Which are the liberal diocese in the US?

[Deacon_Ed]

mosher:

Is it not true that all permissions were revoked by RS and had to be reapplied for. To my knowledge this has not been done apart from the provissions in the GIRM and so then the provissions in RS not only come in conflict with US usages but RS actually abolishes them.

Well, sort of. Anything that was not made particular law was, in fact, revoked. What was already particular law remains because, according to canon 33, an instruction does not override particular law. Further, since particular law is approved by the pope, no one below the pope can revoke it. Thus, neither Cardinal Arinze nor his congregation had the authority to revoke particular law.

As I said before, there is a dubium (question) before Rome asking for an “authentic interpretation” of this instruction. Since that will come from the Holy Father it will either confirm or revoke the particular law in question.

Deacon Ed

 

[buffalo]

Deacon Ed:

Well, sort of. Anything that was not made particular law was, in fact, revoked. What was already particular law remains because, according to canon 33, an instruction does not override particular law. Further, since particular law is approved by the pope, no one below the pope can revoke it. Thus, neither Cardinal Arinze nor his congregation had the authority to revoke particular law.

As I said before, there is a dubium (question) before Rome asking for an “authentic interpretation” of this instruction. Since that will come from the Holy Father it will either confirm or revoke the particular law in question.

Deacon Ed

RS has many many references from JPII. Is it your position we need his signature?

Take a stroll through the refernces in RS. This was hardly done in a vacuum.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

buffalo:

RS has many many references from JPII. Is it your position we need his signature?

Take a stroll through the refernces in RS. This was hardly done in a vacuum.

See, this is precisely what I object to. Here we have an educated lay person who has read RS and knows what it says. Unfortunately, you seem to be unaware that there are two ways for a pope to approve a document. One is simply to say it’s okay to publish it, and the other is to publish it with his authority. In this case the pope okayed it, but did not publish it with his authority. Therefore it does not override particular law. This point has been discussed here by canon lawyers who have stated that this is precisely the case.

Deacon Ed

 

[buffalo]

Deacon Ed:

See, this is precisely what I object to. Here we have an educated lay person who has read RS and knows what it says. Unfortunately, you seem to be unaware that there are two ways for a pope to approve a document. One is simply to say it’s okay to publish it, and the other is to publish it with his authority. In this case the pope okayed it, but did not publish it with his authority. Therefore it does not override particular law. This point has been discussed here by canon lawyers who have stated that this is precisely the case.

Deacon Ed

Understood completely. The point I am making is that this smacks of legalism, which cuts across the grain of the Pope’s intent. Basically - we don’t agree nor will we obey and we will find a way to stall.

RS is very clear what is to be reprobated. C’mon now Deacon.

 

[dennisknapp]

muledog:

Dear Dennis,

I live in the Lafayette-in-Indiana diocese. Our bishop (+Higi) is very progressive in matters liturgical. He was the chairman of the diocesan liturgy committee back in the '60s which implemented Sacrasanctum Concillium and post-Vatican II liturgical directives. Many people feel that he is afraid to “undo” much of what he personally wrought during the late '60s and '70s. The “spirit of Vatican II” still haunts our chancery.

If you write a letter to the bishop concerning liturgical abuses, you will most-likely receive a form letter stating that “Bishop Higi has the utmost trust and faith in Father K’s abilities as pastor of St. M, and he supports Father K’s decisions regarding the implementation of liturgical norms in his parish.”

Bishop Higi is a vocal supporter of “inclusive language” in liturgical and Scriptural texts. He also authored a policy letter stating that anyone who kneels to receive communion is “dissenting from the mind of the Church.” This letter was later rescinded after widespread negative press caused the Holy See to refute this claim in a protocol letter published in the Adoremus Bulletin.

Issues have come up in the past few years regarding his tacit support of at least one alleged child molester in the early days of his leadership of the diocese. There was a scathing newspaper series about it in the Indianapolis Star in 1997.

Many young, orthdox local men seeking ordination to the priesthood have had to go elsewhere to follow their calling, because Bishop Higi and his “formation crew” have consistently turned tradition-minded men away from their vocations.

This has changed during the past couple of years with the appointment of a truly orthodox priest to head the diocesan vocations program. Seminary enrollment is at its highest level since this bishop took office in 1984.

Bishop Higi refused to allow the celebration of the “Traditional Latin Mass” in our diocese until forced to do so by the Holy See in 2001. Even then, he relegated the Mass to Tuesday evenings at 7:00pm, and forbid any mention of it in the diocesan newspaper. This is surprising, since several positive articles about the Mass have appeared in the secular newspapers since then.

So, on a scale of 1-10 (1 being +Rembert Weakland and 10 being +Fabian Bruskewitz), I would rate our bishop a 3, our pastor a 2, and our diocese as a whole a 4.

I have only been in Milwaukee under Dolan, who is a very faithful man. What was the deal with Weakland? I have been to a few parishes who think the world of him and have been surprised by the things I have heard. Dolan has a lot of work cut out for him here.

