Good Bishop, Bad Bishop?

Michael,
You want bishops to have the backbone to fight the modernist heresy in their own diocese…..OK how do most of them fight a heresy which they cling too with all of their being? There was an Archbishop once who publicly fought modernism as you seem to wish for today and he was excoriated by the pope…..Being “excommunicated” and labeled a “schismatic”. Once again, need I name him? There is one bishop in the world that it is imperative that he fight modernism will all of his being and yet he does not, in fact he gives the impression of promoting it. I believe you will find him in Vatican City. Give him a call and make your suggestion as you have in this Vortex. I wish you luck, my friend.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2014/05/20/good-bishop-bad-bishop/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

4 comments on “Good Bishop, Bad Bishop?

  1. Only bishops have the authority and responsibility to correct bishops. To judge bishops as good or bad requires even greater authority. This authority is inextricably tied to the supernatural powers with which only bishops are endowed as successors of the Apostles, and which priests or deacons may receive by delegation (faculties). Only those with Holy Orders can exercise the supernatural power to teach (magisterium) and the supernatural power to rule (jurisdiction).

    As all men are who are born with original sin, those who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders can resist the grace of that sacrament, just as those who have been baptized and/or confirmed can resist the graces of those Sacraments. Thus bishops are fallible, even when they teach or rule. They may even abuse their supernatural authority.

    It was in an era of widespread and scandalous abuse of episcopal authority that certain men took it upon themselves to criticize bishops publicly, and to encourage others to do so. What began as protestation eventually became usurpation of apostolic authority, adopted by some in particular to foment heresy, and by many in general to prefer their own opinions (such as in the interpretation of Holy Scripture) to legitimate magisterium and discipline.

    Although the heresies and opinions could be quite different and often opposed to each other, the fundamental tenet was identical: protest.

    Unfortunately, the same pattern of protest and usurpation of authority has spread to other areas of society and saturated it. Thus plebiscite of the masses has supplanted nobility’s authority to rule nations (now reduced to mere states), sentiment and popular opinion have supplanted the authority of reason, activism and political-correctness have supplanted natural law, and positivistic “rights” to sin have supplanted morality.

    So pervasive has this disease become, that even sincere and pious traditional Catholics risk infection. How many websites and blogs, videos and publications by traditional Catholics, declare, teach and define, not only as if with apostolic authority, but even as if with infallible authority, and pronounce anathema after anathema? One wonders whether they are aware of just how much they resemble protestant websites and blogs, videos and publications that do exactly the same.

    Adopting the methods of the deformers of the last five centuries has only sustained their corrupting influence because it is those very methods that are at the root of their heresies. Dissidence and debate, arguments and opinions, criticism and anathemas, all of these are synonyms of the “protest” common to all protestants. One cannot play by the devil’s rules and expect to win.

  2. Father, as you certainly know, most recorded heresies were the product of bishops or priests, such as Arius or Luther. A grave of a pope who spread error was dug up, the corpse put on trial and then dismembered – by another pope.

    While I take, and concur with, your point of caution to not adopt the enemy’s tactics, I would think that what we see here on AQ is authentic and reasonable inquiry (not without jests and moments of pique) into matters affecting the Faith as it has always been defined and proclaimed right up until the odious, heretical and blasphemous Revolution of 1962 – 65.

    Your concern about anathematizations, censures, etc., as these certainly do take place on OTHER web sites, is entirely justified. I’ve seen them and consider the actors there, in many cases, in need of serious therapeutic intervention.

    However, I do sincerely think AQ is a much more balanced and temperate site and that it goes about resisting the evils of the conciliar Revolution, at least almost all of the time, in a manner superior to perhaps the majority of so-called Trad sites.

    And, for the record, protest is a moral and spiritual necessity, incumbent upon every Catholic, when the Faith itself is threatened. To fail in that is to give aid and comfort to the apostates and wicked men running around in collars spreading ecumenism, sodophilism, heresy and indifferentism.

    • gpmtrad, thank you for your thoughtful reply, which itself testifies to the balance and temperance you see here at AQ.

      It is the nature of and the forum for the “moral and spiritual necessity” of protest that my post should have more clearly addressed. When it is public and/or external, it is proper to the bishops, such as when Saint Paul confronts Saint Peter, Saint Athanasius the Arians, the Council of Trent the protestant deformers, etc. The lay Faithful resist instead within their conscience, properly formed by adhering to what orthodox bishops teach, virtuous by obeying the just laws of the Church, which is no less heroic. Consider Saint Teresa of Avila or Saint John Bosco.

      It is incumbent upon every Christian to believe and hope in the efficacy of the supernatural. If we believe Christ is present in the tabernacles of our churches, as truly present as He was in Saint Peter’s barque upon the stormy sea, then that is where we should go to wake Him if we are afraid.

      It is the absence of faith that instigates activism. But include peace, patience, benignity, longanimity and mildness are the fruits of the Holy Ghost.

  3. Btw, the ignoble Boston Globe did more to bring the TRUTH to light about Rome’s and the USCCCP’s hideous sodophilic duck and cover maneuvering, back in 2002, than the Vatican or the crowd of liberal, testosterone-challenged mitred wonders in their $450 million Washington, DC puzzle palace ever did or, it may reasonably be presumed, ever intended.

    Sorry, but very, very few PROMINENT men of the cloth represent the Catholic Faith any longer. Very, very few.

Leave a Reply