Bishop Robert Carlson - Sioux Falls

[fix]

frommi:

If you think that just suddenly solves the problems of a very institution…you’re delusional.

Look…many bishops have vocally dissented about a variety of things that Rome has or has not done…but to my knowledge none have broken communion with the church.

Suggesting dialogue would be appropriate is not the same as dissent.

You mean material schism? Yes, IMO many of them are in it. What is there to dialogue about? It always comes down to issues of gender, genital sexuality and power. What issues fall under the banner of dialogue?

 

[EJ79]

msproule:

We all know that the ICEL translations leave much to be desired, which is currently one topic of discussion at the USCCB meeting in Chicago.

Agreed, but was this really on their agenda for their Chicago meeting?

 

[msproule]

EJ79:

Agreed, but was this (ICEL translations) really on their agenda for their Chicago meeting?

I thought it was, based on other posts I have read recently. However, I now realize I am likely mistaken.

The World Over with Raymond Arroyo will recap the highlights of the meeting this evening on EWTN. I guess we will need to watch and see.

 

[frommi]

msproule:

I thought it was, based on other posts I have read recently. However, I now realize I am likely mistaken.

The World Over with Raymond Arroyo will recap the highlights of the meeting this evening on EWTN. I guess we will need to watch and see.

The only thing debated at this meeting was a recommendation to eliminate memorial acclamation A from the mass because there is no latin equivalent and it also does not fit theologlically within the idea of a ‘mystery of faith’. There was no ICEL debate.

 

[frommi]

fix:

You mean material schism? Yes, IMO many of them are in it. What is there to dialogue about? It always comes down to issues of gender, genital sexuality and power. What issues fall under the banner of dialogue?

It’s very much not always about gender, gential sexuality and power.

Why is it that those dissenting are supposed to pray about their positions…wouldn’t it be good if we all prayed about where we fell on some of these issues and talked about it? Wouldn’t the bishops look stronger doing something like that?

Back on the first point…there is a great deal of things we could talk about…inculturation of the liturgy would be on example…

Too often “dialogue” gets mistaken for “compromise”…where dialogue generally allows us to find out what we agree upon (which for most catholics would be 90% of doctrine)…and maybe some areas where things are a little more difficult.

We have to start remembering that things like kneeling or standing mean very little to anyone who doesn’t post in a forum like this.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

The only thing debated at this meeting was a recommendation to eliminate memorial acclamation A from the mass because there is no latin equivalent and it also does not fit theologlically within the idea of a ‘mystery of faith’. There was no ICEL debate.

I stand corrected. I am not quite sure where I got that notion in my head anyway!

Fortunately the ICEL revisions will be coming, just not so quickly…

 

[msproule]

frommi:

We have to start remembering that things like kneeling or standing mean very little to anyone who doesn’t post in a forum like this.

More opinion disguised as fact…

 

[fix]

frommi:

It’s very much not always about gender, gential sexuality and power.

Why is it that those dissenting are supposed to pray about their positions…wouldn’t it be good if we all prayed about where we fell on some of these issues and talked about it? Wouldn’t the bishops look stronger doing something like that?

I honestly do not follow your position? Should I dialogue with my wife about having an affair? There is nothing to dialogue about. We all need to learn more about our faith and that may mean asking questions to grow deeper. It does not mean endless dialogue about issues that have long been settled and explained so many times in so many various ways.

We have to start remembering that things like kneeling or standing mean very little to anyone who doesn’t post in a forum like this.

Too many have not been taught they have a serious obligation to learn more about their faith. Too often all they get is a superficial homily once a week.

 

[frommi]

msproule:

More opinion disguised as fact…

perhaps, but think about it…

You don’t have a job and your trying to feed a family…or you have a life threatening disease…or you’re just trying to get through the day to day of life…

Can we really possibly believe that those people are all that concerned about what the bishops decide in reference to liturgical posture?

 

[frommi]

fix:

I honestly do not follow your position? Should I dialogue with my wife about having an affair? There is nothing to dialogue about. We all need to learn more about our faith and that may mean asking questions to grow deeper. It does not mean endless dialogue about issues that have long been settled and explained so many times in so many various ways.

Too many have not been taught they have a serious obligation to learn more about their faith. Too often all they get is a superficial homily once a week.

Endless dialogue? absolutely not…

But do you not think that if we revisited some of our churches theological positions in a critical way that we might find something we weren’t expecting to? This is a church that had a hard time accepting Gallileo…you’re telling me that if a group of theologians gathered they might not discover a conclusion that wasn’t there before? It’s highly possible.

As for your second point…I’m always curious what makes a homily “superficial”. My guess is that it has to quote a father of the church and make the people in the pews seem incredibly small…preaching can be better…but not if our pastors spend all the time telling us we can’t do any worse.

 

[InnocentIII]

fix:

I honestly do not follow your position? Should I dialogue with my wife about having an affair? There is nothing to dialogue about. We all need to learn more about our faith and that may mean asking questions to grow deeper. It does not mean endless dialogue about issues that have long been settled and explained so many times in so many various ways.

