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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.[205]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,[206]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.

Or it could be that the metal and crystal/glass chalice in question isn't a liturgical abuse at all. Consider that?

Maybe it has a Holy Forcfield around it so it won't break. Sort of the opposite of a Holy Handgrenade.

"[205]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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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?

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?

"This snping strikes me as needless bitchiness."

Ah, spoken like a true liturgeist.

Please continue the worthy contributions.

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.

"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?

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?

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?

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.

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)

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

"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?

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. ;-)

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.

Beard, pectoral crosses, Paul Masson Wine bottle/cruets, semi-cowled chasubles - it all looks very Episcopalian U.S.A to me.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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)

"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.

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.

"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)

"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.

"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.

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

Todd:

I agree with you on a minor point and strongly disagree on a major one.

Certainly there were and are abuses in the old mass as well as the new. My Sunday Mass is said according to the '62 Missal by a wonderful onld priest who knows it like the back of his hand. On most occasions three collects, secrets and postcommunions are prescribed and never less than two. The first is proper to the day, the second and third from collections of prayers at the option of the priest. My priest says one only of each and I strongly suspect that many priests did so in the interests of speed.

I'm willing to cut Mahoney some slack on his crystal and carafes, but I think in a general way liturgical anarchy is worthy of attention and complaint. The PRINCIPLE that we need to be "rubricists" to a large extent in order to reflect the universal nature of our worship is an important one and all too often ignored or denied. If we are going to ask "conservatives" to put up with lots of stuff that they hate and that offends their notions of worship for the sake of unity, we have to demand that "liberals" control their innovations. That seemingly "disciplinary" question affects our ability to live together in one Church. It's got to work both ways.

BUT...

irrelevant though you deem it, the question of female priests is related to whether one has the right to present onesself as a Catholic at all and thus has the right to comment on such issues. It seems to be fashionable to claim orthodoxy or at least to defuse any question of one's commitment to the faith on this issue by saying that one does not "support women's ordination" "at this time."

Sorry, that won't do. It's not honest. "I refuse to say I believe in the Trinity, but I 'support' the Church's insistence on that at the time for reasons which I may or may not be willing to get into" would also be unacceptable. We are REQUIRED to give assent to certain things--openly and publicly--in order to be Catholics in good standing. To question any of them is to remove ourselves from the Unity of the Church, regardless of what services we attend or what we say about recognizing authority, or whether we can be effectively disciplined or not.

Who gets to decide where the line is drawn? The Popes and the Councils. If I don't believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, I'm not Catholic. If I question it, I'm not Catholic. If I say, "I think it's a bad idea to rock the boat on the issue of the Assumption at this time, but I refuse to commit myself one way or another on it in any substantive way" it can fairly be presumed that I'm not Catholic. Whether I claim the unity of the Church or not makes no difference.

Catholics who raise a suspicion of a lack of belief in an article of the faith hasten to assure their fellow Catholics that they have been misunderstood. They're not cagey about it. If we believe in the Church, we believe what She teaches as to be definitively held. If we question what She teaches with apostolic authority, we don't really believe in the Church.

So, if someone doesn't want to answer a question about whether they believe in the Assumption or Women's Ordination or any defined teaching of the Church, Catholics have a perfect right to say, "Oh, I see what the problem is. This guy is a pseudo-Catholic. No point really in discussing the issue with him."

Offensive? No doubt. Too bad! It's too important for mere politeness. You may be a nice fellow, a brave man, a fine husband and father, a brilliant thinker, a person of integrity, a human being of surpassing goodness. You may get to heaven anyway and I may not! You may have every excuse for your lack of faith and I may not have excuses for my many transgressions. But there it is. "Anything goes" doesn't go and I didn't draw the lines. They were drawn by Christ's Church and I accept them BECAUSE I have no choice and neither does anyone else who wants to claim Catholicity.

No wonder why LA has no vocations.

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.

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.

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.

Lack of charity?

Merely an observation: the norms of the Church decided long ago (for valid reasons) is that the chalices s/b of precious metals and it makes me sad and I wonder why some princes of the Church ignore the norms. Don't care which prince of the Church is abusing the norms. Makes me wonder why we have norms, makes me wonder if it's ok to ignore what we disagree with makes me wonder what's ok to ignore and what has to be followed. Makes me wonder if what is ok for the princes is ok for the priests and is ok for the laity. Makes me wonder why the Church has norms at all. Makes me wonder if norms are negotiable.

