So after ousting him without ever outlining the cause, they are now dependent on his good favor to prevent further damaging the relationship between the local Church and Rome, a relationship that was mostly fine until Francis deposed Strickland without giving the flock a reason why.
Big surprise the flock now looks upon him (and those he appointed over them) with suspicion.
So after ousting him without ever outlining the cause, they are now dependent on his good favor to prevent further damaging the relationship between the local Church and Rome, a relationship that was mostly fine until Francis deposed Strickland without giving the flock a reason why.
Big surprise the flock now looks upon him (and those he appointed over them) with suspicion.
Well, from Bishop Strickland's own words, he was given "several pages" of "issues" and "concerns" from the nuncio, so it wasn't like the causes weren't outlined to him.
Care to demonstrate how we know that? But either way, a lack of transparency is going to fuel mistrust. Whether you think that's warranted or not is irrelevant, it fuels mistrust, as is clearly plain here. Otherwise they wouldn't need to beg Strickland (originally accused of fostering disunity through his governance) of needing to keep a low profile to maintain unity.
It doesn't seem like the Vatican generally ever lists the details of controversial bishops who are relieved of their duties. For example, all that the Vatican said about Bishop Stika was: "The Holy Father has accepted the resignation from the pastoral care of the diocese of Knoxville, United States of America, presented by Bishop Richard F. Stika."
No real laundry list of his mismanagements. And the mistrust which is alleged to have happened with regards to Bishop's Strickland's removal doesn't seem to match the mistrust created by Bishop Strickland towards the Apostolic See, which has provoked many faithful to disobedience to the Pope's teaching authority.
What faithful are engaging in what disobedience as laity to the pope at the incitement of Strickland? Gonna need some citations there chief.
I'm going off of what sources mentioned here.
And yes, you are correct Rome seldom gives reasons. And that causes distrust and suspicion. Especially when, as is clear, Strickland was well liked in his diocese
(1) Among the inciting incidents of Bishop Strickland would have been his statement accusing Pope Francis of having a "program of undermining the Deposit of Faith" and his signing of a statement accusing the Pope of heresy. During the Apostolic Visitation of Bishop Strickland's diocese, John-Henry Westen hosted Peter Kwasniewski on LifeSiteNews on a show titled, "Bishop Joseph Strickland Must Resist Pope Francis If Told To Step Down," arguing disobedience against Pope Francis. So there we have lay disobedience against the Holy See, with Kwasniewski seemingly in agreement with Bishop Strickland that Pope Francis has a program to undermine the deposit of faith.
(2) Glad to have demonstrated that it isn't standard Vatican practice to rattle off all the reasons why they administratively remove a bishop.
(3) And do you have citations for Bishop Strickland being well-liked in his diocese?
It's not been my intention to act cute, and I've been trying to discuss with you in a brotherly way, so I'm sorry if I haven't come across that way. I sought to answer the questions that you asked and seek the bases of your viewpoint.
(1) I don't see how there's been "no disobedience incited". Bishop Strickland's statement that Pope Francis has a "program of undermining the Deposit of Faith" itself really seems to incite disobedience (in the sense of "The Pope in his teachings is undermining the Deposit of the Faith, so you need not obey his teachings"), but even if that weren't enough I went on to show that there were leading Catholic lay commentators taking the point that Bishop Strickland made and running with it further in a case that directly involved him. And that program reaches more than just the two Catholics talking.
(2) I understood it wasn't part of your point, but you did seem to put it out as a point of dispute. My initial claim was that the Vatican doesn't normally list the reasons why they remove a bishop administratively to allow the bishop to save face, and you asked "how [do] we know that?", which made it at least seem somewhat in dispute. So I was trying to answer your question in good faith.
(3) I don't think that them asking him to keep a low profile is determinative of him being well-liked in his diocese. It just as much points to the fact that part of his removal came from a very active presence and high profile that seemed to become detrimental. I think that's the more likely option, and so I was seeking the sources of your knowledge.
