Bishop Robert Carlson - Sioux Falls

  • Thread starter Thread starter MBS1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
frommi:
This I don’t understand…I didn’t think I did anything wrong around here…I don’t agree with people, and chose to say so…what’s wrong with that?

Are we that closed off to dialogue?

Yes, I used a bit of sarcasm when asking if the Bishop had made all these anticipated changes in two weeks or less.

However, in this forum I’ve had to endure people calling my home “calvary”, I’ve had to watch as clergy in the diocese are pretty much called unholy and heterodox, when neither is true in a general sense.

Why shouldn’t I defend these folks?
Click to expand...
If all you wanted to do was dialogue and defend, there wouldn’t be a problem, but your remarks seem intended to invoke a response to which you can point a finger and say, “tsk tsk, that’s uncharitable my dear.” I have never been anything but polite to you yet you imply that I am either enjoying the discomfort of those who are more liberal, or that I am standing on some holy mountain giving gold stars to GIRM compliant priests. Tell me, FromMi, if you were having a conversation with a priest and he accused a parishioner of “pulling something out of her a - -”, would you consider that holy behavior? I don’t think it’s particularly holy to bash our Commander in Chief from the pulpit when we have people in the assembly who have children in Iraq. I’m not talking about speaking out against war. One can do that without alienating people. I don’t think it’s holy when a priest considers it an imposition to go to to hospital to annoint someone because “that’s not what that sacrament is for.” How about going to comfort the family, because that is probably what they are looking for. A priest who never wears his collar, even at diocesan celebrations makes me wonder. A priest who has 2 sets of behavior - one for the altar and another out on the street - makes me wonder.

It isn’t so much what you say, FromMi, as it is your condescending manner. I have many liberal friends. We treat each other with respect. We agree to disagree. You are free to post whatever you want, but don’t cry intolerance when people are offended by your attitude.

Yes, Saginaw has many fine priests. But the ones who are not so fine - many of whom should never have been ordained - are driving people from the Church.
 
If all you wanted to do was dialogue and defend, there wouldn’t be a problem, but your remarks seem intended to invoke a response to which you can point a finger and say, “tsk tsk, that’s uncharitable my dear.” I have never been anything but polite to you yet you imply that I am either enjoying the discomfort of those who are more liberal, or that I am standing on some holy mountain giving gold stars to GIRM compliant priests. Tell me, FromMi, if you were having a conversation with a priest and he accused a parishioner of “pulling something out of her a - -”, would you consider that holy behavior? I don’t think it’s particularly holy to bash our Commander in Chief from the pulpit when we have people in the assembly who have children in Iraq. I’m not talking about speaking out against war. One can do that without alienating people. I don’t think it’s holy when a priest considers it an imposition to go to to hospital to annoint someone because “that’s not what that sacrament is for.” How about going to comfort the family, because that is probably what they are looking for. A priest who never wears his collar, even at diocesan celebrations makes me wonder. A priest who has 2 sets of behavior - one for the altar and another out on the street - makes me wonder.

It isn’t so much what you say, FromMi, as it is your condescending manner. I have many liberal friends. We treat each other with respect. We agree to disagree. You are free to post whatever you want, but don’t cry intolerance when people are offended by your attitude. Yes, there are many fine priests in Saginaw. Unfortunately there are many who are not so fine and they are driving people from the Church. I lost a cantor who had been with me for 15 years because of such a priest.
 
40.png
singerlady:
It isn’t so much what you say, FromMi, as it is your condescending manner. I have many liberal friends. We treat each other with respect. We agree to disagree. You are free to post whatever you want, but don’t cry intolerance when people are offended by your attitude.
Click to expand...
You probably have a point here, and I apologize. One of the problems with web forums is that all of our conversations end up criss-crossing, and so I suspect some of the more snide remarks I was making, while obviously ill-mannered, were done more out of frustration than anything else.

I really love my home diocese, I really love the singing and the liturgy of my home diocese. Frighteningly enough, I think I could even guess what priest your frustrated with, although its someone that I respect a great deal.

