D
Detroit_Sue
Guest
Buh - bye!
- Status
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
Did anybody catch Sister Garascia’s article in the 2/5/05 issue of The Catholic Weekly [TCW] (Diocese of Saginaw)?
The liberal sister has come out swinging at conservatives in the diocese.
Inconsistently, the sister first calls the liberals “moderates” and then later says nobody should use labels! That’s about the logic that I’d expect from a liberal.
She cites the late Cardinal Bernadin and his efforts to find some “common ground” between those at opposite ends of the “wide and serious” divide in dioceses throughout the country.
I’ve sent a rebuttal letter to TCW pointing out that the liberals have destroyed the common ground. Removal of crucifixes, statues, and kneelers, for example, has no middle ground. There’s no middle ground on these issues, it’s gone.
As far as calling herself a “moderate,” there’s no basis for that label, if she wants to use any one at all. The National Catholic Reporter did not eulogize the late Bishop Untener as the most moderate bishop in the country, they called him the most “liberal.”
Even the diocesan administrator after Untener’s death said that the next bishop would probably not be as “liberal” as Untener. So, both locally and nationally, Untener was well-known as a liberal, not a moderate. Last, there would not be a “wide and serious” divide in the Church if we were talking about differences of traditionalists and moderates.
The whole premise of finding “common ground” is flawed. The liberals have staked out positions that they are “not willing” to back down on (as they were quoted to say in another recent Catholic Weekly article). There is clearly a showdown, in some form, emerging as the diocese awaits the arrival of the newly appointed Bishop Robert Carlson of South Dakota, on Feb. 24.
Sister says that old-time Catholics have to adjust to a “spectrum of belief” in the diocese. I was never taught a spectrum of belief in 12 years of Catholic schooling and I never noted a “spectrum” of beliefs to be presented in the Catechism.
In my letter to TCW, I pointed out that in my 55 years, I’ve never felt I had to take sides in the Catholic Church, until the liberals arrived. Now that they have arrived, I know exactly which side I am on.
The liberal sister has come out swinging at conservatives in the diocese.
Inconsistently, the sister first calls the liberals “moderates” and then later says nobody should use labels! That’s about the logic that I’d expect from a liberal.
She cites the late Cardinal Bernadin and his efforts to find some “common ground” between those at opposite ends of the “wide and serious” divide in dioceses throughout the country.
I’ve sent a rebuttal letter to TCW pointing out that the liberals have destroyed the common ground. Removal of crucifixes, statues, and kneelers, for example, has no middle ground. There’s no middle ground on these issues, it’s gone.
As far as calling herself a “moderate,” there’s no basis for that label, if she wants to use any one at all. The National Catholic Reporter did not eulogize the late Bishop Untener as the most moderate bishop in the country, they called him the most “liberal.”
Even the diocesan administrator after Untener’s death said that the next bishop would probably not be as “liberal” as Untener. So, both locally and nationally, Untener was well-known as a liberal, not a moderate. Last, there would not be a “wide and serious” divide in the Church if we were talking about differences of traditionalists and moderates.
The whole premise of finding “common ground” is flawed. The liberals have staked out positions that they are “not willing” to back down on (as they were quoted to say in another recent Catholic Weekly article). There is clearly a showdown, in some form, emerging as the diocese awaits the arrival of the newly appointed Bishop Robert Carlson of South Dakota, on Feb. 24.
Sister says that old-time Catholics have to adjust to a “spectrum of belief” in the diocese. I was never taught a spectrum of belief in 12 years of Catholic schooling and I never noted a “spectrum” of beliefs to be presented in the Catechism.
In my letter to TCW, I pointed out that in my 55 years, I’ve never felt I had to take sides in the Catholic Church, until the liberals arrived. Now that they have arrived, I know exactly which side I am on.
F
frommi
Guest
I would consider myself a very studied person who has worked in several dioceses in this country. I have yet to witness as much difference from one to the other as you would have many people on this board believe.
I spent some time wondering if it was even worth responding to your post. When one begins mentioning EWTN my blood starts to boil since they seem to find it ok to respect members of the catholic hierarchy who meet THEIR standards.
