Bishop Robert Carlson - Sioux Falls

[Illini]

frommi:

See…I would reverse the question, because most of the time, when people seek to “reclaim our lost traditions” they are speaking of 50 years ago, not 2000 years ago.

I have a problem when the debate around these issues is framed to say something like “these liturgists are trying to innovate too much, I want things how they USED to be”. And that is an unfair argument, because how things USED To be is probably closer to what the liturgical scholars are saying.

I agree that the church is an organic, living, breathing thing. It should adjust and change with the times. But part of allowing for that train of thought is to allow yourself to believe that the times continue to change and the spirit continues to move us in new directions to see new things and open our eyes to new facets of our beliefs.

 The debate in this thread is not about reclaiming "lost traditions" of 50 years ago.  Indeed, many have not been changed at all. The Holy Father has emphasized as recently as 2002 (Rosary) and 2003 (Eucharistic Adoration) that older traditions remain quite vital in our Church today. Why do some ignore that?

 Crucifixes and limiting the gospel and homily to the ordained is not just tradition that can be abandoned at whim by an individual parish; it remains the law of the Church. In my parish, I saw a crucifix and a priest homilist as recently as Sunday. Even during vocations week a deacon gave a thorough homily on the meaning and obligations of our baptism before introducing a seminarian to discuss his vocation. Rather than honor the traditions, Church law, and the teaching role of both, many parishes in Saginaw and elsewhere are abandoning them just to be different.

As for your last sentence…I’d be curious to know why “Rome knows what she is talking about”? The dicasteries in Rome are so disjointed that often they end up saying opposite things about the same issue. And why is there a monopoly on truth in Rome? I have a hard time with that.

 Jesus answered Peter: "Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:17-19.

 The Successor of Peter has bound on the issue of liturgical abuses:  "Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communites which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church." *Ecclesia de Eucharistia* 52 (2003). A wise person would take this line as an order, even without the tougher language elsewhere in the encyclical and especially in *Redemptionis sacramentum*, the order to cease specific liturgical abuses prepared at the request of the Holy Father himself.

 And I don't think the dicasteries are disjointed at all. They certainly have not been disunited on crucifixes or homilies. The disjointedness comes not from Rome but from bishops, priests, and laity who drag their feet on communicating and implementing the Holy See's directives.

-Illini

 

[Illini]

BayCityRickL:

If lay people can preach at Mass, I’d like to be first in line. Where do I sign up?

 This is a good reason to restrict homilies to the ordained. No offense to BayCityRick, I'm sure he'd be quite good. But if lay people can give homilies, then how do we pick the homilist? We all certainly have something to say.

 Most fundamentally, a homily is the teaching authority of the Church speaking directly to the laity, not the laity discussing the readings among themselves. Save that for the bible study.

-Illini

 

[frommi]

Scapular:

FromMI,

Why would anyone “wait” to see what was already published in 2002 GIRM and other very clear documents like Redemptionis Sacramentum?

Why do you not seem to care for keeping the Mass sacred?

Why is a “wacky liturgy war” not a battle for what is most sacred on this Earth – the reverent and most holy consecration of the bread and wine transsubstantiated before our eyes into the very presence of the Son?

How can you reasonably minimize the very presence of Jesus?

In adoration,
Scapular

I think “wait” may have been the wrong word, I believe that the implementation had begun, then the Bishop got sick…etc. (Redemptoris didn’t come out until after his death…and even then there were questions about which document had the force of law…since the US Bishops had received approval on a document only a year earlier that seemed to sit in opposition to redemptoris).

As for your second question…I do care that the mass be sacred. I just don’t know that you and I have the same definition of sacred, that’s all. I certainly am not suggesting we start consecrating potato chips and soda.

 

[Scapular]

frommi:

I I just don’t know that you and I have the same definition of sacred, that’s all. I certainly am not suggesting we start consecrating potato chips and soda.

