Liturgy Nope no liturgical abuses here, move right along by Jeffrey Miller August 5, 2005 written by Jeffrey Miller August 5, 2005 As L.A. Catholic says about this photo with Archbishop Levada and Cardinal Mahony. "It’s a good thing that there are no liturgical abuses in L.A." I just want to know where they got that chalice from? Being L.A. perhaps it is a leftover from the set of Barbarella or some SF epic. 68 comments 0 FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest Jeffrey Miller previous post Our watered-down Catholic Faith next post Good luck on the growth within you You may also like Two Mass-going experiences December 26, 2012 December 28, 2002 Swiss Miss-information February 15, 2005 Cardinal Daniel DiNardo November 24, 2007 Bl. Josepha Naval Girbes, Virgin (From the Carmelite... November 6, 2002 Giveth and taketh away April 23, 2006 Ignatius Pew Missal July 8, 2014 Cross? What Cross? July 29, 2007 In the inbox May 14, 2008 Rainbow Sash fine – kneeling proscribed April 12, 2006 68 comments john bedard December 31, 1969 - 7:00 pm When I see what they do all I can think is that these Priest haven’t given a homily on Contraception in years. It’s sick. John Reply Jack Dwyer August 5, 2005 - 9:51 pm I don’t know which appalls me more; the chalice, the “cruets” (remember when they were tiny vessels one could hold in each hand?), the amount of fluid obviously meant for Communion under both Species, the pectoral crosses OVER very ugly chasubles, or the laity behind also “concelebrating” with inappropriate hand-gestures… And is this Levada WITH Mahony?! Were I a Priest, I would not attend such a ceremony unless ordered; and no power on earth would get me to participate. Reply L August 5, 2005 - 11:00 pm Looks like everybody’s just saying the Our Father in the orans gesture… So this is the new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Reply Patrick August 5, 2005 - 11:12 pm Did Levada know it was going to be glass before they started the Mass. He couldn’t just stop the Mass half way through. Don’t get me wrong, liturgical abuses make me wanna puke too. But, is it possible he had no idea this was going to happen. What bishop sets out the chalices before Mass, especially when not in his own diocese? Let’s give him some credit before we completely eviscerate him. Reply WHMc August 6, 2005 - 2:33 am You folks have got to have more important things to concern yourselves with than whether or not glass is used for liturgical celebrations. The Church certainly does. Orrefers, Laleque, Waterford, Bacarrat are all more worthy and dignified material than the cheap metal vessels that are available through most religious goods stores. Get over yourselves and move on. Reply Angela August 6, 2005 - 3:20 am So why did the Church forbide the use of crystal and glass? Because it breaks. And those “cheap metal vessels” are plated interiorly of gold. Redemptionis Sacramentum RS 117 Only “truly noble” materials may be used for the sacred vessel, “so that honor will be given to the Lord by their use, and all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the faithful will be avoided. Reprobated, therefore, are common vessels…as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay or other materials that break easily.” If you think crystal doesn’t break easily think again! Reply Venerable Aussie August 6, 2005 - 8:22 am Can we really read anything crystal-clear into this about the thoughts of Abp Levada? Imagine how many times poor JP2 had to put up with such “in-yo’-face” disobedience (sorry, “innovations”) at Masses he concelebrated around the world. Reply Wodamark August 6, 2005 - 9:39 am It seems Angela is practicing “cafeteria” Catholicism similar to the form of some of our Protestant brethren’s “scripture pick and choose”. If you read the whole paragraph from which she took few sentences from you’ll see what I mean: “Sacred Vessels [117.] Sacred vessels for containing the Body and Blood of the Lord must be made in strict conformity with the norms of tradition and of the liturgical books.The Bishops� Conferences have the faculty to decide whether it is appropriate, once their decisions have been given the recognitio by the Apostolic See, for sacred vessels to be made of other solid materials as well. It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region,so that honour will be given to the Lord by their use, and all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the faithful will be avoided. Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily. This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate.” I know there are some US Catholics who believe they know better than a Cardinal but, for our spiritual sake, be careful with public judgements. Reply Todd August 6, 2005 - 11:15 am Or it could be that the metal and crystal/glass chalice in question isn’t a liturgical abuse at all. Consider that? Reply Lily August 6, 2005 - 12:09 pm Maybe it has a Holy Forcfield around it so it won’t break. Sort of the opposite of a Holy Handgrenade. Reply Philip August 6, 2005 - 12:20 pm “The Bishops� Conferences have the faculty to decide whether it is appropriate, once their decisions have been given the recognitio by the Apostolic See, for sacred vessels to be made of other solid materials as well. It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region,” Did you not read this correctly Wodamark? It says the conferences of Bishops have the facility to decide if it is appropriate. Not a single Cardinal. In addition the Pope must decide if it is to be done after the conference decides. I am fairly certain that the Cardinal declared that glass may be used on his own without going through the Bishops and the Holy See. Reply Fr. Erik Richtsteig August 6, 2005 - 1:08 pm Glass and ceramic vessels are not to be used as sacred vessels according to Roman Documents. Why? Because they are porous, breakable, and unsuited to the Sacred Liturgy. His Emminence has given a dispensation for their use in his diocese. The big question is does he have the authority to do so. I would think not (but I have been wrong before.) To those who think we have more imporant things to worry about, I pose the question what is more important than the Holy Mass. It is a scandal when we place the Holy Body and Precious Blood of our Lord in vessels that look like they are from Star Trek or Pier 1. And people wonder why there is a declining belief in the Real Presence. Reply Jeff Miller August 6, 2005 - 2:16 pm Todd, There is actually another liturgical abuse going on in the picture. Since they are in the orans posture and the congregation is imitating it it very likely that the picture is taken during the Our Father which is after the consecration. “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.” — Redemptionis Sacramentum So I would think that any that is to be “completely to be avoided” is truly a liturgical abuse worse than even using inappropriate materials for the awesome mystery of the Eucharist. Reply K August 6, 2005 - 2:26 pm Does the Holy Father still have that e-mail address? Not that he would ever see but I could send the photo to him. What if they received numerous copies of it? Reply Angela August 6, 2005 - 2:51 pm Wodamark, Had you bothered reading over carefully what YOU posted, you would see you totally proved my point: “The Bishops� Conferences have the faculty to decide whether it is appropriate, once their decisions have been GIVEN THE RECOGNITO BY THE APOSTOLIC SEE, for sacred vessels to be made of other ***SOLID**** materials as well.” “REPROBATED, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from GLASS, earthenware, clay, or other materials that BREAK easily.” Peace. Reply Fr. Totton August 6, 2005 - 2:54 pm Is it possible that this photograph was taken before the advent of Redemptionis Sacramentum? Of course all listed lit. abuses were still abuses then, but they were so widespread that they might be somewhat forgiveable (at least on the part of everyone except the ordinary who is present) I would give Abp. Levada the benefit of the doubt. Regarding vessels from Waterford et al: they may be technically more noble than some of the metal vessels that many parishes have settled for, however, there is still no excuse for using glass (or crystal) vessels. Neither should the pastor pick up the catalogue of mass produced religious goods and settle on the cheapest (and often ugliest) possible design in purchasing vessels. Not every parish can afford to commission heirloom-quality pieces, but we should at least view the vessels as a permanent necessity and therefore dignified to contain the Sacred species offered in the Sacrifice. Furthermore, we had all the necessary vessels (yes, chalices and ciboria) at one time – we need only recover them, repair and re-finish them and properly distribute them to the needy parishes. (Unless of course some imprudent pastor buried them in the ground or otherwise determined to be rid of them so they might never be used again.) Reply Todd August 6, 2005 - 3:54 pm So what y’all are saying is that, “If we catch somebody breaking a rule (even if it’s an interpretation) it’s an abuse.” Pretty flimsy, I must say. Vatican II’s document Christus Dominus lays the groundwork for the responsibility of the bishop toward liturgy, as does Sacrosanctum Concilium. Individual