I will state this, you say that the bishop did not have the right to change the things he changed. The reality is, he did have the canonical right to make those changes. Since his death other documents have been published which may indeed make some of those changes null and void. However, the man consulted with canon lawyers about what his rights were as the ordinary of a particular diocese.
Unfortuately, several people will continue to take umbrage at the lack of kneelers as some overall sign of a lack of reverence for the eucharist. And then they will gloss over the good work this particular bishop did for the poor and the outcast.
I went to Catholic schools in that diocese, and find it insulting that you would condemn the felician sisters who taught me religion and their successors. I think I have a fine understanding of my faith and its history.
One belief I hold on to is that the holy spirit calls people to leadership of a diocese at a particular moment in time. It is impossible to predict what may happen from here on out.
But why oh why are so many hoping to see a bishop enter the diocese as a crusader and alienate members of the flock. He will be the ordinary for all catholics in the diocese, just as Ken Untener was.
I will respect what he does, but I doubt you will ever respect with Ken Untener did. And that is really too bad since he was a gifted preacher and teacher, and you just might have learned something had you quieted down long enough to hear his voice over the sound of your own.
E
ekindermann
Guest
*It’s not just me that seems to notice a difference here in Saginaw, dear. And if the good departed bishop had done more **obediently ***perhaps he could have helped this sheep and her family be a part of his good works of charity, instead of alienating us by his dissenting behavior. Do you forget that I said way back in an earlier post that I wrote him a long, prayerful letter and got zip as a response? Sorry, but that told me ~ loud and clear ~ that he didn’t give one hoot about this sheep. He wasn’t even going to try to teach me.
*I give up frommi, you are too exhausting for me. If you don’t get it, it will take someone/something far more powerful than me to help you see the problems. I’ll pray for you and I’m sure you’ll do the same for me. *
Beth
G
Gary_Konczal
Guest
I’m not from the Saginaw diocese but have been following this thread. My aunt, from Saginaw, was buried last year,January 7,2004, from St. Matthew Catholic Church, Zilwaukee, with the Rev. Richard Szafranski officiating. The so-called Mass of Christian Burial there was NOT CATHOLIC. Just about every ABUSE listed as objectively “GRAVE MATTERS” in #173 of Redemptionis Sacramentum was committed; not to mention all the other abuses listed in Redemptionis Sacramentum that “are not to be considered of little account.”
We have our share of dissenting priests who deny us our right to a faithful and authentic liturgy here in the Detroit area, but nothing compares to what I witnessed at my aunt’s funeral. One has to question how much abuse must occur before a parish or even a whole diocese is no longer Catholic. The most disturbing thing was the matter used for communion. It looked and tasted like some first grader’s attempt to make brownies for the first time. It did not resemble wheat bread or taste like wheat bread. It was sweet and had a terrible texture unlike that of wheat bread. When asked what the recipe was, the priest said it was “approved.”
And, according to readily availailable official church documents, not even a bishop has a right to add to subtract from or in any way alter the liturgy on his own accord. That right is reserved to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on the strength of the faculties given to it by the Roman Pontiff, and said Congregation has determined that “whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy.” (#169 Redemptionis Sacramentum)
As far as canon lawyers are concerned, one can always find dissenting canon lawyers to agree with one’s heterodox beliefs. What matters in the end is what the magisterium says; not what some heterodox canon lawyer, theologean, priest or bishop says. So those of you who cry “canon lawyer approval” for liturgical abuses are whistling in the wind.
I’ve heard it said that every heresy consists of impatience, imbalance, and immoderation. Well, I certainly witnessed a manifestation of all three at my aunt’s funeral last year.
We have our share of dissenting priests who deny us our right to a faithful and authentic liturgy here in the Detroit area, but nothing compares to what I witnessed at my aunt’s funeral. One has to question how much abuse must occur before a parish or even a whole diocese is no longer Catholic. The most disturbing thing was the matter used for communion. It looked and tasted like some first grader’s attempt to make brownies for the first time. It did not resemble wheat bread or taste like wheat bread. It was sweet and had a terrible texture unlike that of wheat bread. When asked what the recipe was, the priest said it was “approved.”
