Williamson to consecrate a bishop??
#31
(01-14-2013, 12:07 AM)Azurestone Wrote: What is required for a new Catholic bishop?

What is your opinion of three or more Catholic bishops consecrating a bishop without the Pope, as was done prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law?

My understanding is that the Pope was already appointing the majority of bishops by some time in the 19th century. The 1917 Code went a step further by asserting his right to directly appoint all bishops. Anyway, I think in theory a return to some sort of local election of bishops followed by confirmation and consecration by the bishops of surrounding dioceses would be preferable to the direct appointment by the Pope of every bishop in the Latin rite. In practice, I am not sure that now is the best time to implement such a system. I definitely think it would be a bad idea to hand the appointment of bishops over to the episcopal conferences or some other scheme like that. But it is certainly odd that Vatican II's teaching on collegiality doesn't seem to have done much to get rid of the idea of bishops as middle managers within a global bureaucracy.
Reply
#32
(01-14-2013, 12:02 AM)DoktorDespot Wrote: We already talk about Thuc line bishops, perhaps some day we will speak of Williamson line ones as well.
Did Rome publicly pronounce the Thuc line bishops' latæ sententiæ excommunications?

UPDATE: I found Card. ŠEPER's 1976 declaration of the excommunications and Card. Ratzinger's 1983 Notification.

I'd only read JPII's Ecclesia Dei Afflictans regarding Abp. Lefebvre's consecrations before.
Reply
#33
:cuckoo:
Reply
#34
(01-13-2013, 11:45 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(01-13-2013, 11:36 PM)francisco Wrote:
(01-13-2013, 10:58 PM)Whitey Wrote: I don't think +Williamson answers to the SSPX these days.

+Pheiffer

Has a nice ring to it doesn't it ?  :)

I thought it was (Bishop)  Pfeiffer .....

The H is silent.

Thanks very much for the info, Dr Bombay. Did you know he was based in (Bombay) Mumbai, India for a while? Some of the faithful liked him, while others did not. But he was popular with the rickshaw and taxi drivers, shop keepers, paan wallahs, beggars....
Reply
#35
(01-14-2013, 12:31 AM)DrBombay Wrote: I'm not sure what it is, but it's definitely je ne sais quoi. 

Which is, of course, the definition of je ne sais quoi.

Well played, good doctor. Well played.
Reply
#36
(01-14-2013, 08:11 AM)francisco Wrote:
(01-13-2013, 11:45 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(01-13-2013, 11:36 PM)francisco Wrote:
(01-13-2013, 10:58 PM)Whitey Wrote: I don't think +Williamson answers to the SSPX these days.

+Pheiffer

Has a nice ring to it doesn't it ?  :)

I thought it was (Bishop)  Pfeiffer .....

The H is silent.

Thanks very much for the info, Dr Bombay. Did you know he was based in (Bombay) Mumbai, India for a while? Some of the faithful liked him, while others did not. But he was popular with the rickshaw and taxi drivers, shop keepers, paan wallahs, beggars....

A good man, he is. :)
Reply
#37
Why are people worried about Bishop williamson consecrating a Bishop, the Chinese Communists have been doing that for decades. Could it be because its a TRADITIONAL bishop?
Reply
#38
(01-14-2013, 08:20 PM)salus Wrote: Why are people worried about Bishop williamson consecrating a Bishop, the Chinese Communists have been doing that for decades. Could it be because its a TRADITIONAL bishop?

The Chinese Communists have valid succession? I was not aware of his excellency Mao.
Reply
#39
(01-14-2013, 08:20 PM)salus Wrote: Why are people worried about Bishop williamson consecrating a Bishop, the Chinese Communists have been doing that for decades. Could it be because its a TRADITIONAL bishop?

I think you're on to something...
Reply
#40
The state run commie Church in China says the TLM.  The underground Rome-approved Church says the NO.

Ponder that one if you will, then ponder it some more.  Diabolical disorientation indeed.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)