How long should it take

[Cat]

Our bishop has a radio talk show, and he takes phone calls. Does the OPs bishop do anything like this?

I used to listen to him years ago when I worked 2nd shift. I was evangelical Protestant at the time, and whenever I heard the bishop, I thought, “This man sounds like an apostle.” I swear, I had no idea what Catholics taught about bishops being apostles!

We called him once on his talk show when we were Protestants, and asked why Catholic churches have crucifixes while Protestant churches have crosses. He was very courteous and welcoming to us.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

Best advice I can give is to email the Liturgy/Worship office for the Diocese. This office pretty much has the same relationship to the Bishop as the CDWDS has to the Pope. They both can speak for him. Also, the Liturgy/Worship office usually responds a lot faster than Bishops do and I am fairly certain that the Bishop will hear about what happened…eventually.

Pax!

 

[Newbie2]

If your child was abused by a minister of the LCMS Church, you’d have every right to complain.

Yes, but this is also a criminal matter.

If you lived next door to an LCMS Church which rang bells every Sunday at 5am you’d have every right to complain.

Again, also a civil matter.

If they did ANYthing, as part of their liturgy or not, which affected you, then you’d have a right to complain.

Actually, no. Non-Lutherans have no standing in Lutheran liturgical matters. I think you’re confusing one’s right to complain with one’s desire to complain. They have no obligation to change their liturgy just because it doesn’t suit a non-Lutheran.

Say your spouse was a member of their congregation and they were preaching homilies telling people that they must leave their non-LCMS spouses. Of course you’d have every right to complain if they were trying to break up your marriage!

Actually, no, but your spouse would.

Or your (Catholic) kids went to an LCMS service with your spouse and were forced in some way to receive LCMS Communion contrary to the beliefs of the church into which they were baptised.

Forced by whom? The LCMS or the spouse? Sure, if they were forced by the minister to take communion, but let’s get real.

I’m sure I could find other examples if I thought some more.

OK, come up with one single example of where we as Catholics have a “right” to interfere with, by virtue of complaining and attempting to make them change, any LCMS (strictly) liturgical practice.

The LCMS practices the Lord’s Supper with what we consider an invalid and as such ineffective consecration. Yet we have no standing in the LCMS in order to complain about that practice.

By the same token we have no “right” to complain about any of the wacky theology or liturgical practices of the WBC in Kansas, although we do have a right to challenge their practices of disrupting soldier’s funerals by their misguided protests…which is a civil matter.

On the contrary, speaking in a civil/societal sense, they are free to practice liturgically any way they please, a **right **that is guaranteed by our Constitution.

Same with the Catholic Church. A non-member has no “right” or standing to make liturgical complaints. Show me canon law that gives liturgical rights or the standing to complain about them, and I’ll stand corrected.

BTW, I’m assuming that we’re both assuming that the “right” to complain means that such a right means that the complaint is directed towards change, and not just complaining for the sake of complaining or to make oneself feel better.

 

[WetCatechumen]

OK, come up with one single example of where we as Catholics have a “right” to interfere with, by virtue of complaining and attempting to make them change, any LCMS (strictly) liturgical practice.

The LCMS practices the Lord’s Supper with what we consider an invalid and as such ineffective consecration. Yet we have no standing in the LCMS in order to complain about that practice.

By the same token we have no “right” to complain about any of the wacky theology or liturgical practices of the WBC in Kansas, although we do have a right to challenge their practices of disrupting soldier’s funerals by their misguided protests…which is a civil matter.

On the contrary, speaking in a civil/societal sense, they are free to practice liturgically any way they please, a **right **that is guaranteed by our Constitution.

Same with the Catholic Church. A non-member has no “right” or standing to make liturgical complaints. Show me canon law that gives liturgical rights or the standing to complain about them, and I’ll stand corrected.

BTW, I’m assuming that we’re both assuming that the “right” to complain means that such a right means that the complaint is directed towards change, and not just complaining for the sake of complaining or to make oneself feel better.

