Bishop Robert Carlson - Sioux Falls

[grotto]

Maybe you can turn up the color on your grey matter.

What part of MUST do you not understand. If you don’t get it when you read it the first time, try a second or third and think. When something is perfectly clear don’t add coulds, oughts, shoulds and maybes - thats just deliberate ignorance.

 

[frommi]

grotto:

Maybe you can turn up the color on your grey matter.

What part of MUST do you not understand. If you don’t get it when you read it the first time, try a second or third and think. When something is perfectly clear don’t add coulds, oughts, shoulds and maybes - thats just deliberate ignorance.

Wait a second…

All I hear about liturgical translations is that they have to be completely faithful to the Latin…

But apparently, other translations don’t have to in your mind, because it causes doubt.

I’m not surprised.

 

[ekindermann]

frommi:

Let’s try this…

What of unbaptized children who have reached the age of discretion? They receive all 3 sacraments of initiation at one time. They have no opportunity for confession because of this.

This is an easy one. Baptism removes all sin. They don’t need confession when they are being baptized. And that isn’t what we were talking about. We were talking about already baptized kids who having reached the age of discretion, were receiving first communion without having been instructed nor encouraged to go to confession.
As far as interpreting the catechism…I’ll leave that to those in authority, remember them? Not us, to interpret what the word meant. You are playing word games now. sad, very sad. and explain who your source, Paul Turner is and why we should listen to his opinion? I believe you quoted him once before?

 

[grotto]

frommi:

T

To finish…no, those things weren’t “wrong”…there was an indult granted for the order of the sacraments (since revoked…but the revocation happened after Bishop Untener passed away).

/QUOTE]

---

Lets refer back to your above statement. An indult for reordering the Sacrament of Confession was actually revoked and specifically forbidden to be further ordered after reception of First Holy Communion wasn’t it? Wasn’t it? Did not this occur LONG before B. Uentner forced it down the throats of the parishoners in the Diocese? NOT after he passed away.

How about a little correction on your part, specifically?

 

[frommi]

grotto:

frommi:

T

To finish…no, those things weren’t “wrong”…there was an indult granted for the order of the sacraments (since revoked…but the revocation happened after Bishop Untener passed away).

/QUOTE]

---

Lets refer back to your above statement. An indult for reordering the Sacrament of Confession was actually revoked and specifically forbidden to be further ordered after reception of First Holy Communion wasn’t it? Wasn’t it? Did not this occur LONG before B. Uentner forced it down the throats of the parishoners in the Diocese? NOT after he passed away.

How about a little correction on your part, specifically?

I don’t think he forced anything down anyone’s throats…as I’m pretty sure you could go parish to parish and find different practices.

Why are you so agressive about all this stuff?

 

[ekindermann]

grotto:

frommi:

T

To finish…no, those things weren’t “wrong”…there was an indult granted for the order of the sacraments (since revoked…but the revocation happened after Bishop Untener passed away).

/QUOTE]

---

Lets refer back to your above statement. An indult for reordering the Sacrament of Confession was actually revoked and specifically forbidden to be further ordered after reception of First Holy Communion wasn’t it? Wasn’t it? Did not this occur LONG before B. Uentner forced it down the throats of the parishoners in the Diocese? NOT after he passed away.

How about a little correction on your part, specifically?

eggzactly! How bout that correction???:yup: oh, wait, you don’t live in a world with constant correction, that’s right, now I remember.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

In fact, if a child were coerced to confess sin, it would cast doubt on the validity of the sacrament.

Father Paul Turner’s opinion or not, what would they possibly be coerced to confess? Something they did not commit? I am sure that is a regular practice in Dioceses that honestly follow the rules of the Church . Even venial sins should be confessed. Assuming they have not even these, then maybe there is a case for waiting but this should always be the exception, never the rule.

People have a right to the sacraments and ministers must not refuse them.

This is obvious but of questionable use in regard to this topic. Who is advocating denying the Sacrament? Not I. Instead, the question is why have a policy that is at odds with the expectation of the Church?

