Los Angeles Religious Education Conference 2006 / Dancers Deluxe

[ble]

I’ve attended the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress for the past few years and have enjoy the Masses celebrated there. Yes, I can see the liturgical abuses here and there and it used to bother me quite a bit. I used to be all upset whenever they occurred. But now I think about it, I’m less upset over it, although I wished they didn’t happen.

Instead of seeing the abuse in the dances, I see the dancing action as a prayer or a gift to the Lord. In the same way smoke from the incense rises up to Heaven. I tend to think of it in terms of the Juggler from Notre Dame. I just want to note that the dancing occurs at the entrance of the celebration and after communion… the entrance to symbolize Palm Sunday, the welcoming of the King to Jerusalem. There is much dancing and celebration. And after the communion to celebrate the ressurrected Lord.

While I’m not happy with the Glass Chalice, I rather receive the Blood of the Lord than not. During the real last supper, I doubt that the chalice was made of metal… they are made of earthen-ware. I’m not saying this to go against the Mass rubrics but I believe they should not be set in stone and everyone is punished for not following them. (Now doctrine is a different matter!)

The more important thing for me is the people who leave LARC with a greater love for the Lord, their neighbors and an uplift spirit to help our future children. They are the educators and LARC is probably the only chance they get to be catechized to and pass on the knowledge.

For this reason, it is better to come up with a list of recommended speakers who are not at odd with our Church’s teaching. Publish this list and educate people. I think it would make a greater impact than discussing it on this forum which I don’t think many of those catechists frequent. I would love to see such a list when I sign up the sessions for all the catechists in my church.

Warmest regards,
Ben

 

[joyfulmess]

buffalo:

Good will can be very shortsighted and reactionary. The Liturgy should not be messed with to achieve good will. Catholicism should not be watered down for the sake of good will.

Why don’t we change the ten commandments for good will purposes? That is a slippery slope.

**I agree that the Liturgy, in your words “should not be messed with” . No one has suggested ( except you ) that Catholicism has been watered down for the sake of good will. **

I feel that you have missed the point of this conference. There are some things in this world which we have no contol over, such as “changing the ten commandments”. But with certainty we can choose whether or not to do right or wrong by our words or actions. I do agree on that. If an error was made, it would be best to correct it . With that said, why must one insist on overshadowing this beautiful event ?

---

Blessings

 

[joyfulmess]

ble:

I’ve attended the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress for the past few years and have enjoy the Masses celebrated there. Yes, I can see the liturgical abuses here and there and it used to bother me quite a bit. I used to be all upset whenever they occurred. But now I think about it, I’m less upset over it, although I wished they didn’t happen.

Instead of seeing the abuse in the dances, I see the dancing action as a prayer or a gift to the Lord. In the same way smoke from the incense rises up to Heaven. I tend to think of it in terms of the Juggler from Notre Dame. I just want to note that the dancing occurs at the entrance of the celebration and after communion… the entrance to symbolize Palm Sunday, the welcoming of the King to Jerusalem. There is much dancing and celebration. And after the communion to celebrate the ressurrected Lord.

While I’m not happy with the Glass Chalice, I rather receive the Blood of the Lord than not. During the real last supper, I doubt that the chalice was made of metal… they are made of earthen-ware. I’m not saying this to go against the Mass rubrics but I believe they should not be set in stone and everyone is punished for not following them. (Now doctrine is a different matter!)

The more important thing for me is the people who leave LARC with a greater love for the Lord, their neighbors and an uplift spirit to help our future children. They are the educators and LARC is probably the only chance they get to be catechized to and pass on the knowledge.

For this reason, it is better to come up with a list of recommended speakers who are not at odd with our Church’s teaching. Publish this list and educate people. I think it would make a greater impact than discussing it on this forum which I don’t think many of those catechists frequent. I would love to see such a list when I sign up the sessions for all the catechists in my church.

Warmest regards,
Ben

You have the right attitude, and you seem to be able to see it in the right perspective. the kids are the benefactors of this event, and they are coming back to the faith. It’s not their fault that there are errors, these conferences can be life saving experiences for them.

 

[Brendan]

ble:

While I’m not happy with the Glass Chalice, I rather receive the Blood of the Lord than not. During the real last supper, I doubt that the chalice was made of metal… they are made of earthen-ware. I’m not saying this to go against the Mass rubrics but I believe they should not be set in stone and everyone is punished for not following them. (Now doctrine is a different matter!)

