What if your Bishop is a Heretic?

[BlackKnight]

Q: Is it true that Catholics must totally and without question obey every dictate from their parish priest?

A: Certainly not! There are few areas in which a priest can require one to do anything, and those are connected primarily with the sacraments (e.g., what one is to do as a penance following the sacrament of reconciliation) and one’s behavior in church (e.g., no running in the aisles).

What one does outside of church and outside of these narrowly defined areas is one’s own business—subject, of course, to the Church’s disciplinary regulations and moral.

Even in the areas where a priest does have authority, it is sharply limited. For example, he cannot require a person to do something intrinsically immoral as a penance or demand that a person sing in the choir.

—James Akin

 

[Luke-Jr]

otm:

No, that is not considered denying the authority of the Pope. It is considered ignoring it. Being disobedient is not heresy.

Interestingly, this is the basis of the many people who have been accusing SSPX of schism.

 

[Aquinian]

usqueadmortem:

Aquinian:

It appears you have caught me in a blunder. I cannot find the source I learned this from. I am almost sure I read it in a reliable source though (I would never have asserted it if I weren’t). But in any case I am forced to retract it.
But clearly, one must be extremely careful when attributing motives to someone.
Good show.
Usque.

No worries. Don’t worry, everyone seems to think the same as you, and nobody can tell where they learned it. It’s one of those errors that, precisely because they are common, never get noticed.

And, of course, the error is incredibly useful right now, with so many heretics about who always like to hide as “Catholics” as Our Lord warned they would. “Beware the wolf in the clothing of sheep.”

Cheers,
Aquinian.

 

[Aquinian]

JKirkLVNV:

…we still have yet to hear examples of how the Cardinal is a heretic. I’m not obnoxiously trying to throw down a gauntlet, I’m just very interested. I’m no fan of Cardinal Mahony’s, but I do think it’s a serious charge to lay at his doorstep (really, anyone’s doorstep).

Yes, that’s true.

Well, do you really think that he holds the Catholic Faith whole and entire? While you’re pondering this, ask yourself when he last acted against the legions of heretics/homosexuals/feminists/abortionists etc. currently running rampant in his archdiocese.

I mean, it’s possible that he hasn’t noticed, isn’t it? Er, maybe not.

Regards,
Aquinian.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Luke-Jnr wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by otm
No, that is not considered denying the authority of the Pope. It is considered ignoring it. Being disobedient is not heresy.

Interestingly, this is the basis of the many people who have been accusing SSPX of schism.

Not so!

Archbishop Lefebfre told Pope John Paul II to “get @#4%%@%!” in 1976 when he was suspended a divinis. THAT was being disobedient - and gravely sinful.

In 1988, in that same state of suspension a divinis, he again told the Pope to “get @#4%%@%!” by disobeying a direct order from the Pope NOT to break with the See of Rome and the Catholic Church by committing the VERY GREAT crime and sin of breaking UNITY. Furthermore, Lefebvre did so in spite of the formal warning that he would incur the penalty of excommunication for doing so.

It is chutzpah par excellence to claim that Lefebvre “merely” was disobedient in a minor way.

Not only that, but

Again, Not so! For the rational of most of the people that I know base their reasons for believing that Lefebvre & Co. were (and remain) excommunicated is that the Pope expressly declared them to be so in “Ecclesia Dei.”

For documents of the case HERE, or extracts HERE

 

[Aquinian]

Sean O L:

Not so!

Archbishop Lefebfre told Pope John Paul II to “get @#4%%@%!” in 1976 .

Sean,

Is that what you did when you were a long-term SSPX supporter? Told the pope to “get @#4%%@%!” ???

Or are you kinder on yourself than that? Just curious.

Regards,
Aquinian.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Hi Aquinas,

I am still doing penance for my time with the SSPX. My word, though; you ARE a speed reader, eh?

 

[Aquinian]

Sean O L:

I am still doing penance for my time with the SSPX.

Obviously still working on the humility bit, however.

And you didn’t answer the question.

Cheers!
Aquinian.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Aquinian wrote:

Aquinian Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean O L
I am still doing penance for my time with the SSPX.

Obviously still working on the humility bit, however.

And you didn’t answer the question.

Humility is a problem for most humans. Dare I say that “obviously” you do not have such problems?

As to the question: I judge that you do not “need to know.”

 

[Aquinian]

Sean O L:

Dare I say that “obviously” you do not have such problems?

Perhaps I obviously do. But I don’t believe we are on subject. More on the subject after your next quote, which is:
Sean O L:

As to the question: I judge that you do not “need to know.”

Right, which leaves me with the only possible conclusion: you are harsh on Archbishop Lefebvre, and soft on yourself.

Cheers!
Aquinian.

