Cardinal Mahoney's Statement on Redemptionis Sacramentum

[jennstall]

kmktexas:

Jenstall,

I sympathize with you. I was in the diocese on vacation 2 years ago and amazed.

Yeah, amazement was my reaction when I started coming back to the Catholic Church a few months ago. I was like “Hummina what?” A large part of the reason I was prompted to come back to the Church was my deep love for the reverence of the Mass that I experienced as a child in Boston so 22 years later it was like CULTURE SHOCK!!! But I’m very happy at my current parish and have nothing to complain about so I’ll pray for the Cardinal. Pray for his relocation… to Timbuktu! (Heh. j/k)

 

[Crusader]

jennstall:

If you lived in Los Angeles like some of us poor folks, you wouldn’t think it was so insignificant. You should see the kind of stuff that goes on here. The sorts of things mentioned in this post are just the tip of the iceberg and I think it is these sorts of “exceptions” that constitute the thin edge of the wedge. And sadly, there is no recourse in our Archdiocese for liturgical abuse because our very own Cardinal is the ringleader for liturgical abusers.

It is very disheartening and the only real option is to keep searching for a parish that treats the Mass reverently. I’m fortunate to have found, but it did take some doing.

I share your misery. I am in the diocese just to the north of you on the coast. Our bishop (Sylvester Ryan) is a former auxillary of Mahony’s and every bit as abusive in a liturgical sense.

Thankfully he’s retiring in a year. I would be willing to bet diamonds to donuts that we will not receive another Mahony croonie.

I truly believe we will receive an orthodox bishop who follows the Church and not the horrid priestly formations of the 1960’s and 1970’s. I think this will also be true of LA when Mahony retires. It will take time, but I do see tangible progress in cleaning-up the liturgy.

 

[Crusader]

Deacon Ed:

The answer to your first question is, yes, the USCCB had the faculties to do that, and did. A *dubium *may be present any time there is an apparent conflict, or there needs to be a clarification. Bishop Sheridan has decided, as is his right as the chief liturgist in his diocese, to follow the instruction. Cardinal Mahony and a large number of the bishops in the United States have asked for clarification. I should state right up front that I am not in Cardinal Mahony’s diocese but, rather, in a neighboring diocese.

Particular law does not, in general, need to be “approved by Rome.” That’s why it’s “particular law” and not canon law.

Deacon Ed

The secular equivalent would be to follow the law, or break the law and then tie things up in court.

No wonder so many (arch)bishops are having such credibility issues these days. Instead of follow the Church, the choose to stall and play games…

 

[otm]

Crusader:

The secular equivalent would be to follow the law, or break the law and then tie things up in court.

No wonder so many (arch)bishops are having such credibility issues these days. Instead of follow the Church, the choose to stall and play games…

No, the secular equivalent would be a regulation coming out of a bureaucratic unit, one charged with making specific regulations to impliment a general law, and that regulation coming in conflict with a particular law made prior to the regulation being promulgated.

The regulation is just that: a reulation. It is not a law, but an explanation of how the law is to be carried out. It is entirely possible that he regulation can conflict with a law, and in general, all things being equal, the law takes precedence over the regulation.

Many people are upset because they do not understand how laws and regulations work, and they just want a simple answer. Most complex questions do not have simple answers.

 

[otm]

Crusader:

The secular equivalent would be to follow the law, or break the law and then tie things up in court.

No wonder so many (arch)bishops are having such credibility issues these days. Instead of follow the Church, the choose to stall and play games…

Bishops have credibility issues in part because they have to deal with complex issues, and the unwashed masses are so used to sitting in front of the dumbed down boob tube that they have little or no understanding or patience. I don’t think that it is fair, honest, just, or credible to accuse the bishops of stalling, or playing games when there is a legitimate question because of a conflict between a law and a regulation. Charity would suggest that making fast judgements on issues that are complex and generally beyond the understanding of the average Catholic are not appropriate responses. There is a reason that it takes two to three years to become a Canon lawyer.

