Which are the liberal diocese in the US?

[buffalo]

How many times have you heard “these are just man-made rules” over the last 40 years? Now they want to stick by the letter of the law. It’s just simply amazing!!! :banghead:

 

[fix]

buffalo:

How many times have you heard “these are just man-made rules” over the last 40 years? Now they want to stick by the letter of the law. It’s just simply amazing!!! :banghead:

Yep, and when some ask to be faithful to the rubrics they are called legalistic or Pharisees, yet when the Pope speaks they want to use the law as a cudgel to keep the innovations they have introduced as licit.

 

[fix]

In reply to a letter from Chicago Cardinal Francis George, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy, CDW prefect Cardinal Francis Arinze defended the modification. He wrote,

 "while a provision of the     complementary legislation, once granted *recognitio*, may     not simply be *revised* ...," it must be borne in mind that: (1) "an Instruction may develop the manner in which a law is to be put into effect (cf. can. 34 §1)..." and (2) "the effect of *[Redemptionis     Sacramentum](http://www.adoremus.org/RedemptionisSacramentum.html)*, nos. 105-106 was to render inoperative certain     elements contained in nos. 36-37 of the *Norms* ..." Therefore, "the Congregation has attempted to supply a formulation according to which the existing legislation could be implemented in the light of the new Instruction, *[Redemptionis     Sacramentum](http://www.adoremus.org/RedemptionisSacramentum.html)*, maintaining insofar as possible the evident intentions of the Bishops in a way which would conform to the general norm of the law." *BCL Newsletter*, September     2004, p. 38.]

If the USCCB Norms were rendered “inoperative” by RS and had to be modified to conform to the law, surely diocesan policies that permit the very same practices must also be changed.

The CDW’s actions are entirely in keeping with Canon 34: “[Instructions] are given for the use of those whose duty it is to see that laws are executed and oblige them in the execution of the laws”.

If diocesan policies conflict with the Instruction, they must be changed. And RS states that abuses cannot simply be designated “customs” and left in place:
… it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another. In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease. (RS §4, Emphasis added.)

What will it take to restore integrity to our celebrations of Mass? Liturgical abuses have been a source of much discord and division within the Church for many years. The problems cannot be fixed by the “skill of a canonist” – especially when this skill is used to “protect existing practices” or to deconstruct the Holy See’s disciplinary authority over the Liturgy.

Only the united efforts of shepherds who take seriously their obligation to see that laws are executed and to root out abuses can restore the sacred Liturgy to what the Council envisioned: “a foretaste of that heavenly Liturgy celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem”.

Adoremus

 

[buffalo]

fix:

Yep, and when some ask to be faithful to the rubrics they are called legalistic or Pharisees, yet when the Pope speaks they want to use the law as a cudgel to keep the innovations they have introduced as licit.

To me this is disobedience. A broken vow.

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Please see:

adoremus.org/0904LiturgicalReform.html

See also this rebuttal by canon lawyer Pete Vere:

In this piece, Dr. Huels assesses the canonical weight canonists and liturgists ought to give RS. He basically concludes, as would most canonists and liturgists, that RS is an act of executive power originating from the CDWDS and therefore, it takes precedence over other jurisprudence that has executive or no canonical weight, but not liturgical law which enjoys legislative weight.

This is a fair and accurate conclusion, in my opinion, but one which Benofy either misunderstands, or deliberately distorts into the following strawman. For reasons of Christian charity, I will simply assume the former:

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

See also this rebuttal by canon lawyer Pete Vere:

I read it and I read some of the comments on that site in response to it and my views are along these lines:

Pete,

Where did you ever get the idea that Redmptionis Sacramentum,…

The issue that Fr. Huels raises, which Ms. Benofy rightly objects to, is that he is asserting that local legislation issued by a bishop or diocesan or provincial liturgical commission could somehow trump the instructions in RS. This is totally different. It is one thing for the Holy See itself to grant exceptions from the general norm, another thing for a local bishop to exempt himself from the legislation of the Holy See.

 

[mosher]

Both are ver interesting positons to take I will have to think about them some more.

