NY bishop approves pro-abortion gov. and his live-in, etc....
#21
(01-04-2011, 03:05 PM)nsper7 Wrote:
(01-04-2011, 02:55 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(01-04-2011, 02:48 PM)nsper7 Wrote: +Hubbard is a valid and licitly ordained Bishop (the four SSPX Bishops were ordained illicitly, although they were validly ordained), although it appears +Hubbard is doing/saying things that are heterodox (I haven't read the article yet, nor was I at the Mass he presided over, so I am not going to risk calumny by speaking in absolutes). Also, remember that +Williamson has said his share of whacky things (and I don't just mean the Holocaust remark).

Bp. W has not spoken heterodoxly on the Faith, has he?

The Holocaust and the pornographic-ness of the Sound of Music are not the Catholic Faith.

I never accused +Williamson of speaking heterodoxically on matters of Faith, I was merely pointing out that he has said whacky (not heretical) things in the past. On a personal note, I always find it strange how some Traditionalists love to trot him out when they argue against liberal Catholic nonsense. Wouldn't it be better to use +Fellay and the late +Lefebvre, not +Williamson, in arguments against 'liberal' Catholicism?

Anyway, it is a shame that the Church does not take stronger action against prelate who support offensive things such as abortion and 'gay marriage'.

THAT'S BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT UP BISHOP WILLIAMSON!

And, who cares if he said whacky things in the past?  We're talking about this bishop in New York!  Not Bp. W! 

Gah!  This forum needs a banging-head-on-wall smiley.
Reply
#22
(01-04-2011, 03:11 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(01-04-2011, 03:05 PM)nsper7 Wrote:
(01-04-2011, 02:55 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(01-04-2011, 02:48 PM)nsper7 Wrote: +Hubbard is a valid and licitly ordained Bishop (the four SSPX Bishops were ordained illicitly, although they were validly ordained), although it appears +Hubbard is doing/saying things that are heterodox (I haven't read the article yet, nor was I at the Mass he presided over, so I am not going to risk calumny by speaking in absolutes). Also, remember that +Williamson has said his share of whacky things (and I don't just mean the Holocaust remark).

Bp. W has not spoken heterodoxly on the Faith, has he?

The Holocaust and the pornographic-ness of the Sound of Music are not the Catholic Faith.

I never accused +Williamson of speaking heterodoxically on matters of Faith, I was merely pointing out that he has said whacky (not heretical) things in the past. On a personal note, I always find it strange how some Traditionalists love to trot him out when they argue against liberal Catholic nonsense. Wouldn't it be better to use +Fellay and the late +Lefebvre, not +Williamson, in arguments against 'liberal' Catholicism?

Anyway, it is a shame that the Church does not take stronger action against prelate who support offensive things such as abortion and 'gay marriage'.

THAT'S BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT UP BISHOP WILLIAMSON!

And, who cares if he said whacky things in the past?  We're talking about this bishop in New York!  Not Bp. W! 

Gah!  This forum needs a banging-head-on-wall smiley.

No, I think Vetus Ordo brought him up.
Reply
#23
Yeah, the bishop should definitely be excommunicated.  I mean, look how much excommunicating the English monarch did to bring back England to the True Faith.  If it's one thing the Church does well is learn from her mistakes.

Hey, wait a minute.....  :sneaky:
Reply
#24
(01-03-2011, 11:48 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: "In the life of the Church and consequently, in the life of each one of her children, we will have, therefore, a period of a greater liberty, that is to say, of fewer legal obligations and less internal inhibitions.

"Formal discipline will be reduced; all arbitrary intolerance will be abolished together with all absolutism; the positive law will be simplified; the exercise of authority will be tempered; the sense of that Christan liberty, which so greatly interested the first Christian generation when it was free from observance of the Mosaic Law and its complex rituals, will be promoted (Gal. 5:1)." - Pope Paul VI, General Audience Educarsi all'uso schietto e magnanimo della libertà sottratto al dominio delle passioni, 9 July 1969.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_v...09_it.html

See also: http://www.traditioninaction.org/Progres...iberty.htm

Has this course of action, taken by the predecessor of His Holiness Pope Benedict, been continued up to the present time?

To be fair, if you keep reading after that paragraph to the end of the audience, he specifically rules out freedom being used contrary to the faith and that in such cases, the divinely instituted authority often must take action, even severe action (the verse cited is St. Paul threatening to come after the Corinthians with a rod). He says it is not freedom from the law of God, from ascetism and penance, or from obedience to the lawful social order. In context, it appears the quote above is referencing less micromanagement (or at least what was perceived as such) of good or neutral Christian activity under pain of mortal sin. The wisdom of that decision itself is of course debateable (from what I can tell it did not have good results), but he isn't referring to bishops or lay people, etc. having the freedom to depart from the faith and the law of God or that the authority of the Church will not be used against such actions.

