Bishop Robert Carlson - Sioux Falls

[bknebel]

Thanks, Grotto!

How’s life on Purgatory Cove? I’m there somedays it seems myself!

 

[singerlady]

Welcome back, Basil. Glad to hear that no one was hurt in the fender bender.

 

[bknebel]

hey thanks, Singerlady!

God was with us. He let us know it too!

 

[msproule]

frommi:

There’s been nitpicking over the Eucharistic Prayer translation (“for many” or “for all”) for years…so I’m not taking a unique tact on this.

If Bishop Carlson were allowing the priests of his Diocese to change the words of the Eucharistic Prayer, this would be a useful point in this discussion. But, he is not and therefore it is not. Once again, you have failed to respond directly to at least two challenges to your argument.

Redemptoris is a good document…however, I think a good example of curial red tape.

At least in principle, I would liken the issuance of RS to an infallible declaration. Infallible Teachings that are proclaimed either Ex Cathedra or from Councils arise in response to widespread confusion, dissent, or heresy. In any case, they do not proclaim anything new. Rather, they reiterate and solidify those things that the Church has always held as true. So would you would consider those to be examples of “*Pontifical *red tape”?

It is unfortunate to think that the CDW (with a mandate and approval from the Holy Father) thought it was necessary to publish this “good”, albeit redundant, document. I am certain they did so just to look busy and there was really no need for it.

How is it that a year before redemptoris, approval was given to an American document that allowed pouring of the precious blood from a flagon to chalices…but less than a year later, this is no longer any good?

Simple…It was a bad idea. Common sense tells us that. Do you have any better examples?

 

[frommi]

msproule:

At least in principle, I would liken the issuance of RS to an infallible declaration. Infallible Teachings that are proclaimed either Ex Cathedra or from Councils arise in response to widespread confusion, dissent, or heresy. In any case, they do not proclaim anything new. Rather, they reiterate and solidify those things that the Church has always held as true. So would you would consider those to be examples of “*Pontifical *red tape”?

It is unfortunate to think that the CDW (with a mandate and approval from the Holy Father) thought it was necessary to publish this “good”, albeit redundant, document. I am certain they did so just to look busy and there was really no need for it.

Simple…It was a bad idea. Common sense tells us that. Do you have any better examples?

It was not an infallible declaration…it was over reaching is what it was…pastoral judgment of a curial official substituted for the judgment of the bishops of an entire episcopal conference.

 

[frommi]

ekindermann:

frommi:

Besides temperament playing a role, I am “aggressive” because I CARE about my faith, my church and the souls of my family, friends and others in general and I am concerned that they are not being properly taught! Why are you so “laid back”? You were Confirmed

weren’t you? Do you have the zeal for your faith? Do you not care that these rules/rubrics/guidelines/requirements - whatever you want to call them - (Call them whatever you want, but you can’t call them negotiable, we have shown you that) - are not being followed?

Now we’re misusing the sacrament of Confirmation…thats nice.

Yes, I was confirmed and yes I have a zeal for my faith (not that I’m totally certain what one has to do with the other).

The main rubric to be followed is that the bishop is the bishop. End of story. Unless he’s a schismatic, you follow him.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

It was not an infallible declaration…

Of course not! I never said it was. I qualified my analogy with *“at least in principle” *so that nobody would think I was trying to say that RS was infallible. Obviously you missed or ignored the point…again.

it was over reaching is what it was…pastoral judgment of a curial official substituted for the judgment of the bishops of an entire episcopal conference.

You are more than welcome to your opinion. I doubt the entire episcopal conference was in accord on the matter although obviously the majority were. Nevertheless, you cannot fault Cardinal Arinze for clamping down on strange practices. After all, that is his duty as Prefect of the CDW. Since you seem to be so embittered over Roman “interference”, you should instead blame the Holy Father. After all, he approved both the USCCB and CDW documents, right?

 

[msproule]

frommi:

The main rubric to be followed is that the bishop is the bishop. End of story. Unless he’s a schismatic, you follow him.

This thread has been going on a long time so my mind might be dulling. Has anybody here advocated disobedience? If so, I cannot recall any examples. You must admit that every decision made by a Bishop is not necessarily “the best” decision. Examples of this are easy to find and we have the advantage of hindsight to demonstrate it. Saint Pio of Pietrelcina is a great model for obedience at all costs.

