M
mosher
Guest
lol
Only if you discount all the horrible gramatical and spelling/typing errors.
- Status
Only if you discount all the horrible gramatical and spelling/typing errors.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
“If anyone shall say that a grown adult in a black leotard has any relevance in the proper worship of God in His Church, or indeed in any public forum where people are not completely intoxicated, or further, even in private, with the shades pulled down and no one watching, ANATHEMA SIT!” In an gesture to good will, we could get the Moslems to issue a simultaneous fatwa. I bet we could get the Jews on board, too. Ecumenically, most fundamentalist protestants that I’m am personally aquainted with will not only go along with it, we’ll probably have to restrain them from putting on orange vests and actually going out to hunt the mimes (“Yup, that there’s watcha call a mime. Got’em in one shot while he was doing that invisible box routine! Hung 'em up there next to the mule deer. Nice trophy, but they’s powerful tough and stringy.”)
Mimes! (Shudder) Mimes are a bad idea all around. I propose the following:
“If anyone shall say that a grown adult in a black leotard has any relevance in the proper worship of God in His Church, or indeed in any public forum where people are not completely intoxicated, or further, even in private, with the shades pulled down and no one watching, ANATHEMA SIT!” In an gesture to good will, we could get the Moslems to issue a simultaneous fatwa. I bet we could get the Jews on board, too. Ecumenically, most fundamentalist protestants that I’m am personally aquainted with will not only go along with it, we’ll probably have to restrain them from putting on orange vests and actually going out to hunt the mimes (“Yup, that there’s watcha call a mime. Got’em in one shot while he was doing that invisible box routine! Hung 'em up there next to the mule deer. Nice trophy, but they’s powerful tough and stringy.”)
M
mosher
Guest
This I find a very troubling dicotomy. On one hand the documents of the Second Vatican Council call the liety to a more active participation in all things in the Church (without prejudice to those things reserved to clerics) but then when that happens the clergy does not care for it or discounts it or says “What we should be striving for is being happily catholic” which I have heard in too many homilies. Rather, we should be dissatisfied because of our lack of perfection and we should be in quest to seek that perfection as it brings us closer to the Divine. Spiritual satisfaction is the first indicator of spiritual sloth and this principle extends to all matters surrounding the faith as they all relate to our spiritual growth and sustinance.
So, on the one hand we are told to speak and on the other we are told not to speak … I will take the level of certitude found in Council Documents any day.
G
GloriaPatri4
Guest
AND
THE DIOCESE OF ORANGE (California)
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Absolutely – and I stated that this was the case. Question all you want. Questioning is not the same as judging, however.
Absolutely! I could not agree with you more. Yet, the bishop is a successor to the apostles. We can question the wisdom of his actions, we can question his teachings, we can question the way he runs his diocese. We can even petition Rome for relief or, at the very least, to look into the situation. Those are all within the mandate of the laity (and the clergy).
While it is true that a diocese is a juridic person, it cannot be judged because the diocese is the local Church and that would be to judge the Church herself.
In terms of labels, I am generall opposed to using them. I know several bishops who would be catagorized as liberal in the political sense (espcailly in areas of social justice) but who are quote conservative in terms of theology. Liturgy does not, IMNSHO, fall into the category of something that is “liberal” or “conservative.” Liturgy is the “work of the people” through the action of Christ acting in and through the priest who leads the community. That action can never be “liberal” except in the sense of the graces that God liberally dispenses to us through the Liturgy. What people do to the liturgy may be abhorent, may be a matter of bad taste, may even be abusive. But as long as the Liturgy is valid then Christ is acting.
Deacon Ed
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Actually, the goal of one of the precepts of the Church is that the laity (and the clergy) will continue to be educated in the faith. The problem is that unless the individual knows how the Church herself understands part of her documents the person complaining may be wrong!
