Bishop Robert Carlson - Sioux Falls

[FatherTodd]

Scapular,
I offered you the advice. The choice is yours. Choose well.

 

[MBS1]

Fr. Todd,

When I started this thread, I didn’t think it would end up with so much discussion. Thank you for your comments, I think you have some excellant points. However, the local paper quoted Bishop Carlson as saying that he knew little about the Saginaw Diocese - so maybe that’s why so many are anxious to tell him about it. That may have been a bit of politics on his part- as I would have a hard time believing he doesn’t know what he is getting into. Anyway, if I wanted to write him a letter of welcome - should I wait until he gets here, or send it to him in Sioux Falls? If so, to which address? I agree with you though, prayer is important. I truly believe that many of us who prayed for an orthodox bishop to lead us had our prayers answered. I don’t think one would need to outline the liturgical problems here in a letter to him - he’ll find out soon enough. I think your advice of a letter of support and prayer is the best way to start. From what I can tell, he is a very good leader and we won’t have to worry about the heterodoxy in the diocese swaying him too much. I also don’t expect change to happen overnight, and I hope those who have responded to this site don’t think that either. Have read Eph 6 as you suggested - thank you. God Bless you for your support and vocation.
MBS1

 

[FatherTodd]

MBS1,
Thanks for your kind words. I sincerely doubt that my Bishop knows less about your diocese than I do. I am aware of those things and more. The diocese has a widespread reputation and you don’t have to spend long on any of the websites to know what your getting into. I haven’t spoken with him directly about your diocese as of yet so I can’t speak for him.

  People here were concerned.  I was trying to be helpful   My main interest is in helping my Bishop do the Lord's work.  Frankly I wish you had gotten someone else.  God chose differntly.  I can either work with God or against him.  I choose to try to help God.  I believe what I suggested would truly be the most help to you.

  What I can tell you beyond any shadow of a doubt is that Bishop Carlson will pray and do his best to do what he thinks God is telling him.

  I would wait to write him the letter.   He has a lot on his plate.  He is still running our diocese until the 24th.

  I gave the best advice I could because I know and love my Bishop and truly believe that will be the most helpful to him and to the people of Saginaw.  I think it would be best to support him first and after a year or so write a letter if you think he is missing something big.  He isn't stupid.  He knows the faith.  

  Again that is all I have to say.  I sincerely desire that God would let this chalice pass from us..... but as Christ said not my will but thy will be done.

  Perchance we will see you for the installation.

 

[avephilomena]

I know Bishop Carlson well and wish to mention to those of you in the Saginaw Diocese that you should all write him and let him know you are there – he will want to know. Let him know what the problems are in your parishes, but don’t dwell on the negative. Let him know what you can or are willing to do to increment the faith in the diocese. Remember, as well, that this new evangelization requires many years and much work on everyone’s part to accomplish (with much charity), so don’t get discouraged. For those of you with financial means, contact him about establishing a foundation to support seminarians. Good seminarians are essential for the life of your diocese.
I am sure that he is interested in hearing from all of you.
You can write him at your Chancery Office in Saginaw or at 523 N. Duluth, Sioux Falls, SD 57104. Remember the installation is February 24.
Christ’s Peace be with you.

 

[stevendmo]

midlandchemic:

But the question on the tip of everyone’s tongues…since Untener sold the bishop’s residence, I wonder where this bishop is going to live. Something tells me he’s not going to find the patient room at St. Mary’s hospital to be quite so cozy.

Please, please tell me that you do not think there’s something WRONG with a bishop choosing to make his home among his people – e.g., in the parishes of his diocese, and particularly in a Catholic hospital among the sick and dying. Do you, in fact, believe that Bishop Untener did something wrong by living a humble life, close to his flock?

By the way, where do you think Jesus would be more likely to stay: among the sick in the hospital, or in a bishop’s mansion (the type that Bishop Untener sold)? If your answer is the former-- well, I guess you and I really do belong to different Catholic churches.

Praying for the new bishop as well as the soul of the good Bishop Untener.

Steve
(former member of the Saginaw diocese)

 

[chnchris]

John Higgins:

Here’s Bishop Carlson’s first pastoral letter to the Diocese of Sioux Falls. You can catch his tone here Seems good to me. But don’t expect anyone coming into a new assignment to instantly play Liturgy Cop. John

They won’t love his love for Our Lady there.

