Motu Proprio 'doesn't apply here': Archbishop of Jakarta (Formal Schism?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dauphin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dauphin

Guest
The Archbishop of Jakarta has declared openly that the motu proprio doesn’t apply in his archdiocese. He has “decided” that only the ordinary form of the Roman Rite will be used. Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t the Archbishop just denied the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff? In openly defying a papal juridical document, isn’t he now in formal schism?

If excommunication is ever called for, isn’t it called for in this case? Or are excommunications reserved for traditionalists? This is the single most shocking case of defiance we’ve seen since the release of the Motu Proprio.

The full statement can be read on Fr. Z’s blog:

"Julius Cardinal Darmaatmadja, SJ says Summorum Pontificum doesn’t apply to Jakarta "
 
I can’t believe the arrogance of the Archbishop and others like him. They think that they have more authority than the Holy Father. They are wrong. I hope that this Archbishop is reprimanded for his blatant disobedience and disregard for the divinely instituted authority of the Papacy.
 
Dauphin said:
The Archbishop of Jakarta has declared openly that the motu proprio doesn’t apply in his archdiocese. He has “decided” that only the ordinary form of the Roman Rite will be used. Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t the Archbishop just denied the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff? In openly defying a papal juridical document, isn’t he now in formal schism?
Click to expand...
No. He has simply refused to follow a disciplinary issue. That is not formal schism.

If excommunication is ever called for, isn’t it called for in this case? Or are excommunications reserved for traditionalists? This is the single most shocking case of defiance we’ve seen since the release of the Motu Proprio.No. considering that there have been theologians who have come so close to the edge of denying doctrinal issues that one cannot distinguish the difference and have not been excommunicated, this is hardly something the Church is going to do in this instance. There are any number of sanctions the Church as available to it without going so far as to excommunicate someone.
 
I like the TLM far more than the NO but I must tell you the truth. The Catholic Church is not a dictatorship. The pope doesn’t go around excommunicating those who disagree with himself. The pope is not a higher level of ordination than the other bishops. Which means that the bishops themselves have a relative degree of autonomy. The way you are understanding the Church you would think there was one bishop, the pope and the others were just like his vicars.
 
jimmy said:
I like the TLM far more than the NO but I must tell you the truth. The Catholic Church is not a dictatorship. The pope doesn’t go around excommunicating those who disagree with himself. The pope is not a higher level of ordination than the other bishops. Which means that the bishops themselves have a relative degree of autonomy. The way you are understanding the Church you would think there was one bishop, the pope and the others were just like his vicars.
Click to expand...
The buck stops at the foot of the Chair of Peter.
 
jimmy said:
I like the TLM far more than the NO but I must tell you the truth. The Catholic Church is not a dictatorship. The pope doesn’t go around excommunicating those who disagree with himself. The pope is not a higher level of ordination than the other bishops. Which means that the bishops themselves have a relative degree of autonomy. The way you are understanding the Church you would think there was one bishop, the pope and the others were just like his vicars.
Click to expand...
If I recall, the pope is Vicar of Christ. Then again, I’m relatively new and don’t really know all the details yet, so please share your knowledge with me. Thanks.
 
Markstorm said:
If I recall, the pope is Vicar of Christ. Then again, I’m relatively new and don’t really know all the details yet, so please share your knowledge with me. Thanks.
Click to expand...
All bishops are vicars of Christ. I think VII mentions this.
 
jimmy said:
So there is one bishop and all the rest of the ‘bishops’ are just vicars of Peter who simply do the popes bidding.
Click to expand...
If that is what you believe , fine. I didn’t say that in any way, shape, or form. Have you even read the Motu Proprio ?
If so, why are you defending this disobedient Bishop ?
 
I_Believe said:
If that is what you believe , fine. I didn’t say that in any way, shape, or form. Have you even read the Motu Proprio ?
If so, why are you defending this disobedient Bishop ?
Click to expand...
I have read the mp and the accompanying letter. No matter how right it is, the Church is not a dictatorship. The bishops have authority over their own diocese. The pope is not going to excommunicate a bishop because he disobeyed the mp. The way you portray the Church is as if there is one bishop. You might not have explicitely said that but that is what it means. One man determines all things and every other bishop is simply his legate or his vicar. They speak for the pope. They have no authority except what the pope gives them. The fact that the individual bishops have their own authority and their own autonomy is why you never saw Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict cracking down on liberal bishops and removing them from their diocese.

I wish that the old liturgy would return and replace the NO because I find it to be much more reverent but not at the expense of the Church.
 
jimmy said:
I have read the mp and the accompanying letter. No matter how right it is, the Church is not a dictatorship. The bishops have authority over their own diocese. The pope is not going to excommunicate a bishop because he disobeyed the mp. The way you portray the Church is as if there is one bishop. You might not have explicitely said that but that is what it means. One man determines all things and every other bishop is simply his legate or his vicar. They speak for the pope. They have no authority except what the pope gives them. The fact that the individual bishops have their own authority and their own autonomy is why you never saw Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict cracking down on liberal bishops and removing them from their diocese.

I wish that the old liturgy would return and replace the NO because I find it to be much more reverent but not at the expense of the Church.
Click to expand...
The Bishops have certain authority in regard to what the Church gives them. The Pope has Supreme Authority and that is contained in NUMEROUS documents including Vatican 2. I think its a little disingenuous to equate that with a “Dictatorship”. All the Bishops can trace their apostolic succession right back to the Apostles. However Jesus gave Peter authority over the Apostles when he gave Peter the keys (symbolic but a metaphor meaning authority). The Pope ALONE is the Vicar of Christ.
 
I rather think the Archbishop will find that the Motu Proprio DOES apply in his diocese, probably in very short order.
 
jimmy said:
All bishops are vicars of Christ. I think VII mentions this.
Click to expand...
1560 As Christ’s vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches: "Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church."41

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404
 
fix said:
1560 As Christ’s vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches: "Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church."41

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404
Click to expand...
I knew something didn’t sound right about the “pope is just another bishop” argument. Thank you, fix.
 
and this:

**895 **“The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.” But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.
 
childofmary1143 said:
The Pope ALONE is the Vicar of Christ.
Click to expand...
Purely false. fix quotes canon law which mentions it. All bishops are vicars of Christ.
I knew something didn’t sound right about the “pope is just another bishop” argument. Thank you, fix.
Click to expand...
So the pope is not another bishop? So he constitutes a new level of ordination above that of the other bishops? Sorry but that is not Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top