bishops, within reason, have certain powers and responsibilities. Fr Erik, I don’t know if you are wrong, but I think the point would be a disputed one. I’m more than aware of the regulation about pouring the Precious Blood, but I think the reason given is quite weak. I’ve known more instances (two to none) of priests spilling chalices clumsily during elevations that priests or lay people spilling while pouring at the Fraction Rite. Reverent people are careful people. There was no need to stipulate pouring before consecration; in fact, one might say there is greater danger with those chalices standing filled for a number of minutes. Even on that point, one can disagree with Mahony’s posture, but one can hardly call a bishop making his own decisions a liturgical abuse. It would be most un … un-Roman. Fr Totton brings up a valid point, but doesn’t takeit quite far enough. GIRM speaks of precious metals, and adherence to the letter of the law would suggest that brass, pewter, and other similar metals or alloys would be as passe as silver, gold, platinum, or copper. This snping strikes me as needless bitchiness. Hardly attractive to manly vocations or spirituality, I suggest. Reply Quintero August 6, 2005 - 4:52 pm Point of clarification for Fr. Totton: The photograph is dated July 31, 2005, and is taken from the most recent TIDINGS. These abuses continue unabated in Los Angeles, not only in the Cathedral, but in many parishes. How long, O Lord? Reply Colleen August 6, 2005 - 9:06 pm Ya but… brass rusts and pewter (mix of tin, antimony and copper) turns black unless constantly cared for with scouring/cleaning agents (plus until recently, it was made with lead) . I don’t think it’s ‘bitchy’ to want the finest vessels (unbreakable and non porous) to hold the body and blood of our Saviour. I don’t mean to be falsely pious, either. This is one of those things that appears small but can get out of hand. Imagine if accidentally one of those pitchers hit another pitcher? Kind of flimsy glass, too. If the cathedral in LA cost all those millions (enough to cost many diocesan employees their positions), they could probably have afforded precious metals to house the body and blood. If we cannot be obedient (even if it seems silly or we don’t understand) in small things, how will we stay faithful and obedient in big things? Reply traddie lurker August 6, 2005 - 10:01 pm “This snping strikes me as needless bitchiness.” Ah, spoken like a true liturgeist. Please continue the worthy contributions. Reply JoeyG August 6, 2005 - 10:35 pm A lot of people have spoken in hypothetics providing a benefit of the doubt, but it seems that in many of these cases it is a bit naive. It might be that everyone is trying to exercise charity in giving the benefit of the doubt, but it is all surmise and one could, of a facetious wit, just as validly suppose that the containers are of a hard plastic and therefore both breakable AND unworthy. The point is, to require that a blogger make his writing tedious with a whole bunch of stipulations such as “if these vessels are made of that of which they appear to be made,” etc., is nitpicking of a greater sort than that of which many who came to Jeff’s defense have been accused. It’s plain and simple, what appears to be happening in this picture seems to go against the written instructions that we have on the matter. Take it for what it’s worth. I don’t think anybody’s crying anathema sit here. Reply Todd August 6, 2005 - 11:13 pm “I don’t think it’s ‘bitchy’ to want the finest vessels” Neither do I. But the continual harping on one particular bishop with a good amount of ill hunor would be. “It’s plain and simple, what appears to be happening in this picture seems to go against the written instructions that we have on the matter.” Not the Los Angeles ordinary’s written instructions. At root the question is: what responsibility does a bishop have liturgically in his own diocese? Most posters here would say none in these two particulars. Not only do I think it a disputed point, not a settled one, but I continue to ask the question: does this debate further good liturgy, or does it encourage a lack of charity? Reply Colleen August 7, 2005 - 9:21 am What debate? The directives come down from Rome, formulated over many centuries by many bishops and they make perfect sense. There are some bishops and priests who will always chafe at these directives. It’s sad and incomprehensible that they do that, regardless of their name or which diocese they lead. Like I said, it’s all about obedience regardless of whether we understand it or not. What is ‘good liturgy’ anyway? Reply Amy August 7, 2005 - 9:56 am So what y’all are saying is that, “If we catch somebody breaking a rule (even if it’s an interpretation) it’s an abuse.” Pretty flimsy, I must say. Todd, I’m curious. If deviating from the clearly defined norms of the liturgy isn’t liturgical abuse, then what is? Reply Todd August 7, 2005 - 10:58 am Amy, my Webster’s defines abuse as a “wrong, bad, or excessive use,” or “mistreatment, injury” or “a bad, unjust, or corrupt custom or practice.” 