So, I’m sorry if I’ve been a bit flippant of late. I will totally admit to being frustrated that the church has decided that things like flagons, chalices, vestments, etc need a ‘crack-down’. I’ll also admit that my idea of orthodox is different from yours.

Regardless of all that, what unites us at the table is far greater than what divides us, so let’s move forward from that point.
 
40.png
frommi:
You probably have a point here, and I apologize. One of the problems with web forums is that all of our conversations end up criss-crossing, and so I suspect some of the more snide remarks I was making, while obviously ill-mannered, were done more out of frustration than anything else.

I really love my home diocese, I really love the singing and the liturgy of my home diocese. Frighteningly enough, I think I could even guess what priest your frustrated with, although its someone that I respect a great deal.

So, I’m sorry if I’ve been a bit flippant of late. I will totally admit to being frustrated that the church has decided that things like flagons, chalices, vestments, etc need a ‘crack-down’. I’ll also admit that my idea of orthodox is different from yours.

Regardless of all that, what unites us at the table is far greater than what divides us, so let’s move forward from that point.
Click to expand...
I love my home diocese also. I love the singing and the spirit of the people who live here. Chalices, vestments and the like, while they seem like a trivial matter, are not the only problems - they are the problems that are most easily resolved. But they are symptomatic of a trend toward something that many of us are leery of. You know that old saw about how to cook a frog. You don’t stick him in a pot of hot water, he’d jump out. You put him in a pot of lukewarm water and you heat it by degrees. It is the incrementalism that has a lot of us concerned. When does non-compliance become a problem? Where exactly is the line over which we don’t cross?

I accept your apology, Frommi. Just know that it isn’t the flippancy that bothers me, it is the charactarization of those of us who don’t agree with you as “holier than thou.” . As to the priest I have a problem with? That was actually a compilation of behavior from several different priests I was referring to, one of whom is my pastor.
 
40.png
frommi:
Wow…I wonder if he takes his own kneeler to Rome where there aren’t any in St. Peter’s…what a great way to take a shot at the pope.
Click to expand...
This is one myth I need to debunk. I went to seminary in Rome for 4 years and was one of the official tour guides of St. Peters. There are certainly kneelers in St. Peter’s at the Altar of the Chair where the daily mass is held. Also At the John XXIII Altar, The Adoration Chapel, the chapel of the canons, and the altar of St.'s Simon and Jude.

There are not any in the main church but there are not chairs either. They are moved in for the big celebrations.

Even at all the other altars people kneel when Mass is said. I have had many daily masses there in the morning. Lack of kneelers at a particular altar (ex: Sacred Heart) do not stop people from kneeling. They kneel on the marble.

There are also kneelers at almost every other church in Rome and if there are not the people still kneel at the consecration.

Even in St. Peter’s square many kneel at the papal masses.

So let’s put this myth to rest about no kneelers in St. Peter’s. It is widely perpetuated so I am not jumping on FromMi. But I have spent countless hours in St. Peter’s and I know it well.
 
40.png
frommi:
I’ll also admit that my idea of orthodox is different from yours.
Click to expand...
From Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:

or·tho·dox
Function: adjective
1 a : conforming to established doctrine especially in religion

It seems clear to me what orthodoxy is.
 
40.png
msproule:
From Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:

or·tho·dox
Function: adjective
1 a : conforming to established doctrine especially in religion

It seems clear to me what orthodoxy is.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that doctrine is different than discipline.

Doctrine would be things such as the virgin birth, etc.

Discipline would be having a corpus on the cross.

Which is why I don’t think calling someone who differs with discipline “heterodox” is necessairly fair.
 
40.png
frommi:
It seems to me that doctrine is different than discipline.

Doctrine would be things such as the virgin birth, etc.

Discipline would be having a corpus on the cross.

Which is why I don’t think calling someone who differs with discipline “heterodox” is necessairly fair.
Click to expand...
Father Todd, Whats your two cents worth on this?
 
