Which are the liberal diocese in the US?

[Deacon_Ed]

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.

Yes, the permission was granted by Rome and made particular law in the United States.

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

Yes, they did. The problem is that the CDW is not able to grant an authentic interpretation because they do not have the authority to do so. They can only reply with the same level of authority as the original release of RS. Interestingly, in the reply from the CDW they acknowledge that they had given permission for the pouring of the Precious Blood but were now rescinding that permission. Again, it is no longer an issue of “permission” but of particular law, and that falls into the area of papal competence. Only the pope or one he delegates can respond to the request for an “authentic interpretation.” Pope John Paul II never replied, nor did he grant authority to anyone to reply. I presume that Pope Benedict XVI will reply personally since Liturgy is one of his deep passions.

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.

The question was submitted to the papal office by the USCCB. That is the issue that is outstanding at this time.

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?

I agree, that seems foolish.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

buffalo:

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.

I can only speak to the United States where the particular law was adopted. As for the bishops continuing – that is their right under the law.

Deacon Ed

 

[Brendan]

Deacon Ed:

Yes, the permission was granted by Rome and made particular law in the United States.

Deacon Ed

But was it granted as as indult (an action performed by the CDW) and then achieved force of law as a 30 year custom?

Or was it granted permission as particular law?

There would seem to be a large difference there. If it was an indult granted by the CDW, then it would seem the CDW has the inherent authority to revoke it.

 

[cecelia]

Deacon Ed:

My intent was never to “squash” anything. But to suggest that it is right for the laity to question without them asserting that something is an abuse or a violation. Most of the posts that I’ve seen here and elsewhere asserting a liturgical abuse were, in fact, legitimate options exercised by the priest that were not what the individual liked. That is, an abuse was defined as something other than the poster’s preference.

Certainly there are abuses and the laity not only have the right to question such practices, but to bring their concerns to the appropriate authorities.

At the same time, to judge a diocese (which is what this thread is about) is not within the competence of anyone except the bishop who heads it and the pope. One may question, one may even object to practices which seem (or are) to be heterodox, but one may not claim that a diocese is “liberal” (that’s a political term which really has no equivalent in theological terms).

Deacon Ed

I don’t like the political terms either, and I’ve always been an advocate of not appropriating political terms for theological discussions, dialogues, arguements, etc. So will use the appropriate terms, “heterodox” or “orthodox.”

Now some people may have not known all of the ins and outs of the GIRM or some other liturgical document or papal encyclical,however, that does not mean that a person can’t question. And what I think that you’re trying to put forward is a distinction without a difference. If there is widespread about within the diocese and the bishop has been made aware of it and does nothing, then one can infer that the diocese is heterodox; not all of the people in it, but the diocesan direction. And since the bishop is the head of the diocese, then he must take responsibility for the tenor of the diocese. If a person hears that the parishes within a certain diocese are flouting liturgical norms with impunity, then it’s not right for that person to infer that that diocese is heterodox? To change that inference then, the bishop needs to align that parish to Church teachings pronto. If he doesn’t then what is one to conclude about him and about the diocese that he heads? That’s he and his parish are heterodox.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Brendan:

But was it granted as as indult (an action performed by the CDW) and then achieved force of law as a 30 year custom?

No, in this case the bishops implemented it as particular law shortly after permission was received. They then sent the law to Rome for approval which was granted about a year later.

There would seem to be a large difference there. If it was an indult granted by the CDW, then it would seem the CDW has the inherent authority to revoke it.

They would it it remained only custom. Once it became particular law the CDW lost direct authority over it because particular law (like canon law) is issued under the authority of the pope, not under the authority of a dicastery.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

cecelia:

I don’t like the political terms either, and I’ve always been an advocate of not appropriating political terms for theological discussions, dialogues, arguements, etc. So will use the appropriate terms, “heterodox” or “orthodox.”

These are much better terms.

Now some people may have not known all of the ins and outs of the GIRM or some other liturgical document or papal encyclical,however, that does not mean that a person can’t question.

And, again, I have no problem with people questioning, asking if something is legitimate or not.

Where I have a problem is when someone begins with an assertion that so-and-so or such-and-such diocese is heterodox (or heretical or liberal) becuase they did X. Unless one is conversant with all the options, understands the interaction of many different documents, one cannot make the assertion.

And what I think that you’re trying to put forward is a distinction without a difference. If there is widespread about within the diocese and the bishop has been made aware of it and does nothing, then one can infer that the diocese is heterodox; not all of the people in it, but the diocesan direction. And since the bishop is the head of the diocese, then he must take responsibility for the tenor of the diocese. If a person hears that the parishes within a certain diocese are flouting liturgical norms with impunity, then it’s not right for that person to infer that that diocese is heterodox? To change that inference then, the bishop needs to align that parish to Church teachings pronto. If he doesn’t then what is one to conclude about him and about the diocese that he heads? That’s he and his parish are heterodox.