Here’s a simple example. Canon 917 says “One who has received the blessed Eucharist may receive it again on the same day only within a eucharistic celebration in which that person participates, without prejudice to the provision of canon 921.2”
Suppose, for example, a person attends three Masses on a Sunday morning because that person is speaking after Mass on some subject of interest to the parish. It would appear from a “common sense” reading of canon 917 that this person could receive communion at all three Masses. Yet, in fact, that is not the case. The “authentic interpretation” of this canon specifies that the person may receive communion twice on the same day (the sole exception that that spelled out in canon 921.2 which deals with receiving communion when “in danger of death.”
Unless one actually takes the time to not only read the documents, but to read how the Church interprets the documents one does not have a complete education on whatever subject is being addressed.
Does that help clarify where I am coming from?
Deacon Ed
M
mosher
Guest
Deacon Ed:
If intellect preceedes will then is it not necessary to make a judgment based upon information received by the intellect. To, judge is not necessarily to condemn ad infernum. However, to judge is to make sound decisions based upon all avaliable data so that a properly formulated question can be asked. Thus, to judge something one way or the other is proper and just. The biblical reference about not judging is more properly stated as not relegating a person to hell as one cannot see the internal workings of the human heart by observation alone. However, St. Robert Bellermine states that because it is impossible to judge based upon the human heart it is necessary to to judge a person based upon actions which are an observable phenomenon. Now, with that in mind it is proper to judge a Diocese for the cited reason. Further, to claim that a Diocese is above reproach because it would reflect directly upon the state of the Universal Church is not sound reasoning because if this were so then the juridical authority of Rome to place an interdict on a geographic location would be invalid as it would be making a statement about itself. One cannot go from particluar to universal but only from universal to particular.
Deacon Ed:
Deacon Ed:
Perhaps here we find the point of departure. However, it may just be a language issue. I think this is something that should be fleshed out or else the conversation has no meaning.
If intellect preceedes will then is it not necessary to make a judgment based upon information received by the intellect. To, judge is not necessarily to condemn ad infernum. However, to judge is to make sound decisions based upon all avaliable data so that a properly formulated question can be asked. Thus, to judge something one way or the other is proper and just. The biblical reference about not judging is more properly stated as not relegating a person to hell as one cannot see the internal workings of the human heart by observation alone. However, St. Robert Bellermine states that because it is impossible to judge based upon the human heart it is necessary to to judge a person based upon actions which are an observable phenomenon. Now, with that in mind it is proper to judge a Diocese for the cited reason. Further, to claim that a Diocese is above reproach because it would reflect directly upon the state of the Universal Church is not sound reasoning because if this were so then the juridical authority of Rome to place an interdict on a geographic location would be invalid as it would be making a statement about itself. One cannot go from particluar to universal but only from universal to particular.
Deacon Ed:
I agree that at times it is difficult to use terms to lable somethig one way or the other because of, again, a language problem. However, it is the best thing we have to categorize. If we cannot categorize then we cannot have any sense of Orthodoxy and our ability to reason becomes void of substance.
Deacon Ed:
While it is true that the definition of “Leturgion” is as you say “The work of the People” it is also true to say that propositions that lead to liturgical abuse can be heterodox to the left or the right and for this reason it is possible to use the state of the liturgical formula used in a particular parish or directed by a particular Diocese to point to the disposition of the individual or individuals directing the liturgical formula. Questions of validity not withstanding.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Ok Deacon Ed,
You’ve done a very good job presenting your position and I agree with all of them…they are sound and reasonable.
But it seems you’ve taken the original poster’s question:
Which are the liberal diocese in the U.S.?
to require anyone answering the question to actually ‘judge’ the diocese.
I get that none of us is in the position to do so.
And I get that the term liberal should not have been used to address the concern.
But the poster is asking those of us here, which diocese, based on our personal observations and literature we’ve read, have a tendency toward unorthodox practices/teachings.
We can comment on what we see, read and hear, without actually casting judgement on the diocese entirely. Without judging the diocese one could certainly name Diocese A among the list of the OPs concern based on information which indicates more parishes than not, in that dioceses, present obvious rifts with the Pope and Vatican policies, and that when the bishop was approached about such practices the response was that he fully supports said practices.
