Bishop Robert Carlson - Sioux Falls

[frommi]

ekindermann:

As for the message they choose to preach about it may be good or bad, but no matter because I know they aren’t supposed to be “homilizing” and I KNOW THEY KNOW, that takes all their credibility and trustworthiness away. If a church “leader” thinks it is ok to disobey, then what else will they choose to disobey about? Where is the line drawn then? Unfortunately, I’ve seen the fruits of this behavior over and over and over. It is all bad fruit.

Keep in mind that up until the publication of redemptoris sacrementum, a strong canonical case could and was made that the local bishop, as moderator of the word in his diocese could ok different types of preaching. Now, you can agree or disagree freely if that was a good idea or not, but my point is that the (for lack of a better word) clear ‘ban’ on such practice was not put into play until Redmeptoris Sacrementum. And even then, there was some question about the weight of that document based on a variety of other issues.

That being said, once again, there is different pastoral leadership in saginaw that has gone in a different direction than before.

It seems to me that as with all things, it takes a little time and effort to adjust to such things…so I might suggest giving the lay preachers time to adjust to a changing role.

Breaking open the Word for the people is something that we might all have in us in particular situations (no longer at Mass clearly).

 

[grotto]

frommi:

Keep in mind that up until the publication of redemptoris sacrementum, a strong canonical case could and was made that the local bishop, as moderator of the word in his diocese could ok different types of preaching. Now, you can agree or disagree freely if that was a good idea or not, but my point is that the (for lack of a better word) clear ‘ban’ on such practice was not put into play until Redmeptoris Sacrementum. And even then, there was some question about the weight of that document based on a variety of other issues.

That being said, once again, there is different pastoral leadership in saginaw that has gone in a different direction than before.

It seems to me that as with all things, it takes a little time and effort to adjust to such things…so I might suggest giving the lay preachers time to adjust to a changing role.

SUGGEST all you want, what part of STOP do you not get?

Thank God “there is different pastoral leadership in Saginaw that has gone in a different direction than before”.

Breaking open the Word for the people is something that we might all have in us in particular situations (no longer at Mass clearly).

 

[frommi]

grotto:
Grotto…I think you were responding to me…

My ‘suggestion’ was not that anyone be encouraged to disobey anybody…just that with any transition to a new way of doing things there can be some feelings of hurt and disillusionment, even if the change is for the better.

And really, it’s been nearly two years since the last bishop passed away…isn’t it time to stop wearing the “anti-ken untener” booster club jacket?

 

[grotto]

La, La, Laa Lah, feelings, nothing more than feelings!

 

[frommi]

grotto:

La, La, Laa Lah, feelings, nothing more than feelings!

Good grief.

Clearly you have a clase of “happiness in the misfortune of others”.

Great way to keep with the Christmas spirit

 

[8640]

frommi:

Keep in mind that up until the publication of redemptoris sacrementum, a strong canonical case could and was made that the local bishop, as moderator of the word in his diocese could ok different types of preaching. Now, you can agree or disagree freely if that was a good idea or not, but my point is that the (for lack of a better word) clear ‘ban’ on such practice was not put into play until Redmeptoris Sacrementum.

I would caution you on your reading of Canon Law. No where does the Church teach that a bishop can give a lay person permission to preach the homily.
In fact as you can see in these canons which deal with preaching, the homily is strictly reserved to an ordained minister, i.e. a deacon, priest, or bishop.

Canon 766 The laity may be allowed to preach in a church or oratory if in certain circumstances it
is necessary, or in particular cases it would be advantageous, according to the provisions of the
Episcopal Conference and without prejudice to:

Canon 767 §1 The most important form of preaching is the homily, which is part of the liturgy, and is reserved to a priest or deacon. In the course of the liturgical year, the mysteries of faith and the
rules of Christian living are to be expounded in the homily from the sacred text.

Lay people may preach, but not the homily which takes place in the liturgy of the Word directly after the Gospel.

A strong canonical case cannot be made. A ban has always been in place and obviously Redemptionis Sacramentum was not the first document dealing lay preaching of the homily. Lay preaching has only recently even been allowed and lay people have never been allowed to preach the Homily.

Please do better research before you make such statements. You may confuse innocent people.

 

[frommi]

8640:

A strong canonical case cannot be made. A ban has always been in place and obviously Redemptionis Sacramentum was not the first document dealing lay preaching of the homily. Lay preaching has only recently even been allowed and lay people have never been allowed to preach the Homily.

