Crackdown!

[Rick_Bohler]

Archbishop 10-K:

That’s basically what I was thinking of, except without the torture and burning. But I think it must be admitted that the Inquisitions WORKED. It’s just that in today’s society, I’m not so sure.

WITHOUT the torture and burning? DARN!

 

[Rick_Bohler]

Archbishop 10-K:

I was thinking more like a guy from the Vatican that nobody recognizes, wearing civilian dress, and giving an evaluation, completely unannounced. That way, a “bad” priest would have to worry about the “Inquisitors” all the time, but a “good” priest has nothing to worry about since an Inquisitor would give him brownie points for doing a good job.

You know, it’s a funny thing… I’m in furniture sales, and every month our store gets shopped by a “mystery shopper”. The store manager is soon notified of the results, and believe you me, the sales staff is “counseled” if proper ediquette wasn’t followed. Why shouldn’t this be done to bring our “anything goes” priests into conformity with the GIRM?

 

[rfk]

I know there is a lot of legitimate frustration with some Bishops these days.

But I also get uncomfortable when we get a whole string of messages that really treat them badly. After all, the Church gets so much disdain and disrespect from the secular world, why do we want to compund that from within the Church?

I am still of the school that I need to give my respect and obediance to my local Bishop even if I completely disagree with some of his actions. I look at it like I am respecting the office more than the man.

That doesn’t mean that I would always sit silent in the face of problems. For example, I have written to my Bishop requesting that he implement both GIRM 3 and Redemptionis Sacramentum and curb some specific liturgical abuses. But I did so in a most respectful manner, always cognizant that he is an annointed successor to the Apostles.

Even if I have to sit and suffer quietly though a Bishop’s unwillingess to change, I believe that I should demonstrate my obedience. After all, there have been many Saints – Padre Pio, for just one example – who obediently followed restrictions from their Bishop that I would have to believe they disagreed with privately. Personally, I believe my rewards in heaven for obedience will outweigh any points lost for acceptiong and putting up with an imperfect diocese.

Anyway, I’ll get off my high horse. I guess I was just reacting to the overall lack of charity in the thread towards a position that I believe deserves better.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

I respect your position, Bob.

Unfortunately, today, I don’t think that I can pledge my undying obedience to any bishop who deviates from Rome. Christ established an authority, and even our bishops should recognize their duty to be obedient to the Holy See.

As laymen, we are not “bound by the vow of obedience,” as are the ordained and religious. If a bishop goes astray, all the priests, deacons, brothers, and sisters must still obey. I think the buck stops with the laity.

St. Pio was a priest, bound to obedience. And did he have a corrupt bishop?

There have also been saints who’ve corrected their superiors. St. Catherine of Siena comes to mind. She bossed around the Pope!

(I do agree that we must respect the office, and keep our tone charitable!)

By having the layfaithful rate Masses on the basis of adherence to the norms vs. liturgical abuses in any diocese, it doesn’t seem to me that anyone is acting out of disobedience, rather out of love for the Truth, and for the Church.

Pax Christi. <><

 

[rfk]

Panis Angelicas:

I respect your position, Bob.

And I, yours. There is much we agree upon.
Panis Angelicas:

Unfortunately, today, I don’t think that I can pledge my undying obedience to any bishop who deviates from Rome. Christ established an authority, and even our bishops should recognize their duty to be obedient to the Holy See.

I agree there are Bishops who are dissenting from the Faith.
Panis Angelicas:

As laymen, we are not “bound by the vow of obedience,” as are the ordained and religious.

True, we have not taken the same vow as the religious, but we are bound to obedience in certain things and we are required to show assent of the will in others. However, as you agree, those items do not take away our right to speak up against the Bishop’s disobedience to the Magisterium.

(I do agree that we must respect the office, and keep our tone charitable!)

That was really the primary point I was driving. It is too easy to get wrapped up in an ego-driven campaign to force our Bishop’s to change. I am not willing to go the route taken by The Voice of the Faithful or other dissenting lay groups that are trying to “shape structural change within the church.”

To choose one example regarding Redemptionis Sacramentum (RS), our diocese is still pouring consecrated wine from a glass flagon into multiple chalices at the Agnes Dei. This is strictly forbidden under RS. Well, I started with a respectful conversation with my pastor. I then spoke respectfully with the person directing our diocescan liturgy office. Then I sent a respectful letter to our Bishop.

I’ll give him some time – I haven’t decided how long. Then I will send a respectful letter to Rome.

At the end of the process, even if the liturgical practices are not changed, I will still go to Mass. I will still donate to the annual Bishop’s Appeal. I will still speak of him respectfully and give him the honor that the office deserves. In other words, I will accept it.

As I see it, my only alternatives would be to either go join some traditional schismatic branch or start some form of public dissent. Neither is attractive. After all, the Church is not a democracy. Instead, I’ll choose to quietly obey my Bishop and trust that the Holy Spirit will take care of things in the long run.

 

[Shoshana]

PASCENDI]

I think I heard from Msgr John Tracy Ellis that they actually this once during the pontificate of Pivs XII to a bishop in Iowa. The ceremony wasn’t as elaborate but was public

I may be wrong, but it is Montini. Montini is Pope Paul VI. What heappened here is Montini was considered too ‘liberal’ and Pius XII stripped him. I cannot remember how Roncalli (Pope John XXIII) got in, but he brought Montini back into the Vatican and basically Montini had a great deal to do with Vatican II. What Paul VI condemned as modernism, liberalism, communism (or any ‘ism’…was turned over easy, and these things were then affirmed by John Paul II with Montini’s help. Montini became the next Pope as Paul VI.

Politics, politics, politics…

Shoshana

 

[JNB]

Abp Montini because the ordinary of Florence archdiocesae in 52 or so, but he was not elevated to the college of Cardinals untill 58, shortly after Pius XII passing, but he was never stripped of his archdiocese.

 

[Shoshana]

What Paul VI condemned as modernism, liberalism, communism (or any ‘ism’

It wasn’t Paul VI who condemned, sorry, it was Pius XII!