German Bishops: ‘We Are Not Just a Subsidiary of Rome’

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
:eek:

I do not think it uncharitable of me to call the German hierarchs dissenters and heretics. They no longer accept that two men committed to abusing each other is sinful???
Homosexuality is in itself a disorder, not a sin. And while not moral, a committed pair of homosexuals demonstrates at least some recognition of–or rather a step on the way to recognizing–the importance of responsibility toward others. IIRC Pope Benedict said something similar to my explanation above about prostitutes and condoms.

Nothing Bishop Koch said needs to be read in a light contrary to Catholic teaching.
 
I don’t want to fuel any fires, but I’m a little surprised that the German clergy is taking what could be a more liberal stance than that held by the Vatican, considering that not too long ago Pope Benedict XVI was in their ranks.
But, if you remember, they were threatening schism back then, especially when Pope Benedict was releasing his Summorum Pontificum.
 
I don’t want to fuel any fires, but I’m a little surprised that the German clergy is taking what could be a more liberal stance than that held by the Vatican, considering that not too long ago Pope Benedict XVI was in their ranks.
Bear in mind that the original links are from a report from Edward Pentin who displayed a complete lack of integrity misrepresenting his agenda in interviewing Card. Kasper. (He was writing for Zenit. the creation of the Legion of Christ). On top of that, this report about the Germans is from a translation of Catholic Conclave and Christopher Gillibrand the outspoken British ultra traditionalist who once said…

"The idea of there being no radical break at the Second Vatican Council, is likewise unsupportable in logic or in historical reality. The Council was not only a break but an unmitigated disaster- an auto-da-fe of all that was good and holy in the Catholic Church. "

There is hidden agenda galore in the mission of these characters.
 
Bear in mind that the original links are from a report from Edward Pentin who displayed a complete lack of integrity misrepresenting his agenda in interviewing Card. Kasper. (He was writing for Zenit. the creation of the Legion of Christ). On top of that, this report about the Germans is from a translation of Catholic Conclave and Christopher Gillibrand the outspoken British ultra traditionalist who once said…

"The idea of there being no radical break at the Second Vatican Council, is likewise unsupportable in logic or in historical reality. The Council was not only a break but an unmitigated disaster- an auto-da-fe of all that was good and holy in the Catholic Church. "

There is hidden agenda galore in the mission of these characters.
On the Catholic conclave website there is a link to German language site, apparently according to a translation I did, ‘the only national Catholic newspaper in Germany’

die-tagespost.de/Wir-koennen-nicht-warten;art456,158802

I translated some of the text on the article with a translator and it says:
Therefore, the bishops wanted to publish a private pastoral letter on marriage and family after the Synod. It is not for the bishops to wait for permits. "We are not branches of Rome. Each Episcopal Conference is responsible for the pastoral in their culture, and has to proclaim the Gospel in very own task itself. We can not wait until a synod says, as we have here to make marriage and family ministry. "
Probably not a perfect translation with the translator I used, but how are those comments, and there are others that can be translated, dramatically different than what the Catholic conclave and Edward Pentin reported?
 
On the Catholic conclave website there is a link to German language site, apparently according to a translation I did, ‘the only national Catholic newspaper in Germany’

die-tagespost.de/Wir-koennen-nicht-warten;art456,158802

I translated some of the text on the article with a translator and it says:

Probably not a perfect translation with the translator I used, but how are those comments, and there are others that can be translated, dramatically different than what the Catholic conclave and Edward Pentin reported?
Branch…subsidiary…die sind gleich, find’ ich. 🙂

By the way, I think all of us know that homosexual behavior is gravely sinful. It is also a disorder.
 
Sounds like the "spirit of Luther " has merged with the "spirit of Vatican II ". At this point, as sad as it is to say, I would rather see the disenters just leave rather than continue to foment division.
Why does so much angst start with the Germans?
I was gonna say didn’t something like this happen in Germany 500 years ago? Yeah, that really helped Christianity.:rolleyes:
 
Homosexuality is in itself a disorder, not a sin. And while not moral, a committed pair of homosexuals demonstrates at least some recognition of–or rather a step on the way to recognizing–the importance of responsibility toward others. IIRC Pope Benedict said something similar to my explanation above about prostitutes and condoms.