Todd:

Thanks for the good humor of your reply. The reason why I didn't ask about your view of women's ordination is that you appeared to say it was a straw man and unrelated to the discussion at hand and therefore you wouldn't respond. I was saying that I didn't think ANY question of faith was unrelated. A discussion among Catholics about their liturgy is one thing. A discussion among people who call themselves Catholics is another. I might have a conversation with Hans Kung about how to say Mass and it might have some interesting twists and turns. But it wouldn't be a discussion among Catholics.

However, if I have misundestood your silence on women's ordination, I apologize. So now I'm formally asking: Do you accept the teaching or not?

Yes, even a non-Catholic can raise the question: isn't all this nitpicking and savaging people over small rules an example of a lack of charity?

My answer is, Maybe, but So what?

Look, suppose some neighbors were going into an old lady's garden and taking her plants. Suppose she finally asked them to keep off her property. But they continued to torment her, picking flowers here and there, rooting up dirt, tossing garbage in the beds. Isn't she entitled to be upset? Don't we have to give her a pass if she sometimes loses it? How can we be justified in complaining about a lack of charity on her part, even if there is one? It doesn't behoove us to do so.

Let's suppose the man Joseph Ratzinger is right about faith and liturgy. Catholics then are supposed to find their liturgy respected and treated with care and respect by those who are charged with administering it. Those who administer it ought to be careful to avoid scandal. If they make use of some ambiguity in the rules to achieve some end that they regard as noble, they ought to have a decent regard for the sensibilities of everyone. They ought to recognize the fact that Catholics are frustrated and angry about liturgical abuse in a general way and for a very good reason.

It seems to me that the rule of charity here applies first to Cardinal Mahoney. I would suggest that the rules at least SEEM to say that he shouldn't be using glass and caraffes. He ought to recognize that. Even if there is some way to claim that those rules don't apply, he ought to shy away from even SEEMING to disregard the rules. If he really thinks its necessary to use these things, he should understand that some will be scandalized and take the time and trouble to respond to letters from the faithful with a careful explanation--maybe even publishing something on his archdiocesan website about it.

I think a bishop is owed great deference and respect and I don't publicly rake him over the coals for any of this. But your idea that bishops have a general right to set the rules for their dioceses and that the faithful don't have the right to expect them to comply with general liturgical law is wrong. Bishops too are bound by the universal regulations of the Church. They can't break laws and get a pass because they are bishops.

The situation recognized by documents from Rome on the liturgy and by private writings of those now in charge is clear. There has been widespread abuse of the faithful in the way the liturgy has been administered. Bishops have not done enough to ensure regular liturgical practice. Some have even promoted liturgical anarchy. Since Rome has recognized that situation, the faithful need not shy away from recognizing it themselves. And if they occasionally make a mistake, like thinking that a rule saying "Don't use glass" means "Don't use glass", then that perfectly understandable mistake ought to be explained to them respectfully.

So: is there a lack of charity and decent respect for those who complain about the Cardinal? Yes, perhaps. But it is insignificant compared with the lack of charity coming from the other side. Catholics have been goaded and treated with derision for years by those in power. Rome allows considerable freedom in the celebration of the Mass, but it draws some lines. Why shouldn't those concerned with the principles of dignity and reverence in the liturgy be able to demand that those lines be respected?

Spot-on, Colleen.

Unfortunately, the way things work now in the post-Concilar age, where every liturgical norm may be mitigated (or ignored) by the "competent authority" -- read, the local Ordinary -- we're going to have to face the fact that norms mean little if anything because they cannot be enforced.

It's a depressing exercise, but consider how many liturgical abuses would become "exceptions" to be granted only in "limited circumstances," and then would go on inevitably to become the norm. All-vernacular liturgies? Check. Communion in the hand? Check. Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist? Check. Laypeople giving sermons? We're not quite there yet, but wait for it.

In any event, regarding (what used to be called) liturgical plate, most of the arguments I've heard in favor of crystal, stoneware, etc., at some point boil down to "De gustibus non disputandum." Who am I to determine what's noble material? And anyway, isn't that up to the bishop to decide? and so on.

How sad that so much of our "noble" eucharistic vessels can be replaced with cheaper knock-offs from Pier 1 Imports. Would anyone even notice at this point?

Gold Dot Swirl Decanter: $10

Kava Stemware: $2

And just to show we're multi-cultural around here, how about a nice corporal? (It's labelled a "Chindi wine rug": $6.)