 

[TNT]

Gottle of Geer:

It looks like a cross between Sydney Opera House and an aircraft hangar which has had an argument with a public urinal, and is the most repulsive church building I have seen in pictures. There was a number of articles in “Inside the Vatican” about it, several years ago - the Diocese of Rome was so short of Catholic architects (apparently), that they chose a non-Christian to build it.

Projects of Interest

Jubilee Church by Richard Meier

It never ceases to amaze me what some can do with other people’s money. But the greatest amazement is why people keep giving it. It’s like feeding a rabid dog in the expectation it will get better.
It would be interesting WHO exactly are the top 20 donors, and what their religion is.
It’s Trinity Sunday, and it will be, because of you!, that I will, for the first time pray for an EARTHQUAKE!
I HOPE YUR HAPPY.

 

[TNT]

Gottle of Geer:

If Cardinal Mahony is a heretic because of the new Cathedral - **what does that make the corresponding clergy in Rome **? ##

ARCH-HERETICS

 

[chevalier]

Err… St Peter’s isn’t the papal cathedral. St John’s in the Lateran is. Anyway, what’s the deal with the Roman clergy now?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well, as I said, though I do not like the Cathedral Cardinal Mahony built, our’s is quite ugly, too. Imagine, if you will, an A-frame cathedral. That’s what Las Vegas has in the Cathedral of the Guardian Angels. It puts the “ug” in ugly.

 

[Aquinian]

JKirkLVNV:

Well, as I said, though I do not like the Cathedral Cardinal Mahony built, our’s is quite ugly, too. Imagine, if you will, an A-frame cathedral. That’s what Las Vegas has in the Cathedral of the Guardian Angels. It puts the “ug” in ugly.

Yep. So, do you think Mahoney disagrees with all those heretics running about stealing souls in his archdiocese?

Regards,
Aquinian.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Aquinian:

Yep. So, do you think Mahoney disagrees with all those heretics running about stealing souls in his archdiocese?

Regards,
Aquinian.

I’m sorry, what do you mean?

 

[fix]

usqueadmortem:

Actually, it is entirely possible for a Bishop to be a material heretic. But these days, we don’t do formal heresy anymore.
A material heretic is one who holds heretical propositions but has not been formally declared a heretic. A formal heretic is one who has been tried in a canonical court and convicted of heresy. We rarely use canonical courts anymore, save for the ever popular annulment.
Part of the problem in the post-conciliar church is that material heresy has run rampant! And bishops have lapsed into material heresy in many cases. This was the problem with the reign of JPII (whom I love dearly). He did not use “the rod of iron” that is so necessary for the welfare of the Church often enough.
If you can, go to a different diocese.

Usque.

Very good. As well, II would like to know if one becomes a heretic at the exact moment the accused is convicted by the church or is the heretic a heretic the first second one denies a teaching of the church?

If I rob a bank and am never charged by the DA does that mean I am not authentically a bank robber? Am I only an adulterer if my wife actually catches me with another woman, or am I an adulterer the first time I am with another woman?

 

[Aquinian]

JKirkLVNV:

I’m sorry, what do you mean?

You asked for examples of Mahoney’s heresy. I meant something like I wrote before:

"Do you really think that he holds the Catholic Faith whole and entire? While you’re pondering this, ask yourself when he last acted against the legions of heretics/homosexuals/feminists/abortionists etc. currently running rampant in his archdiocese.

“I mean, it’s possible that he hasn’t noticed, isn’t it?”

The question is whether there is sufficient evidence to call this man a heretic. Personally, the evidence is overwhelming. What could the alternative explanation possibly be?

Regards,
Aquinian.

 

[Aquinian]

usqueadmortem:

A material heretic is one who holds heretical propositions but has not been formally declared a heretic. A formal heretic is one who has been tried in a canonical court and convicted of heresy.

As a matter of fact, this is quite wrong. A formal heretic is one who knows better. A material heretic is one who doesn’t know better. One way to tell if a man knows better is to issue an official warning and then if he thumbs his nose at that you can be sure that he doesn’t care what the Church teaches. But such a formal process is not always necessary and has not been regarded as always necessary in the past.

And this is quite true:

usqueadmortem:

We rarely use canonical courts anymore, save for the ever popular annulment.

But it doesn’t mean there are no formal heretics. Quite the contrary - there are more than ever, because nobody cares about the welfare of souls enough to correct them.

Regards,
Aquinian.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Aquinian:

You asked for examples of Mahoney’s heresy. I meant something like I wrote before:

"Do you really think that he holds the Catholic Faith whole and entire? While you’re pondering this, ask yourself when he last acted against the legions of heretics/homosexuals/feminists/abortionists etc. currently running rampant in his archdiocese.

“I mean, it’s possible that he hasn’t noticed, isn’t it?”

The question is whether there is sufficient evidence to call this man a heretic. Personally, the evidence is overwhelming. What could the alternative explanation possibly be?

Regards,
Aquinian.

I admit the logic and reason of what you say. Not being a subject of the Cardinal, I honestly have to say I’ve no idea.