Bishop Robert Carlson - Sioux Falls

[FatherTodd]

Power and position?

The role of the laity was dealth with in Vatican II and in JPII’s Encyclical Christ’s Lay Faithful. There was also a note on the published by one of the congregations on the collaboration of the lay faithful.

I would suggest reading those if you haven’t. The vocation of the laity is to sanctify the temporal order. Ie not to try to gain more “power and position” in the Church but rather to take Christ into the world and order it back to him.

What it sounds like you describing is actually what JPII calls the clericalization of the laity. I might have read it wrong. Clericalizaiton of the laity inovled the lay person trying to do more “priestly and religious things”. To say that a lay person needs to do more things “that priests have traditionally done” in order to be holier or participate more in the life of the church is an offense against the dignity of the lay vocation itself.

In and of itself the sanctification of the temporal order is not only worthwhile but extremely important. This is especially true in an incarnational Church like Catholicism that sees that natural order as good and needing to be ordered back to God.

In our current time what we need is less laity leaving the secular order to “work in the Church”. We need more faithful lay people to take the Church and Christ into the secular world and order it back to God.

Just look around. How about some good Catholic Judges in Florida? How about some good Catholic politicians that live out the teachings of the Church and not “nominal Catholics” who are pro choice (I think you have a governor like this).

How about a few more good Catholics in music, hollywood or clothing design so women don’t walk around half naked all the time.

We need our most faithful Catholic laity in the secular world seeking to transform it.

And I think if you haven’t realized the Bishop Carlson is his own man then you really haven’t got a good read on him.

psalm90:

I’ve said it a couple times, I’m waiting for Bishop Carlson to become his own man, as the saying goes, and take control of the diocese. I won’t pass judgment on his residence or anything like that, what’s more important is that he lead us as a bishop. He’s off to a great start, as far as I’m concerned.

Look, if I’m going to have an operation, I want my doctor to have had a good night’s sleep, be well nourished, to have slept in a comfortable and convenient residence, and not to have too much bothering him.

Likewise, I think we should let the bishop have a place where he can relax as he needs to, charge up his “batteries”, and, overall, do his unique “job.”

A good portion of the diocese has been radicalized over the years and the Bishop will need to establish some equilibrium here.

For the enormous revolution in the Church that a lot of people are clamoring for, it will – face it – take a lot more than one bishop, or even a new pope. To deal with issues related to women in the Church, it will take probably nothing less than an ecumenical council, quite possibly itself with a tremendous (name removed by moderator)ut and participation of women from around the world. Lest we get carried away with agendas, the focus probably should be on the role of the Laity in the Church, both men and women. Truthfully, it is also the vast majority of men, as well as women, who are excluded from power and position in the Church.

Vatican I dealt with the papacy. Vatican II dealt with the bishops, Vatican III should deal with the Laity, and well it should. There are many issues relating to the responsibilities and roles of both women and men in the Church. In the U.S. for sure, the Church needs to deal with the crisis that has resulted from the loss of the women who served the Church in evangelizing and catechizing Catholic children in the schools.

And, especially, the role of lay women and men in evangelizing the world, given the decline of influence of religion in western countries, needs to be addressed. A good portion of Vatican III should be devoted to a theology of the family. And, then, too, another significant update on the role of the Bible in the Church should be made.

Whatever our expectation of Bishop Carlson, God bless him, we must be generally concerned about the health, welfare, “care and feeding” of the entire Church.

 

[ekindermann]

FatherTodd:

Just look around. How about some good Catholic Judges in Florida? How about some good Catholic politicians that live out the teachings of the Church and not “nominal Catholics” who are pro choice.

How about a few more good Catholics in music, hollywood or clothing design so women don’t walk around half naked all the time.

We need our most faithful Catholic laity in the secular world seeking to transform it.

Happy Easter Fr. Todd, and again thank you for a beautiful, well thought out, intelligent post. You do give so much hope! We, the laity do have our own roles - very holy and very full of obligation & responsibility. Thank you.
God Bless, Beth

 

[singerlady]

Fr. Todd,

Thank you for articulating so beautifully the role the laity has in spreading Christ to the world.

I want to wish you, Beth and all who come here a truly blessed Easter season.

Laudate Dominum, omnes gentes, Alleluia!

