Archbshp Burke in Detroit - Mass and Talks for Marian Catechists

[Lux_et_veritas]

frommi:

I do have a real issue with the idea of an “EWTN” style mass. I fear that cable network may have done more to create a parallel catholic universe than it should have. A network with no episcopal authority that has been around long enough to be used as an adjective (positive for some and negative for others). That’s problematic.

That’s all

I had to come back to this Frommi because it was a statement that left me very concerned as to why you feel it is a “parallel” church?

What specifically do they do that is not in compliance with the Holy See?

And, for the record, they have respected their Bishop with regards to celebrating the liturgy by not doing it ad orientem on air.

 

[frommi]

Lux_et_veritas:

I had to come back to this Frommi because it was a statement that left me very concerned as to why you feel it is a “parallel” church?

What specifically do they do that is not in compliance with the Holy See?

And, for the record, they have respected their Bishop with regards to celebrating the liturgy by not doing it ad orientem on air.

Let me first say, that after re reading your posts, I had missed the one where you discussed this being a personal feeling that you have, oops.

I don’t have any real problems with EWTN, I don’t watch it much either. I just don’t like the idea of EWTN being an adjective. As though they are a wing of the magisterium. I hear “EWTN-style” mass and that sounds agenda driven.

Is it a good network, sure…I mean, anything that gets the heart of the Catholic faith out to a fuller audience is a good thing. But we should not act like they have a standing imprimatur for all that is on that network.

And as far as “when has the network been unfaithful”, I think when Mother Angelica said on air that if she as a catholic in Los Angeles she would have to disobey the bishop and encouraged others to do so, that seemed somewhat unfaithful to me.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

frommi:

Let me first say, that after re reading your posts, I had missed the one where you discussed this being a personal feeling that you have, oops.

I don’t have any real problems with EWTN, I don’t watch it much either. I just don’t like the idea of EWTN being an adjective. As though they are a wing of the magisterium. I hear “EWTN-style” mass and that sounds agenda driven.

Is it a good network, sure…I mean, anything that gets the heart of the Catholic faith out to a fuller audience is a good thing. But we should not act like they have a standing imprimatur for all that is on that network.

And as far as “when has the network been unfaithful”, I think when Mother Angelica said on air that if she as a catholic in Los Angeles she would have to disobey the bishop and encouraged others to do so, that seemed somewhat unfaithful to me.

The Mother Angelica issue would need to be reviewed in context. Was she referring to something Cardinal Mahony was asking people to do in the liturgy that was contrary to the norms? There was a letter that went around about 10 years ago and it seems to me that it was in reference to that letter he sent out to all parishes forcing them to make some strange changes. And, force was what I got from the letter.

If a bishop or cardinal tells people to do something that is contrary to faith or morals, or directs people to change something in the liturgy that is not within his scope to change, then it is not disobedience to not comply.

That having been said, we would need the specific circumstance to grasp her words better.

 

[fix]

frommi:

Is it a good network, sure…I mean, anything that gets the heart of the Catholic faith out to a fuller audience is a good thing. But we should not act like they have a standing imprimatur for all that is on that network.

They have unassailable credibility.

And as far as “when has the network been unfaithful”, I think when Mother Angelica said on air that if she as a catholic in Los Angeles she would have to disobey the bishop and encouraged others to do so, that seemed somewhat unfaithful to me.

The context is important and that is no proof she was unfaithful.

 

[frommi]

fix:

They have unassailable credibility.

The context is important and that is no proof she was unfaithful.

Interesting…

Unassailable credibility? That’s certainly a leap I would not make. How do you come up with something like this? They have a right to free speech like anybody else. They get to promote a point of view. Some would say it’s an authentic “Catholic” point of view. However, I can guarantee you that there are those that would disagree with a lot of what is said, or at least how it is presented.

And, thank you, the context of that incident involving Cardinal Mahony was that she did not approve of his pastoral letter “Gather Faithfully Together”. It was a letter that the Cardinal had a full right to implement in his archdiocese. It simply proved that she picks and chooses which members of the ‘magisterium’ she would promote and call “orthodox”.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

frommi:

Interesting…

Unassailable credibility? That’s certainly a leap I would not make. How do you come up with something like this? They have a right to free speech like anybody else. They get to promote a point of view. Some would say it’s an authentic “Catholic” point of view. However, I can guarantee you that there are those that would disagree with a lot of what is said, or at least how it is presented.

You need to be specific. What programs or people have specifically said something that you would label “Catholic” instead of Catholic? (Other than the one example you have provided, which I’ll address next)

And, thank you, the context of that incident involving Cardinal Mahony was that she did not approve of his pastoral letter “Gather Faithfully Together”. It was a letter that the Cardinal had a full right to implement in his archdiocese. It simply proved that she picks and chooses which members of the ‘magisterium’ she would promote and call “orthodox”.

Rather than contribute to thread drift, lets take this “Gather Faithfully Together” discussion to another thread. I am not sure, but I have a feeling this thing didn’t wash by the time the new GIRM came out and RS. But we’ll let others share with us what they know.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1245179#post1245179

 

[fix]

frommi:

Interesting…

Unassailable credibility? That’s certainly a leap I would not make. How do you come up with something like this? They have a right to free speech like anybody else. They get to promote a point of view. Some would say it’s an authentic “Catholic” point of view. However, I can guarantee you that there are those that would disagree with a lot of what is said, or at least how it is presented.

And, thank you, the context of that incident involving Cardinal Mahony was that she did not approve of his pastoral letter “Gather Faithfully Together”. It was a letter that the Cardinal had a full right to implement in his archdiocese. It simply proved that she picks and chooses which members of the ‘magisterium’ she would promote and call “orthodox”.

I will be happy to discuss this on the other thread Diane started.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

GENERAL NOTICE

Please refer to Forum Rules:

DISCUSSION FORUMS
Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Marian Carroll:

GENERAL NOTICE

Please refer to Forum Rules:

DISCUSSION FORUMS
Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.

I did, I did post another thread

 

[netmilsmom]

Lux_et_veritas:

I did, I did post another thread

Diane, can you link the new thread here?

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

See post 46, Net. I only started a new thread on the “Gather” letter mentioned. If anyone thinks we need to revisit the EWTN issues raised here, please, by all means start a new post.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

Lux_et_veritas:

See post 46, Net. I only started a new thread on the “Gather” letter mentioned. If anyone thinks we need to revisit the EWTN issues raised here, please, by all means start a new post.

No, start a new thread.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Marian Carroll:

No, start a new thread.

Thanks Marian, It was late, considering I was up at 4:00 am EST. “Thread” was my intention, not “post”.