 

[Crusader]

otm:

No, the secular equivalent would be a regulation coming out of a bureaucratic unit, one charged with making specific regulations to impliment a general law, and that regulation coming in conflict with a particular law made prior to the regulation being promulgated.

The regulation is just that: a reulation. It is not a law, but an explanation of how the law is to be carried out. It is entirely possible that he regulation can conflict with a law, and in general, all things being equal, the law takes precedence over the regulation.

Many people are upset because they do not understand how laws and regulations work, and they just want a simple answer. Most complex questions do not have simple answers.

Utter hogwash.

As people have shown in this thread, things can be extremely clear and clean cut yet some do nothing but focus on what they can do to muddy-up things.

 

[Crusader]

otm:

Bishops have credibility issues in part because they have to deal with complex issues, and the unwashed masses are so used to sitting in front of the dumbed down boob tube that they have little or no understanding or patience. I don’t think that it is fair, honest, just, or credible to accuse the bishops of stalling, or playing games when there is a legitimate question because of a conflict between a law and a regulation. Charity would suggest that making fast judgements on issues that are complex and generally beyond the understanding of the average Catholic are not appropriate responses. There is a reason that it takes two to three years to become a Canon lawyer.

Many of these bishops in the USA would be canned for performance issues if they actually worked in private enterprise. I’m not so sure what’s so difficult about stopping the laity from fractioning the Body and Blood of Christ – as just one example.

If they would like a one page specification on how to implement this change in their (arch)dioceses, I’m sure many members of their fold could provide them with a half-page specification/plan on how to implement the change.

As the laity grow in knowledge from the vastly improved information resources (EWTN, Internet) more and more bishop will grow more and more anxious.

 

[Catholic2003]

Crusader:

Many of these bishops in the USA would be canned for performance issues if they actually worked in private enterprise.

In private enterprise, it is actually more difficult to fire people. There are human resource departments, documentation for potential lawsuits, and so on. In the Church, all the Pope has to do is say “you’re outta here” and the bishop is gone.

So when the laity, with their improved access to the Internet and EWTN, start second-guessing their bishops more and more, while the Pope allows those bishops to continue in office, I have to wonder who knows better - the Pope, or the new and improved “back seat bishops” in the laity?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Catholic2003:

In private enterprise, it is actually more difficult to fire people. There are human resource departments, documentation for potential lawsuits, and so on. In the Church, all the Pope has to do is say “you’re outta here” and the bishop is gone.

So when the laity, with their improved access to the Internet and EWTN, start second-guessing their bishops more and more, while the Pope allows those bishops to continue in office, I have to wonder who knows better - the Pope, or the new and improved “back seat bishops” in the laity?

There’s also due process in the Church, and it’s remarkably difficult to remove a bishop. The Catholic Church is not like a corporation with a CEO and a bunch of managers. Each bishop, as a successor to the apostles, has authority over his own diocese (see Vatican II’s teachings on the role of the bishops).

Sorry, your assertion is incorrect. But, then, most people do not grasp the complexities of how the Church actually operates. Even us clerics sometimes wonder…

Deacon Ed

 

[transfinitum]

Deacon Ed writes:

Sorry, your assertion is incorrect. But, then, most people do not grasp the complexities of how the Church actually operates. Even us clerics sometimes wonder…

I reply:

Yes, it does seem to be very important, given the stunning rejection of the applicability of Redemptionis Sacramentum to a major Archdiocese, for the Catholic laity to make a real effort to understand these complexities.

Hence this thread, which has been very helpful.

In this regard, I notice you had not yet had an opportunity to respond to Dave’s earlier post:

Dave asks:

In what way was the “particular law” that you speak of promulgated? Do you have a reference? Did it have prior approval of the Holy See? “All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force” (RS 28).

