What if your Bishop is a Heretic?

I know we have to be in communion with Rome and avoid schism, but what do you do if your local bishop (like a famous archbishop in southern California) is an open and modernist heretic? Shouldn’t you suspend your obedience to such a person? What should you do in such a situation? Heretics, after all, lose all jurisdiction… Love, Jaypeeto2

[quote=Jaypeeto2]I know we have to be in communion with Rome and avoid schism, but what do you do if your local bishop (like a famous archbishop in southern California) is an open and modernist heretic? Shouldn’t you suspend your obedience to such a person? What should you do in such a situation? Heretics, after all, lose all jurisdiction… Love, Jaypeeto2
[/quote]

What is your definition of a “heretic?” My guess is that Cardinal Mahony is no “heretic”, despite (to some) his rather questionable behavior at times…

Just by reading about and looking at the photos of his
religious ed gatherings that he puts together in L.A. with all it’s blatantly heretical and sometimes blasphemous speakers, I don’t “seriously doubt” that he is a heretic at all. No orthodox person would do such things.

[quote=Jaypeeto2]I know we have to be in communion with Rome and avoid schism, but what do you do if your local bishop (like a famous archbishop in southern California) is an open and modernist heretic? Shouldn’t you suspend your obedience to such a person? What should you do in such a situation? Heretics, after all, lose all jurisdiction… Love, Jaypeeto2
[/quote]

The charge of heresy is a formal declaration from the Church.

Until such a time as the charge is leveled against a bishop though the proper channels and he is found guilty of such a charge by the competent authorities, no bishop is a heretic.

You are free to address your bishop, the archbishop whose archdiocese contains your diocese as a suffrage, the papal nuncio, as well as Rome, most likely the Congregation for Bishops and/or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

You could also contact a canon lawyer to find out what the proper steps would be in such a case.

But until such a time as the Church formally declares a bishop a heretic or removes him from his see, you are bound by obedience to the bishop whose diocese you live in.

[quote=Jaypeeto2]Just by reading about and looking at the photos of his religious ed gatherings that he puts together in L.A. with all it’s blatantly heretical and sometimes blasphemous speakers, I don’t “seriously doubt” that he is a heretic at all. No orthodox person would do such things.
[/quote]

So says you. While I am certainly no fan of the Cardinal’s, I haven’t seen anything “blatantly heretical” nor do I believe he would allow “blasphemous speakers” at the Mass.

Yes, I certainly have seen things I do not care for, but do they rise to the level of heretical or blasphemus? I think not.

I’ll ask again. What is your definition of “heretic?” While we’re at it, how about “blasphemous?”

[quote=Jaypeeto2]I know we have to be in communion with Rome and avoid schism, but what do you do if your local bishop (like a famous archbishop in southern California) is an open and modernist heretic? Shouldn’t you suspend your obedience to such a person? What should you do in such a situation? Heretics, after all, lose all jurisdiction… Love, Jaypeeto2
[/quote]

I would suggest you move. (only kidding)
If a Bishop is truly a Heretic, I think our new Pope will do the smackdown.
In the meantime, pray.

How about studying up on the sins of “Rash Judgement”, “Slander”, or “Calumny”, perhaps “False Witness.” :confused: :confused:

Anyone who has seen and read about his Religious Ed conferences knows that modernists, heretics, and their blasphemous views, are well represented at those conferences. I don’t have to define heresy and blasphemy, you know full well what it is, don’t play games with me. Also, the people of Constantinople suspended obedience to their bishop (Nestorius) BEFORE he was officially “declared” a heretic by the church. I’m just wondering if we can do the same in a similar situation. And I’m not “picking on” the archbishop from sunny L.A. I can think of a few others, one named Bumbleton or something like that who blatantly denies church teachings…
Jaypeeto2

Adios Amigo! :thumbsup:

Actually, it is entirely possible for a Bishop to be a material heretic. But these days, we don’t do formal heresy anymore.
A material heretic is one who holds heretical propositions but has not been formally declared a heretic. A formal heretic is one who has been tried in a canonical court and convicted of heresy. We rarely use canonical courts anymore, save for the ever popular annulment.
Part of the problem in the post-conciliar church is that material heresy has run rampant! And bishops have lapsed into material heresy in many cases. This was the problem with the reign of JPII (whom I love dearly). He did not use “the rod of iron” that is so necessary for the welfare of the Church often enough.
If you can, go to a different diocese.