And, according to readily availailable official church documents, not even a bishop has a right to add to subtract from or in any way alter the liturgy on his own accord. That right is reserved to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on the strength of the faculties given to it by the Roman Pontiff, and said Congregation has determined that “whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy.” (#169 Redemptionis Sacramentum)
As far as canon lawyers are concerned, one can always find dissenting canon lawyers to agree with one’s heterodox beliefs. What matters in the end is what the magisterium says; not what some heterodox canon lawyer, theologean, priest or bishop says. So those of you who cry “canon lawyer approval” for liturgical abuses are whistling in the wind.
I’ve heard it said that every heresy consists of impatience, imbalance, and immoderation. Well, I certainly witnessed a manifestation of all three at my aunt’s funeral last year.
F
frommi
Guest
ekindermann said:
I don’t know why you’re “giving up”…simply because I don’t agree with your perspective on many things doesn’t mean that we don’t have many in common.
I hold firm with what I have said from the beginning, the late bishop was not disobedient. He simply used what canonical authority he had to shepherd the church of Saginaw in a particular way. Are you allowed to disagree with that…absolutely.
My main issue is that there continues to be this picture of a place I lived, worked, and worshipped as some kind of haven for out of the mainstream dissent that has done harm to the church.
I tell you as clearly as I can state it, I know that we all believe in many of the same things. The fact that we argue about such small points as kneeling…well, I just think that those things pale in the light of the great mystery we celebrate together as part of our sacramental life.
E
ekindermann
Guest
Kneeling in the light of the GREAT mystery…see? Kneeling is a big point, not a little one.
F
frommi
Guest
ekindermann said:
My question is…why? In the grand scheme of coming together to offer the gifts of human hands on the altar and become put ourselves on the cross with Jesus Christ…and sing that we believe “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again”…and sing “Amen”…why is kneeling the major issue? Aren’t we missing out on the bigger picture here?
F
felra
Guest
I will not respect a heterodox preacher or teacher in the least. That person is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and nothing less. Anyone who calls others to listen to a voice that misleads others in matters of faith and morals should be ashamed.
The bible admonishes and warns against this type of preacher/teacher in both the Old and New Testament times. (see for example: Jeremiah 23:1; Matthew 7:15) I will listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd (John 10:4) as comes through the faithful and obedient preachers and teachers of the Church. I have to wonder at times if those who actively support and promulgate dissention have no fear of offending God? Or are they so engrossed in their own agendas and self-infatuation that they have made God into their own likeness and image? These are questions for pondering.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Umm, ekindermann said that kneeling is a big point. . .not “the major issue”, as you stated, frommi.
The grand scheme, as you put it, is full of big issues and small issues. Unity is a big issue. Obedience is a big issue. Now, unity is made up of all sorts of smaller issues. . .unity of belief, unity of posture, unity of gesture, unity of spoken word, etc. Obedience likewise is made up of obedience to God, obedience to other authorities (secular, sacred, local, national), obedience of thought, word, action, etc.
So it’s not just “the devil in the details”, and it’s not just a question of “the big picture”.
Unity and obedience are not going to come about if every Tom, Dick or Harriet is just "focusing on the " and ignoring any little old “minor issue”. Ignorance in this case is not bliss.
We don’t run before we can walk. . .not if we want to be good runners. We don’t have people focus on “the big meaning” of Mass if they are completely ignorant of every thing involved in the Mass, from the rubrics to the history, from vestments to music, from the Liturgy of the Word to the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Sure, it sounds great to be “worshipping God in the gifts on the altar” yadda yadda yadda, but the fact is that currently a majority of CATHOLICS don’t even know WHAT they’re worshipping. . .that, for example, a majority don’t even know that the “gifts” become literally the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ Himself.
If we don’t address those “little” issues of what it is that we actually believe or UNDERSTAND about the Mass, then it doesn’t matter a hill of beans that Mr. X or Mrs. Z are “holding the gifts of human hands around the altar and celebrating the life, death and resurrection”. . .because that is only a part of Mass. If Mr. X thinks that the “body” can be anything from a cookie to a pizza because “we’re all one in God”, and Mrs. Z thinks that only wheat bread should be permitted according to the words of Christ Himself at the Last Supper plus the Sacred Tradition of the Church as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, are you telling us that Mr. X can just tell Mrs. Z to “fuggedaboutit” in her ideas because the “bread” doesn’t matter so long as “everybody is worshipping God?”
