B
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
Yep, there are only orthodox and heterodox bishops.
L
La-Petite-Fleur
Guest
The archdiocese of Louisville (KY) seems quite liberal. There are only a handful of obedient parishes while there are many so called “progressive” parishes. I even emailed the archdiocese, asking them to suggest a few parishes that are more traditional (a.k.a. obedient). They didn’t seem to care that there are “progressive” parishes. These are parishes that skip or destroy homilies, practice new age activities such as labyrinth walks and autumnal equinox celebrations. Even the Cathedral is known for it’s strong gay support. It is very hard to find a parish here that isn’t Catholic/Pagan or Catholic/Liberal. So with the way things are going, I’d say your archdiocese and mine are ranking solidly in the American mainstream. It just seems so common now days.
S
Strider
Guest
Deacon Ed:
There’s supplemental help in the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued by the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. This was issued by CDW as promised in John Paul II’s encycle Ecclesia de Eucharistia to address abuses of the Divine Liturgy of the Mass.
In addition, the Code of Cannon Law lists specific requirements for the Sacraments.
If one is familiar with the GIRM and RS and attends Masses at several parishes in a diocese and sees consistent abuses as noted in those documents, and perhaps even respectfully brings an abuse, as deliniated in the above documents, to the attention of one’s own priest and, receiving no satisfaction informs the ordinary of the abuse and ALSO receives no satisfaction or even a response
AND
the diocesan newspaper refuses to address issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research but concentrates quite heavily on “social justice” issues,
THEN
I believe one could conclude that this was a heterodox diocese.
It’s quite simple, really. The 2000 GIRM is freely available at any number of web sites. It lists the orthodox sequence of actions, prayers and postures for the Latin Rite Mass. If it doesn’t say to do it, you cannot do it.
There’s supplemental help in the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued by the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. This was issued by CDW as promised in John Paul II’s encycle Ecclesia de Eucharistia to address abuses of the Divine Liturgy of the Mass.
In addition, the Code of Cannon Law lists specific requirements for the Sacraments.
If one is familiar with the GIRM and RS and attends Masses at several parishes in a diocese and sees consistent abuses as noted in those documents, and perhaps even respectfully brings an abuse, as deliniated in the above documents, to the attention of one’s own priest and, receiving no satisfaction informs the ordinary of the abuse and ALSO receives no satisfaction or even a response
AND
the diocesan newspaper refuses to address issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research but concentrates quite heavily on “social justice” issues,
THEN
I believe one could conclude that this was a heterodox diocese.
K
katy
Guest
Larry B:
My eldest is leaning toward joining a parish that does the above,and also does not have missalettes or anythng to give evidence of how things should be. If you don’t know the Creed or prayers, you are definitely out of luck. However, at this point I am just glad he is considering joining any parish, even one that annoys the daylights out of me.
K
kmktexas
Guest
I would put the diocese of Galveston-Houston down as currently heterodox but moving toward being more orthodox.
We have wide-spread abuses of the moderate to serious in several parishes that I have visited. The most visible evidence is that there have been new Churches built under the approval of the Bishop (now Arch-bishop) with clear violations (tabernacle nowhere to be seen, no confessionals at all, glass tabernacle etc.). The GIRM corrections were basically ignored until after RS came out and our new adjuctor Arch Bishop took the lead in getting the parishes in conformity with both.
The most dangerous evidence is the diocisan newspaper of which the Archbishop is the editor in cheif. It endorses pro-abortion candidates for state office and side-steps on other life issues such as stem cell research. It also carried until very recently a syndicated column that was very questionable (including saying there isn’t a Purgatory).
The Archbisop was associated with the semi-public dissent to Humanae Vitae when it came out. He seems to have distanced himself from that position but does not publically endorce the pro-life or NFP efforts. He allows an indult Mass but has been off-and-on again hostile to the TLM community and to the Anglican use parish in his diocese. He does not encourage the reporting of liturgical abuse and has even responded to some letters by telling the writer not to write again.
