Enforcing the Redemptionis Sacramentum

[boatbearer]

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.

I’m sorry. I thought you said there were a “variety” of possibilities?

What “questionable assumptions?” I simply reject individuals’ personal interpretations of Church documents is all.

In the end though there is not a single person who has posted on this topic (myself certainly included) that absolutely knows from the Holy See’s determination that the Archbishop of LA does not have the authority to dispense with RS #106. People here can offer their opinions but they simply don’t know – and not really knowing on this and a host of other matters causes a great deal of discord, frustration and ultimately dissent.

The practical aspects of the matter (the cardinal being an honorable man, the cardinal formally dispensing relief from RS #106 through the archdiocesan newspaper and no action from the Holy See) suggest the cardinal does have the authority. I am absolutely certain the cardinal believes he does. I reject the inference that he is certain he does not have the authority yet he decided to put the piece in the diocesan newspaper anyway.

Whether or not he should have made such a dispensation is an entirely different matter.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

Benedictgal, why don’t you settle this issue once and for all and write a dubium to the CDWDS? I say this since you are the one who has experience with this. Go ahead and include all of the documentation that boatbearer has supplied. You can tell them that you were given this information and link. You should request a response to the dubium as well as action taken on their part if the “disspensation” that +Mahoney has given is not licit.

I hope this doesn’t cause too much work on your part. Just a suggestion so that this issue stops coming up in different threads and has done before, made it so that a thread was closed.

boatbearer, if Benedictgal is willing to do this, I think we can expect an answer in a month or so.

Pax!

 

[MarkThompson]

Benedictgal, why don’t you settle this issue once and for all and write a dubium to the CDWDS? I say this since you are the one who has experience with this. Go ahead and include all of the documentation that boatbearer has supplied. You can tell them that you were given this information and link. You should request a response to the dubium as well as action taken on their part if the “disspensation” that +Mahoney has given is not licit.

I hope this doesn’t cause too much work on your part. Just a suggestion so that this issue stops coming up in different threads and has done before, made it so that a thread was closed.

boatbearer, if Benedictgal is willing to do this, I think we can expect an answer in a month or so.

Pax!

Don’t worry, all, I just emailed a link to this thread to dubium@cdwds.vatican.va. I’m sure Cardinal Cañizares Llovera will post the answer tomorrow.

 

[boatbearer]

Benedictgal, why don’t you settle this issue once and for all and write a dubium to the CDWDS? I say this since you are the one who has experience with this. Go ahead and include all of the documentation that boatbearer has supplied. You can tell them that you were given this information and link. You should request a response to the dubium as well as action taken on their part if the “disspensation” that +Mahoney has given is not licit.

I hope this doesn’t cause too much work on your part. Just a suggestion so that this issue stops coming up in different threads and has done before, made it so that a thread was closed.

boatbearer, if Benedictgal is willing to do this, I think we can expect an answer in a month or so.

Pax!

Yikes, is that how the Church works now? Issuing dubiums to laypersons who question cardinals of the Church?

Nevertheless I would like to see the answer. Just one critical point. I’m not interested in seeing a dubium related to the Church directing us not to pour the Precious Blood. We already have the answer to that. I want to know if a Cardinal of the Church has the authority to dispense with such a directive. Two entirely different things. Everyone here has the answer to the first question. No one here has an answer to the second one.

 

[boatbearer]

Don’t worry, all, I just emailed a link to this thread to dubium@cdwds.vatican.va. I’m sure Cardinal Cañizares Llovera will post the answer tomorrow.

You might try TonyC@vatican.va

 

[Brendan]

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?

They did, they are removing him. Cardinal Mahony has stated that he cannot figure out a way to provide both species of the Blessed Sacrament without pouring Christ out of jugs.

So the Vatican is simply bringing in someone with a proven track record of doing just that.

We do know two things.

1. The Vatican has listed 106 as being a grave abuse
2. Cardinal Mahony has taken no steps to prevent it.

A local bishop can choose to allow any liturical abuse, but it he cannot change the fact that the Vatican has defined that action as being abusive to the Sacrament.

Nor can a Catholic claim that it is NOT an abuse, since the Vatican has defined it as being so.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

They did, they are removing him.

Sorry had to comment on this.

They are not “removing him”. He is in place until his 75th birthday when the co-adujator archbishop will take over. Which I understand the Cardinal requested.

 

[boatbearer]

They did, they are removing him. Cardinal Mahony has stated that he cannot figure out a way to provide both species of the Blessed Sacrament without pouring Christ out of jugs.

So the Vatican is simply bringing in someone with a proven track record of doing just that.

We do know two things.

1. The Vatican has listed 106 as being a grave abuse
2. Cardinal Mahony has taken no steps to prevent it.

A local bishop can choose to allow any liturical abuse, but it he cannot change the fact that the Vatican has defined that action as being abusive to the Sacrament.