Bishop Carlson in Saginaw, MI has his hands full of dissenters, pray he can remain solid, when all around him are liberal. ( i was on staff at a Catholic parish there for several months 95-96, that’s all we could take ).

i’ll never forget when our priest, when speaking of Jesus leaving his family to preach in the temple said that Jesus had to leave because " Mary was such a bitch " (forgive me Lord, for saying this about our Blessed Mother).

 

[chnchris]

midlandchemic:

BTW, what do you think the odds are of us getting the crucifixes back in our parishes? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if they let St. Mary’s be the first to put Jesus back on the altar and lead us not into further temptation?

  He has so many horrific abuses to correct, it is just
  overwhelming! He will have to clean house, but i don't
  know if he can find any orthodox priests in the diocese.

  In the parish we served, Jesus was hidden in a small
  room (closet); we felt like Mary and Joseph trying to 
  find Him.... we had lost Our Savior Son.

 

[chnchris]

midlandchemic:

In a pastoral letter published on the Sioux Falls diocesan website, Carlson speaks of the role of the bishop in contemporary society.
In part it states:** “Indifferent to human popularity, the Bishop must boldly preach the Cross for the sake of the souls entrusted to him. The unity of truth and love can never be compromised under the pretext of retaining believers or of maintaining the harmony and good disposition of church-going members. In essence, the Bishop must be committed to freeing the faithful from every form of superficiality and to feeding his flock with the lasting substance of sound doctrine.” **

They are starving in Saginaw!

 

[chnchris]

MBS1:

Sorry, it is Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) that meets at our church, not Call to Action as I said. I had a brain cramp for a while.MBS1

Pretty much the same.

 

[chnchris]

Grandin:

I also believe Bishop Carlson should be inundated with letters from orthodox members of his new diocese… It’s a cinch that the Untener-ites will get Carlson’s ear first, but we need to speak out for the Truth. Here’s the address from the Sioux Falls diocese web site.
Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls - 523 N. Duluth Ave Sioux Falls, SD 57104

i also believe, it would be advisable to send to him in SD,
as there will be no assurance he’ll get them once he’s in Saginaw.

 

[frommi]

chnchris:

They are starving in Saginaw!

Interesting…I’m curious where all these quotes are from Bishop Untener that were full of “superficiality” and “false doctrine”

When you find one, please email it me.

 

[frommi]

ekindermann:

For example:

1. Lay ministers giving homilies
2. The lack of vocations (Priest, Deacons, Nuns)
3. The lack of a crucifix in parishes
4. The formulation of the bread for communion
5. The use of glass to hold the precious blood
6. Not kneeling at the consecration
7. No kneelers
8. Eucharistic prayers and form of Mass
9. Location of the tabernacle
10. Saginaw prayer (she God)
11. Inappropriate use of general absolution
12. Form of sacraments (e.g., no pennance)

my quote:
**The problem list - as I see it - could be divided up into categories -(I guess I’m an “organizer”). Some are in the “very easy to fix” group (ie crucifixes back up, stations of the cross back up, statues, candles) - in other words “environmental asthetics” or whatever they call it. Then we have the personnel issues - our nun pastor, priests who think they should be called “sacramental ministers”, DREs and others who are running things when the priest should be calling the shots, homilies being given by lay people, misuse of Extrordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, which leads to the category of irreverance towards the Blessed Sacrament - both in & out of liturgy, lack of kneeling, genuflecting, recipies, tabernacle placement, and then the other categories of liturgical abuse & sacramental abuse (communal confession & NO CONFESSION UNTIL TWO YEARS (4th Grade) AFTER 1ST EUCHARIST!!!) **

First: Did anyone insinuate this is a “Father Knows Best” (as you put it) type of diocese??? Or do you mean “Holy Father” as in this diocese isn’t obedient to him??? or to the Church??? If that is what you meant, you are right. This hasn’t been a “Father knows best” diocese for a very long time and IMHO some overdue obedienmce is in high order! Second: What do you mean by, “there are very few true abuses going on in Saginaw (all things considered)…” What things should “be considered”??? What makes abuse (of any kind or amount) permissable?? Thirdly: To label these concerns, which were quite detailed and heartfelt as “hullabaloo”, tells me that you didn’t bother to read all the posts explaining the points of view of folks OR as another poster asked, "

Sorry to be so harsh, but gee whiz, man! Consider some of these facts before you are so dismissive of others concerns!!
FROM the Saginaw Diocese and many parishes in it-because she’s had to drag her family to many parishes to find a decent liturgy!!!