If the issue is the way the LT’s son is receiving his First Communion, then he should complain. This particular issue has been discussed in another thread, and for the most part, I’m on LT’s side. I don’t know if it’s this issue.

I’m just saying; have charity and assume that LT’s has a reasonable complaint and that it does affect him in a way which merits his complaint.

Besides, even if it’s Lutherans correcting some of the insanity that passes for liturgy these days, then I’m all for these things getting corrected.

 

[Newbie2]

Please don’t get me wrong, I agree that if there’s something amiss liturgically or sacramentally it really should be pointed out, regardless of by whom.

My point is that the bishop really doesn’t have to listen or respond to any non-Catholic with a concern about Catholic Liturgy or sacraments…not that he would know anyway, unless the letter-writer identified themself as a non-Catholic. The ***rights ***of a Catholic in canon law do not apply to non-Catholics, which admittedly is sort of peripheral to this discussion.

 

[benedictgal]

Best advice I can give is to email the Liturgy/Worship office for the Diocese. This office pretty much has the same relationship to the Bishop as the CDWDS has to the Pope. They both can speak for him. Also, the Liturgy/Worship office usually responds a lot faster than Bishops do and I am fairly certain that the Bishop will hear about what happened…eventually.

Pax!

No. Redemptionis Sacramentum specifically states that these concerns need to be taken to the bishop, not the diocesan worship committee. The bishop is the direct point of contact.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

No. Redemptionis Sacramentum specifically states that these concerns need to be taken to the bishop, not the diocesan worship committee. The bishop is the direct point of contact.

Yeah, you’re right. I just think that you can write to both. The issue needs to be handled. Also, some dioceses handle it in the way that I wrote where you are told to contact the Liturgy Office. It says this on some diocesan websites. I think a Bishop can say what the proper proceedure is for his diocese. Redemptionis Sacramentum is liturgical law, it can not spell out an administrative process, IMHO.

 

[benedictgal]

Yeah, you’re right. I just think that you can write to both. The issue needs to be handled. Also, some dioceses handle it in the way that I wrote where you are told to contact the Liturgy Office. It says this on some diocesan websites. I think a Bishop can say what the proper proceedure is for his diocese. Redemptionis Sacramentum is liturgical law, it can not spell out an administrative process, IMHO.

But, RS specifically states the bishop, not anyone else. The bishop can send it to the liturgy office, but, he has to be the first point of contact.

 

[MarkThompson]

But, RS specifically states the bishop, not anyone else. The bishop can send it to the liturgy office, but, he has to be the first point of contact.

No, this is false. RS says:
Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.
RS does not say what you’re pretending, which is that you are forbidden from contacting anyone else. By your “logic,” it would be a violation of RS if you brought concerns about an associate priest to the parish pastor.

 

[benedictgal]

No, this is false. RS says:
Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.
RS does not say what you’re pretending, which is that you are forbidden from contacting anyone else. By your “logic,” it would be a violation of RS if you brought concerns about an associate priest to the parish pastor.

Mark, before you start throwing rocks at peoppe, the first one to approach after the priest is the bishop, not the diocesan liturgical committee. Please do not put words into my post and misinterpret what I say. The diocesan liturgical committee is not the point of contact at this point, the bishop is.

Given that some of us are assuming that the OP is reporting the incident that had occurred regarding his son, I would imagine that he had already addressed the issue with the priest and then decided to take the matter to the bishop.

 

[MarkThompson]

Mark, before you start throwing rocks at peoppe, the first one to approach after the priest is the bishop, not the diocesan liturgical committee. Please do not put words into my post and misinterpret what I say. The diocesan liturgical committee is not the point of contact at this point, the bishop is.

You’re absolutely, absolutely wrong; you’re just inventing principles and reading them into the text where they don’t exist. Anyone can contact a diocesan liturgy committee if they’d like. If the committee doesn’t want to deal with it, they’ll throw the letter away. Redmeptionis Sacramentum does not abrogate your right to send a letter to whoever you like. In exactly the same way, you can contact a parish pastor about the conduct of one of his assistant priests. I can’t imagine what’s so hard to understand about this. Paragraph 186 of Redemptionis Sacramentum was not written to abrogate and restrict rights, it was written to confirm and enforce rights. Why are you trying to take away people’s rights to contact the diocesan committee?