I just saved a bunch of money on my liturgical consultation!

Joe

Joe,

Excellent post from St. Francis on his love and respect for the eucharist. I was going to post that next (last night) but had other things to do. So, you beat me to it. Thanks.

Dad29, if you read St. Francis as saying that we should respect priests when they are living and doing what is right and not also when they are living and doing what is wrong, then you have misread him. He's pretty clear about it. Those who have been ordained deserve our respect. In fact, he felt that this was the way to win them to a holy life if they were not living as they should.

To me, the saint strikes a pretty healthy balance. On the one hand, we should unconditionally love and respect the clergy. Praying for them is much more effective than criticizing them. It's not only better for them but also for us. Prayer for others is much better for my own spiritual growth than is criticism, especially when that criticism comes in the form of making fun of them. On the other hand, we should show the utmost respect for the eucharist and for the teachings and directions of the Church. St. Francis taught unconditional obedience to the pope.

Thus, I think that all of us who are concerned about liturgical abuses should continue to show respect for the eucharist and the teachings of the Church. But we need to be careful about criticizing the clergy, if only for the reason that it does something within my heart that is counterproductive to my own spiritual growth. That is not to say that pointing out errors is inappropriate. But we need to do it with care.

I believe that all of us who have posted here are striving to do what is right so please don't take anything that I have written as a criticism. I just felt that St. Francis might have an instructive, encouraging word.

Blessings.

Br Clare-Vincent, you write:

But we need to be careful about criticizing the clergy, if only for the reason that it does something within my heart that is counterproductive to my own spiritual growth.

Well, St Catherine of Siena apparently didn't think so. When princes of the Church were in heresy, she told them quite harshly (in this case, to three Cardinals who didn't recognize Urban VI as rightful pope):

You have divided you from the truth which strengthens us, and drawn close to falsehood, which weakens soul and body, depriving you of temporal and spiritual grace. What made you do this? The poison of self-love, which has infected the world. That is what has made you pillars lighter than straw. Flowers you who shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek! No lights you placed in a candlestick, that you might spread the faith; but, having hidden your light under the bushel of pride, and become not extenders, but contaminators of the faith, you shed darkness over yourselves and others. You should have been angels on earth, placed to release us from the devils of hell, and performing the office of angels, by bringing back the sheep into the obedience of Holy Church, and you have taken the office of devils. That evil which you have in yourselves you wish to infect us with, withdrawing us from obedience to Christ on earth, and leading us into obedience to antichrist, a member of the devil, as you are too, so long as you shall abide in this heresy.

I honestly don't know where you guys learn all this stuff.

I want a valid liturgy, but the more I learn about what actually comprises that, the more shortcomings I see when I attend mass, and the more distracted and depressed I get at mass.

Bad enough that I get distracted when I hear gender-neutral language ("May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of God's [vis his] name, for our good, and the good of all God's [vis his] Church.") and that intimidating battalion of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist.

But the more hear about these abuses, the more I fear a flawed mass will become an invalid one.

Is there nothing to be done?

What I can't stand is when people emphasize the word "God [vis his]" just to make a point to all those around them. And it's always the greying old women too..

But L, I sometimes catch it coming over the loudspeaker, from the priest's clip-on microphone.

It makes me twitch; I don't like to twitch at mass. I'm not looking to be offended there, I want to worship.

Petra,

St. Francis taught absolute and total obedience to the pope so it's not a question of whether or not we will follow a bishop (or cardinal) who is a heretic. We cannot do this. But the question for me is: can you rebuke others in a way that doesn't cause you to lose your own soul in the process? A person had better think and pray hard and long before they willy-nilly answer that in the affirmative.

I think that the constant criticism of others is one of Satan's favorite traps. I become blinded to what it does to me, especially when the criticism is well deserved. Perhaps your heart is so pure that, like St. Catherine of Siena, you can criticize others and become a saint in spite of it. I just don't think that most of us can do that.

Blessings.

I think Scott Hahn wrote something in "The Lamb's Supper" about being able to love those around you at mass who might not be on the ball, who might be participating in liturgical abuse, etc...we should be able to love them all, but I think it's still fine to hate the abuse and even to make fun of it. Hate the sin and love the sinner. There it is again. Satan challenges us by putting these distractions in our mass. We are right to point them out.

Hi Jeff.