40.png
frommi:
Discipline would be having a corpus on the cross.

Which is why I don’t think calling someone who differs with discipline “heterodox” is necessairly fair.
Click to expand...
Why bother to have documents and the vote of 2000 bishops if compliance with GIRM is optional - regardless of whether you call it heterodox, doctrine, or discipline?
 
40.png
singerlady:
Why bother to have documents and the vote of 2000 bishops if compliance with GIRM is optional - regardless of whether you call it heterodox, doctrine, or discipline?
Click to expand...
This particular debate isn’t about documents.

I’m just suggesting that a parish, a priest, a bishop could be orthodox to catholic teaching and perhaps disagree with disciplines of the church, and possibly adjust those disciplines for serious pastoral need.
 
40.png
frommi:
This particular debate isn’t about documents.
Click to expand...
And are not these disciplines outlined in the documents?
I’m just suggesting that a parish, a priest, a bishop could be orthodox to catholic teaching and perhaps disagree with disciplines of the church, and possibly adjust those disciplines for serious pastoral need.
Click to expand...
I’m thinking it’s unlikely. Please give an example of what you would consider “serious pastoral need.”
 
Hello all. Does anyone know about the Lay Ministry program in the Saginaw Diocese? The reason I ask is that I have a female friend who is in it, and what she is being taught by the priest “theologian” who runs it is, well, mindboggling. I just keep telling her to keep the faith and trust in Jesus to guide her to the truth. This priest contradicts Church documents and the Catechism. The latest is that the Pope is not infallible, and the Church no longer teaches against contraception. She had to ask him twice to be sure she heard correctly. There’s lots of other stuff being taught that she has shared with me that I’ll not bore you with. Just wondered if anyone else knows of how this program is run. Thanks and God Bless.
MBS1
 
Frommi makes a valid point. I should have never relied solely upon a secular resource to help explain the meaning of orthodoxy in the Catholic context.

Allow me to try again, aided by www.newadvent.org:

Orthodoxy (orthodoxeia) signifies right belief or purity of faith. Right belief is not merely subjective, as resting on personal knowledge and convictions, but is in accordance with the teaching and direction of an absolute extrinsic authority. This authority is the Church founded by Christ, and guided by the Holy Ghost. He, therefore, is orthodox, whose faith coincides with the teachings of the Catholic Church. As divine revelation forms the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church for man’s salvation, it also, with the truths clearly deduced from it, forms the object and content of orthodoxy.

It is well documented that neither a parish, a priest, nor a bishop may licitly alter anything unless they are given the authority to do so by the Church. This hold true regardless of whether or not they agree with the discipline.

If you were correct, then we probably would have married clergy all over the place, since celibacy is *merely a discipline *and there are probably more than a handful of priests who are personally in disagreement with the Church over Her stance on the subject.
 
40.png
MBS1:
Hello all. Does anyone know about the Lay Ministry program in the Saginaw Diocese? The reason I ask is that I have a female friend who is in it, and what she is being taught by the priest “theologian” who runs it is, well, mindboggling. I just keep telling her to keep the faith and trust in Jesus to guide her to the truth. This priest contradicts Church documents and the Catechism. The latest is that the Pope is not infallible,
Click to expand...
The Pope is a human being. He can make mistakes. However in matters of faith and morals, the teaching of the Pope is infallible.
The Pope has spoken infallibly in 2 instances. Both, I believe were in regard to our Blessed Mother.
and the Church no longer teaches against contraception.
Click to expand...
The Church still teaches against contraception, however some priests do not.
 
40.png
singerlady:
The Pope is a human being. He can make mistakes. However in matters of faith and morals, the teaching of the Pope is infallible.
The Pope has spoken infallibly in 2 instances. Both, I believe were in regard to our Blessed Mother.

The Church still teaches against contraception, however some priests do not.
Click to expand...
Cathecism is pretty clear on infallibilty, its called the infalliable teaching authority of the magisterium, and is looked at as a gift from God. The Pope is not infalliable. In fact, I do not believe he was utilized the infalliable teaching authority of his chair at any point in his papacy.

