Cardinal Mahoney's Statement on Redemptionis Sacramentum

  • Thread starter Thread starter transfinitum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crusader said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that each of us has the right to “interpret” the GIRM or RS? That’s a dangerous position. It’s that kind of thinking that has caused the protestants to splinter into more than 10,000 denominations.

Crusader said:
3.) It sounds like he might be placing his desires ahead of the Holy See. San Berdoo has been problematic for years now.
Click to expand...

If he had decided to interpret the document himself, I would agree with you. But instead, he is trying to understand the Vatican’s intent with this document. Whay is that so hard to understand?

If we, who are devout Catholics, can’t even agree on how this document should be implemented, why do we question the Bishop’s wisdom when he seeks clarification from Rome before acting?
 
40.png
cestusdei:
deacon,

Here’s an idea. Why not just obey the Instruction? It is very clear. Not dubious at all. I am far more dubious about His Eminence’s prevarications. It seems to be a “let’s raise questions until we get the answer we want or Rome forgets the original issue”. The whole point of RS was to resolve these things. May His Eminence will consider granting due process in other areas of concern in his diocese.
Click to expand...
If I understand you (and I hope I do!), there is no reason a pastor may not follow the instruction of RS in his own parish beginning this very day – not waiting around until the dubium is settled, not availing himself of any indult that may be in effect. Is that right? In other words, we could scrap our $#% pottery and glass instruments TODAY without in any way compromising our relationship with our diocese or the bishops’ conference?

If this is so, then can one conclude that aside from pastoral considerations, such as weighing the value of starting a firestorm among proprietery EMHCs, a main reason NOT to follow RS immediately is a kind of murmuring truculence?
 
Michael Welter:
Are you saying that each of us has the right to “interpret” the GIRM or RS? That’s a dangerous position. It’s that kind of thinking that has caused the protestants to splinter into more than 10,000 denominations.

If he had decided to interpret the document himself, I would agree with you. But instead, he is trying to understand the Vatican’s intent with this document. Whay is that so hard to understand?

If we, who are devout Catholics, can’t even agree on how this document should be implemented, why do we question the Bishop’s wisdom when he seeks clarification from Rome before acting?
Click to expand...
Don’t be silly. To equate interpreting the Bible to intepreting the GIRM is ludicrous. The GIRM is a lucid manual that requires no interpretation. Those that seek interpretation are those that trying to skirt what the document directs.

The questions arise based on the reputations of some of the bishops with respect to liturgical abuse, and their willingness to question what is already crystal clear.
 
40.png
Crusader:
Don’t be silly. To equate interpreting the Bible to intepreting the GIRM is ludicrous. The GIRM is a lucid manual that requires no interpretation. Those that seek interpretation are those that trying to skirt what the document directs.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I’m not trying to equate Scripture and the GIRM (or RS, for that matter). I’m trying to make a point. I wouldn’t want people acting based on what they “think” I meant by something. If there’s any question, I would rather them come to me for clarification. Since RS was not written under papal infallability, we can assume that it’s author is human, and, therefore, no matter how detailed the imstructions may be, it could be interpretted differently in different parts of the world, or even in a single diocese. And those interpretations could be different than the intention of the original author. The author cannot forsee every possible interpretation and write the document in such a way that ALL possible interpretations will be equal to the intent of the author.
 
40.png
mercygate:
If I understand you (and I hope I do!), there is no reason a pastor may not follow the instruction of RS in his own parish beginning this very day – not waiting around until the dubium is settled, not availing himself of any indult that may be in effect. Is that right? In other words, we could scrap our $#% pottery and glass instruments TODAY without in any way compromising our relationship with our diocese or the bishops’ conference?
Click to expand...
There is no provision in RS that lifts a pastor’s obligation to follow his bishop, nor any provision that would limit the consequences of a pastor’s disobedience to his bishop with regard to liturgical matters that the pastor thinks contrary to RS.

If a pastor is deeply concerned about a liturgical abuse, and cannot wait for his bishops to act, then the pastor can write to the CDWDS just as the laity are instructed to.
 
I think the Latin word for reprobate is pretty clear in all cultures and in no need of interpretation. What part of “cease immediately” don’t we understand?
 
40.png
buffalo:
What part of “cease immediately” don’t we understand?
Click to expand...
The part that conflicts with particular law, as indicated per canon 34 §2.
 
