"time to sack trendy bishops and restore the faith "

[BernadetteM]

I must disagree. Quite honestly, because of their actions, there almost is NO church. What they have done over the past 40 - 50 years has hurt the church tremendously, Look at Cardinal Law. He should have been ashamed and admonished. Instead he is rewarded and promoted. Deplorable! Until Rome puts an end to these types of shenanigans, this nonsense will continue unabated. These “bishops” are leading many people down the road to eternal damnation. Why should they be revered and respected? Yes, there are some good ones out there. We should keep these and use them as the foundation to build anew.

To all appearances it looks like a promotion for Cardinal Law, but in reality I feel he was moved to Rome so that he is under the thumb of the Pope. He is not young anymore and having to live in another country for the remainer of his life doesn’t seem like a promotion. They can make sure that he isn’t causing anymore problems for the Church. Just my take on it.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[Layman]

Please rethink this. You’re saying that if a bishop does not have large seminary enrollment or the population demographics shift, then they are a bad bishop.

Catholics must respect their bishop regardless of how they perform.

Even if a closes it’s last seminarycountry?

Which of the following headlines do you think you are likely to read in a Catholic newspaper?

Traditionalist bishop laments lack of vocations.
Liberal bishop laments lack of vocations.

Another annoying thing I read: There is no vocations crisis. There are plenty of young men coming forward. It’s just that** liberal dioceses with homosexuals and progressives having a chokehold on the selection process means that pious, heterosexual men can’t get through: too ‘rigid’, ‘intolerant’, with a ‘messiah complex’ or whatever.**

If you can get through the selection process you get frozen out in the seminary. Or just quit.

**The hope is, or was, that then married or women priests will have to be allowed, to take up the slack. **

Homosexuals are also less likely to be orthodox. Being orthodox means they’d have to point the finger at themselves. Much better to preach ‘tolerance’ and, handily enough, that’s a popular stand today!

 

[PJM]

=ljubim;6597885]I agree (with this quote, not necessarily the article.). When I tried to convince a friend that priests have inserted their own personal creativity into the Mass, she gets all upset and says, now would the Bishops have allowed that? YES! I say, they do it themselves, and just look how they responded to the Moto Proprio. Mine put out a list of directives that gave him all of his old indult-day power, that line by line contradicted everything the Holy Father said!

***As one with twelve years of Catholic Education I can understand the dificulty in comming to grips with even the POSSIBILITY that a priest, bishop or nun could be wrong.

In my case it was not until they tore down th Communion rail, fired our Pastor who would not allow it, sent in a sub for 60 day’s or so to do the dirty work, that my eyes were opened.

I suspect one has to be at least OPEN to the possibility of TRUTH being something other than curent belief in order to find it. So many are not, or are too lazy to sek it. ***

 

[fish90]

With all due respect to everyone who responded to my post, the bishop holds the Church in him. St. Cyprian of Carthage said and I took this from this website that “It must be understood that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop and he is not in the Church who is not with the bishop.”

Christ ultimately rules His Church. The worst bishop still maintains graces that most of you and myself cannot even understand.

Please do not forget about the moral troubles of the West. Why are people not looking at this? The Holy Father and Christ’s Church is doing wonderfully outside the “West.”

The New Evangelization has not even reached its full potential. Good times are ahead!
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_expected_to_create_new_dicastery_to_re-evangelize_europe_us/

Best,
fish90

 

[Layman]

All the pope needs to do is consecrate more conservative bishops. We’ve tried liberalism and it hasn’t worked.

I sympathise with him. He hasn’t the actual leverage to bin the more heretical ones.

We need bishops who actually believe what the Church teaches rather than the latest trendy interpretation of doctrine. If in doubt, they should examine the lives and works or the saints, especially the ascetic ones.

If only they would just allow the Baltimore Cathecism or similar to be taught, straight, in schools. Just get kids to memorise the important parts. At least then they’d know.

We have something called ‘Alive-O’ in Ireland instead, I understand.

 

[elts1956]

Don’t forget that there must be proper respect to be paid to all bishops.

I have a very difficult time giving “proper” respect to anyone teaching such things as the Seamless Garment theory. What a bunch of tripe.

 

[AnthonytheGreat]

If Judas were your bishop would you obey him out of obedience?

I have to say I do things that are outright disobedient to my bishop. He has made it known that he does not want anyone kneeling for communion during the Novus Ordo mass. However Rome has said that we have the right to receive communion as we wish. I kneel for communion with confidence.

I also criticize him publicly for acts such as helping to defeat pro-life legislation in my state.

I respect the office of the bishop but when he is wrong and working against the faith and morals of the Church he is simply a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I will not be obedient to a devil.

 

[Seamus_L]

And to think, we have people advocating the position that a bishop’s authority in his diocese supercedes that of the Pope. Can you imagine letting a Weakland have the final say.

 

[KC91]

Exactly, Christ did not say to Peter that he is the first among equals (as Catholic liberals claim), but that he was the rock on which the Church was to built.

 

[dmorgan]

The Gospel according to Saint Matthew; Chapter 24:

"9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. 10 And then shall many be scandalized: and shall betray one another: and shall hate one another.

11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. 12 And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. 13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come. 15 When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand."

Also It is my understanding that all religious used to have to make this Oath set forth by St. Pius X proir to receiving Holy Orders, but I believe V-II removed this requirement:
fisheaters.com/sacrorum.html
. please correct me if I am wrong. Why would you want to remove this Oath? Why would the Church not want her Priests to submit to this Oath before God?