1. We have a disputed point on what power a local bishop has or doesn’t have over the liturgy. Is a dispensation in this case wrong, bad, excessive, injurious, or corrupt? Long before the recent crackdown on alleged liturgical “abuse” the archdiocese in question underwent its own effort to improve liturgy. In that context, the Vatican was late. It’s not as though this particular Church is denying Roman authority. They already completed a liturgical reform effort. Does the local bishop have the right to make a judgment and say, “That’s enough change for now” or not? 2. Is that chalice really a problem, or is the silver-plus-glass a nitpicky focus for a disliked bishop? 3. Even my conservative bishop has given parishes several months to comply with every aspect of the new GIRM. Does it remain a liturgical abuse? The Roman approach to rule of law is not the same as a strict one. If you don’t believe me, ask the pope or Cardinal Arinze. Reply Jeff Miller August 7, 2005 - 11:05 am Todd, First I was accused of causing a near-occasion of sin by you and now I exhibit ADHT behavior. You might not realize it but our topics always come down to one – that is obedience. There is a direct connection between liturgical abuses and theological abuses. Where you find one you often find the other and this is why I brought up your support of women’s ordination. Why should we listen to you on an interpretation of liturgical documents when you don’t get the basics right. I asked you to provide magisterial documents that show that women’s ordination is only a discipline which is your contention. First you say that maybe there was no liturgical abuse here. Then when it is shown that there was you then disagree with the norm. Or you stated that somebody breaking the rule in this case was only an interpretation (spoken like a true spirit of VII Catholic) even when it is the clear meaning of the text and not just an interpretation. And then you go on about the topic of what responsibility a bishop has in his own diocese. Who is showing ADHT tendencies here. So basically your saying even if there is a liturgical abuse, so what. The bishop is responsible for holding to Church norms. There are parts of the liturgy where the local ordinary does have some leeway. And their are parts where the local bishops conference has some leeway (upon Vatican approval). These items are clearly defined in the relevant liturgical documents. The local ordinary does not have the ability to do whatever he pleases. Specifically in this instance does not have the ability to ignore the relevant liturgical documents. You also say that Cardinal Mahony has written instructions that allow this abuse when you say “Not the Los Angeles ordinary’s written instructions.” Cardinal Mahony actually said: “Because our practice has become an Archdiocesan custom of over seven years, with both the Catholic faithful and the ministers accustomed to this practice, I am willing to grant exceptions to no. 106 of Redemptionis Sacramentum for legitimate reasons, such as the following: where the altar table is too small to accommodate many chalices, thus creating a greater danger for spillage; and where the number of chalices is so large that they would visibly detract from the important sign of One Bread and One Cup, as well as increase the danger of tipping over the chalices.” (Of course he has no right to grant an exception to this document. No where under canon law or any other documents does it grant such a right.) The altar table in this case is very large so there is no reason not to use many chalices. His other argument about the one cup symbolism is especially silly when in this instance is using several carafes. Some liturgists have been saying for years that the “one cup” symbolism is conveyed only by using one chalice and a single flagon that is poured out after the consecration. The Holy See, however, has judged otherwise. RS says: If one chalice is not sufficient for Communion to be distributed under both kinds to the Priest concelebrants or Christ’s faithful, there is no reason why the Priest celebrant should not use several chalices…. It is praiseworthy, by reason of the sign value, to use a main chalice of larger