The only thing I’ve been able to find as a possible source of “particular law” is the 1997 “Gather Faithfully Together”, issued by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. It describes the “plate of bread, the cup, the large flagon of wine” and comments, “Nothing distracts from the power of bread and wine in their simple vessels”. (GFT 63). "As the presider raises a large piece of the consecrated bread to break it, the cantor begins the litany ‘Lamb of God/Cordero de Dios’ that will carry us until the bread is all broken, the consecrated wine all poured into the communion cups, ‘God’s holy gifts for God’s holy people’ "(GFT 69). Does the GFT have a greater force of law than Redemptionis Sacramentum?

Redmptionis Sacramentum states: “within this Instruction some elements of liturgical norms that have been previously expounded or laid down and even today remain in force… The norms contained in the present Instruction are to be understood as pertaining to liturgical matters in the Roman Rite, and, mutatis mutandis, in the other Rites of the Latin Church that are duly acknowledged by law.”

In other words, this is not new liturgical norms, but norms that were already in force but were not being implemented properly. This WAS the Respondsum ad dubium to any lingering dubium, yet it seems wholly astonishing that any Bishop or Cardinal would think that they could disregard it.

---

God bless,

Dave

 

[Crusader]

Deacon Ed:

There’s also due process in the Church, and it’s remarkably difficult to remove a bishop. The Catholic Church is not like a corporation with a CEO and a bunch of managers. Each bishop, as a successor to the apostles, has authority over his own diocese (see Vatican II’s teachings on the role of the bishops).

Sorry, your assertion is incorrect. But, then, most people do not grasp the complexities of how the Church actually operates. Even us clerics sometimes wonder…

Deacon Ed

It’s becoming more and more clear that Catholic clerics of all sorts are hiding from the truth. If they cannot successfully defend what they do (or do not do) they can always claim that “most people do not grasp the complexities of how the Church actually operates” which is nothing more than another excuse. An excuse that people are getting tired of hearing.

As Catholics have ever greater access to the documents of the Church, less and less abuse will be tolerated. There will be a period (perhaps we are in it now) where clerical arrogance will rise in misguided attempts to sustain the status quo, but such a state will last only temporarily.

 

[muledog]

itsjustdave1988:

In what way was the “particular law” that you speak of promulgated? Do you have a reference? Did it have prior approval of the Holy See? “All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force” (RS 28).

Actually, the solution to this problem was quite simple, and I read it in one of the CNS news briefs.

After RS was issued, the US bishops requested a clarification regarding the use of flagons, since the bishops received the required recognitio for such use in a document issued in 1997(?) about Communion under both Species.

The Holy See resolved this by revoking the prior recognitio and requiring the USCCB to rewrite the document without the portion authorizing use of flagons.

I’m sure once this is done, the Holy See will give their recognitio to the revised document.

In Manibus Dei,

• muledog

 

[Catholic2003]

Although the Church has due process, and that is a good thing, I always thought that the Pope could suspend due process at his discretion. Canon law states:

Can. 331 The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.

 

[Joan_M]

It amazes me that something so clear as Redemptionis Sacramentus, which is not promulgating any new laws, but reemphasizing what has been law for years, seems to be “complex”, etc. etc. to clergy.

It appears to me that priest or bishop who intends to be faithful to the church should read this document and determine if there is anything he is doing that is contrary to the law, change it.

I am not a lawyer. I am just a reasonably intelligent human being who is totally disgusted with the self-serving disobedience of so many priests and bishops. You’d think that they were stupid, the way they cannot determine how to handle the implementation of this document.

There is a right way to celebrate the Mass, and every other way is wrong. Sheesh!

 

[Crusader]

Joan M:

It amazes me that something so clear as Redemptionis Sacramentus, which is not promulgating any new laws, but reemphasizing what has been law for years, seems to be “complex”, etc. etc. to clergy…

All we are hearing is another excuse. For years, the battle cry of the abusers was “in the* spirit* of Vatican II.” When that excuse became exposed as the garbage it is, they had to come up with something new.

