C
Crusader
Guest
I an envious of your experiences. I wish they were my own…
- Status
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Diatribe? Interesting choice of words…
You responded to a post in which I made the statement that people don’t understand how the Church works. That was in reference to someone claiming that the pope should just fire the bishops. I never said you made that claim. You did, however, choose to take me to task and call me arrogant for such a statement. Apparently, then, your response was based upon my statement with no knowledge of what went before. That would, it seems to me, be arrogant. The process you describe has, in fact, been used. It takes several years to accomplish, however,
I’m not sure that your statement “have not been dealt with” is correct. I know that problem bishops have been dealt with (Archbishop Hunthausen in this country, and numerous bishops including Archbishop Lefebvre in Europe). Rather, I suspect the issue is one of how long the process takes. In the case of Archbishop Hunthausen the period from the visitation ot the release of the results was over two years. This, again, shows how difficult it is to remove a bishop.
I don’t think there’s any arrogance it telling the truth, do you? I have no anger here. In fact, I’m one of the people who strives to be a peacemaker.
Deacon Ed
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Crusader said:
That’s an interesting qestion that presupposes the Church does not operate as she is supposed to. From my perspective, albeit that of a lowly cleric, the Church follows her own rules. There are individuals here and there who do not, but by and large the Church functions just as canon law says she should function. And, like civil law, canon law is not something that can be read at face value. Rather, one must look to case law (how the canons are interpreted and applied by Church courts) in order to understand the meaning of the canons.
Deacon Ed
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Muledog,
I found the CNS article you referred to. Thanks.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/20040519.htm
It seems the Holy See did approve the pouring of Precious Blood, if necessary, as particular law for US dioceses. However, the recognitio of that norm was recinded on May 6. The new U.S. norms were send out and are effective immediately. Granted, each Bishop must decide how to implement this immediately effective norm, but I doubt that simply refusing to implement the norm is an acceptable course of action.
Furthermore, even if the previous norm were still in effect (which it is not), it begs the question: why would it ever be “necessary” to pour the Precious Blood? Given that many large US parishes are already implementing the new US norms without the necessity to pour the Precious Blood, it seems that pouring the Precious Blood is entirely unecessary.
I found the CNS article you referred to. Thanks.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/20040519.htm
It seems the Holy See did approve the pouring of Precious Blood, if necessary, as particular law for US dioceses. However, the recognitio of that norm was recinded on May 6. The new U.S. norms were send out and are effective immediately. Granted, each Bishop must decide how to implement this immediately effective norm, but I doubt that simply refusing to implement the norm is an acceptable course of action.
Furthermore, even if the previous norm were still in effect (which it is not), it begs the question: why would it ever be “necessary” to pour the Precious Blood? Given that many large US parishes are already implementing the new US norms without the necessity to pour the Precious Blood, it seems that pouring the Precious Blood is entirely unecessary.
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Dave,
My understanding here is that the bishops have asked for clarification on this issue because the head of a congregation cannot overturn particular law. That’s where the rub is. All agree that Cardinal Arinze has made it clear that these new norms should apply. So, that’s where it stands as far as I know. I, of course, simply do what my bishop tells me to do.
Deacon Ed
My understanding here is that the bishops have asked for clarification on this issue because the head of a congregation cannot overturn particular law. That’s where the rub is. All agree that Cardinal Arinze has made it clear that these new norms should apply. So, that’s where it stands as far as I know. I, of course, simply do what my bishop tells me to do.
Deacon Ed
M
muledog
Guest
The document is titled, “Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America”, and can be found (along with approving protocols from the Holy See) at:
nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/norms.htm
The Catholic News Service article I was speaking about can be found at:
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/20040519.htm
This article says, in part:
I’ve only quoted portions of the article, but the entire article is worth reading in its entirety
In Manibus Dei,
- muledog
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Deacon Ed:
I presume the head of the congregation removed the recognitio with approval of the Holy See. I don’t have a copy of the May 6 letter sent to Cardinal George, however. Keep in mind that the US norms were originally approved by letter from this same head of a congregation, with the Holy See’s concurrence. If you have evidence that this head of a Pontifical congregation acted without Holy See concurrence, that’s something altogether different.
The USCCB has promulgated modifications to the US norms and said they are effective immediately. What norm is Cardinal Mahony using as his source of authority?
It doesn’t appear he is awaiting clarification, but has in fact said he is making an “exception” to no. 106 of the Holy See’s instruction. No mention of clarification is discussed in his reasoning. There’s no current particular law in effect that allows him make such an exception, according to the USCCB. He can certainly decide how he is to implement the immediately effective norm. That is not what he is doing. He has, instead, decided NOT to implement the norm.
He seems to believe it necessary to pour the Precious Blood, in such instances when the “altar table is too small.” The new US norms do not allow such a practice. “**If one chalice is not sufficient for Holy Communion to be distributed under both kinds to the Priest concelebrants or Christ’s faithful, several chalices are placed on a corporal on the altar in an appropraite place, filled with wine.” **(no. 36 of the current US norm).
