15 New Cardinals - are they Orthodox or not?


#1

What do you guys know about these new cardinals?

Given below is a list of the new cardinal electors:

  • Archbishop William Joseph Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

  • Archbishop Franc Rode C.M., prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

  • Archbishop Agostino Vallini, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

  • Archbishop Jorge Liberato Urosa Savino of Caracas, Venezuela.

  • Archbishop Gaudencio B. Rosales of Manila, Philippines.

  • Archbishop Jean-Pierre Ricard of Bordeaux, France.

  • Archbishop Antonio Canizares Llovera of Toledo, Spain.

  • Archbishop Nicholas Cheong Jin-suk of Seoul, Korea.

  • Archbishop Sean Patrick O’Malley O.F.M. Cap., of Boston, U.S.A.

  • Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz of Krakow, Poland.

  • Archbishop Carlo Caffarra of Bologna, Italy.

  • Bishop Joseph Zen Ze-kiun S.D.B. of Hong Kong, China

The Pope then announced that he had also decided to elevate to the dignity of cardinal “three prelates over the age of 80, in consideration of the service they have rendered to the Church with exemplary faithfulness and admirable dedication.” They are:

  • Archbishop Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, archpriest of the Basilica of St. Paul’s Outside-the-Walls.

  • Archbishop Peter Poreku Dery, emeritus of Tamale, Ghana.

  • Fr. Albert Vanhoye S.J., formerly rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute and secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.


#2

You are questioning the loyalty of bishops whom the Pope has seen fit by virtue of their character and service to name Cardinals? I find that highly uncharitable and questionable.

This is the second thread you’ve started trying to “name names” of those that individuals considered heterodox. What is your deal?


#3

[quote=1ke]You are questioning the loyalty of bishops whom the Pope has seen fit by virtue of their character and service to name Cardinals? I find that highly uncharitable and questionable.

This is the second thread you’ve started trying to “name names” of those that individuals considered heterodox. What is your deal?
[/quote]

JSmitty is clearly concerned with the orthodoxy of the Church. He is making a perfectly appropriate inquiry into the orthodoxy of these men. The very reason that our Church is in such crisis now is due to a slew unorthodox cardinals and bishops whom held power in the Church for decades. It is entirely appropriate to consider these men in an effort to be more certain of the orthodoxy of the Church in the future.

I would respectfully ask what your deal is. You seem to be against any attempt to locate and avoid unorthodoxy or poor doctrine. This would suggest to me that you are in favor of unorthodoxy. I do not accuse you, I only ask. May God bless you.


#4

History shows us that the Pope often relies on the advice of those around him

We should be praying for them !!


#5

[quote=1ke]You are questioning the loyalty of bishops whom the Pope has seen fit by virtue of their character and service to name Cardinals?
[/quote]

Yes actually I am. Have you ever heard of people like Archbishop Rembert Weakland? How about Cardinal Keeler and his rejection that Jews need to be evangelized? What about the French bishops that are currently asking the Vatican to reconsider its teaching on contraception because the pope didn’t directly address the issue in his encyclical! They act as if every new document is supposed to have some novel teaching in it, when in reality, the Church has not and should never tolerate novelty. The Church has been given the task to guard and protect the Deposit of Faith at all costs (heresy is a graver sin than murder!). These bishops seem to have forgotten that there is a 2000 year Tradition that we have to look to. :rolleyes: Finally, all that I asked was, “What do you guys know about these new cardinals?” Give me a break. :eek:


#6

I’m sorry to say I’ve never heard of any of these new cardinals :confused: .

Anna x


#7

[quote=Lazerlike42] JSmitty is clearly concerned with the orthodoxy of the Church. He is making a perfectly appropriate inquiry into the orthodoxy of these men.
[/quote]

It is not what he is doing, it is how he is going about it that I find inappropriate. If he wants to refute specific teachings or documents published by a bishop, theologian, etc, then do so. But, anyone can post anything on here and much of it is likely to be speculative and possibly untrue.

[quote=Lazerlike42] The very reason that our Church is in such crisis now is due to a slew unorthodox cardinals and bishops whom held power in the Church for decades.
[/quote]

I find that many people on here find things “unorthodox” that in reality are not and innocent parties end up slandered. There are bishops who have taught heterodox teachings, and they have been censured with due process through the Church ecclesial processes.

[quote=Lazerlike42] It is entirely appropriate to consider these men in an effort to be more certain of the orthodoxy of the Church in the future.
[/quote]

Oh yes, it is highly likely that the Pope did not make any sort of judgment about these men and do so accurately, but someone in Podunk, USA, with no theological training can make a better assessment. The Pope evaluated them for the position of Cardinal, do you think the Pope is a moron?

[quote=Lazerlike42] I would respectfully ask what your deal is.
[/quote]

I think it’s wrong to attack people without substantiation as was started on the other thread, and now “orthodox or not” is being questioned regarding men the Pope just selected as Cardinals. I think the whole thing is scandalous.