*“Most people do not grasp the complexities of how the Church actually operates” *seems to be a more recent attempt at trying to justify liturgical abuse…

 

[rwoehmke]

Crusader:

It’s becoming more and more clear that Catholic clerics of all sorts are hiding from the truth. If they cannot successfully defend what they do (or do not do) they can always claim that “most people do not grasp the complexities of how the Church actually operates” which is nothing more than another excuse. An excuse that people are getting tired of hearing.

As Catholics have ever greater access to the documents of the Church, less and less abuse will be tolerated. There will be a period (perhaps we are in it now) where clerical arrogance will rise in misguided attempts to sustain the status quo, but such a state will last only temporarily.

I have met very few clericcs, priests, deacons, bishops who I would describe as arrogant. I am beginning to wonder if so much heat and name calling is rooted in the arrogance of some of our “educated” laity

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Crusader:

It’s becoming more and more clear that Catholic clerics of all sorts are hiding from the truth. If they cannot successfully defend what they do (or do not do) they can always claim that “most people do not grasp the complexities of how the Church actually operates” which is nothing more than another excuse. An excuse that people are getting tired of hearing.

As Catholics have ever greater access to the documents of the Church, less and less abuse will be tolerated. There will be a period (perhaps we are in it now) where clerical arrogance will rise in misguided attempts to sustain the status quo, but such a state will last only temporarily.

Crusader, Are you opposed to Truth? When someone makes a claim that the pope can simply fire a bishop – it’s clear that person does not understand how the Church works. If it were that simple, don’t you think that bishops would be fired left and right? This is not a case of arrogance, but of trying to deal with presenting the truth and acknowleging that people don’t always understand how the Church works.

For example, how many people know how a bishop is chosen? Do you? What about a bishop for an Eastern Catholic Church?

Deacon Ed

 

[itsjustdave1988]

since the bishops received the required recognitio for such use in a document issued in 1997(?) about Communion under both Species.

If you know the name of this document, that’d be great.

Sorry for being so skeptical, but the Episcopal Conference of American Bishops have a history of implementing liturgical norms for the American Church that have not been approved by the Holy See (eg. extending the washing the feet on Holy Thursday to women).

 

[Crusader]

Deacon Ed:

Crusader, Are you opposed to Truth? When someone makes a claim that the pope can simply fire a bishop – it’s clear that person does not understand how the Church works. If it were that simple, don’t you think that bishops would be fired left and right? This is not a case of arrogance, but of trying to deal with presenting the truth and acknowleging that people don’t always understand how the Church works.

For example, how many people know how a bishop is chosen? Do you? What about a bishop for an Eastern Catholic Church?

Deacon Ed

It’s you that appears to be scared of the truth. Let’s take your latest diatribe, point by point.

1.) I made no claim that the pope can “simply fire a bishop.” I have no clue what’s involved with “firing” a cleric. Please don’t spin my words. However, if the Pope of Rome wanted to remove any bishop from power he could. Easily in a practical sense. My guess is his first move would be to request the bishop’s resignation for “health reasons.” If the bishop resisted, he might be called back to the Vatican to sort old copies of America magazine from a phone booth sized office located in the Secret Archives.

2.) Nope, I don’t think JPII would ever fire bishops “left and right.” That might destabilize the Church – at least in the USA. The problem is that problem bishops have not been dealt with over the past few decades. Now there is a true cesspit of a problem. A problem that is going to be difficult to fix due to years of apathy.

Your comments show difficult levels of arrogance and misdirection. Things that are being tolerated less and less by the laity. That might cause you anger and additional confusion but as Mr. Dylan once said “The times they are a changin’.”

 

[Crusader]

*“Most people do not grasp the complexities of how the Church actually operates” *

Aside from the intrinsic arrogance and ignorance of the above statement, I’m curious about the differences in how the Church actually operates versus how it’s supposed to operate…