By the priests telling us during Mass about the petitions to sign after Mass.
Well, it’s not
wrong to do so. And I don’t question that individual priests might be enthusiastic for this sort of thing. But I don’t see an official policy either encouraging or discouraging it.
And as far as I know, the Pope has never asked or ordered the bishops, priests or laity to “stop it”, but the Pope accepts the petitions confirming it’s a normal and acceptible practice.
Well, he has more important things to attend to. We can circulate petitions all we like, and there’s really no reason why he should be bothered by it. Honestly, this seems to me something of purely local concern anyway: i.e. if it *did *become problematic, the local bishop should be the one to say “stop it.”
If you don’t agree with it, get a petition going & send it to him asking him to put a stop to the practice - jk
jk
I just couldn’t resist joking with you.
I hope this made you laugh, at least a little, if not alot
Haha
I disagree, but I do admire the specificity and clarity of your objection, and I certainly think it merits a thoughtful response.
So then the bishop of Rome is to other bishops what the bishop is to his presbyters, i.e., a bishop of bishops.
Oooh, you went straight for the jugular there, didn’t you?
Maybe you know that I often like to explain the papacy by pointing out that that is exactly what the pope is
not, and that he is* not* to other bishops what a bishop is to his priests.
Just as a presbyter who defies his bishop is considered to have gone rogue, so too bishops out of communion with the bishop of Rome are considered to have gone rogue.
I maintain that each of these situations is different.
A priest is entirely under his bishop, who is the true head of his local church. If a priest defies his bishop, while (in Catholic theology) he may still be a priest sacramentally speaking, he has separated himself from precisely that which gives to his authority all its legitimacy: his bishop.
If a bishop breaks communion with the bishop of Rome, he is not only still Sacramentally a bishop, but his church and his authority over it remain intact, for he possesses his authority not by papal delegation but by virtue of his Orders: the divinely established constitution of the episcopate includes authority over the faithful.
So a bishop who separates himself and his church from the Church of Rome has not separated himself from the only source of his authority’s legitimacy.
This, for instance, is why Catholic theology says that eastern Orthodox priests
do have the power to hear confessions and absolve penitents, despite the fact that Catholic theology also says that a priest needs to be given the authority to do so by his bishop for him to validly do so: because the permission and commission of eastern Orthodox bishops counts,
even though they’re in schism from the Church of Rome.
This, in effect, means that bishops in and of themselves have no power to manifest the Catholic Church in one place and in one eucharist outside of their communion with the bishop of Rome, as a bishop outside of communion with Rome can confect a valid eucharist, but is somehow separated from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
You may have noticed here the way my explanation only works if you accept the distinction Catholic theology makes regarding validity vs. legality. Orthodox churches
do manifest the Catholic Church in some sense precisely
because they offer a valid Eucharist,
even though they’re technically not part of the Catholic Church.
Sound paradoxical? Yes. As crazy as it may sound, Catholic teaching essentially says that you guys are not members of the Catholic Church (even in the St. Ignatius sense),
and yet, you may indeed be (and almost certainly are) “inside” the Catholic Church (again, in the St. Ignatius sense) because your churches are true churches united under the hierarchy that our Lord established (bishops, presbyters, deacons) and offering a valid Eucharistic Liturgy in union with your bishop.
Is it that all graces do or must come through her, or that all graces can come through her if we humbly seek her intercession? It seems from this account that the petition was to declare that she is the sole source of grace (“all graces come to us through her”), and thus grace could only be obtained through her.
“Mediatrix” (formal, feminine form of “mediator”) does not connote a source, but rather an intermediary or advocate.
In Eastern tradition, the Theotokos is often described using these terms (Mediatrix, Intercessor, Advocate), ever mindful that she is indeed full of grace in her own right, but that does not imply that the Queen of heaven is a source of grace.
Yes, great points. I fully agree with you and recant my ambiguous wording.
I think the confusion inherent in my post illustrates why, at least in English, this title is a bad idea.