 

[timmyo]

It seems that a lot of formerly unorthodox dioceses are now moving in the orthodox direction (Milwaukee is a good example), but the unorthodox parishes have yet to be greatly affect in my experience. From what I’ve seen, the more liberal the area is, the more liberal the parishes are. In Chicago, where I live, the north side and north suburb parishes have big problems, with some exceptions, but the South Side is much more likely to be orthodox. The north side is more “cosmopolitan” and therefore, you get a lot of nutty stuff from people who are bent on changing things, regardless of what the Church thinks or teaches.

 

[mosher]

timmyo:

It seems that a lot of formerly unorthodox dioceses are now moving in the orthodox direction (Milwaukee is a good example), but the unorthodox parishes have yet to be greatly affect in my experience. From what I’ve seen, the more liberal the area is, the more liberal the parishes are. In Chicago, where I live, the north side and north suburb parishes have big problems, with some exceptions, but the South Side is much more likely to be orthodox. The north side is more “cosmopolitan” and therefore, you get a lot of nutty stuff from people who are bent on changing things, regardless of what the Church thinks or teaches.

As my friend Fr. Groeschel said one time addressing a group of seminarians: “You know what the Church is waiting for? Fine young men like you becoming priests - and funerals.”

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

The issue that Fr. Huels raises, which Ms. Benofy rightly objects to, is that he is asserting that local legislation issued by a bishop or diocesan or provincial liturgical commission could somehow trump the instructions in RS.

Yet this is exactly what canon law states:

Canon 34 §2 The regulations of an instruction do not derogate from the law, and if there are any which cannot be reconciled with the provisions of the law they have no force.

If Ms. Benofy has a problem with canon law, she should take it up with the Pope, not with the canon lawyers who correctly interpret it.

 

[Catholic29]

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 have to add the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN to this list, for the reason that the parish of St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis continues to defy the Church’s Magisterium on many key teachings with activities such as Gay Ministry and another being Eco-Spirituality :whacky:. If you hunted through their website more, I bet you could find other things which are at variance with Rome.:yup:

 

[muledog]

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.

As I stated before, and will do again, the particular law in the United States regarding the pouring of the Sacred Blood after the Consecration is covered in the USCCB document, *Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Diocese of the United States of America. *This document, and its revisions after R.S. was issued, was approved by the USCCB as particular law in the United States.

In this document, para. 36 states (in part):

If one chalice is not sufficient for Holy Communion to be distributed under both kinds to the priest concelebarnts or Christ’s faithful, several chalices are placed on a corporal on the altar in an appropriate place, filled with wine.

Further, the GIRM (para. 283) states (in part):

In all that pertains to Communion under both kinds, the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America are to be followed.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, along with specific changes, was also approved by the USCCB as well.

I don’t see how any honest-thinking person could argue about the pouring of the Sacred Blood after the Consecration. It all seems painfully clear to me.

 

[mosher]

muledog:

As I stated before, and will do again, the particular law in the United States regarding the pouring of the Sacred Blood after the Consecration is covered in the USCCB document, *Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Diocese of the United States of America. *This document, and its revisions after R.S. was issued, was approved by the USCCB as particular law in the United States.

In this document, para. 36 states (in part):

Further, the GIRM (para. 283) states (in part):

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, along with specific changes, was also approved by the USCCB as well.

I don’t see how any honest-thinking person could argue about the pouring of the Sacred Blood after the Consecration. It all seems painfully clear to me.

I am unaware that the Holy See actually recognized all provisions as particular law after RS. Of course the USCCB voted to send it to Rome for approval as such, however, if as you stated was true then the Dubium sent to the CDW would not have come back against the position of Cardinal Mahoney.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Yet this is exactly what canon law states:

If Ms. Benofy has a problem with canon law, she should take it up with the Pope, not with the canon lawyers who correctly interpret it.

In reply to a letter from Chicago Cardinal Francis George, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy, CDW prefect Cardinal Francis Arinze defended the modification. He wrote,

 "while a provision of the     complementary legislation, once granted *recognitio*, may     not simply be *revised* ...," it must be borne in mind that: (1) "an Instruction may develop the manner in which a law is to be put into effect (cf. can. 34 §1)..." and (2) "the effect of *[Redemptionis     Sacramentum](http://www.adoremus.org/RedemptionisSacramentum.html)*, nos. 105-106 was to render inoperative certain     elements contained in nos. 36-37 of the *Norms* ..." Therefore, "the Congregation has attempted to supply a formulation according to which the existing legislation could be implemented in the light of the new Instruction, *[Redemptionis     Sacramentum](http://www.adoremus.org/RedemptionisSacramentum.html)*, maintaining insofar as possible the evident intentions of the Bishops in a way which would conform to the general norm of the law." *BCL Newsletter*, September     2004, p. 38.]

