1 members (EastCatholic),
500
guests, and
101
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,525
Members6,161
|
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 133
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 133 |
Originally posted by Mor Ephrem: Where can H.G. Mar Ibrahim's remarks be found? Sorry, I can't find the original quote anywhere. All I remember is that if I had been at that meeting I would have kissed H.G. Mar Ibrahim's hand then and there when he made that comment. It's too bad the other bishops just ignored him.
There ain't a horse that can't be rode, and there ain't a rider that can't be throwed.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
There is canon law which outlines the due process quite exlicitly for wrongdoing. As the old saying goes, we don't need new laws, we need to enforce the existing laws. That goes for canon law as well.
I applaud the Pope for sticking to canon law and not giving into the media pressure which is essentially driving the American bishops' actions.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505 |
jporthodox,
Oppresive? I suggest before you go off half cocked you study the reason it was rejected by Rome. And rightly so it was rejected. Thank God that Rome has a sound mind. Actually I see an action like this as positive proof of why we need the Papacy.
Oppresive? I ask again. Not in the least. It happens to be Rome as guardian and upholder of rights. I suggest you read a little more on the subject before opening your mouth! Stephanos I
And PS Maybe the American Bishops need a slap in the face to wake them up and bring them to sobriety. I applaud the Pope and the Roman Hierarchy. God grant John Paul, Pope of Rome, many years.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 128
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 128 |
I am also glad the Vatican rejected this proposal. And good job Bishop Bruskewitz for calling it what it is...SIN.
There have been 3 major issues brought up in these posts:
One, is the Church does have a responsiblilty to remove a priest for the sake of the safety and well-being of parishoners and past/future victims.
The Church has a duty to cooperate with local investigating officials.
And three, which may be the most difficult, is to combine justice with mercy. The church is also responsible to seek to forgive and restore the individuals who have fallen.
We are not required, however, to come up with documents that the secular world and the media will approve; we must honor God before men (Romans 4:19).
If everyone on this forum would be interested, perhaps we can all agree on a day of fasting and prayer for the intention(s) of the purification of the church; healing, restoration, and forgiveness for all clergy and laity involved; emotional healing for all innocent victims; and a document/proposal that will be pleasing to God.
In His Service, Vladimir
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 147
a sinner
|
a sinner
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 147 |
Dear All,
I would like to go off on a slight tangent, and pick up on something Alex said: "...why communion with Rome is a 'good thing....' Rome has intervened in the life of the U.S. Church to correct something that certainly needs to be corrected."
I don't believe this has been directly addressed on this forum before, as regards this issue:
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is composed of bishops of the Latin Catholic Church, and eparchs of various Eastern Catholic churches. They developed a policy to address a situation affecting Catholics (presumably, both Latin and Eastern) in the United States. That policy was then sent to Rome for scrutiny.
I can understand how the U.S. Latin bishops would transmit the policy directly to Rome, but wouldn't the Eastern eparchs at least first have to "run the policy by" their respective patriarchs, major archbishops, and metropolitans? (In the case of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, this would not be a problem, because Metropolitan Basil is already here!)
Or, is this a positive example of a exercise of the Holy Father's role as Universal Pastor (through the offices of the Vatican)?
Also, we've been talking about Canon Law, but which Canon Law: that which applies to the Latin Church, the Eastern Churches, or the Universal Church?
Is this a case of Rome overstepping its bounds, or is it, rather, proper for Rome to become directly involved in an issue involving one particular nation and its bishop's conference?
I'm afraid I may be "opening up a can of worms" here. (I'd be particularly interested in hearing Alex's take on this, him being a Canadian and all!)
Martin
Martin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698 |
Originally posted by Psalm 51: I can understand how the U.S. Latin bishops would transmit the policy directly to Rome, but wouldn't the Eastern eparchs at least first have to "run the policy by" their respective patriarchs, major archbishops, and metropolitans? (In the case of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, this would not be a problem, because Metropolitan Basil is already here!)
Or, is this a positive example of a exercise of the Holy Father's role as Universal Pastor (through the offices of the Vatican)? I'd never thought of this. Martin asks a very interesting question, and I hope someone out there can answer it. 
|
|
|
|
|