USCCB Liturgical Adaptations & Exceptions (Who Else Is Sick & Tired of Them?)

[Marian_Carroll]

**GENERAL NOTICE:

Ladies & Gentlemen

Please:

Improve the quality of linguistic comparisons

and

edit from your posts the negative terminology towards groups

Stay on thread, keeping in mind that conservatives or liberals, we are members of the Church striving to live out the Gospel message.

**

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

I agree, but is common knowledge that the USCCB does have a liberal slant. I even posted a link by Bishop Dolan that makes reference to this.

One of the issues here is that one can’t help but see there is a liberal bias among many of the bishops. That does not mean we are free to disobey legitimate authority or just instruction.

Perhaps it is the tone of criticism that offends you more than the truth of the criticism.

Granted, I don’t appreciate much of the tone but it is often the criticism itself which too often reflects an attitude of sovriegnity of the individual making the criticism.

For instance, I hesitate to use terms like liberal as they are imprecise and lead to generalizations that cause one to discount them prior to proper discernment (as person disposed to the conservative view, I know that this is a weakness of mine).

So to overcome my own biases in search of the Truth, I try to consider each issue individually without regard to label. Secondly, I would never use the word “legitimate” to qualify authority or “just” to qualify instruction. I begin with the premise that their authority is legitimate and instruction is just. Using a Scripture analogy of St. Jerome, I don’t attribute my misunderstanding of instruction (scripture in St. Jerome’s example) as an indication of the imperfection of the instruction but an indication of my imperfect understanding. It is with that prayerful attitude and disposition that I begin the process of discernment rather than one that assumes they have a “slant.”

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Granted, I don’t appreciate much of the tone but it is often the criticism itself which too often reflects an attitude of sovriegnity of the individual making the criticism.

For instance, even though I agree that the Conference may have a “slant” that I struggle with, I hesitate to use terms like liberal as they are imprecise and lead to generalizations that cause one to discount them prior to proper discernment (as person disposed to the conservative view, I know that this is a weakness of mine).

So to overcome my own biases in search of the Truth, I try to consider each issue individually without regard to label. Secondly, I would never use the word “legitimate” to qualify authority or “just” to qualify instruction. I begin with the premise that their authority is legitimate and instruction is just. Using a Scripture analogy of St. Jerome, I don’t attribute my misunderstanding of instruction (scripture in St. Jerome’s example) as an indication of the imperfection of the instruction but an indication of my imperfect understanding. It is with that prayerful attitude and disposition that I begin the process of discernment rather than one that assumes they have a “slant.”

All your points are fair. The problem is we are not required to suspend our faculties of reason or deny the obvious in an attempt to appear submissive and loyal.

The opposite of your position is equally valid. In other words, there is a danger of returning to hyper clericalism, but this time a liberal clericalism.

We should not prejudge, nor should we close our eyes out of scrupulosity.

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Perhaps it is the tone of criticism that offends you more than the truth of the criticism.

Certainly, the tone of some of the criticism is quite offensive.

fix:

One of the issues here is that one can’t help but see there is a liberal bias among many of the bishops.

Note that “liberal” does not imply “wrong”, any more than “conservative” does. Orthodox Catholics who are conservative must bend to adhere to liberal teaching, just as orthodox Catholics who are liberal must bend to adhere to conservative teaching.

fix:

That does not mean we are free to disobey legitimate authority or just instruction.

Agreed.

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

The problem is we are not required to suspend our faculties of reason or deny the obvious in an attempt to appear submissive and loyal.

Protestants think that it is obvious that the teachings of the Catholic Church are in direct contradiction to the Bible. If they are correct, then they justified in their disobedience, but God help them if they are wrong.

The SSPX thinks that it is obvious that the teachings of Vatican II are in direct contradiction to the prior infallible teachings of the Church. If they are correct, then they are justified in their disobedience, but God help them if they are wrong.

Now suppose a Catholic thinks that it is obvious that the teachings of his or her own bishop are in direct contradiction to the teachings of Rome. If they are correct, then they are justified in their disobedience, but God help them if they are wrong. In this case, it is the job of Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to make this assessment. If the CDF has not seen fit to remove the bishop, then disobedience to the bishop becomes disobedience to Rome as well.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Note that “liberal” does not imply “wrong”, any more than “conservative” does. Orthodox Catholics who are conservative must bend to adhere to liberal teaching, just as orthodox Catholics who are liberal must bend to adhere to conservative teaching.

Let’s use a specific case without names. Say there is a diocese with a history of being called liberal. One thing that goes on is lay homilists. The bishop claims his reading of Church law allows this. Others claim the Vatican says no way. Also, there is a long history of dissenting speakers, questionable liturgical practices, and other things that the bishop has been informed about, yet nothing changes.