Anyway, this thread is about Bishop Carlson. Judging from the people in his Diocese (both current and former) who post here, there is a lot of interest in what he will do as Shepherd. Part of this analysis involves comparing and contrasting different practices that exist in the Church today. Many prayerfully hope the Diocese will grow into closer conformity with the desires of the Vatican.

 

[8640]

frommi:

It was not an infallible declaration…it was over reaching is what it was…pastoral judgment of a curial official substituted for the judgment of the bishops of an entire episcopal conference.

RS was requested by JPII in his Encyclical on the Eucharist. The Roman Curia acts with the authority of the Pope and so this Document has his authority attached to it. It was not an infallible declaration because it was not a matter of the faith. However, it dealt with the Liturgy which is a universal (i.e. Catholic) issue. All Catholics celebrate the same liturgy so the bishops must follow the direction of the Holy Father who works through the Roman Curia. The Church is not protestant where everyone can do it his own way!

 

[frommi]

msproule:

Many prayerfully hope the Diocese will grow into closer conformity with the desires of the Vatican.

Which is what exactly? The Papal MC is still there and his liturgies still look like something that rivals “Cats” for broadway quality.

What “many” prayerfully hope for is a church more in conformity with Irondale, Alabama…the Vatican is hardly on their minds.

 

[ekindermann]

You asked:

Why are you so agressive about all this stuff?

So I asked you if you had been Confirmed, implying that you don’t recognize the zeal coming from Confirmation.
To which you then said:

frommi:

Now we’re misusing the sacrament of Confirmation…thats nice.
Yes, I was confirmed and yes I have a zeal for my faith (not that I’m totally certain what one has to do with the other).

So I say, here, learn something, I think it answers both points:
Confirmation
A sacrament in which the Holy Ghost is given to those already baptized in order to make them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ.
Effects
Confirmation imparts

• an increase of sanctifying grace which makes the recipient a “perfect Christian”;
• a special sacramental grace consisting in the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost and *notably in the strength and courage to confess boldly the name of Christ; *
• an indelible character by reason of which the sacrament cannot be received again by the same person.

The practice and teaching of the Church at the present day preserve the primitive type: the imposition of hands, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the privileges of the episcopate.
Zeal

(From delos, a derivative of deo “to boil”, to “throb with heat”), is “a necessary effect of love”, being “the vehement movement of one who loves to [secure] the object of his love” (vehemens motus amantis in rem amatam, St. Thomas, Summa Theol. I-II:28:4). Here the distinctive note is in the vehemence, or intensity, of the action to which love impels, an intensity which is proportioned to that of the love felt. As there is two kinds of love, the amor concupiscentiae, which is self-regarding, and the amor amicitiae, which is altruistic, two corresponding kinds of zeal might be distinguished, but by usage the term is restricted to the zeal prompted by the amor amicitiae;* indeed in its religious sense it is applied solely to the zeal inspired by the love of God, to the ardent endeavours and works undertaken to promote His glory.* Here again we can subdivide according as this zeal for God manifests itself in works of devotedness directed towards the fulfillment of the first or the second of the two great Commandments. In the Bible (cf. Psalm 63:10; Numbers 25:11; Titus 2:14, etc.) it is mostly used in the first of these applications; *in the phrase “zeal for souls” it is used in the second, and in this sense it is much the more common among religious writers. *Zeal, being love in action, just on that account tends to remove as far as lies in its power all that is injurious or hostile to the object of its love; it has thus its antipathies as well as its attractions. Moreover, since, though itself appertaining to the will, it presupposes an exercise of judgment as to the appropriate means for the attainment of its object, *we must further distinguish true and false zeal, according as the judgment guiding it is sound or unsound. Thus St. Paul’s zeal was zeal throughout, but it was false zeal in the days when he persecuted the Church, true zeal when he became its Apostle. *“Caritas Christi urget nos” are the words with which this Apostle described the promptings within his own breast of this zeal which contributed so powerfully to lay the foundations of the Catholic Church. And it is a zeal of like nature which, enkindled in the breasts of so many generations of ardent followers of Christ, has, in its co-operation with the lavish gifts of the Holy Spirit, built that Church up into the greatest marvel of human history. *For it is the zeal of all those devout souls which, as distinguished from the lukewarmness of the ordinary Christian, has sent forth the Apostles and missionaries to their lives of self-sacrifice, has filled the sanctuaries with an unfailing supply of good priests and the cloisters with throngs of fervent religious, which has organized, sustained, and developed so splendid an array of works of charity to meet almost every conceivable need of suffering humanity. *
definitions taken from: [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm)(emphasis mine)

May God Bless You & Mary keep you! (she says in her most zealous for souls voice)

 

[grotto]

frommi:

Which is what exactly? The Papal MC is still there and his liturgies still look like something that rivals “Cats” for broadway quality.

