Diocese of Gaylord

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, very good logic, Alex. I have noticed this over and over. Anyone who holds traditional views is quickly dismissed and even maligned by some, yet they themselves can sound all the trumpets they want about their own views.

I don’t see what is going on here as dismissing or maligning anyone because they hold traditional views.

I see it as defending the proper authorities when someone who happens to hold traditional views attacks them and says that they are being disobedient because he happens to disagree with an opinion held by that bishop.

It just seems that some who hold traditional views are quick to attack the Church and its Bishops rather than talking about the facts and some seem to hold the idea that their opinions are the only valid ones and everyone else is wrong.

 

[AlexV]

We are talking about “the facts”.

A bishop cannot ban universal options.

A bishop cannot demand permission in writing before a pastor decides to use something as minor as a Latin hymn at Mass.

A bishop cannot demand permission in writing from a pastor for whom the Motu Proprio has clearly given certain rights.

The bishop is there when the pastor cannot handle a situation arising from the MP, and the PCED is there when the bishop cannot handle it.

These aren’t “opinions”.

If a pastor in Gaylord decided to use the Pange Lingua in Latin on Holy Thursday, he does not need anyone’s “permission”, let alone in writing. It is part of the 2002 Missal, and the 1962, and his to use as he pleases. That’s where the bishop here has crossed the line.

Furthermore, we have PLENTY of bishops who are responding to the MP in a spirit of charity and gratitude…not parsing every word into oblivion so they can prevent that which they have time and again made clear they loathe.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I don’t see what is going on here as dismissing or maligning anyone because they hold traditional views.

I see it as defending the proper authorities when someone who happens to hold traditional views attacks them and says that they are being disobedient because he happens to disagree with an opinion held by that bishop.

It just seems that some who hold traditional views are quick to attack the Church and its Bishops rather than talking about the facts and some seem to hold the idea that their opinions are the only valid ones and everyone else is wrong.

I was referring to this post, which is a yet another stab at presenting traditionalists in as poor a light as possible.

Could this entire thread be a case of sour grapes that the traditionalists are not being treated with an open arms policy, simply for the asking?

I wish that Raphael and others could just understand that we want to be able to attend the Mass that feeds us spiritually. It would show Christian charity, but instead we get constantly bombarded with innuendos and skepticism of our real intentions.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I don’t see what is going on here as dismissing or maligning anyone because they hold traditional views.

I see it as defending the proper authorities when someone who happens to hold traditional views attacks them and says that they are being disobedient because he happens to disagree with an opinion held by that bishop.

It just seems that some who hold traditional views are quick to attack the Church and its Bishops rather than talking about the facts and some seem to hold the idea that their opinions are the only valid ones and everyone else is wrong.

I was referring to this post, which is a yet another stab at presenting traditionalists in as poor a light as possible.

Well I can not help you here because if you read my post, which I have quoted here again in its entirety you will see that no where do I say all traditionalists are this way.

I only have issues with those who disparage the Church and its Bishops. I have no problem with most of the traditionalists here. Heck, I share many of their views.

There are some here who just wish paint many bishops in a bad light and attack and be uncharitable with those who disagree with them.

I wish that Raphael and others could just understand that we want to be able to attend the Mass that feeds us spiritually. It would show Christian charity, but instead we get constantly bombarded with innuendos and skepticism of our real intentions.

I think Raphael and others understand this. The problem lies in how some wish to express this want. They seems to do so with attacks on bishops and those who hold opinions that differ from theirs.

 

[Unitas]

I think Raphael and others understand this. The problem lies in how some wish to express this want. They seems to do so with attacks on bishops and those who hold opinions that differ from theirs.

What about when bishops overstep their defined authority to purposely undermine any effort to promote the extraordintary form of the mass being celebrated? Which is really the topic of the thread.

Is it ok to have a problem with that or do we need your permission first?

 

[paramedicgirl]

What about when bishops overstep their defined authority to purposely undermine any effort to promote the extraordintary form of the mass being celebrated? Which is really the topic of the thread.

Is it ok to have a problem with that or do we need your permission first?

.

 

[AlexV]

ByzCath likes to speak of “the bishops” as if they were a monolith. I have praised several bishops repeatedly, for they deserve it. Today, A MONTH before the official Motu date, the Bishop of Burlington offered a Solemn High Mass for the Assumption. Because, of course, as anyone who knows the law can tell you, the Motu’s provisions could already have been implemented by any bishop who saw fit…years ago.