Is it fair, and just, that some faithful label such things as liberal and not in keeping with what the Church actually intends?

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Protestants think that it is obvious that the teachings of the Catholic Church are in direct contradiction to the Bible. If they are correct, then they justified in their disobedience, but God help them if they are wrong.

The SSPX thinks that it is obvious that the teachings of Vatican II are in direct contradiction to the prior infallible teachings of the Church. If they are correct, then they are justified in their disobedience, but God help them if they are wrong.

Now suppose a Catholic thinks that it is obvious that the teachings of his or her own bishop are in direct contradiction to the teachings of Rome. If they are correct, then they are justified in their disobedience, but God help them if they are wrong. In this case, it is the job of Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to make this assessment. If the CDF has not seen fit to remove the bishop, then disobedience to the bishop becomes disobedience to Rome as well.

Again, no one has called for disobedience. We are speaking about criticism and discussion. Why is it wrong to question certain things and put forth evidence that certain practices contradict Church directives and teaching?

What if a bishop says homosexual conduct is good and the Vatican is wrong? Does a person have to submit to that because the Vatican has not taken action? Should the person then make assent to such a thing?

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Let’s use a specific case without names. Say there is a diocese with a history of being called liberal. One thing that goes on is lay homilists. The bishop claims his reading of Church law allows this. Others claim the Vatican says no way. Also, there is a long history of dissenting speakers, questionable liturgical practices, and other things that the bishop has been informed about, yet nothing changes.

Is it fair, and just, that some faithful label such things as liberal and not in keeping with what the Church actually intends?

For liturgical abuse, Redemptionis Sacramentum provides precise directions to the laity about how to deal with this. None of those directions call for publically bad-mouthing the bishop.

For other situations, I believe that we are called upon to stay on the side of respectful questioning and criticism, and wait for the CDF to make the final determination.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

For liturgical abuse, Redemptionis Sacramentum provides precise directions to the laity about how to deal with this. None of those directions call for publically bad-mouthing the bishop.

For other situations, I believe that we are called upon to stay on the side of respectful questioning and criticism, and wait for the CDF to make the final determination.

Publically bad mouthing anyone is not right. Criticism and questions are reasonable.

One of my concerns about this thread is that I rarely see the term obedience, when it authentically should be used, as in moral theology threads, yet it is frequently thrown out there when speaking about issues regarding USCCB, communion posture, hand holding, etc.

Why is that?

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Why is that?

Maybe you don’t read the right threads.

I typed “obedience” into the search box, and this came out second from the top:

But God doesn’t ask us to rationalize His will, we simply have an obligation to obey. The harder we try and pray, the more clear it eventually becomes (that IS the goal, obedience AND agreement), but at the end of the day, He doesn’t ask our opinion on His will.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Maybe you don’t read the right threads.

I typed “obedience” into the search box, and this came out second from the top:

I have seen few posters who self identify as orthodox embrace disobedience. I have seen the opposite many times.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Part 2

By Fix: We should not prejudge, nor should we close our eyes out of scrupulosity.

If you ahve read my various posts, I have a natural disposition to question and probe. That which I don’t understand I especially probe hard and critically. However, I always try to do so with a tender heart open to the Word of God and with an attitude and posture of obedience and submission to my Pope, my Bishop and my Pastor. And in those instances that I can’t reconcile my conscience with the teaching, I go back for more prayer and desire to hear God’s whisper. And only after this process is complete, do I ever contemplate expressing disagreement and then it is always done with respect and reverence for the Office of Priest or Bishop.

By Catholic 2003: Note that “liberal” does not imply “wrong”, any more than “conservative” does. Orthodox Catholics who are conservative must bend to adhere to liberal teaching, just as orthodox Catholics who are liberal must bend to adhere to conservative teaching.

I think there is a lot of wisdom in this. Catholics on both spectrums seem to express a great deal of reluctance to “bend”.

By Fix: Say there is a diocese with a history of being called liberal. One thing that goes on is lay homilists. The bishop claims his reading of Church law allows this. Others claim the Vatican says no way. Also, there is a long history of dissenting speakers, questionable liturgical practices, and other things that the bishop has been informed about, yet nothing changes.

Is it fair, and just, that some faithful label such things as liberal and not in keeping with what the Church actually intends?

It is my understanding that the situation you describe is an abuse (but what purpose is served by calling it “liberal”?) and there is a mechanism for the laity to make this abuse known to CDF. Using the Scriptural story of Christ telling the disciples to cast their nets into the deep water, you should use this mechanism and then trust in God and His Church to correct things in his way. I’ve posted several times on another thread about the Saginaw diocese whereby people of that diocese have made disrespectful comments about their Pastor and then frustration that their new Bishop hasn’t immediately “brought things in line”. This Bishop is very orthodox liturgically. He will do so in his time and his way as he discerns the Holy Spirit. In the meantime, the laity just has to trust in God. But being critical of a mis-informed Priest and a newly installed Bishop does not serve the Church and support its authority.

