FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Does One Have to Obey the Pope More than the Bishops?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
"On the practical level it is often the case that the appeal of Papal instructions are not used by the pastor locally."

(kreuz.net) "How should pastors acquit themselves, when -- as it is mostly -- universal Church and particular-legal regulations contradict one another?"


Fr. Hendrick Jolie (46) asked this question in an interview for the most recent edition of the Catholic monthly 'Kirchliche Umschau'.

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2010...-case.html
This is the crucial question for a very large section of lay faithful today. Unfortunately, the article you have here, Augustine, is in really tough shape, linguistically.  I imagine it was a quick translation someone did to get the issue out there, but it is really hard to follow.

Still, this is the real question, and I don't see it answered in the article.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I understand correctly, we are to obey the pope and the bishops that are in communion with the pope. But even this "theoretical"  answer only clarifies certain obvious situations. If your parish priest is doctrinally or liturgically abusive, and your neighboring parish is not, you drive a little further. But when it comes to bishops and their conferences, you might have to take a plane. Good luck with that. This is the Novus Ordo situation, obviously. If you have other possibilities, like the FSSP, ICK, SSPX, etc. you can and should go to these. Even in the case of the SSPX, while it is true that official approvals are still forthcoming, such as faculties,  it is obvious that even for someone who has a problem with this should, in my view, prefer the SSPX, which he knows is not in an abusive situation doctrinally or liturgically, to any abusive Novus Ordo mass, even when the abuses are approved by a bishop's conference, but this, only if the individual is certain that the bishops are not doing what the pope has asked. I find this complicated, though in ,y personal life I have been blessed to have the FSSP move in close enough for my family to go there. But I am trying to think for a person who has to choose between an SSPX which he might think is or has been abusing obedience (for the sake of argument), and NO bishops and their clergy who may disobey the pope 365 days a year in spirit and in the liturgy and doctrinal statements, but who have the appearance of authority. It would be great if Cardinals Burke, Canizares, Hoyos, etc. were to clarify these matters, because they might prodcuce changes among many confused laity , well-meaning laity, while waiting for things such as "faculties" to be given. Someone in Rome with a red hat needs to discuss obedience and communion with the pope. Bishop Fellay is in my view in communion with the pope to an extent that is rare among many bishops today.  Even so, there are differenceces among the various SSPCX priests and their views of the pope, so the individuals in these situations have to judge perhaps on a case by case basis.  Anyway, your article raised a great question. Thanks!
(11-26-2010, 03:18 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: [ -> ]"On the practical level it is often the case that the appeal of Papal instructions are not used by the pastor locally."

Thanks for brining this up, Augstine.  I have thought about this on many occasions. 

I live in the Pittsburgh Diocese where Summorum Pontificum was dead on arival.  The following text, about another topic (but the logic remains the same), is from this link: 
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/060518

Rather than support the courageous move by Bishop Bruskewitz, Pittsburgh diocese's chief canon lawyer, Fr. Lawrence DiNardo responded by calling it "a relatively extreme measure..." Fr. DiNardo also seemed to have difficulty accepting the Primacy of the Holy Father at a session on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, September 16, 1995 when he stated: "...if a person says 'I accept the teachings of the Pope, but I don't accept the teachings of my bishop,' they are not Catholic. They are in heresy. They are excommunicated by law..." He said when people say they believe in the Pope, that they 'don't like what bishop so-and-so did'...I say, well then, you ain't Catholic...that's not part of our doctrine, whether you believe in the Pope. You don't need to believe in the Pope. Only Bishops need to believe in the Pope. You need to accept the teaching authority of the Bishop..."

So what we have here is our judicial vicar, Fr. DiNardo (who speaks for the bishop in these matters),  saying that Bishop Bruskewitz's decision to excommunicate Catholics who do not discontinue their membership in the Masons and other organizations such as the abortion supportive "Catholics for a Free Choice." is an "extreme measure", while also telling us in the Pittsburgh Diocese that we are in "heresy" and are "excommunicated by law" because we follow the teachings of the Church, rather than the Bishop (Wuerl at the time) who deviates from it.   In essence I am no longer a Catholic and "excommunicated by law"  because I believe the Church's teaching, rather than my bishops, that a woman (or those who assist her) in procuring an abortion is/are excommunicated - but in Pittsburgh she/they are not - I am.  NICE!

Following the bishops teaching presupposes that his teaching will not coflict with that of the Pope.  Unfortunately, these days, the teachings between the bishop and the pope are often at odds with each other as I have just demonstrated.
Well said, piux1914, and this is REALLY sad and tragic, because these people are messing with the consciences of large numbers of laymen. Huge numbers. We are not supposed to have to be theological experts, and Catholicism is not supposed to be a moral minefield for us to navigate with extreme caution, between bishop and pope, between priest and bishop . . . so sad. We must pray, especially for the pope. We do not even know him. His spokesmen and media people are killing him as an element of moral certainty every day. And he is not helping himself either by spending time writing works that deal with speculative moral dilemmas instead of the work of shepherding the flock morally and administrating as a good steward must do. God knows his job is the toughest there is. But I am not convinced the various speculative essays and interviews that get published are worth it.
I remember when Father DiNardo was doing that.  Isn't he a Bishop now? 
Obedience scale:

Priest < Bishop < Pope < God
This DiNardo is the Cardinal's brother, obviously he is the black sheep of the family.
THE ORDER OF OBEDIENCE:

(1) GOD
(2) FAMILY
(3) COUNTRY



GOD GAVE HIS ULTIMATE AUTHORITY TO ST.PETER THE FIRST POPE:

(1) POPE
(2)BISHOP
(3) PRIEST


BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE OBEDIENT IF HE TEACHES YOU ERROR!!!!!
(11-26-2010, 07:33 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: [ -> ]I remember when Father DiNardo was doing that.  Isn't he a Bishop now? 

No, Fr. Lawrence DiNardo, is still the judicial vicar of Pittsburgh.  You may be thinking of Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of the Galveston-Houston diocese.
(11-26-2010, 09:36 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]This DiNardo is the Cardinal's brother, obviously he is the black sheep of the family.

I didn't realize they were brothers.  That's interesting!
Pages: 1 2