Cardinal Mahony states that he will make exception to the new norms “where the number of chalices is so large that they would visibly detract from the important sign of One Bread and One Cup.” He simply does not have this authority. Even under the old norm, it is not “necessary” to pour the Precious Blood. Solution: Buy a bigger altar.
How big is the biggest parish in his diocese? How many parishoners are present at one time? I used to live in Huntington Beach and there was certainly no need for my prior parish to pour the Precious Blood. The number of parishoners was no greater than my current parish (~6000 parishoners), and the altar was no smaller.
The real reason Cardinal Mahony is making an “exception” to the liturgical norms of the Church seem more likely that he does not want to change because, as he states, “our practice has become an Archdiocesan custom of over seven years, with both the Catholic faithful and the ministers accustomed to this practice.”
He’s clearly not awaiting any clarification. He’s simply making exception. Yet, “…no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, n. 230]. On whose authority does Cardinal Mahony “make exception” to the Holy See’s instruction and the USCCB’s new norms for the liturgy?
Good rule of thumb. Yet, I don’t believe the USCCB is awaiting clarification, as they sent out the new norms, calling them immediately effective. Look on the web page and you will not see the old no. 36 and 37 anymore.
I presume the head of the congregation removed the recognitio with approval of the Holy See. I don’t have a copy of the May 6 letter sent to Cardinal George, however. Keep in mind that the US norms were originally approved by letter from this same head of a congregation, with the Holy See’s concurrence. If you have evidence that this head of a Pontifical congregation acted without Holy See concurrence, that’s something altogether different.
The USCCB has promulgated modifications to the US norms and said they are effective immediately. What norm is Cardinal Mahony using as his source of authority?
It doesn’t appear he is awaiting clarification, but has in fact said he is making an “exception” to no. 106 of the Holy See’s instruction. No mention of clarification is discussed in his reasoning. There’s no current particular law in effect that allows him make such an exception, according to the USCCB. He can certainly decide how he is to implement the immediately effective norm. That is not what he is doing. He has, instead, decided NOT to implement the norm.
He seems to believe it necessary to pour the Precious Blood, in such instances when the “altar table is too small.” The new US norms do not allow such a practice. “**If one chalice is not sufficient for Holy Communion to be distributed under both kinds to the Priest concelebrants or Christ’s faithful, several chalices are placed on a corporal on the altar in an appropraite place, filled with wine.” **(no. 36 of the current US norm).
Cardinal Mahony states that he will make exception to the new norms “where the number of chalices is so large that they would visibly detract from the important sign of One Bread and One Cup.” He simply does not have this authority. Even under the old norm, it is not “necessary” to pour the Precious Blood. Solution: Buy a bigger altar.
How big is the biggest parish in his diocese? How many parishoners are present at one time? I used to live in Huntington Beach and there was certainly no need for my prior parish to pour the Precious Blood. The number of parishoners was no greater than my current parish (~6000 parishoners), and the altar was no smaller.
The real reason Cardinal Mahony is making an “exception” to the liturgical norms of the Church seem more likely that he does not want to change because, as he states, “our practice has become an Archdiocesan custom of over seven years, with both the Catholic faithful and the ministers accustomed to this practice.”
He’s clearly not awaiting any clarification. He’s simply making exception. Yet, “…no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, n. 230]. On whose authority does Cardinal Mahony “make exception” to the Holy See’s instruction and the USCCB’s new norms for the liturgy?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Regarding whether a Papal instruction can abrogate particular law, the answer is: it can.
Can. 8 §1 Universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the ‘Acta Apostolicae Sedis’ (AAS)
Redemptionis Sacramentum was published in the AAS. Whether it is called an instruction or decree or otherwise, it has the force of law.
It stated, “All things to the contrary notwithstanding.” “All things” include particular laws. The Roman Pontiff ordered it to be published as an “Acta Apostolicae Sedis” and observed immediately.
Another example is this Instruction,
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html
which states, “All particular laws, customs and faculties … or other ecclesiastical authorities which are contrary to the foregoing norms are hereby revoked.” Which is just another way of saying “All things to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Papal Instructions published in the AAS can most certainly abrogate particular law, and is all the authority the USCCB needed to modify the particular norms.
Can. 8 §1 Universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the ‘Acta Apostolicae Sedis’ (AAS)
Redemptionis Sacramentum was published in the AAS. Whether it is called an instruction or decree or otherwise, it has the force of law.
It stated, “All things to the contrary notwithstanding.” “All things” include particular laws. The Roman Pontiff ordered it to be published as an “Acta Apostolicae Sedis” and observed immediately.
Another example is this Instruction,
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html
which states, “All particular laws, customs and faculties … or other ecclesiastical authorities which are contrary to the foregoing norms are hereby revoked.” Which is just another way of saying “All things to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Papal Instructions published in the AAS can most certainly abrogate particular law, and is all the authority the USCCB needed to modify the particular norms.
T
transfinitum
Guest
Many thanks indeed to Dave.
I appreciate the way you do your homework.
I am greatly saddened to see that my diocesan ordinary is setting a profoundly disturbing example of disobedience to lawful authority.