Nor can a Catholic claim that it is NOT an abuse, since the Vatican has defined it as being so.

No.

Cardinal Mahony has given permission to dispense with RS 106. The question is does he have the authority to do so. Given that the man is a cardinal – a man of integrity and the Holy See’s inaction, it appears that he just might have the authority to do so.

Quit slurring the cardinal! He is retiring after what 25+ years as an archbishop? They are NOT “removing him!” Norhas he “stated that he cannot figure out a way to provide both species of the Blessed Sacrament without pouring Christ out of jugs.” That’s a bunch of garbage.

Oh year and it’s EWER not “JUG.”

 

[Brendan]

No.

Cardinal Mahony has given permission to dispense with RS 106. The question is does he have the authority to do so. Given that the man is a cardinal – a man of integrity and the Holy See’s inaction, it appears that he just might have the authority to do so.

He dispensed with the prohibition.

By definition, he cannot ‘despense’ with the Vatican defining that as a grave abuse.

 

[boatbearer]

He dispensed with the prohibition.

By definition, he cannot ‘despense’ with the Vatican defining that as a grave abuse.

I’m sorry but I’m simply not going to accept your opinion on the matter.

I don’t believe the cardinal would do anything he did not have the authority to do. I also don’t think the Holy See would stand by if he did not have the authority to do what he has done. I’ll chose my opinion over your own personal opinion until I hear differently from the Pope.

 

[roadsend]

We are all entitled to our own opinions, even if they are wrong.
It is great to be in America.

 

[boatbearer]

We are all entitled to our own opinions, even if they are wrong.
It is great to be in America.

I’m sure you would know…

 

[Brendan]

Sorry had to comment on this.

They are not “removing him”. He is in place until his 75th birthday when the co-adujator archbishop will take over. Which I understand the Cardinal requested.

It’s doubtful that he requested it, in the sense that he initiated the whole proceeding.

On two counts. First of all, all the other recent US Cardinals served well past their 75th birthday. Cardinal Maida’s resignation letter was finally accepted just shy of his 79th birthday.

Cardinal McCarrick was 78. Cardinal Egan was 77 (and even then, it was due to his heart condition that he requested his resignation be acted upon).

Even if a Coadjuator was desired, why is it happening right at his 75th birthday. If the Vatican is pleased with a bishops performance, and the bishop is of good health, they are generally asked to stay on. But this was not the case for +Mahony.

If the Vatican was just as pleased with +Mahony as they were with Cardinals Maida, Egan and McCarrick then this conversation should not be happening for another 2-3 years.

Secondly, Tom Peters ( AmericanPapist) ‘broke’ the news about a Co-Adujator coming to LA back in January. At the time, the LA Chancellory denied it. The Chancellory decried it a “mere speculation coming from someone 3500 miles away”

It would certainly have been ‘in the works’, but if the Cardinal himself requested it, why deny it when asked about it. Why not simply say “Yes, the Cardinal himself requested one”

It is likely that he was informed that his resignation would be accepted upon his 75th birthday, and THEN requested a coadjutator.

This does give the ‘advantage’ that he would then have some (name removed by moderator)ut into his chosen replacement, something that would not occur otherwise.

In the case of a co-adjutator, the Vatican produces a list of replacements, and the current ordinary can provide (name removed by moderator)ut as to which of those men is chosen. Of course, the final determination is always the Vatican’s

 

[Brendan]

I’m sorry but I’m simply not going to accept your opinion on the matter.

Actually, it’s not my opinion, it is the very definition of the verb ‘to dispense’.

According to the “Modern Catholic Dictionary” (written by Servant of God Fr. John Harden)

It is the removal of an obligation or debt.

There is no doubt that Cardinal Mahony issued a dispensation on the obligation to consecrate the specics of wine in the chalice itself, not in a flagon.

But one cannot issue a ‘dispensation’ on a determination of gravitity, as there is no ‘obligation or debt’

I don’t believe the cardinal would do anything he did not have the authority to do.

Well that is YOUR opinion, and you have already stated how much value we should place on personal opinions

What magisterial documents can you produce to back up this opnion of yours?

 

[DeepeningFaith]

boatbearer, I have an analogy for you. We’re not going to run with it because it is off topic so I simply wish to use this as an analogy.

Health Care and the Executive Order. The Republicans, the USCCB, and Planned Parenthood are all saying that the Executive Order will not hold up in court because it goes against statutory law. Basically, the same thing is happening here. +Mahoney’s “dispensation” will NOT hold up in the “courts” of the Vatican. This also means that just like the US Supreme Court saying that the Exec. Order is not legal, this means that it was never legal. Same goes for the “dispensation.” If the President of the US can’t go against the law of the land, why do you think that a Cardinal can go against the law of the Church?!