FromMI,

Rest assured that I make no definition of what is sacred. I am the least qualified to do this. I choose to define sacred the same way that the Roman Catholic Church does.

For the record then, how do you define sacred and what is an example of something sacred?

Thanks,
Scapular

 

[frommi]

Scapular:

FromMI,

Rest assured that I make no definition of what is sacred. I am the least qualified to do this. I choose to define sacred the same way that the Roman Catholic Church does.

For the record then, how do you define sacred and what is an example of something sacred?

Thanks,
Scapular

Would it be a cop out for me to say that I know it when I see it?

Seriously, I think my biggest issue would be when someone (not neccesairly you Scapular) would equate sacred with “silence” or “stillness”. Indeed, many times that is exactly what it is.

What’s sacred to me? Well…I always think that the actions during the Triduum are very sacred, the transfer of the Eucharist on Holy Thursday while all sing the Pange Lingue and maybe something like “Stay Here and Keep Watch With me the Hour has Come” when the eucharist arrives at the place of repose. I think it’s very sacred to have a choir sing the passion of St. John on Good Friday and follow that with the solemn intercessions and the veneration of the cross. I think it’s sacred to gather after dark to bless a fire and carry a new easter flame into the liturgy of the word and to witness baptisms, confirmations, first communions all at the same service.

And yet, I find sacredness in a beautfiully constructed jeweled cross, with or without a corpus. I think it is sacred to see people standing together as the priest represents us in joining our prayers to God “through him with him and in him”.

Frankly, I still truly truly truly believe that most Catholics find the same things “sacred”. It’s how we choose to respond to the mainfestation of that sacredness that differs from time to time.

 

[Flower]

You are right on!! The recipe was approved. Furthermore, Bishop Ken was a visionary. He was a very spiritual, humble person who led his flock with a brilliant mind and a simple staff and a wonderful sense of humor. He was never after the red hat. The poor and the lame and the sick and rejected were where he was at. He was a very compassionate and understanding human being. I am a lowly, senior citizen pew person, who feels truly blessed that I had the privilege of living to see a man like Bishop Ken in the church. The Spirit is not stagnant. Thank God.

frommi:

I really appreciate how you thank me for my thoughts then call me clueless without any knowledge of my credentials in the area of liturgy.

Let me give you an example…at St. Mary’s Student Parish, Mt Pleasant the recipe is published in the bulletin with the statement “this recipe was approved by the congregation of divine worship in the summer of 2004”. Now…again, either the parish is lying, or somewhere documents are being misintrepreted.

I find it laughable that groups like adoreums “get it right”. Adoremus is a group with its own agenda, they are to the far “right” what groups like “Credo” and “We Believe” are the the far “left”. They chose what bishops they find laudable, and blast those that they do not like. To call them a group that “gets it right” when their idea of “charity” is to “pray for Cardinals like Roger Mahony” is not something I’m prepared to do.

The evidence from the bishop’s conference is that even many bishops are tired of the liturgy being the subject of some kind of “counter-reformation”. Why else would they take the rare step of putting Bishop Trautman in charge of the liturgy committee, even though his name was not even in nomination?

I find many of the conversations on this board to allow me a deeper insight to many of the things that divide us as a church, but the pretentiousness that is present in some of the posters is scary, and occasionally unchristian.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to check for the Gospel passage where Jesus specifies the proper way to display a crucifx and forbids the disciples from using honey when “doing this in memory of me”.

 

[ekindermann]

“Now…again, either the parish is lying, or somewhere documents are being misintrepreted.”

Show me the documents.

 

[chnchris]

Illini:

This is a good reason to restrict homilies to the ordained. No offense to BayCityRick, I’m sure he’d be quite good. But if lay people can give homilies, then how do we pick the homilist? We all certainly have something to say.
Most fundamentally, a homily is the teaching authority of the Church speaking directly to the laity, not the laity discussing the readings among themselves. Save that for the bible study.
-Illini

 When we stray from the Authority of Christ's Holy Church,
 interpreting what Scriptures mean on our own, we simply
 become another Protestant denomination; this is the
 danger of following " visionaries " like Ken.