And such a conclusion might not be valid. In these days with fewer and fewer priests a bishop might leave a priest in place on the grounds that the celebration of the sacraments is so important that other things can be overlooked, or at least corrected “later.” While this is certainly not a good situation, I believe from my own travels and discussions with different clergy that it is a real situation. Of course, it could also be that the bishop is simply an inept administrator (there have been many of those) and doesn’t deal well with conflict so he allows bad situations to continue. WE have to be careful in making assertions when we don’t have enought first-hand evidence to support that. Otherwise we fall into the sin of taking away another person’s good name. I don’t believe that this is a “distinction with a difference.”

Deacon Ed

 

[cecelia]

We’re not talking about the sin of detraction. We’re talking about whether of not one can deem a parish orthodox or hetordox. Yes one can. Inept bishops? We’ll pray for them, but does that mitigate the characterization of their diocese? No it does not. No one is trying to beat the bishops over the head with a hammer, nor is anyone trying to quibble over arcane theological points. But what we do say is that allowing parishes to dance to the edge of ligurgical abuse or actually engage in it is going to bring forth the charge of diocesan heterodoxy. The laity can discern. If it walks like a duck and quakes like a duck…we don’t need the pope to tell us what a duck looks like. I live in a diocese that is selectively orthodox, and I don’t have to wait for the pope to tell me that. I can see it clearly each time…and so can many others

 

[Deacon_Ed]

cecelia:

We’re not talking about the sin of detraction. We’re talking about whether of not one can deem a parish orthodox or hetordox. Yes one can. Inept bishops? We’ll pray for them, but does that mitigate the characterization of their diocese? No it does not. No one is trying to beat the bishops over the head with a hammer, nor is anyone trying to quibble over arcane theological points. But what we do say is that allowing parishes to dance to the edge of ligurgical abuse or actually engage in it is going to bring forth the charge of diocesan heterodoxy. The laity can discern. If it walks like a duck and quakes like a duck…we don’t need the pope to tell us what a duck looks like. I live in a diocese that is selectively orthodox, and I don’t have to wait for the pope to tell me that. I can see it clearly each time…and so can many others

Well, then, good for you. I hold a doctorate in theology and can’t make that call. I’ve been ordained for over 10 years and can’t make that call. I have studied both Eastern and Western theology and liturgy and can’t make that call. Oh, sure, I know when something is amiss, but to call the entire diocese orthodox or heterodox would require that I visit every priest, every deacon, every parish, every bishop and see that nothing is orthodox.

Also, I would have to be sure that what I was calling heterodox was not simply an acceptable, but not often expressed, Catholic teaching. Gosh, too much for me but if you feel you are qualified to do so more power to you.

And since there are many here who have called bishops heterodox we are dealing with the sin of detraction.

Deacon Ed

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Fast_ed75:

Dioceses known for a flourishing amount of heterodoxy: (not all inclusive)

Albany, NY
Rochester, NY
Saginaw, MI
Los Angeles, CA
San Francisco, CA
Santa Fe, NM
Rockville Centre, NY
Belleville, IL
St. Cloud, MN
St. Petersburg, FL
Louisville, KY
Cleveland, OH
Cincinnati, OH
Chicago, IL
Dallas, TX
Altoona, PA
Erie, PA
Honolulu, HI
Raleigh, NC
Richmond, VA
Joliet, IL
Seattle, WA

I will concede that Joliet has more than its fair share of liturgical abuses and heterodoxy. Yet, there is St. Mary Nativity Joliet, Holy Cross Joliet, St. Mary Magalene Joliet, Holy Family Shorewood, St. Mary Plainfield, St. Mary Mokena and Our Lady of Mercy Aurora, to name a few very orthodox parishes with very orthodox priests, perpetual adoration within guidelines, TLM Masses at a variety of parishes, etc.

Chicago has problems because it is a big city, period. Cardinal George is doing the very best he can. What do you want him to do, sweep down as if he was an inquisitor?

You will have to explain to me why you consider Belleville heterodox.

And don’t even try to tell me Peoria and Rockford are heterodox!!!

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

mosher:

Portland, Santa Fe, Gallup, San Antoinio, Las Cruses … actually I think it would be easier to say who is not liberal dioceses as there would be a smaller number cited.

As far as Milwaukee is concerned it all determines how far it has come since the retirement of Bishop Weakland. However, while he was the Bishop I would have placed it in the extremely liberal category.