I hear you fix. It never ceases to amaze me how those who disagree with the the Church want to constantly debate them - not in a “help me understand this” type of way but in a “this is my opinion” type way. I am all for deepening the faith and coming to an acceptance of things I don’t understand. this is what catechisis is all about. But this does not seem to me to be the way some here mean debate. They will argue even with the quoted documents of the Church as though in some way they can convince themselves that it can be changed, as if saying it often enough and loud enough will make it so. The intriguing thing is that when they finally get their way they suddenly become anti-dialogue because that is divisive.

 

[fix]

frommi:

But do you not think that if we revisited some of our churches theological positions in a critical way that we might find something we weren’t expecting to? This is a church that had a hard time accepting Gallileo…you’re telling me that if a group of theologians gathered they might not discover a conclusion that wasn’t there before? It’s highly possible.

The Church had a hard time accepting the arrogance of Gallileo and his position regarding theology, as well they should have.

What new things can be found that would contradict the faith? If you mean a new way in relaying the faith that never contradicts the faith, then perhaps, but if you mean finding some way to justify sin, then no.

The “hot button” issues are always about sex, gender or authority.

As for your second point…I’m always curious what makes a homily “superficial”. My guess is that it has to quote a father of the church and make the people in the pews seem incredibly small…preaching can be better…but not if our pastors spend all the time telling us we can’t do any worse.

Poll after poll shows us that many, if not most, folks who attend Sunday mass reject many Church teachings. Is that because priests are speaking the truth each week?

 

[fix]

InnocentIII:

I hear you fix. It never ceases to amaze me how those who disagree with the the Church want to constantly debate them - not in a “help me understand this” type of way but in a “this is my opinion” type way. I am all for deepening the faith and coming to an acceptance of things I don’t understand. this is what catechisis is all about. But this does not seem to me to be the way some here mean debate. They will argue even with the quoted documents of the Church as though in some way they can convince themselves that it can be changed, as if saying it often enough and loud enough will make it so. The intriguing thing is that when they finally get their way they suddenly become anti-dialogue because that is divisive.

Yep, priestesses, married priests, homosexual conduct, divorce and remarriage, contraception, sterilization, IVF, euthanasia, on and on…

 

[msproule]

fix:

Yep, priestesses, married priests, homosexual conduct, divorce and remarriage, contraception, sterilization, IVF, euthanasia, on and on…

To dialogue about some these topics would suggest that the Church is willing to consider endorsing things immoral and/or contrary to natural law.

And even though it was already addressed, Galileo Galilei wanted to take his heliocentric theory “to market” even though he lacked the scientific proof to support it. Contrary to popular belief, the Church was not denouncing Galileo’s* theory. Rather, the Church was trying to uphold the Scientific Method and urged caution, requiring evidence before jumping in with both feet.

*The heliocentric theory actually originated with Copernicus, who was lauded by the Church. The distinction is that Copernicus was not trying to push his theory too hard, for he knew the necessary proof was unattainable given the technology at the time.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

You don’t have a job and your trying to feed a family…or you have a life threatening disease…or you’re just trying to get through the day to day of life…

Can we really possibly believe that those people are all that concerned about what the bishops decide in reference to liturgical posture?

Since I am not in such a dire position (at this moment), I cannot say with any certainty what weight these people assign to things like posture during Mass. However, I have sat (and knelt, and stood, whatever is indicated in the Missal) next to people who *are *in such situations and based upon their actions, they seem to hold these things in very high regard. Is this true about everybody? Absolutely not.

But based upon your statement in post #581, it is (strongly) suggested that logically, everybody who is not on this forum is oblivious to such proper instruction. That is what I thought needed correction.

 

[fix]

msproule:

To dialogue about some these topics would suggest that the Church is willing to consider endorsing things immoral and/or contrary to natural law.

Yes, and all these issues and more have beed discussed over and over. What is it that folks do not understand?

 

[msproule]

fix:

What is it that folks do not understand?

The Deposit of Faith.

 

[frommi]

msproule:

To dialogue about some these topics would suggest that the Church is willing to consider endorsing things immoral and/or contrary to natural law.

And even though it was already addressed, Galileo Galilei wanted to take his heliocentric theory “to market” even though he lacked the scientific proof to support it. Contrary to popular belief, the Church was not denouncing Galileo’s* theory. Rather, the Church was trying to uphold the Scientific Method and urged caution, requiring evidence before jumping in with both feet.

*The heliocentric theory actually originated with Copernicus, who was lauded by the Church. The distinction is that Copernicus was not trying to push his theory too hard, for he knew the necessary proof was unattainable given the technology at the time.

And it still took until the verge of the new millennium for anything to be done about this…

Look…all i know is that we know more now than we did when the church started…time moves on…our understandings of things change…and there isn’t anything wrong with that.

At one point it was considered immoral to charge interest on loans…that’s not a problem any more…why is it such a stretch to think that some our greatest theologians would not gather and find something new about any one of a number of issues. We have to stop making anthropological arguments about everything under the sun…particularly when the anthropoligical argument about one issue refutes the same argument about another one.

 

[dsproule]

frommi:

…particularly when the anthropoligical argument about one issue refutes the same argument about another one.

I’ll bite…To what issues do you refer?

 

[msproule]

frommi:

…particularly when the anthropoligical argument about one issue refutes the same argument about another one.

I’ll bite…to what issues do you refer?