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.
Scotty PGH:
Ah, but all that really matters is the “Spirit” of the thread title.

Remember, the Pharisees used good grammar.
Click to expand...
I guess that’s why I did not respond to the error! 😉
 
I did a search in the article from “The Tidings” and the title of this thread is untrue. The closest thing the Cardinal said to “There is (sic) no liturgical abuses in LA” is:

“We have not become aware of any serious abuses.”

Just to clarify. I don’t like people making things up or twisting words when they don’t need to be.
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
I did a search in the article from “The Tidings” and the title of this thread is untrue. The closest thing the Cardinal said to “There is (sic) no liturgical abuses in LA” is:

“We have not become aware of any serious abuses.”

Just to clarify. I don’t like people making things up or twisting words when they don’t need to be.
Click to expand...
:clapping: BRAVO! 👍
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
I did a search in the article from “The Tidings” and the title of this thread is untrue. The closest thing the Cardinal said to “There is (sic) no liturgical abuses in LA” is:

“We have not become aware of any serious abuses.”

Just to clarify. I don’t like people making things up or twisting words when they don’t need to be.
Click to expand...
So the title of the thread should not have been as follows:

**“There is no liturgical abuses in L.A” **

Interesting. So, Iohannes, surely you didn’t intend slander against a successor of the Apostles? Can you cite a source for this? You did put it in quotations, with the Cardinal’s name and a colon in front of it, thereby implying that he said it.

That said…I find it odd that all manner of liberals will go on and on about the “spirit of Vatican II,” yet repeatedly ignore the sprit of obedience. I’m not saying the Cardinal is a liberal, nor am I alledging that he cannot govern the liturgy in his diocese. I’ll concede that I don’t how much lee-way a bishop has over liturgical matters in his diocese when there is an apparent conflict with his prefered practice and a directive from the Holy See. I guess I see the problem as a simple one: the Holy See said,“Don’t consecrate the wine while it’s still in a flagon. If the congregation is extremely large” (and I think anyone who isn’t trying to excuse the Cardinal has to concede that this was a “fairly,” if not “extremely,” large assembly of people) “then Holy Communion should be offered to the people only in the Most Sacred Body.” The Cardinal needs to embrace the “spirit of obedience,” as opposed to merely standing on his rights to regulate the liturgy in his diocese. The Pope does not mircromanage the Church. If there is a ruling or a law, to my thinking it probably exists because there has been a problem. As someone who regularly rec. the Most Precious Blood under Its seperate Species, I would hope there would be compliance with the Holy See’s directives so that the Holy See will not HAVE to mircromanage the Church. Like so many institutions that have to keep track of such a multitude of things, the reaction of the Rome may well be to end the problem by getting RID of the problem (again forbidding the chalice to the laity entirely).
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
So the title of the thread should not have been as follows:

**“There is no liturgical abuses in L.A” **

Interesting. So, Iohannes, surely you didn’t intend slander against a successor of the Apostles? Can you cite a source for this? You did put it in quotations, with the Cardinal’s name and a colon in front of it, thereby implying that he said it.

That said…I find it odd that all manner of liberals will go on and on about the “spirit of Vatican II,” yet repeatedly ignore the sprit of obedience. I’m not saying the Cardinal is a liberal, nor am I alledging that he cannot govern the liturgy in his diocese. I’ll concede that I don’t how much lee-way a bishop has over liturgical matters in his diocese when there is an apparent conflict with his prefered practice and a directive from the Holy See. I guess I see the problem as a simple one: the Holy See said,“Don’t consecrate the wine while it’s still in a flagon. If the congregation is extremely large” (and I think anyone who isn’t trying to excuse the Cardinal has to concede that this was a “fairly,” if not “extremely,” large assembly of people) “then Holy Communion should be offered to the people only in the Most Sacred Body.” The Cardinal needs to embrace the “spirit of obedience,” as opposed to merely standing on his rights to regulate the liturgy in his diocese. The Pope does not mircromanage the Church. If there is a ruling or a law, to my thinking it probably exists because there has been a problem. As someone who regularly rec. the Most Precious Blood under Its seperate Species, I would hope there would be compliance with the Holy See’s directives so that the Holy See will not HAVE to mircromanage the Church. Like so many institutions that have to keep track of such a multitude of things, the reaction of the Rome may well be to end the problem by getting RID of the problem (again forbidding the chalice to the laity entirely).
Click to expand...
You made some very good and thoughtful points here. The first thought that came into my head in reading your words was that the charge of Phariseeism was made as soon as someone pointed out the failure of the Cardinal to obey the mind of Rome, yet when the issue of Mother Angelica was raised there was no “mercy” spoken of when the good Cardinal sought to punish Mother A.

