Enforcing the Redemptionis Sacramentum

[boatbearer]

If he stopped Consecration in the flagon and pouring of the Precious Blood that would actually make his book & video on the Mass obsolete. Instead, he continues to allow this in his archdiocese, his book & video keep selling and promoting abuse. [edited].

So now you are accusing the Archbishop of Los Angeles of allowing dispensation from RS #106 because “his book & video keep selling and promoting abuse?”

[edited]

 

[japhy]

I didn’t use an ad hominem argument. Please don’t suggest I did.

I apologize for misusing the term.

I suppose it’s simplest for me just to say, please leave these sorts of comments out of this discussion:

I’m aware this won’t make sense to the liturgical technicians out there with their dog eared copies of the GIRM and RS living in their black and white worlds.

There’s no reason for them, and they don’t help us to understand your point of view.

 

[roadsend]

So now you are accusing the Archbishop of Los Angeles of allowing dispensation from RS #106 because “his book & video keep selling and promoting abuse?”

[edited].

[edited]
He is just calling a spade a spade.
The Cardinal is apparently selling a video and book.
He has publicly dissented from Redemptionis Sacramentum.
It is what it is.

 

[roadsend]

Yep, the same cardinal that many months before that petitioned the Holy See to appoint a co-coadjutor so he had time to bring his replacement up to speed on an archdiocese of nearly 5M members. " "

Yup.
It looks like he could see the writing on the wall.
I wonder how much (name removed by moderator)ut he had on the selection of his successor.
I also can’t help but wonder how many of the “nearly 5M members” of his archdiocese have ever attended a licit Mass, offered with every effort to be in compliance with the GIRM, Redemptionis Sacramentum and other Church law.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

As I stated in my previous posts, a Metropolitan, even if he is a Cardinal, does not have the right to dispense with the authoritative documents of the Holy See. In fact, all of the documents charge the Ordinaries (and the Metropolitans) to safeguard the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You have already been shown what a bishop can and cannot do, per the GIRM. You have been shown this in about two threads and yet you persist in holding an opinion which, as I see it, runs constrary to to the GIRM.

Neither an Ordinary nor a Metropolitan has complete carte blanche over the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He is charged with upholding current liturgical law and ensuring that the parishes in his jurisdiction follow the authoritative documents of the Holy See. In the final analysis, what we must do is read and heed the authoritative documents of the Holy See.

Completely correct. I found the Church law - i.e. the Canon Law that states the authority in matters liturgical.
Canon 838

1. The supervision (moderatio) of the sacred liturgy depends** solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See** and, in accord with the law, the diocesan bishop.
2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the entire Church (universa ecclesia), to publish (edere) the liturgical books, to review their translations into the vernacular languages and to see that liturgical ordinances
   are faithfully observed everywhere.
3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare translations of the liturgical books into the vernacular languages, with the appropriate adaptations within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves, and to publish (edere) them with the prior review by the Holy See.
4. It pertains to the diocesan bishop in the church entrusted to him, within the limits of his competence, to issue liturgical norms by which all are bound.

Clearly states that the Bishop must follow the liturgical law. Not his interpretation of it.

With that being said, boatbearer, if you wish to have another discussion about who has authority in matters liturgical, please open a thread for it. Otherwise, keep it out of the other ones. One thread has been closed because it got off topic and there are questions about ENFORCING RS that I am sure people still have.

God bless!

 

[DeepeningFaith]

So, who has ideas for the laity to help enforce RS at the parish and diocesan levels?

Here is what Canon Law says about such things:

Canon 214 The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church, and to follow their own form of spiritual life consonant with the teaching of the Church.

Canon 212

1. The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church.
2. The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church.
3. In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration of the common good and dignity of persons.

I would simply think that having your resources together, you write a letter to the pastor stating that you are invoking Canon 212, asking for your right as described in Canon 214. I would then point out the abuses in the respective documents and ask what his intentions are. (I wouldn’t dare try and give a timeline! as much as I would like to.)

Key thing is to be respectful!

Thoughts?

 

[cctabb]

oh, never mind.

 

[boatbearer]

Yup.
It looks like he could see the writing on the wall.
I wonder how much (name removed by moderator)ut he had on the selection of his successor.
I also can’t help but wonder how many of the “nearly 5M members” of his archdiocese have ever attended a licit Mass, offered with every effort to be in compliance with the GIRM, Redemptionis Sacramentum and other Church law.

You should be ashamed at yourself for your attack on the cardinal. The hate shown for this man on these forums is truly troubling.

