Cardinal Mahony: "There is no liturgical abuses in L.A"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iohannes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Los Angeles is the largest Archdiocese in the U.S., there should not be problems with sacred vessels, would they use “these” at St. Peters or any other Cathedral /Basilica ?

Rome needs to get most U.S. Bishops in step and compliance…or show them the door…in a loving charitable way.

james
 
40.png
TOME:
Seeing the statement from Cardinal Mahony has made me wonder and perhaps others here can help me with my question. What exactly are the rights and powers a Bishop has over the way the Liturgy is celebrated in his diocese. I left out Responsibility on purpose because I would like to focus on the aspects of right and powers.
Click to expand...
It can be quite extensive in many areas. In Sacrosanctum Concilium from the Second Vatican Council it states that the Bishop is the head liturgist in his diocese. From that point the further documents give the bishop various rights with the liturgy however most of the them are all contingent upon the approval of the Congregation for Divine Worship. This may be vague but the current interpretation about what a bishop can do and can’t do right now is very vague. However, the Vatican has tried to reign things in by stating in the GIRM what can be modified and what cannot in text in the rubrics.
 
40.png
MaryAgnes:
If you get no response from the Cardinal, write the Pope! But to discuss it here is not the least bit constructive.
Click to expand...
We’re not necessarily here to be constructive. We’re here to discuss things. That’s what happens on message boards.
 
Mosher, thanks for your reply to my post, I think you are getting to the heart of my question. Because the directives have been so vague and are now in the process of being clarified, perhaps what some bishops allow or encourage in regards to the Liturgy is well with in their rights, as much as some of us might think otherwise.
I think it is important that all of us actually what are the specific rights given a bishop in the exercise of his office as bishop of his diocees. Perhaps Cardinal Mahony’s comment is true given the
the vagueries you mentioned.

If a bishop is exercising his present legitimate right and authority when it come to the liturgical practices of his dioceese, then I don’t see room for any criticism of that bishop outside those criticisms based on personal aesthetics. We are after all not Cafeteria Catholics and do accept the rules of the Church. However, if a bishop is exceeding his authority, then we have a obligation to go beyond mere criticism and use the means the Church provides us to correct the abuse(s).
 
Scotty PGH:
We’re not necessarily here to be constructive. We’re here to discuss things. That’s what happens on message boards.
Click to expand...
Knowledge and/or the desire to understand is the impetus for healthy discussion.
When personal bias and unsubstantiated “fact” spawn discussion it is gossip. I think we need to be clear about that.
 
40.png
Wolseley:
Cardinal Baloney strikes again.
Click to expand...
Wolseley,

I am no fan at all of +Mahoney, and his antics; but the fact is, he is a Bishop of the Church and should be addresses by his Title and Proper Name, or by the traditional notation of a cross prior to the Proper Name.

If out of respect for the office alone.
 
40.png
Brendan:
Wolseley,

I am no fan at all of +Mahoney, and his antics; but the fact is, he is a Bishop of the Church and should be addresses by his Title and Proper Name, or by the traditional notation of a cross prior to the Proper Name.

If out of respect for the office alone.
Click to expand...
I think that Cardinal Mahony desrves the respect of every orthodox Catholic in America.

The exact same type of respect that Arius got from Athanasius.
 
40.png
MaryAgnes:
Knowledge and/or the desire to understand is the impetus for healthy discussion.
When personal bias and unsubstantiated “fact” spawn discussion it is gossip. I think we need to be clear about that.
Click to expand...
What am I missing here? Were the photos in the original post altered in some way? I thought we were discussing what we see in the photos.
 
How would the cardinal even know, as priests say mass in a hundred languages in a polyglot city like LA and come from all over the world?

Must make it tough for him to keep control of the situation I would think.
 
