Schism in the US?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Panis_Angelicas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Panis_Angelicas

Guest
Perhaps this story has already been discussed, and I’ve missed it.
But as presented in this report catholiccitizens.org/press/pressview.asp?c=17456
does this not amount to an American schism?

“Why would the bishops issue a ‘Statement’ that is in direct opposition to Church teachings, Canon Law and Cardinal Ratzinger directives?”

Pax Christi. <><
 
I would be interested to see exactly what the full text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum was. McCarrick suggests that there was more to it than what was leaked. I think it’s classic CYA, but I’d like to see the full thing before I will be convinced that McCarrick and Mahoney are in schism.
 
Dr. Colossus:
I would be interested to see exactly what the full text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum was. McCarrick suggests that there was more to it than what was leaked. I think it’s classic CYA, but I’d like to see the full thing before I will be convinced that McCarrick and Mahoney are in schism.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for either Cardinal McCarrick or Cardinal Mahony releasing it. 😉
 
Have you read the statement carefully and thoroughly enough to make the statement that it is in direct opposition to Church teachings and Canon Law?

I practiced civil law for 12 years, and find that most individuals’ grasp of the law is simplistic (and I don’t mean that in a perjorative sense), and tending to black and white. Law usually isn’t simple, and the application of it is not as straighforward as most believe (hence the reputation most lawyers get).

I believe that both the Canon Law strictures and the application of those strictures are much more complex and nuanced than most Catholics would believe. And in addition, there is the issue of prudence. It is entirely possible that prudence dictates that little or nothing be done at the moment, as the results could have far reaching reactions not intended by most people desiring the application of the law.

I am in sympathy with those who are fed up with the politicians and the appearant intransigence of the bishops. However, the issue would much better have been addressed three years ago, long before the presidential election approaching, or in the alternative, after this election. And I suspect that if you read the bishops’ statement, some of that is between the lines.
 
Panis Angelicas:
…
p://catholiccitizens.org/press/pressview.asp?c=17456
…
“Why would the bishops issue a ‘Statement’ that is in direct opposition to Church teachings, Canon Law and Cardinal Ratzinger directives?”
Click to expand...
You might note that the question above in quotes is taken from the article which was linked above it.

As far as the timing of this situation goes, as I understand it, (and I may be wrong) the real reason that this issue came up at
this time is due to a lot of hard work and pressure by the American Life League’s foundress, Judy Brown.

She targetted 12 top “Catholic” pro-abortion politicians and labelled them “The Dirty Dozen,” then began a campaign to have their bishops either counsel or punish them.

Nationwide, members of the American Life League joined Brown in petitioning their bishops to withhold Holy Communion from their pro-abort “representatives” who claimed to be “Catholic.”

Pax Christi. <><
 
The only way to stop an apparent schism in the U.S. is for American Catholics to keep the American Bishops accountable to orthodox teachings not only in written words but in real life actions as well!

But to do this we, as lay people, must also become ACTIVELY involved with our Catholic Faith. We must know the Truth (and not accept any watered down interpretations of it) and LIVE this truth! (be doer’s of the Word of God)

Easier said than done…

Thanks
 
This should not be taken lightly. There is a real danger that, if pressed, the bishops may actually split and we could see an actual schism in the Church. That would be disastrous. The progressives have a strong grip, but the bishops in their corner are among the oldest and will pass from power within the next 10 years. Therefore, we may have to put up with the apostasy for a little while longer rather than risk open warfare in the ranks.
 
I may be naive, but I do not think we will see a serious schism anytime soon over this. Remember it is the part of Rome to say when someone is in schism, not a third party.

If we were to read mail back and forth from the president and his advisors sould we jump up and say,“it looks like so-and-so is no longer a cabinet member?” Of course not.

I would not be surprise (or disappointed) if individuals are “re-assigned.”
 
Hello all,

I would caution about using this article to promote the idea of schism…

I have read several statements and the text of a speach given by McCarrick to Bishops on June 15th and to call him anything but faithful to the Church is just silly.

In my opinion, everyone seems to forget that the instructions about denying the Eucharist to those “manifest sinners” that present themselves for communion is OLD NEWS.

The Bishops lead their churches and the instruction from the Vatican did not contain anything that the Bishops did not already know… I believe it was just sent to educate and re-enforce the current teachings.

McCarrick chooses a more pastoral approach in this area, choosing to meet with people and counsel them before just “tossing them out”.

In my opinion, this is a great example of the Catholic faith… the Ordinary using his good judgement and charity in dealing with the fold, as opposed to a corporate mentality where the Bishops are no more than “employees” of Rome without any voice.

But this, by no means, implies that McCarrick is in schism with Rome.

Peace,
Scott
 
40.png
otm:
However, the issue would much better have been addressed three years ago, long before the presidential election approaching, or in the alternative, after this election.
Click to expand...
It would have been better addressed 44 years ago when John Kennedy separated public and private morality. Or even 20 years ago when Cardinal O’Connor stood alone in correcting Geraldine Ferarro. I suspect the bishops will be forever reluctant to speak within four years of an election.
 
I don’t think this is about someone promoting schism, but rather is the Church in the USA in schism from the real Church?

I’m wondering why the same question is not asked about the Canadian church?
 
Panis_Angelicas said:
You might note that the question above in quotes is taken from the article which was linked above it.

As far as the timing of this situation goes, as I understand it, (and I may be wrong) the real reason that this issue came up at
this time is due to a lot of hard work and pressure by the American Life League’s foundress, Judy Brown.

She targetted 12 top “Catholic” pro-abortion politicians and labelled them “The Dirty Dozen,” then began a campaign to have their bishops either counsel or punish them.

Nationwide, members of the American Life League joined Brown in petitioning their bishops to withhold Holy Communion from their pro-abort “representatives” who claimed to be “Catholic.”

Pax Christi. <><
Click to expand...
Recently on the CBS Evening News, some of the Cardinals were labelled as “The Dirty Dozen” by Catholics who think they shouldn’t been elected pope. I was surprised that Turkson was on that list. Did anyone else catch that?
 
Eilrahc said:
Recently on the CBS Evening News, some of the Cardinals were labelled as “The Dirty Dozen” by Catholics who think they shouldn’t been elected pope. I was surprised that Turkson was on that list. Did anyone else catch that?
Click to expand...
FYI, this thread is nearly 9 years old.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top