First of all, the cups used for a Passover Feast were more often silver, at the very least they were the best ones that could be obtained.

Most biblical historians would conced that the cups used at the Last Supper were probably the Passover set of the person who owned the ‘Upper Room’ and would therefore be of reasonable quality.

Secondly, all of this IS a matter of doctrine. It is obedience to the Pontif. Per Pastor Aeternus, that is doctrine.

When one willingly and knowingly disobeys the Holy See on matters of Church governance, one incurs the sin of disobedience

And does the willful commision of sin have any place at all in our Liturgy?

 

[joyfulmess]

Brendan:

First of all, the cups used for a Passover Feast were more often silver, at the very least they were the best ones that could be obtained.

Most biblical historians would conced that the cups used at the Last Supper were probably the Passover set of the person who owned the ‘Upper Room’ and would therefore be of reasonable quality.

Secondly, all of this IS a matter of doctrine. It is obedience to the Pontif. Per Pastor Aeternus, that is doctrine.

When one willingly and knowingly disobeys the Holy See on matters of Church governance, one incurs the sin of disobedience

And does the willful commision of sin have any place at all in our Liturgy?

WILLINGLY?? Are you suggesting that this was done WILLINGLY?? Thats a very serious accusation.

 

[Brendan]

WILLINGLY?? Are you suggesting that this was done WILLINGLY?? Thats a very serious accusation.

Do you mean that Cardinal Mahoney did NOT willingly use a glass chalice, or that he was unaware of the Vatican’s intructions on the subject?

 

[buffalo]

Brendan:

Do you mean that Cardinal Mahoney did NOT willingly use a glass chalice, or that he was unaware of the Vatican’s intructions on the subject?

It would be hard for me to believe that a Bishop or Priest does not know of this. I have to conclude that they think they know better and it boils down to disobedience.

 

[frommi]

Brendan:

Do you mean that Cardinal Mahoney did NOT willingly use a glass chalice, or that he was unaware of the Vatican’s intructions on the subject?

Somedays the only miracle around here seems to be the abilty of some to turn water into whining.

For the last time, the Bishop is the chief liturgist of his Diocese and has the abilty to make prudent pastoral decisions. He was elected a successor to the apostles by JPII and was created a cardinal by the same.

He clearly has the support of the college of Bishops, along with its supreme and universal head, the Pope.

Let it go.

 

[buffalo]

frommi:

For the last time, the Bishop is the chief liturgist of his Diocese and has the abilty to make prudent pastoral decisions. He was elected a successor to the apostles by JPII and was created a cardinal by the same.

He can do nothing contrary to the Faith and not in Communion with the Pope. He should not violate the GIRM or RS.

 

[Brendan]

frommi:

Somedays the only miracle around here seems to be the abilty of some to turn water into whining.

For the last time, the Bishop is the chief liturgist of his Diocese and has the abilty to make prudent pastoral decisions. He was elected a successor to the apostles by JPII and was created a cardinal by the same.

He clearly has the support of the college of Bishops, along with its supreme and universal head, the Pope.

Let it go.

The Bishop might be the Chief Liturgist, but it is not his liturgy to change.

He may only operate within the boundries of the published Instruction and rubrics.

Review JustDave’s post from yesterday (#113)

Is there anything you disagree with in that post?

 

[johnnykins]

Brendan:

The Bishop might be the Chief Liturgist, but it is not his liturgy to change.

He may only operate within the boundries of the published Instruction and rubrics.

Review JustDave’s post from yesterday (#113)

Is there anything you disagree with in that post?

Frommi does not appear to be Catholic by virtue of his rejection of the Petrine Primacy as defined by the Church - so of course he misunderstands, or does not agree with, and is not required to agree with what Rome requires.

 

[frommi]

johnnykins:

Frommi does not appear to be Catholic by virtue of his rejection of the Petrine Primacy as defined by the Church - so of course he misunderstands, or does not agree with, and is not required to agree with what Rome requires.

I really enjoy you accusing me of not being Catholic.

Do you think that hypercritical remarks like that sting me deeply or something?

I believe in the Petrine office…I also believe in the role of the local ordinary. You have to be obedient to your bishop.

 

[koda]

ble:

I’ve attended the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress for the past few years and have enjoy the Masses celebrated there. Yes, I can see the liturgical abuses here and there and it used to bother me quite a bit. I used to be all upset whenever they occurred. But now I think about it, I’m less upset over it, although I wished they didn’t happen.

