Irrelevant bishops?

[Contarini]

In a thread on the Motu Proprio on the Traditional Catholicism board, a Catholic poster wrote:

The bishop’s stand on the matter is largely irrelevant.

Could Scotty or any other Catholic defend this statement in the light of the Fathers? I.e., can you support the idea that any Christian in the first 500 years (or for that matter the first 1000 years) of Christian history would think that the bishop’s stand on any matter relating to the Christian Faith was irrelevant?

How can Catholics appeal to the early Church to convince Protestants to accept Catholicism, and then make a claim like this, which utterly contradicts everything the Fathers had to say about ecclesiology?

I am not talking about the internal coherence of the Catholic view. I am talking about the apologetic aspect–why should a Protestant take Catholic appeals to the Fathers seriously for a minute, if you can write off the episcopacy as irrelevant because of a decree from Rome?

Note that I am not talking about the authority of the papacy to defend the Faith (though even there the bishop’s opinion would never be “irrelevant”–it might result in the bishop being declared outside the Faith). I am assuming (pace the staunch traditionalists) that offering only the Novus Ordo is compatible with orthodox Christianity. If that is the case, then how can the bishop’s stance be irrelevant without violating everything the Fathers from St. Ignatius (if not St. Paul) on have to say about episcopal authority?

Edwin

 

[Dauphin]

“largely irrelevant” - not “irrelevant”

 

[myfavoritmartin]

“largely irrelevant” - not “irrelevant”

So “largely” is that the loophole when someone uses Hilary of Poiters for scripture alone proof or Augustine in opposition to literal real presence…Overall they are “largely” irrelevant so nevermind…

Edwin has posed a great question, and It will be interesting to see where this goes…

(Sorry, just using some quick examples to make a point)
PLEASE DON’T SIDETRACK WITH THESE…Augustine and Hilary issues

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Bishops and their views are not irrelevant. The college of bishops was instituted by Christ, just as He instituted the papacy. The pope, however, is the head of the college of bishops. Their authority cannot lawfully be exercised in contravention of his will. So our obedience to our bishops’ will is obligatory…but in a conflict between bishop and pope, the pope trumps the bishop. I would think that would mean continuing to reverence the bishop and to treat him with respect as one of the successors to the Apostles, but in the area where his will conflicts with the Pope’s to respectfully obey the pope (in so far as an action is demanded) or in an area where the bishop is denying a right of the faithful, to pray for him, but firmly appeal against his tyranny.

 

[LilyM]

Precisely - it’s like saying lower levels of court are unnecessary simply because higher levels can overrule them on appeal and bind them by creating precedent.

Popes and councils ARE the supreme authority, as the Supreme Court of the US is the supreme judicial authority in the US. Judges in the lower courts are important and authoritative for the most part, of course, but they and you can’t properly ignore Supreme Court decisions that are binding on them.

And it is wrong to take note of those maverick lower court judges who do ignore them.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Bishops and their views are not irrelevant. The college of bishops was instituted by Christ, just as He instituted the papacy. The pope, however, is the head of the college of bishops. Their authority cannot lawfully be exercised in contravention of his will. So our obedience to our bishops’ will is obligatory…but in a conflict between bishop and pope, the pope trumps the bishop. I would think that would mean continuing to reverence the bishop and to treat him with respect as one of the successors to the Apostles, but in the area where his will conflicts with the Pope’s to respectfully obey the pope (in so far as an action is demanded) or in an area where the bishop is denying a right of the faithful, to pray for him, but firmly appeal against his tyranny.

If we are to follow the “development of doctrine” theory many espouse around here in regards to the papacy then where would this leave the apostolic bishops?

 

[Scotty_PGH]

It’s probably wise to consider the statement in its true context. This statement has ***only ***to do with the right of a priest to offer Mass according to the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite.

The Holy Father has made it clear that any priest may now offer the EF, with no permission from the local bishop. Certain bishops have acted to prohibit their priests from doing so. In this matter, the bishop’s opinion regarding the EF is, as I said, largely irrelevant.

I won’t replay that thread here. Interested parties may read it to see the specifics, including the action of the bishop in question, the pope’s own words from Summorum Pontificum, and relevant statements from the president of Ecclesia Dei and the head of the CDW – archbishops, both of whom have reinforced what the pope said: that no bishop’s permission is required for a priest to offer the EF.

So in this context – a priest’s right to offer the EF – the bishop’s stand on the matter ***is ***largely irrelevant.

But to rip my quote out of context and suggest that I “utterly contradict(s) everything the Fathers had to say about ecclesiology” is rather dastardly.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

These guys don’t sound largely irrelevant…

Eusebius
Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses, together with the neighbouring churches, on the grounds of hertrodoxy, and pilloried them in letters in which he announced the total excommunication of all his fellow-Chritians there. But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and for unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians from whom he was responsible in Gaul.

Polycrates to Victor
So I, my friends, after spending sixty-five years in the Lord’s service and conversing with Christians from all parts of the world, and going carefully through all Holy Scriptures, am not scared of threats, Better people than I have said: ‘We must obey God rather than man.’