[quote=Lazerlike42] You seem to be against any attempt to locate and avoid unorthodoxy or poor doctrine. This would suggest to me that you are in favor of unorthodoxy. I do not accuse you, I only ask. May God bless you.
[/quote]

Um, please look up any of my posts and you will see that I am not on the “un” orthodox side of the arguments. I just think this type of post, attacking people rather than forming fact-based arguments against erroneous teaching, is wrong.


#8

[quote=JSmitty2005]What do you guys know about these new cardinals?

Given below is a list of the new cardinal electors:

  • Archbishop William Joseph Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

  • Archbishop Franc Rode C.M., prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

  • Archbishop Agostino Vallini, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

  • Archbishop Jorge Liberato Urosa Savino of Caracas, Venezuela.

  • Archbishop Gaudencio B. Rosales of Manila, Philippines.

  • Archbishop Jean-Pierre Ricard of Bordeaux, France.

  • Archbishop Antonio Canizares Llovera of Toledo, Spain.

  • Archbishop Nicholas Cheong Jin-suk of Seoul, Korea.

  • Archbishop Sean Patrick O’Malley O.F.M. Cap., of Boston, U.S.A.

  • Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz of Krakow, Poland.

  • Archbishop Carlo Caffarra of Bologna, Italy.

  • Bishop Joseph Zen Ze-kiun S.D.B. of Hong Kong, China

The Pope then announced that he had also decided to elevate to the dignity of cardinal “three prelates over the age of 80, in consideration of the service they have rendered to the Church with exemplary faithfulness and admirable dedication.” They are:

  • Archbishop Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, archpriest of the Basilica of St. Paul’s Outside-the-Walls.

  • Archbishop Peter Poreku Dery, emeritus of Tamale, Ghana.

  • Fr. Albert Vanhoye S.J., formerly rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute and secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
    [/quote]

I’ll take O’Malley over his predecessor. Anyday.

Peace to you,
Richard


#9

[quote=1ke]It is not what he is doing, it is how he is going about it that I find inappropriate. How do you know? What gives you the authority to judge me like that? :stuck_out_tongue: ** If he wants to refute specific teachings or documents published by a bishop, theologian, etc, then do so. I don’t have the time, but there are a lot of things that can be found on the net w/ regards to the guys listed in the other post.** But, anyone can post anything on here and much of it is likely to be speculative and possibly untrue.

I find that many people on here find things “unorthodox” that in reality are not and innocent parties end up slandered. Again, what authority do YOU have to make that judgment? That assertion is no more well founded than mine. There are bishops who have taught heterodox teachings, and they have been censured with due process through the Church ecclesial processes. Sometimes it takes the laity to bring these things to light.

Oh yes, it is highly likely that the Pope did not make any sort of judgment about these men and do so accurately, but someone in Podunk, USA, with no theological training can make a better assessment. The Pope evaluated them for the position of Cardinal, do you think the Pope is a moron?
Not at all. I simply asked: “What do you guys know about these new cardinals?” Plus the pope isn’t infallible in such matters.

I think it’s wrong to attack people without substantiation as was started on the other thread, and now “orthodox or not” is being questioned regarding men the Pope just selected as Cardinals. I think the whole thing is scandalous. You have a right to your opinion and so do I. Again, all I asked was: “What do you guys know about these new cardinals?”

Um, please look up any of my posts and you will see that I am not on the “un” orthodox side of the arguments. I just think this type of post, attacking people rather than forming fact-based arguments against erroneous teaching, is wrong. None of this was intended as an “attack” on any person.
[/quote]


#10

[quote=1ke]It is not what he is doing, it is how he is going about it that I find inappropriate. If he wants to refute specific teachings or documents published by a bishop, theologian, etc, then do so. But, anyone can post anything on here and much of it is likely to be speculative and possibly untrue.
[/quote]

As is everything else discussed on this forum. If we must not discuss anything whereby a person may post something untrue, than we must not discuss anything at all. Should we not discuss Martin Luther simply because some may post untrue facts about him? Of course not! Every post here is expected to be backed up with facts and sources. When people post things without sourcing them, others almost always demand the source.

I find that many people on here find things “unorthodox” that in reality are not and innocent parties end up slandered. There are bishops who have taught heterodox teachings, and they have been censured with due process through the Church ecclesial processes.

Perhaps so, but again, that is the nature of a forum. When a person labels something unorthodox which is not, he or she is corrected and a discussion occurs so that all may present facts and we may determine the truth.

Oh yes, it is highly likely that the Pope did not make any sort of judgment about these men and do so accurately, but someone in Podunk, USA, with no theological training can make a better assessment. The Pope evaluated them for the position of Cardinal, do you think the Pope is a moron?

History has shown, 1ke, that Popes very very often err in their appointments. Many of the problems that we have today are the result of bishops appointed by Pius XII and John XXIII, men whome I am sure nobody would label as liberal or progressive. Nonetheless, these men erred. We must always be cautious. Even St. Paul was required to prove himself to the Apostles.

