R
reggieM
Guest
He is formally separated from the Holy See. Thus there are talks of “reconciliation”. But that reconciliation hasn’t occurred yet.
- Status
B
BrendanD
Guest
We’re not allowed to say, you can PM me if you’d like to know his name.
B
BrendanD
Guest
We aren’t allowed to say.
P
palmas85
Guest
google it. There are several
C
Cat
Guest
Well, I sin (Lord have mercy on me, a sinner), and I am still in good standing with the Church and in union with the Holy Father.A bishop that promotes abortion, homosexuality, and women’s ordination is considered in good standing with the Church and in union with the Pope
One of the teachings that drew me to the Catholic Church was that Catholics are “in progress.” We are working towards becoming saints, but most of us aren’t saints right now. We sin, we confess, we are absolved, we do penance, and we start over.
The Church allows Catholics to really mess up bad, but always be forgiven if they repent. They don’t kick people out easily–look at what has happened with certain politicians over the years. If I were the Pope, those politicians would have been booted out decades ago–good thing I’m not the Pope, right?!
And this isn’t wishy-washiness or chicken-heartedness or liberalism on the Church’s part–it’s mercy and forbearance and long-suffering. While a person is still in the Church, they are still able to receive some graces, but once they are outside of the Church, graces are few and far between and hell is imminent.
Anyway, that’s what I was taught about the Catholic Church–sinners are welcome. We don’t have to wait until we’re perfect to be part of the Catholic Church. I really LOVE this teaching. You see, in the evangelical Protestant churches, even though you are taught that “all humans sin” (especially Mary!), you are still expected to be perfect and free of all sin at all times, and if you do mess up (or if the church members or pastors THINK you have messed up even if you haven’t), you are either shunned by the other evangelicals or you are asked to leave their church.
How do I know this? Personal experience.
I’m not saying that the priests and bishops that you refer to should be excused. But I trust that my Church knows better than I do how to deal with them and persuade them to repent, renounce their sin and return to God and Holy Mother Church. I will wait upon my CHURCH, and not take it upon myself to judge them unfit for the Catholic Church.
B
BrendanD
Guest
Nobody judged him. Nobody even said his name-- it was left anonymous. I’d love to explain all the reasons that Catholics are obligated to criticize a bishop that publicly preaches heresy in our churches. I would love to quote the Catechism, the scriptures, and Canon Law on the subject, but I would probably get banned for it
It’s interesting that you say we can’t judge who is “unfit for the Church.” That comment should be directed to the numerous people who post here saying that a certain Bishop is “outside the Church”, “already in hell”, etc.
B
Binx
Guest
Catholic Encyclopedia:
Yes, it would be if such toleration were previously unknown to the audience receiving the accusation.
But it is. For instance, if Bp. Williamson were to deny his union with the Pope, then he would ispo facto NOT be in union with the Pope.
And do you know Benedict XVI’s opinion of him?
That is a logical impossibility.
P
pnewton
Guest
The Anglican Church had valid ordination for a while. The Eastern Orthodox had valid ordination. These were done outside of the Catholic Church.
I know what his predecessor wrote in Ecclesia Dei. His ordination to bishop was done without permission of the Holy Father.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=269697
P
pnewton
Guest
It is a person’s subjective opinion that matters?
Mattew 7:
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
FYI - I am not saying anyone is in hell. I am just pointing out that one’s subjective opinion of their state may be seriously mistaken. The argument that Williamson believes the Holy Father is his pope has no bearing on his canonical status. Besides, his belief might be taken a little more seriously if combined with obedience.
R
reggieM
Guest
The Eastern Orthodox *have *valid ordinations, but they are done outside the Church.
Masses celebrated by those priests are valid but illicit. Confessions and weddings, however, celebrated by a priest lacking faculties (as the priests in question do lack) are considered invalid, technically speaking. Canonists would have to adjudicate such matters.
On that point, the Holy See has determined that the SSPX are “separated” from the Catholic Church (Cardinal Hoyos’ term) and thus need to be reconciled.
With regard to dissenting bishops, clergy and laity – they are innocent until proven guilty. At least, we can only judge them up to a certain point but not farther. Why? Because we are not empowered to render formal judgements of heresy against anyone.
