I am sure that many of the Pillar’ subscribers will be apoplectic over the elevation of Bishop McElroy. They have long considered him an annoying episcopal outlier threatening Tradition. They had hoped he would be marginalized rather than elevated. With the prospect of the McElroy- Cupich- Tobin triumvirate wielding power and influence…
I am sure that many of the Pillar’ subscribers will be apoplectic over the elevation of Bishop McElroy. They have long considered him an annoying episcopal outlier threatening Tradition. They had hoped he would be marginalized rather than elevated. With the prospect of the McElroy- Cupich- Tobin triumvirate wielding power and influence they are wondering what will happen to the Tradition to which they are anchored. I understand that from their perspective this is not a good development. Unless they are willing to open themselves to what Pope Francis sees as the urgings of The Holy Spirit , they will forever be scandalized/ disappointed. There is nothing one can do to assuage their disappointment because their rigidity prevents them from thinking outside the narrow construct they have fought to maintain as “ The Truth “. In their minds revelation concluded 2000 years ago, and all they had to do is memorize and follow the Catechism and they would be saved. The thought that the Holy Spirit was left to be with us for the purpose of evolving our understanding of God’s will is anathema. Surely, they say, He is only here to protect Tradition. Pope Francis obviously thinks otherwise. As the successor to Peter he wants change. What pushed Francis over the finish line to a elevate McElroy was the majority of U.S. Bishops weaponizing the Eucharist against those not fighting for civil laws to prevent abortion. That was and is a huge tactical mistake. The Eucharist is the resurrected body of Christ given for the life of the world , not a discrete subset. It is Jesus Christ who has invited the guests to His Table. He set the Table. He is the Host. He is the feast which He shares. He calls everyone to feast on His Body and Blood. Sinners and all. If one does not like to sit at the same table with those they consider misinformed, ignorant, not like minded, it is they who should not come to the Table . It is His Table . No one else.
As a Pope Francis supporter myself, (public) revelation did conclude about two thousand years ago. That's the teaching of the Church. There can be a development of doctrine, but no new revelation. I also don't agree that everyone should be permitted to receive the Eucharist in every case. And while I don't have any more access to the mind of Pope Francis than you, I don't think that the elevation of Bishop McElroy is a response to the US bishops' debate on who should be permitted to receive the Eucharist.
Joseph…” that is the teaching of The Church”. Of course. Why do you believe that teaching to be true and immutable? Why was the Holy Spirit created? Do you believe He is the third person of the Godhead? Are their guardrails on where he can go and say.? What is His purpose? You are a supporter of Pope Francis. Do you agree with his decision to elevate McElroy. . Is he sending a message or throwing darts? If His action was purposeful , what might that purpose have been?
The Holy Spirit is not created, He proceeds from the Father. I believe that the teaching on revelation is immutable because the councils, which have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have declared it. I don't have a problem with Bishop McElroy becoming a cardinal, and I don't think choosing him was a rebuke to the US bishops in general; more likely a matter of Pope Francis thinking that he is worthy of the honour, and capable of performing the duties.
"Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries." (Catechism #66)
This is an incredibly mean-spirited characterization of people you say you understand. I think it is also a huge misunderstanding of Christ, but I will leave that one up to the more theologically trained.
Gail…I said many of the pillar’s subscribers would be apoplectic with McElroys elevation. You are commended for raising your hand. It always helps to be substantive and explain your understanding of Christ’s intent for what His Church should be. I will never dismiss your comments as mean spirited just because your comments are pointed and I disagree. You would not be a subscriber if you did not care deeply about the Church.
We are all here to express our views of what we think Christ intended His Church to be. If you and I care about the Church, as we both do, we both will be open to what Pope Francis , the Apostolic Successor, thinks the Church should be. For reasons that many of us don’t understand, but yet have to respect, he has chosen to lead through leaving bread crumbs.
It is not what I had hoped for or would have recommended, but given the left/ right polarization in the Church, I understand his approach as striving to maintain, not blow up, unity. When I see his elevation of MCElroy , I see it as a new crumb to be deciphered. I decipher it as explained. How do you decipher it ? However that might be, I will respect your view, no matter how pointedly you explain it. So tell us your view.
