Hardrock-Mass
#21
(07-17-2012, 05:52 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(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.

Haven't you started enough threads on this topic?  Do you have to derail other threads for going on about it too?
Reply
#22
(07-17-2012, 06:31 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:52 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(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.

Haven't you started enough threads on this topic?  Do you have to derail other threads for going on about it too?
Muller is just one of many, many examples. You earlier touched upon Weakland. I thought we were discussing in general terms the detrimental status of the clergy in the NO.
 
Edited to add: If memory serves, I have only started one thread about Muller. I have engaged in many.
Just saying.
Reply
#23
I'm surprised no one has mentioned anything about going to this NO to make their Sunday Obligation, certainly this qualifies for that no?
Reply
#24
(07-17-2012, 07:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned anything about going to this NO to make their Sunday Obligation, certainly this qualifies for that no?

With such an irreverent priest, how can you know for sure he intends to confect the Eucharist? Ordained male, Matter/Form and Intent. I've always questioned intent with such blasphemous acts in front of the Tabernacle, who would dare do these thing in the presence of God?!
Reply
#25
(07-17-2012, 06:48 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 06:31 PM)JayneK Wrote: Haven't you started enough threads on this topic?  Do you have to derail other threads for going on about it too?
Muller is just one of many, many examples. You earlier touched upon Weakland. I thought we were discussing in general terms the detrimental status of the clergy in the NO.

I was talking about how Muller is expected to take a hard stand against dissidents and you brought up the poorly supported accusation of heresy against him, yet again.
 
(07-17-2012, 06:48 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: Edited to add: If memory serves, I have only started one thread about Muller. I have engaged in many.
Just saying.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...940.0.html
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3452018.0.html
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...130.0.html
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...081.0.html
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...180.0.html
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...939.0.html

You started all these threads about Muller and even bumped some of them.  Just saying.
Reply
#26
(07-17-2012, 07:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned anything about going to this NO to make their Sunday Obligation, certainly this qualifies for that no?

I wouldn't go, even if it were my only option for Mass.
Reply
#27
Im German. I have Alzheimer's.
Danke.
Reply
#28
(07-17-2012, 05:28 PM)JayneK Wrote:  But there is every indication that Benedict is working on this.

This is quite rich. Working on this? It is a one-for-these, one-for-those approach at best. Appoint a conservative, then appoint a liberal. Wear fancy vestments, then pray with Rowan Williams. Elevate Card. Burke, elevate Card. Wuerl.

There is no justification for leaving a terrible Bishop in his See for any length of time insofar as he is a danger to souls. What about Matthew Clark, or Howard Hubbard? Bp. Clark submitted his resignation but has not been retired. What about Card. George? He is hardly the paragon of conservative Catholicism that some make him out to be, and he is months past his 75th birthday.
Reply
#29
(07-17-2012, 07:22 PM)MRose Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:28 PM)JayneK Wrote:  But there is every indication that Benedict is working on this.

This is quite rich. Working on this? It is a one-for-these, one-for-those approach at best. Appoint a conservative, then appoint a liberal. Wear fancy vestments, then pray with Rowan Williams. Elevate Card. Burke, elevate Card. Wuerl.

There is no justification for leaving a terrible Bishop in his See for any length of time insofar as he is a danger to souls. What about Matthew Clark, or Howard Hubbard? Bp. Clark submitted his resignation but has not been retired. What about Card. George? He is hardly the paragon of conservative Catholicism that some make him out to be, and he is months past his 75th birthday.

I think that sometimes he needs to leave a less than ideal bishop in place because he has not found anyone better to replace him with yet.  We had over 25 years of JPII and the associated trend of bad bishops, bad seminaries and bad priests.  Finding good bishops has got to be challenging.
Reply
#30
(07-17-2012, 07:16 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned anything about going to this NO to make their Sunday Obligation, certainly this qualifies for that no?

I wouldn't go, even if it were my only option for Mass.

Suppose this priest was elected the next pope, you wouldn't go to his NO then to make your Sunday Obligation?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)