Other bishops are objectively acting ultra vires. However, a very good friend of mine knows a priest who has a wonderful idea. He intends to obey the Gaylord bishop’s decree. He will submit a permission slip for every Mass. After all, Alleluia, Hosanna, and Amen are all Hebrew words, not English. They REQUIRE the bishop’s WRITTEN permission before they can be uttered in HIS diocese.

So let him start filling out permission slips.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexV
And, a side note.

It’s amazing how some people are not allowed to make the slightest statement or draw the slightest conclusion about anything, while other people are allowed to make pronouncements about the sins of others.

Yes, very good logic, Alex. I have noticed this over and over. Anyone who holds traditional views is quickly dismissed and even maligned by some, yet they themselves can sound all the trumpets they want about their own views.

---

Been noticing the same for quite some time now. Usually from the same posters.

 

[paramedicgirl]

---

Been noticing the same for quite some time now. Usually from the same posters.

From the sock puppet three in one trio?

 

[Genesis315]

A higher authority trumps a lower. If a bishop commands something he has no authority to command, he does not have to be obeyed.

Reminds me of Bishop Lynch in Florida with his ban on Exposition of the Holy Eucharist.

I just wanted to clarify this. I just recently moved from that diocese and I went to Adoration quite often, including at the Cathedral. The Cathedral had weekly exposition and adoration with one day per month devoted to vocations for the whole diocese. Perpetual adoration was discontinued in the diocese (or it was not instituted; I’m not sure if there was any to begin with, honestly) but Exposition and Adoration was actually encouraged and was on the increase. While there were no perpetual adoration chapels, there was always some church having adoration within driving distance.

 

[Timmay]

Apparently the Diocese of Gaylord noticed the buzz that was created over this and have issued a statment clarifying matters.

STATEMENT REGARDING USE OF
THE VERNACULAR WHEN CELEBRATING LITURGY

A recent directive by Bishop Patrick R. Cooney regarding the use of the vernacular when celebrating the liturgy has been misunderstood and misrepresented throughout many Internet blog sites and in some media outlets. Before jumping to conclusions, one must understand the history behind the policy. The directive was issued in June of this year to address some specific issues occurring in our diocese with regard to the Mass. Essentially, a kind of “hybrid” Mass was beginning to be celebrated in which both the vernacular and Latin were being interspersed during the Eucharistic Liturgy. The directive of the Bishop was made to correct these issues, to address a very specific concern in our diocese, and to restore proper order according to the guidelines of the Universal Church. Further the directive clearly begins with the statement, “Until other law is promulgated…”

The fact that this directive was released approximately one week prior to the release of Pope Benedict XVI’s Apostolic Letter on the Use of the Preconciliar Liturgical Form was purely a matter of coincidence.

The characterization among the blog sites and others that Bishop Cooney’s intention was to act in defiance of the Holy Father’s Summorum Pontificum is completely false. In fact, though we are a small, rural diocese with very few priests who possess the necessary competence and qualifications called for by the Holy Father in his Apostolic Letter, Bishop Cooney immediately began consultations with the clergy of our area to determine how we might offer a regular celebration of the liturgy according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962. Those who carefully read Summorum Pontificum will also note specific guidelines by the Holy Father and that the decree takes effect September 14, 2007 – nearly another full month from now.

Further, some have attempted to extrapolate the directive from Bishop Cooney as intended to eliminate other celebrations of the Eucharist in the vernacular of those gathered, such as our Hispanic population. In fact, the Diocese of Gaylord long ago established an Apostolate to serve our Hispanic brothers and sisters living and working in our area. For years, a liturgy in Spanish has been offered for them and it continues today. Upon reflection, we agree that perhaps the language in the policy stating “all liturgies… are to be celebrated entirely in English” may have led to a misunderstanding by those who were not in attendance at the clergy gathering to hear the full explanation of the policy, as well as those others who are not familiar with our diocese. For this confusion and any hurt which may have ensued, we most sincerely apologize.

In summary, it has always been Bishop Cooney’s intention and practice to follow the directives of the Holy Father in a manner to best minister to and serve the people of the Diocese of Gaylord.