Peace

 

[Brendan]

Deacon Ed:

Well, sort of. Anything that was not made particular law was, in fact, revoked. What was already particular law remains because, according to canon 33, an instruction does not override particular law. Further, since particular law is approved by the pope, no one below the pope can revoke it. Thus, neither Cardinal Arinze nor his congregation had the authority to revoke particular law.
Deacon Ed

Deacon Ed,

On two points.

You said that there were elements that were in conflict. RS prohibited flagons, but there is no particular law that requires them.

So there is most certainly a reasonable solution that can satisfy both US particular law and RS, correct? and thus no conflict. RS just specifies a particular course of action that complies with both the directives of the appropriate diacastery (and thus the Holy See) and the norms of local particular law.

If there was in fact, a conflict, then all the diocese would be in danger of violating one or the other. But this is not the case, is it?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Brendan:

Deacon Ed,

On two points.

You said that there were elements that were in conflict. RS prohibited flagons, but there is no particular law that requires them.

So there is most certainly a reasonable solution that can satisfy both US particular law and RS, correct? and thus no conflict. RS just specifies a particular course of action that complies with both the directives of the appropriate diacastery (and thus the Holy See) and the norms of local particular law.

If there was in fact, a conflict, then all the diocese would be in danger of violating one or the other. But this is not the case, is it?

Brendan,

The law permits the use of flagons and the pouring of the Precious Blood after the consecration. To assert that doing so is an abuse is wrong. Whether or not there is an easy resolution is not the point. If a bishop wishes to follow what is permitted by law he may do so until such time as that law ceases to have effect.

My objection is to people claiming an abuse where there is none or claiming that a bishop is “liberal” or dissident because he chooses to follow what is permitted by law.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

buffalo:

Understood completely. The point I am making is that this smacks of legalism, which cuts across the grain of the Pope’s intent. Basically - we don’t agree nor will we obey and we will find a way to stall.

RS is very clear what is to be reprobated. C’mon now Deacon.

The point is that there are laws that the Church has established and which She must follow. Is it legalism? No. It’s following the law that has been established for the operation of the Church.

Is granting a man a trial even though there are 20 witnesses that saw him shoot someone a legalism? No, it’s his right.

Deacon Ed

 

[buffalo]

Deacon Ed:

Brendan,

The law permits the use of flagons and the pouring of the Precious Blood after the consecration. To assert that doing so is an abuse is wrong. Whether or not there is an easy resolution is not the point. If a bishop wishes to follow what is permitted by law he may do so until such time as that law ceases to have effect.

My objection is to people claiming an abuse where there is none or claiming that a bishop is “liberal” or dissident because he chooses to follow what is permitted by law.

Deacon Ed

Deacon - awhile ago on another thread you told me the issue was about there being any pouring after the Consecration, not the issue of fractioning. Please clarify.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

buffalo:

Deacon - awhile ago on another thread you told me the issue was about there being any pouring after the Consecration, not the issue of fractioning. Please clarify.

The issue is pouring the Precious Blood. As far as I know there is no issue with fractioning – that belongs to the priest who may ask the deacon for assistance.

Deacon Ed

 

[buffalo]

Deacon Ed:

The point is that there are laws that the Church has established and which She must follow. Is it legalism? No. It’s following the law that has been established for the operation of the Church.

Is granting a man a trial even though there are 20 witnesses that saw him shoot someone a legalism? No, it’s his right.

Deacon Ed

When someone ducks under the cover of legalism to advance an agenda is where I have an issue. Of course I understand the Church has laws.

Here is an example - a Priest continues with liturgical abuses and when asked about them claims there is nothing that says he can’t do it, so he will take it as far as he can and still get away with it.

 

[buffalo]

Deacon Ed:

The issue is pouring the Precious Blood. As far as I know there is no issue with fractioning – that belongs to the priest who may ask the deacon for assistance.

Deacon Ed

What is the difference between pouring and fractioning of the Precious Blood?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

buffalo:

What is the difference between pouring and fractioning of the Precious Blood?

Fractioning refers to the host, not the Precious Blood. The Fraction Rite takes place when the large host is broken during the Agnus Dei and ends when the fermentum is placed into the chalice.

Here’s the detail from the GIRM:

*The Fraction
*83. The priest breaks the Eucharistic Bread, assisted, if the case calls for it, by the deacon or a concelebrant. Christ’s gesture of breaking bread at the Last Supper, which gave the entire Eucharistic Action its name in apostolic times, signifies that the many faithful are made one body (1 Cor 10:17) by receiving Communion from the one Bread of Life which is Christ, who died and rose for the salvation of the world. The fraction or breaking of bread is begun after the sign of peace and is carried out with proper reverence, though it should not be unnecessarily prolonged, nor should it be accorded undue importance. This rite is reserved to the priest and the deacon.

The priest breaks the Bread and puts a piece of the host into the chalice to signify the unity of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the work of salvation, namely, of the living and glorious Body of Jesus Christ. The supplication Agnus Dei, is, as a rule, sung by the choir or cantor with the congregation responding; or it is, at least, recited aloud. This invocation accompanies the fraction and, for this reason, may be repeated as many times as necessary until the rite has reached its conclusion, the last time ending with the words *dona nobis pacem *(grant us peace).