This is actually part of what confuses a lot of catholics, who I think believe that everything the Pope says is “infalliable”, which is simply not correct.
 
40.png
frommi:
Cathecism is pretty clear on infallibilty, its called the infalliable teaching authority of the magisterium, and is looked at as a gift from God. The Pope is not infalliable. In fact, I do not believe he was utilized the infalliable teaching authority of his chair at any point in his papacy.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure which part of my post you felt the need to correct if that is indeed what you were doing.

These are the conditions in which the pope speaks infallibly:
He must intend to speak from the chair (ex cathedra)
It must pertain to faith and morals.

This pope has not spoken infallibly. When I said that the pope had spoken infallibly twice, I did not mean this particular pope.
The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are the two instances when the pope has spoken infallibly. I do not know which pope it was. Also of interest regarding infallibility.
CCC891 states: The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium."
 
Frommi says, “The Pope is not infalliable.” Post 393

From the CCC 891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals…The **infallibility **promised to the Church is also present in the body of the bishops when, together **with **Peter’s successor, the exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an ecumenical council. (My emphasis).

My understanding has always been that the Pope is indeed infallible if he teaches on faith and morals - as is confirmed by the CCC. My understanding is that this is a negative charism in which the Holy Spirit will not allow him to teach wrongly in faith and morals. Do not confuse infallibility with impeccability, as many of our Protestant friends do. The Pope is certainly a sinner as are we all.

My friend in the Lay Ministry course asked this priest “theologian” who runs it specifically about the Pope’s infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, and he denied that too. She also says whenever she or someone else in class bring up the CCC, he won’t address it directly.

My only point in bringing this up is that maybe Bishop Carlson will have much more to deal with in this Diocese than we think. I was interested in knowing if anyone else has friends in this program (Lay Ministry) and whether they have heard anything similar to this.

MBS1
 
40.png
MBS1:
My understanding has always been that the Pope is indeed infallible if he teaches on faith and morals - as is confirmed by the CCC. My understanding is that this is a negative charism in which the Holy Spirit will not allow him to teach wrongly in faith and morals. Do not confuse infallibility with impeccability, as many of our Protestant friends do. The Pope is certainly a sinner as are we all.

My friend in the Lay Ministry course asked this priest “theologian” who runs it specifically about the Pope’s infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, and he denied that too. She also says whenever she or someone else in class bring up the CCC, he won’t address it directly.

**Wow- that is very strange. I wonder why the priest “theologian” has such a problem answering what seems to be a simple question. I apologize, I thought there was just a misunderstanding on what was meant by Papal Infallibility. **

My only point in bringing this up is that maybe Bishop Carlson will have much more to deal with in this Diocese than we think.

Where to start. Where to start.
Click to expand...
 
Singerlady,

“This pope has not spoken infallibly. When I said that the pope had spoken infallibly twice, I did not mean this particular pope.” Post 394.

I have read over the years that there have been 3 or 4 “ex Cathedra” statements by the Popes. I guess it just depends on who you read. Most of the infallible pronouncements have come through the Magisterium in conjunction with the Pope, as CCC 891 points out. Pertaining to the current Pope, though, I have read that his pronouncement about the possible ordination of women was an infallible statement from this Pope. From the EWTN site:

In his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis (1994), the Holy Father Pope John Paul II, declared that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” This definitive statement leaves no “wiggle room” for those who would like to continue debating the question. As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made clear in 1995, the statement that the Church has no authority to ordain women as priests, is not merely a matter of Church discipline (which can be changed), but belongs to the deposit of faith (which cannot)… Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith),

At the end of this letter Pope John Paul II stated (my emphasis):
"4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. 22:32)** I declare** that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable Brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my Apostolic Blessing.

From the Vatican, on 22 May, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate."

Seems to me to qualify as an infallible statement, has anyone else heard otherwise? (I can’t remember where I heard this called infallible, though).

MBS1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top