 

[fromtheheart]

frommi:

Part of the problem with the orthodoxy debate is that everyone wants to believe that the church will always stay the same and there isn’t need for constant exploration of the world around us and the way the church responds to that world.

 

[fromtheheart]

frommi:

Part of the problem with the orthodoxy debate is that everyone wants to believe that the church will always stay the same and there isn’t need for constant exploration of the world around us and the way the church responds to that world.

Hi, I’m new on the list - I have read it from the beginning and thought I would like to comment on frommi’s post.

The Church does respond to the world around us - it is the largest charity organization in the world except for some governments. The majority of Catholic missions around the world are to help people not just to evangelize them.

If you’re talking about “our” world - the world called the United States then I ask that if you want a church to change with the times then just change religions. There are plenty of “Christian” churches that have changed with the times.

You can find ones that:

• allows preborn children to be murdered all the way through the first nine months of life;
• that allow people to contracept;
• that thinks other non Christian people will all go to hell;
• that think we use “cannabalism” in our mass;
• that think it’s a sin to honor the holy men and women that have gone before us;
• that think “evangelization” is bringing people to the Lord even if they are already Christian;
• that hate other faiths and advance that cause by publishing hate tracts;
• that refuse to acknowlege the importance of our **Blessed **Mother (Luke 1:48 - unless you are reading some Protestant bibles that have changed that passage to “all people will call me happy”);
• that ordain women;
• that ordain active homesexuals;
• that support same sex marriage;
• that say you can do whatever you want as long as you fee ok with it;
• And the one that always got me to try another church, the entertainment - including bible thumping theatrics, the neverending singing; the luncheons, the outings and the concerts.

Just leave my Holy Catholic Church the way it is. Holy. True to scripture and guided by the Holy Spirit led by our Holy Fathers all the way back to Peter.

Oh, by the way, if you do join one of those other churches and you don’t agree with them. Start your own; over 33,000 other denominations in this country have.

For Christ and the Preborn
Fromtheheart

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

fromtheheart:

Hi, I’m new on the list - I have read it from the beginning and thought I would like to comment on frommi’s post.

. There are plenty of “Christian” churches that have changed with the times.

You can find ones that:

• allows preborn children to be murdered all the way through the first nine months of life;
• that allow people to contracept;
• that thinks other non Christian people will all go to hell;
• that think we use “cannabalism” in our mass;
• that think it’s a sin to honor the holy men and women that have gone before us;
• that think “evangelization” is bringing people to the Lord even if they are already Christian;
• that hate other faiths and advance that cause by publishing hate tracts;
• that refuse to acknowlege the importance of our **Blessed **Mother (Luke 1:48 - unless you are reading some Protestant bibles that have changed that passage to “all people will call me happy”);
• that ordain women;
• that ordain active homesexuals;
• that support same sex marriage;
• that say you can do whatever you want as long as you fee ok with it;
• And the one that always got me to try another church, the entertainment - including bible thumping theatrics, the neverending singing; the luncheons, the outings and the concerts.

Fromtheheart

TO FROMMI

Dear frommi,

For some time I have been wanting to know what kind of a Catholic Church you would construct if you could have it any way you wish; however, I was either too busy or too lazy to construct the question properly. With the above list from Fromtheheart (hereafter: fth) I think I have a start!

For the moment, just using his/her list, would you please note the items that would be on such a list, if you were given the opportunity to compile one?

Thanks, God bless and Happy Easter, (and same to you, fth),

Anna

 

[frommi]

Anna Elizabeth:

TO FROMMI

Dear frommi,

For some time I have been wanting to know what kind of a Catholic Church you would construct if you could have it any way you wish; however, I was either too busy or too lazy to construct the question properly. With the above list from Fromtheheart (hereafter: fth) I think I have a start!

For the moment, just using his/her list, would you please note the items that would be on such a list, if you were given the opportunity to compile one?

Thanks, God bless and Happy Easter, (and same to you, fth),

Anna

Umm…I’m actually pretty happy with the church I’m a part of currently. I do feel that we have to go deeper on certain issues and push ourselves to see if something else is “out there” (women in the church and sexual orientation are two such issues).