Generally, the pouring of the Precious Blood takes place at the same time as the Fraction Rite, but is not part of that Rite.

Deacon Ed

 

[buffalo]

Deacon Ed:

Fractioning refers to the host, not the Precious Blood. The Fraction Rite takes place when the large host is broken during the Agnus Dei and ends when the fermentum is placed into the chalice.

Here’s the detail from the GIRM:
Generally, the pouring of the Precious Blood takes place at the same time as the Fraction Rite, but is not part of that Rite.

Deacon Ed

I am sure you called called the EMHC’s pouring the Precious Blood fractioning in the past, and I thought it odd. However, we can get by this. We all learn.

From RS:

**[106.] However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.

**

 

[Brendan]

Deacon Ed:

Brendan,

The law permits the use of flagons and the pouring of the Precious Blood after the consecration. To assert that doing so is an abuse is wrong. Whether or not there is an easy resolution is not the point. If a bishop wishes to follow what is permitted by law he may do so until such time as that law ceases to have effect.

My objection is to people claiming an abuse where there is none or claiming that a bishop is “liberal” or dissident because he chooses to follow what is permitted by law.

Deacon Ed

There are many things the law permits, but you must agree that appeances matter.

I know your bishop prohibits permanent deacons from wearing clerics.

What if one of your brother deacons took to wearing black pants, a black (secular) dress shirt, fully buttoned, a small, white, rectagular bow tie.

How would that appear to your brother deacons? Sure, he is in full compliance with the bishop’s directives, but would they not think there might be a smattering of defiance in that deacon, a flouting of the rules? Subverting a clear intent with a legal technicallity?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

buffalo:

I am sure you called called the EMHC’s pouring the Precious Blood fractioning in the past, and I thought it odd. However, we can get by this. We all learn.

If I used the term “fraction” in regard to the Precious Blood I apologize, that was my error.

From RS:

[106.] However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.

Yes, this is the section that is in question. Particular Law for the United States permits this (and for something to become particular law it requires Rome’s approval). Since RS is an instruction it cannot derogate or obviate particular law. Therefore, this aspect of RS is not in force in the United States. As I said, there is a dubium (question) in Rome asking for an “authentic interpretation” of this which will decide the fate of this question. Until then no bishop is dissident or disobedient or liberal because of this issue.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Brendan:

There are many things the law permits, but you must agree that appeances matter.

I know your bishop prohibits permanent deacons from wearing clerics.

What if one of your brother deacons took to wearing black pants, a black (secular) dress shirt, fully buttoned, a small, white, rectagular bow tie.

How would that appear to your brother deacons? Sure, he is in full compliance with the bishop’s directives, but would they not think there might be a smattering of defiance in that deacon, a flouting of the rules? Subverting a clear intent with a legal technicallity?

Bad example. I am, as far as I know. the only deacon in my diocese permitted to wear a clerical collar (because I’m bi-ritual and must do so in my Melkite parish). Should a deacon appear attired as you describe it would be in compliance with the bishop’s ruling for this diocese and nobody would say anything (except that very, very few people in California wear bow ties).

However, in this we aren’t dealing with something that by law is prohibited but something that is, by law, permitted.

Deacon Ed

 

[buffalo]

Deacon Ed:

If I used the term “fraction” in regard to the Precious Blood I apologize, that was my error.

Yes, this is the section that is in question. Particular Law for the United States permits this (and for something to become particular law it requires Rome’s approval). Since RS is an instruction it cannot derogate or obviate particular law. Therefore, this aspect of RS is not in force in the United States. As I said, there is a dubium (question) in Rome asking for an “authentic interpretation” of this which will decide the fate of this question. Until then no bishop is dissident or disobedient or liberal because of this issue.

Deacon Ed

Where is it in force, if you know?

As far as the dubium, I thought that question was answered already.

Lastly, why would a Bishop continue with this practice when there are clearly stated reasons for stopping it? This bothers me.

 

[Brendan]

Deacon Ed:

. Particular Law for the United States permits this (and for something to become particular law it requires Rome’s approval).

It was my understanding that the use of flagons came under the clause granting local customs of greater than 30 years “the force of particular law”

Did Rome specifically grant permission to use flagons as a matter of law and I am unaware of it.

Since RS is an instruction it cannot derogate or obviate particular law. Therefore, this aspect of RS is not in force in the United States. As I said, there is a dubium (question) in Rome asking for an “authentic interpretation” of this which will decide the fate of this question. Until then no bishop is dissident or disobedient or liberal because of this issue.

Deacon Ed

But did not the CDW already reply to the orginial dubium in the negative?

The question +Manhoney is now relying on is weither the CDW has authority to respond to the original dubia in the first place; Considering that is where +Mahoney chose to submit the first dubia, and it’s very doubtful he will prevail.

I mean, why submit a dubium to a diacastery in the first place if you don’t think they have the authority to rule on it?

 

[buffalo]

Brendan:

It was my understanding that the use of flagons came under the clause granting local customs of greater than 30 years “the force of particular law”

Did Rome specifically grant permission to use flagons as a matter of law and I am unaware of it.

I understand the use of the word reprobate means to cease immediately to prevent the force of custom.