dimensions, together with smaller chalices. Plus the whole idea of a custom several years old wiping out a much longer tradition and Church documents is just plain wrong. … let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism. (RS �183) Reply Jeff Miller August 7, 2005 - 11:17 am Todd, In reference to your last post they had no authority to do any kind of liturgical reform other than to ensure that they uphold current liturgical norms. The liturgy belongs to the Church not to the local diocese. There are also levels of liturgical abuses. The case of implementing the new GIRM is one thing, but specific liturgical abuses to the Eucharist should take hardly any time to implement. Is it nitpicky to focus on an obvious liturgical abuse that gives scandal to the faithful (at least those who know what the norms are)? Perhaps if we didn’t like his shoes that would be nitpicky, but shouldn’t we be upset about the lack of respect paid to Our Lord in the Eucharist? Reply Todd August 7, 2005 - 11:32 am Jeff, I think the discussion is more evolved than your reply suggests. “There is a direct connection between liturgical abuses and theological abuses.” Not always. ” … I brought up your support of women’s ordination.” But I don’t support it, not at this time. “Why should we listen to you on an interpretation of liturgical documents when you don’t get the basics right.” The question above involved my criticism of the critics. It’s not the way we do it in my parish, nor likely in yours, so is a continual hapring on this cardinal (not a favorite of mine, by any means) really helping us move to the goal of good liturgy? It was on that point, Jeff, you suggested my questioning the critics was inappropriate. It’s not a question I don’t ask of myself: is contention spiritually appropriate? “I asked you to provide magisterial documents that show that women’s ordination is only a discipline which is your contention.” If you want to ask on another thread, I’ll comment there. I’m sticking to the topic you began here. “First you say that maybe there was no liturgical abuse here.” Agreed. I don’t think either of the two items you mentioned are abuses. “Then when it is shown that there was you then disagree with the norm.” You haven’t shown it is an abuse. It is not compliant with what goes on in my parish or yours, but neither of us are in the LA archdiocese. “And then you go on about the topic of what responsibility a bishop has in his own diocese.” A topci I’ve addressed in detailon my own web site the past few weeks. “Who is showing ADHT tendencies here.” By bringing up women’s ordination, you are. A bishop’s local authority is germane to the thread topic. “Specifically in this instance does not have the ability to ignore the relevant liturgical documents.” You haven’t shown he’s ignored them. He’s considered them and granted a dispensation. If Mahony is wrong, that might be an abuse (it certainly would be a violation) of canon law, but if there is no intent to be liturgically wrong, corrupt, injurious, etc. then it isn’t a liturgical abuse. “… let everyone do all that is in their power …” And it could be that changing liturgical practice is beyond the power of any of us. So I repeat my question: does it serve the interests of charity and unity to persist in criticizing Mahony to the exclusion of most others? Can it be an occasion of sin: to muster up in oneself and others an unseemly emotion against a certain individual, and to use humor (some might call it something else) to do it? Is it God that needs protection, or is it more our own peccadillos? Reply Jeff Miller August 7, 2005 - 11:44 am Todd, “You haven’t shown he’s ignored them. He’s considered them and granted a dispensation. If Mahony is wrong, that might be an abuse (it certainly would be a violation) of canon law, but if there is no intent to be liturgically wrong, corrupt, injurious, etc. then it isn’t a liturgical abuse.” I must admit I laughed out loud over that one. He didn’t ignore them he granted an exception. Of course the fact that he has no right under Church law or any liturgical document to grant an exception in this case just doesn’t matter to you. Does it serve the purpose of unity for many diocese to ignore liturgical norms? We have liturgical norms precisely as a sign of unity within the various rites. Reply Lucy August 7, 2005 - 12:39 pm So what has happened to the good old days of priests having a chalice made out of gold or silver? Is it about money? pride? stupidity? This should be addressed. For me a chalice should be made out of gold or silver, and in extreme cases crystal may be used only if circomstances are void of gold or