I think this post ends my staying power on this thread. I too appreciate your attempt to engage the discussion.

My cautions about your last post include what I believe is a fallacious notion: the strong implication that virtue, the personal adherence to it, that is, defines a Catholic. If we took the logical consequence of your point, a person who persisted in any serious sin, not just an ideological one, would not be a Catholic. That just doesn't seem logical. Would St Paul fail because of his thorn? Do addicts miss muster if they fall off the wagon on their way to sobriety? The truth of it is, you don't determine Catholicism. And lacking a heresy trial, neither does anyone else no matter how much it might seem the person isn't living the Catholic faith. I reject your distinction about discussions with Catholics, non-Catholics, or those who deem not to be Catholics. Ideas are ideas. Catholics serious about engaging the world can't run to their mother's skirts every time the discussion gets a little rough and tumble. And a person who takes the shots he does with humor, certainly isn't in the position to disengage conversations about non-Catholic items he might have started.

"So now I'm formally asking: Do you accept the teaching or not?"

I accept the teaching, but not for the reasons given in OS and the dubia published since.

"Catholics then are supposed to find their liturgy respected and treated with care and respect by those who are charged with administering it."

Agreed. But we don't always agree on the source of all disrespect. I've thought the CDWDS is part of the problem as it has been constituted the past several years.

"They ought to recognize the fact that Catholics are frustrated and angry about liturgical abuse in a general way and for a very good reason."

A small minority of Catholics feels this way. More Catholics are concerned about a handful of other issues. That's not to say that liturgy isn't deserving of better efforts from everyone, but people in the average parish are not as upset as you seem to think. I believe we'd be better off improving liturgy in most places by giving leaders and people something inspirational for which to strive. Rubricism is too easily taken as the easy way out, and Vatican II sunk the idea that adherence to rubrics was all that was necessary for good liturgy.

"But your idea that bishops have a general right to set the rules for their dioceses and that the faithful don't have the right to expect them to comply with general liturgical law is wrong."

I think you overstate my case. Bishops are responsible for liturgical practice in their diocese. Roman law would recognize their right and role to do what is best for their people, balancing liturgical law and local need.

Personally, I don't have a problem with complying with the last few years of liturgy documents. But in doing so, I confess I think they miss the mark. They give the illusion Rome cares. The real problem is ill-formed clergy, a lack of emphasis on good training for preaching and music, misplaced emphasis on parish schools, and a lack of vision in recruiting for the next generation. It takes me a few meetings, yet another revision in liturgy procedures, a number of Masses to oversee that people are reminded to enact revisions, and some assorted busy work to see that what needs to happen happens. It's mostly waste of time. It's not going to improve the liturgy in our parish. People who hate that we were slow about this or that will find something new to complain about. If it sticks in their craw enough, they'll write the bishop. If they find enough like-thinkers on the net, maybe they'll put together a petition and GIRM 4 will give me another set of liturgical changes that do nothing.

*sigh*

The upshoot of it is this: we have better things to do, but the sad truth of it is that Rome can't legislate inspiration, beauty, or quality. It can only give guidelines to follow. And the people who complain because they like the sound of their voice or they have the illusion of control in their parish just have their appetite whetted by your brand of humor, Jeff. Don't feel I'm singling you out. I've criticized many St Blog's musicians for whining too much about bad music and not posting about really excellent music. They still complain about the bad. Know why? If they posted more of the good, people would criticize their choices.

"There has been widespread abuse of the faithful in the way the liturgy has been administered."

No. There have been some abuses. Liturgy is generally better today than it was ten years ago, twenty, forty, and probably before that.

"Bishops have not done enough to ensure regular liturgical practice."

Their priority should be excellence, not regularity.

"Some have even promoted liturgical anarchy."

According to some chicken littles. This happens on the parish level. I've never known of it from the diocesan level.

"Since Rome has recognized that situation, the faithful need not shy away from recognizing it themselves."

Sure. But then do something constructive about it.
Join a parish choir and help make the music better. If you're not patient enough to see the repertoire change in the way you'd like it, start your own choir, do it your way, and learn the patience you need on a fast track. Join a committee and be prepared to invest years to let people trust you when you tell them "You're doing it all wrong."

" ... then that perfectly understandable mistake ought to be explained to them respectfully."

It will make a difference with the investment (sacrifice!) of time to get to know such people so that you can make a true impact and not come off as a fly-by-night complainer.