You showed that there was one lay commentator who supported, but you didn't show any actual disobedient actions. I think the Pillar would have noted them if there were any.
I am glad that St. Peter didn't remove St. Paul after Paul rebuked him correctly. But Pope Francis is not St. Peter, or even Popes Benedict or John Paul II who allowed bishops to criticize them and the only bishops they removed preached heresy or committed sexual sins. The pride of Pope Francis is so sad.
He probably created some distrust, yes; I don't know what people are being disobedient to specifically that they weren't already disobedient to, but any propagation of a vague "I reject what this Pope says before he says it because he said it" attitude of mind would be just as useful for the enemy.
I suspect the more common attitude is a vague "I ignore what this Pope says because it's probably wrong or at least confusing and unhelpful. Especially if the mainstream news bothers to report it. And it's not like he can authoritatively teach anything entirely new anyway."
The Bishops no matter where are sacrosanct and untouchable.Vos Estes is words on paper to give the impression that there is accountability. The governance of this church is as weak as can be and yet the apathy of the faithful is so sad. These men have been so reverenced by blatant clericalism that no matter what is done or suggested is covered up. Until we find our voices in charity nothing will change. We are supposed to look to shepherds first who are fathers to their priests then leaders to us. Smell like the sheep,I donтАЩt think so.Smell like dictators and elites is more accurate. Prayer is the only answer because governance doesnтАЩt care.
The bishop hasn't lost face though, at least not with Catholics. The issues weren't published to protect the Pope, not to to protect Strickland, just as they were not published in the McCarrick case.
But the main criticism appeared to be: "he didn't even know why he was being deposed." But in actuality, he had knowledge of the reasons, which allows him the ability to know what the issues were.
So after ousting him without ever outlining the cause, they are now dependent on his good favor to prevent further damaging the relationship between the local Church and Rome, a relationship that was mostly fine until Francis deposed Strickland without giving the flock a reason why.
Big surprise the flock now looks upon him (and those he appointed over them) with suspicion.
Well, from Bishop Strickland's own words, he was given "several pages" of "issues" and "concerns" from the nuncio, so it wasn't like the causes weren't outlined to him.
But how many of them were related to the removal, vs the garden variety "stuff that Francis is annoyed by?" Even strickland says he doesn't know.
And in this case, its more the flock doesn't know, and that is what is causing the consternation to where this is viewed necessary.
The issues and concerns weren't publicized to the faithful to allow the bishop to save face, which seems like a fair practice.
Care to demonstrate how we know that? But either way, a lack of transparency is going to fuel mistrust. Whether you think that's warranted or not is irrelevant, it fuels mistrust, as is clearly plain here. Otherwise they wouldn't need to beg Strickland (originally accused of fostering disunity through his governance) of needing to keep a low profile to maintain unity.
It doesn't seem like the Vatican generally ever lists the details of controversial bishops who are relieved of their duties. For example, all that the Vatican said about Bishop Stika was: "The Holy Father has accepted the resignation from the pastoral care of the diocese of Knoxville, United States of America, presented by Bishop Richard F. Stika."
No real laundry list of his mismanagements. And the mistrust which is alleged to have happened with regards to Bishop's Strickland's removal doesn't seem to match the mistrust created by Bishop Strickland towards the Apostolic See, which has provoked many faithful to disobedience to the Pope's teaching authority.
What faithful are engaging in what disobedience as laity to the pope at the incitement of Strickland? Gonna need some citations there chief.
I'm going off of what sources mentioned here.
And yes, you are correct Rome seldom gives reasons. And that causes distrust and suspicion. Especially when, as is clear, Strickland was well liked in his diocese
(1) Among the inciting incidents of Bishop Strickland would have been his statement accusing Pope Francis of having a "program of undermining the Deposit of Faith" and his signing of a statement accusing the Pope of heresy. During the Apostolic Visitation of Bishop Strickland's diocese, John-Henry Westen hosted Peter Kwasniewski on LifeSiteNews on a show titled, "Bishop Joseph Strickland Must Resist Pope Francis If Told To Step Down," arguing disobedience against Pope Francis. So there we have lay disobedience against the Holy See, with Kwasniewski seemingly in agreement with Bishop Strickland that Pope Francis has a program to undermine the deposit of faith.