I think it’s wrong to attack people without substantiation as was started on the other thread, and now “orthodox or not” is being questioned regarding men the Pope just selected as Cardinals. I think the whole thing is scandalous.

No attacks have been rendered. JSmitty is, like myself, hoping for great and orthodox Cardinals whom will help to raise the Church back to what it once was. He is asking for information because he does not know these men well. In the other thread, JSmitty did not attack men without substantiation. He listed people as well as those things with which they disagree with the Church on. If someone questions these, they may demand a citation. Be careful, because what truly is scandalous is to fail to be concerend with the direction of the Church, or to view a person as orthodox simply by reason of his title. I know you do not intend to do this, I am just suggesting that these are things which your words seem to convey that you are doing.

Um, please look up any of my posts and you will see that I am not on the “un” orthodox side of the arguments. I just think this type of post, attacking people rather than forming fact-based arguments against erroneous teaching, is wrong.

I’m quite glad to hear that. :thumbsup:


#11

Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz of Krakow, Poland, was the personal secretary of John Paul II during his pontificate. I do not recognize many of the other names on this list.


#12

Greetings all–
– If any of the new cardinals have made statements on crucial teachings or issues that are not orthodox, please, let’s hear them and discuss the matter in question.
– From my own point of view, the tradition of PURELY orthodox Catholic practice, teaching, and theology is so VAST that I doubt seriously that there is anyone alive on God’s good earth who even KNOWS all of it, let alone practices it in every particular.
– One silly example from my own prayer life. I have been saying the Divine Office, the Liturgy of the Hours, for five years now, and only just today I discovered in the fine print in the instructions for the Ordinary that one should omit the closing prayer at the end of the Office of Readings when one is continuing immediately with Morning Prayer. Who knew?!
– While Jesus Christ, Our Lord, is the Narrow Path to the Father, it seems to me that the Catholic Church is broad and wide indeed. Our shepherds, graciously it seems to me, have allowed a great deal of latitude in many areas and have kept a great many sheep within the fold who in earlier eras might have been expelled.
– I hesitate to clamor for strict and binding tests of orthodoxy because who is to say that my own favorite devotion or my own particular favorite theological insight might not be deemed heretical and grounds for dismissal.
–Blessings to all! --Rusty


#13

If your devotion is heretical, you’d need to be stopping it! But I doubt that would happen :wink:

I am particularly interested in O’Malley. He is my bishop, but I don’t know about the various bishops to know if he is good or not. He seems to be, anyways.


#14

[quote=JSmitty2005]- Archbishop William Joseph Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
[/quote]

Wikipedia’s article on him is pretty accurate, historically. Here is a short synopsis:

Studied theology in Rome. Ordained priest in the Archiocese of Los Angeles. Postordination theological studies continued in Rome. Taught theology in Camarillo, CA and Rome. Member of CDF. Consecrated auxiliary bishop in Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Assigned as Archbishop of Portland. One of the chief editors of the CCC. Assigned as Archbishop of San Francisco. Now head of CDF. That should help give you a start.


#15

[quote=Richard_Hurtz]I’ll take O’Malley over his predecessor. Anyday.
[/quote]

I think you’ll find that Cardinal Law was a good teaching pastor, but a flawed administrative pastor. He should have been a theologian.


#16

[quote=Loy]I think you’ll find that Cardinal Law was a good teaching pastor, but a flawed administrative pastor. He should have been a theologian.
[/quote]

Rather than risk censure for being uncharitable, I’ll simply leave it at this; I think you’re being very gracious with your assessment of his administrative legacy.

Peace to you,
Richard


#17

[quote=Richard_Hurtz]Rather than risk censure for being uncharitable, I’ll simply leave it at this; I think you’re being very gracious with your assessment of his administrative legacy.

Peace to you,
Richard
[/quote]

Well in any case, what do you think of O’Malley?


#18

Specificity is quite important in looking for orthodox or heterodox teaching. As one poster said.“the Faith is so vast” so who knows it all. Even some of the teachings of Augustine were not accepted as orthodox. Until I could point at a man and say most everything he teaches is unorthodox I would be very reticent in branding him the enemy.


#19

[quote=Lazerlike42]Well in any case, what do you think of O’Malley?
[/quote]

He seems like a good and godly man from what I’ve read about him.
He’s done very well considering the situation he was asked to address.


#20

[quote=rwoehmke]Specificity is quite important in looking for orthodox or heterodox teaching. As one poster said.“the Faith is so vast” so who knows it all. Even some of the teachings of Augustine were not accepted as orthodox. Until I could point at a man and say most everything he teaches is unorthodox I would be very reticent in branding him the enemy.
[/quote]

What matters is that a person assents to the teachings they do know. Nobody can know everything (though I believe teachers of the faith are called to try), but a person must not obstinantly reject a teaching that is known to be true.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.