And this, far more than the Filioque or any other doctrinal questions, is why we are never going to see reunion with the Orthodox. The ability of the Roman Pontiff to exercise this kind of authority is totally anathema to their views of ecclesiology. And honestly, even the possibility (much less the exercise) of this authority makes the words of Vatican II that bishops are not merely branch managers of the pope ring rather hollow.
Bishop Torres is obliged to obey the pope, but neither he nor anybody else is obliged to see this as anything other than seeing it for what it (most likely) is - Pope Francis is a tyrant. He's also a hypocrite. The Holy Father talks a lot about synodality and decentralization of power - right up until someone does something he doesn't like. See Traditionis Custodes for another example.
The real question is whether the pope is allowed by cannon law to be a tyrant. The answer is clearly yes he is.
As retired Abp Aguer of Argentina explained last summer, we must understand this through the prism of politics of his country: "For friends, everything; for the enemy, not even justice."
The Roman pontiff has the power to do whatever he wants without any appeal or recourse. He is constrained by what he feels might not be politic or appropriate to do, and nothing else. It's right there in Vatican I and the Codes of Canon Law which followed that hyper-centralizing event.
No matter how nicely draped with rhetorical frippery like "servant of the servants of God," or allegedly-softened by (apparently empty) conciliar verbiage about "collegiality," the Roman system is, at its heart, an autocracy.
Thanks for trying to make it make sense...but after the ol' Argentine bishop pal gets promoted until a court finds him guilty and sentenced to prison...and then this...it does not make sense.
I can speak to the damaging legacy of Bishop William Morris as he was Bishop of the neighbouring diocese to where I am. To this day there are older (and younger) Catholics who, based on his position of authority, still believe in females in the Priesthood. These are very devout people who accept all the teachings of the Magisterium otherwise. In my personal opinion, he should have been ousted well before he was, to avoid damaging the faith of the people in that diocese. Dilly dallying about with some clergy with great authority, can wrought a long term legacy of damage.
Talk about outrageous! Corruption on par with the current American government if not worse. I would not entrust my savings with an organization suffering this level of corruption, let alone my immortal soul!
If he really was fired for not telling people they had a duty to be vaccinated -- well, make this guy pope. That's simply true. It was utterly reckless for Pope Francis to say this about a new shot that has not turned out to work, and that may turn out to be harmful. The data out of the UK is very concerning. More than a year ago it was clear that the prudent course was to give the shots to the most vulnerable (the elderly and obese) and keep up the tests. The pope is not a doctor. He should not be saying anything about experimental medications -- but then, he shouldn't be making global pronouncements on "climate change," either. I hope there is more to this story.
While some of the neo-ultramontanists here think this is acceptable behavior by Pope Francis, I could not disagree more. It may be a licit use of his office but it seems transparently tyrannical and abusive and in keeping with the duplicity that has marked this papacy from the beginning. As for those who offer conspiracy theories about hidden abuse that will come to light and justify this scandalous behavior, they are grasping at straws--not unlike their confreres who claimed that the Pachamama statue was simply an indigenous version of the Virgin Mary. They are not fooling anyone but themselves.
The pope is able to do what he has done, and he isn't answerable to any of us for what he has done, but he IS answerable for what he does. If what he has done in this instance is as unjust as it appears, I would not want to be in his place.
And this, far more than the Filioque or any other doctrinal questions, is why we are never going to see reunion with the Orthodox. The ability of the Roman Pontiff to exercise this kind of authority is totally anathema to their views of ecclesiology. And honestly, even the possibility (much less the exercise) of this authority makes the words of Vatican II that bishops are not merely branch managers of the pope ring rather hollow.
Bishop Torres is obliged to obey the pope, but neither he nor anybody else is obliged to see this as anything other than seeing it for what it (most likely) is - Pope Francis is a tyrant. He's also a hypocrite. The Holy Father talks a lot about synodality and decentralization of power - right up until someone does something he doesn't like. See Traditionis Custodes for another example.
The real question is whether the pope is allowed by cannon law to be a tyrant. The answer is clearly yes he is.
My diocese has been without a bishop for about half a year, we'll take Bishop Torres here.
Where does he go now? How will he live? What are his duties? Will he be paid?
As retired Abp Aguer of Argentina explained last summer, we must understand this through the prism of politics of his country: "For friends, everything; for the enemy, not even justice."
Thank you! Extremely helpful article.
The Roman pontiff has the power to do whatever he wants without any appeal or recourse. He is constrained by what he feels might not be politic or appropriate to do, and nothing else. It's right there in Vatican I and the Codes of Canon Law which followed that hyper-centralizing event.
No matter how nicely draped with rhetorical frippery like "servant of the servants of God," or allegedly-softened by (apparently empty) conciliar verbiage about "collegiality," the Roman system is, at its heart, an autocracy.
Thanks for trying to make it make sense...but after the ol' Argentine bishop pal gets promoted until a court finds him guilty and sentenced to prison...and then this...it does not make sense.
I can speak to the damaging legacy of Bishop William Morris as he was Bishop of the neighbouring diocese to where I am. To this day there are older (and younger) Catholics who, based on his position of authority, still believe in females in the Priesthood. These are very devout people who accept all the teachings of the Magisterium otherwise. In my personal opinion, he should have been ousted well before he was, to avoid damaging the faith of the people in that diocese. Dilly dallying about with some clergy with great authority, can wrought a long term legacy of damage.
Talk about outrageous! Corruption on par with the current American government if not worse. I would not entrust my savings with an organization suffering this level of corruption, let alone my immortal soul!
If he really was fired for not telling people they had a duty to be vaccinated -- well, make this guy pope. That's simply true. It was utterly reckless for Pope Francis to say this about a new shot that has not turned out to work, and that may turn out to be harmful. The data out of the UK is very concerning. More than a year ago it was clear that the prudent course was to give the shots to the most vulnerable (the elderly and obese) and keep up the tests. The pope is not a doctor. He should not be saying anything about experimental medications -- but then, he shouldn't be making global pronouncements on "climate change," either. I hope there is more to this story.
While some of the neo-ultramontanists here think this is acceptable behavior by Pope Francis, I could not disagree more. It may be a licit use of his office but it seems transparently tyrannical and abusive and in keeping with the duplicity that has marked this papacy from the beginning. As for those who offer conspiracy theories about hidden abuse that will come to light and justify this scandalous behavior, they are grasping at straws--not unlike their confreres who claimed that the Pachamama statue was simply an indigenous version of the Virgin Mary. They are not fooling anyone but themselves.
The pope is able to do what he has done, and he isn't answerable to any of us for what he has done, but he IS answerable for what he does. If what he has done in this instance is as unjust as it appears, I would not want to be in his place.