Hardrock-Mass
#11
(07-17-2012, 05:02 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 04:47 PM)JayneK Wrote: So if we rank all the problems facing the Church today, where would we put a priest doing dumb stuff with liturgy? 

Does it ever occur to anyone here that the Pope has to deal with big picture strategy and cannot pull out his big guns for every individual priest abusing the liturgy?  He has to choose his battles and think about the long term. And I can't think of anyone here who is in a position to judge what it is like to handle responsibility on that scale.

The Pope could stop appointing shitty bishops who have no disregard for the liturgy (or in this case removing bishops his predecessor permitted).  Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?  Where?  

Also, you may have overlooked the fact that this occurred at a cathedral, so it's likely the bishop knew of (and approved of!) this sacrilegious Mass.

Removing a bishop is drastic and difficult.  In most situations, it is better to wait until he gets to retirement age. (The bad ones are out at the first opportunity; the good ones stay in longer.)  The new bishops appointed under Benedict have tended to be of much better quality.  The Pope does understand how important this is and spends an significant amount of time researching possible appointees.
Reply
#12
(07-17-2012, 05:04 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:00 PM)JayneK Wrote: It was a pre-emptive strike?  :)  Seriously, this is where they were going with the "he's in communion with Rome" stuff.  The implication is that the Pope should be hunting down every liturgical abuse and excommunicating the perpetrators.

The Vatican was (and is?) a-ok with hunting down a little traditionalist seminary in the middle of Switzerland.


The Pope has been bending over backwards to get the SSPX regularized.  It is not fair to complain about him picking on them.
Reply
#13
(07-17-2012, 05:10 PM)JayneK Wrote: Removing a bishop is drastic and difficult.  In most situations, it is better to wait until he gets to retirement age. (The bad ones are out at the first opportunity; the good ones stay in longer.)  The new bishops appointed under Benedict have tended to be of much better quality.  The Pope does understand how important this is and spends an significant amount of time researching possible appointees.

Positions can be found for bumbling and inept middle management types.

Is it better to let a heterodox bishop corrupt his clergy and diocese for the sake of keeping nice appearances?  Because JPII did that with Rembert Weakland in Milwaukee, and now the diocese is full of openly liberal clergy.
Reply
#14
(07-17-2012, 05:14 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:04 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:00 PM)JayneK Wrote: It was a pre-emptive strike?  :)  Seriously, this is where they were going with the "he's in communion with Rome" stuff.  The implication is that the Pope should be hunting down every liturgical abuse and excommunicating the perpetrators.

The Vatican was (and is?) a-ok with hunting down a little traditionalist seminary in the middle of Switzerland.


The Pope has been bending over backwards to get the SSPX regularized.  It is not fair to complain about him picking on them.

Given the way that Ratzinger and JPII treated ABL and the SSPX in the 80s, he should be bending over backwards, if he has any sense of justice.
Reply
#15
(07-17-2012, 05:00 PM)JayneK Wrote: It was a pre-emptive strike?  :)  Seriously, this is where they were going with the "he's in communion with Rome" stuff.  The implication is that the Pope should be hunting down every liturgical abuse and excommunicating the perpetrators.

Some may say, you are identifying the abuses with the "New Mass" itself. I am saying that the "New Mass" IS the abuse of the True Mass! I am saying that, with the jettisoning of both the law and the spirit of Quo Primum, by that very Act, the Pope has not only substituted something totally different from the Mass, but that it is of the very essence of the "New Mass" to permit every form of profanation, because the "New Mass" makes the good pleasure of the people its "liturgy." - Fr. Wathen

Prophetic
Reply
#16
(07-17-2012, 05:14 PM)JayneK Wrote: The Pope has been bending over backwards to get the SSPX regularized.  It is not fair to complain about him picking on them.

Bending? No, he has been forced to stand upright to get the SSPX regularized. Rome is in the bend right now.
Reply
#17
(07-17-2012, 05:04 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:00 PM)JayneK Wrote: It was a pre-emptive strike?  :)  Seriously, this is where they were going with the "he's in communion with Rome" stuff.  The implication is that the Pope should be hunting down every liturgical abuse and excommunicating the perpetrators.