 

[ekindermann]

frommi:

I really appreciate how you thank me for my thoughts then call me clueless without any knowledge of my credentials in the area of liturgy.

Well, that’s because I judge by what you are saying. If you have “credentials”- I’d like to know from where/whom and if their from anywhere respectable, why doesn’t it show in your posts?

Let me give you an example…at St. Mary’s Student Parish, Mt Pleasant the recipe is published in the bulletin with the statement “this recipe was approved by the congregation of divine worship in the summer of 2004”. Now…again, either the parish is lying, or somewhere documents are being misintrepreted.

Again I say, show me where it says that this recipe is approved - other than by the deceased bishop. And how does that explain the diocese liturgy office telling me “Don’t make waves in your parish, it will most likely be changed.”

I find it laughable that groups like adoreums “get it right”. Adoremus is a group with its own agenda, they are to the far “right” what groups like “Credo” and “We Believe” are the the far “left”. They chose what bishops they find laudable, and blast those that they do not like. To call them a group that “gets it right” when their idea of “charity” is to “pray for Cardinals like Roger Mahony” is not something I’m prepared to do.

I’m obviously not as familiar with the leanings of these groups as you seem to be. I’m reading the documents put out by the Vatican - ever hear of that group?

The evidence from the bishop’s conference is that even many bishops are tired of the liturgy being the subject of some kind of “counter-reformation”. Why else would they take the rare step of putting Bishop Trautman in charge of the liturgy committee, even though his name was not even in nomination?

Again, evidence of your vast knowledge in all of this - seems so strange coming from the same person who asked way back “what’s all the fuss about?”

I find many of the conversations on this board to allow me a deeper insight to many of the things that divide us as a church, but the pretentiousness that is present in some of the posters is scary, and occasionally unchristian.

Really? Un-Christian, or just not what you like to hear? We are to admonish sinners, and instruct the ignorant, with charity yes. I am very charitably telling you that you are WRONG. Very pretentious of me, I know. Maybe if I listed my credentials, you’d be more inclined to listen?

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to check for the Gospel passage where Jesus specifies the proper way to display a crucifx and forbids the disciples from using honey when “doing this in memory of me”.

So you are a believer in Sola Scripture, then? Or do Church documents mean anything - or only when you want them to?

 

[Scapular]

frommi:

Would it be a cop out for me to say that I know it when I see it?

This is moral relativism. What if you are not in the mood to be reverent or observent of what is truly holy - then is it not - just because at that time you don’t “see it”?

Seriously, I think my biggest issue would be when someone (not neccesairly you Scapular) would equate sacred with “silence” or “stillness”. Indeed, many times that is exactly what it is.

This could be dangerous. God has historically been manifest in the still, quiet, and silent places. I wouldn’t be too rash to push aside “silence” and “stillness”. Evil is often described as a “static” or “noisy static” - why is silence and stillness a problem?

What’s sacred to me? Well…I always think that the actions during the Triduum are very sacred, the transfer of the Eucharist on Holy Thursday while all sing the Pange Lingue and maybe something like “Stay Here and Keep Watch With me the Hour has Come” when the eucharist arrives at the place of repose. I think it’s very sacred to have a choir sing the passion of St. John on Good Friday and follow that with the solemn intercessions and the veneration of the cross. I think it’s sacred to gather after dark to bless a fire and carry a new easter flame into the liturgy of the word and to witness baptisms, confirmations, first communions all at the same service.

What do you teach a candidate about sanctity? Is it what ever you “feel” - shame if it is because lots of people are in different places spiritually, so often it is the case that we have to know what is saced, eventhough we do not necessarily “feel” it.

And yet, I find sacredness in a beautfiully constructed jeweled cross, with or without a corpus. I think it is sacred to see people standing together as the priest represents us in joining our prayers to God “through him with him and in him”.