Karl Keating said:
1. Yes, the Pharisees followed the rules, and our Lord did not fault them for that. He faulted them for giving false emphasis to rules they had made up and for following rules in lieu of following charity.
  1. As for flagons vs. chalices, the solution for the conference would have been simple: Communion under one kind. Not only would this have meant that the rubrics would have been followed (rubrics = rules), but there would have been no chance of spillage. Plus, Communion would have gone more expeditiously.
Click to expand...
I respect your (name removed by moderator)ut Karl. However, my thoughts are:
  1. If the Cardinal is in fact appealing the rubrics for his diocese then it would seem logical that a stay is in place. If that is the case he was not guilty of liturgical abuse. However, the picture would not present those material facts. I am willing to give Cardinal Mahoney the benefit of the doubt–if ONLY because of his office.
  2. Unlike the Pharisees of Jesus time, it seems to me the Cardinal chose, in charity, to provide the Eucharist under the fuller sign of both species rather than follow the rubrics for this obviously special event. I find no fault in that.
 
The impetus of healthy discussion is not using crib sheet material from sources to interrupt the current flow of discussion.

james
 
"On the testimony of competent observers from all over North and South America as well as from Europe and from official Rome itself, the regime of His Eminence, Cardinal Mahony, has been marked by a steady de-Romanization and de-Catholicization of the once flourishing Los Angeles archdiocese.

Many priests, nuns, bishops–under His Eminence’s jurisdiction–are not espousing the teaching of the Church. They follow another agenda. Under the guise of the “Spirit of Vatican II” as a catch-all for any whim and capric, there occur unauthorized liturgical innovations (for example: standing during the Consecration, omission of parts of the Mass, “liturgical” dancing, invalid bread used for Holy Communion, etc.etc.). There are rampant spiritual and canonical abuses (general absolution in place of individual confession, the use of an invalid formula for absolution, First Communion before First Reconciliation for children as the norm, sex education for children that is designed to rob them of their innocence, the pouring of Consecrated Wine down the waste faucets of bathrooms, etc.etc.). Church buildings are renovated on the basis of Environment and Art in Catholic Worship" But this document was never approved by the National Conferences of Catholic Bishops, and it reflects the personal ideas of certain individuals about whose faith one can have very legitimate doubts.

What observers remark is that an overall plan for radical change is being implemented-- but in small increments, without the overall goal being frankly and candidly stated. Many of these observers will aver that the not so obvious aim of all this change is the establishment of another non-Roman Catholic form of our Faith."

Rev. Malachi Martin 1997
 
It’s obvious that Fr. Martin was asking for direct action against Cardinal Mahony. He could put real pressure on the Cardinal and that was his task at the time in his coordinated efforts with Fr. Kunz and Fr. Fiore.

What may have set them off was the Cardinal’s appeal to the Vatican to have Mother Angelica removed as the head of EWTN. This was after she criticized one of his documents watering down the Eucharist.
 
What did JP2 do at the World Youth Days for Communion? I was in Denver and don’t remember being able to receive under both species.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Yes, but get your terminology straight. Spillage is an accident, sacrilege is by intent. That’s WHY the Holy See decreed that the wine could not be consecrated in flagons, but had to be consecrated in chalices and that it was fine to have more than one chalice on the altar for that purpose (but not as such a very large gathering, as has been pointed out). The Cardinal is clearly disobeying the intent of the directive (I don’t know, but I suppose there might be written a caveat that allows a bishop to “adapt” or fidget with the liturgy in his diocese).
Click to expand...
No, the fact that they are pouring the Blood from pitcher to picther has the potential of the Precious Blood of spilling and people stepping on it. That is a sacrilige whether it was an accident or not.
 
40.png
MaryAgnes:
to provide the Eucharist under the fuller sign of both species
Click to expand...
This statement of yours is uncomfortably close to the heretical position that the Eucharist is not fully present in either species by itself. As far as the symbolism goes, just the cup on the altar is suffficient for the assembly to see the Eucharist in both species - there is no need for it to be available under both forms for the sign to be complete. What was a “small error” (a liturgical abuse) is in danger of growing into a “great one” (heresy).
 
What happened to the gorgeous gold chalices and ciboriums that every parish owned 40 years ago?
 
I remember as a kid the awe I had when I seen the Priest so reverantly treat the gold chalice he had received at ordination from his parents.

It was all connected. The reverance for the chalice because Jesus would be present in it. How fitting! It was so inspiring!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top