Heretical bishops

[DavidFilmer]

aridite:

Magic words?!? :bigyikes: etc, etc, etc

The “Magic Words” were quoted from the Catechism (#891) which are quotes from Vatican II. These words (or words to this effect) do not require an ex cathedra proclamation, but it MUST be clearly and formally proclaimed in some fashion (even if it’s by the CCD, etc). We cannot assume that any doctrine is infallible UNLESS THE CHURCH TELLS US SO. See Lumen Gentium 25.

I fully expect that there will not be an ex cathedra statement that the Church has no authority to ordain women simply because it has already been determined to be true, infallibly, by the OM (of which Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the CDF Responsum ad dubium are parts), etc, etc

Can you show me where the OM has used the “magic words” (or words clearly to the same message and effect)? If so, I accept that it has been infallibly taught by the ordinary Magisterium. But I don’t think they communicated this intent. They must DESIRE and INTEND to teach in this manner and clearly communicate this or it IS NOT infallible, no matter what. I agree, however, even if such a clear statement is lacking (and thus not infallible) that the matter will probably not receive further attention (the teaching is authoratative).

The original list contains things that hardly fall under “wacky” things popes, etc. have said, so your objection is really a red herring.

Not really. I was trying to show that we cannot have it both ways. We can’t reject infallibility of papal letters (etc) which we disagree with (because they’re wacky), while accepting it for those we agree with (because they’re orthodox).

I have a question, though. Which (living) bishops have said anything heretical? etc

An interesting question, and one which is probably worthy of a thread of its own (to encourage wider participation).

If there are any, I agree with twf that by breaking communion with the rest of the College of Bishops and the pope, such bishops are really undermining their own authority.

Bishops are PART of the ordinary Magisterium. I don’t think they are called to simply “go with the flow.” In matters where the Church has not spoken definitively, it is their DUTY to argue the convictions of their heart as long as God gives them breath.

 

[DavidFilmer]

New Heart:

I am sorry, what is chick comics? You kind of lost me here.

Sorry. Maybe I should have said Rick Jones. Same stuff - we’ve heard it all before. Usually when you hear the “convents were whorehouses” stuff you assume it’s Jack Chick, one of the real bottom-feaders of anti-Catholic lies and bigotry (no accusation is too absurd to make it into his comic books).

Whether Chick or Jones (or any other Loraine Boettner wannabees), it’s all been discredited here already.

 

[New_Heart]

DavidFilmer:

Sorry. Maybe I should have said Rick Jones. Same stuff - we’ve heard it all before. Usually when you hear the “convents were whorehouses” stuff you assume it’s Jack Chick, one of the real bottom-feaders of anti-Catholic lies and bigotry (no accusation is too absurd to make it into his comic books).
Whether Chick or Jones (or any other Loraine Boettner wannabees), it’s all been discredited here already.

Sorry, I have no idea who these people you mention are. I guess you need to look in the right places, and one is within the Catholic Church itself. I am an ex-catholic and I know too many who were in the orders and have left to stay in it myself. When they start leaving you know there are problems and they go deeper than the individual, and further back than Vatican II.
It really is no secret, you know, that the early RCC leaders did these things. What I find appalling is the fact that most Roman Catholics will not even look into the history of what was and obviously still is, and just believe whatever they are told with no reservations. Most unsettling… that is why I will now stick with my Bible and trust the Lord.

 

[DavidFilmer]

New Heart:

Sorry, I have no idea who these people you mention are.

Well, where exactly are you getting your infomation? I presume you didn’t read this in your Bible, neither did Jesus appear and tell you these things. You cite common anti-Catholic bigotry - you must have gotten it from somewhere. What is your source for this information?

 

[DavidFilmer]

In re-reading this thread, I see Gerry Hunter’s post (#3). It does appear that the ordinary Magisterium has defined in infallible terms that (as he clarifies) the Church lacks Sacramental authority to administer Orders to women.

I fully accept that (assuming his citation is accurate, which I do) this statement fulfills the requirements of infallible doctrine as proscribed by the Church (ie, it uses the proper “Magic Words” per CCC 891).

Sorry, Gerry, that I missed this before… you are, of course, correct.

 

[twf]

David: Thanks for the detailed responses.

Exporter: Excuse me? I am indeed seeking full communion with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is Christ Church, and surely can not err, but there are, and always have been, some heretical bishops. It is the Bishop of Rome who is accorded personal infallibility, not the individual bishops of other sees. Surely you do not hold that heretical bishops can not exist within the ranks of the Holy Catholic Church?