Great for the experiential New Age types, what about the rest of us who live in the muck of everyday with evil all around us - do we not need to know what is holy, what can we depend upon to keep us and protect us?

Frankly, I still truly truly truly believe that most Catholics find the same things “sacred”. It’s how we choose to respond to the mainfestation of that sacredness that differs from time to time.

NO!!! Sanctity is our Catholic objective truth - indeed our birth right. It does not depend upon ANYTHING experiential for its inherent truth.

I believe this is where the practices of the Saginaw Diocese immediately crumble before the world. They are not grounded in the objective and magisterial truths of the Church. Instead they are intended to elicit an experiential conversion response. Well, this is OK for the new born in Christ, but the rest of us need meat to live on. There is no meat in this relativistic world of the Saginaw Diocese. Thus, it cannot survive.

Objectively,
Scapular

 

[BayCityRickL]

frommi:

Is it possible that (again) it’s a return to an earlier tradition in the Catholic church? The early Christians had no crucifixes, there is no way they would’ve put a crucifix up anywhere in those early years of this church.

This is anti-thetical to what Bishop Untener stood for. In November of 2003, he gave a talk on the future of ecclesiology, which he suggested was in infancy form. He said that there was no golden era of the Church that we needed to return to. So, I don’t see Untener as suggesting that he was moving backward in any way, crosses included.

The corollary is of course that we should not stop at the Untener stage of ecclesiology or yearn for his good old days or his “legacy.” We have to move on or we violate his vision.

Incidentally, I called his office for a copy of his talk on ecclesiology and was told he spoke from notes, so it was not available. Same old story, you had to be there, with him. Maybe the new ecclesiology is paperless, as well.

 

[BayCityRickL]

Illini:

This is a good reason to restrict homilies to the ordained. No offense to BayCityRick, I’m sure he’d be quite good. But if lay people can give homilies, then how do we pick the homilist? We all certainly have something to say.

 Most fundamentally, a homily is the teaching authority of the Church speaking directly to the laity, not the laity discussing the readings among themselves. Save that for the bible study.

-Illini

Hey, Illini, I lived in DuPage County for 13 years, not long ago. Hi, neighbor.

Sorry, I was being ironic there, about being a homilist. I thoroughly understand ordination and agree with you. We hear all that scripture of St. Paul about wives and husbands being submissive to one another. In the extension of this idea, I love to submit to a priest who is submissive to the Magisterium of the Church and to the Vicar of Christ.

 

[msproule]

Flower:

You are right on!! The recipe was approved…

Do you mean this recipe? (taken from the St. Mary (Mt. Pleasant) University Parish website)

**Eucharistic Bread Recipe
*(In the summer of 2004 this recipe was re-approved by the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship.) 4 cups whole wheat flour 1/4 cup sugar
1/2 cup white flour 1/2 cup corn oil
1/2 tsp. salt 1/2 cup honey
2 tsb. baking powder 1 1/2 cups buttermilk
1/2 tsp. baking soda

*to make buttermilk substitute, warm milk and add 1 1/2 Tablespoon white vinegar. Let set 5 minutes to clabber.

Mix all dry ingredients in large bowl. Mix all liquid ingredients. Add liquids to dry, mixing with spoon.

Mix dough in bowl with hands.

Sprinkle counter top heavily with flour. Place a quarter of the dough on floured counter top. Knead flour into dough to prevent rolling pin from sticking. Shape dough into ball and flatten on very lightly sprayed cookie sheet. Roll out the 1/4 inch thickness, including at the edges. This prevents the edges from burning and becoming hard. The load should also be about 6 inches round.

Use a sharp knife to score the top so that each loaf can be broken into 100 bite size pieces. The indentions should be deep but not go through the dough.

Bake at 375 degrees F. for 11-13 minutes. Be careful not to burn bread, especially the bottom. Remove immediately and place on towel to cool. Use a pastry brush or mushroom brush to remove excess flour and crumbs.