Practically speaking, I think liturgy needs to be something that is more organic than some would like it to be. I don’t think everyone ‘needs something to do’, but I do think that we need to let go of the whole ‘kneeling/standing’ debate and all the adoreums induced debates like it.

I have no desire to tear down 2000 years worth of tradition, I just want a church where it is recognized that the holy spirit works among us now…today…here…and from time to time there might be a challenge to our belief system and we need to listen harder to that and (perhaps) adjust to bring the church to a wider scope of believers.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

frommi:

Umm…I’m actually pretty happy with the church I’m a part of currently. I do feel that we have to go deeper on certain issues and push ourselves to see if something else is “out there” (women in the church and sexual orientation are two such issues).

Practically speaking, I think liturgy needs to be something that is more organic than some would like it to be. I don’t think everyone ‘needs something to do’, but I do think that we need to let go of the whole ‘kneeling/standing’ debate and all the adoreums induced debates like it.

I have no desire to tear down 2000 years worth of tradition, I just want a church where it is recognized that the holy spirit works among us now…today…here…and from time to time there might be a challenge to our belief system and we need to listen harder to that and (perhaps) adjust to bring the church to a wider scope of believers.

Oh Rats, frommi. This was just what I didn’t want to hear…it’s the reason that I procrastinated in writing to you about this. Abstractions, abstractions.

Would you please, please, just go through fth’s list and indicate anything you see there that you would like to see in the Church? It really isn’t an exhaustive list, but would at least be a start on something concrete, tangible, visible…something that would convey a real-life example of what you want.

If this doesn’t work, I’ll try something else.

Patiently,

Anna

 

[frommi]

Anna Elizabeth:

Oh Rats, frommi. This was just what I didn’t want to hear…it’s the reason that I procrastinated in writing to you about this. Abstractions, abstractions.

Would you please, please, just go through fth’s list and indicate anything you see there that you would like to see in the Church? It really isn’t an exhaustive list, but would at least be a start on something concrete, tangible, visible…something that would convey a real-life example of what you want.

If this doesn’t work, I’ll try something else.

Patiently,

Anna

I don’t agree with the way fth made any of the statements he/she made.

The only point I consistently make is that it makes sense to me that we stop allowing a cabal of cardinals half a world away to be the sole intrepreters of 2000 years of tradition and theology.

I do not believe in a “small-tent” church where only people who pass a very strict litmus test gain entry.

Do I want a church that promotes abortion? No…no I don’t…but I would like one that actually works on the problem of abortion in concert with all the players involved. Praying for the hearts of the supreme court is foolish…why aren’t we simply trying to change minds one at a time? Even if something is legal, it certainly does not mean one has to do it.

Do I think there should be no “blessed” mother? Of course I think there should be devotion to Mary. I just don’t think she should be a cult figure. She has to be recognized in her relationship to Jesus. Doing so brings out both of their parts in salvation to greater fullness. I could do without stories about Joseph’s staff blossoming into a lily so he knew he had to marry her.

Do I want to see a woman ordained? I don’t think that I do…but I certainly think the way the church has decided to blame feminism for some of the problems facing families today is abhorent on many levels.

As a relatively young catholic (28)…I just have a tough time with many of the things I’m supposed to simply accept and not question.

 

[Gary_Konczal]

That “cabal of cardinals” may be located “a half world away” but they are from all over the world, from every continent. They are the “big-tent.” The small-tent is some provincial bishop who does HIS own thing in a back-water diocese in Central Michigan rather than recognizing that he and his diocese is just a small part of a Universal Church–the “big-tent.” A provincial bishop who expends a great amount of energy and time causing to be debated what is not up for debate and making an issue of things that are not an issue such as the settled ruberics of the Mass. A provincial bishop who has to do it HIS way–who would rather rule in his small-tent diocese than serve the large-tent Universal Church in his diocese.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

As a relatively young catholic (28)…I just have a tough time with many of the things I’m supposed to simply accept and not question.

I am also 28. I only entered the Church about seven years ago, so I guess that makes me a very “young” Catholic. However, my views could not be more contrary to yours.

Our local (Michigan) Catholic traditions and theology can be traced back only about 400 years. Everything else was inherited from our immigrant ancestors. That said, how can you even argue that this competes with 2000 years of unbroken succession and teaching authority centered in Rome?

To say that one can interpret things the way one wants is to drift toward Protestantism.

