www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Argentinian government expells Bishop Williamson

The question is: If this was not an ultra-conservative bishop, but an ultra-liberal one, would people here in this forum still concede him the benefit of the doubt, as it is obvioulsly happening with bishop Williamson?

Shalom,
Memo

Probably not, but perhaps that's because Bishop Williamson does not espouse heretical views, unlike many ultra-liberal ones.

Aside from that, I would like to think that I would defend someone whose personal opinions get him kicked out of countries because of their politically incorrect nature, whether or not he was liberal, conservative, Catholic, atheist, pagan, Muslim, - whatever.

Alexis

And his memorial at St. Paul's in London is the only remaining piece of the old Cathedral which burned in the Great Fire.

ALEXIS:



I love your idealism. Keep it as long as you can. I've been around long enough to see priests disciplined--suspended and removed--for trying to argue that their bishop's interpretations do not have effect because they are contrary to the laws of the Church at large.

The bishop is given the authority to interpret the general laws of the Church and to apply them concretely in his own territory. And, as I learned some years ago in a canon law seminar prior to the new Code's being implemented, there is essentially no one who can question his interpretations or implementations. If challenged, the Roman authorities will defer to the bishop of the place when he explains his reasons at the appropriate dicastery in Rome during his ad limina. Other than that, the principle of subsidiarity applies--decisions are to be taken at the lowest level. In other words, Rome can't enforce every little thing in every little place in the world. The world is too big for that and there are more pressing issues internationally for the Vatican to be concerned about than solving every lay complaint in the world.



ROFLOL

Alexis, come on, you're too intelligent to stand behind this statement. A priest is his bishop's agent, assistant, servant. He vows obedience at ordination. This vow does not include "dialogue" if he happens to think the bishop is wrong. It's absolute. I know how this works because the previous two pastors of my parish were told months prior to their official transfer that it would be announced and they were both sworn to secrecy--to reveal it to no one--before the official announcement. I was close to both and both came to me afterward and apolgized for not telling me in advance. But I understand how the system works. I was being groomed for it in high school.

The clergy is like the army. You obey your superior's orders, even if it costs you your life. Period. You risk the harshest punishments for not doing so--loss of status, loss of income, loss of everything. I guess I've been around too long, seen too much, and been the confidant of too many priests. But keep up your idealism and don't become cynical over the disparity between Roman mandates and actual practice.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,

An idealist? You flatter me. Sometimes I worry I'm too much the cynic.


Yes, the bishop has authority to interpret, within limit. He is not free to attempt to infringe upon universal rights of each priest of the Latin Rite. He is not free to impose guidelines that are outside of his authority.

I fully understand the reality of how this plays out. Like I said, scare tactics work. I get that.


I still stand by my previous statement that bishops are not free to impose whatever the wish on priests. You say that priests are the servants of their bishops; but they are servants of Christ first. No one is obliged to comply with demands made which are contrary to the laws of the Church. If a bishop told a priest to fall down and worship a statue of the Buddha, would he be obliged to do so? Of course not. I am not saying that forbidding priests their right to say the Traditional Mass is the same as demanding they worship the Buddha, but permit me the illustration in order to advance the idea that they are in the same vein, in that they are both contrary to the laws of the Church, and so are outside of the bishop's authority to demand or force his priests to do.

I think we mostly agree. Theoretically, a bishop's authority is limited to certain things. In reality, this is often not the case.

Alexis

Ultra-conservatives can be heretics.

Besides, there are no dogmatic pronounciations about abortion, so this theoretical Ultra-liberal I was speculating about would NOT be a heretic.

Shalom,
Memo

I agree that ultra-conservatives can be heretics.

As far as abortion, a whole other thread devoted to what the Faith means would have to be started. Suffice it to say that a Catholic cannot believe that abortion is permissible and be considered Catholic, just like a Catholic in the second century could believe that Christ wasn't Divine and still be said to be orthodox. That abortion is a moral evil is simply something that has always been believed by the Church in her infallible Tradition.

Alexis

Interestingly, the Pope recently reaffirmed [212.77.1.245] that abortion is a matter of natural moral law, not faith. In other words, all human beings should, simply by using their reason, be able to see that abortion is evil.

If this was 1909 instead of 2009, you'd have quite alot of trouble telling a SSPX'er (I know, they didn't exist) from any other Catholic.

ALEXIS:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. We had this question answered at our canon law seminar in 1983 so I won't discuss it again. In practice, the bishop operates in his diocese or eparchy as a medieval lord. No better explanation. Since that time, I've seen plenty of priests disciplined, suspended, and even "disappear"--which is a good way to say they were taken in by some other bishop across the country and forbidden to contact anyone in their former place. And while a priest is a servant of Christ, he is still the agent of his bishop, like it or not.

Today we've had plenty of bishops ride roughshod over their clergy and sas the stories have gotten out--slowly--they have had an inmpact on an increasingly educated laity.

I suggest you read the book "Goodbye, Good Men." I know of a few of the stories contained therein being true.

As for the case you mention, the permission for the TLM is not in the form of a mandate. And it is understood that a priest must be trained to do it correctly. As one of my friends who just received biritual faculties told me, the permission contained in faculties doesn't mean you jump right in and begin using the faculties. He has yet to pass the test of being competent in the Liturgy for which he has been granted those faculties. Back to the TLM--which isn't traditional at all; it's the last in a string of modifications in the 20th century begun under Pope St. Pius X--there has to be a stable group of people who request this Liturgy. As of this date, there is one place in our diocese where this Liturgy is celebrated. There is a full church, but there is no great surge to it. And few of our priests want to be involved in studying it in order to celebrate it.

We're getting off topic here. These tangential issues of epsicopal authority don't directly bear on the thread title.

BOB

Bob,

I have to wonder at why you go out of your way to suggest that the Traditional Latin Mass is not traditional. Yes, it is! It has been substantially the same for centuries upon centuries. Yes, a few things have changed here and there (as with the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom), but it has been an organic development. I will not speak about the Novus Ordo, leaving the distinctions to be inferred by the reader...

I wish bishops were checking to see that their priests were celebrating the Novus Ordo correctly as much as some of them are doing for the Traditional Latin Mass. I can't tell you the last time I attended a by-the-rubrics Novus Ordo (maybe Christmas Midnight Mass at my parish back in my hometown). Alas, in a city of over 100,000, a Novus Ordo Mass that is faithful to the guidelines of the Church cannot be found. The Novus Ordo's so darn simple a four year-old could celebrate it; I'm not sure why grown men find it so hard (well, actually, I am rather sure why).

Alexis

He has yet to pass the test of being competent in the Liturgy for which he has been granted those faculties.

Wonder how many are tested for the Ordinary Rite...not many I guess

Back to the OP

Besides obedience, what other conservative principle is questioned there?

ALEXIS:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

I'll tell you why. It's very simple. The liturgists who trained clergy in the seminaries during the 1970s, 80, and 90s trained them to "develop their own personal style." In other words, here's the outline, now "wing it." So you have the "Father Bob Show" and the "Fahter Alexis Show" and the "Jim Dandy Show" so everyone stays entertained, complete with bad jokes, bad Liturgy, improv theology, improv prayers, tacky vestments, poor music, and a sick feeling in the pit of your gut when you leave--unless "touchy, feely" is your thing and you leave with your warm fuzzy.

But let's stay on topic. I could go off on a tangent, but I won't. This is an Eastern Board where the problems of the Latin Church should not take up all this bandwidth.

BOB

I just wanted this to be posted again because it is a great point.