silver. This isn’t a wine tasting party. Reply Wodamark August 7, 2005 - 1:05 pm I’m with you Todd. I can’t but help to think that Screwtape is rather gleeful at the criticisms of his Eminence Cardinal Mahony found here. Angela – What happened to the good old days of the flock being humbly obedient in public to the shedpherd? Reply traddie lurker August 7, 2005 - 1:14 pm “Angela – What happened to the good old days of the flock being humbly obedient in public to the shedpherd?” Good old days…were there such things? Reply Brian Day August 7, 2005 - 1:32 pm Lucy, Price is not an issue. When I went through this battle at my parish a few years ago (when they went from gold plated chalices to crystal) our pastor at the time complained that the chalices used for communion for the faithful wear out due to the constant wiping after each comminicant. The crystal chalices were more expensive but did not wear through. The complaint of the gold (or silver) wearing through is valid though. It takes specialized equipment to replate a chalice. But if you are set up to do it, you can replate a chalice for less than $50. I work in the plating industry. If there were enough of a demand, I could set up and do it for around $30 a chalice. Our parish got rid of the crystal chalices and ciboriums last year. Unfortunately, the new ones are not in compliance with RS. The chalices are now made from brushed stainless steel and the ciboriums are made from polished stainless. The cirboriums are oversized and look like dog food bowls. 😉 Reply Colleen August 7, 2005 - 1:33 pm Wodamark: if the picture presented here showed ANY bishop or pope it would be the same thing. Disobedience is disobedience regardless of the vehicle responsible for it. OTOH, I recently finished ‘the power and the glory’ and the phrase ‘whiskey priest’ runs through my mind over and over again – brings me to tears sometimes. I am so thankful for all priests… grateful for the sacrifice they have made and mindful of the fact that they are doing the best that they can do, perservering to the end. But a diocese that can afford to build a cathedral for millions and millions of dollars can certainly afford better containers (I have similar containers that I use to make lemonade in) than the ones used here to hold the body and blood of our saviour. It is all about obedience in the smallest of things and there is no reason for the use of glass containers that I can see. This morning before Mass my daughter went to eat a pop tart…. the hour fast doesn’t make sense to her at all (and she sure doesn’t get the ‘old’ fast rules) but it’s the same thing as the example of this picture…. it’s about obedience regardless of whether we understand or agree with the subject. Reply mrp August 7, 2005 - 1:43 pm Beard, pectoral crosses, Paul Masson Wine bottle/cruets, semi-cowled chasubles – it all looks very Episcopalian U.S.A to me. Reply Quintero August 7, 2005 - 2:02 pm It’s real simple. If Mahony contradicts Rome, whom do you follow? The answer for a Catholic is a no-brainer. You follow Rome. ROMA LOCUTA EST – CAUSA FINITA EST. Cardinal Mahony is not above the universal law of the Church. Sadly, he has undermined his own authority by his flagrant violations of the Church’s liturgical norms. Reply Colleen August 7, 2005 - 2:15 pm Quintero: you bring up a good point – when a bishop or a cardinal or a priest contradicts (in words or actions) Rome (meaning the Magisterium), what happens? Where do we go? Who is right? Most of my family fell away – all of them fell away but most cite the reason as ‘confusion’ because of what they heard and saw from the pulpits in the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s that went against what they were taught and read in the catechisms previous to those decades. Now me and my kids are the only regular Mass attenders. Reply Todd August 7, 2005 - 2:18 pm “If Mahony contradicts Rome, whom do you follow?” That’s partly my point. If you’re not in the LA archdiocese, there’s no question of following anyone but your own ordinary and Rome. Quintero, you are an LA resident, I believe, so if you’re a priest, you have the greatest degree of control. Likewise if you’re a lay person with a car–just go to the parish that suits you. Anybody else, I ask again: what good does it do to complain and rail on disputed points over which you have no control. Additionally, one might say that the continual sniping at Mahony and others, a) Pretty much falls on deaf ears and b) indulges a sense of criticism that might lead to personal sin. Personally, I don’t think glass and flagons are worth it. Until a few years ago, nobody else did either. “Sadly, he has undermined