Nothing Bishop Koch said needs to be read in a light contrary to Catholic teaching.
I am sorry but I disagree with your interpretation. Catholic religion has never called the orientation a sin, not any catechism, pope, bishop. So what exactly is the point in the German’s complaint? Clearly they have a problem with the church’s current language which is very clear in distinguishing the orientation from the sin and classifying each in its proper place. We also know what nonsense they snuck into the original relatio last year basically having the church praise the orientation as a good thing in itself. :eek:

I also do not agree with your idea that there is anything positive about two people committing to abuse each other life and sticking to that process. If a pedophile committed to abusing only one child at a time until that child grew up,would you have something positive to say about that? It showed a step towards responsibility? What about a person who committed to only abusing one animal at a time? My problem is that this and other statements from Germans (Cardinal Marx) last year make it clear that Germans do not consider sodomy a sin, one that cries out to God. They want the church to talk of committed gay relationships as if they were good things. Would you be fine with an effort by the church to characterize abortion in more sympathetic terms than murder? I suspect not and we should be suspicious of a group that is determined to reject what is clearly catholic teaching as if it is ambiguous or up to modification.
 
Back to the story, I am not sure how to read this latest development. It might be:
a) Germans are so confident of Pope Francis’ eventual support that they don’t feel it necessary to wait for him.
b) Germans have discovered that the Pope will not support them and have decided to pre-empt the outcome of the synod by issuing threats and ultimatums that will give them at least something open enough for them to keep justifying their actions as “still under review”.
c) They know that whatever the outcome of the synod and whatever they do, the pope will likely not punish them with excommunication.

I will say that this makes me read Pope Francis in a whole new light. His previously-thought-to-be-wishy-washy language may have been deliberate to stop a schism from developing. The pope is privy to information we may not have and may be aware of risks we are not. He might have decided to solve the issue through a middle way–collegiality. He tells the Germans to make their case to the Bishops and affords them every opportunity and protection to ensure that they are heard, then he lets the church decide the issue hoping in the process to both stop the schism (assuming that the Germans will listen to whatever the synod says as a collection of Bishops) and to promote collegiality in the church. We forget that it is also his job, besides teaching truth, to ensure unity in the church. In fact it is his primary purpose as occupier of the office of Peter among the apostles. We ought therefore to pray for him, more and more, not criticize him. He has a big job to perform as pope. After all the lessons of disunity down the centuries, one understands why a modern pope is so reluctant to allow another church to go into schism and is doing everything short of violating doctrine, to keep them. He may be following Christ’s parable of leaving the 99 sheep to go after the one that has left the pen. He is very interested in unity, this pope, even with the orthodox. This may be what is driving all his decisions of late.
 
Bear in mind that the original links are from a report from Edward Pentin who displayed a complete lack of integrity misrepresenting his agenda in interviewing Card. Kasper. (He was writing for Zenit. the creation of the Legion of Christ). On top of that, this report about the Germans is from a translation of Catholic Conclave and Christopher Gillibrand the outspoken British ultra traditionalist who once said…

"The idea of there being no radical break at the Second Vatican Council, is likewise unsupportable in logic or in historical reality. The Council was not only a break but an unmitigated disaster- an auto-da-fe of all that was good and holy in the Catholic Church. "

There is hidden agenda galore in the mission of these characters.
Edward Pentin did not misrepresent Cardinal Kasper. The report on what Cardinal Kasper said was backed up with an audio that everyone heard for themselves. One that was released after a denial that could have cost Mr. Pentin his job.
 
"Causing dissent"
“Inciting the faithful”
“Opposing Pope Francis’ direction”
"Center of controversy"
The above comments were posted about Cardinal Raymond Burke on threads here recently. Reading the commentary from the German bishops in the link provided by Abyssinia begs the question…just who is sowing dissent and confusion here?

Peace, Mark
 
Wait…wasn’t the Bishop of Bling from Germany?:takeoff:
In theory you’d think Pope Francis who dislikes opulence and money centric church policy would have a big problem with them but he and recent Popes have done nothing to change them. Is the church not as highly centralized as we think it is? Can a Pope really discipline an entire bishops conferance that doesn’t want to be ? Is he scared of them leaving or does the vast wealth they have play a part in it?
 
Is the church not as highly centralized as we think it is? Can a Pope really discipline an entire bishops conferance that doesn’t want to be ? Is he scared of them leaving or does the vast wealth they have play a part in it?
Good questions. I think theoretically he can throw out all of Vatican 2 documents on collegiality. Or rewrite them. Or move the bishops around a bit.

