| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Bishops Conferences | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Wednesday, 12. November 2008, 03:58 (150 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Wednesday, 12. November 2008, 03:58 Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
Not quite proper to "Catholic Radio,TV & Films" but in line with the previous postings, I would like to echo this, from James Preece's blog
|
|
|
| Derekap | Wednesday, 12. November 2008, 16:16 Post #2 |
|
I can well imagine that some subjects would be too confidential for Bishops to have reporters present even though eventually their decisions may be published. |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 12. November 2008, 19:03 Post #3 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Derek, the Press could be asked to leave while sensitive issues are discussed. I doubt whether our bishops know the general rank and file exist. They are aware of the chosen few, who get to the seminars and workshops. It is generally assumed that those who are unable to get to daily Mass, and serve on committees, or turn out for church cleaning, are just not interested. We are referred to as pew warmers, by those who delight in saying we restrict our faith to one hour per week. Our bishops are not very good at using modern methods of communication. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Wednesday, 12. November 2008, 20:58 Post #4 |
|
Our bishops are not very good at using modern methods of communication. Perhaps that's because they are required to be over-polite? PJD |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Wednesday, 12. November 2008, 21:58 Post #5 |
|
Deleted User
|
We get the politicians and bishops we deserve. If the bishops could be confident that they could speak boldly and give honest opinions without being pilloried by one faction or another then we might see a healthier more open approach. No use having brilliant communications from them if all we get is the same old tired party lines purporting to be the united view of all delegates. John |
|
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 12. November 2008, 22:55 Post #6 |
![]()
Administrator
|
If their meetings were open to the press, and shown on the internet, whatever was said would attract howls of protests from factions within the Church. That is a problem, 98% of the Catholic population would be unaware of what was going on, because only a tiny minority keep in touch with their faith via the internet. The bishops could instruct parish priests to make minutes available, with copies available for all parishioners. Fine, if the priests follow the instruction, but there is no uniformity. At present the minutes of Diocesan and Deanery Pastoral Council meetings are made available in some parishes but not in others. It depends upon the whim of the parish priest. In commercial organisations, local managers have to follow company policy. It is all academic, the bishops don't want us to know what they discuss, there is nothing we can do about it. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Joseph | Thursday, 13. November 2008, 00:34 Post #7 |
|
But it's "traditional"...i'n it? Besides, its a lot less hassle keeping it 'in family'. |
|
Joseph | |
![]() |
|
| SeanJ | Thursday, 13. November 2008, 00:40 Post #8 |
|
Administrator
|
I don't think bishops are any good at communication. Period. I have lived in England, Ireland, Canada, and the USA, and in my experience, which is probably that of a typical Catholic in the pew, the bishops have always been distant folks. Whatever communication I have received from American bishops has improved dramatically since the internet. What I have received from English and Irish bishops has been and continues to be Edited by SeanJ, Thursday, 13. November 2008, 00:41.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Thursday, 13. November 2008, 00:41 Post #9 |
|
Deleted User
|
I would guess that 98% of Catholics have never heard of the Bishops Conference, let alone know what goes on. (Exaggeration -maybe less than that percentage). If journalists and the media were admitted, as in the US, perhaps more people would take an interest and the various factions John mentioned might face some opposition We are back to Who tells the Laity? KatyA |
|
|
| Joseph | Thursday, 13. November 2008, 00:50 Post #10 |
|
Shouldn't we be asking what is the purpose of such a Conference? It seems obvious that it is not to interact with the rest of the flock, so maybe all we can hope for is whatever little nuggets they choose to release - all in their own good time. We're just being nosey, aren't we? |
|
Joseph | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Thursday, 13. November 2008, 00:54 Post #11 |
|
Deleted User
|
The bishops are part of our Church family aren't they? So why shouldn't we be nosey and call it being interested. KatyA |
|
|
| Rose of York | Thursday, 13. November 2008, 00:55 Post #12 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Joseph I suspect that question was asked tongue in cheek. We are not really being nosey, we pew warmers have a vested interest in Church affairs. Our faith and its practise are our life blood, we devote prayer, time and money to the up-building of the Church. If, for example, dioceses were to be merged, it would be helpful to be told such a matter was under discussion so we laity could make representations. I would like to know what would have happened if laity had been told in advance, that our bishops were considering messing about with our Holydays of Obligation. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Thursday, 13. November 2008, 00:56 Post #13 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Church families work this way: Do as you're told. Why should I? Because your father says so. So? Don't be cheeky, we are your fathers.