The seminary also had a very progressive reputation until lately. There has been a shake up in leadership there and things seem to be turning around in terms of content. Coincidently or not, there has also been a modest upsurge in the number of seminarians recently.
So overall, it is looking hopeful.
We have wide-spread abuses of the moderate to serious in several parishes that I have visited. The most visible evidence is that there have been new Churches built under the approval of the Bishop (now Arch-bishop) with clear violations (tabernacle nowhere to be seen, no confessionals at all, glass tabernacle etc.). The GIRM corrections were basically ignored until after RS came out and our new adjuctor Arch Bishop took the lead in getting the parishes in conformity with both.
The most dangerous evidence is the diocisan newspaper of which the Archbishop is the editor in cheif. It endorses pro-abortion candidates for state office and side-steps on other life issues such as stem cell research. It also carried until very recently a syndicated column that was very questionable (including saying there isn’t a Purgatory).
The Archbisop was associated with the semi-public dissent to Humanae Vitae when it came out. He seems to have distanced himself from that position but does not publically endorce the pro-life or NFP efforts. He allows an indult Mass but has been off-and-on again hostile to the TLM community and to the Anglican use parish in his diocese. He does not encourage the reporting of liturgical abuse and has even responded to some letters by telling the writer not to write again.
The seminary also had a very progressive reputation until lately. There has been a shake up in leadership there and things seem to be turning around in terms of content. Coincidently or not, there has also been a modest upsurge in the number of seminarians recently.
So overall, it is looking hopeful.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Wow, that was rather neat. Thanks!!
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
But, as I have pointed out time and again here, parts of RS do not apply to the United States because an instruction does not override particular law. And unless one has actually studied canon law and read the authentic interpretations of the canons one could form the wrong impression of what the law actually says. Futher, even the GIRM is subject to interpretation by the Church and not by the laity, or even a lowly deacon.
Also, there are numerous legitimate options in the Liturgy that one needs to know well before one claims that a particular thing at a liturgy is an abuse or not (look at the number of post here where people are claiming an event is an abuse when, in fact, it is permitted).
Social justice issues are important. So is work on prohibiting embryonic stem cell research. The problem with the latter is that it quickly becomes a technical issue in explaing what is and what isn’t permitted (for example, the body of a still-born baby may be donated to science and then work may be done on any surviving stem cells). So, again, if the article isn’t written clearly it can easily convey the wrong message. This is not to defend saying nothing, however.
So, as I was saying, I’m not competent to say a diocese ir orthodox or not. Even if the bishop isn’t, there may be orthodox priests and deacon who are struggling against the tide to bring the correct teachings of the Church to their people.
I think this is a very dangerous area of inquiry.
Deacon Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Deacon Ed:
Deacon - someone has to have authority. Who is that authority?
S
Strider
Guest
Deacon Ed:
Also, there abuses that are abuses always and everywhere. What if, for instance, the priest makes up his own version of the Eucharistic Prayer, words that do not occur in any of the several aproved Eucharistic Prayers? Or maybe father has a group of teens say the words of Consecration and elevate the Host. Or maybe he consecrates wine in a glass carafe and THEN pours the Precious Blood of Christ into glass chalices for distribution by Extraordinary Minsiters of Holy Communion.
These are ALWAYS abuses and it doesn’t take a canon lawyer to know it.
One must choose one’s battles, but the laity have a right to properly conducted liturgies.
And, yes, social justice is imporrtant, but not to the exclusion of the life issues. And it is precisely because some of the life issues like enbryonic stem cell research can be arcane that the Church, through the bishop, should teach clearly on them. There are some issues that good, orthodox Catholic bioethecisits disagree on or are struggling with. If the “Nathional Catholic Register” can explain them, a diocesan paper can certainly do so. And these are exactly the problems on which Catholics should be informed.