The Vatican was (and is?) a-ok with hunting down a little traditionalist seminary in the middle of Switzerland.

I think they can have the local ordinary jump on this guy.  ESPECIALLY when he becomes a scandal to the Faith and the Church and is covered in the news.

:clap: :w2go: :clap: :w2go: :clap: :amen:

The thing folks are missing is this is - what some consider abuses is what the NO was always meant to be - didn't this priest at least stop the show long enough to say the narrative?
It's valid then!  :chleader: :chleader: :chleader:
Reply
#18
(07-17-2012, 05:16 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:10 PM)JayneK Wrote: Removing a bishop is drastic and difficult.  In most situations, it is better to wait until he gets to retirement age. (The bad ones are out at the first opportunity; the good ones stay in longer.)  The new bishops appointed under Benedict have tended to be of much better quality.  The Pope does understand how important this is and spends an significant amount of time researching possible appointees.

Positions can be found for bumbling and inept middle management types.

Is it better to let a heterodox bishop corrupt his clergy and diocese for the sake of keeping nice appearances?  Because JPII did that with Rembert Weakland in Milwaukee, and now the diocese is full of openly liberal clergy.

It has nothing to do with keeping nice appearances.  I just usually isn't worth the trouble to remove a bishop who is going to retire in a couple of years anyhow.  Although, if the speculation is correct about ++Muller's appointment as the first move in a crackdown on dissidents, we may be seeing a change of policy soon.

Personnel choices was one of JPII's greatest weaknesses as pope.  Unfortunately, it is going to take time to repair the damage this has caused.  But there is every indication that Benedict is working on this.
Reply
#19
(07-17-2012, 05:16 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:14 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:04 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:00 PM)JayneK Wrote: It was a pre-emptive strike?  :)  Seriously, this is where they were going with the "he's in communion with Rome" stuff.  The implication is that the Pope should be hunting down every liturgical abuse and excommunicating the perpetrators.

The Vatican was (and is?) a-ok with hunting down a little traditionalist seminary in the middle of Switzerland.


The Pope has been bending over backwards to get the SSPX regularized.  It is not fair to complain about him picking on them.

Given the way that Ratzinger and JPII treated ABL and the SSPX in the 80s, he should be bending over backwards, if he has any sense of justice.

I read an article that was claiming something very much like this.  The author thought that Pope Benedict's efforts were motivated by guilt over this.  The author presented this hypothesis quite plausibly.
Reply
#20
(07-17-2012, 05:28 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:16 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:10 PM)JayneK Wrote: Removing a bishop is drastic and difficult.  In most situations, it is better to wait until he gets to retirement age. (The bad ones are out at the first opportunity; the good ones stay in longer.)  The new bishops appointed under Benedict have tended to be of much better quality.  The Pope does understand how important this is and spends an significant amount of time researching possible appointees.

Positions can be found for bumbling and inept middle management types.

Is it better to let a heterodox bishop corrupt his clergy and diocese for the sake of keeping nice appearances?  Because JPII did that with Rembert Weakland in Milwaukee, and now the diocese is full of openly liberal clergy.

It has nothing to do with keeping nice appearances.  I just usually isn't worth the trouble to remove a bishop who is going to retire in a couple of years anyhow.  Although, if the speculation is correct about ++Muller's appointment as the first move in a crackdown on dissidents, we may be seeing a change of policy soon.

.
Well based on what we've read that Muller has written and said, red flags should go off (to say the least).
What will happen is people will wait till Muller decimates the theology (more than he already has), goes onto retirement in order to call him out on his errors.
And of course, the modernists will say:  " It usually isn't worth the trouble to remove a bishop who is going to retire in a couple of years anyhow"

Hence the need to call them out and demand an explanation right then and there. Let those men clarify their statements/writings/declarations. No big deal.






Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)