Please do better research before you make such statements. You may confuse innocent people.

So what you are suggesting is that the former ordinary of Saginaw was willfully disobedient and went beyond the authority of his office in allowing the laity to preach?

If a canonical case could not be made, why did the competent authorities not stop it from happening?

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

frommi:

So what you are suggesting is that the former ordinary of Saginaw was willfully disobedient and went beyond the authority of his office in allowing the laity to preach?

If a canonical case could not be made, why did the competent authorities not stop it from happening?

frommi, Who would be the “competent authorities?” I ask because recently someone asked me the same question that you have posed, although the subject was general absolution. There are several parishes around here that offer it but with none of the criteria that would presumably make it valid.

When I expressed dismay, someone who avails herself of it asked me, “If it’s not to be offered, why don’t the competent authorities put an end to it?” My less-than-diplomatic answer was that I thought they were just “chicken.” Right or wrong, I wonder who “they” would be?

many thanks,

Anna

 

[8640]

frommi:

So what you are suggesting is that the former ordinary of Saginaw was willfully disobedient and went beyond the authority of his office in allowing the laity to preach?

If a canonical case could not be made, why did the competent authorities not stop it from happening?

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’m saying and I don’t think that it’s such a shocker that Untener was disobedient. He was known accross the country for being disobedient. And here’s news, that wasn’t the only issue he disobeyed on.

Why did the competent authorties not stop it? I don’t know. But I think Carlson may be the answer to that question.

 

[frommi]

8640:

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’m saying and I don’t think that it’s such a shocker that Untener was disobedient. He was known accross the country for being disobedient. And here’s news, that wasn’t the only issue he disobeyed on.

Why did the competent authorties not stop it? I don’t know. But I think Carlson may be the answer to that question.

And that’s where you are wrong…

As has been stated many many times, you cannot find an instance where the man did anything that was beyond the authority given to him through ordination and canonical posession of the diocese.

He was not known across the country for being ‘disobedient’…that’s an adjective used by those who while praising the former pontiff had no problem slamming that same pontiff’s selections for bishop.

Find the evidence of a canonical trial…or even a letter from a congregation telling the man to stop.

 

[grotto]

Isn’t it time you stopped wearing that cheerleader outfit?

The final score didn’t turn out for your team!

 

[frommi]

grotto:

Isn’t it time you stopped wearing that cheerleader outfit?

The final score didn’t turn out for your team!

Oh for crying out loud…I’m not on a team…I’m simply pointing out fallacies in the argument that a bishop does not have ordinary authority to allow lay preaching.

Who was keeping score exactly?

What was the final victory for your team Grotto? A man dying of leukemia? Surely you aren’t that egotistical.

 

[ekindermann]

frommi:

And really, it’s been nearly two years since the last bishop passed away…isn’t it time to stop wearing the “anti-ken untener” booster club jacket?

Interesting how you will speak like the above…
and then get all dramatic and offensive at the response you get:

grotto:

Isn’t it time you stopped wearing that cheerleader outfit?

frommi:

Who was keeping score exactly?
What was the final victory for your team Grotto? A man dying of leukemia? Surely you aren’t that egotistical.

You sounded like you were making this all a sport when you cracked about the “anti-ken untener” booster club jacket.
bad form, frommi, bad form. But that has been your style, speak intelligently (or seemingly so knowledgeable), goad folks into debate, or act as if you are so uninformed and not in the know about things, then… speak sarcastically and at times quite rudely, then when you get the same in return you cry “foul” and act so offended. It is getting boring, don’tcha’ know.

 

[frommi]

ekindermann:

Interesting how you will speak like the above…
and then get all dramatic and offensive at the response you get:

grotto:

Isn’t it time you stopped wearing that cheerleader outfit?

You sounded like you were making this all a sport when you cracked about the “anti-ken untener” booster club jacket.
bad form, frommi, bad form. But that has been your style, speak intelligently (or seemingly so knowledgeable), goad folks into debate, or

act as if you are so uninformed and not in the know about things, then… speak sarcastically and at times quite rudely, then when you get the same in return you cry “foul” and act so offended. It is getting boring, don’tcha’ know.