Interesting…
 
40.png
fix:
You made some very good and thoughtful points here. The first thought that came into my head in reading your words was that the charge of Phariseeism was made as soon as someone pointed out the failure of the Cardinal to obey the mind of Rome, yet when the issue of Mother Angelica was raised there was no “mercy” spoken of when the good Cardinal sought to punish Mother A.

Interesting…
Click to expand...
And you know, I sat there and thought, “Gosh, Mother Angelica shouldn’t have crossed a Cardinal Archbishop.”

And then I remembered Saint Catherine of Sienna.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
And you know, I sat there and thought, “Gosh, Mother Angelica shouldn’t have crossed a Cardinal Archbishop.”

And then I remembered Saint Catherine of Sienna.
Click to expand...
Oh boy, that is for sure. Mother A was on target in my opinion. Read the link posted and it goes on to say she apologized, but she did not back down.
 
Not to add fan to the flames, but . . .

Why isn’t His Emminence wearing his pallium. Isn’t he the archbishop of Los Angeles?

Our archbishop always wears his pallium during the liturgy.

But then again, I live in Omaha!
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
I did a search in the article from “The Tidings” and the title of this thread is untrue. The closest thing the Cardinal said to “There is (sic) no liturgical abuses in LA” is:

“We have not become aware of any serious abuses.”

Just to clarify. I don’t like people making things up or twisting words when they don’t need to be.
Click to expand...
This is the WHOLE paragraph…
" While we all must constantly re-evaluate our liturgical practice and not allow it to become routine or careless, I have determined that there is no need to make any significant changes in our liturgical practice at this time. Our Auxiliary Bishops, our Deans, and I have been visiting the parishes throughout the Archdiocese regularly over these past years. Especially following the promulgation of Gather Faithfully Together, we have been pleased with the care with which the Eucharist is planned and celebrated. We have not become aware of any serious abuses."

The person who posted the thread was paraphrasing. It should have been marked that way but it does look like Mahony is stating that there are no liturgical abuses in LA, at least none in his mind.
 
There is an ancient quote from Plutarch, " Caesars wife must be beyond reproach "
.That meant of the highest moral character. Regretfuly, we have learned that those we thought were of this standard,are not ! So any guarantees such people make should be looked at,carefuly.
 
40.png
Iohannes:
Here is where I got the info:
onelacatholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/new-cdf-head-says-mass-at-la-cathedral.html
Click to expand...
It was the blogger or someone contributing to the blog that said what the title of this thread alleges, not the Cardinal. We need to be careful of what we attribute to people (and to put something in quotations, as the thread title does, with the Cardinal’s name in front of it, does appear to directly quote the Cardinal) least we be guilty of calumny.
 
40.png
CatholicCid:
What is he doing in this picture? Can’t tell
Click to expand...
He is annointing the altar, consecrating it. Totally legitimate, but liturgical dancers again! :banghead:

I hope everyone here realizes that this is not the norm for the Mass of Paul VI. For every diddly heap abuse like this, there are 100 others celebrated with love and reverence…and a sense of TASTE!!!
Never mind that the Holy See has forbidden it, he’s ignoring the national conference of bishops OF WHICH HE’S A MEMBER!!!
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
I did a search in the article from “The Tidings” and the title of this thread is untrue. The closest thing the Cardinal said to “There is (sic) no liturgical abuses in LA” is:

“We have not become aware of any serious abuses.”
Click to expand...
So, the Cardinal is saying that he was not aware that he was consecrating the wine in a Kool-Aid pitcher? That’s a little far-fetched. 😉

😃 James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top