US Bishop Change: New York City

  • Thread starter Thread starter davidc2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK ABp. Tim – give NY your best for the next 3 years. Sharpen your skills and hone your faith during that time for an even bigger coming assignment. ABp. of Los Angeles…
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

New York is lucky to get someone who takes the Mass so seriously. :rolleyes:
 
I have some contact with some Catholics who like their faith “cafeteria” style. I’m very pleased to report they are not truly pleased by this appointment.

This follows a pattern of the moving those who actively proclaim the faith to where they can be of increased effect. A fine pattern.
 
MrS said:
It has already been discussed… he is not saying Mass. He was simply giving a hello to those “cheeseheads” in attendance.

There is no problem with the way he says Mass… only with those who jump to conclusions.
Click to expand...
As much as I don’t like it, the Pauline Mass clearly identifies the homily as an integral part of the liturgy - not a suspension of the liturgical action.

Archbishop Dolan wore a cheese-shaped hat during Mass. It’s a fact.
 
YoGoRCC said:
OK ABp. Tim – give NY your best for the next 3 years. Sharpen your skills and hone your faith during that time for an even bigger coming assignment. ABp. of Los Angeles…
Click to expand...
Thanks, it’s been a long time since I had this good a laugh at a CAF posting…There would be a whole lotta shakin’ going on…Hollywood, LB, SM, and WLA would have to secede.
 
My folks live in that diocese and he’s certainly been a breath of fresh air after the mess left by the previous bishop.

My only concern with him is that he has always struck me as ecclesiastically ambitious. Priests call it having ‘scarlet fever.’

Perhaps it’s unfair of me, but my ideal bishop would be one who had to be drafted out of parish life, not one who sought the office.
 
I should clarify that I don’t personally know any priests who have used that label on him. It’s a term I heard years ago in another diocese and was used by priests decidedly uninterested in the additional burdens of episcopacy. (not jealousy)

It has been MY impression of him. If my impression is unfair and unfounded, there is only me to blame. Sorry for any confusion.
 
He has been a Godsend to those of us in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. You New Yorkers are some lucky ducks! He will be sadly missed here.
 
manualman said:
I should clarify that I don’t personally know any priests who have used that label on him. It’s a term I heard years ago in another diocese and was used by priests decidedly uninterested in the additional burdens of episcopacy. (not jealousy)

It has been MY impression of him. If my impression is unfair and unfounded, there is only me to blame. Sorry for any confusion.
Click to expand...
No problem. My response was in jest. Your impression is all yours and I do not fault you for it. He may indeed be looking to someday be a cardinal and his ambitions may be headed that way whether right, wrong, or indifferent. I know I did as a youth (:o ).
 
maggiemay2u said:
Thanks, it’s been a long time since I had this good a laugh at a CAF posting…There would be a whole lotta shakin’ going on…Hollywood, LB, SM, and WLA would have to secede.
Click to expand...
Why?

But you do bring up a good point. The Archdiocese of LA is broken down into 5 pastoral regions – Santa Barbara, San Fernando, Our Lady of the Angels, San Gabriel and San Pedro.

Santa Barbara and San Fernando should be allowed to become individual dioceses. Possibly San Pedro as well.
 
The more I think about this, ABp. Dolan is positioned to become the USA’s #1 churchman. He could really have an impact.
 
YoGoRCC said:
Why?

But you do bring up a good point. The Archdiocese of LA is broken down into 5 pastoral regions – Santa Barbara, San Fernando, Our Lady of the Angels, San Gabriel and San Pedro.

Santa Barbara and San Fernando should be allowed to become individual dioceses. Possibly San Pedro as well.
Click to expand...
Why did I laugh or why would they secede?
 
Could someone please clarify the following for me? I’m under the impression that the Pope usually does not name two Cardinals to the same see. Is this correct? Does anyone know of an incident when two cardinals were present in the same see? Was Cardinal Egan named a Cardinal while Cardinal O’Connor was still alive? I really can’t remember. Cardinal Egan is still in his mid 70’s and could live quite a while yet. Does this mean NYC will be without a Cardinal, perhaps during the entire pontificate of the present Pope?
 
Tsuwano said:
Could someone please clarify the following for me? I’m under the impression that the Pope usually does not name two Cardinals to the same see. Is this correct? Does anyone know of an incident when two cardinals were present in the same see? Was Cardinal Egan named a Cardinal while Cardinal O’Connor was still alive? I really can’t remember. Cardinal Egan is still in his mid 70’s and could live quite a while yet. Does this mean NYC will be without a Cardinal, perhaps during the entire pontificate of the present Pope?
Click to expand...
I believe it is until Cardinal Egan is 80 and can no longer vote for a new Pope. In any case, there is usually a number of years between when a new Arch-Bishop is appointed being elevated to Cardinal.

It should be interesting here since we just got a new arch-Bishop and Cardinal Maida turns 80 next March.

For New York, that will be April of 2012.
 
Actually, it varies. Cardinal McCarrick of DC was elevated in the 2001 conclave while Cardinal Hickey was still alive, but he had already turned 80. Let me look some more on David Cheney’s fine site.

John
 
There is really nothing to prevent a new Archbishop in a major See from being named a Cardinal while his emeritus predecessor is still alive.

Being a Metropolitan Archbishop and a Cardinal are two separate issues, and actually involve two separate Sees.

A Cardinal is a Cardinal Deacon, Priest, or Bishop of one of the historic Sees (“titular” Sees) in the vicinity of Rome. However, being a Cardinal does not entitle the incumbent to the pallium. Only Metropolitan Archbishops receive the pallium. Example: when he was Archbishop of San Francisco, Archbishop Levada wore the pallium. When he went to Rome, even as Prefect of the CDF, he no longer could wear it. And on being made Cardinal, he did not get it back.

Cardinal or not, a retired archbishop becomes an Emeritus Archbishop of his former See, and ceases to wear the pallium. His successor may be indeed made a Cardinal, and given one of the historic Roman sees.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top