If the USCCB Norms were rendered “inoperative” by RS and had to be modified to conform to the law, surely diocesan policies that permit the very same practices must also be changed.

The CDW’s actions are entirely in keeping with Canon 34: “[Instructions] are given for the use of those whose duty it is to see that laws are executed and oblige them in the execution of the laws”.

If diocesan policies conflict with the Instruction, they must be changed. And RS states that abuses cannot simply be designated “customs” and left in place:
… it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another. In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease. (RS §4, Emphasis added.)

 

[msproule]

I thought this side bar discussion was ending but since it is still going…

The Vatican-approved “Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America” referenced in the preceeding post “provides” for pouring the Precious Blood during the Agnus Dei the same way the GIRM “provides” for the holding of hands during the Pater Noster and other innovations.

In other words, there is no explicit statement that indicates that “…during the Agnus Dei, one may distribute the Most Precious Blood into multiple chalices…”

Therefore, to say that the Holy See recognizes this practice because it approved local norms that do not forbid it seems manipulative, at best. There are logical and practical reasons to avoid pouring the Precious Blood. Why would any right-thinking person want to take on that risk?

Furthermore, it is clearly seen in the linked document that the approval for these norms was granted not by the Holy Father directly but by the prefect for the CDWDS:"…by virtue of the faculties granted to this Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II…"

The Congregation giveth, and the Congregation taketh away.

…and I am certain there are many Canon Lawyers who agree.

 

[InnocentIII]

Deacon Ed:

Anytime we take the good name of another that is detraction. And, yes, people have posted here their opinions as if they were fact and have, thereby, damaged the good name of a number of bishops. Yes, they have factually reported events – but then have interpreted the reason for the bishop’s action (usually guessing since they don’t have first-hand knowledge) and determined, based upon their imagination, that the bishop is not orthodox. And it is that to which I most strenuously object.

Yes, I know heresy when I hear it. I know what is permitted in liturgical praxis. But I will not permit an abuse in liturgy or what appears on the surface to be heresy to lead me to consider slandering an individual.

Deacon Ed

By their fruit shall you know them

 

[BillyT92679]

I live in the Diocese of Rochester, so it’s self-explanatory.

I just go to Our Lady of Victory, the Indult Mass at St. Stanislaus, and Divine Liturgy at St. Josaphat’s so I don’t really see a lot of the liturgical abuse that much anymore.

 

[mosher]

InnocentIII:

By their fruit shall you know them

That is what St. Robert Cardinal Bellermine said. Because it is impossible to judge internal disposition directly it must be discerned through the actions surrounding the person acting.

 

[fix]

BillyT92679:

I live in the Diocese of Rochester, so it’s self-explanatory.

I just go to Our Lady of Victory, the Indult Mass at St. Stanislaus, and Divine Liturgy at St. Josaphat’s so I don’t really see a lot of the liturgical abuse that much anymore.

Fr. A at Our Lady of Victory is the best.

 

[NetNuncio]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

I’m going to have to disagree with the first diocese on your list. Your location says you’re in NM…have you been to Portland before and attended Mass here? Do you know Archbishop Vlazny? I don’t think of him or Portland as being a liberal diocese.

In Christ,
Rand

Archbishop Vlazny is an interesting man. During the 2004 election, he wrote an article in the Archdiocesan newspaper (Catholic Sentinel) declaring those voting for Pro-Abortion candidates should not present themselves for communion. He has been vocal against gay marriage actions in Portland as well as Oregon’s Assisted Suicide law. So doctrinally, I find him to be very orthodox. Liturgically, he personally says Mass quite well and by the GIRM. However, he has priests in his Archdiocese that he doesn’t punish who do NOT say Mass well and who preach boarderline-heretical theology. He also has members on his staff that can be fairly hostile to those who prefer a more traditional worship.

It may be that Archbishop Vlazy is a reasonably orthodox prelate who is extremely occupied with other things (i.e., the bankruptcy of his archdiocese and mouting sexual abuse claims).

Adam