Talk about playing the man and not the ball :roll: I suspect SSPXWannaB, you are quite young and thus have a little growing up to do.
I live in LA, thus am under Roger Mahony’s diocese.
As has been pointed out, he is Roger Cardinal Mahoney. You may not like that, but he is still a Cardinal of the RCC, a church to which you profess to belong, even though you seem to be uncertain of your allegiances, or that you may not like this particular prelate’s management of his Archdiocese.
Have you been into his Churchs? It’s wild, do a You Tube search, and you’ll see what I mean. Female Alter servers, glass cups for the Blood, half naked dancing, saying the cow represents fertility, gay priests, environmentalist tree-hugger hummanism.
All abuses, admitedly. Though I think you will find that female Alt
ar Servers are a legitimate office in the Ordionary Form. You may not like that, but it is not an abuse of liturgy as, say, some of the tings you list are/would be, presuming that they have been done.
I saw a diocese that was not Catholic, it’s made me search for answers;
I might suggest to you that the intellectual discipline required to find the right answers (right answers being the operative, as opposed to just the answers that suit your disposition) is asking the right questions in the first place. For example, I might suggest the first inquisition ought to be “Do I consider myself truely “Catholic”, and do I fully understand what that term means and what it implies?”. If the answer to that is yes, the it should surely follow that you understand that the RCC is “universal” and thus while a diocese is a legimate part of the body of the RCC, it is not the entirity of the RCC per se. Therefore the liturgical practices and administration of a geographic region as presided over by a particular Ordinary may not be tasteful (sic), the universal teachings and practice of the faith should hold true.
Which leads me to the next point:
and I found answers to the troubles in His Grace Archbishop Marcel-Francois Lefebvre’s most excellent writings.
I note you give proper salutation and respect to the office of a prelate with whom you find sympathy, yet by consequence of his schism and excommunication from the RCC he de facto relinquished his Arch Episcopal status and led a number of clergy and faithful into doctrinal error by rejecting in its entirity a legitimate Ecumenical Council.
I refer you to the point I make above. The answers given may not lead to a full and complete understanding, and thus informed conscience, where the questions posed are themselves flawed.
My friend’s mother even left the Church and became an Episcopalian (something I could never fathom in 100 trillion years) because of the scandal.
Many of us who were brought up in the Catholic faith have issues with it, at least in the way that it is administerd. Sometimes we have to step away. most often it is not for just one reason.
May Papa Benedictus XVI and SSPX patch things up (I am not a member of SSPX, so I in no way represent their views or speak for them in any manner).
Indeed. In the same way I should hope you are as charitable in your wish that those groups and individuals who have seperated themselves from the RCC from the other end of the spectrum find themselves re-united, but in a way that gives them comfort that they are not forced to express their faith in a liturgical form that is alien to them, as some of the liturgical norms of your Diocese seem to you.
But you are a bit off topic. The topic at hand is that Mahony has possibly been lying about these grave matters, and may have covered up these crimes as well as possibly throwing a Priest under the bus (the latter a figure of speech).
Card. Mahoney is indeed accountable for his administration of his Arch Diocese, Canon Law makes him so. If he has committed a criminal offence then the authorities would be right to prosecute under the law of the land in addition to any ecclesiastical censure. I would suggest reserving judgement on a sub judis matter until the facts are known as opposed to finding him guilty based solely on your perceptions of his “liberal” standing.
I should add I am no great fan of Card Mahoney, but it would be uncharitable to reject the notion of there being another side to the story.