I’m not offended one bit by much of anything that has been said to me in this forum. I’m simply amazed that I can be engaged in a relatively civil moment of debate about the authority of a bishop, and then Grotto chimes in and tells me that my ‘team has lost’. And yeah, I do think it’s time to stop bashing people who have not had authority over the diocese for nearly two years.

I find it hypocritical to feel like you can be loyal to a Pope and not to his bishops, who are more than papal delegates. Whether you did not like Kenneth Untener because he was “too progressive” or you are concerned that Robert Carlson will “roll us back to the tridentine rite”, the reality is you can’t claim loyalty to the church then denigrate it’s leaders in such a way.

That’s bad form. No question about it.

 

[grotto]

Too progressive cannot begin to describe the the undoing of our Catholic Faith in the Saginaw Diocese. An agenda that was worked by several leaders of the Church, and still is in many cases, specifically Los Angeles, has left warped, illicit Mass and Sacraments. The Sacrament of Confession became unknown and unavailable for the most part, what was proffered was the “Communal” form that was stripped of individual repentence and absolution. The Holy Eucharist was relegated to “out of sight, out of mind”, casually presented in ignorance and received the same way. Not only neglect of traditional devotions occured but deliberate ridicule of kneeling at Mass, praying the rosary, honoring our Blessed Mother and Saints, the Catholic Catechism, the authority of the Holy Father and all things Roman. Priestly vocations were at a standstill and the mindset of those chosen had to be in agreement with the agenda. Women religious that remained as free lancers were appointed in charge of churches that were forced to accept them. These are the highlights that come to mind and YES complaints were made strongly and were ignored.

Don’t be so sure that Our Holy Father did not find these matters undisturbing or overlooked. Refusal to show up when summoned is rather a “biggy” wouldn’t you agree? So better late than never and escorted spoke volumes IMO.

Maybe some research into the travel history of the late Bishop will reveal the amount of time he spent in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Oh yeah, I forgot, he got rid of the Diocese’s Bishop Residence under the guise of “poverty” resulting in his known whereabouts being unknown!

Describing the former as perhaps being considered as “too progressive” is putting it mildly and suggesting the Tridentine Rite is something to be backward and undesirable is an example of your mindset. I hope others can see through this continuing pursuit of deliberate distortion, I pray the damage can be undone!

Sorry you don’t like it when people like me speak out. And by the way, you seem to think others are judged disrespectful of Bishops appointed by the Holy Father like that is the sum and size of their protests. Yet, you employ disrespect in your posts. You were quite specific in regard to Father Perrone of Assumption Grotto stating you disagree with his “view” of the liturgy and mutated his name into a “label” to disparage welcome obedience to faithful tradition. “Perronite” as I recall. In addition, to suggest a gladness over the death from leukemia that Bishop Uentner suffered has really furthered the argument for your being chosen the poster-boy for the past state of affairs in the SGW Diocese.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

 

[frommi]

grotto:

Too progressive cannot begin to describe the the undoing of our Catholic Faith in the Saginaw Diocese. An agenda that was worked by several leaders of the Church, and still is in many cases, specifically Los Angeles, has left warped, illicit Mass and Sacraments. The Sacrament of Confession became unknown and unavailable for the most part, what was proffered was the “Communal” form that was stripped of individual repentence and absolution. The Holy Eucharist was relegated to “out of sight, out of mind”, casually presented in ignorance and received the same way. Not only neglect of traditional devotions occured but deliberate ridicule of kneeling at Mass, praying the rosary, honoring our Blessed Mother and Saints, the Catholic Catechism, the authority of the Holy Father and all things Roman. Priestly vocations were at a standstill and the mindset of those chosen had to be in agreement with the agenda. Women religious that remained as free lancers were appointed in charge of churches that were forced to accept them. These are the highlights that come to mind and YES complaints were made strongly and were ignored.

Don’t be so sure that Our Holy Father did not find these matters undisturbing or overlooked. Refusal to show up when summoned is rather a “biggy” wouldn’t you agree? So better late than never and escorted spoke volumes IMO.

Maybe some research into the travel history of the late Bishop will reveal the amount of time he spent in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Oh yeah, I forgot, he got rid of the Diocese’s Bishop Residence under the guise of “poverty” resulting in his known whereabouts being unknown!

Describing the former as perhaps being considered as “too progressive” is putting it mildly and suggesting the Tridentine Rite is something to be backward and undesirable is an example of your mindset. I hope others can see through this continuing pursuit of deliberate distortion, I pray the damage can be undone!