 

[LilyM]

If we are to follow the “development of doctrine” theory many espouse around here in regards to the papacy then where would this leave the apostolic bishops?

What do you mean by that? The bishops have the same role that the Apostles did in that first council in Acts 15. They undoubtedly all formed part of the debate, as Bishops do in Church Councils in modern times, and all had their own opinions, but the voice of Peter, with James being in agreement with him, finally carried the day.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

What do you mean by that? The bishops have the same role that the Apostles did in that first council in Acts 15. They undoubtedly all formed part of the debate, as Bishops do in Church Councils in modern times, and all had their own opinions, but the voice of Peter, with James being in agreement with him, finally carried the day.

So they aren’t irrelevant?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It’s probably wise to consider the statement in its true context. This statement has ***only ***to do with the right of a priest to offer Mass according to the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite.

The Holy Father has made it clear that any priest may now offer the EF, with no permission from the local bishop. Certain bishops have acted to prohibit their priests from doing so. In this matter, the bishop’s opinion regarding the EF is, as I said, largely irrelevant.

Correct, any priest may celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite privately with out interference from the bishop.

Public celebrations are a totally different manner though.

I won’t replay that thread here. Interested parties may read it to see the specifics, including the action of the bishop in question, the pope’s own words from Summorum Pontificum, and relevant statements from the president of Ecclesia Dei and the head of the CDW – archbishops, both of whom have reinforced what the pope said: that no bishop’s permission is required for a priest to offer the EF.

So in this context – a priest’s right to offer the EF – the bishop’s stand on the matter ***is ***largely irrelevant.

Yes, do read it and they will see that the bishops stand is not irrelevant in that case as it was a public celebration where the priest violated the MP by not telling the bishop about it.

So until the Ecclesia Dei commission rules on this case, if it ever does so, it is as LilyM pointed out, like our court system.

 

[estesbob]

In a thread on the Motu Proprio on the Traditional Catholicism board, a Catholic poster wrote:

Could Scotty or any other Catholic defend this statement in the light of the Fathers? I.e., can you support the idea that any Christian in the first 500 years (or for that matter the first 1000 years) of Christian history would think that the bishop’s stand on any matter relating to the Christian Faith was irrelevant?

Does Scotty speak for the Church?

 

[Genesis315]

**

These guys don’t sound largely irrelevant…

 

[LilyM]

So they aren’t irrelevant?

With the proviso that they must teach in agreement with the teachings of the Popes and Councils which are supremely authoritative, they are certainly relevant - and necessary. After all, not every matter, not a lot of matters really, have been scrutinised or pronounced upon by Pope or Council, so we need, in those areas, the guidance of local bishops.

On the particular issue of the Motu Proprio, however, which was the issue about which the ‘irrelevant’ comment was about, Rome has indeed spoken, and spoken clearly. And as Augustine (who was certainly never irrelevant, though not necessarily always correct) said ‘Rome has spoken, the case is closed’

 

[Genesis315]

In a thread on the Motu Proprio on the Traditional Catholicism board, a Catholic poster wrote:

Could Scotty or any other Catholic defend this statement in the light of the Fathers? I.e., can you support the idea that any Christian in the first 500 years (or for that matter the first 1000 years) of Christian history would think that the bishop’s stand on any matter relating to the Christian Faith was irrelevant?

I am sure he was speaking with a bit of hyperbole, intending to state that a bishop’s opinion contrary to the established liturgical law of the Church is not binding.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Yes, do read it and they will see that the bishops stand is not irrelevant in that case as it was a public celebration where the priest violated the MP by not telling the bishop about it.

You are incorrect. I pointed out your error in the other thread, so I won’t bother to do it again here. The archbishops I mentioned above (who speak for the pope on the matter) and the document itself are clear: no permission is required, and no distinction is made between private and public. The bishop’s only role is to ensure that the faithful who request the EF are given the EF if their priest will not agree to.

 

[scylla]

It really is just common sense that dictates it.

Let me make an example…
If a Bishop suddenly states to a person that they cannot feed the hungry in a certain area because he doesn’t like the type people in that area, his opinion is contrary to the truth of the faith.

We should do what is good and avoid evil, if a bishop is not supporting the faith we should avoid anything contrary to the faith that he says, in much the same way I would not obey a direct order in the military if it is contrary to my job.

This proves nothing about the validity or invalidity of apostolic succession but does illustrate our responsibility of not just passing the buck when people fail.

So just because Father so and so goes nuts and wants to burn down the White House it doesn’t mean I follow him, his opinion is irrelevant and he should be reported.

Just because Bishop so and so says that marriage is not needed anymore just get together with who you want to, that is an opinion that really is irrelevant and contrary to the faith, he should be counseled and corrected.