his own authority by his flagrant violations of the Church’s liturgical norms.” I think his handling of the sex abuse crisis is far more relevant to people’s perception of his authority. Reply Dad29 August 7, 2005 - 3:22 pm Wodamark, under Canon Law the faithful have a right to a properly-celebrated Mass. It’s a right, not an “option.” There is no defense for Mahony’s arrogation of authority–none. USCC has not asked for his abuses to be accepted, nor will they. He will remain, with a few follower/Bishops, in pertinacious disobedience. Mahony is one of the last of the Prince/Antinomians of the Church in the USA. Although no one has done an academic and peer-reviewed study on the matter, the Prince/Antinomians (and their follower-Bishop and -priest/Antinomians) have, as a class, shown (or practiced) odd sexual proclivities and tendencies, generally of the homosexual type. I won’t bother you with the list, but many on this thread can line-em-up and show the corresponding documented aberrations. You are defending, weakly, one who does not deserve your efforts. Give it a rest. Reply Philip August 7, 2005 - 3:34 pm So going to another Parish is going to make the liturgical abuses go away? Stop being such a relativist. This is indeed a very serious matter, concerning the respect due to the Body and Blood of Christ. In addition, Mahony has not handled the sex abuse scandle correctly. For I think two years he has denied giving the state documents and has more then a few high $$ law suits. Reply A. No�l August 7, 2005 - 4:36 pm Cardinal Mahony gave a talk in Bellevue, Washington, in late May. The Archbishop of Seattle, Alex Brunett, wrote an article about it in “The Catholic Northwest Progress” on June 2, 2005. Among other comments, there’s this gem: “As Cardinal Mahony�s comments and my pastoral letter on the Eucharist, Sign of Unity, Bond of Love, make clear the Year of the Eucharist is an opportunity to think about our Eucharistic devotions in a new way, but first we must learn to see the Eucharist not as a human body but as an event happening in our lives.” (http://www.seattlearch.org/NR/exeres/D76E2B50-660D-420D-841A-7C170B846131,frameless.htm?NRMODE=Published) Reply Colleen August 7, 2005 - 5:50 pm “Anybody else, I ask again: what good does it do to complain and rail on disputed points over which you have no control. Additionally, one might say that the continual sniping at Mahony and others, a) Pretty much falls on deaf ears and b) indulges a sense of criticism that might lead to personal sin.” I know a lot of people who think remarking on something or commenting on it or just making an observation about something is complaining. Is wishing that the norms of the Magisterium were observed and obeyed indulging in a sense of criticism that might lead to sin? What would be ok to mention or note and not be tagged as a critic or a complainer? It is our RIGHT to have a properly said Mass. Reply Allan August 7, 2005 - 5:53 pm Jeff and Angela you are right in my better judgement and reasoning. Todd face it man, you’re wrong. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. How can we look to the guidance and example of a Cardinal who can’t follow the rules of Redemptionis Sacramentum? “I think his handling of the sex abuse crisis is far more relevant to people’s perception of his authority.” Maybe in secular society. But in the Church which is what we’re talking about, we all know that to every Catholic the Blessed Sacrament comes first. The emphasis is on Christ and obedience to His Church. We can’t deny the correlation between scandals and the liberalization of certains dioceses. It is sad that the Cardinal he has looked past the authority of Rome. It is also sad that our Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has joined in with this scandal. This sinfulness and scandal only gives sedevacantists, SSPX, the Orthodox churches more dirt to throw at us. Reply Br. Clare-Vincent August 7, 2005 - 6:43 pm “1. Blessed is the servant who has faith in the clergy who live uprightly according to the norms of the Roman Church. 2. And woe to those who look down upon them; for even though they may be sinners, nonetheless no one is to judge them since the Lord alone reserves judgment to Himself. 