 

[momor]

Here is another approach. Go to Mass at the Cathedral and when the bishop is greeting people after Mass tell him you have a complaint about a liturgical abuse in his diocese and ask him how he wants you to let him know about it. Then remind him about your conversation when contacting him.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

I will only quote Mark for RS on this issue.

RS says:
Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

Ok, so I take what I said before back. It does not have to go to the Bishop necessarily. It could be sent somewhere else and not be in violation. I CAN lodge the complaint with the Bishop, but I don’t have to.

the first one to approach after the priest is the bishop, not the diocesan liturgical committee… The diocesan liturgical committee is not the point of contact at this point, the bishop is.

I never said the Diocesan Liturgical Committee. I said the worship office for the diocese. This office, as I said before, can have, if given such faculties by the Bishop, the same relationship with the Bishop as the CDWDS with the Pope. The Worship Office CAN speak with the authority of the Bishop. This happened with an issue in the diocese that I go to school in. The Director of the Diocesan Worship Office contacted the Priest in hand and reprimanded him. Basically, the Worship office CAN be considered part of the Diocesan Curia. The Diocesan Liturgical Committee must present everything through the Bishop.

If an associate Pastor is not following the rubrics, I first talk with the Pastor. I have the right however to go straight to the Bishop, however since I am intending on entering Seminary in a year after college, I am going to start keeping my head down a little bit more than usual.

Pax!

 

[benedictgal]

You’re absolutely, absolutely wrong; you’re just inventing principles and reading them into the text where they don’t exist. Anyone can contact a diocesan liturgy committee if they’d like. If the committee doesn’t want to deal with it, they’ll throw the letter away. Redmeptionis Sacramentum does not abrogate your right to send a letter to whoever you like. In exactly the same way, you can contact a parish pastor about the conduct of one of his assistant priests. I can’t imagine what’s so hard to understand about this. Paragraph 186 of Redemptionis Sacramentum was not written to abrogate and restrict rights, it was written to confirm and enforce rights. Why are you trying to take away people’s rights to contact the diocesan committee?

Mark, have you ever gone through the process? If so, please tell us. I have, helping my father. The diocesan committee is not the point of contact; the bishop is. The committee does not have any authority whatsoever. The bishop does. The document does not say to go through the committee. It specifically states to contact the bishop. Unless you have personally been through the process and have had to deal with the CDWDS directly on a matter (past the bishop), with all due respect, your interpretation is absolutely wrong.

 

[benedictgal]

I will only quote Mark for RS on this issue.

Ok, so I take what I said before back. It does not have to go to the Bishop necessarily. It could be sent somewhere else and not be in violation. I CAN lodge the complaint with the Bishop, but I don’t have to.

I never said the Diocesan Liturgical Committee. I said the worship office for the diocese. This office, as I said before, can have, if given such faculties by the Bishop, the same relationship with the Bishop as the CDWDS with the Pope. The Worship Office CAN speak with the authority of the Bishop. This happened with an issue in the diocese that I go to school in. The Director of the Diocesan Worship Office contacted the Priest in hand and reprimanded him. Basically, the Worship office CAN be considered part of the Diocesan Curia. The Diocesan Liturgical Committee must present everything through the Bishop.

If an associate Pastor is not following the rubrics, I first talk with the Pastor. I have the right however to go straight to the Bishop, however since I am intending on entering Seminary in a year after college, I am going to start keeping my head down a little bit more than usual.

Pax!

But, the office of worship is not the bishop. RS specifically states going through the bishop, not the worship office, not anyone else in the diocesan staff. I have been through the process.

The bishop is your point of contact and your reference, not anyone else.

 

[MarkThompson]

Mark, have you ever gone through the process? If so, please tell us. I have, helping my father. The diocesan committee is not the point of contact; the bishop is. The committee does not have any authority whatsoever. The bishop does. The document does not say to go through the committee. It specifically states to contact the bishop. Unless you have personally been through the process and have had to deal with the CDWDS directly on a matter (past the bishop), with all due respect, your interpretation is absolutely wrong.

