting they comply with VCII and stop making up their own dogma. I’m equally sure the orthodox bishops would like to take one or two of catholic politicians firmly, but gently, down to the woodshed, and tell these progressives to choose which god they follow, that of their claimed faith or that of their party bosses.
 
RobbyS said:
The best thing that the bishops could do would be to dissolve the USCCB and fire its staff.It is a political, not a religious body.
Click to expand...
You are SO right. While I don’t think it’s **entirely **political, the leaders of the USCCB remind me of the old political “bosses”, who decide what will (or will not) happen in the Catholic world. I can picture them in a smoke-filled room, cigars in their mouths, making deals…“We’ll shut-up about abortion, if you’ll give us our way on Immigration”.

To put it bluntly, the USCCB document on Faithful Citizenship has played a decisive role in empowering Catholic supporters of abortion by providing the escape clauses needed to convince Catholics they could vote for a pro-abortion candidate in good conscience. There are two major loopholes in the document. First, it states that Catholics are allowed to vote for a supporter of abortion rights so long as 1) the voter does not intend to support that position, or 2) there are offsetting “morally grave reasons.” Someone PLEASE tell me what is a more morally grave action that can offset the evil of abortion? What is worse than the taking of an innocent life, the killing of an unborn child? It is known now that they did not speak for all of our Bishops, so what is the need of this Association? A good Bishop can run his own diocese & doesn’t need to be part of a “labor union”.

Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, named a document on the election produced by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops that he said “led to confusion” among the faithful and led ultimately to massive support among Catholics for Barack Obama.

[SIGN]Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura at the Vatican said that "The US bishops’ document, **“Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” **stated that, under certain circumstances, a Catholic could in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports abortion because of “other grave reasons,” as long as they do not intend to support that pro-abortion position.

“But there are not grave reasons that offset the sin of abortion** The economic situation, or opposition to the war in Iraq, or whatever it may be, those things don’t rise to the same level as something that is always and everywhere evil, namely the killing of innocent and defenceless human life.”**
Archbishop Burke also cited the work of the official news service of the US Catholic Bishops’ Conference, that many pro-life observers complained soft-pedalled the newly elected president’s opposition to traditional morality.

“The bishops need to look also at our Catholic News Service, CNS, they need to review their coverage of the whole thing and give some new direction, in my judgement,” he said[/SIGN].

It’s nice that the president of the USCCB is showing some authority. AND when I find that the USCCB is thinking & speaking in unity with our Holy Father, I’ll be more attentive. Until then, I’ll just watch & wait.
 
CradleCath said:
It’s nice that the president of the USCCB is showing some authority. AND when I find that the USCCB is thinking & speaking in unity with our Holy Father, I’ll be more attentive. Until then, I’ll just watch & wait.
Click to expand...
👍

How very sad we are expected to be obedient to our bishops even with their ambiguous political declarations, and yet, they show by example, how very disobedient they are to Rome!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top