What is anti-Catholic about my original post? I love the Catholic Church. It is Christ’s Church. Explain to me the doctrinal errors of my original post. Your reponses on this thread have been most uncharitable. I was simply looking for insight into the minds of certain liberal bishops. I did not imply that the Holy Catholic Church is heretical, if that is what you thought! There are bound to be heretical bishops, as there have been from the beginning, but we can rest assured that our Holy Father, and the See of Rome, shall be kept from error by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Does anyone else see anti-Catholicism in my original post?

 

[twf]

As a clarification to the above post, a bishop who subscribes to heresy would by this subscription remove himself from the bosom of the Holy Catholic Church…so when I said above that heretical bishops can exist within the ranks of the Church, I am referring to the visible Church, not to the spiritual state of an individual bishop.

 

[twf]

Exporter (continued): Furthermore, I do not see what your link has to do with this thread. I have said nothing of Protestantism, and it is not relevent to this discussion. I see now that my original post was poorly written, and that probably confused you…but the topic of bishops who fall into heresy, but remain Catholic bishops, has nothing to do with the errors of Protestant doctrines. Thanks for the link anyway…but as a former Protestant, I know what they believe, and have spent considerable time refuting their heretical notions on this forum.

 

[twf]

David:
*In re-reading this thread, I see Gerry Hunter’s post (#3). It does appear that the ordinary Magisterium has defined in infallible terms that (as he clarifies) the Church lacks Sacramental authority to administer Orders to women.

I fully accept that (assuming his citation is accurate, which I do) this statement fulfills the requirements of infallible doctrine as proscribed by the Church (ie, it uses the proper “Magic Words” per CCC 891).*
I thought as much. I would assume that similar statements have been made regarding the issues of abortion and homosexuality.
With regards to the Didache, it is true that it is not infallible, but it’s condemnation of abortion strongly supports the notion that this condemnation is part of our Sacred Tradition, and must be adhered to by the Church forever.

 

[twf]

== “Heresy” is frequently not heresy at all, but nothing worse than evidence that the accused person has a better grasp of the Catholic faith than his accusers.

It is a reasonable assumption, that, since no one in particular is being accused, there is no case whatever to answer. ==

In this case you would be implying that my stance against abortion, homosexual acts, and the ordination of women are a result of a lack of understanding of the Catholic Faith. . But I imagine youare correct (at least in many cases).

(But your response, as the second or third such criticism of the original post in this thread, has convinced me that I should have worded my original post in a very different manner.)

 

[DavidFilmer]

twf:

I thought as much. I would assume that similar statements have been made regarding the issues of abortion and homosexuality.

NEVER make such an assumption - NEVER. Unless you are absolutely certain, do NOT use the word “infallible” to refer to any Catholic doctrine. This is not a word to use lightly.

With regards to the Didache, it is true that it is not infallible, but it’s condemnation of abortion strongly supports the notion that this condemnation is part of our Sacred Tradition, and must be adhered to by the Church forever.

Not true. The writings of the Early Fathers are not are neither binding nor infallible. The Early Fathers strongly condemned baptism by heretics, but we do not uphold this teaching.

 

[twf]

David:
While what you said is not incorrect, taken to the extreme it can be dangerous. The Fathers are invaluable, and are our only documented source of Apostolic Tradition outside of the New Testament. I didn’t say that they were infallible, but the fact that a certain teaching is supported by so early a document strongly suggests that it is part of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. (I didn’t say it proved it, I said ‘strongly suggests’). As for the baptism of heretics, some would be rejected even today (if the form or intention is incorrect…which is the case, I believe, in several sects and denominations). I do not think it is quite true to say that all baptisms outside the visible Church were rejected universally by the Fathers. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, there was much controversy, but the Church did recognize the baptisms of certain schismatic groups. (newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VIII).

God bless.
In Christ and Mary,
Tyler

 

[DavidFilmer]

twf:

While what you said is not incorrect, taken to the extreme it can be dangerous. The Fathers are invaluable, and are our only documented source of Apostolic Tradition outside of the New Testament.