If you are applying “liberal” to the number of politically liberal people in these dioceses, I can understand that. However, despite any left-leanings in politics, as a person who has lived there on and off and has close friends and family there, I have always been able to find an “orthodox” (within GRIM) Mass in San Antonio. So, if you can elaborate, I’d certainly appreciate it.

 

[mosher]

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

That is interesting … I will be looking for the answer to the question being asked.

 

[Catholic2003]

Brendan:

There would seem to be a large difference there. If it was an indult granted by the CDW, then it would seem the CDW has the inherent authority to revoke it.

Here is a political analogy: If President Bush signs a bill into law, and then a year later changes his mind and decides that he doesn’t like the law anymore, he still doesn’t have the right to revoke the law.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

mosher:

No, that is Fr. John Deere, SJ who is a formal heretic and who is still allowed to minister in the Archdiocese.

Off-subject, but “John Deere”, as in the tractor, same name?

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

YinYangMom:

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.

That is SO…reasonable.

 

[mosher]

OutinChgoburbs:

Off-subject, but “John Deere”, as in the tractor, same name?

Yeah I know … he is insane.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

OutinChgoburbs:

If you are applying “liberal” to the number of politically liberal people in these dioceses, I can understand that. However, despite any left-leanings in politics, as a person who has lived there on and off and has close friends and family there, I have always been able to find an “orthodox” (within GRIM) Mass in San Antonio. So, if you can elaborate, I’d certainly appreciate it.

My bad. GIRM, not GRIM. GIRM is not GRIM.

 

[MaryAgnes]

Larry B:

I prefer to use the terms faithful and not faithful to those who are supposed to be following liturgical norms. Whether one follows liturgical norms or not comes down to either ignorance or disobedience.

---

Then, based upon what you have said … one can be faithful and ignorant. May I suggest another … faithful and pastoral. Afterall, the indult for the Latin Mass was a pastoral decision. :yup:

 

[msproule]

Deacon Ed:

No, in this case the bishops implemented it as particular law shortly after permission was received. They then sent the law to Rome for approval which was granted about a year later.

Who in Rome granted the approval? The wording used by Cardinal George seems to suggest that the original recognitio came from the Congregation and not the Pope himself. Some of this can be found on the USCCB website. What I cannot find, however, is evidence that this is truly particular law, as you assert. Somebody must have this proof. Do you know where it is, since you have obviously read it?

Once it became particular law the CDW lost direct authority over it because particular law (like canon law) is issued under the authority of the pope, not under the authority of a dicastery.

But according to this statement in the conclusion of RS, the Pope did approve the final document. He did not just mandate its preparation and walk away. Would Cardinal Arinze lie to us?This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

msproule:

Who in Rome granted the approval? The wording used by Cardinal George seems to suggest that the original recognitio came from the Congregation and not the Pope himself. Some of this can be found on the USCCB website. What I cannot find, however, is evidence that this is truly particular law, as you assert. Somebody must have this proof. Do you know where it is, since you have obviously read it?

We have two different issues here. The original permission for pouring the Precious Blood came from the CDW. The USCCB then took that permision and formulated it as particular law which was sent back to Rome and approved by the Holy Father. That law was then promulgated and became the law for the United States. I read it in *Origins *but cannot remember the date nor do I still have it around since I have limited storage space and don’t keep back issues.

But according to this statement in the conclusion of RS, the Pope did approve the final document. He did not just mandate its preparation and walk away. Would Cardinal Arinze lie to us?This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.

No, the pope did approve it. In the thread I cited earlier here it was noted that there are two forms of approval. Had the pope approved it in forma specifica there would be no question as that would have immediately made it a papal document with papal authority. Instead, he approved it in forma communi which gives it curial authority only. This latter approval simply grants the congregation the right to publish, but does not grant any papal authority to the instruction.

Deacon Ed

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

Deacon Ed:

Well, then, good for you. I hold a doctorate in theology and can’t make that call. I’ve been ordained for over 10 years and can’t make that call. I have studied both Eastern and Western theology and liturgy and can’t make that call. Oh, sure, I know when something is amiss, but to call the entire diocese orthodox or heterodox would require that I visit every priest, every deacon, every parish, every bishop and see that nothing is orthodox.

Also, I would have to be sure that what I was calling heterodox was not simply an acceptable, but not often expressed, Catholic teaching. Gosh, too much for me but if you feel you are qualified to do so more power to you.

And since there are many here who have called bishops heterodox we are dealing with the sin of detraction. Deacon Ed

It is interesting that you can’t “make that call” but can make the call that “we are dealing with the sin of detraction”

Detraction is the unjust damaging of another’s good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer.

Has someone posted here that which was not commonly known? That is the meaning of revelation. The action of the bishops are not hidden. They are well known. So I can’t see the sin of detraction. There may be other sins against charity being committed but here I would have to say I can’t make that call.