By Fix: Why is it wrong to question certain things and put forth evidence that certain practices contradict Church directives and teaching?

It isn’t. However, too often the criticism includes labels and comments like “these guys don’t deserve to be respected.” I’m not saying Fix that you’ve said this but some have.

By Fix: One of my concerns about this thread is that I rarely see the term obedience, when it authentically should be used, as in moral theology threads, yet it is frequently thrown out there when speaking about issues regarding USCCB, communion posture, hand holding, etc.

Why is that?

Probably for two reasons. First, if the Bishop tells me to rec’v communion standing on my head, I’m going to do it. If he tells me to hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer, I’ll do it. If he tells me to raise my hands every time I say Amen, I’ll do it. Liturgical norms are to be followed as a means to show unity in worship and to insure that private acts of piety don’t become distractions to others and Bishops have the authority within certain guidelines to have cultural differences.

Second, moral teachings are more susceptible to touching individual “conceptions” and are ultimately harder to accept. For many people, they need a process to express, examine, question, and criticize in combination with contempletitve prayer to understand. And it is thru that process, that the teaching becomes truly reforming as opposed to just following from obedience. As a corrollary to this second reason, it is only when we can’t reconcile during this discernment that we are called to obey. We don’t have to begin with an attitude of blind obedience but one of a desire to assent. It is the Holy Spirit that changes hearts and not some encyclical written using words and concepts beyond the average Catholic without a theology degree.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Part 1

By Fix: The problem is we are not required to suspend our faculties of reason or deny the obvious in an attempt to appear submissive and loyal.

This is the exact same argument that “liberals” use. We are called to use our reason in the context of first submitting ourself.

By Fix: The opposite of your position is equally valid. In other words, there is a danger of returning to hyper clericalism, but this time a liberal clericalism.

I really don’t think that this is a problem in the American Catholic Church. We have greater propensity to deny authority and selectively choose which teachings we think are appropriate.

 

[fix]

I do not want to keep veering off topic, but can anyone tell me if this type of thing is disobedient?:

**

---

The sin must be named

With the release Oct. 12 of a 155-page report describing decades of sexual abuse by clergy in the Los Angeles archdiocese, there now exists compelling and preponderant evidence that at least three living cardinals of the Catholic church in the United States have been complicit in what any reasonable observer would term criminal activity…

In Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony has fought all attempts to change that state’s statutes of limitations to permit victims of sex abuse to pursue their cases. He has spent millions in legal fees to prevent law enforcement officials from gaining access to internal church documents that would provide details of how he and his predecessors managed the sex abuse scandal…

In example after example, Catholics can look around the church and know that bishops have deliberately protected men who, in any other context, would have been criminally charged and placed on trial…

Catholics want their leaders back, whole and unafraid of what might leak out or what a prosecutor might force into the open…

With all respect for the power of prayer and the centrality of the Eucharist to the community, however, reparation for sins, the church itself teaches, does not occur magically. The sin must be named, and the sinned against, in this case the victims and the community at large, must be asked for forgiveness…

ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005d/102805/102805za.php**

** As more and more comes out is it wrong to report and editorialize on these things without getting Vatican approval first?

**

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

I do not want to keep veering off topic, but can anyone tell me if this type of thing is disobedient?:

**

---

** As more and more comes out is it wrong to report and editorialize on these things without getting Vatican approval first?

---

Heck no. I’m so angry about this entire thing that everytime it comes up I have to be careful not express myself in a sinful way. This issue is of a magnitude and seriousness which all of us need to take blame and beg for forgiveness. And its result has caused a real crisis of faith for many. But whether our Priest wears sandals at Mass should not cause anybody to get their skirt out of place.

My son lives in a town that has what most anyone would call a liberal Priest. I will admit that at first I was extremely bothered by his “progressiveness” during our visits to him. However, upon reflection, I realized that I get all the graces I need to “deal with this” from the Eucharist that he concecrates for me. And after time, I’ve been told that he is a excellent minister to the sick and dying. Every Priest has his weakness and his strength. I just had to ask God to help me find his strength. Now that I have, I’m grateful to him.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Heck no. I’m so angry about this entire thing that everytime it comes up I have to be careful not express myself in a sinful way. This issue is of a magnitude and seriousness which all of us need to take blame and beg for forgiveness. And its result has caused a real crisis of faith for many. But whether our Priest wears sandals at Mass should not cause anybody to get their skirt out of place.

My son lives in a town that has what most anyone would call a liberal Priest. I will admit that at first I was extremely bothered by his “progressiveness” during our visits to him. However, upon reflection, I realized that I get all the graces I need to “deal with this” from the Eucharist that he concecrates for me. And after time, I’ve been told that he is a excellent minister to the sick and dying. Every Priest has his weakness and his strength. I just had to ask God to help me find his strength. Now that I have, I’m grateful to him.