Anyway, here is Canon 914:
Can. 914 It is primarily the duty of parents and those who take the place of parents, as well as the duty of pastors, to take care that children who have reached the use of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession, are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible. It is for the pastor to exercise vigilance so that children who have not attained the use of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently disposed do not approach holy communion.
The meaning of debet will depend on the context of its use. The following is a relevant example from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, first in Latin:
[1415](http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p2s2c1a3_lt.htm#ARTICULUS 3 %20SACRAMENTUM%20EUCHARISTIAE) Qui Christum in Communione eucharistica vult recipere, in gratiae statu debet inveniri. Si quis de peccato mortali a se commisso habet conscientiam, ad Eucharistiam accedere non debet quin prius absolutionem in sacramento acceperit Poenitentiae.
Then in English:
**1415 **Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.

However, CCC 1466 is one example where debet is used to mean “should” (at least, according to the English translation). There are plenty of examples either way. Therefore, we must (or should ) assume the particular word selection has a purpose.

As I have heard it discussed before, the “gray area” that does exist pertains to those children who may be mentally challenged and arguably incapable of discerning right from wrong.

 

[ekindermann]

frommi:

grotto:

I don’t think he forced anything down anyone’s throats…as I’m pretty sure you could go parish to parish and find different practices.

Why are you so agressive about all this stuff?

aggressive?? How about passionate, how about defenders of Faith, how about convicted and loyal and dedicated AND TRUTHFUL in the face of falsity?! Remember the part about hurt being experienced on the part of us who have not been properly catechized and directed? I notice you completely ignored that part of my earlier post to you. Actually, you ignored just about all of it, instead you threw in a new twist to your old ways…

Specific abuses have been listed, cited, discussed, defended and condemned on this forum and the other two or three that we’ve exchanged on, and we keep going around and around.
#1)An abuse is named,

#2)you try to say it is not an abuse,
#3)you are shown to be wrong by church documents,
#4)you then revert back to the vague philisophical posturing mentioned above.
#5)Then we start all over again.
This step in which you throw in strawman arguments and/or distractions rather than deal directly with the facts would be inserted between #s 3,4 and 5, .

Besides temperament playing a role, I am “aggressive” because I CARE about my faith, my church and the souls of my family, friends and others in general and I am concerned that they are not being properly taught! Why are you so “laid back”? You were Confirmed weren’t you? Do you have the zeal for your faith? Do you not care that these rules/rubrics/guidelines/requirements - whatever you want to call them - (Call them whatever you want, but you can’t call them negotiable, we have shown you that) - are not being followed?

 

[grotto]

frommi:

grotto:

I don’t think he forced anything down anyone’s throats…as I’m pretty sure you could go parish to parish and find different practices.

Why are you so agressive about all this stuff?

---

This parish to parish for different practices of the sacraments is troublesome in that you would offer it as an example worth using.

Cleaning up rotten fruit is hard work and requires strength of purpose and determination to check the barrel for spoilage. You have to be aggressive in pursuit of the Truth! You have to be strong in your Faith to defend it - its not about “stuff”.

 

[frommi]

grotto:

frommi:

---

This parish to parish for different practices of the sacraments is troublesome in that you would offer it as an example worth using.

Cleaning up rotten fruit is hard work and requires strength of purpose and determination to check the barrel for spoilage. You have to be aggressive in pursuit of the Truth! You have to be strong in your Faith to defend it - its not about “stuff”.

Now I’m rotten fruit…where do you get these ideas…

 

[singerlady]

Grow up! Frommi. She wasn’t calling YOU rotten fruit. It isn’t all about you, ya know. Sheeeeeesh!

 

[grotto]

You being rotten fruit is not my idea its more of your not understanding what is being stated, of course on purpose - I know, I get it. I guess you have exhausted your “stuff” for now. Remember to keep ducking, my hand grenades are always on target. You can laugh now.

 

[Illini]

Canon 914 says quite clearly that children are to be “refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible” “after they have made sacramental confession.” Nowhere is debere used, except to exhort the pastor to prepare the children properly. This requirement was deemed important enough to be placed in the Catechism. It seems pretty important. And the revocation of the indult has already been discussed here.

 Nevertheless, many bishops and parishes are determined to ignore this. Why all the nitpicking for loopholes over whether *debere* means "should" or "must"? Why not just do what the canon says? Why the "resistance"? After all, forgiveness is an easier concept for a seven-year old than transubstantiation . . .

 I think I know the answer . . . to minimize the consequences, and even the existence of sin and the need for reconciliation so children won't "feel bad about themselves," with a little "We can do what we want, who cares about the rubrics" thrown in. But even children know how to sin; ask any 6 or 7 year old who's just been teased by his classmates.