I respectfully suggest, Deacon, that you don’t give lay Catholics enough credit for being able to educate themselves or to seek professional help (like a canon lawyer) when necessary. I only speak for myself, but I don’t think I am alone in being sick and tired of major abuses occurring in most (not all, but most) of the Masses I attend.
I can only do so much, but I will do what I can, and I think this rather a necessary than a dangerous area of inquiry, if for no other reason than to prevent folks from going off half-cocked or acting before informing themselves.
It’s our right, but like Sister always said, with every right comes a responsibility.
That’s why I carefully stated that the priest had the opportunity to respond to a respectfully asked question from a layman, and so did the bishop. Their refusal to do so might be excused by their workload. but not if the question is addressed repeatedly about a serious abuse.
Also, there abuses that are abuses always and everywhere. What if, for instance, the priest makes up his own version of the Eucharistic Prayer, words that do not occur in any of the several aproved Eucharistic Prayers? Or maybe father has a group of teens say the words of Consecration and elevate the Host. Or maybe he consecrates wine in a glass carafe and THEN pours the Precious Blood of Christ into glass chalices for distribution by Extraordinary Minsiters of Holy Communion.
These are ALWAYS abuses and it doesn’t take a canon lawyer to know it.
One must choose one’s battles, but the laity have a right to properly conducted liturgies.
And, yes, social justice is imporrtant, but not to the exclusion of the life issues. And it is precisely because some of the life issues like enbryonic stem cell research can be arcane that the Church, through the bishop, should teach clearly on them. There are some issues that good, orthodox Catholic bioethecisits disagree on or are struggling with. If the “Nathional Catholic Register” can explain them, a diocesan paper can certainly do so. And these are exactly the problems on which Catholics should be informed.
I respectfully suggest, Deacon, that you don’t give lay Catholics enough credit for being able to educate themselves or to seek professional help (like a canon lawyer) when necessary. I only speak for myself, but I don’t think I am alone in being sick and tired of major abuses occurring in most (not all, but most) of the Masses I attend.
I can only do so much, but I will do what I can, and I think this rather a necessary than a dangerous area of inquiry, if for no other reason than to prevent folks from going off half-cocked or acting before informing themselves.
It’s our right, but like Sister always said, with every right comes a responsibility.
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Yes, there are certain abuses that may occur in a parish. But that pertains to the priest and not the diocese – and that was my point. The fact that the bishop may or may not discipline the priest (such actions are rarely made public) does not speak to whether or not the diocese is orthodox. Since this thread relates to a diocese and not parish I have to take exception when one claims that a given parish (or even two or three) can accurately reflect the orthodoxy of a diocese.
I believe the laity can, and must, educate themselves (it’s actually one of the precepts of the Church). But do I think they can acquire the knowledge of a canon lawyer in order to correctly and accurately interpret canon law or acquire the knowledge in liturgy of one who has studied it for years in order to judge the validity of a given action or acquire the depth of knowledge of a thologian – no, not unless that is the job of the individual. Even though I have studied theology for years (and actually earned a doctorate in it) I don’t believe for a moment that I know as much as Pope Benedict XVI (who has probably forgotten more than I’ll ever know!). I’ve studied liturgy for years and serve as one of the Masters of Ceremonies for my Latin bishop. I also serve the Melkite Church as a bi-ritual deacon and have studied eastern theology and liturgy – and don’t pretend to know everything there is.
Do the laity have a right to ask questions? Of course – and they have a right to get answers. At the same time, you correctly noted that our bishops and priests (and deacons) are overworked. We don’t always have time to provide detailed answers to the questions people raise – especially since, for the most part, we get the same questions over and over!
If you see a priest make up his own Eucharistic Prayer – that’s certainly a violation. In all my years in the Catholic Church (and I’m a cradle Catholic) and in all my travels in 20+ countries and all over the United States I’ve never seen that happen. I have heard priests mix Eucharistic Prayers together by accident. I’ve had priests ask me if they did something (or omitted something) during Mass because they got distracted or because of age (one of the more interesting Masses was one I assisted at with a priest who was 99 years young).