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 3. May 2009, 15:06 Post #14 |
|
Deleted User
|
VATICAN; WORDS OF DOCTRINE Rev. Nicola Bux and Rev. Salvatore Vitiello - The authority of an Episcopal Conference derives solely from the Apostolic See Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) - Share thoughts with Church authorities and do what the authorities advise. This is the secret of the unity between Catholic Bishops and the Pope, from which none of the forms which express collegiality may depart. Much less a Bishops' Conference: a word which comes from the verb “conferre” which means “to carry together”. Therefore it presupposes a body consisting of head and members who play each their own part fully aware of the diverse responsibilities of each: the personal responsibility of a bishop cannot be compared with the personal responsibility of the Pope which is universal. It causes no surprise that an arm moves on its own while being articulated with the rest of the body; why the surprise then if a single bishop exercises his own legitimate authority and, at the same time, is bound with that of the Pope? If this were understood it would come as no surprise that the primate of the Bishop of Rome requires the personal exercise of authority. Instead some would like to see the Pope, before taking any action, convoke this or that body. But he too is a Bishop with ordinary powers, except that among the members of the body his function is “capital”, since it corresponds to the head, and therefore it never concerns only himself but the whole body, to ensure that communion is organic. Church “communio” is not vague or spiritual, it is hierarchical and Catholic. If the Council said that the pope and the bishop are respectively the visible principle and foundation of universal and particular unity, this means to say that the Bishops' Conference exists solely in view this contribution and can in no way take the place of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome or the authority of the individual bishop, since only the latter were divinely instituted, that is, willed by Jesus Christ. Sovra-episcopal institutions such as Patriarchates and Metropolitates, and Bishops' Conferences themselves are of positive ecclesiastical right and, therefore, never superior to the authority of the local bishop; most useful for exercising the collegial dimension of episcopal governance, although restricted to certain functions limited, they remain auxiliary and subordinate to the episcopal function in the Church, because the College of Bishops is indivisible (John Paul II, Pastores gregis, n. 63). The Motu Proprio Apostolos suos also recalls that they have no doctrinal prerogatives, instead they serve to coordinate apostolic activity in a certain region. Therefore if a bishop, a priest, a theologian may not dissent from the Magisteriom of the Pope, as if the former were a quasi private doctor, still less a Bishops' Conference or a member of a Bishops' Conference. John Paul II recalls in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993): “ Dissent, […]is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God. Opposition to the teaching of the Church's Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit's gifts. When this happens, the Church's Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected ”(n 113). As stated in the Motu proprio Ad tuendam fidem, which ordered the inclusion in the Code of Canon Law of certain paragraphs concerning the obligation to believe, accept and obey the truths of faith and morals proclaimed by the Magisterium of the Pope and the Bishops united with him, explaining that this element is decisive for the certainty of the faith for every believer – visible obligation – ; and re-proposed at the general audience on 10 March 1993 on “The doctrinal mission of the Successor of Peter” and also in the address to the Cardinals on 21 December 1999 on “divine assistance to the Magisterium of the Successor of Peter”. In full continuity with the faith of the fathers and the impossibility of any “opposite” reading, between one pontificate and another. The faithful are scandalised when they see dissent with the Apostolic See on the part of Bishops' Conferences or certain members of a Conference ,– almost a phenomenon of neo-Gallicanism– since obedience to the visible Supreme Shepherd, the Bishop of Rome is proper to genuine Catholic faith. (Agenzia Fides 30/4/2009; righe 51, parole 676)Fides I'm not sure of the context in which the above statement was made, but it seemed appropriate to post it here. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |





9:19 AM Jul 11