 I do not doubt that frommi is sincere in his belief that many of these rubrics are not really important . . . that's what's apparently been taught in Saginaw (and other places) for decades. The beautiful quotes from *Redemptionis sacramentum *reveal why rubrics are important. In this case, to teach children to approach the Eucharist properly. In "lay preaching," that priests and deacons represent the Church and were ordained by God (not just trained or educated) to present the mind of the Church in the homily. In postures, to show proper respect for the Mass and the Eucharist. In language, show reverence for Christ and to demonstrate love for the Church and not oneself.

-Illini

 

[ekindermann]

Illini:

I think I know the answer . . . to minimize the consequences, and even the existence of sin and the need for reconciliation so children won’t “feel bad about themselves,” with a little “We can do what we want, who cares about the rubrics” thrown in. But even children know how to sin; ask any 6 or 7 year old who’s just been teased by his classmates.

I do not doubt that frommi is sincere in his belief that many of these rubrics are not really important . . . that’s what’s apparently been taught in Saginaw (and other places) for decades. The beautiful quotes from *Redemptionis sacramentum *reveal why rubrics are important. In this case, to teach children to approach the Eucharist properly. In “lay preaching,” that priests and deacons represent the Church and were ordained by God (not just trained or educated) to present the mind of the Church in the homily. In postures, to show proper respect for the Mass and the Eucharist. In language, show reverence for Christ and to demonstrate love for the Church and not oneself.

-Illini

You are right on Illini:tiphat:

 

[bknebel]

Dearest friends of the forums,

We really seem to be fired up lately! I know I have been gone for over a week (trip, car accident, school starting, etc) but I have read the posts and I’m really suprised how hot its gotten in here!

I don’t blame anyone in the least for being fired up. I understand it completely. If i were trying to live according to Holy Mother Church and her teachings and had a priest or parish that ignored them, I would be upset as well.

I think we better be careful in here so we don’t get shut down. I’d really hate to see that happen after a fruitful year of discussing Bishop Carlson and what he faces in his ministry.

There are a few of those in here that live by the “saginaw Blessing”-type theology and they are certain they are not wrong in their ways. Its our job, those of us following Canon law and the GIRM and Redemp. Sac. to gently guide them. If we are getting angry, we are only playing into their game- to prove us so-called ‘traditionalists’ are not any better than the stereo-typical priests and nuns of years past who yelled and hit and stuff.

That said, I apologize for when my temper has flown at times (calling the Cathedral ugly, insulting dissenting views, etc).

God Bless us all and May God truly help us discuss Bishop Carlson and his ministry in a caring, fruitful manner.

 

[grotto]

A great amount of teaching truth has been provided on this thread through its use of over 17,630 inquiries and 944 replys. At times frustration enters in the discussion or maybe its not discussion, just one sided baseless remarks.

IMO this thread is one of the best examples of what the Catholic Answers Forums accomplishes.

Throughout the life of this thread bottom line charity has prevailed even when charity is called for by correcting your neighbor.

Some gentle chiding does happen but after consideration of entering into this world of understanding and Faith, one should be able to handle the give and take.

Whining doesn’t go over very well in any good discussion.

GOOD JOB, TERRIFIC JOB, KEEP IT UP!

 

[grotto]

Bknebel: You referred to a car accident, what happened and is everything okay? Glad you are back.

 

[frommi]

Illini:

Nevertheless, many bishops and parishes are determined to ignore this. Why all the nitpicking for loopholes over whether debere means “should” or “must”? Why not just do what the canon says? Why the “resistance”? After all, forgiveness is an easier concept for a seven-year old than transubstantiation . . .

-Illini

There’s been nitpicking over the Eucharistic Prayer translation (“for many” or “for all”) for years…so I’m not taking a unique tact on this.

Regardless, it still comes down to this…the bishop…is the bishop…end of story.

Redemptoris is a good document…however, I think a good example of curial red tape. How is it that a year before redemptoris, approval was given to an American document that allowed pouring of the precious blood from a flagon to chalices…but less than a year later, this is no longer any good?

 

[bknebel]

Dearest Grotto,

I’m fine. I went to Denver for the FOCUS (fellowship of Catholic University Students) regional conference with my local University Newman Center, and we were involved in a rear-ending. The story is located here.

 

[grotto]

Memorable incident for sure - just think what awesome power your Guardian Angel has to slow down the impact!

Enjoyed the pics and story of the weekend. Not hard to see you couldn’t miss having a great time even with the mishap.