The post says this:
**

Cardinal Roger Mahony has fought all attempts to change that state’s statutes of limitations to permit victims of sex abuse to pursue their cases. He has spent millions in legal fees to prevent law enforcement officials from gaining access to internal church documents that would provide details of how he and his predecessors managed the sex abuse scandal…

** Is that not wounding the body of Christ to print it? We do not know the cardinal’s intentions. Should we not assume the best?
Should not the Vatican weigh in, privately, before the laity goes and makes such accusations?

How can we judge such things? Perhaps the Vatican is working behind the scenes? We really are not in any position to discern if his actions were correct or not and we certainly should not give scandal by publicly discussing it, it borders on detraction.

 

[fix]

Orion,

Regarding Parts I and II I do not have the time to reply seriatim to all you posted, so I will make a general reply.

I agree with all you wrote. I think few here would disagree. Your position is Catholic, modest and reasoned. With all that said, I think I need to point out that in reviewing many posts here it is apparant to me we must accept some of these posts are out of emotion and frustration.

The same reasoned approach you take with those who openly defy the moral law should be taken with those who are hurt and angry over “progressive”, even heterodox clerics and laity. An important, an overlooked, issue in the Church today is the marginalization of those who try to be orthodox.

I see no reason to extend less “charity” to those faithful as to those who try to change Church teachings through various means.

Unlike some, I do not see the resemblance between the heterodox on the left and the orthodox who decry innovation, and at times error, yet obey while criticizing the situation. Now, if those who claim orthodoxy actually dissented, then I would see your point.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

Orion,

Regarding Parts I and II I do not have the time to reply seriatim to all you posted, so I will make a general reply.

I agree with all you wrote. I think few here would disagree. Your position is Catholic, modest and reasoned. With all that said, I think I need to point out that in reviewing many posts here it is apparant to me we must accept some of these posts are out of emotion and frustration.

The same reasoned approach you take with those who openly defy the moral law should be taken with those who are hurt and angry over “progressive”, even heterodox clerics and laity. An important, an overlooked, issue in the Church today is the marginalization of those who try to be orthodox.

I see no reason to extend less “charity” to those faithful as to those who try to change Church teachings through various means.

Unlike some, I do not see the resemblance between the heterodox on the left and the orthodox who decry innovation, and at times error, yet obey while criticizing the situation. Now, if those who claim orthodoxy actually dissented, then I would see your point.

While I might be more “charitable” in approach to those violating moral law becuase I recognize it is a struggle with their sinful nature, I am not more tolerant of the violation because the eternal consequences are greater. Concurrently, I admit I’m not as charitable to those who hold themselves out as “orthodox” and then criticize with a disrespectful tone Priests or Bishops as to me this is scandalous form of dissent because they should know better.

Additionally, the characterization of themselves as more “Catholic” in their orthodoxy sometimes comes off as pious pride which I don’t think helps spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In this regard, slapping labels on people doesn’t serve our purpose of evangalizing. Instead, I try to use a humble approach designed to help them understand better Christ’s message.

True conversion requires every Catholic, from the Pope down to the Catholic in name only, to admit and understand that we are all sinners with our own individual “crosses” with none “greater” than the other and that these crosses can only be overcome through the redeeming and sanctifying grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Until all Catholics understand that submission to authority is a critical component of being Catholic, orthodoxy is impossible as people on the left and right (both equally hetordox in my opinion) both claim to a right to select which teaching and direction they choose to accept.

 

[AltarMan]

While he was a great man who is destined to become a saint of the Church, many of these irregularities and abuses began and/or become “legalized” during the nearly 27-year pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

While PJP2 traveled to nearly 100 countries and was the consumate “big picture man” (just look at the fall of communism), a great number of smaller things seemed to slip though the cracks.

With Pope Benedict XVI I see another profoundly able man, but I also see an able manager and leader who will certainly be better than his PJP2 at implementing changes and corrections.

The next three or so years is going to be exciting when it comes to the liturgy.

 

[totustuusmaria]

AltarMan:

While he was a great man who is destined to become a saint of the Church, many of these irregularities and abuses began and/or become “legalized” during the nearly 27-year pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

While PJP2 traveled to nearly 100 countries and was the consumate “big picture man” (just look at the fall of communism), a great number of smaller things seemed to slip though the cracks.

With Pope Benedict XVI I see another profoundly able man, but I also see an able manager and leader who will certainly be better than his PJP2 at implementing changes and corrections.

The next three or so years is going to be exciting when it comes to the liturgy.

Pope John Paul the Great admitted himself that he has a problem with discipline.