Head of CDF declares Catholic bishop isn't
(10-10-2012, 08:41 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 05:51 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 04:19 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 04:11 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 03:25 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 10:55 AM)Gerard Wrote: The SSPX bishops have no authority except that given to them by the faithful who want to hear what they have to say, preach and teach.
No. A bishop's authority comes from the Holy Ghost (cf. this).

But in what way is the authority granted by the Holy Ghost made manifest?
Via the episcopal consecration

Source?
The Holy Ghost is ultimately responsible for the manifestation: Acts 20:28: "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

OK.  But how, concretely, does this work? 
Reply
(10-10-2012, 08:42 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 08:41 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 05:51 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 04:19 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 04:11 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 03:25 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 10:55 AM)Gerard Wrote: The SSPX bishops have no authority except that given to them by the faithful who want to hear what they have to say, preach and teach.
No. A bishop's authority comes from the Holy Ghost (cf. this).

But in what way is the authority granted by the Holy Ghost made manifest?
Via the episcopal consecration

Source?
The Holy Ghost is ultimately responsible for the manifestation: Acts 20:28: "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

OK.  But how, concretely, does this work? 
Do you mean: "How does it work canonically?"
Reply
(10-10-2012, 09:15 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 08:42 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 08:41 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 05:51 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 04:19 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 04:11 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 03:25 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 10:55 AM)Gerard Wrote: The SSPX bishops have no authority except that given to them by the faithful who want to hear what they have to say, preach and teach.
No. A bishop's authority comes from the Holy Ghost (cf. this).

But in what way is the authority granted by the Holy Ghost made manifest?
Via the episcopal consecration

Source?
The Holy Ghost is ultimately responsible for the manifestation: Acts 20:28: "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

OK.  But how, concretely, does this work? 
Do you mean: "How does it work canonically?"

In any fashion you wish: sacramentally, canonically, what have you.  Did you read the whole article on bishops in the link?
Reply
(10-10-2012, 05:16 PM)Parmandur Wrote: The first paragraph you post is contrary to what you are saying; the due authority of the bishop and priest comes from above, not from the selection of the people.  I referenced the Thirty-Nine Articles, the section of the Book of Common Prayer where such things are laid out.  It is the Protestant ideal to pick and choose authority based on private judgement, rather than that of the Church.

Maybe we need to clarify terms.  You are using a broad term of "authority" as if there is only one kind and it encompasses jurisdiction.  I'm stating that there is juridical authority which is the mechanism by which the normal mode of the Church runs on, and then there is spiritual authority which is bound up in the teaching of the Church and if a Churchman with juridical authority opposes the authority intrinsic in the teaching of the Church, the lay faithful have recourses to the supplied authority in the "extreme circumstances" granted to any ordained priest.  

And even in the "normal mode" of operation for the Church, the lay faithful are given the authority by the Church to choose the best priest for the care and sanctifying of their souls.   In good times this would be your average parish priest and the bishop.  Nowadays, with the circumstances the Church finds herself in, in may places,  it could be SSPX, FSSP, a far away diocesan priest in a different parish or even a different diocese.  

Most of the time, out of convenience, I usually go to diocesan parishes for confession and rarely go to my local parish.  Most priests are okay and can spit out the absolution formula correctly (though not always, I've had to drive around to another parish to get the proper absolution ) and I don't doubt the validity of the absolution because the sacraments are ex opera operato, but if I'm in need of real spiritual counsel and the SSPX priest is known to be a good confessor, for my spiritual well-being,  I'll go to him and take advantage of the fact that their minds don't have post-conciliar bad ideas in them, without a hint of a doubt that it's valid because Holy Mother Church has decreed it so.  

Reply
(10-10-2012, 09:49 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 09:15 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 08:42 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 08:41 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 05:51 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 04:19 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 04:11 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 03:25 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 10:55 AM)Gerard Wrote: The SSPX bishops have no authority except that given to them by the faithful who want to hear what they have to say, preach and teach.
No. A bishop's authority comes from the Holy Ghost (cf. this).

But in what way is the authority granted by the Holy Ghost made manifest?
Via the episcopal consecration

Source?
The Holy Ghost is ultimately responsible for the manifestation: Acts 20:28: "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

OK.  But how, concretely, does this work? 
Do you mean: "How does it work canonically?"

In any fashion you wish: sacramentally, canonically, what have you.  Did you read the whole article on bishops in the link?
Sorry, but which link? Thanks
Reply
(10-10-2012, 02:12 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 11:19 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: OK, why not.  One more time.  From the original post:

Quote: Is it possible for reconciliation with Bishop Richard Williamson within the society?
Williamson is a separate problem to this reconciliation process. It is simply unacceptable that a Christian or even  more a bishop — of course he is not a Catholic bishop , as a bishop is only Catholic when he is in full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter, which Williamson is not — denies all that the Nazis had done against the Jewish people, their exterminations. How is it possible to be so cold-hearted about this? It is absolutely unacceptable, but this is a separate problem.
They [SSPX] need to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church: the confession of faith, the Creed, and also accept the magisterium of the Pope as it is authentically interpreted. That is necessary. They also need to accept some forms of development in the liturgy. The Holy Father recognized the perennial validity of the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but they also must accept that the new ordinary form of the liturgy, developed after the Council, is valid and legitimate.


Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/arc...z28Oa9OHTQ

I changed which parts were in bold in the original post.  The bolded part indicates that Muller is not denying that +Williamson is a bishop, but that he is Catholic.  The next two clauses: (1)"when he is in full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter, (2) which Williamson is not" again indicate specifically when a bishop is Catholic.  He is clearly denying that +Williamson is Catholic.  Agree with him or disagree, but for goodness' sake, don't turn it upside down and backward.

It is worth noting that he seems to have no doubt that the LCWR are Catholic, while he seems equally clearly to think the SSPX is not.  That's probably because there are so many Germans in the SSPX and he just can't understand them, whereas the LCWR are perfectly comprehensible, n'est-ce pas?

Or isn't it rather the reverse that is true:  if one could read and understand what the LCWR have written, they would clearly be far less Catholic than the SSPX?

Really, this man has no business being the head of the CDF.  His Grace should withdraw to a monastery and live the rest of his life as a simple layman.

ETA:  The color in Catholic.

By "only Catholic" in that paragraph, I think ought to be read "licitly functioning."  The curia has ruled that the SSPX is not currently schismatic, so I think ++Mueller overstates the case here.  But he is not denying Williamson's being Catholic, but his status as a licitly operating as a bishop (though he is validly ordained).

What you have said is NOT what +Mueller said.

You are making clarifications and assumptions with his words.

He's the freaking Prefect for the CDF and he can't be as precise as some random Internet poster?

SEE THE ISSUE HERE?!

(I reject your interpretation, by the way.  If he meant that, he would have said that).
Reply
If the Holy Father can spread a series of untruths about Bishop Williamson without being called out on it except by a nobody like me,  then Muller can claim Williamson is a Cylon from Battlestar Galactica and nobody will do anything about it but rather lap it up like gospel. 

The Holy Father sets the tempo. 

Of course, God Himself will call for an accounting in the not too distant future unless the Holy Father makes an effort at reparations or if he has confessed it and confessed being too weak to make amends. 

The same will hold for Muller. 
Reply
(10-11-2012, 12:33 AM)Gerard Wrote: If the Holy Father can spread a series of untruths about Bishop Williamson without being called out on it except by a nobody like me,  then Muller can claim Williamson is a Cylon from Battlestar Galactica and nobody will do anything about it but rather lap it up like gospel. 

The Holy Father sets the tempo. 

Of course, God Himself will call for an accounting in the not too distant future unless the Holy Father makes an effort at reparations or if he has confessed it and confessed being too weak to make amends. 

The same will hold for Muller. 
Jawohl
Reply
(10-11-2012, 12:33 AM)Gerard Wrote: If the Holy Father can spread a series of untruths about Bishop Williamson without being called out on it except by a nobody like me,  then Muller can claim Williamson is a Cylon from Battlestar Galactica and nobody will do anything about it but rather lap it up like gospel. 

The Holy Father sets the tempo. 

Of course, God Himself will call for an accounting in the not too distant future unless the Holy Father makes an effort at reparations or if he has confessed it and confessed being too weak to make amends. 

The same will hold for Muller. 

It's a good thing you are here to tell the truth about the Whore of Babylon.
Reply
(10-10-2012, 11:25 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 02:12 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 11:19 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: OK, why not.  One more time.  From the original post:

Quote: Is it possible for reconciliation with Bishop Richard Williamson within the society?
Williamson is a separate problem to this reconciliation process. It is simply unacceptable that a Christian or even  more a bishop — of course he is not a Catholic bishop , as a bishop is only Catholic when he is in full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter, which Williamson is not — denies all that the Nazis had done against the Jewish people, their exterminations. How is it possible to be so cold-hearted about this? It is absolutely unacceptable, but this is a separate problem.
They [SSPX] need to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church: the confession of faith, the Creed, and also accept the magisterium of the Pope as it is authentically interpreted. That is necessary. They also need to accept some forms of development in the liturgy. The Holy Father recognized the perennial validity of the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but they also must accept that the new ordinary form of the liturgy, developed after the Council, is valid and legitimate.


Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/arc...z28Oa9OHTQ

I changed which parts were in bold in the original post.  The bolded part indicates that Muller is not denying that +Williamson is a bishop, but that he is Catholic.  The next two clauses: (1)"when he is in full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter, (2) which Williamson is not" again indicate specifically when a bishop is Catholic.  He is clearly denying that +Williamson is Catholic.  Agree with him or disagree, but for goodness' sake, don't turn it upside down and backward.

It is worth noting that he seems to have no doubt that the LCWR are Catholic, while he seems equally clearly to think the SSPX is not.  That's probably because there are so many Germans in the SSPX and he just can't understand them, whereas the LCWR are perfectly comprehensible, n'est-ce pas?

Or isn't it rather the reverse that is true:  if one could read and understand what the LCWR have written, they would clearly be far less Catholic than the SSPX?

Really, this man has no business being the head of the CDF.  His Grace should withdraw to a monastery and live the rest of his life as a simple layman.

ETA:  The color in Catholic.

By "only Catholic" in that paragraph, I think ought to be read "licitly functioning."  The curia has ruled that the SSPX is not currently schismatic, so I think ++Mueller overstates the case here.  But he is not denying Williamson's being Catholic, but his status as a licitly operating as a bishop (though he is validly ordained).

What you have said is NOT what +Mueller said.

You are making clarifications and assumptions with his words.

He's the freaking Prefect for the CDF and he can't be as precise as some random Internet poster?

SEE THE ISSUE HERE?!

(I reject your interpretation, by the way.  If he meant that, he would have said that).

I'm glad you told me you reject my interpretation; I was a bit in the dark about your position.  You might need to clarify it.  :grin:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)