Source: Fr. Z

Bishop Cooney’s reasons for issuing the original directive aside (I’ll let everyone else comment on that), the good news is we were wrong, they’ve clarified and apologized, and the people of the Diocese of Gaylord won’t be abitrarily denied the extraordinary form of the Mass as we thought. Good news.

 

[AlexV]

We weren’t “wrong”. Bishop Cooney is still acting ultra vires…not as ultra as his poorly-written edicts indicated, but still ultra vires…

 

[Timmay]

We weren’t “wrong”. Bishop Cooney is still acting ultra vires…not as ultra as his poorly-written edicts indicated, but still ultra vires…

I wasn’t referring to whether or not he was acting ultra vires in restricting latin and all other languages right now (I was not taking part in that discussion). We were wrong in our assumption that this was done in response to (or really, in anticipation of) the MP. The statement from the diocese said the timing was coincidental. Our own thoughts, opinions and experiences of the diocese aside (including my own), it is charitable to take them at their word.

Add to that the fact that they are discussing how best to regularly offer the liturgy according to the extraordinary form, and I’d say they’re working in the spirit the Pope intended with the MP and are making steps in the right direction. That, to me, is good news.

 

[Walking_Home]

“The directive was issued in June of this year to address some specific issues occurring in our diocese with regard to the Mass. Essentially, a kind of “hybrid” Mass was beginning to be celebrated in which both the vernacular and Latin were being interspersedduring the Eucharistic Liturgy. The directive of the Bishop was made to correct these issues, to address a very specific concern in our diocese, and to restore proper order according to the guidelines of the Universal Church.”

“The fact that this directive was released approximately one week prior to the release of Pope Benedict XVI’s Apostolic Letter on the Use of the Preconciliar Liturgical Form was purely a matter of coincidence.”

---

Is the bishop saying that none of the NO Masses are to include Latin. Is this to mean he considers the NO with Latin as un-ordered—according to the guidelines of the Universal Church. If his directive was not aimed at the Extraordinary form—then apparently this was for the NO.

 

[Brendan]

“The directive was issued in June of this year to address some specific issues occurring in our diocese with regard to the Mass. Essentially, a kind of “hybrid” Mass was beginning to be celebrated in which both the vernacular and Latin were being interspersedduring the Eucharistic Liturgy. The directive of the Bishop was made to correct these issues, to address a very specific concern in our diocese, and to restore proper order according to the guidelines of the Universal Church.”

“The fact that this directive was released approximately one week prior to the release of Pope Benedict XVI’s Apostolic Letter on the Use of the Preconciliar Liturgical Form was purely a matter of coincidence.”

---

Is the bishop saying that none of the NO Masses are to include Latin. Is this to mean he considers the NO with Latin as un-ordered—according to the guidelines of the Universal Church. If his directive was not aimed at the Extraordinary form—then apparently this was for the NO.

But the Mass articulated in Sacrosanctum Concillium invisioned was a hybrid of Latin and the Vernacular.

It specifically allowed that the Readings be done in the vernacular, but that the common prayers be said in Latin.

The use of the vernacular alone is strictly an Indult.

Does Bishop Cooney object to the very Mass that Vatican II advocated?

 

[Brendan]

Add to that the fact that they are discussing how best to regularly offer the liturgy according to the extraordinary form, and I’d say they’re working in the spirit the Pope intended with the MP and are making steps in the right direction. That, to me, is good news.

That really hasn’t been my concern. My concern is that Bishop Cooney is attempting to restrict the celebration of the Normative Mass of the Roman Church, specifically the N.O. Mass said in Latin.

It’s good that he is not attempting to restrict the celebration of the Extraordinary Form, but that is minor compared to his attempt to restrict the Normative, Ordinary Form.

 

[paramedicgirl]

That really hasn’t been my concern. My concern is that Bishop Cooney is attempting to restrict the celebration of the Normative Mass of the Roman Church, specifically the N.O. Mass said in Latin.

It’s good that he is not attempting to restrict the celebration of the Extraordinary Form, but that is minor compared to his attempt to restrict the Normative, Ordinary Form.

How many Bishop Cooney’s are there, anyway??? That’s the name of our bishop, Diocese of Nelson. (It’s a very liberal diocese, and he is a very holy man. His work must be hard.)

 

[mystified]

Walking Home,
As I recall, this so-called hybrid Mass, readings in the vernacular and other parts in Latin, was the way it was done in the 60s, shortly after VII promulgated it.