We all speculate on what Pope Francis really thinks. He is confounding. In any organization a leader who is not able to articulate a clear policy leaves employees and associates unsettled. They lose confidence in his/ her leadership. Many leave. Those that stay hope clarity will be forthcoming. They cite certain of the leaders comments as supportive of what they believe to be the truth. They claim statements the leader makes to which they disagree as misstatements or twisted by others. Many who stay tune out the dissonance to avoid upset. Many feel they have no place to go…. there is no alternative better than what they have. They ride it out hoping for the best as they see it. That is the Catholic Church of 2022 and perhaps this millennium.
This is a pretty judgmental take on people's opposition to McElroy, while completely ignoring his complicity in the McCarrick affair. Can you name one bishop who has been held accountable for enabling McCarrick predations? How could a man whose predatations were so well known that a monk in New Mexico knew about them become the Sunday morning talk show spokesman for the USCCB on how seriously the bishops were taking the sex abuse crisis?
"He calls everyone to feast on His Body and Blood. Sinners and all." This is such an ignorant take on Church teaching regarding the Eucharist, one doesn't know where to begin. Is it merciful to lead people to damn their own souls?
Here’s a question: Do you believe (or not) that Veritatis Splendor, Evangelium Vitae, the 1974 Declaration on Abortion, Dignitas Personae, and Humanae Vitae were inspired by the Holy Spirit? The “traditionalists” you castigate believe they were, and have reason to suspect that some in the Episcopate do not. Where do you stand?
I believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe life begins at conception. I believe that it is an affront to the Creator to destroy life. I believe not everyone believes as I believe, or does believe but is dependent on God’s mercy. I am not God.
I did not answer your question with specificity because it was rhetorical
having seen my earlier comment.
But let me ask you the same question with specificity.
( 1). Human Vitae . You believe that contraception is immoral because the communication of love, commitment and unity without sperm/ egg connectivity is against God’s will ?
(2) . Veritatis Splendor. You believe the Magisterium is the sole proprietor of speaking the Truth on Moral issues and they never get it wrong?
(3). Dignatas Personae. You believe that parents that cannot procreate other through in vitro fertilization are defying natural law and their offspring are immorally created ?
(4). Evangelium Vitae . You believe that contraception and abortion are equally egregious since they are on the “ fruits of the same tree” ?
I know a lot of Traditionalists . But I know none who would answer yes to each question without condemning themselves, their offspring or children.
I am sure that many of the Pillar’ subscribers will be apoplectic over the elevation of Bishop McElroy. They have long considered him an annoying episcopal outlier threatening Tradition. They had hoped he would be marginalized rather than elevated. With the prospect of the McElroy- Cupich- Tobin triumvirate wielding power and influence they are wondering what will happen to the Tradition to which they are anchored. I understand that from their perspective this is not a good development. Unless they are willing to open themselves to what Pope Francis sees as the urgings of The Holy Spirit , they will forever be scandalized/ disappointed. There is nothing one can do to assuage their disappointment because their rigidity prevents them from thinking outside the narrow construct they have fought to maintain as “ The Truth “. In their minds revelation concluded 2000 years ago, and all they had to do is memorize and follow the Catechism and they would be saved. The thought that the Holy Spirit was left to be with us for the purpose of evolving our understanding of God’s will is anathema. Surely, they say, He is only here to protect Tradition. Pope Francis obviously thinks otherwise. As the successor to Peter he wants change. What pushed Francis over the finish line to a elevate McElroy was the majority of U.S. Bishops weaponizing the Eucharist against those not fighting for civil laws to prevent abortion. That was and is a huge tactical mistake. The Eucharist is the resurrected body of Christ given for the life of the world , not a discrete subset. It is Jesus Christ who has invited the guests to His Table. He set the Table. He is the Host. He is the feast which He shares. He calls everyone to feast on His Body and Blood. Sinners and all. If one does not like to sit at the same table with those they consider misinformed, ignorant, not like minded, it is they who should not come to the Table . It is His Table . No one else.
As a Pope Francis supporter myself, (public) revelation did conclude about two thousand years ago. That's the teaching of the Church. There can be a development of doctrine, but no new revelation. I also don't agree that everyone should be permitted to receive the Eucharist in every case. And while I don't have any more access to the mind of Pope Francis than you, I don't think that the elevation of Bishop McElroy is a response to the US bishops' debate on who should be permitted to receive the Eucharist.