{ Whether or not something is a good idea } ≠ { Whether or not something is permitted }.

This is a key issue for you, I’ve noticed. Whether contacting a diocesan committee is a good idea, I’m sure, depends on the diocese, on the bishop, and on what authority he has given to the committee (if any exists). But none of that is relevant to the question of whether one is allowed to send a letter to the committee. If you’d like to say, “In my experience, it’s worthless to deal with these committees,” that’s one thing, but to tell people that they’re forbidden from contacting the committee is just poor.

To help explain this, and because you keep avoiding it, let me ask you straight up: if I have issues with a parish’s associate priest, is it okay if I bring it up with the parish pastor? Or does Redemptionis Sacramentum mean that I must go to straight to the bishop because, as you’ve said, “he has to be the first point of contact”?

 

[momor]

But, the office of worship is not the bishop. RS specifically states going through the bishop, not the worship office, not anyone else in the diocesan staff. I have been through the process.

The bishop is your point of contact and your reference, not anyone else.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you have been through the process with one diocese. From what I have seen lately, it looks to me like there is little consistency in how one diocese operates from another. So the actual process might be different elsewhere.
A phone call or two to the diocesan office might also shed some light on how to get a complaint noticed.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

The diocesan committee is not the point of contact; … The committee does not have any authority whatsoever.

Absolutely agree!

The document does not say to go through the committee. It specifically states to contact the bishop. Unless you have personally been through the process and have had to deal with the CDWDS directly on a matter (past the bishop), with all due respect, your interpretation is absolutely wrong.

I will not argue that you SHOULD bring the issue up with the Bishop before going to the CDWDS. However, I do not see in RS 184 anywhere that states that we MUST go to the Bishop directly. It simply says that we have the right to and that we should talk with him before contacting Rome.

I don’t agree with everything that Mark has said, nor the way that he has said it. However, I do agree that what you are stating about how RS 184 is giving an administrative law is false. I do not believe that a liturgical law document can also implement administrative law.

Let’s break down RS 184:
*"Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, **has the right to *lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law,"

This says that I have the right to go straight to the Bishop. Not that I have to. It doesn’t even use the word “should.”

“or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.” [CDWDS] "It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity." “It is fitting” simply reads to me as “it is best to and opportune”

I think you and I are arguing two different issues. You are going with how this law is in practice with the process. I am stating that it does not mandate the process that you are using. A liturgical issue can be fixed by going to someone other than the Bishop. I am trying to read it the way that I think you are reading it and that would mean that if there was an abuse, in order to report it, I have to go straight to the Bishop without even talking with the Priest or Pastor, that is simply not the case.

Pax

 

[DeepeningFaith]

if I have issues with a parish’s associate priest, is it okay if I bring it up with the parish pastor? Or does Redemptionis Sacramentum mean that I must go to straight to the bishop because, as you’ve said, “he has to be the first point of contact”?

I agree with the question, not the whole post…

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you have been through the process with one diocese. From what I have seen lately, it looks to me like there is little consistency in how one diocese operates from another. So the actual process might be different elsewhere.
A phone call or two to the diocesan office might also shed some light on how to get a complaint noticed.

Agreed!!!

Pax!

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Would it not be better to get a DIFINATIVE answer on what 1st communion means and signifies?

Then you could sit down for a discussion with your wife. Perhaps she really wants him to be Catholic but doesn’t want to say. But you both need to be in agreement with this.

Even though it sounds like his 1st communion has already happened…you and your wife still need to come to some sort of terms regarding this. And she should not be taking communion at BOTH places. She needs to decide. It’s really not good for her to be recieving communion like that. It sounds like there are bigger communication issues going on. Please do so before you have the confirmation fight.

Although…I was baptized Catholic, had 1st communion, but was never confirmed…now 20+ years later…I’m still considered Catholic. I’m going to be confirmed but even if I didn’t…I’m still considered Catholic.

But being right isn’t going to solve your larger problem right now.