Test everything hold on to what is good, when you look at the Catholic faith with good faith you will never find a contradiction, only with an evil intent may you find problems of your own invention. It is all right to object to what seems wrong but when it is shown to be otherwise we must accept what is good.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Contarini]

It’s probably wise to consider the statement in its true context. This statement has ***only ***to do with the right of a priest to offer Mass according to the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite.

I know. That’s why I picked it.

The Holy Father has made it clear that any priest may now offer the EF, with no permission from the local bishop. Certain bishops have acted to prohibit their priests from doing so. In this matter, the bishop’s opinion regarding the EF is, as I said, largely irrelevant.

Thanks for summarizing the issue far more clearly than I did. My reason for getting involved is that this is a pretty clear-cut case illustrating what Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox (sticking to non-Catholic Christians who claim an episcopate with historic succession from the apostles) see as the problem with the primacy of Rome. I for one accept the right and duty of Rome to intervene when orthodoxy is threatened. But we agree that the Novus Ordo is orthodox (right?). I could understand if the local bishop were trying to promulgate a less than fully orthodox rite of his own, though even there his opinions wouldn’t be irrelevant surely. But when the Pope prevents the bishop from deciding which of two orthodox rites will be used, and you say that the bishop’s opinion is irrelevant because the Pope has given permission, then I think we are clearly dealing with a denial of the historic Catholic view of the authority of the bishop (by “historic Catholic” I mean pre-Schism).

If the Pope declares the bishop to be a heretic, then I can see why a faithful Christian would side with the Pope over the bishop (obviously I have not yet decided to do so, given the complications of my position as a Protestant 500 years removed from the Reformation–but if I were living at the time of the Reformation I would do so). But that is not the case here.

But to rip my quote out of context and suggest that I “utterly contradict(s) everything the Fathers had to say about ecclesiology” is rather dastardly.

I understand why you are annoyed, and I’m sorry for picking on your quote–but it was a good one to get the discussion started. And I was not ripping it out of context. I know that this wasn’t the discussion you were interested in having, but your quote is highly relevant to the discussion *I *was interested in having. I am not claiming that you think bishops are irrelevant across the board, and I’m sorry if my OP gave that impression. When I said that the Fathers wouldn’t think that the bishop’s stand on any matter relating to the faith was irrelevant, what I meant was that on any matter relating to the faith, the local bishop’s position is highly relevant for the faithful of his diocese, and no intervention from Rome can change that, although if Rome declares the bishop to be heretical then the faithful will certainly face an unpleasant choice between the local and the Universal Church, and clearly must choose the latter. I wonder if you thought I was saying (which I was not) that you were denying the relevance of the bishop’s opinion “on any matter relating to the faith”–i.e., saying that local bishops were simply irrelevant, period. I know that wasn’t what you were saying. But I stand by my claim–what you did say is not compatible with patristic ecclesiology.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It really is just common sense that dictates it.

Let me make an example…
If a Bishop suddenly states to a person that they cannot feed the hungry in a certain area because he doesn’t like the type people in that area, his opinion is contrary to the truth of the faith.

But that’s not the case here. Feeding the hungry is a sacred duty. Using the Missal of 1962 instead of the post-Vatican-II Missal is not (at least I assume that Scotty and I can agree on that–I recognize that many traditionalists would think differently). That’s why I picked on this issue.

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

I know. That’s why I picked it.

If the Pope declares the bishop to be a heretic, then I can see why a faithful Christian would side with the Pope over the bishop (obviously I have not yet decided to do so, given the complications of my position as a Protestant 500 years removed from the Reformation–but if I were living at the time of the Reformation I would do so). But that is not the case here.

I understand why you are annoyed, and I’m sorry for picking on your quote–but it was a good one to get the discussion started. And I was not ripping it out of context. I know that this wasn’t the discussion you were interested in having, but your quote is highly relevant to the discussion *I *was interested in having. I am not claiming that you think bishops are irrelevant across the board, and I’m sorry if my OP gave that impression. When I said that the Fathers wouldn’t think that the bishop’s stand on any matter relating to the faith was irrelevant, what I meant was that on any matter relating to the faith, the local bishop’s position is highly relevant for the faithful of his diocese, and no intervention from Rome can change that, although if Rome declares the bishop to be heretical then the faithful will certainly face an unpleasant choice between the local and the Universal Church, and clearly must choose the latter. I wonder if you thought I was saying (which I was not) that you were denying the relevance of the bishop’s opinion “on any matter relating to the faith”–i.e., saying that local bishops were simply irrelevant, period. I know that wasn’t what you were saying. But I stand by my claim–what you did say is not compatible with patristic ecclesiology.

In Christ,

Edwin

Edwin appears to me you are coming to some awfully profound conclusions based on an offhand comment from a poster for Catholic forum.

Neither the bishop for the Pope are always infallible. If a bishop disagrees with the Pope on celebrating the Tridentine mass this does not undo the authority of the Church. This Bishop may find himself in big trouble when e makes his pastoral visit Rome or he may get a nasty letter but it doesn’t suddenly mean he pope really doesnt have the keys of the kingdom and the Pope has no authority