Of course, in practice that may be what happened, probably due to the widespread nature of it. In an analogous situation, defending the inaction of St. Leo IX against the simoniacs (considered heretics at the time), St. Peter Damian cited the following precedent of St. Innocent I's dealings with the Photinians (who denied the divinity of Christ):

"Hence it would be proper that they who are eager to depose all by group action should observe the moderate solution proposed by Innocent, of whom we spoke above.  'As often,' he said 'as a sin is committed by whole peoples or by a large group, since it cannot be avenged on all because of their great number, one usually lets it go unpunished.'" Letter 40 (citing Pope St. Innocent I, Epistola 17.6)
Reply
#25
(01-04-2011, 04:19 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(01-03-2011, 11:48 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: "In the life of the Church and consequently, in the life of each one of her children, we will have, therefore, a period of a greater liberty, that is to say, of fewer legal obligations and less internal inhibitions.

"Formal discipline will be reduced; all arbitrary intolerance will be abolished together with all absolutism; the positive law will be simplified; the exercise of authority will be tempered; the sense of that Christan liberty, which so greatly interested the first Christian generation when it was free from observance of the Mosaic Law and its complex rituals, will be promoted (Gal. 5:1)." - Pope Paul VI, General Audience Educarsi all'uso schietto e magnanimo della libertà sottratto al dominio delle passioni, 9 July 1969.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_v...09_it.html

See also: http://www.traditioninaction.org/Progres...iberty.htm

Has this course of action, taken by the predecessor of His Holiness Pope Benedict, been continued up to the present time?

To be fair, if you keep reading after that paragraph to the end of the audience, he specifically rules out freedom being used contrary to the faith and that in such cases, the divinely instituted authority often must take action, even severe action (the verse cited is St. Paul threatening to come after the Corinthians with a rod). He says it is not freedom from the law of God, from ascetism and penance, or from obedience to the lawful social order. In context, it appears the quote above is referencing less micromanagement (or at least what was perceived as such) of good or neutral Christian activity under pain of mortal sin. The wisdom of that decision itself is of course debateable (from what I can tell it did not have good results), but he isn't referring to bishops or lay people, etc. having the freedom to depart from the faith and the law of God or that the authority of the Church will not be used against such actions.

Of course, in practice that may be what happened, probably due to the widespread nature of it. In an analogous situation, defending the inaction of St. Leo IX against the simoniacs (considered heretics at the time), St. Peter Damian cited the following precedent of St. Innocent I's dealings with the Photinians (who denied the divinity of Christ):

"Hence it would be proper that they who are eager to depose all by group action should observe the moderate solution proposed by Innocent, of whom we spoke above.  'As often,' he said 'as a sin is committed by whole peoples or by a large group, since it cannot be avenged on all because of their great number, one usually lets it go unpunished.'" Letter 40 (citing Pope St. Innocent I, Epistola 17.6)

I think the question is whether or not, when freedom has been used contrary to the faith, has the Church been lax in her enforcement of discipline ("Formal discipline will be reduced.").  I think it would be hard to argue against the fact that heresy (as well as liturgical abuse) has run rampant in the Church since the closing of the Council, and the Vatican has been slow to correct the culprits, if and when she decides to correct them at all.  That was my point in providing the quote.
Reply
#26
(01-04-2011, 03:29 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Yeah, the bishop should definitely be excommunicated.  I mean, look how much excommunicating the English monarch did to bring back England to the True Faith.  If it's one thing the Church does well is learn from her mistakes.

Hey, wait a minute.....  :sneaky:

Excommunicating Henry VIIIth might have stopped many other Catholic monarchs from trying the same thing.

Knowing powerful men the way I do I don't doubt that more than a few would have liked to put aside their 40 year old hag of a wife and get a younger model as the new Queen.  Since then I don't know of any Catholic monarch who tried it.  So perhaps England was a sacrifice worth making to show the Kings and Queens what would happened if they messed with Papal Authority.

Reply
#27
goes to show how many still do not understand that if the saintly founder of the SSPX failed to consecrate the 4 bishops (even if it was disobedient to the Pope's order), they would not even have tradition in the Church today and can forget having their Traditional Masses in the indult or the Motu Propio.

::)

Sure, God will raise someone else to restore tradition, but that person will have to do the exact same thing as the good Archbishop did and consecrate more traditional bishops against the wishes of Rome, who was only too happy to stop the Society in its tracks.
Reply
#28
(01-05-2011, 01:54 PM)ggreg Wrote:
(01-04-2011, 03:29 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Yeah, the bishop should definitely be excommunicated.  I mean, look how much excommunicating the English monarch did to bring back England to the True Faith.  If it's one thing the Church does well is learn from her mistakes.

Hey, wait a minute.....  :sneaky:

Excommunicating Henry VIIIth might have stopped many other Catholic monarchs from trying the same thing.

Knowing powerful men the way I do I don't doubt that more than a few would have liked to put aside their 40 year old hag of a wife and get a younger model as the new Queen.  Since then I don't know of any Catholic monarch who tried it.  So perhaps England was a sacrifice worth making to show the Kings and Queens what would happened if they messed with Papal Authority.

Popes who excommunicated the disobedient, whether royalty or clergy, were considered great or Canonized, or both.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)