A Closer Look at the Term "Bishop in the Woods"
Nov 21, 2022 15:45:24 GMT -5
Clotilde and wenceslav like this
Post by Pacelli on Nov 21, 2022 15:45:24 GMT -5
There are some who have used this term, “bishop in the woods,” to describe what they refer to as a "theory" that holds that the remaining Catholic bishops are in the woods and can’t be seen or found. The term has been used by those who have theorized on what they think is a much more complex answer to our present dilemma by going beyond what is written by the pre-V2 theologians. What has been termed "bishop in the woods" relies strictly on Catholic theology with no theorizing beyond that.
I challenge this analogy to a woods and contend that these bishops are in fact very visible, so they are hardly in the woods. The concept of a woods would give someone the impression that the bishop(s) who remain are lost in this woods and cannot be identified. The fact is that each and every one of these bishops is known, it’s just that we have not identified them from the known pool of possibilities.
If I have 2,000 dollars placed on a very large table where each and every dollar is showing in its entirety, but most of the money is counterfeit, and I give clear indicators of how to separate the fake from the real, can one say that the true dollars are lost? Is it not more accurate to say, “to separate the real from the fake will take a lot of work, but it’s all right in front of us, it’s very visible to us, and it’s certainly doable? The real money isn’t lost, it is right in front of me, it just has to be separated."
This is why I always talk about the use of new and unapproved terminology, and we may add analogies that incorrectly or inadequately represent an idea . It’s dangerous, and even when it is used, any using them should be very careful with it.
The Catholic hierarchy since Vatican II has never been lost in the woods. The office holders who are still in possession of those offices have always been in plain sight, and could be found at any time by anyone who was looking. So, what is this woods?
The “woods” are not thick woods, it is a straight line of trees, one after another, each and every one of them visible from the hill nearby. There are a couple thousand trees, one next to the other surrounding the hill, with not a single tree hidden from view. There are two types of trees, maple and oak. The maple are the ones we want, the oak are not part of our “woods.” From a distance, as we do not have binoculars, we can’t be sure which are maple are oak, but when we walk down from the hill and look closely, they are easily separated one from the other.
The Annuario Pontificio published every year by Rome names every bishop in the world, and likewise Catholichierarchy.org does the same. In these resources one can easily find every “tree” in the "woods." The "woods" are much smaller than those using the analogy. A straight line of trees with no thickness to it is hardly a woods. The bishops are all named one by one, just like our line of trees, and they are all visible.
But, there are two kinds of trees in this woods, so we must look closer if we want to separate these. In the same manner, if anyone wants to, he can learn about each bishop, look at his writings, inquire about his reputation, or even approach him personally to discuss the Faith and ascertain his orthodoxy.
No one to date has ever done this. I’m not blaming anyone, it would take time, money, linguistic ability, etc. But, I will say this, I understand why someone cannot do this, but what I do not understand, as it is forbidden to do this, is to rashly judge that all bishops with claims to offices are part of a sect or heretics or schismatics.
One last point, in a previous thread I have listed eight possible characteristics of the remaining successors of the Apostles to demonstrate that these bishops do not have to be great heroes of the Faith to be in their offices, they can even be useless hirelings, but so long as they do not become public heretics or join a condemned sect, they do not lose their offices by operation of the law, and will remain the lawful ordinary of their territory unless and until they are judged by a future pope.
So, in our woods, the maple being the remaining bishops, and the oak, those who have defected, it appears that the woods are mostly oaks, and the maple trees are sick trees, certainly not producing much good syrup, but they are certainly identifiable as maple to anyone looking at them closely.
For reference, from the other thread, here are some possibilities of what our bishops may look like:
So, our "woods" doesn’t look pretty like the woods of 1930, or 1900, or better days in the Church, and there weren’t any oaks there back then, but our woods still has the maples, and always has had them and if anyone wants to take the time and trouble he can find them as they are all, today and at every day through this crisis since it began, in plain sight.
Don’t be sad and discouraged, though, when you find the maples after your hard work tracking them down, they aren’t doing much, as they are sick trees, not making very much or any syrup, but they are doing one thing, being present in the woods as maples, and so long as they are there, the woods will not be overrun by the oaks, and as we know that will never happen.
I challenge this analogy to a woods and contend that these bishops are in fact very visible, so they are hardly in the woods. The concept of a woods would give someone the impression that the bishop(s) who remain are lost in this woods and cannot be identified. The fact is that each and every one of these bishops is known, it’s just that we have not identified them from the known pool of possibilities.
If I have 2,000 dollars placed on a very large table where each and every dollar is showing in its entirety, but most of the money is counterfeit, and I give clear indicators of how to separate the fake from the real, can one say that the true dollars are lost? Is it not more accurate to say, “to separate the real from the fake will take a lot of work, but it’s all right in front of us, it’s very visible to us, and it’s certainly doable? The real money isn’t lost, it is right in front of me, it just has to be separated."
This is why I always talk about the use of new and unapproved terminology, and we may add analogies that incorrectly or inadequately represent an idea . It’s dangerous, and even when it is used, any using them should be very careful with it.