It looks me to me like he wanted to spend a great deal of time helping the next ABp. come up to speed. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is HUGE in terms of people (more than doubled since the cardinal took over) and geography and it will take some time to transition.

I have been to perhaps a dozen Masses at the Cathedral and possibly 100 within the archdiocese. Each and every Mass was not only valid they were "licit: as well.

 

[boatbearer]

If he stopped Consecration in the flagon and pouring of the Precious Blood that would actually make his book & video on the Mass obsolete. Instead, he continues to allow this in his archdiocese, his book & video keep selling and promoting abuse. [edited]

Thank you for cleaning-up this posting. It’s remarkable to see not only the vitriol spewed at Cardinal Mahony but the apparent belief of some that it’s OK to do so as Catholics. Almost as if some believe there is special license to attack Cardinal Mahony.

 

[roadsend]

You should be ashamed at yourself for your attack on the cardinal. The hate shown for this man on these forums is truly troubling.

It looks me to me like he wanted to spend a great deal of time helping the next ABp. come up to speed. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is HUGE in terms of people (more than doubled since the cardinal took over) and geography and it will take some time to transition.

I have been to perhaps a dozen Masses at the Cathedral and possibly 100 within the archdiocese. Each and every Mass was not only valid they were "licit: as well.

No attack or hatred here. I am just happy to be able to wish the Cardinal a pleasant retirement and to wish his replacement every possible success in the restoration of liturgical fidelity in his new diocese.

 

[boatbearer]

With that being said, boatbearer, if you wish to have another discussion about who has authority in matters liturgical, please open a thread for it. Otherwise, keep it out of the other ones. One thread has been closed because it got off topic and there are questions about ENFORCING RS that I am sure people still have.

God bless!

Determining where the authority rests is paramount in trying to enforce anything. No one here has shown anything that proves that Cardinal Mahony did not have the authority to dispense with RS #106.

Yes, I know some people are adamant that their personal interpretation of Church documentation suggests the Cardinal was not at liberty to do as he did. I’m also aware of three other things. First; the Cardinal’s decision was based in part by his understanding that he had the authority to do what he did. Yes, his understanding differs from yours but it doesn’t mean that his is wrong. Second; the Holy See has never told him to back off on this matter. While certainly not conclusive it adds weight to the probability that the Cardinal has the authority to dispense with RS #106. Third; I’m not mixing up what is right with what is allowed to the Cardinal.

 

[boatbearer]

No attack or hatred here. I am just happy to be able to wish the Cardinal a pleasant retirement and to wish his replacement every possible success in the restoration of liturgical fidelity in his new diocese.

You’ve gigged the Cardinal on your two previous postings. Now this?

 

[benedictgal]

Determining where the authority rests is paramount in trying to enforce anything. No one here has shown anything that proves that Cardinal Mahony did not have the authority to dispense with RS #106.

Yes, I know some people are adamant that their personal interpretation of Church documentation suggests the Cardinal was not at liberty to do as he did. I’m also aware of three other things. First; the Cardinal’s decision was based in part by his understanding that he had the authority to do what he did. Yes, his understanding differs from yours but it doesn’t mean that his is wrong. Second; the Holy See has never told him to back off on this matter. While certainly not conclusive it adds weight to the probability that the Cardinal has the authority to dispense with RS #106. Third; I’m not mixing up what is right with what is allowed to the Cardinal.

First of all, we have already established in this thread and in others just what a bishop/archbishop can and cannot do. There is no need for you to take a condescending tone and an insulting attitude about it.

Second, because RS is a universal document, it carries a great deal of weight and should not be ignored (something, with all due respect, I pereceive that you are doing). The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy specifically and unequivocally states that no one has the right to add anything to the liturgy and it enjoins the bishops to be vigilent over the liturgical life of their particular dioceses. This includes enforcing the current liturgical norms and regulations promulgated by the Holy See.

RS is an authoritative document written in collaboration with two discasteries, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (under the leadership, at the time, of the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger). No one, on their own authority, be he layman or bishop, can set aside what the Church has already mandated. What we need to do is to read the documents and heed them.

 

[Brendan]

Determining where the authority rests is paramount in trying to enforce anything. No one here has shown anything that proves that Cardinal Mahony did not have the authority to dispense with RS #106…

Because 106 is listed as being a grave abuse.

173.] Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168.

So the Vatican says that 106, among others, objectively puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist.

So why does +Mahony wish to perpetuate what the Vatican has already itemized as being a grave abuse that risks the dignity of the Sacrament?

