How long should it take

[NewEnglandPriest]

It does not state other offices because the bishop is the point of contact. What the bishop does with your letter is his choice. However, the letter needs to go to him, not anyone else, that is what, with all due respect, most of you fail to understand.

Indeed, but most likely the bishop will never see the letter. If he has decided to delegate to another priest or office the job of overseeing liturgical matters in his name then it will be sent there by whomever the bishop has appointed to sort his mail.
If someone called the bishop’s office with a liturgical complaint and the office said, “please contact Office X” then that’s what the person should do. That’s all anyone is trying to say.

 

[Newbie2]

My father did send the priest in question a letter. The letter was greeted with billigerency and a barage of verbal abuse. Then, he sent a letter, certified return receipt requested to the bishop, who never responded and never even sent the green card back. My father sent copies of the letters, including the certified paperwork, to the CDWDS. They responded and worked with him.

And, yes, I did bring up those issues of liturgical abuse to the priests in question and they dismisssed the matter (especially the one who made up his own collect and had the faithful say it with him and also engaged in some serious anamolies). I brought this up to the bishop a few days later. Whether or not he responded to the problem, I do not know.

Actually, I was referring to your discussion in other threads…

It is very frustrating in these threads to read people’s posts because, with all due respect, they seem to not understand how the process works. The bishop is the point of contact, not anyone else. Again, what is so hard to understand?

Rome is not asking you to contact any diocesan commission, office or committee. She is asking you to contact the bishop. If you do not have a bishop because of a vacant see, then, you contact the Apostolic Administrator who is the equivalent of the bishop and is acting in place of a bishop until such time as a new one is named.

With all due respect, “with all due respect” is getting old… Just say what you want to say, no need to qualify it. It’s clear that you’ve always been respectful towards others here, BG, even when you disagree.

Indeed, but most likely the bishop will never see the letter. If he has decided to delegate to another priest or office the job of overseeing liturgical matters in his name then it will be sent there by whomever the bishop has appointed to sort his mail.
If someone called the bishop’s office with a liturgical complaint and the office said, “please contact Office X” then that’s what the person should do. That’s all anyone is trying to say.

Yep, that’s pretty much it. Yes, BG, you have “experience” in this area…but that doesn’t give you any more standing to interpret RS the way you have than any one else here. It’s pretty clear that either you aren’t stating it well or are misinterpreting the intentions of this section of RS.

 

[benedictgal]

I have received a lot of criticism in this thread simply because I am pointing out to what is accurate. With all due respect to my detractors, nowhere in the document does it state that after the pastor, the petitioner goes to some diocesan office/committee. The petitioner takes the complaint to the bishop. If the bishop chooses to respond directly to the complaint, ignore it or pass it on to someone or some office in the diocese, that is up to him. But, the letter needs to go to him directly.

Many have chided me for relaying my experience. Many have also ridiculed me in these threads. Both of these, I believe, are wrong approaches to take. Unless any of you have personally run the entire gamut, what not a few of you have posted is not accurate, and, quite frankly, misleading.

The fact remains that the bishop is the point of contact, not anyone else. And, the fact also remains that the person who is the equivalent of the bishop in this case is the Apostolic Administrator who can either be an auxiliary bishop (who is not the Ordinary/Metropolitan as in the case of San Antonio) or a priest/monsignor named to that position (as was the case in Austin).

The only “offices”, so to speak, mentioned at all in RS, are the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and, in the most grave of cases, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But, these are the last points of contact if relief has not been granted by the bishop (whether by ignoring the letter or responding in the negative).

 

[Newbie2]

I’m sorry if you mistakenly take disagreement as “chiding” and “ridiculing”. None of it is intended as such. Methinks you’re taking it a bit too personally, there’s no such thing intended.

You have your interpretation and others in this thread including yours truly have ours; I’d hope we can agree to disagree without being accused as being uncharitable.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stick to the OP’s topic, everyone and leave aside the issue of procedure for addressing complaints/concerns. If you wish to discuss interpretation of RS, start a new thread otherwise, let it drop. Thank you, all.

 

[Newbie2]

How long **should **it take, or how long does it usually take is a good question.