You’ve done a very good job presenting your position and I agree with all of them…they are sound and reasonable.
But it seems you’ve taken the original poster’s question:
Which are the liberal diocese in the U.S.?
to require anyone answering the question to actually ‘judge’ the diocese.
I get that none of us is in the position to do so.
And I get that the term liberal should not have been used to address the concern.
But the poster is asking those of us here, which diocese, based on our personal observations and literature we’ve read, have a tendency toward unorthodox practices/teachings.
We can comment on what we see, read and hear, without actually casting judgement on the diocese entirely. Without judging the diocese one could certainly name Diocese A among the list of the OPs concern based on information which indicates more parishes than not, in that dioceses, present obvious rifts with the Pope and Vatican policies, and that when the bishop was approached about such practices the response was that he fully supports said practices.
H
hilde_the_dog
Guest
The above had me laughing. Thank you.
I must say this I don’t know what protestant church has the stations of the cross. Historically I would agree that they would have HATED it. But now in the heartland of the US its changing. I refuse to go to my sister’s (who I love) non-denominational church. It high tech with colored lighting, super sound, things projected on the wall, people dancing I’m sure. Even my parents church (Dutch Calvinist) has slid noticiably. I swallow my distaste at the whole thing. I have carefully stated my opposition. At least I’m at home know.
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
I think I understand what you are saying, but I would approch it from the opposite perspective. The “diocese” is not an actor and, therefore, is not capable of being judged. The actions of those who lead the diocese or who function on behalf of the diocese may, indeed, be judged and I believe it is this to which you are referring. Further, the judgement must, from an individual’s perspective, always be in terms of whether or not one is led toward or away from the Lord. This is where I believe valid criticism and judgement may be leveled, and it is this to which the Fathers of the Church seem to aim when discussion the role that each of us, whether cleric or lay, have.
This is, in fact, why Pope John Paul II permitted those who were nourished by the Tridentine Mass to have access to it, with the permission of the local ordinary. This is why I do listen when people complain about music, about art and environment, about lighting or homiletic content.
If we, the clergy, are not leading people to God then we are not doing what God called us to do. Period. That should be something that leads to questioning. At the same time, one should also recognize that personal taste is not, in and of itself, significant. It it were we would have a congregational church where each community, each church, was governed by like-minded folk with little variation within a given community.
That is not what the Catholic Church is all about. At the same time, the Church does have a broad spectrum of acceptable liturgical praxis, of theological expression, of personal devotion. That I, personally, find the rosary unrewarding but find great strength in praying the Jesus Prayer on my prayer rope is no reason for me to condemn the rosary (or for one attached to the rosary to condemn my practice). Yet, as the recipient of numerous complaints over the years, I find that the vast majority are about personal preference or taste. It’s more about style than substance.
…to be continued…
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
…continued from last post…
Does that mean I should ignore them? During the Liturgy, yes. After the Liturgy if I feel it is significant I may speak to the presider or, if needed, to the bishop. I never expect anything to come of it (perhaps my own scepticism is showing here).
Perhaps this is also tempered by a serious study of Church history. Paul complained about poor liturgical praxis, St. John Chrysostom complained about it (and a bunch of other, fairly modern problems). There is nothing new under the sun. All things will be corrected in time, and will reappear still later.
In the meantime, I do what I can to make sure that the portion of the vineyard in which I labor is as good as I can make it, as free of weeds and bugs. Others plant, I water and weed, someone else will harvest.
Deacon Ed
But is it always necessary to categorize everything? Is not the secret of our journey of faith to experience, to grow, to learn, and to accept? Is theosis/divinization so compartmentalized that everything fits neatly into a category? Do we always have round hole for round pegs and square holes for square pegs? Is not part of the journey to discover where those pegs might go? To find that even that odd-shaped peg has a reason for existing?
