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

[netmilsmom]

msproule:

. Remember, this thread is for the purpose of expressing our thoughts on the reasons for and the results of so many American adaptations.

People don’t get the idea that this is a DISCUSSION forum.
People discuss.

Just because we don’t like how something is being done, does not mean we do not do it. It just means that we come here to vent.

We are all adults here.

 

[pnewton]

msproule:

The portion of the link that you pasted above does *not *demonstrate the USCCB’s desire to conform. Rather, it describes Cardinal Arinze’s revocation of a previous approval. I think you may be misreading it.
.

The quote above is from the USCCB, not Cardinal Arinze. Therefore it does show that the USCCB is willing to follow legitimate authority.

 

[pnewton]

msproule:

No disrespect is intended. Remember, this thread is for the purpose of expressing our thoughts on the reasons for and the results of so many American adaptations.

I understand and that is a good thought. I should not have implied that you personally have been disrespectful. But some of the comments made against our bishops are a little over the top. Freedom of expression is not license to slander.

 

[msproule]

pnewton:

The quote above is from the USCCB, not Cardinal Arinze. Therefore it does show that the USCCB is willing to follow legitimate authority.

Here is the entire sentence:
Cardinal Arinze responded on May 6, 2004 (Prot n. 660/04/L) with a letter modifying the Congregation’s “original confirmation in regard to numbers 36 and 37 of these Norms” and including an emended text of the USCCB Norms which eliminates both the pouring of the Precious Blood and the use of flagons.
It then proceeds to explain that a second correspondence was sent to Cardinal Arinze because “several Bishops (had) questioned the competence of the Congregation to revise its recognitio of norms approved and confirmed on a prior occasion”. As the USCCB link shows, the Bishops eventually accepted the instructions of the CDWDS.

If you read through the other threads on this specific topic, some fellow CA Forums users (who present themselves as knowledgeable of both Canon Law and the mind of the USCCB) content that the USCCB relented out of charity, in order to avoid a confrontation. Nevertheless, if the Bishops have accepted this ruling, why are the majority of parishes in the two nearest Dioceses to me still pouring the Precious Blood?

 

[pnewton]

msproule:

Here is the entire sentence:Cardinal Arinze responded on May 6, 2004 (Prot n. 660/04/L) with a letter modifying the Congregation’s “original confirmation in regard to numbers 36 and 37 of these Norms” and including an emended text of the USCCB Norms which eliminates both the pouring of the Precious Blood and the use of flagons.

My mistake. I had slept since last posted. The reason I had accredited to the USCCB is because they were the ones that emended the norms. You are correct from the context that it is not clear exactly who did the emending.

I did get the perception from the whole article that the USCCB was willing to follow the changes instituted without dissent.

As to why you live near those who still pour the Precious Blood, who knows? I have never seen it done myself.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Not all cafeteria Catholics choose the dessert line; some of them choose the salad bar instead. But in the end, it’s the same cafeteria.

We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function.No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.It happens that with some bishops there is a certain lack of a sense of individual responsibility, and the delegation of his inalienable powers as shepherd and teacher to the structures of the local conference leads to letting what should remain very personal lapse into anonymity.I know bishops who privately confess that they would have decided differently than they did at a conference if they had had to decide by themselves. Who is this critic, who dares to speak ill of the bishops’ conference? His name is Benedict.

cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=2787

 

[pnewton]

fix,

A few thoughts about the link. First it is unreferenced as to the date and time of the quote. As presented, it amounts to no more than rumor, meaning you say that they say this, ans we still do not know what “this” is. I have seen many things attributed to Pope Benedict that were said before he was pope.

Also, it is absolutely true. The USCCB has no heirarchial function. The same could be said fo many other organizations, with varying degrees of usefulness, within the church. (ICEL pops to mind).

Finally, the original posters last question is misleading as to the content. The words “critic” and “dares” makes it seem like the statement (whoever said it) was negative toward the USCCB. In fact it just presents factual information, none of which is in dispute. “They have only a practical, concrete function.” is not exactly damning.

 

[fix]

pnewton:

fix,

A few thoughts about the link. First it is unreferenced as to the date and time of the quote. As presented, it amounts to no more than rumor, meaning you say that they say this, ans we still do not know what “this” is. I have seen many things attributed to Pope Benedict that were said before he was pope.

Also, it is absolutely true. The USCCB has no heirarchial function. The same could be said fo many other organizations, with varying degrees of usefulness, within the church. (ICEL pops to mind).

Finally, the original posters last question is misleading as to the content. The words “critic” and “dares” makes it seem like the statement (whoever said it) was negative toward the USCCB. In fact it just presents factual information, none of which is in dispute. “They have only a practical, concrete function.” is not exactly damning.

My intent is to say that criticizing the USCCB is not dissent or being a cafeteria Catholic.

 

[Catholic2003]

Without going into the authenticity of the Pope Benedict quote, it refers to a “teaching mission”, i.e., an exercise of the Magisterium. This thread relates to the USCCB’s mission (and corresponding authority) to regulate the liturgy within the U.S.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Without going into the authenticity of the Pope Benedict quote, it refers to a “teaching mission”, i.e., an exercise of the Magisterium. This thread relates to the USCCB’s mission (and corresponding authority) to regulate the liturgy within the U.S.