"So: is there a lack of charity and decent respect for those who complain about the Cardinal?"

No question about it.

"But it is insignificant compared with the lack of charity coming from the other side."

What other side? Mahony ignores you. He doesn't even read this site.

"Catholics have been goaded and treated with derision for years by those in power."

Talk to any of the saints listed above. The Church burned Jeanne d'Arc. It has suppressed and tormented countless artists, intellectuals, even saints. You're aggrieved by Sr Mary Rainbow's liturgical dance? Take a number, pal.

"Why shouldn't those concerned with the principles of dignity and reverence in the liturgy be able to demand that those lines be respected?"

You should. But you're going to have to prove yourself in your parish before anyone will listen and do something. You have no hope of convincing Mahony, so why even bother with the effort?

Todd:

I'm sorry, but I don't think you even have a leg to stand on with your talk about "heresy trials."

Catholics might sometimes be too quick to decide on this issue or that that someone isn't Catholic. But it isn't supposed to be indeterminable or only after twenty years of furrowed brows by "experts." Patriarchs, Bishops, priest, and laypeople have all felt perfectly free to denounce other "Catholics" as heretics when they were satisfied that they were. Athanasius didn't wait for the Council of Nicaea, nor Cyril for Ephesus before they condemned Arius and Nestorius. And they were right: Arius and Nestorius were heretics and should have known better even BEFORE the definitions. It wasn't a lack of charity to tell them they were beyond the pale.

With defined truths, they are defined so we will KNOW what we have to believe. I know that if I don't accept the dogma of the Assumption, I'm a heretic. I can teach my children that they must accept it to be Catholic. It's not optional. If they don't, they've lost the Unity of the Church.

What do I tell my kids about people who don't accept the definitive teachings? Do I say, Well, I have to accept, you have to accept, but who really knows. Those people may have some different interpretation, etc., etc. No, sorry. I may be charitable, make allowances for confusion, etc., etc. But I don't need a heresy trial for them any more than I need a trial to figure out what MY responsibilities are as a Catholic. The Church says, Everyone must accept the Assumption or they're out of the Church. I submit and expect other Catholics to submit, too. If they don't, they're not Catholic.

This is obvious. No one disputed it before the confusion of modern times. So, sorry, no heresy trials are needed.

As far as rules go, guidelines are guidelines, rules are rules. They are not the same thing. Bishops are not free agents where the liturgy is concerned. They have responsiblities. They do not have the right to start their own rites and treat rules as suggestions. They are bound, too. If they ignore rules and create scandal, they have only themselves to blame if the laity start getting nasty.

Liturgy begins with things like ritual, care for actions and words, and obedience to universal standards. Sure, you can follow all the rules and have shoddy liturgy. But you can't break the rules and have good liturgy. Liturgy starts with rules.

I have a right to priests who follow the rules. You DON'T have a right to priests who innovate as they please. When I say Catholics have been treated shoddily, I don't mean that Sally wishes Fr. Dan would loosen up a bit. If Sally wants Fr. Dan to do something he isn't allowed to do--if 90% of the Catholics in the parish want it--she DOESN'T deserve it and she's not being treated shabbily, at least in that respect.

If nasty old Alphonsus Senior wants Fr. Dan to stop using the wrong liturgical color or quit using his own Eucharistic prayer, all the parishioners can disagree with him, but he's being denied his rights. He IS being treated shabbily.

Catholics deserve the liturgy the Church promises to them. They don't deserve something else, no matter what it is.

I don't know where you get the idea that bishops are free to do what they like with the liturgy. It's not found anywhere in any canonical or liturgical document. You've just spun it out of your own head, as far as I can see. Bishops have an innate dignity and are not just flunkies for Rome. But they are not individualized authorities, they too are under obedience to the Universal Jurisdiction of the Petrine Ministry. This was not abolished by Vatican Two. Rome can leave them free or bind them on liturgical matters. When they are allowed to do something, even if I don't like it, I accept it. When they are not allowed to do something which they tolerate or encourage, Catholics have a right to demand that they stop.

Liturgy IS better than it was twenty years ago. Not than fifty years ago. People mainly stuck to the rules and liturgical abuse was small scale. That may leave things lacking, but it's an irreduceable foundation for anything good. Rushing through Latin formulas leaves something to be desired. But breaking liturgical laws, changing formulations at will, leaving out prescribed prayers, using forbidden materials is a SCANDAL. If three Catholics are scandalized and the rest don't care, the three are being abused, not the rest.