I appreciate your admiration for +Mahoney. He has been your shepard for many years and therefore your want to defend him is appropriate. However, based on the information the YOU have provided, +Mahoney has promugated abuse against the dignity of the Holy Eucharist. People in high positions do things that they THINK they have the power to do. That doesn’t mean that they HAVE the authority/power to do it.

I think an appropriate response to this issue boatbearer would be to state that you wish to side with your shepard until a ruling comes from the Vatican. Admit that you do not know one way or the other whether he has the power for the “dispensation.” Again, no one is holding it against you for siding with your shepard. Taking him at his word until you hear from someone higher up is fine do to the obedience that is to be shown to one’s Bishop. Just realize that while everyone has respect for him because of his position, he is not everyone else’s Bishop.

While I agree that this issue and the eventual response from the CDWDS does have merit for this thread, I would, for the time being, like to move on to how we can respectfully enforce RS at the Parish Level.

Pax!

 

[boatbearer]

Actually, it’s not my opinion, it is the very definition of the verb ‘to dispense’.

According to the “Modern Catholic Dictionary” (written by Servant of God Fr. John Harden)

It is the removal of an obligation or debt.

There is no doubt that Cardinal Mahony issued a dispensation on the obligation to consecrate the specics of wine in the chalice itself, not in a flagon.

But one cannot issue a ‘dispensation’ on a determination of gravitity, as there is no ‘obligation or debt’

Well that is YOUR opinion, and you have already stated how much value we should place on personal opinions

What magisterial documents can you produce to back up this opnion of yours?

Again, I’ll just go with my personal opinion rather than your own until I hear differently from the Pope.

 

[Brendan]

Again, I’ll just go with my personal opinion rather than your own until I hear differently from the Pope.

You did, he’s putting +Gomez in charge instead

 

[DeepeningFaith]

What magisterial documents can you produce to back up this opnion of yours?

While I really wish to not continue with this specific issue as I do not wish for there to be any “bashing” of the Cardinal, I am curious to see if there is any document that could give you support in this boatbearer.

 

[Jarichonas]

What do you talking?

 

[boatbearer]

I appreciate your admiration for +Mahoney. He has been your shepard for many years and therefore your want to defend him is appropriate. However, based on the information the YOU have provided, +Mahoney has promugated abuse against the dignity of the Holy Eucharist. People in high positions do things that they THINK they have the power to do. That doesn’t mean that they HAVE the authority/power to do it.

I really don’t have a great deal of admiration for Cardinal Mahony nor has he ever been my shepard – two conclusions you erroneously reached – but I will certainly salute the uniform as the old saying goes. I did however learn to think in a critical manner and a few things ring out loud and clear. First, no one here has the authority to speak on behalf of the Holy See – yet some keep trying to. We don’t know if the cardinal is able to dispense with RS #106 no matter what some people will claim.

In addition as a cardinal of the Church I must presume that Cardinal Mahony is a man of integrity. Further that if he did not have the authority to dispense with RS #106, that the Holy See would have made him recant, one way or the other. I also know without a doubt that Cardinal Mahony and his staff know more about his authority in this area than anyone on this forum.

I think an appropriate response to this issue boatbearer would be to state that you wish to side with your shepard until a ruling comes from the Vatican. Admit that you do not know one way or the other whether he has the power for the “dispensation.” Again, no one is holding it against you for siding with your shepard. Taking him at his word until you hear from someone higher up is fine do to the obedience that is to be shown to one’s Bishop. Just realize that while everyone has respect for him because of his position, he is not everyone else’s Bishop.

While I agree that this issue and the eventual response from the CDWDS does have merit for this thread, I would, for the time being, like to move on to how we can respectfully enforce RS at the Parish Level.

Pax!

He’s not my shepard. I have NEVER said that Cardinal Mahony has the authority to do what he has done. What I have said is that no one here knows whether he does or not – no matter what some claim and I have said it appears that he might have the authority given the other facts of te matter. Of course I don’t know for certain.

I’m not sticking to my position to be obstinate. I’m holding fast because I see far, far too many personal opinions being offered as absolute fact on these forums and others and that can lead to a host of problems. Many here pour over a handful of Church documents in a manner eerily analogous to the way some Protestants pour over a handful of books in the Bible. They both lack authority to render pronouncements based on their personal conclusions of what they have read yet they do anyway. That’s not the Catholic way.

Others read them and then get confused and angry because their local condition does not fall in line with these other peoples’ personal opinions so they go after their local clergy or they leave their parish or even the Church. They never stop to consider that the opinion they were given was in error or that there are factors that were not considered by the person who rendered the opinion.