|
Post by semperfidelis on Apr 2, 2018 10:25:45 GMT -5
Just curious, as I know there are multiple members belonging to the Eastern Rite, are there any bishops by name you could list who have the Catholic Faith despite perhaps some dealings or adaptations to the modernist Novus Ordo Church?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 2, 2018 12:38:31 GMT -5
Just curious, as I know there are multiple members belonging to the Eastern Rite, are there any bishops by name you could list who have the Catholic Faith despite perhaps some dealings or adaptations to the modernist Novus Ordo Church? I do not know any of the eastern rite bishops personally. I can say that I have been watching what has been going on in he eastern rites for years, at least to the best of my ability. I can’t speak, read or write in any of the languages of the east, so I gather what I can from translations, videos, photos, and testimonials. My view has been that the eastern rites are essentially stuck in equivalent of the time period of the Roman rite after Vatican II but before the Novus Ordo Missae (appx. 1966-1968). During this time period, there were still many faithful bishops and priests, but none were actually doing anything to actively resist Vatican II, the liturgical tampering, Paul VI’s new law of intercommuon, etc. When Paul VI by law permitted inetrcommunion in 1967, not a single bishop in the world protested. But, it is clear that not all actually gave communion to non-Catholics, or believed the underlying heresy which leads to the practice of intercommunion, which is that non-Catholic sects are already in the Church, although not in a perfect sense. I believe we have a similar situation today in the Easteen rites, with some of these men clearly believing heresy and happily giving communion to sectarians, while we can safely say that we, at a minimum, cannot make any judgment regarding many of the other bishops and priests as they are not on record saying they believe in any of the heresies of Vatican II including the “Super-Church” heresy. Without evidence, one cannot form a judgment, at least not a just judgment. If any eastern rite Bishop has engaged in communicatio in sacris with sectarians, in the form of prayer or intercommion, that is certainly grounds to suspect him of heresy. The 1917 Code is clear on this. It is clear that some, maybe even many, have either engaged in this practice or explicitly or tacitly permitted it to be done by their priests. With that said, we can also safely say that no real case has ever been written on against these men, naming them as individuals and demonstrating a case of heresy against them one by one. With that as a background, to answer your question, I am unable to give you a list of bishops to whom I am certain still have the Fath, but on the other hand, I have no evidence with which to form moral certainty against any of these men to judge them as heretics, and therefore losing their offices. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, and at the most, just suspicion of heresy about some, my judgment, at least provisionally, is that the starting point of what to conclude about this matter is that all, or at least most, of these eastern rite bishops retain their offices, and have not automatically resigned, due to heresy.
|
|
|
Post by semperfidelis on Apr 2, 2018 13:35:05 GMT -5
Thanks Pacelli,
I don't doubt some if not many of the Eastern Rite bishops are still Catholic ordinaries and I absolutely agree one CANNOT label anyone a heretic without public facts to this effect. This is also true to those in the Western Rite who are labeled as Novus Ordo bishops.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 2, 2018 14:13:03 GMT -5
Thanks Pacelli, I don't doubt some if not many of the Eastern Rite bishops are still Catholic ordinaries and I absolutely agree one CANNOT label anyone a heretic without public facts to this effect. This is also true to those in the Western Rite who are labeled as Novus Ordo bishops. Yes, I agree, with what you say about the “Roman rite bishops.” We cannot just assume they are heretics. The reason I focus on the east as opposed to the Roman rite bishops is that I am not convinced that supplied jurisdiction applies to Roman rite episcopal appointments, as the common good is not served. The eastern rite bishops have unquestionably valid rites for the seven sacraments, so they are feeding their sheep with the sacraments and the truths of the Faith as found in their liturgy. The Roman rite (Novus Ordo) Bishops are not feeding their sheep with certainly valid sacramental rites and the Paul VI liturgy fails to even teach the Faith through its prayers. If an act harms the common good, it cannot be supplied by the Church. These “Novus Ordo” bishops are being appointed to “teach, govern and sanctify” in a system which fails on all three counts, even if some of them are not individually heretics. Therefore, I strongly doubt that their (Roman rite) appointments are supplied by the Church. Due to this, I believe the only certainty legitimate bishops of the Roman rite left are the few old bishops who have kept the Faith and were appointed to sees prior to the Pauline rites taking effect. Here is a list that I posted a while back LINK. Most likely the list is much smaller today, as these men are all very old. Even among these Roman rite bishops who have not lost their offices due to heresy, the fact is that all of them think they are retired, so practically speaking they are not actually governing. The eastern rites are currently the only place in the Church where the visibly functioning hierarchy of shepherds governing sheep can be found in the world today. If someone said, “point me to the Church that is identical to the Church as it has existed since the beginnng, i.e. jurisdictional bishops (the successors of the apostles) along with priests assigned by them teaching, governing, and sanctifying their flocks,” the only place this can be found today is in the eastern rites.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Apr 2, 2018 15:51:31 GMT -5
Ha! I'm not an Eastern rite Catholic. I only attend now and then because it is basically either that or no sacraments for the rest of my life.
I've never really run into any of the bishops at any of the rites I've attended.
However, I do know some who are sketchy as I've seen some of their actions. However, I believe some of that can be mitigated by ignorance or confusion of the pope issue. If they are genuinely doing something because they think Rome wills it as such, in order to be loyal sons of the Church, I try to keep that in mind and withold judgement. The real blame is on the imposters who bear the burden of this guilt.
|
|