Analyzing JP II
By Phil Lawler (bio - articles ) | June 20, 2003 4:50 PM
Mark Shea's blog for today has a very interesting-- and, I think, accurate-- answer to the plaintive question, "Why doesn't the Pope just fire all the bishops?"
Look for the (not very descriptive) headline: "Since I've already alienated people by defending Rowling from the Inquisitors"
|
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus: Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you! |
Easter Campaign: Progress toward our Spring 2013 goal ($27,795 to go):
$80,000.00
$52,204.70
35%
65%
|
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: John J Plick -
Jun. 21, 2003 10:09 PM ET USA
I understand the reasoning, but it's not even close, Phil. Primacy is a very APPROPRIATE Western dogma which the Eastern ":Church" fumbled the ball on. Many of us "dissenters" are NOT against the Holy Father by any means, but desperately want him to use his legitimate authority to set limits on the behavior of bishops who are clearly out of control. He is the ONLY one who has the authority to handle the problem comprehensively, and there is no way he can divest himself of that responsibility.
-
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Jun. 21, 2003 12:18 AM ET USA
As Israel became more and more corrupt in the Old Testament, God raised up prophets to warn her of impending doom unless she repented and changed her ways. We need those prophets in the hierarchy. The OT record is that we will get them.