(2) Glad to have demonstrated that it isn't standard Vatican practice to rattle off all the reasons why they administratively remove a bishop.
(3) And do you have citations for Bishop Strickland being well-liked in his diocese?
1.) So no disobedience incited? Got it.
2.) You proved something not in dispute and part of my point? Congrats?
3.) The very fact he's being asked to keep a low profile because of a difficult transition.
But given you seem to be more interested in acting cute than having a good interaction, enjoy the last word.
It's not been my intention to act cute, and I've been trying to discuss with you in a brotherly way, so I'm sorry if I haven't come across that way. I sought to answer the questions that you asked and seek the bases of your viewpoint.
(1) I don't see how there's been "no disobedience incited". Bishop Strickland's statement that Pope Francis has a "program of undermining the Deposit of Faith" itself really seems to incite disobedience (in the sense of "The Pope in his teachings is undermining the Deposit of the Faith, so you need not obey his teachings"), but even if that weren't enough I went on to show that there were leading Catholic lay commentators taking the point that Bishop Strickland made and running with it further in a case that directly involved him. And that program reaches more than just the two Catholics talking.
(2) I understood it wasn't part of your point, but you did seem to put it out as a point of dispute. My initial claim was that the Vatican doesn't normally list the reasons why they remove a bishop administratively to allow the bishop to save face, and you asked "how [do] we know that?", which made it at least seem somewhat in dispute. So I was trying to answer your question in good faith.
(3) I don't think that them asking him to keep a low profile is determinative of him being well-liked in his diocese. It just as much points to the fact that part of his removal came from a very active presence and high profile that seemed to become detrimental. I think that's the more likely option, and so I was seeking the sources of your knowledge.
You showed that there was one lay commentator who supported, but you didn't show any actual disobedient actions. I think the Pillar would have noted them if there were any.
I am glad that St. Peter didn't remove St. Paul after Paul rebuked him correctly. But Pope Francis is not St. Peter, or even Popes Benedict or John Paul II who allowed bishops to criticize them and the only bishops they removed preached heresy or committed sexual sins. The pride of Pope Francis is so sad.
He probably created some distrust, yes; I don't know what people are being disobedient to specifically that they weren't already disobedient to, but any propagation of a vague "I reject what this Pope says before he says it because he said it" attitude of mind would be just as useful for the enemy.
I suspect the more common attitude is a vague "I ignore what this Pope says because it's probably wrong or at least confusing and unhelpful. Especially if the mainstream news bothers to report it. And it's not like he can authoritatively teach anything entirely new anyway."
The Bishops no matter where are sacrosanct and untouchable.Vos Estes is words on paper to give the impression that there is accountability. The governance of this church is as weak as can be and yet the apathy of the faithful is so sad. These men have been so reverenced by blatant clericalism that no matter what is done or suggested is covered up. Until we find our voices in charity nothing will change. We are supposed to look to shepherds first who are fathers to their priests then leaders to us. Smell like the sheep,I donтАЩt think so.Smell like dictators and elites is more accurate. Prayer is the only answer because governance doesnтАЩt care.
The bishop hasn't lost face though, at least not with Catholics. The issues weren't published to protect the Pope, not to to protect Strickland, just as they were not published in the McCarrick case.
He wasnтАЩt тАЬgivenтАЭ but тАЬshownтАЭ and he wasnтАЩt permitted to retain those тАЬseveral pagesтАЭ.
But the main criticism appeared to be: "he didn't even know why he was being deposed." But in actuality, he had knowledge of the reasons, which allows him the ability to know what the issues were.
I wasnтАЩt responding to that: I was responding to what you had written and which was incorrect.