I still don't know what you believe about Women's Ordination. You "accept" it. Do you say "Credo"? Is that what you mean? Of course, you needn't accept the reasoning in the document. But if you mean that you needn't accept that it is binding as a matter of faith because it doesn't use the same formulation as Munificentissimus Deus in its definition, then I say, with then Cardinal Ratzinger, you are not a Catholic, though you may claim to be. The Pope made his definition in order to put it beyond doubt that this is part of the unchangeable deposit of the faith. He meant to bind me as a matter of faith. Am I unconvinced? Tough. I'm bound. So are you. He meant to remove confusion and confirm the brethren. Demanding heresy trials for dissenters before such a thing can be said is tantamount to saying that the confusion can't be removed. We never know where we are on these things. But...we do.

Jeff, the main reason your pronouncements about who's in and who's out are off base is that you can't even determine what your fellow Catholics believe and don't believe. I may not always be crystal clear in what I write in comment boxes, but like it or not, I'm a Catholic, and neither you nor the pope is in any position to say otherwise. You may have your doubts about me or my salvation, but your pronouncements about anyone who might be outside the Church are entirely fallible. Except, of course, for an obvious example of someone who intentionally and publicly renounces the faith. But in that case, the person puts her or himself outside; it is not done to them.

For every Cyril and Athanasius working an obvious and/or a historically confirmed separation, there are countless others who have flown off at the lip in an entirely unjust way. It happened to many, many saints and countless others who have suffered at the hands of a human institution.

"I don't know where you get the idea that bishops are free to do what they like with the liturgy."

They're not. I have no idea how you got the notion.

"I still don't know what you believe about Women's Ordination."

It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of assent. Belief involves faith; women's ordination isn't a matter involving faith in God. I assent to the basic teaching; that's all you or anyone else needs to know.

"We never know where we are on these things. But...we do."

Lots of people have been so sure. But often they've been wrong. You could be one of them.

Hi Paul:
Boy do I relate to your post! The more you study and learn, the more you notice 'right' and 'wrong' and the more distracted you can become. I suggest reading graham greene's 'the power and the glory' -- I cannot articulate why that book just set me straight. So much so that when I attend Mass now in my archdiocese of Boston that is so mediocre and so much is sad here, I can look at the priest with love and gratefulness regardless of what goes on at the Mass - bad music, abuses, whatever. I look at that priest (any priest) and know as best I can what he is doing during the Consecration and my eyes fill up. And I am 'normal' and would be so embarrassed if anyone saw me like that.

Todd:

Of course, our Faith could be in vain. But to say that the Pope can't say whether or not you are Catholic, just makes the ultimate point for me. To say that the Faith could be wrong is one thing. To say that there is no Faith, or that you can make of it what you will is quite another. But you see, if the Pope says people can exclude themselves from the Church by not believing certain doctrines you deem tangential and Todd says, No, it ain't so, why should anyone--including Todd--believe Todd? Anyway, I'll stick with the Pope and the Athanasian Creed: "Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith WHOLE AND ENTIRE, he will undoubtedly be lost forever." It's not just a matter of submitting, but of inner assent or belief. I deny that refraining from argument about the Trinity, but lacking belief in it, makes me a Catholic. What an original notion! I don't know of course whether you believe in your heart that the fact that only men can be ordained priests is part of the deposit of the faith. Nor do I demand that you account for yourself to me. But I must insist that people who dance around what they believe on such points and try to confuse keeping quiet with the public testimony of belief forfeit the right to be considered Catholic by their brothers and sisters. And they deserve to be publicly called on their dissembling.

Really, the whole point of the discussion was not to insult you, but just to point out that at root, the disagreement about liturgy springs from something far deeper: irreconcileable conceptions of what Catholicism IS. No discussion of the virtues of glassware or the charity or lack thereof of those who storm at bishops over their observance of rubrics has a chance for any meeting of minds without confronting the ultimate source of the dispute. And those reading the thread should have that ultimate disagreement smoked out so that they can make up their own minds without misconceptions.

Sure, anyone can say, "I'm Catholic because I say so." Anyone can say words, poor fellow. I won't stop you from saying them! There's a guy in Kansas who says HE'S the Pope. All the best to him. I think he got his family to elect him. I'm sorry you're so confused, but you're hardly alone, I know. I sense a deep patience and charity in you as well as an admirable tenaciousness and a love of the intellect; may they lead you truly and be accounted for you as righteousness. God bless you and all of yours and I'll leave you the last word. May we meet at last one day in a place where all shadows are illumninated, all confusions are dissipated, and all disagreements swallowed up in Joy.