I do not think many would reject the authority the USCCB has as given by the Vatican. What some dislike is the the liberal agenda that often flows through it particularly by its staff and more than a few bishops.

 

[pnewton]

fix:

My intent is to say that criticizing the USCCB is not dissent or being a cafeteria Catholic.

I see. I would agree with you on this. Being critical is not being disrespectful, not is it always the same as being negative.

In fact, it is when our obedience does not coincicide with our desire, we show true humility. I especially like the way the OP said he conforms to what comes through his bishop, even though he does not agree with certain things. An attitude like this shows just the opposite of being a cafeteria catholic, which is conforming the faith to our image of it.

 

[oat_soda]

here’s the bottom line. the church as it is now in this country is dying. it’s far too big and has comprimised too much that it can no longer effectively evangelize. look at our catholic education system for example. they are no more catholic then harvard is christian.

along with this dying church is the usccb and that beauracracy associated with it. the american bishops have pretty much destroyed the chuch. they have been way too wordly for the last 40+ years.
what we need is a smaller purer church that will evangelize more effectively. we need identity.

 

[msproule]

pnewton:

My mistake.

We all make mistakes.

As to why you live near those who still pour the Precious Blood, who knows? I have never seen it done myself.

You must have very insightful Bishops and priests in your Diocese. In my opinion, those who choose otherwise are introducing unnecessary risk. The logical choice is to minimize the opportunities for a mistake (i.e. spillage).

 

[Catholic2003]

pnewton:

In fact, it is when our obedience does not coincicide with our desire, we show true humility.

Excellent point.

fix:

What some dislike is the the liberal agenda that often flows through it particularly by its staff and more than a few bishops.

Others dislike the conservative agenda that flows from various elements of the Church hierarchy. Both sides are called upon to give their obedience to the authority of the Church nonetheless.

 

[msproule]

Catholic2003:

Others dislike the conservative agenda that flows from various elements of the Church hierarchy. Both sides are called upon to give their obedience to the authority of the Church nonetheless.

Evidence of this? I guess I do not understand what you mean. What conservative “agenda” is found in Church hierarchy that challenges the authority of the Church? Thanks!

 

[Catholic2003]

msproule:

Evidence of this? I guess I do not understand what you mean. What conservative “agenda” is found in Church hierarchy that challenges the authority of the Church? Thanks!

Some people dislike the U.S. bishops for being too liberal. Other people dislike the bishops of the Vatican curia (except Cardinal Kasper) for being too conservative.

In both cases, the only challenge to Church authority comes when this dislike turns into disobedience.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Excellent point.

Others dislike the conservative agenda that flows from various elements of the Church hierarchy. Both sides are called upon to give their obedience to the authority of the Church nonetheless.

Who is calling for disobedience? My complaint is that you seemed to be accusing others of dissent when it may be just criticism.

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Who is calling for disobedience? My complaint is that you seemed to be accusing others of dissent when it may be just criticism.

Sorry. As I stated, I agree with pnewton that respectful criticism is quite different than dissent.

However, there does seem to be a “holier-than-thou” attitude around here on the part of those who choose to criticize the liberal element of the Church, over those who choose to criticize the conservative element of the Church. To see this, count the number of times the term “feminazi” has been used in this forum against those on the left, versus, for example, the number of times the term “liturgical nazi” has been used against those on the right.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Sorry. As I stated, I agree with pnewton that respectful criticism is quite different than dissent.

However, there does seem to be a “holier-than-thou” attitude around here on the part of those who choose to criticize the liberal element of the Church, over those who choose to criticize the conservative element of the Church. To see this, count the number of times the term “feminazi” has been used in this forum against those on the left, versus, for example, the number of times the term “liturgical nazi” has been used against those on the right.

What I say is that those on the left, meaning heterodox, far out number those on the right who are heterodox. Also, as one example please see the current thread where the bishop of Rochester allows lay “homilists” by claiming recourse to a loophole in Church law. IMO, this type of action is the typical legalist left leaning action that goes on often.

The reaction from some on the right is to decades of left wing activism that many see as a rejection of Church authority.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I’m one who accepts the authority of the Pope and my Bishop. I trust that the Holy Spirit picked the Pope, the Pope was inspired when he picked my Bishop and the Holy Spirit called my Priest to the Priesthood.

Do I sometimes think there are misinterpretations that have led to liturgical abuses and poor teaching of the faithful? Yes as these men are human subject to human weakness. The question is how I respond. I can express externally my disagreement to others in a tone that disrepects their legitimate authority which is essentially scandal as it appears that we can be selective on what authority we accept. Or I can express my disagreement through prayer that they better reconcile their teaching to that of Rome. Even in the most egregious examples, I have yet to have seen a situation where the Priest or Bishop’s intent is to lead people away from Christ yet so much of the criticism seems to imply such a motive. It serves our Church for us to assume the best of motives even when they are wrong and to trust that ultimately the power of the Holy Spirit will prevail. This is the promise that Christ gave us when He told Peter was the rock and the power of Satan shall not prevail against the Church.