3. For inasmuch as their ministry is greater in that it concerns the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which they receive and which they alone administer to others, 4. so those who sin against them commit a greater sin than [if they sinned] against all other people of this world.” (St. Francis of Assisi, The Admonitions, s. XXVI THE SERVANTS OF GOD SHOULD HONOR THE CLERGY) Reply Todd August 7, 2005 - 7:10 pm “Todd face it man, you’re wrong. “ Nice to have it confirmed, I guess. However, my first and main point is the questioning of critical, uncharitable comments. Does it really help the liturgy? Does it detract from our own state of grace? I think it’s easy to criticize things we don’t like. And it can be especially fun to do so on people we dislike. “We can’t deny the correlation between scandals and the liberalization of certains dioceses.” Actually, we can. Abuse was more common with priests trained before Vatican II than after. And there are numerous instances of conservative bishops (Law, for example) and conservative orders (the Society of St John) and conservative priests (I can think of two in my own diocese). Aside from genital sex, sex abuse is largely an abuse of power, something seen in the silent approach before the Council, and in take-charge bishops like Law, Bruskewitz and Mahony today. Reply Carl August 7, 2005 - 9:21 pm “And woe to those who look down upon them; for even though they may be sinners, nonetheless no one is to judge them since the Lord alone reserves judgment to Himself.” This is probably a Jimmy Akin question, but maybe someone here can help me. To be honest, I have looked down upon clergy, particularly those who have committed sexual abuse. Having said that, am I in a state of grace (do I need to make a confession prior to receiving communion)? Does this qualify as a mortal sin? Thanks. Reply Greg August 8, 2005 - 10:17 am No wonder why LA has no vocations. Reply Dad29 August 8, 2005 - 10:21 am Note carefully St. Francis’ qualifiers in the first portion of his admonition: ‘a priest who lives uprightly ACCORDING TO THE NORMS of the Church…’ Now, Todd, let’s get something straight: it’s not a question of “what we do/do not LIKE.” It’s a question of what is RIGHT. I think that the ICEL translation stinks. But I use it at least once a week–because it is RIGHT to do so. I happen to know, personally, Bp. Bruskewitz. To characterize him as ‘authoritarian’ is inaccurate, to say the least. Reply Todd August 8, 2005 - 10:55 am Jeff, actually there is no offense in my eyes in your stance. If you ever wanted to get my real views on women’s ordination, rather than merely guessing at it, all you have to do is ask. I am glad to know there’s a hierarchy of gravity when it comes to peripheral questions about liturgy and the more substantial ones about gender and priesthood. There is even another circle: the serious one involving faith and morals, which boil down respectively into the two tenets of Jesus’ greatest commandment: how we love God, how we deal with each other. Even non-believers are perceptive enough to take note of believers who are focused on the peripherals at the occasional to frequent expense of the Greatest Commandment. In practice, I recognize a certain tug of war between the reasonable stances you present in your last comment. But actually, the gospel demands more of us that our regard for one another not be predicated on tolerance for the other’s peccadillos or putting a curb on the other’s innovation. Despite the fact we may have legitimate grievances against a person or more often, what that person represents in our mind’s eye, true love for others, like authentic faith in God, demands no preconditions. I’m obliged to love and serve traditional Catholics upfront, no guarantee of concession, not even a guarantee of mutuality. That is one notion of the sacrifice of the gospel, at least as I see it and struggle to live it. I’ve raised my question about lack of charity here, and for now, I’m done with it. Reply Joe Oliveri August 8, 2005 - 12:08 pm We’re quoting St Francis? Excellent. “[T]he Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Names and His written words, which sanctify the Body, should be venerated above all things. Chalices, corporals, the ornaments of the altar and all things which pertain to the sacrifice, should be held precious. And if in any place the Most Holy Body of the Lord will have been very poorly placed, according to the mandate of the Church let Him be put in a precious place by them and let Him be sealed up and with great veneration borne about and with discretion ministered unto others.” – From ‘A Letter to the Custodes’. See A Letter to the Custodes “Whenever I find the sacred name of Jesus or his words in indecent places, I desire to take them away, and I pray that others take them away and put them in some decent place.” – Sabatier, Life of St. Francis of Assisi. Reply 1 2 » Leave a Reply to WHMc Cancel Reply Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Δ This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.