Joe Kelley:
Bishops should always rememberthat the laity are watching. They will be about half as obedient to the Bishops as the Bishops are to Rome.
Click to expand...
How very insightful.:yup:
 
Joe Kelley:
Bishops should always rememberthat the laity are watching. They will be about half as obedient to the Bishops as the Bishops are to Rome.
Click to expand...
How very insightful. :yup:
 
Michael Welter:
I disagree. I’m not trying to equate Scripture and the GIRM (or RS, for that matter). I’m trying to make a point. I wouldn’t want people acting based on what they “think” I meant by something. If there’s any question, I would rather them come to me for clarification. Since RS was not written under papal infallability, we can assume that it’s author is human, and, therefore, no matter how detailed the imstructions may be, it could be interpretted differently in different parts of the world, or even in a single diocese. And those interpretations could be different than the intention of the original author. The author cannot forsee every possible interpretation and write the document in such a way that ALL possible interpretations will be equal to the intent of the author.
Click to expand...
Let’s see if I can sketch out the path at least some (arch)bishops will take in the USA with respect to the new GIRM and RS.

First, raise some inane questions, or pardon me, “dubiums.” Divert the focus from following the GIRM and RS onto the dubiums themselves, and how they are being handled.

If all goes well the Church will move at its typical snail’s pace and the drive to follow the new GIRM and RS will die down before the dubiums are even answered. If enough time dosen’t pass to let them die down, perhaps more dubiums could be raised by the USCCB?

A great deal of time will pass since the release of the new GIRM and RS until neither have any real teeth – much like today.

And some wonder why some (arch)bishops lack respect in today’s Church…
 
Originally Posted by Joe Kelley
Bishops should always rememberthat the laity are watching. They will be about half as obedient to the Bishops as the Bishops are to Rome.
Click to expand...
Well that explains why there has been a widespred apostasy in America.
 
Michael Welter:
This whole thread really bothers me for several reasons.
  1. Try to understand that this document was not written for the Los Angeles diocese, or the USA. It was written for the entire world…
  2. 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.
    QUOTE]
Many folks do understand; we wonder why shepherds don’t understand the immediacy of the required corrections and the need for standards in the G.I.R.M is to unite us, not to draw out differing opinions and nuances of what the words REALLy mean or COULD mean or how to squeak around them.

Charity on the Sabbath is not the same thing as intentional disobedience or refusal to obey the implementation of necessary ecclesial corrections which have often been reiterated over the years and ignored by Americans. It’s not an equivalent comparison to make in #4 above. They’re 2 totally different kinds of circumstances.

Praise God from whom all blessings flow. Praying for all shepherd of Christ’s flock to witness their faith unceasingly and zealously in season and out of season.
Click to expand...
 
Panis Angelicas:
Another, less expensive solution: stop offering the Precious Blood to the faithful. Then, only one chalice would be necessary.

I wouldn’t like this at all. I know, I know, the fullness of His Presence is equally present in both of the Species, but the norm as set forth by the Savior at the Last Supper and the practice of the ancient church was both the Body under the accident of bread and the Blood under the accident of wine. This is an “innovation” we should actually keep.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
This is an “innovation” we should actually keep.
Click to expand...
Not if it presents more problems.

It adds no additional Grace to the recipient, has the danger of sacrilege in spillage, promotes the Ultraquist heresy and puts Cardinals in a position where they say really stupid things.
 
I was told by our “parish administrator” that Redemptionis Sacramentum is not the law in the Diocese of Rochester. He went on to explain that nothing from Rome has any force in a particular diocese unless it is specifically promulgated by the local bishop.

He said that he had read the document and found it “horrendous”. “With all the real abuses in the Church, why in the world would they worry about Liturygy”

Some demons can only be driven out by prayer and fasting.
 
I guess “cease immediately” only means stop if your Bishop agrees.

However, reading RS one will find a direct appeal to the faithful to correct and/or report abuses.
 
40.png
kmmd:
I was told by our “parish administrator” that Redemptionis Sacramentum is not the law in the Diocese of Rochester. He went on to explain that nothing from Rome has any force in a particular diocese unless it is specifically promulgated by the local bishop.

He said that he had read the document and found it “horrendous”. “With all the real abuses in the Church, why in the world would they worry about Liturygy”

Some demons can only be driven out by prayer and fasting.
Click to expand...
His/her comments seem also evil…

If we should not “worry” about the Mass, what should we worry about?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top