Hmmmm??
F
frommi
Guest
Tantum ergo:
I think I can agree that there is a lack of catechesis, but I would also propose that all catholics tend not to listen to catechesis we don’t like.
I would say that if the majority of catholics had a real understanding of the things you are speaking about, then we would not have a lot of these arguments. If there was a clearer understanding of where we have moved as a church for 2000 years, I’m not sure that posture would be that big of an argument (as one example).
I think I can agree that there is a lack of catechesis, but I would also propose that all catholics tend not to listen to catechesis we don’t like.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Where we have “moved as a church in the last 2000 years?”
That sounds like jargon to me. Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Church’s teachings don’t change. . .therefore, the Church doesn’t “move”. Understanding can deepen, but that isn’t “moving”. The Church isn’t “progressive”. . .neither is it retrogressive.
Posture is a matter of unity and of obedience. . .it is therefore important. The little things have to be learned, understood, and mastered before one moves on to larger things. In order to craft a coherent sentence, people need to know what nouns and verbs are and how they are used in a sentence. Yes, you could theoretically “understand” what a person meant if that person used a sentence fragment, but the fact that it is a fragment means that there is something missing, and so we would only be able, at best, to have a limited understanding of what the person means to say.
And, yes, people in general may not want to listen, or may not obey, what “they don’t like”. . .but that doesn’t make their inattention or disobedience “ok”, and it doesn’t mean that the teaching should be disregarded.
That sounds like jargon to me. Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Church’s teachings don’t change. . .therefore, the Church doesn’t “move”. Understanding can deepen, but that isn’t “moving”. The Church isn’t “progressive”. . .neither is it retrogressive.
Posture is a matter of unity and of obedience. . .it is therefore important. The little things have to be learned, understood, and mastered before one moves on to larger things. In order to craft a coherent sentence, people need to know what nouns and verbs are and how they are used in a sentence. Yes, you could theoretically “understand” what a person meant if that person used a sentence fragment, but the fact that it is a fragment means that there is something missing, and so we would only be able, at best, to have a limited understanding of what the person means to say.
And, yes, people in general may not want to listen, or may not obey, what “they don’t like”. . .but that doesn’t make their inattention or disobedience “ok”, and it doesn’t mean that the teaching should be disregarded.
P
Pax2u
Guest
I guess you are a good example of your own statement.
P
psalm90
Guest
I only encountered Bishop Untener once, and that was in Illinois. He gave a talk to a small group. The Lenten talk was his familiar “bridge to the 21st century” talk, that he gave over and over. We’re building a bridge but we don’t know where we’re heading. Yeah, sure.
He was right in his element, because the first question was about women priests. He had a chance to expound his differences with the “current Pope” and how HE thought that there was no obstacle to ordaining women.
So, instead of “towing the company line” and teaching the position as stated by the pope, he was off on his own with his own opinions. Supposedly, a bishop does have the right to express an opinion that varies from the Vatican’s view. But, what’s the point?
Some have spoken of his “vision” for the Church. All I can see is that he has alienated a lot of folks, as other posters have noted, he dealt with criticism by ignoring it, even ignoring it at the expense of ignoring his pastoral duties. Lots of people are still making Sunday Mass “meaningful” by all sorts of innovations to suit their vanity, not any spiritual purpose. Their purpose is to divide.
Like frommi, they say one thing “let’s find common ground” but they conveniently ignore that the liberals have simply destroyed the common ground. You can’t “find” what has been destroyed. frommi says to look at the big picture as if we were NOT looking at the big picture. It’s exactly that big picture that we’re looking at, and we don’t like it.
P
psalm90
Guest
QUOTE=frommi] (in part) I hold firm with what I have said from the beginning, the late bishop was not disobedient. He simply used what canonical authority he had to shepherd the church of Saginaw in a particular way. Are you allowed to disagree with that…absolutely.