The problem is that many of the items listed are not “abuses”. It’s not an abuse to lack kneelers. It’s not an abuse to sing the Saginaw blessing (could one debate the theology of it, absolutely…but to my knowledge there has been no edict that God is to always be referred to in the masculine, aside from some lectionary tranlsation documents). The location of the tabernacle is NOT an abuse. The use of general absolution is permissible in cases where a priest cannot hear all the penitents present.

I still believe that the church of Saginaw has done nothing to take itself out of communion with the universal catholic church.

I just find it continually troubling that one should be “praying for” a “certain” type of bishop.

The office of bishop should be respected. The office is more important than the person in the office. It would be very wrong of someone like me to not respect the office of Bishop once Bishop Carlson is installed simply because he might decide to do some things I don’t agree with. Likewise, I think it is wrong when people disrespect the office of Bishop of Saginaw. At one point a group took out an ad calling Ken Untener a heretic.

Bishop Untener was truly redolent of Catholic faith, and his shepherding style was theologically rooted.

If I seem dismissive I apologize, but I think we all need to remember that Catholics agree on a greater amount of items than we disagree on. I think it would be a shame if a new Bishop was expected to spend time reinstalling kneelers instead of helping the poor, speaking out on beginning and end of life issues, or insuring the long term health of a catholic school system.

That’s what concerns me.

 

[Scapular]

Dear FromMI,

You are correct not all of them are abuses, permit me to add in red those that are immediately obvious:

1. Lay ministers giving homilies (GIRM 66)
2. The lack of vocations (Priest, Deacons, Nuns)
3. The lack of a crucifix in parishes (GIRM 117)
4. The formulation of the bread for communion (GIRM 73, 75)
5. The use of glass to hold the precious blood (GIRM 328, 330)
6. Not kneeling at the consecration (GIRM 43)
7. No kneelers
8. Eucharistic prayers and form of Mass
9. Location of the tabernacle (see, Redemptionis Sacramentum)
10. Saginaw prayer (she God)
11. Inappropriate use of general absolution
12. Form of sacraments (e.g., no pennance)

Those not with a reference to the GIRM or RS are still problems but would need more work here to explain.

My question is, “Why be Roman Catholic?” if you are not interested in what Rome has to say. There are 33,000 other protestant sects that you can belong to. The one thing we should have in common is our strict obedience to Rome. I love being a Roman Catholic.

For me the biggest reason that the Church of Saginaw might not be in communion with Rome has to do with the appearance of illicit Masses. These can arise primarily from the formulation of the Sacred Host which cannot be consecrated as B. Untener decided to formulate it.

The other abuses are like slow poisons that eat away at your faith, they are totally unnecessary changes that dilute the sancity of the Mass.

Take care,

Scapular

 

[MBS1]

Scapular,
Well said.
MBS1

 

[frommi]

Scapular:

My question is, “Why be Roman Catholic?” if you are not interested in what Rome has to say. There are 33,000 other protestant sects that you can belong to. The one thing we should have in common is our strict obedience to Rome. I love being a Roman Catholic.

For me the biggest reason that the Church of Saginaw might not be in communion with Rome has to do with the appearance of illicit Masses. These can arise primarily from the formulation of the Sacred Host which cannot be consecrated as B. Untener decided to formulate it.

The other abuses are like slow poisons that eat away at your faith, they are totally unnecessary changes that dilute the sancity of the Mass.

Take care,

Scapular

Unfortunately, the idea of being a Catholic has nothing to do with “strict obedience to Rome”. The papal office is meant to protect unity in the worldwide church. The pope, after all, is simply the Bishop of Rome.

The design of the Catholic church is one that places greater emphasis on the local church than Rome.

It always bothers me when people say we should follow everything Rome says, when it is obvious that most only believe that in liturgical matters and beginning of life issues.

If we are to follow everything Rome says, then every Roman Catholic should be objecting to the war in Iraq in a loud and voiceforous way. That does not happen, and we all know that.