Instead of seeing the abuse in the dances, I see the dancing action as a prayer or a gift to the Lord. In the same way smoke from the incense rises up to Heaven. I tend to think of it in terms of the Juggler from Notre Dame. I just want to note that the dancing occurs at the entrance of the celebration and after communion… the entrance to symbolize Palm Sunday, the welcoming of the King to Jerusalem. There is much dancing and celebration. And after the communion to celebrate the ressurrected Lord.

While I’m not happy with the Glass Chalice, I rather receive the Blood of the Lord than not. During the real last supper, I doubt that the chalice was made of metal… they are made of earthen-ware. I’m not saying this to go against the Mass rubrics but I believe they should not be set in stone and everyone is punished for not following them. (Now doctrine is a different matter!)

The more important thing for me is the people who leave LARC with a greater love for the Lord, their neighbors and an uplift spirit to help our future children. They are the educators and LARC is probably the only chance they get to be catechized to and pass on the knowledge.

For this reason, it is better to come up with a list of recommended speakers who are not at odd with our Church’s teaching. Publish this list and educate people. I think it would make a greater impact than discussing it on this forum which I don’t think many of those catechists frequent. I would love to see such a list when I sign up the sessions for all the catechists in my church.

Warmest regards,
Ben

Ben, your attitude is exactly the one I was hoping for when I made my earlier post asking that everyone try to find something postive in this event instead of just condemning the attendees. Many times things are not ideal, but we need to consider the good things that can still come out of a not-so-perfect situation. Also, I love the quote from Pastor Niemohller (sp?) that you use - I’ve used it a lot myself and fully agree that when one person’s rights are abused, everyone’s rights are abused.

 

[Brendan]

koda:

Ben, your attitude is exactly the one I was hoping for when I made my earlier post asking that everyone try to find something postive in this event instead of just condemning the attendees. Many times things are not ideal, but we need to consider the good things that can still come out of a not-so-perfect situation. Also, I love the quote from Pastor Niemohller (sp?) that you use - I’ve used it a lot myself and fully agree that when one person’s rights are abused, everyone’s rights are abused.

There’s a little bit of a disconnect here.

You hope that one focuses on the postive, which is a good thing.

But then you finish with a statement that “when one’s person’s rights are abused, everyone’s rights are abused”

Since both the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum state that the faithful have a right " to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline."

Would you then concur that when this right is violated for one attendee, it is violated for all.

And what should be done about that violation?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

WILLINGLY?? Are you suggesting that this was done WILLINGLY?? Thats a very serious accusation.

The instruction from Pope John Paul II to Cardinal Mahoney on the matter is Redemptionis Sacramentum, which states unequivocally:

"All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio

, without which they lack any binding force…

…All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

This Instruction…by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II …was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned."

Prior to this instruction, the Holy See did approve the pouring of Precious Blood, if necessary, as particular law for US dioceses. However, the recognitio of that norm was recinded on May 6, 2004, and Cardinal Mahoney was aware of the change in liturgical law. The new U.S. liturgical norms were send out and were effective immediately. Cardinal Mahony simply chooses to violate the law.

Cardinal Francis E. George, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Liturgy, notified the bishops of the Vatican ruling and the corresponding changes in the U.S. norms in mid-May of 2004.

He sent them copies of a May 6 2004 letter from Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, modifying paragraphs 36 and 37 of the “Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America.”

Dioceses across US consequently made the prescribed changes in accord with US liturgical law. However, what was Cardinal Mahoney’s public response to the binding law promulgated by the Holy See and the USCCB?

Cardinal Mahony stated that he will make exception to the new norms “where the number of chalices is so large that they would visibly detract from the important sign of One Bread and One Cup.” He simply does not have this authority. Even under the old norm, it is not “necessary” to pour the Precious Blood. The reason given by Cardinal Mahony for willingly violating the Roman Pontiff’s liturgical instructions? He states, “our practice has become an Archdiocesan custom of over seven years, with both the Catholic faithful and the ministers accustomed to this practice.”

So because their priest are accustomed to a practice which is contrary to current liturgical law, Cardinal Mahony as taken it upon himself to violate the liturgical instruction of the Holy See.