The Catholic hierarchy since Vatican II has never been lost in the woods. The office holders who are still in possession of those offices have always been in plain sight, and could be found at any time by anyone who was looking. So, what is this woods?
The “woods” are not thick woods, it is a straight line of trees, one after another, each and every one of them visible from the hill nearby. There are a couple thousand trees, one next to the other surrounding the hill, with not a single tree hidden from view. There are two types of trees, maple and oak. The maple are the ones we want, the oak are not part of our “woods.” From a distance, as we do not have binoculars, we can’t be sure which are maple are oak, but when we walk down from the hill and look closely, they are easily separated one from the other.
The Annuario Pontificio published every year by Rome names every bishop in the world, and likewise Catholichierarchy.org does the same. In these resources one can easily find every “tree” in the "woods." The "woods" are much smaller than those using the analogy. A straight line of trees with no thickness to it is hardly a woods. The bishops are all named one by one, just like our line of trees, and they are all visible.
But, there are two kinds of trees in this woods, so we must look closer if we want to separate these. In the same manner, if anyone wants to, he can learn about each bishop, look at his writings, inquire about his reputation, or even approach him personally to discuss the Faith and ascertain his orthodoxy.
No one to date has ever done this. I’m not blaming anyone, it would take time, money, linguistic ability, etc. But, I will say this, I understand why someone cannot do this, but what I do not understand, as it is forbidden to do this, is to rashly judge that all bishops with claims to offices are part of a sect or heretics or schismatics.
One last point, in a previous thread I have listed eight possible characteristics of the remaining successors of the Apostles to demonstrate that these bishops do not have to be great heroes of the Faith to be in their offices, they can even be useless hirelings, but so long as they do not become public heretics or join a condemned sect, they do not lose their offices by operation of the law, and will remain the lawful ordinary of their territory unless and until they are judged by a future pope.
So, in our woods, the maple being the remaining bishops, and the oak, those who have defected, it appears that the woods are mostly oaks, and the maple trees are sick trees, certainly not producing much good syrup, but they are certainly identifiable as maple to anyone looking at them closely.
For reference, from the other thread, here are some possibilities of what our bishops may look like:
1. Cowards that will not profess the Faith or stand up against heresy or error.
2. Hirelings that use their office for an easy life that don't care about the Faith.
3. Those who have said or have done things that make them suspect of heresy, but have not said or have done things that are certainly heretical.
4. Those who ignore the crisis, along with the heresies snd errors being promoted all over the world,
5. Those who are as dumb as a rock, that don't get it, and happily just keep doing what they are doing because they are either too ignorant on their Faith or too low in intelligence to identify what's going on.
6. Those who do understand what's going on, and conclude they can't do anything about it and just try to do what they can in their own diocese to teach the Faith to their own flocks.
7. This mostly applies only to the Roman Rite bishops of the earlier time of the crisis: those who didn't like the Novus Ordo Missae or the new teaching of Vatican II sect, but concluded (incorrectly) that it was not heretical.
8. Those who continue to believe the Faith but remain uncertain that there is a new sect, or that the teaching and laws of that sect is certainly heretical. This group deludes itself into believing that there is a way to bridge the Catholic teaching with the sect's teaching, if the sect's teaching is interpreted in light of Tradition. This group is living in fantasy land, but they are not heretics, as they have not denied the Faith or any part of it.
2. Hirelings that use their office for an easy life that don't care about the Faith.
3. Those who have said or have done things that make them suspect of heresy, but have not said or have done things that are certainly heretical.
4. Those who ignore the crisis, along with the heresies snd errors being promoted all over the world,
5. Those who are as dumb as a rock, that don't get it, and happily just keep doing what they are doing because they are either too ignorant on their Faith or too low in intelligence to identify what's going on.
6. Those who do understand what's going on, and conclude they can't do anything about it and just try to do what they can in their own diocese to teach the Faith to their own flocks.
7. This mostly applies only to the Roman Rite bishops of the earlier time of the crisis: those who didn't like the Novus Ordo Missae or the new teaching of Vatican II sect, but concluded (incorrectly) that it was not heretical.
8. Those who continue to believe the Faith but remain uncertain that there is a new sect, or that the teaching and laws of that sect is certainly heretical. This group deludes itself into believing that there is a way to bridge the Catholic teaching with the sect's teaching, if the sect's teaching is interpreted in light of Tradition. This group is living in fantasy land, but they are not heretics, as they have not denied the Faith or any part of it.
So, our "woods" doesn’t look pretty like the woods of 1930, or 1900, or better days in the Church, and there weren’t any oaks there back then, but our woods still has the maples, and always has had them and if anyone wants to take the time and trouble he can find them as they are all, today and at every day through this crisis since it began, in plain sight.
Don’t be sad and discouraged, though, when you find the maples after your hard work tracking them down, they aren’t doing much, as they are sick trees, not making very much or any syrup, but they are doing one thing, being present in the woods as maples, and so long as they are there, the woods will not be overrun by the oaks, and as we know that will never happen.