Again, those who read any of the statements made by the late Bishop of Saginaw know that he allowed nothing to occur that would take us out of communion with the universal church. People assume that because he called for some dialogue on controversial issues that he went ahead and did some things that would be “out of step”. He did not ordain a married man, and he did not have grape juice and potato chips used as the substance for consecration.

Your statement that some abuses “dilute the sanctity” of mass is interesting. Perhaps it dillutes it for you, that is entirely possible. However, if not kneeling dillutes the sanctity of mass for you, you would have a hard time going to mass in Rome, since they don’t have kneelers in St. Peter’s Basilica.

For me personally, I have always found the liturgical celebrations I have attended in Saginaw to be full of prayer and life. And yes, even many people who believe in the “real presence” of Jesus Christ. In fact, I think the late Bishop was one of the most eloquent speakers on the topic of Christology.

Unfortunately, again, your point of view promotes the idea that we are a branch office of a church based in Rome led by the successor of Christ. And that is a model of church governance that has been emphatically proven incorrect. Jesus Christ is not retired, he’s here, now. The Pope is not a CEO.

 

[Grandin]

Dear Frommi,
I don’t know what things are like in your diocese if you think we in Saginaw are riled up over nothing. There is so much you say that needs responding to, one doesn’t quite know where to start. I attend St. Brigid in Midland. The hosts ARE valid (it’s Blessed Sacrament in Midland which bakes what I call the “gingerbread hosts”), however if you would visit St. Brigid for 6 successive weekends you would be guaranteed at least one homily given by a layperson. That’s a clear liturgical abuse, as Scapular pointed out to you. It’s an abuse that was instituted by Bishop Untener, which is why it happens at just about every parish in Saginaw.
You state to Scapular:
“Unfortunately, again, your point of view promotes the idea that we are a branch office of a church based in Rome led by the successor of Christ.”
I don’t recall seeing Scapular or anyone else on this thread make the claim that the pope is the successor of Christ. He’s the successor of Peter, as we all know. You’re setting up a straw man here. When Scapular speaks of “Rome” I am sure what he means is the universal consensus and consistent teaching of the Roman Catholic Bishops, which we associate with Rome since that is where the Vatican is located. If there is no primacy due to Peter’s successor, then why to bishops make ad limina visits to him, why is a new Bishop of Rome chosen in a way that is so unlike the selection of other bishops, why does the Bishop of Rome have to authorize the appointment of new bishops…well, the list of inconsistencies in your argument could go on and on.

You also state:
“However, if not kneeling dillutes the sanctity of mass for you, you would have a hard time going to mass in Rome, since they don’t have kneelers in St. Peter’s Basilica.”
The GIRM states that we should kneel for consecration unless prevented by lack of space, the number of people, or some other good reason. Regional Churches have some leeway here, and there’s good reason for it if no one kneels at St. Peter’s, but in the “Appendix to the General Instruction for the Dioceses of the United States” the USCCB instructs that the appropriate posture from the end of the Sanctus to the end of the Amen is to kneel. A bishop who instructs his priests to do otherwise is therefore out of communion with respect to this issue with the fellow bishops in his region and, as a consequence, with the universal Church.
If the local church has the authority you seem to claim for it, then please tell me why the rubrics (like the GIRM) even exist? I am a teacher. When I give my students a project and a rubric to follow for their grade, I’m not giving them a set of suggestions and then telling them they can do their own thing. If they chose to submit a project that does not comply with the rubrics I’ve established, they lose credit. Although the Bishop of Rome approves the liturgical rubrics, he does not develop them. They are developed by the Catholic bishops. If an individual bishop decides he doesn’t like them, he is not bucking only the pope but also his fellow bishops because he is ignoring the universal consensus of the universal Church. Being out of step with this universal consensus does not promote unity.
Sorry for the long post.
Grandin

 

[frommi]

Grandin:

Dear Frommi,
Although the Bishop of Rome approves the liturgical rubrics, he does not develop them. They are developed by the Catholic bishops. If an individual bishop decides he doesn’t like them, he is not bucking only the pope but also his fellow bishops because he is ignoring the universal consensus of the universal Church. Being out of step with this universal consensus does not promote unity.
Sorry for the long post.
Grandin

Correct…rubrics are developed by individual bishop’s conference and given recognition by the Holy See. In the case of “kneeling”, I believe the rubric in the United States allows the Bishop a good amount of leeway (with the ever ambigous statement “or some other good reason”).