Usque.

[quote=Jaypeeto2]Anyone who has seen and read about his Religious Ed conferences knows that modernists, heretics, and their blasphemous views, are well represented at those conferences. I don’t have to define heresy and blasphemy, you know full well what it is, don’t play games with me. Also, the people of Constantinople suspended obedience to their bishop (Nestorius) BEFORE he was officially “declared” a heretic by the church. I’m just wondering if we can do the same in a similar situation. And I’m not “picking on” the archbishop from sunny L.A. I can think of a few others, one named Bumbleton or something like that who blatantly denies church teachings…
Jaypeeto2
[/quote]

What are the chances that you regard yourself as a “traditionalist” also?

Your on thin ice, alledging the Cardinal Archbishop of LA to be a full-blown heretic. A heresy is a denial of a truth of the faith, a doctrine, a dogma. It’s not the refusal or passive resistance to a liturgical rubric. He may not enforce GIRM, but unless he’s done something like deny the doctrine of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union or the Immaculate Conception, he’s not reckoned a heretic. Should we be big fans of his idiosyncracies? God forbid!

Modernism doesn’t outwardly deny a Dogma of the Faith and it is a heresy.
Usque.

Now, now.

I personally believe Cardinal Mahony deserves the respect of every orthodox Catholic in America.

The exact same type of respect that Arius received from Athanasius.

Best post of the day is above.

Fr. John Hardon, SJ always said we are only to be obedient to those bishops who are obedient to the bishop of Rome.


If Cardinal Mahony is teaching something contrary to the Catholic faith, you don’t owe obedience to him. If he’s doing something you don’t personally like, but he’s not going against Church teaching, you must obey him.


I know Cardinal Mahony doesn’t like the Tridentine Mass and won’t allow any more Tridentine Masses in the archdiocese. While you may not like it, he has allowed the Tridentine Mass and isn’t going against Ecclesia Dei or any other Catholic teaching.


I feel your pain. We had 14 years of Cardinal Bernardin in Chicago.

[quote=usqueadmortem]Modernism doesn’t outwardly deny a Dogma of the Faith and it is a heresy.
Usque.
[/quote]

And I would lay dollars to donuts you can not define Modernism with precision or even name the practitioners of it, or even state where it was most prevalent. Don’t go throwing around words as if you knew what you were saying.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Your on thin ice, alledging the Cardinal Archbishop of LA to be a full-blown heretic. A heresy is a denial of a truth of the faith, a doctrine, a dogma. It’s not the refusal or passive resistance to a liturgical rubric. He may not enforce GIRM, but unless he’s done something like deny the doctrine of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union or the Immaculate Conception, he’s not reckoned a heretic. Should we be big fans of his idiosyncracies? God forbid!
[/quote]

Like maybe dening the Supreme Authority of the Pontif as articulated by Vatican I? :rolleyes:

[quote=otm]And I would lay dollars to donuts you can not define Modernism with precision or even name the practitioners of it, or even state where it was most prevalent. Don’t go throwing around words as if you knew what you were saying.
[/quote]

Here I limit the definition of Modernism to that part which is specifically theological. It has political, and social manifestations as well.

Negetively speaking, Modernism is founded upon the philosophical system of agnosticism. In agnosticism, all knowledge is received through experience or is empirical. Agnosticism thus undermines the foundation of natural theology (that part of philosophy concerned with God) and of Revelation.

Positively speaking, Modernism is founded upon the system of vital immanance. For vital immanance, all religious experience is a product of the sentiments of man. The chief Modernist axiom is that Revelation is a product of this vital immanance, and is subject to a constant evolution or improvement.

The terrible danger of Modernism is its apparant obedience to the infallible dictates of the Magisterium, but its subtle distortion of the constantly received interpretation of Catholic Dogma.

The most devestating effects of Modernism in the early twentieth century were felt in France and Italy. Some of the best known modernists are Alfred Loisy, George Tyrrell, Maurice Blondel and Henri de Lubac. But one must recognize that after its suppression under Pius X - Pius XII, it has returned with avengence.

Usque.

[quote=Brendan]Like maybe dening the Supreme Authority of the Pontif as articulated by Vatican I? :rolleyes:
[/quote]

Do you mean that he has denied papal infallibility? Have you a source for this information?

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.