Sorry you don’t like it when people like me speak out. And by the way, you seem to think others are judged disrespectful of Bishops appointed by the Holy Father like that is the sum and size of their protests. Yet, you employ disrespect in your posts. You were quite specific in regard to Father Perrone of Assumption Grotto stating you disagree with his “view” of the liturgy and mutated his name into a “label” to disparage welcome obedience to faithful tradition. “Perronite” as I recall. In addition, to suggest a gladness over the death from leukemia that Bishop Uentner suffered has really furthered the argument for your being chosen the poster-boy for the past state of affairs in the SGW Diocese.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

I remain dumbfounded by some of your statements that are so filled with so much bile it’s hard to find what to debate with you.

You can keep trying to make me believe the things that you state about the past, but they are, quite frankly, incorrect and misguided.

I particularly love the idea that the bishop’s mansion was sold so Bp. Untener could fly around the country kibetzing with Abp Quinn and Mahoney on how to bring down the church from the inside by moving tabernacles into chapels.

But, for the record, I never had trouble receiving the sacarement of reconciliation…I never heard the Pope ridiculed…nor do I recall a cavalier attitude towards the eucharist.

I’m not progressive…I’m not conservative…

However…I completely object to the inaccurrate picture you paint of the state of affairs in Saginaw.

I would challenge you to compare some of the recent homilies of Pope Benedict with some of the homilies/teachings of Bp. Untener. I myself am often amazed at many of the similarities in the theological tone that both took.

 

[8640]

frommi:

And that’s where you are wrong…

As has been stated many many times, you cannot find an instance where the man did anything that was beyond the authority given to him through ordination and canonical posession of the diocese.

He was not known across the country for being ‘disobedient’…that’s an adjective used by those who while praising the former pontiff had no problem slamming that same pontiff’s selections for bishop.

Find the evidence of a canonical trial…or even a letter from a congregation telling the man to stop.

Please, the man did so many things beyond his authority it would take forever to write it all down. The bishop does have the authority to permit lay preaching, if you look back at my post I agreed with you on that point, but he cannot allow “sister mini skirt” or any lay person to preach the homily and that certainly was allowed by Untiner. Then there was General Absolutions and the out right lie that Rome had allowed an alternitive recipe for the host. Children received first communion before first confession…must I go on, it’s all in these posts.

You make it sound as if JPII and Untiner knew each other very well and he was the personal choice to be bishop. More than likely the Pope might not know everybody he appoints, that’s why there is a section of the Roman curia for that and since the good 'ol Cardinal Dearden suggested him to the congregation, I’m guessing some bad info got passed along.

And asking for proof of communications between Rome and the man is, at least in this setting, unfair - I wouldn’t know how to even begin looking. All I know is the teaching and the law of the Church and the things Untener did to go against those things.

Finally, I have been reading the exchanges between you and Grotto, and I don’t want this debate to go to that. I wish we could speak with respect to eachother and not have to take it to a personal level. I wish the people in the Church did not feel the need to lable eachother and ourselves as liberal, conservative, progressive, traditional, or even perronite. Can’t we all be Catholic? My purpose on this thread is to speak with my fellow Catholics and I understand that at times that discussion can become heated, but remember, we should all be seaking to discover what the church is teaching and faithfully follow it. If, for some reason we are wrong or someone we are arguing “for” was wrong or right, lets be unified and catholic about this. Thank you.

 

[8640]

frommi:

And that’s where you are wrong…

As has been stated many many times, you cannot find an instance where the man did anything that was beyond the authority given to him through ordination and canonical posession of the diocese.

He was not known across the country for being ‘disobedient’…that’s an adjective used by those who while praising the former pontiff had no problem slamming that same pontiff’s selections for bishop.

Find the evidence of a canonical trial…or even a letter from a congregation telling the man to stop.

Please, the man did so many things beyond his authority it would take forever to write it all down. The Bishop does not have “possession” of a diocese, he is a guardian and teacher of the faith. The bishop does have the authority to permit lay preaching, if you look back at my post I agreed with you on that point, but he cannot allow “sister mini skirt” or any lay person to preach the homily and that certainly was allowed by Untiner. Then there was General Absolutions and the out right lie that Rome had allowed an alternitive recipe for the host. Children received first communion before first confession…must I go on, it’s all in these posts.