Oneness does not necessairly mean sameness. I think sometimes we get so far into rubricsm that we leave no room for the pastoral implementation of a canonical norm.

I will be the first to admit that many of the things some consider abuses do not bother me in the least. Frankly, when a parish only has one priest doing all the homilizing, I believe that a change in perspective from time to time is a healthy thing. I understand I’m casting aside a rubric, but I’m giving my personal opinion.

In the end, one thing I believe is that no one knows what direction the Holy Spirit will move us next. The Catholic Church has had many ways of surprising us over the years. All I hope for is a welcoming church with good celebrations of the mass, and a sense of Eucharistic unity. I believe there is an awful lot of room under this big tent called Church for a lot of different points of view, and a lot of different prayers.

 

[Scapular]

Dear FromMI,

There is more to this than “rubrics” although I appreciate what Grandin has written, I believe there is more.

Basically, I work in an environment where people actively and aggressively attack the Catholic Church to my face daily. I work very hard to defend the Church and I stand by her inspite of the failings of those who have led her for almost 2000 years.

What I end up having to defend the most are the failings of just a few priests and popes who long ago engaged in “pastoral implementation of a canonical norm” that is now a scar that Satan uses to deter followers of Christ.

There is no individual that I am hoping to evangelize who cannot read and will not read the GIRM. What do I tell these folks when trying to evangelize them toward the faith? What do I tell them when the Mass they are attending is illicit or the priest decides that a lay minister can give the homily? What is the answer that we want to give? (“Please come into the Church, we don’t know who we are this week but by Easter we’ll look more Roman Catholic…”)

For me it’s a type of intellectual dishonesty to ask for a candidate to be in formation and to open himself up to the teachings of the Church when the clergy are off in la-la land.

Help me out here, how do I present the Church as the bride of Christ when she’s busy (locally) having her toenails painted?

Please consider that this is more than a question of “rubrics”.

With evangelism at heart,

Scapular

 

[frommi]

Scapular:

Dear FromMI,

Basically, I work in an environment where people actively and aggressively attack the Catholic Church to my face daily. I work very hard to defend the Church and I stand by her inspite of the failings of those who have led her for almost 2000 years.

What I end up having to defend the most are the failings of just a few priests and popes who long ago engaged in “pastoral implementation of a canonical norm” that is now a scar that Satan uses to deter followers of Christ.

Help me out here, how do I present the Church as the bride of Christ when she’s busy (locally) having her toenails painted?

Please consider that this is more than a question of “rubrics”.

With evangelism at heart,

Scapular

Scapular,

I work at a Catholic university that long ago decided to become Catholic with a small “c”. So I know all about having to defend the Catholic Church in a work environment, considering I’m one of the few Catholics around here.

I have found that the more I make myself understand why we do things a certain way, what the history is of where we’ve been and where the spirit is taking us, the easier it is to deal with those attacks (although often the attacks aren’t attacks at all and simply questions).

I could be wrong, but perhaps the place where you and I disagree fundamentally is that (I think) you are saying that it is necessary for us to have consistency in belief and practice universally in order to effectively evangelize. While I believe that the customs of the local church have to be taken into account when deciding how to best do that.

As I’ve said before in these forums, I would probably be considered a “left of center” Catholic, but I always hate those terms (conservative, liberal, orthodox, progressive, etc.), because I really truly believe that more holds us together than pushes us apart.

Trust me, I believe whole-heartedly in the real presence, I simply don’t have any interest in fussing over the placement of the tabernacle, but I can see where for some people that is important to their vision of a church.

Evangelization is very important for the church, and something we’ve done a poor job of for several years.

It’s a great theological debate really, how can the church be “in the world” but not “of the world”?

 

[chnchris]

frommi:

Interesting…I went to mass there and received a host at every mass I went to. Are you sure were talking about the same parish? I’ve never seen a nun give a homily there, and I tend to visit there everytime I’m in Michigan, which is where I’m from (understanding the screen handle now FROMmi?)

  You are blessed to have been able to leave Saginaw;
  we had to go back to NY without a job or place to
  live, just to escape the schismatics attempting to
  destroy our new-found Catholic faith.