Of course abuse can exist, heresy to be really good must be 90% true! The best lie is 50% truth. The Liturgy is by God, for God through man. Over the last 50 years I’ve attended Mass and Divine Liturgies in literallly hundreds of churches and in many different countries. Some have been moving in their perfection, others have been amateur hour (at best). Because I am a liturgist I see even the tiniest of mistakes. If I let them take my mind off the Liturgy then I don’t pray. If, however, I focus on the action of God then those mistakes/abuses/whatever do not get in the way of heaven and earth meeting.
Does that mean I should ignore them? During the Liturgy, yes. After the Liturgy if I feel it is significant I may speak to the presider or, if needed, to the bishop. I never expect anything to come of it (perhaps my own scepticism is showing here).
Perhaps this is also tempered by a serious study of Church history. Paul complained about poor liturgical praxis, St. John Chrysostom complained about it (and a bunch of other, fairly modern problems). There is nothing new under the sun. All things will be corrected in time, and will reappear still later.
In the meantime, I do what I can to make sure that the portion of the vineyard in which I labor is as good as I can make it, as free of weeds and bugs. Others plant, I water and weed, someone else will harvest.
Deacon Ed
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Ah, but again the issue, as I see it, is not whether or not the diocese does this, but that the indiviuals within the diocese do this. And, is that judgement based upon sound, objective criteria or is it based upon personal preference?
Therein lies the problem.
Let me give you two examples. Posters here seem to lump Milwaukee among the “liberal” dioceses. There are two parishes within a few miles of each other. One is, frankly, a disgrace to the name Catholic as it represents as Catholic teaching many things which are, in fact, condemned. The other is a very orthodox parish with good, sound teaching, good liturgical praxis, and orthodox priests.
Another poster here lumps my own diocese, Orange in California, among the liberal dioceses because the parish he attends is no longer permitted to offer the Tridentine Mass. Yet within this diocese the bishop is very clear on the need to have sound Catholic doctrine taught, for his clergy to be constantly getting education, for his liturgies to be in conformance with all liturgical laws (even though we currently ignore parts of RS because the directions conflict with particular law for the US).
Deacon Ed
B
Brendan
Guest
I would have to say that the list is somewhat out of date. Several of these (Saginaw and Dallas in particular) have new bishops that are doing great work.
F
fix
Guest
Deacon Ed:
I would make two points.
- We are not always discussing a fine point of canon law. We often discuss issues that are easily discerned from the relevant Church documents that many read.
- Even the finer points of canon law lend themselves to understanding by the great majority today through access to experts and their writings online.
B
Brendan
Guest
Deacon Ed:
There is nothing in the RS directions that actually conflict with particular law in the US. They would be in conflict only if there was no reasonable solution that would not violate one or the other.
There is no particular law in the US that requires the use of flagons, for example. A Mass could be licitily and validily offered, even to large groups of the faithful, without the use of flagons, while still providing the full depth of Sacramental Grace, correct?
So it is quite possible to comply with both US particular law AND RS. Most other diocese in the US are doing so quite effectively.
Deacon Ed,
There is nothing in the RS directions that actually conflict with particular law in the US. They would be in conflict only if there was no reasonable solution that would not violate one or the other.
There is no particular law in the US that requires the use of flagons, for example. A Mass could be licitily and validily offered, even to large groups of the faithful, without the use of flagons, while still providing the full depth of Sacramental Grace, correct?
So it is quite possible to comply with both US particular law AND RS. Most other diocese in the US are doing so quite effectively.
M
mosher
Guest
Deacon Ed:
I had a feeling it was a language issue … we are in agreement here. By stating Diocese myself and other perhaps are refering to those who govern and the various offices.
M
mosher
Guest
Deacon Ed:
Deacon Ed:
Yes, as is the strong tradition of the West which exemplifies itself in our systematic theology. Percision has never led to poor faith.