Jeff

Its a good thing there are no self righteous abusees here.

Good morning, Jeff.

"But to say that the Pope can't say whether or not you are Catholic, just makes the ultimate point for me."

I think you misunderstand. The pope has no window into any particular soul, and is not in a position to say to any of us, "You are not Catholic." What pastors, including the pope, can do is define the limits under which the Church accepts members or keeps them. But in the ordinary conversation between two (supposed) Catholics, neither side should feel under the delusion it can end the argument by pronouncing, "I am Catholic, you aren't. So there!"

"But you see, if the Pope says people can exclude themselves from the Church by not believing certain doctrines you deem tangential ..."

My sense was you had other motives. My sense was that you (like an occasional other St Blogger) got uncomfortable in the argument and went tangential by dragging in opinions or beliefs not germane to the point I was making, namely to question if repeated criticism without reasonable hope of reform was self-defeating from the viewpoint of personal charity and good humor. It took you several exchanges to reply, and I note none of the other commenters here has done so.

"It's not just a matter of submitting, but of inner assent or belief."

A noble goal, but one in which we all fall short. I submit it's a matter of grace, not personal effort and choice.

"But I must insist that people who dance around what they believe on such points and try to confuse keeping quiet with the public testimony of belief forfeit the right to be considered Catholic by their brothers and sisters."

You can insist, but one of two possibilities exists: One, that I am a pretender and you reject my message because it is intended to confuse and deceive you. Two, I have a valid point about charity and anger, and you reject the message because it's uncomfortable to you.

"And they deserve to be publicly called on their dissembling."

I think I did so. My question remains addressed to you, to myself, and to anyone who finds the experience of blogging not to be spiritually fruitful.

"Really, the whole point of the discussion was not to insult you, but just to point out that at root, the disagreement about liturgy springs from something far deeper: irreconcileable conceptions of what Catholicism IS."

First, I don't think that the composition of chalices and the use of flagons leads to such a conception. Until a few years ago, it was a matter of local practice, and is hardly on the level of "abusive" to the liturgy.

Second, I think there is a tug of war over power between local bishops, conferences, and Vatican congregations. To a degree, it is a healthy tension, to the extent the sides can say to each other, "I have a truly better way to pastor the people." When it gets to be a urination match over territory, then both sides have lost. And the people know it.

"No discussion of the virtues of glassware or the charity or lack thereof of those who storm at bishops over their observance of rubrics has a chance for any meeting of minds without confronting the ultimate source of the dispute."

I don't think so. It is easy to frame this discussion as good versus evil, but rarely are real world tussles so easily pegged. I've stated my clear opinion about it. I don't see the need to use glass or flagons; it's not worth the bother to confront these things I disagree with. Mahony feels otherwise and does as he pleases. In the view of Roman law, it remains a point of dispute. The CDWDS hasn't said to him, "No, you can't grant dispensations like this." Until they do, he remains a bishop making decisions for his local Church. That's not the way Americans approach law, but that is my understanding of the Roman way. And Rome isn't likely to alter its legal approach for LA Catholics who find scandal in this.

"I'm sorry you're so confused, but you're hardly alone, I know."

I think you implied before it was your readers who were confused. I just followed the scent of an interesting liturgical discussion and suggested that people who get angry over inconsistencies at Mass have themselves been led down the wrong path in their approach to liturgy. I do thank you for your gracious compliment, though. I mostly enjoy your approach of humor. When you're on, you're a very enjoyable read.

"May we meet at last one day in a place where all shadows are illumninated, all confusions are dissipated, and all disagreements swallowed up in Joy."

More likely, we'll continue to have stimulating discussions in the blogosphere for many years to come as we strive for the precious gift of Grace.

Finally, when it comes to comparisons, or the Herculean task of matching source material, co- directors James D. Stern and Adam Del Deo have it tough with their documentary " Every Little Step ," a behind- the- scenes story of multiple dancers trying out for a recent revival of the Broadway musical " A Chorus Line." Thanks to a massive crew that captures every human drama, triumphant or sad, and pinpoint editing that keeps the story moving, "Every Little Step" becomes a welcome companion piece to the Michael...