“The oath continued to be taken until July 1967 when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith rescinded”

 

[edwest2]

I would have to say my favorite quote from it would be:
“So, the fact that some degenerates who should never have been ordained violated young people – in itself a deplorable sin – means that the Son of God did not come down to earth, redeem mankind on the cross and found the Church? This appalling scandal no more compromises the truths of the Faith than the career of Alexander VI or any other corrupt Renaissance Pope”

That hits the nail on the head so to speak. When I hear about people saying they are leaving the church or that the scandal has shaken their faith I have to wonder. How do the actions of a small group of men who betrayed their faith and oath change the truth promised 2K years ago? I’ve never quite understood that.

To the point of the article however, I’m afraid I’m a bit pessimistic with regards to the odds of British society reclaiming much of her moral underpinnings any time soon. None of the major political parties seem to have much of a vested interest in actually defending the faith or family, and the society in general, as noted by the British press, seem more interested in banning talk on “offensive” topics such as the dangers of abortion or extra-martial sex than dealing with the moral decay in society (yes, my .02c).

Well, I think it only takes a bit of good example from the peasants, and I count myself as one of them. There has always been more of us than the ruling class, so I think things can be turned around. I strongly suggest you ignore the press which is under the thumb of the influential.

What moral decay? Both in the States and the UK, the Sexual Revolution was designed to sweep away all that old-fashioned morality and replace it with hedonistic anarchy, which we have now. Shacking up, irresponsible pregnancies, irresponsible parenthood, and what’s the big deal with marriage anyway? All those heteros were influenced to make a mess out of it. Why not give the gays a go?

Things will change the moment most of us realize the misuse of human sexuality is the root of most of our problems. A reply to a question on a forum I moderate reflects the currently heavily marketed mindset out there: We no longer want to feel guilty or ashamed or sinful ever again. Which I think explains Lady Ga Ga quite nicely.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Linda_Marie]

Rumours fly over Cardinal George Pell’s job in Rome

The report by journalist Andrea Tornielli - who has accurately predicted several developments during this pontificate - suggested that the meeting was to discuss Cardinal Pell taking over from 76-year-old Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, who has been prefect [of the Congregation for Bishops] for 10 years.

It also said Cardinal Pell had been “officially nominated” as Cardinal Battista Re’s successor by the Pope.

The report matches rumours that have circulated in Rome for several months and said a formal announcement on Cardinal Pell’s appointment would come within the next few weeks.

The Congregation for Bishops oversees the selection of new bishops around the world.

 

[AnthonytheGreat]

sounds great to me

 

[fish90]

Who is this bishop?

 

[KC91]

Cardinal Pell? He is a reliably conservative orthodox Cardinal, currently Archbishop of Sydney or something if I remember correctly

 

[fish90]

Cardinal Pell? He is a reliably conservative orthodox Cardinal, currently Archbishop of Sydney or something if I remember correctly

Thank you.

 

[Joe_5859]

Cardinal Pell? He is a reliably conservative orthodox Cardinal, currently Archbishop of Sydney or something if I remember correctly

Yes, he frequently grabs headlines for some of his comments. He’s the Archbishop Burke of the Aussies.

Whispers in the Loggia has a nice article about the expected appointment as well. They tend to be accurate on these things as well:

whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2010/05/bull-in-bishops-shop.html

 

[tpw]

Interesting fact…According to the North American Forum for the Catechumenate approximately 124,000 adults were either baptized or entered into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church in 1998. The figures I’m told are fairly constant beginning 1988 when the RCIA was introduced…

Let’s see if we do the math…124,000 x 22 = 2,736,888 people have entered the Catholic Church in the last 22 years…and that’s when many of your “so-called” trendy bishops were serving…

That’s during a time of so-called “turmoil”…I certainly don’t see this as an argument “return” to the traditional church…when in fact the tradition is alive and well, thank you…

 

[CallistusPM]

I would have to say my favorite quote from it would be:
“So, the fact that some degenerates who should never have been ordained violated young people – in itself a deplorable sin – means that the Son of God did not come down to earth, redeem mankind on the cross and found the Church? This appalling scandal no more compromises the truths of the Faith than the career of Alexander VI or any other corrupt Renaissance Pope”

That hits the nail on the head so to speak. When I hear about people saying they are leaving the church or that the scandal has shaken their faith I have to wonder. How do the actions of a small group of men who betrayed their faith and oath change the truth promised 2K years ago? I’ve never quite understood that.

To the point of the article however, I’m afraid I’m a bit pessimistic with regards to the odds of British society reclaiming much of her moral underpinnings any time soon. None of the major political parties seem to have much of a vested interest in actually defending the faith or family, and the society in general, as noted by the British press, seem more interested in banning talk on “offensive” topics such as the dangers of abortion or extra-martial sex than dealing with the moral decay in society (yes, my .02c).

 

[dcastlen50]

***Sadly “it don’t work like that”

Once a Bishop always a Bishop.

I once asked a very informed theologian priest about this; and knew they “couldn’t be fired”
but wondered why they just didn’t transfere them to someplace, some position where they can’t contribute to so many souls heading SOUTH!

The reason he gave SHOCKED ME

Rome thinks that even id ORDERED such bishops might well just ignore the Pope as they have many times indicated a willingness to do just that.

Father then reminded me that Christ remains ALWAYS in charge.***

Are you sure there hasn’t been bishops that popes have taken from office? I can be wrong, but it seems to me that during the arian heresy one of the popes relieved a bishop or two, or maybe that was Bishop Richard Nixon; what do I know.