There are priests in full, visible, union with the Pope who hold virtually all the same ideas that SSPX priests do. But they are not separated from the church because they weren’t ordained illicitly.
So I don’t think the SSPX should make itself out to be martyrs for the truth (versus all other Catholics who are supposedly not as good as they are). Their separation has to do with a specific canonical act and not with the ideas they hold.
B
Binx
Guest
B
Binx
Guest
You have missed my point. Your original statement was as follows: “His opinion of the Pope is not an issue.”
This is false. Plenty of people the world over are not in union with the Pope by virtue of their rejection of him and his office.
Granted, Bp. Williamson’s allegiance to the Pope is not, in and of itself, a proof of his union (nor was that my claim), but if he were to deny allegiance, it would be proof of a lack of union. So the bishop’s perception of his union with the Pope is, in fact, an issue.
C
CradleCath
Guest
To the Moderator. Is this really a rule. I haven’t been able to find anything in the forum rules that says that. I’ve read through the regulations & can find nothing that addresses members of our clergy who **publicly **preach contrary to the Church. I know that our private opinions of a Bishop, etc should not be posted when they are negative…but when disobediance has been made public, when one of our clerics is guilty of preaching against the doctrine of the Church & this is known from newspapers & various media outlets. etc. can we link to an article about him or post his name.
I believe that many new Catholics or, as one poster said, “confused Catholics” are led astray by these priests, bishops, etc. When one hears a member of the clergy say something is “fine”, one tends to believe it.
B
BarbaraTherese
Guest
Quoting: CradleCatholic:
Barb
Good question raised. I hope it will be answered, I am curious too. If it is public knowledge in the media, I dont see why one cannot post a link to that media statement even though it names names. I am wondering, CC, if you have alerted the OP and moderator of your question?
Another good point and very true statement.
Barb
J
Jo_Benedict
Guest
This thread’s purpose is to outline the rules and answer questions regarding them. It is not to discuss the relative status of various bishops. Please follow the rules as I have outlined them here, whether or not you personally agree with those rules. Thanks.
C
CradleCath
Guest
I will gladly follow the rules, as I don’t care for all of the bickering & name calling & will do what’s necessary to keep myself out of that. However, I don’t think I’m UNDERSTANDING the rule. My question, again, is:
Just let me know. Thanks
J
Jo_Benedict
Guest
CradleCath–
The official forum rules are subject to interpretation by the moderators under the guidance of the administrators. As an analogy, not all of Christian life is governed by what is explicitly in the Bible alone. Catholics also recognize the role of sacred Tradition and the magisterium of the Church. Here on CAF, the official forum rules are CAF’s “bible,” the history by which the forums has been run is CAF’s “tradition,” and the mod/admin staff is CAF’s “magisterium.” Simply put, this means is that mods try to explain the rules in accord with the written CAF rules and the unwritten history of CAF. Members are expected to accept and follow mod direction, but are free to appeal to the adminstrator (**Therese Martin**) if they disagree with a particular mod action.
Bottom line: This is truly a Catholic discussion forums site.
The official forum rules are subject to interpretation by the moderators under the guidance of the administrators. As an analogy, not all of Christian life is governed by what is explicitly in the Bible alone. Catholics also recognize the role of sacred Tradition and the magisterium of the Church. Here on CAF, the official forum rules are CAF’s “bible,” the history by which the forums has been run is CAF’s “tradition,” and the mod/admin staff is CAF’s “magisterium.” Simply put, this means is that mods try to explain the rules in accord with the written CAF rules and the unwritten history of CAF. Members are expected to accept and follow mod direction, but are free to appeal to the adminstrator (**Therese Martin**) if they disagree with a particular mod action.
Bottom line: This is truly a Catholic discussion forums site.
R
reggieM
Guest
M
maurin
Guest
For clarification purposes only, if it is true what you say, that “there are false teachers at all levels”, isn’t it similar to keeping the Light under a bushel, or purposely not building the city on a hill, not to alert those who are in danger of succombing to and being the victims of the “false teachers” which you say are “at all levels”?
- Status