Bread can be frozen after cooling completely.

---

But how does one explain this statement from the same Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (taken from Redemptionis Sacramentum)?

1. The Matter of the Most Holy Eucharist

[48.] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition.[123] It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament.[124] It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.[125]

The same information is reiterated in the Code of Canon Law and the GIRM.

 

[ekindermann]

msproule:

Do you mean this recipe? (taken from the St. Mary (Mt. Pleasant) University Parish website)

Eucharistic Bread Recipe

(In the summer of 2004 this recipe was re-approved by the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship.)

But how does one explain this statement from the same Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (taken from Redemptionis Sacramentum)?

1. The Matter of the Most Holy Eucharist

[48.] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition.[123] It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament.[124] It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.[125]

The same information is reiterated in the Code of Canon Law and the GIRM.

Thanks for documenting your sources, msproule.

Now I’ll ask could someone SHOW the document - or cite it, so we can go look it up, that proves the above recipe was approved? Supposedly approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 2004. Do a search - you will find no such recipe.

My guess is no one will - because IT CAN’T BE DONE!!! Such a recipe was never approved, which is why, msproule, no one will be able to reconcile the St. Mary (Mt. Pleasant) University Parish recipe with Redemptionis Sacramentum. They will probably just change the subject and ask why you are being soooo picky about a recipe. What does it matter, in the bigger scheme of things? :ehh:

 

[Detroit_Sue]

St. Mary’s in Mount Pleasant is really edgy. My future daughter-in-law is a student at Central Michigan University. She’s not what I would call ultra-orthodox. Actually, she’s got some really liberal leanings. However, she attended Mass twice at St. Mary’s and was guided by the Holy Spirit to know that all is not well at that parish. She received Communion, and was horrified that the matter was not licit. She now drives to another parish, which, although not much better, at least uses proper matter for the Eucharist.

 

[Fast_ed75]

msproule:

Eucharistic Bread Recipe

(In the summer of 2004 this recipe was re-approved by the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship.) 4 cups whole wheat flour 1/4 cup sugar

1/2 cup white flour 1/2 cup corn oil
1/2 tsp. salt 1/2 cup honey
2 tsb. baking powder 1 1/2 cups buttermilk*
1/2 tsp. baking soda

*to make buttermilk substitute, warm milk and add 1 1/2 Tablespoon white vinegar. Let set 5 minutes to clabber.

http://www.homefiresbakery.com/media/sticky_buns.jpg

 

[MBS1]

Minus the cinnamon - looks just like what we get!! MBS1:yup:

 

[Pax2u]

I have to agree–as former members of Sacred Heart Parish in the 80’s in Saginaw, my husband actually had the “ministry” of baking the bread used for Eucharistic some weeks. The recipe he was given to use contained honey.

We were horrified to later learn that this was totally not supposed to be happening–our intentions were so good, and were led so astray.

 

[msproule]

Even if the Holy See had approved this recipe, I am still perplexed by the motivation to want to get it approved. What is the point? What possesses one to even explore the idea of an alternate formula for bread that is to become the Most Blessed Sacrament when there are so many documents describing what constitutes valid matter? I just do not understand.

 

[Fast_ed75]

The objective of changing the bread is to lead people to a more “post-Conciliar” theology of the Eucharist. (By “post-Conciliar” proponents mean their own view of the Council, of course.) Traditional unleavened hosts give too much emphasis to the sacrificial dimension of Mass and Communion, they say. Precisely because traditional hosts are not “ordinary food”, and are so strongly linked with Christ’s institution of the Sacrifice of the Mass at the Last Supper “on the night before he died”, this form of bread itself is seen as an impediment to the goal of transforming (“updating”) belief about the most fundamental teaching of the Catholic faith.

Using ordinary bread helps to shift the focus from the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist – “body, blood, soul and divinity” – to other “modes of presence”, such as Christ’s presence in the gathered community and the “shared meal” as a sign of unity.