My main issue is that there continues to be this picture of a place I lived, worked, and worshipped as some kind of haven for out of the mainstream dissent that has done harm to the church.
I only encountered Bishop Untener once, and that was in Illinois. He gave a talk to a small group. The Lenten talk was his familiar “bridge to the 21st century” talk, that he gave over and over. We’re building a bridge but we don’t know where we’re heading. Yeah, sure.
He was right in his element, because the first question was about women priests. He had a chance to expound his differences with the “current Pope” and how HE thought that there was no obstacle to ordaining women.
So, instead of “towing the company line” and teaching the position as stated by the pope, he was off on his own with his own opinions. Supposedly, a bishop does have the right to express an opinion that varies from the Vatican’s view. But, what’s the point?
Some have spoken of his “vision” for the Church. All I can see is that he has alienated a lot of folks, as other posters have noted, he dealt with criticism by ignoring it, even ignoring it at the expense of ignoring his pastoral duties. Lots of people are still making Sunday Mass “meaningful” by all sorts of innovations to suit their vanity, not any spiritual purpose. Their purpose is to divide.
Like frommi, they say one thing “let’s find common ground” but they conveniently ignore that the liberals have simply destroyed the common ground. You can’t “find” what has been destroyed. frommi says to look at the big picture as if we were NOT looking at the big picture. It’s exactly that big picture that we’re looking at, and we don’t like it.
F
frommi
Guest
As are you.
S
stevendmo
Guest
Detroit Sue:
I’m Catholic. So is ListeninginMI. So was John XXXIII, whose views perhaps would be deemed heretical on this board had he not reached the papacy. Deal with it, please: Conservative Catholics are not the only legitimate Catholics (or Christians) on the planet.
And while you’re at it, please keep the “window” of the Church (as John put it) open to the Holy Spirit.
An ad hominem attack. Nice. When one doesn’t wish to consider the logic and the spirit behind an argument, call names.
I’m Catholic. So is ListeninginMI. So was John XXXIII, whose views perhaps would be deemed heretical on this board had he not reached the papacy. Deal with it, please: Conservative Catholics are not the only legitimate Catholics (or Christians) on the planet.
And while you’re at it, please keep the “window” of the Church (as John put it) open to the Holy Spirit.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
12 years ago when I was going to Central Michigan University, I had a run in with bishop utener at the on campus parish. in the diocese of saGINAW he got rid of kneeling during Eucharistic prayer. In grand rapids we kneel like you supposed to do. when I pinned him down on the subject, he gave me a buch of mumbo jumbo, about kneeling being sorrowful when we shouldnt be. I told him is an issue of resect of our Lord, in which case he totally glazed over when I said that. He was likely well intentioned, and meant well, but he just didnt get it. there is a Hell you can go to for disrespecting God. Hopefully the new bishop will the diocese inline with the Holysee, and weed out heterodox ideas.
F
frommi
Guest
aspawloski4th said:
Yeah, I’m sure a guy with a PhD in theology who had studies Yves Conger, Avery Dulles, etc. glazed right over at the undergrad who was questioning his devotion to God through kneeling.
I’m not sure these forums are large enough for your ego.
E
ekindermann
Guest
That’s right frommi, when the person TELLS you EXACTLY how the conversation went - someone with FIRST HAND experience with Bishop Untener, and he even said that he’s sure the belated bishop had good intentions etc, he wasn’t being snide or mean spirited, just telling an experience he had directly that could shed some light on a problem area that many of us have had, and what do you do? Attack his “ego driven motives”. You can be such a dweeb. See, now you’re making me talk stupid. :banghead:
The bishop is the shepherd right? He’s supposed to FEED the sheep, right? So when they ask him questions that are right on target he should NOT push them off with the stupid mumbo jumbo & his opinion on things. The church provides all the info he needed to explain things to aspawloski4th, but instead when the sheep questioned and the bishop did not like what he was hearing…he just blew him off. The same way that he never answered my letter years ago that questioned very prayerfully and respectfully all these things. I put the letter in the man’s hands. He never so much as sent me a form letter - nothing.
- Status