Deacon Ed:
Again we find agreement however I do not ever use the argument that because there has been liturgical abuse in the past then it is a consequent for the present and the future. It is like arguing that there has always been vice so it is not worse today which is false. I too am very sensative to very minor errors due to my liturgical training however I think that it is a difference in approach. My frustration stems from inconsistancy with tradition and obscuring of the didactic nature of the liturgical formula. Minor violations while frustrating don’t bother me but minor violations that effect those two issues can at times destroy my internal disposition and so I have a sensativity to those who suffer thus. Also, my legalistic mind is also very concerned with the rights of the faithful and in particular the right to a liturgically proper liturgy. This relates to the topic because of the fact that abuse (not mistakes) in the liturgy speak to errors in thought which are errors in doctrine which can point to heterodoxy.
M
mosher
Guest
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.
B
buffalo
Guest
Uhhh! What part of “reprobate before they can attain the force of custom” don’t they understand?
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Deacon Ed:
People responded with their lists.
Naturally, from that list further research has to be done to determine the validity of the charge…
but, at the very least it gives the person a starting point from which to do his own research and determine for himself whether or not that community is one he’d want to be a part of.
Let’s not split hairs. We’re talking about obvious abuses, not nuances.
If I were to ever move again, I’d add a Diocesan search to the top of my list…Church was always first, then schools, and then medical facilities. But I hadn’t considered researching the diocese, I was only looking at the parish level. Now that I know that priests get rotated out every 5 years, Diocesan research is more important. I would look to the website first, then visit various parishes at different times, and speak to the parishioners as well as laity.
As for whether or not it’s fair to judge the diocese by the people who operate it, I’d say yes. The bishops are appointed and charged with the responsibility to manage the diocese properly. If that one bishop and/or his administrative staff issue correspondence which goes against the Vatican teachings (particularly with regard to obvious matters, such as those we’ve listed here - she/he, positions on life, ‘communal’ consecrations, etc.) then YES the diocese can be determined to be in ‘improper hands’.
No, we can determine the diocesan position based on a few of the parishioners under it’s jurisdiction, but when valid complaints are issued and not supported, then yes we can. And, no, we’re not talking about those issues you raised which are indeed within the priests/bishops discretion to allow or not.
Again, I refer to the Tibbar thread. When you have a priest who directs his parish staff in the manner this one did, and if letters to the bishop come back with his support then, yeah, it’s safe to put that diocese on the list - regardless of whether or not there happen to be good parishes left in the diocese, hanging on. The leadership of the diocese is flawed.
Look, the poster asked.
People responded with their lists.
Naturally, from that list further research has to be done to determine the validity of the charge…
but, at the very least it gives the person a starting point from which to do his own research and determine for himself whether or not that community is one he’d want to be a part of.
Let’s not split hairs. We’re talking about obvious abuses, not nuances.
If I were to ever move again, I’d add a Diocesan search to the top of my list…Church was always first, then schools, and then medical facilities. But I hadn’t considered researching the diocese, I was only looking at the parish level. Now that I know that priests get rotated out every 5 years, Diocesan research is more important. I would look to the website first, then visit various parishes at different times, and speak to the parishioners as well as laity.
As for whether or not it’s fair to judge the diocese by the people who operate it, I’d say yes. The bishops are appointed and charged with the responsibility to manage the diocese properly. If that one bishop and/or his administrative staff issue correspondence which goes against the Vatican teachings (particularly with regard to obvious matters, such as those we’ve listed here - she/he, positions on life, ‘communal’ consecrations, etc.) then YES the diocese can be determined to be in ‘improper hands’.
No, we can determine the diocesan position based on a few of the parishioners under it’s jurisdiction, but when valid complaints are issued and not supported, then yes we can. And, no, we’re not talking about those issues you raised which are indeed within the priests/bishops discretion to allow or not.
Again, I refer to the Tibbar thread. When you have a priest who directs his parish staff in the manner this one did, and if letters to the bishop come back with his support then, yeah, it’s safe to put that diocese on the list - regardless of whether or not there happen to be good parishes left in the diocese, hanging on. The leadership of the diocese is flawed.
- Status