To over-regionalize the Church, giving each local Bishop more power than the Holy See, is to drift toward Orthodoxy. This is better than Protestantism, but it still chips away at foundation of the Universal Church.

To claim that America (or Saginaw) knows what is best for America (Saginaw) is, at the very least, arrogant.

I think age is a poor excuse for the positions you take.

 

[frommi]

msproule:

To claim that America (or Saginaw) knows what is best for America (Saginaw) is, at the very least, arrogant.

I think age is a poor excuse for the positions you take.

I am not using age as an excuse, just offering it for context.

I am not suggesting we drift towards being protestant…I’m simply saying that I feel we can be too quick to shun the calls of those around us to challenge the ways we do things.

I am not saying “if it feels good, it must be ok”…I’m saying that many many many people go deep into their consciences and struggle with a lot of issues, and unfortunately the church can seem (to me) to be lacking in compassion when people need it the most.

I absoultely believe in the authority of the local church to make appropriate decisions for itself. Quite frankly, the cult following our current Pope has scares me a bit, it’s as if people have forgotten that he is not some kind of incarnate deity. I think if we were more dependent on our local ordinaries, the church would be a stronger more unified place.

 

[Flower]

frommi:

Umm…I’m actually pretty happy with the church I’m a part of currently. I do feel that we have to go deeper on certain issues and push ourselves to see if something else is “out there” (women in the church and sexual orientation are two such issues).

Practically speaking, I think liturgy needs to be something that is more organic than some would like it to be. I don’t think everyone ‘needs something to do’, but I do think that we need to let go of the whole ‘kneeling/standing’ debate and all the adoreums induced debates like it.

I have no desire to tear down 2000 years worth of tradition, I just want a church where it is recognized that the holy spirit works among us now…today…here…and from time to time there might be a challenge to our belief system and we need to listen harder to that and (perhaps) adjust to bring the church to a wider scope of believers.

 

[Flower]

Just so you know, Frommi, there are many of us reading this thread who agree 100% with you.

God bless!

 

[msproule]

Frommi,

Since the age comment was at the end of your statement, I assumed it was presented as a supporting argument for your opinions. Forgive me if I jumped to that conclusion.

I will not argue with the fact that some level of authority is entitled to a local Church to best manage its unique situation, customs, mission, etc. However, the Universal Church, whose earthly center is Rome, does not make a rule with no basis for its establishment, in my opinion.

Compassion for the individual is certainly a noble cause and might best be handled by local authority. Yet, to draw upon a recurring theme in this and related threads, I fail to see how adding honey to the Eucharistic bread accomplishes this! It seems that such an act is carried out in bold defiance of proper authority with no other goal than to prove that it can be done. Is this a show of compassion to area bee keepers? Come on! It is absurdity.

You seem to suggest that submitting to the earthly authority that Christ established makes one a member of a cult of Pope “worshippers”. I think our Holy Father appeals to people all over the world because of his humanity, his unique life experiences, and of course, there is the fact that he is the Vicar of Christ. The fact remains that he does have authority over the other Bishops.

I agree that there would be greater unity if we could all rely upon the guidance of our local ordinaries. However, this model of unity would only work if the local ordinaries remained faithful to the guidance of Rome and exercised their authority only when and where it was appropriate.

 

[frommi]

msproule:

Compassion for the individual is certainly a noble cause and might best be handled by local authority. Yet, to draw upon a recurring theme in this and related threads, I fail to see how adding honey to the Eucharistic bread accomplishes this! It seems that such an act is carried out in bold defiance of proper authority with no other goal than to prove that it can be done. Is this a show of compassion to area bee keepers? Come on! It is absurdity.

You seem to suggest that submitting to the earthly authority that Christ established makes one a member of a cult of Pope “worshippers”. I think our Holy Father appeals to people all over the world because of his humanity, his unique life experiences, and of course, there is the fact that he is the Vicar of Christ. The fact remains that he does have authority over the other Bishops.

I agree that there would be greater unity if we could all rely upon the guidance of our local ordinaries. However, this model of unity would only work if the local ordinaries remained faithful to the guidance of Rome and exercised their authority only when and where it was appropriate.