 

[boatbearer]

Because 106 is listed as being a grave abuse.

So the Vatican says that 106, among others, objectively puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist.

So why does +Mahony wish to perpetuate what the Vatican has already itemized as being a grave abuse that risks the dignity of the Sacrament?

So IF the Cardinal did not have the authority to dispense with RS #106, why hasn’t the Holy See taken action? Any idea? Maybe it’s because he DOES have the authority?

 

[benedictgal]

So IF the Cardinal did not have the authority to dispense with RS #106, why hasn’t the Holy See taken action? Any idea? Maybe it’s because he DOES have the authority?

He DOES NOT have the authority to set aside RS. This has been proven to you countless times. We do not know if the Holy See has been made aware of this. Furthermore, as Brendan pointed out, RS#106 is listed as a grave abuse.

 

[roadsend]

So IF the Cardinal did not have the authority to dispense with RS #106, why hasn’t the Holy See taken action? Any idea? Maybe it’s because he DOES have the authority?

Could be a variety of reasons.
How many pastors confront parishioners, who give themselves a dispensation from Mass attendance on Sundays or Holy Days for frivolous reasons?
How many pastors/bishops confront every politician, who acts to support abortion?
or
Perhaps the Holy Father fears that a greater evil (schism) will result from a confrontation with any of the many prelates, who openly dissent from Church liturgical teaching and that the safer path for the souls of the faithful is to replace them one by one as they reach retirement age.

 

[boatbearer]

Could be a variety of reasons.
How many pastors confront parishioners, who give themselves a dispensation from Mass attendance on Sundays or Holy Days for frivolous reasons?
How many pastors/bishops confront every politician, who acts to support abortion?
or
Perhaps the Holy Father fears that a greater evil (schism) will result from a confrontation with any of the many prelates, who openly dissent from Church liturgical teaching and that the safer path for the souls of the faithful is to replace them one by one as they reach retirement age.

Oh, no, no, no…

This dispensation was formally released in a newspaper that impacts over 300 parishes in by far the largest archdiocese in LA. In no way does it compare to an individual pastor and select members of his parish.

Schism over the use of ewers? I think not. In any event who would know? Cardinal Mahony is an honorable man. If the Pope’s office made contact with the cardinal in private I am sure the cardinal would comply – even if he had the authority to dispense with RS #106, which he probably does.

Are there any more varietal reasons you can think of?

 

[benedictgal]

Oh, no, no, no…

This dispensation was formally released in a newspaper that impacts over 300 parishes in by far the largest archdiocese in LA. In no way does it compare to an individual pastor and select members of his parish.

Schism over the use of ewers? I think not. In any event who would know? Cardinal Mahony is an honorable man. If the Pope’s office made contact with the cardinal in private I am sure the cardinal would comply – even if he had the authority to dispense with RS #106, which he probably does.

Are there any more varietal reasons you can think of?

Inasmuch as you call it a dispensation, it is not one per se because, as has already been established, he does not have the authority to do so. RS 106 has been labeled a grave abuse. It is not something to be taken lightly.

Again, this point has been repeatedly made to you. Furthermore, obedience is a two-way street. Just as we are obliged to obey the bishop in matters of faith and morals, the bishop, in turn, at his ordination, takes a vow of obedience to the Holy Father and his successors. The only one who has universal and supreme authority over liturgical matters is the Holy Father.

Insults and inciteful commentary do not help when trying to have a discussion about topics. Again, I would suggest that you avail yourself of the authoritative liturgical documents of the Holy See, read them and heed them. The documents are meant for the faithful, clergy and laity alike, to read, study and obey.

 

[roadsend]

Oh, no, no, no…

This dispensation was formally released in a newspaper that impacts over 300 parishes in by far the largest archdiocese in LA. In no way does it compare to an individual pastor and select members of his parish.

Schism over the use of ewers? I think not. In any event who would know? Cardinal Mahony is an honorable man. If the Pope’s office made contact with the cardinal in private I am sure the cardinal would comply – even if he had the authority to dispense with RS #106, which he probably does.

Are there any more varietal reasons you can think of?

You asked for possible reasons. I gave you some.
With all due respect, you make a lot of questionable assumptions in your post.
I cannot read the Holy Father’s mind, nor can I read the Cardinal"s.
I can only read what the Holy Father has written, and read what the Cardinal has said and done over the years.
Ewers are only part of the problem.
The Cardinal will soon be retired - Deo gratias.
As to his successor - Ad multos annos.