It is not “dangerous” or “extreme” to recognize the Fathers for exactly what they were – individual bishops (or priests, etc) with their own opinions, who are absolutely no more authoritative than any modern Bishop (even those with unorthodox opinions). The Church does not NEED any of these ancient writings to promulgate doctrine. She has the Holy Spirit for that. If we claim that verification by ancient texts are in any way necessary for doctrinal purity then adopt a doctrine that is no different than sola scriptura - except we say “Scripture AND the Fathers.” The Fathers are nice to have, but absolutely irrelevant to the teaching authority of the Church. If no ancient text survived today it would make no difference whatsoever, and the Church is perfectly at liberty to define a doctrine that is opposed by every single ancient text we possess.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

New Heart:

Sorry, I have no idea who these people you mention are. I guess you need to look in the right places, and one is within the Catholic Church itself. I am an ex-catholic and I know too many who were in the orders and have left to stay in it myself. When they start leaving you know there are problems and they go deeper than the individual, and further back than Vatican II.
It really is no secret, you know, that the early RCC leaders did these things. What I find appalling is the fact that most Roman Catholics will not even look into the history of what was and obviously still is, and just believe whatever they are told with no reservations. Most unsettling… that is why I will now stick with my Bible and trust the Lord.

Well, don’t leave Jesus because of Judas God Bless

 

[twf]

David:
You are right. Though I didn’t say it was dangerous and extreme…I said it was ‘dangerous if taken to the extreme’. If our teachings completely contradict everything the Fathers held, we would have a problem. (As it would imply that the Church’s teaching has changed). In theory, you are correct, we do not need the Fathers. But if not for the Fathers, I would likely still be a Protestant today. They are crucial in strengthening our Faith. I didn’t mean to imply that we must rely on the Fathers alone. This would indeed be similar to ‘sola scriptura’ (though superior, as we would still have the vast majority of the Truth). The Magisterium is needed to convey the Truth to each generation, as a living Teacher, but the Fathers are traditinally held to be a written testimony to the Apostolic Tradition that was handed down. Whatever is held universally by the Fathers is always considered apostolic truth.

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

The bishops of England, Germany, Denmark, Scotland, Sweden, and Norway at the time of the Reformation were heretical bishops.

This shows that there is no guarantee the bishops come from the ranks of the Faithful.

 

[katherine2]

Chris Jacobsen:

The bishops of England, Germany, Denmark, Scotland, Sweden, and Norway at the time of the Reformation were heretical bishops.

This shows that there is no guarantee the bishops come from the ranks of the Faithful.

True. And the Pope took action against them.

I would caution anyone to think they can in honesty accuse people like Cardinals Mahoney, McCarrick, etc. of being heretical – all men put in their diocese, created cardinal and given various honors and special assignments by the current Pope – without also damning the Pope.

You can’t say you are a supporter of the Pope if you are saying he allows heretical bishops to continue.

 

[aridite]

katherine2:

True. And the Pope took action against them.

I would caution anyone to think they can in honesty accuse people like Cardinals Mahoney, McCarrick, etc. of being heretical – all men put in their diocese, created cardinal and given various honors and special assignments by the current Pope – without also damning the Pope.

You can’t say you are a supporter of the Pope if you are saying he allows heretical bishops to continue.

Ah-ha! This is the first naming of names on this thread. Is anyone claiming Mahoney and McCarrick are heretical? If anyone is, could he/she please provide astatement of theirs (or any other bishop’s) which clearly gives evidence of their heresy?

As a theoretical point, though, I don’t think we want to make the superior responsible for every single act of their subordinates. Ultimately, I suppose, God would then be responsible for all my sins, which just seems unfair. But so far, at least in the present state of the Church, heretical bishops seems only to be a theoretical possibility.

 

[Theodred]

When one of the three organs of infallibility (the Ordinary Magesterium, the Pope or an Ecumenical Council) proposes a moral precept or law, distinct from a moral doctrine, as is the case with most of the material being spoken about in this thread, the doctrine of infallibility does apply in a limited sense. Such precepts, either concerning moral law or ecclessiastical law, can not in principle be immoral. This goes for all such precepts wherever they may be contained, except in such cases when the organ of infallibility states that said precepts are the conclusions drawn from some other capacity, such as a personal theologian, preacher, or temporal official.

 

[chris138]

Ah…weeds among the wheat…no suprise is it!!!

Let’s get on our knees and pray for them, offer up sacrifices and rosaries for them…Satan is attacking them, they need us to call them on their errors and Pray. God will do the rest.

And one more thing, let’s not forget that most of our bishops and priests are good and faithful servants of God and the church. Let’s encourage and thank them.

God bless. chris