Yes, it is a very serious accusation, because it is a very serious liturgical abuse, explicitly approved of my the Cardinal himself. It is an unapproved adaptation in contradiction to US Liturgical Norms as published in May 2004, and contrary to Roman Pontiff’s instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum. The Cardinal’s variousunapproved adaptations have no authority since Cardinal Mahoney’s personal adaptations are without recognitio from the Holy See, as mandated by canon law.

This deliberate violation of law is a sin. Catholics are called to participate in the “works of mercy” among which is to “admonish the sinner.” I think that is what this thread is all about.

In accord with Catholic law, “**Christ’s faithful…have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.” **(Can. 212 §3)

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

I really enjoy you accusing me of not being Catholic.

Do you think that hypercritical remarks like that sting me deeply or something?

I believe in the Petrine office…I also believe in the role of the local ordinary. You have to be obedient to your bishop.

I certainly don’t think anything I write stings you - though I hope it would so that you would reconsider your position as it is clear by your posts - as quoted - that you definitely do not accept the Petrine Primacy as taught by the Catholic Church. You seem to accept it as understood by the Eastern Orthodox and maybe the Anglican Churches. Of course, they are either schismatic or heretical, or both.

See posts 107 and 109

I keep saying that you are not catholic to alert newcomers to not give you a free pass on what you post - since it comes with a doctrinally anti-catholic bias on your part.

 

[frommi]

johnnykins:

I certainly don’t think anything I write stings you - though I hope it would so that you would reconsider your position as it is clear by your posts - as quoted - that you definitely do not accept the Petrine Primacy as taught by the Catholic Church. You seem to accept it as understood by the Eastern Orthodox and maybe the Anglican Churches. Of course, they are either schismatic or heretical, or both.

See posts 107 and 109

I keep saying that you are not catholic to alert newcomers to not give you a free pass on what you post - since it comes with a doctrinally anti-catholic bias on your part.

Unbelievable…I’m not anti-Catholic…I am Catholic…have been now for 29 years…

We have different understandings of petrine primacy…I view it as something that keeps the church unified…you view it more like the CEO of a corporation.

I love the Catholic church…she does too much good for me not to love it.

However, I truly enjoy the snippy way that you seem to go after people you disagree with.

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

Unbelievable…I’m not anti-Catholic…I am Catholic…have been now for 29 years…

We have different understandings of petrine primacy…I view it as something that keeps the church unified…you view it more like the CEO of a corporation.

I love the Catholic church…she does too much good for me not to love it.

However, I truly enjoy the snippy way that you seem to go after people you disagree with.

Why don’t you try viewing the Petrine Primacy like the Church views it? That’s what you are called to do - not make up your own view - or copy the view of schismatics and heretics.

Let’s go back to the catechism:
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

What part of this are you having trouble with?

“Pastor of the entire Church”
“Full, surpeme and universal power…”
“Which he can always exercise unhindered.”

FULL SUPREME AND UNIVERSAL - you reject that - your own comment above rejects it by limiting it!! You reject this doctrine. Admit it.

WHICH HE CAN ALWAYS EXERCISE UNHINDERED -you simply don’t agree with that. Admit it. Truth will set you free.

But it is not CATHOLIC to reject those. Admit it. You’re not Catholic in any shape except nominally and maybe culturally.
It’s not that you view it differently that’s the issue - all non-Catholics do, it’s that you claim you can view it differently and still be Catholic in the common useage of the word. You are rejecting a fundamental understanding and dogma of the Church.

Snip Snip

 

[frommi]

johnnykins:

Why don’t you try viewing the Petrine Primacy like the Church views it? That’s what you are called to do - not make up your own view - or copy the view of schismatics and heretics.

Hmmm…let’s try what the Pope had to say in Ut Unum Sint about primacy…

"All this however must always be done in communion. When the Catholic Church affirms that the office of the Bishop of Rome corresponds to the will of Christ, she does not separate this office from the mission entrusted to the whole body of Bishops, who are also “vicars and ambassadors of Christ”.153 The Bishop of Rome is a member of the “College”, and the Bishops are his brothers in the ministry.’

The issue isn’t primacy my friend…but how and when that primacy is exercised.

 

[johnnykins]

Frommi:
As to the Pope: Is he

“Pastor of the entire Church”
with
“Full, surpeme and universal power…”

“Which he can always exercise unhindered.”

Do you, or do you not, accept all of those statements?

You’ve written things that clearly reject them. Perhaps you have just been a tad careless and your prior comments are incomplete? If so, i understand that - I’ve done that before.

Unfortunately, i just don’t think that’s the case.