What “many” prayerfully hope for is a church more in conformity with Irondale, Alabama…the Vatican is hardly on their minds.

---

If you have something to submit to this thread please quit using the opportunity to be insulting, negative, and asking, begging, to be held to account. While you consider why this would be a good move on your part, quit using anonymous “credible priests in the diocese” to support your theology that you pick up in the coffee room.

Our desire for you to gain some valuable insights into the Catholic Faith and the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the motivation we rely on when taking the time and effort to reply to your adolescent
opinions.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

Which is what exactly?

Objectively, it *is *that which is written and taught in the “good” documents intended to regulate our lives and the liturgy. It is not creative interpretations, manipulations, and legal dodging.

The Papal MC is still there and his liturgies still look like something that rivals “Cats” for broadway quality.

I will admit that I am perplexed by some of these things. But what exactly are you attempting to justify with this point? Here is another example of equal merit: If the Holy Father permits a non-Catholic to receive Holy Communion, does that mean that everything else is fair game, too? In light of everything we know, this is simply not the case.

What “many” prayerfully hope for is a church more in conformity with Irondale, Alabama…the Vatican is hardly on their minds.

So you read minds now? Do you know what I thinking right now???

 

[frommi]

msproule:

I will admit that I am perplexed by some of these things. But what exactly are you attempting to justify with this point? Here is another example of equal merit: If the Holy Father permits a non-Catholic to receive Holy Communion, does that mean that everything else is fair game, too? In light of everything we know, this is simply not the case.

It still seems to me that people cherry pick what they want to follow and use as ‘role modeling’.

I am not necessairly speaking of you msproule…

I don’t think it means things are “fair game”, but I think it shows that in his role as Bishop of Rome, the Pope often senses that he has a pastoral office and has to make pastoral decisions. The same decisions that many many bishops have to make everyday.

Then we have the statement of “good documents”…which objectively would mean that “This Holy and Living Sacrifice” by our own bishops is not as “good as” Redemptoris…

I contend that “cafeteria Catholicism” often pervades both sides of many of these arguments.

 

[frommi]

*******************************************************************************

If you have something to submit to this thread please quit using the opportunity to be insulting, negative, and asking, begging, to be held to account. While you consider why this would be a good move on your part, quit using anonymous “credible priests in the diocese” to support your theology that you pick up in the coffee room.

Our desire for you to gain some valuable insights into the Catholic Faith and the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the motivation we rely on when taking the time and effort to reply to your adolescent
opinions.

My adolescent opinions?

I’ve been formed in the Catholic faith by a variety of good priests, nuns, and laity. I’m not sure I’m going to get faith nourishment from a message board.

I find it insulting that you would call anything I say “coffee room” theology.

 

[grotto]

Easily taking insult can be soothed by another cup of coffee. Put a little sugar in it for good measure.

 

[frommi]

grotto:

Easily taking insult can be soothed by another cup of coffee. Put a little sugar in it for good measure.

This needs to stop. I’m not hoping to see a thread closing here.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

Then we have the statement of “good documents”…which objectively would mean that “This Holy and Living Sacrifice” by our own bishops is not as “good as” Redemptoris…

“Good” was the adjective you used in regard to RS.

Both RS and *This Holy and Living Sacrifice *are authoritative documents. The latter was based upon the 1975 Missal. Upon issuance of the 2000 Missal, there was apparent confusion (not only in the USCCB territory). This prompted the publishing of RS as a remedy to the situation. The USCCB website states that the earlier USCCB document is superceded by the 2000 Missal where conflicts exist. RS clarifies the intent of the 2000 Missal.

 

[frommi]

“Good” was the adjective you used in regard to RS.

Both RS and *This Holy and Living Sacrifice *are authoritative documents. The latter was based upon the 1975 Missal. Upon issuance of the 2000 Missal, there was apparent confusion (not only in the USCCB territory). This prompted the publishing of RS as a remedy to the situation. The USCCB website states that the earlier USCCB document is superceded by the 2000 Missal where conflicts exist. RS clarifies the intent of the 2000 Missal.

A missal that we’re still waiting and waiting and waiting for. We have the general instruction…but not the missal.

 

[ekindermann]

frommi:

This needs to stop. I’m not hoping to see a thread closing here.

then stop the Alabama comments, you provoke, then cry “foul” (uncharitable)