.
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 883

“The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.”

First Vatican Council, Session IV, Chp. IV, p.IX
“If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”

catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-bishop-and-the-conference.html

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

< “The decisive new emphasis on the role of the bishops is in reality restrained or actually risks being smothered by the insertion of bishops into episcopal conferences that are ever more organized, often with burdensome bureaucratic structures. 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.” >

< “Because it is a matter of safeguarding the very nature of the Catholic Church, which is based on an episcopal structure and not on a kind of federation of national churches. The national level is not an ecclesial dimension. It must once again become clear that in each diocese there is only one shepherd and teacher of the faith in communion with the other pastors and teachers and with the Vicar of Christ.” (The Ratzinger Report, 59-61) >

< While recognizing the legitimate aims of episcopal conferences, Pope John Paul II wrote:

“Such aims, however, require that an excessively bureaucratic development of offices and commissions operating between plenary sessions be avoided. The essential fact must be kept in mind that the Episcopal Conferences with their commissions and offices exist to be of help to the bishops and not to substitute for them.” (Apostolos Suos, 18)

In the same document, we find other affirmations of the value of episcopal conferences, but there is often a corresponding word of caution:

“Their importance is seen in the fact that they contribute effectively to unity between the bishops, and thus to the unity of the Church, since they are a most helpful means of strengthening ecclesial communion. Even so, the growing extent of their activities has raised some questions of a theological and pastoral nature, especially with regard to their relationship to the individual Diocesan bishops.” (Apostolos Suos, 6) >
 
In theory you’d think Pope Francis who dislikes opulence and money centric church policy would have a big problem with them but he and recent Popes have done nothing to change them. Is the church not as highly centralized as we think it is? Can a Pope really discipline an entire bishops conferance that doesn’t want to be ? Is he scared of them leaving or does the vast wealth they have play a part in it?
JPII reaffirmed the role of episcopal conferences set forth by the Ratzinger Report that they are mainly a bureaucratic organization and as a body, in and of themselves, do *not *have a teaching mission. (See above document anthony posted.)

Pope Francis will have to have the strength of will and determination to rein in great opposition - from whichever quarter it comes because imho, Cardinal Burke et al will not back down either.
 
Bear in mind that the original links are from a report from Edward Pentin who displayed a complete lack of integrity misrepresenting his agenda in interviewing Card. Kasper. (He was writing for Zenit. the creation of the Legion of Christ). On top of that, this report about the Germans is from a translation of Catholic Conclave and Christopher Gillibrand the outspoken British ultra traditionalist who once said…

"The idea of there being no radical break at the Second Vatican Council, is likewise unsupportable in logic or in historical reality. The Council was not only a break but an unmitigated disaster- an auto-da-fe of all that was good and holy in the Catholic Church. "

There is hidden agenda galore in the mission of these characters.
Pentin interviewed Kasper.
Pectin wrote an article on the interview.
Kasper denied giving the interview.
Pending released the audio to vindicate himself, and it showed he reported the interview accurately.

The German Bishops are now making clear what many of us knew for a long time.
 
Good questions. I think theoretically he can throw out all of Vatican 2 documents on collegiality. Or rewrite them. Or move the bishops around a bit.

.
Vatican 2 docs can be completely discarded and not one iota of Catholic Doctrine would change.

It was only a pastoral council.
 
I don’t want to fuel any fires, but I’m a little surprised that the German clergy is taking what could be a more liberal stance than that held by the Vatican, considering that not too long ago Pope Benedict XVI was in their ranks.
The Germans were the very liberal conclave of Vatican II. Ratzinger was much more liberal back in the day.

He got better.
 
The Germans were the very liberal conclave of Vatican II. Ratzinger was much more liberal back in the day.

He got better.
“It is not I who have changed, but others.” – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in The Ratzinger Report (p. 18)

De Lubac, Congar, Danielou, were all “progressive” and all were made Cardinals. Archbishop Wojtyla was “progressive”. Cardinal Frings was “progressive”. etc, etc

It has nothing to do with being “liberal”, but why someone was liberal at the Council.

Pope Benedict’s reflections on the Council: vatican.va/special/annus_fidei/documents/annus-fidei_bxvi_inedito-50-concilio_en.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top