Joseph…” that is the teaching of The Church”. Of course. Why do you believe that teaching to be true and immutable? Why was the Holy Spirit created? Do you believe He is the third person of the Godhead? Are their guardrails on where he can go and say.? What is His purpose? You are a supporter of Pope Francis. Do you agree with his decision to elevate McElroy. . Is he sending a message or throwing darts? If His action was purposeful , what might that purpose have been?
The Holy Spirit is not created, He proceeds from the Father. I believe that the teaching on revelation is immutable because the councils, which have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have declared it. I don't have a problem with Bishop McElroy becoming a cardinal, and I don't think choosing him was a rebuke to the US bishops in general; more likely a matter of Pope Francis thinking that he is worthy of the honour, and capable of performing the duties.
"Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries." (Catechism #66)
The ad-hominems are not helpful. We need not ascribe sinister or foolish motives to various bishops to acknowledge disagreements.
This is an incredibly mean-spirited characterization of people you say you understand. I think it is also a huge misunderstanding of Christ, but I will leave that one up to the more theologically trained.
Gail…I said many of the pillar’s subscribers would be apoplectic with McElroys elevation. You are commended for raising your hand. It always helps to be substantive and explain your understanding of Christ’s intent for what His Church should be. I will never dismiss your comments as mean spirited just because your comments are pointed and I disagree. You would not be a subscriber if you did not care deeply about the Church.
We are all here to express our views of what we think Christ intended His Church to be. If you and I care about the Church, as we both do, we both will be open to what Pope Francis , the Apostolic Successor, thinks the Church should be. For reasons that many of us don’t understand, but yet have to respect, he has chosen to lead through leaving bread crumbs.
It is not what I had hoped for or would have recommended, but given the left/ right polarization in the Church, I understand his approach as striving to maintain, not blow up, unity. When I see his elevation of MCElroy , I see it as a new crumb to be deciphered. I decipher it as explained. How do you decipher it ? However that might be, I will respect your view, no matter how pointedly you explain it. So tell us your view.
We all speculate on what Pope Francis really thinks. He is confounding. In any organization a leader who is not able to articulate a clear policy leaves employees and associates unsettled. They lose confidence in his/ her leadership. Many leave. Those that stay hope clarity will be forthcoming. They cite certain of the leaders comments as supportive of what they believe to be the truth. They claim statements the leader makes to which they disagree as misstatements or twisted by others. Many who stay tune out the dissonance to avoid upset. Many feel they have no place to go…. there is no alternative better than what they have. They ride it out hoping for the best as they see it. That is the Catholic Church of 2022 and perhaps this millennium.
This is a pretty judgmental take on people's opposition to McElroy, while completely ignoring his complicity in the McCarrick affair. Can you name one bishop who has been held accountable for enabling McCarrick predations? How could a man whose predatations were so well known that a monk in New Mexico knew about them become the Sunday morning talk show spokesman for the USCCB on how seriously the bishops were taking the sex abuse crisis?
"He calls everyone to feast on His Body and Blood. Sinners and all." This is such an ignorant take on Church teaching regarding the Eucharist, one doesn't know where to begin. Is it merciful to lead people to damn their own souls?
Here’s a question: Do you believe (or not) that Veritatis Splendor, Evangelium Vitae, the 1974 Declaration on Abortion, Dignitas Personae, and Humanae Vitae were inspired by the Holy Spirit? The “traditionalists” you castigate believe they were, and have reason to suspect that some in the Episcopate do not. Where do you stand?
I believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe life begins at conception. I believe that it is an affront to the Creator to destroy life. I believe not everyone believes as I believe, or does believe but is dependent on God’s mercy. I am not God.
Yes, we’re all equally dependent on God’s mercy. But as for my question, you’ve answered it by dodging it.
I did not answer your question with specificity because it was rhetorical
having seen my earlier comment.
But let me ask you the same question with specificity.
( 1). Human Vitae . You believe that contraception is immoral because the communication of love, commitment and unity without sperm/ egg connectivity is against God’s will ?
(2) . Veritatis Splendor. You believe the Magisterium is the sole proprietor of speaking the Truth on Moral issues and they never get it wrong?
(3). Dignatas Personae. You believe that parents that cannot procreate other through in vitro fertilization are defying natural law and their offspring are immorally created ?
(4). Evangelium Vitae . You believe that contraception and abortion are equally egregious since they are on the “ fruits of the same tree” ?
I know a lot of Traditionalists . But I know none who would answer yes to each question without condemning themselves, their offspring or children.