You make it sound as if JPII and Untiner knew each other very well and he was the personal choice to be bishop. More than likely the Pope might not know everybody he appoints, that’s why there is a section of the Roman curia for that and since the good 'ol Cardinal Dearden suggested him to the congregation, I’m guessing some bad info got passed along.

And asking for proof of communications between Rome and the man is, at least in this setting, unfair - I wouldn’t know how to even begin looking. All I know is the teaching and the law of the Church and the things Untener did to go against those things.

Finally, I have been reading the exchanges between you and Grotto, and I don’t want this debate to go to that. I wish we could speak with respect to eachother and not have to take it to a personal level. I wish the people in the Church did not feel the need to lable eachother and ourselves as liberal, conservative, progressive, traditional, or even perronite. Can’t we all be Catholic? My purpose on this thread is to speak with my fellow Catholics and I understand that at times that discussion can become heated, but remember, we should all be seaking to discover what the church is teaching and faithfully follow it. If, for some reason we are wrong or someone we are arguing “for” was wrong or right, lets be unified and catholic about this. If I have said anything narrow minded or uncharitable, I apologize and I ask those who can admit this themselves to do so. Thank you.

 

[ekindermann]

frommi:

You can keep trying to make me believe the things that you state about the past, but they are, quite frankly, incorrect and misguided.

But, for the record, I never had trouble receiving the sacarement of reconciliation…I never heard the Pope ridiculed…nor do I recall a cavalier attitude towards the eucharist.

However…I completely object to the inaccurrate picture you paint of the state of affairs in Saginaw.

Frommi, It is good that you never experienced these things. But do you not agree that they are bad things to be experienced? The next step is to then open your mind to the fact that indeed those things did take place here, perhaps not to you, but unfortunately (I hope you agree it is unfortunate?) to your fellow Catholics. So to tell someone who has indeed experienced these awful things that they are “incorrect and misguided” well, I guess you can figure out how that sounds to someone? Your “picture” of the diocese and the picture of others could be different, don’t you agree? Perhaps your parishes were somehow more in line with what is correct and obedient than the ones grotto, I, and others have written about?? Is that possible, do you think? If so, then can you imagine how it might be for those who have not been as fortunate as yourself?

 

[frommi]

ekindermann:

Frommi, It is good that you never experienced these things. But do you not agree that they are bad things to be experienced? The next step is to then open your mind to the fact that indeed those things did take place here, perhaps not to you, but unfortunately (I hope you agree it is unfortunate?) to your fellow Catholics. So to tell someone who has indeed experienced these awful things that they are “incorrect and misguided” well, I guess you can figure out how that sounds to someone? Your “picture” of the diocese and the picture of others could be different, don’t you agree? Perhaps your parishes were somehow more in line with what is correct and obedient than the ones grotto, I, and others have written about?? Is that possible, do you think? If so, then can you imagine how it might be for those who have not been as fortunate as yourself?

Everything you mention is possible.

I admit that I have hard time understanding why some of these things can be so upsetting to people. Reconciliation for example, if a priest were to choose the 3rd form for pastoral reasons (like having 150 penitents in church but only one priest), it’s still the same forgiveness and mercy from God that you receive in a confessional. I feel like it’s a burger king mentality sometimes (I want it my way, right away…).

Believe me, as someone who has been intitmately involved in the most minute details of liturgy planning, I can go and sit at a church and be “put off” by a great number of things…it just happens that whether I kneel or stand isn’t one of them.

The other thing that bothers me is that it feels like people assume that some of these practices are unique to Saginaw, MI. I now live in a really big archdiocese. I can assure you that weekend to weekend, parish to parish…I never know what I’m going to walk into. One parish has a priest in cassock who appears only to give out communion (which is strongly discouraged in the bishops last letter on the Eucharist), yet another has the precious blood in glass vessels (now prohibited as not being ‘noble’). And yet, I don’t think these things are having a profound effect on the work of the people that is liturgy.

When we allow ourselves to get distracted by “liturgy wars” I think we miss the bigger picture of what our faith is supposed to be about. Don’t we ulitimately agree on a lot more than we disagree on?

And finally, there will be times when bishops do things that we disagree with, but it seems that an awful lot of time is spent vilifying a deceased bishop who did an awful lot of good in 24 years of episcopal ministry. How different would our church look if every single bishop…conservative, liberal, etc. was only concerned with one thing before they spoke “is what I’m saying the truth?”.