Just a couple of things…

I still believe this issue of “honey” or “no honey” gets too much play in these forums. What if bread simply works better with honey? I think too often things like this are viewed as some kind of deliberate attempt to usurp some sort of authority. But again, that’s simply my opinion.

The title “vicar of Christ” applies to ALL bishops, not just the bishop of Rome. Vicar of Peter applies only to the occupier of the petrine office. The Pope’s authority is not of a corporate nature, like a CEO…he’s the ‘first among equals’, but remember, there is not a 3rd level of holy orders that is bestowed upon him. First and foremost he is Bishop of Rome, and from there are other responsibilities to the worldwide church. If he had authority over bishops the way we think of worldly authority, he could theoretically ‘fire’ bishops, which to my knowledge has happened once in his papacy to a bishop in France…and that was more of a transfer to oblivion.

I think we are in agreement that all local churches need to remain in communion with the universal church, and feel the need to point out again that the church of Saginaw under the leadership of Bishop Untener NEVER broke communion with Rome.

 

[msproule]

The “honey” or “no honey” debate gets a lot of play in these forums because the argument of including honey in the recipe is truly baseless.

Most of the wording in section 48 of Redemptionis Sacramentum is disappointingly vague, such that one could argue to combine 51% wheat flour with 49% white flour would still constitute “wheat bread”. However, the following exerpt is refreshingly unambiguous:

 It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit
 or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist.

Based upon this, I would conclude that such an act is viewed accurately by most as “some kind of deliberate attempt to usurp some sort of authority”.

I hate to argue semantics, but although you are correct to say that all Bishops are vicars of Christ, there is only one with the distinction of being Vicar of Christ (with a capital “V”). That is how I used it, as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is a difference, like tradition versus Tradition. Regardless, I have never thought of the Church as a corporation. His authority comes through occupying the Chair of Peter.

I cannot claim to know everything about the Diocese of Saginaw. Despite living less than an hour from its southern boundary, I was mostly oblivious to what was happening until I learned of it in these threads. I read Bishop Untener’s little books for many years without even noticing they were his. Perhaps I was distracted because I am in between Lansing and Detroit, both of which have their fair share of problems.

I have confidence there was never an open attempt to break communion with Rome. That would be a tragedy, and quite frankly, stupid. I just get frustrated with innovations begun by the laity and clergy alike, which mislead and confound the faithful.

 

[frommi]

msproule:

 It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit
 or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist.

Based upon this, I would conclude that such an act is viewed accurately by most as “some kind of deliberate attempt to usurp some sort of authority”.

I hate to argue semantics, but although you are correct to say that all Bishops are vicars of Christ, there is only one with the distinction of being Vicar of Christ (with a capital “V”). That is how I used it, as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is a difference, like tradition versus Tradition. Regardless, I have never thought of the Church as a corporation. His authority comes through occupying the Chair of Peter.

Again, in all cases the title “Vicar of Christ” applies to a Bishop…all Bishops…not just the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Corinthians]

msproule:

I cannot claim to know everything about the Diocese of Saginaw. Despite living less than an hour from its southern boundary, I was mostly oblivious to what was happening until I learned of it in these threads.

Just want to say–much of what has been written about the Saginaw Diocese and Bishop Ken on these boards has been exaggerated and taken out of proportion.

As for the current bishop, so far, people in the Saginaw Diocese have not really been able to get to know Bishop Robert.

 

[Gary_Konczal]

"…the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is simultaneously conceived of in terms of its head, the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and without any lessening of his power of primacy over all, pastors as well as the general faithful. For in virtue of his office, that is, as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme, and universal power over the Church. And he can always exercise this power freely.

 "The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in teaching authority and pastoral rule; or, rather, in the episcopal order the apostolic body continues without a break. Together with its head, the Roman pontiff, and never without this head, the episcopal order is the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.  But this power can be excercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.  For our Lord made Simon Peter alone the rock and key-bearer of the Church (cf. Mt. 16:18-19), and appointed him shephard of the whole flock (cf. Jn. 21:15 ff.). ...

 "...religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra."   (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church ,Lumen Gentium, Chapter III)

The idea that the Roman Pontiff is only the "first among equals"  is NOT Catholic.  It is the teaching of the Orthodox Church.

"…Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church…
"...Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." (Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy ,Sacrosanctum Concilium, Chapter I)