I would rejoice to see him removed by competent authority, on those grounds alone, without the slightest hesitation.
Such things being well above my pay grade, I suppose the best I can do is to be as obedient to my bishop in all things but sin, as I would he were to the Pope and the Apostolic See.
Many thanks for all who have contributed.
I appreciate the way you do your homework.
I am greatly saddened to see that my diocesan ordinary is setting a profoundly disturbing example of disobedience to lawful authority.
I would rejoice to see him removed by competent authority, on those grounds alone, without the slightest hesitation.
Such things being well above my pay grade, I suppose the best I can do is to be as obedient to my bishop in all things but sin, as I would he were to the Pope and the Apostolic See.
Many thanks for all who have contributed.
P
Panis_Angelicas
Guest
Another, less expensive solution: stop offering the Precious Blood to the faithful. Then, only one chalice would be necessary.
Pax Christi. <><
C
Crusader
Guest
Excellent posting.
Interesting to note the size of the altar at Mahony’s new Cathedral is 10’x15’. 150 square feet. The floorspace of a small bedroom…
O
oat_soda
Guest
the bishop of portland allows himself to use crystal chalices at mass and cardinal mccarick doesn’t follow canon law. i’m sure there are plenty more examples of disobedience. pride is the most prevalent and deadly capital sin. at least luther and henry the viii were straight. today they would probably be gay and disobedient.
H
Hudsonite
Guest
If you are indeed getting fed up perhapps a good anticdote would be to help end the liturgical abuses in your parish, if you have any.
2
2heartsaz1
Guest
The exceptions being claimed are no surprise. When the Roj Mahol (new cathedral) celebrated its first mass, the 100+ vestments for the celebrants were the color “adobe” as listed in the L.A. Times that weekend.
May God have mercy on those especially in need of His mercy.
Please pray for the western states’ diocese and clergy, especially the newly ordained. JMJ
May God have mercy on those especially in need of His mercy.
Please pray for the western states’ diocese and clergy, especially the newly ordained. JMJ
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Even if the issue were one of awaiting a responsum, it seems the more obedient thing to do would be to follow the norms that call for immediate implementation, especially if Dave’s most recent post is correct, which would leave little room for a real dubium to begin with. I could understand not wanting to make the whole congregation change its practice (such as moving our standing from the end of “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands…” to the beginning) only to find out that you can proceed with the old particular law, but something like refusing to change fractioning smells of defiance.
J
Jeanne_Domremy
Guest
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Not everything published in AAS is a universal ecclesiastical law. Redemptionis Sacramentum is an instruction. The force of RS is governed by:
C
Crusader
Guest
I believe its more formal name is the Taj Mahony.
M
Michael_Welter
Guest
This whole thread really bothers me for several reasons.
- Those of us who are older Catholics, and have studied Church history know quite well that it usually takes many years to implement changes, not because of defiance or ignorance, but because of the reason pointed out in #2 below. Look how long it took to remove the old communion rails, and turn the altars around? Look how long, over the centuries, it took the Church to speak up against heresies. Ours is a slow moving Church for good reason. Get used to it.
- One of the principal tenets of the Catholic faith is that no one, especially the laity, has the right to interpret Church teaching or Scripture, except the Holy See. And yet, what I’m seeing here, is a whole bunch of lay people not only interpretting a new Church document, but getting angry at our priests and bishops for seeking interpretation from Rome. You can’t have it both ways. Either you are Catholic, and you rely on Rome, and Rome alone, to offer interpretation, or you are not truly Catholic.
- Try to understand that this document was not written for the Los Angeles diocese, or the USA. It was written for the entire world. My bishop (Diocese of San Bernardino) has asked the pastors and pastoral coordinators not to make any changes based on this document until he has had the chance to understand it in the spirit in which it was written, so that it can be implemented uniformly across the diocese. I applaud his wisdom. He is following a long standing tradition of the Church.
- How many of you would criticize Jesus for violating Church law? That’s right! He violated Church law by healing on the Sabath; by allowing His disciples to harvest food on the Sabath. What was His response to criticism? “Man was not made for the Sabath, the Sabath was made for man.” Please don’t get so legalistic that you miss the point of our faith.
C
Crusader
Guest
Michael Welter:
2.) The GIRM ain’t the Bible. As Catholics we do indeed depend on God to interpret the Bible for us through the Teaching Magisterium of the Church. This ain’t the case with the GIRM or RS.
3.) It sounds like he might be placing his desires ahead of the Holy See. San Berdoo has been problematic for years now.
4.) We have a new covenant in Jesus Christ. We are Christians, not Jews. The Catholic Church IS Jesus Christ.
1.) No Church directive ever called for the removal or communion rails.
2.) The GIRM ain’t the Bible. As Catholics we do indeed depend on God to interpret the Bible for us through the Teaching Magisterium of the Church. This ain’t the case with the GIRM or RS.
3.) It sounds like he might be placing his desires ahead of the Holy See. San Berdoo has been problematic for years now.
4.) We have a new covenant in Jesus Christ. We are Christians, not Jews. The Catholic Church IS Jesus Christ.
- Status