But the actions of a given priest, or even a parish or two do not reflect the orthodoxy of a diocese, nor can we lump all parishes in a “liberal diocese” (whatever that means) into the same bucket any more than we can lump all priests into the category of abuser just because some priests did abuse.
Deacon Ed
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Authority for what? Judging a parish? That belongs to the bishop and to him alone. Judging a priest or deacon? That belongs to the bishop and to him alone. All authority in the diocese resides in the bishop except as he delegates. That delegation is normally to the priests and deacons to whom he entrusts the care of souls (cura animarum) of some of the faithful in his diocese.
Deacon Ed
S
Strider
Guest
Of course we can’t lump all priests together, nor have I suggested we do so.
My point is that if a majority, say 65% to 75% of the Masses in the parishes in a major metropolitan center exhibit noticeable abuses, and the ordinary has received numerous inquiries or complaints from laity and is aware of the situation and has done nothing about it, and the teaching in the diocesan newspaper has been generally toward the left side of the spectrum for many years, ignoring important teaching from the other side that might meet resistance with some laity, one can say it is a heterodox DIOCESE.
My point is that if a majority, say 65% to 75% of the Masses in the parishes in a major metropolitan center exhibit noticeable abuses, and the ordinary has received numerous inquiries or complaints from laity and is aware of the situation and has done nothing about it, and the teaching in the diocesan newspaper has been generally toward the left side of the spectrum for many years, ignoring important teaching from the other side that might meet resistance with some laity, one can say it is a heterodox DIOCESE.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
Kisses and hugs to all the DRE’s and Liturgical Commitees ruining our churches, even when people are begging for better.
It took a direct meeting with JPII to have Miada agree to a TLM. People had been writing for years begging for it.
M
MaryAgnes
Guest
Deacon Ed:
One woman said that to be truly orthodox a woman would cover her head when she entered the church and only men would have liturgical functions!
I’m with you deacon Ed. For my part, I think too much judgment comes from those who reminisce about the past and have no theological training in the present.
Wow! I had the same conversation with a fellow parishioner this morning. The problem that exists when laity uses terms like “orthodox” is that they have a preconceived idea of what that is. Sadly, it is not usually what the hierarchy means. it is merely another label which distinguishes the “right” from the “left” (ugh! more labels).
One woman said that to be truly orthodox a woman would cover her head when she entered the church and only men would have liturgical functions!
I’m with you deacon Ed. For my part, I think too much judgment comes from those who reminisce about the past and have no theological training in the present.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I would have agreed that Gallup was somewhat liberal, but I thought (and still think, till I hear reasonable evidence) that Archbishop Sheehan was quite orthodox. Also, he had a hard row to hoe after Sanchez’s (ahem) activities.
One problem that exists in New Mexico and possibly elsewhere is that Native Americans can be Catholics in good standing and still be caciques (priests) in their clan societies (the Snake Kiva, in Zuni, for instance). The bishops of Haiti fight the encroachment of voodoo, yet a blind eye is turned to this. But, I’m not a bishop, with a bishop’s burdens.
M
mosher
Guest
Deacon Ed:
With all due reverence this statement is absurd.
Deacon,
With all due reverence this statement is absurd.
M
mosher
Guest
My Archbishop is a good man but he tends to stand left of center not as bad as some but Orthodoxy to him tends to be a movable trend
M
mosher
Guest
Deacon Ed:
Yes and it is the responsibility of those who are mature in their faith to correct those in charity if they are in error even if he be the Pope as St. Thomas consistantly says in the Summa.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The deacon’s statement was not at all absurd in the context of these forums! The word is inappropriately tossed around all the time. Many think that those who have an attachment to the Mass of Paul VI are, de facto, liberals.
- Status