Posted on 06/04/2004 12:00:16 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
In his explanation for the decision, Maida cited the growing influence of schismatic groups within his archdiocese.
"We have much activity by schismatic churches in the Archdiocese. We have children in our Archdiocese attending schismatic schools and being drawn away from the Church. Some of our faithful are crossing the border to go into Windsor or other dioceses for the celebration of this Mass," the cardinal is quoted as stating.
Maida did not mention at the meeting that in addition to laity joining schismatic groups, he is also faced with a major emigration of seminarians from the archdiocese, and the crisis shows no signs of abating. In the year 2007 there is only one man scheduled to be ordained for the Archdiocese of Detroit, a native-born Filipino.
During the meeting Auxiliary Bishop Walter Hurley said the Tridentine Mass may be allowed in two parishes before the fall, but neither the parishes nor the frequency of the Masses has been decided.
Hurley is quoted as stating, "We are not looking to catechize new generations into the Tridentine Rite, but we are seeking to respond to those people who have identified this as a pastoral need In moving in this direction, there are certain things that must take place as we proceed. The first is that Vatican II, its authenticity, and its liturgical reforms have to be accepted as a legitimate work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. We do not want to set up something that would be divisive. We are not seeking to undermine or unravel the reforms of the Council."
The celebration of the Tridentine Mass will be coordinated under the auspices of the Archdiocesan Worship Office. "We do not want to see this as a work of a specific group of people, but rather an extension of Cardinal Maida's ministry as chief shepherd of the Archdiocese," Hurley is quoted as saying. "… All of our regional auxiliary bishops have indicated their willingness to celebrate this liturgy. The framework here is pastoral. We will not identify this as a "specific niche" of a parish; rather, this is simply something that would be offered at a parish."
The decision has been met with guarded optimism by those who have worked for the Tridentine Rite in the archdiocese, mainly because the rite – until now -- has been bitterly opposed by Maida and his chancery since Maida arrived as archbishop in Detroit in 1990. Additionally, the auxiliary bishop and chancery staff who are implementing his new decision are long-time chancery veterans who have no track record whatsoever of embracing traditional initiatives.
Many suspect the Tridentine Mass may be sparingly offered at small parishes in inconvenient locations, perhaps even in parishes hostile to traditional aspirations.
For at least the last 15 years there have been hundreds, if not thousands of requests to Maida to grant permission for the Tridentine Mass. A group of Catholics in the early 1990s filed a canonical lawsuit in the Signatura, the Vatican Court, to force Cardinal Maida to abide by Eccleiasia Dei, in which Pope John Paul II pleaded with the world’s bishops to allow a "generous application" of the indult for the Tridentine Mass. The St. Joseph Foundation assisted in that effort.
Maida opposed the lawsuit vigorously, and the legal effort ended when the Vatican ruled that with the death in 1994 of Thomas Marshall, the main signer of the complaint, the rest of signers of the petition to Rome had no standing to pursue the case.
It is noteworthy that the primary opponent of the Tridentine Mass at that time was Fr. Gerald Shirilla, professor at Sacred Heart Major Seminary and director of the Worship Department. Fr.Shirilla told a reporter for the Michigan Catholic that, regarding those who want the Tridentine Mass, "We have to fight them tooth and nail."
Fr. Shirilla was relieved of his post in 1993 when he was identified as a serial child molester, who favored young altar boys, going back more than 20 years. He never quite lost favor with Cardinal Maida, however, and was secretly re-assigned seven years later as pastor of a parish in the Diocese of Gaylord, Michigan.
Meanwhile, as the cardinal and his priests argue about the merits of the Tridentine Mass, the Detroit chapter of gay organization Dignity continues to hold its weekly Masses at Marygrove College every Sunday, and openly advertises that priests of the archdiocese celebrate its Masses. Priests of the archdiocese have never been forbidden to celebrate those gay Masses.
Cardinal Maida has always had different standards for different groups throughout his tenure in Detroit.
(Excerpt) Read more at cruxnews.com ...
Give up then. The FACT is that the law is what the judge says it is. No law was passed legalizing all abortions, judges did that. Statutes of limitations came up 'cause our anonymous internet deacon claimed that certain lawsuits were going to fail due to that one single factor, a factor about which he is clueless. You abject to my posts with neither fact nor theory, just a claim of knowledge. What was your point?
"I am often guilty and need the same reminder"
Me too, often. And I still sin. Mea Culpa.
"can we set aside the personal stuff?"
'It is a wise man who said that there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals.'
Felix Frankfurter
I wish I had a dollar for every time Tinky has accused someone of being crazy on FR. It's one of his standard routines.
Sooner or later--generally sooner--in any set-to with Tinky, he'll go personal. He can't help it; he's a liberal, and that's the way liberals are.
But it's neither correct nor just to act as though his correspondents are equally at fault.
One might fairly ask why a liberal like Tinky insists on posting his liberal garbage here, when he knows full well it's going to cause trouble.
***Mea Culpa***
Love it when you folks talk Latin! ;-)
No--you are the one with a limited understandingWell, unless you are God Himself, we both have limited understandings. What is your point?
My stating that the Novus Ordo is valid is consistent with what I--and most traditionalists--believe. A Mass is valid if Transubstantiation takes place. But the same Mass may still be harmful to the faith. That is the case with the Novus Ordo which dangerously subverts Catholic dogmas.To say that a valid Mass, which by definition brings tremendous Grace into this world and brings the Body and Blood to our presence, is harmful to the faith, is truly un-Catholic. That is in no way a Catholic understanding of the Mass.
Indeed, even prominent theologians have weighed-in on the many deficiencies of the Novus Ordo--including Cardinal Ratzinger who ascribes to its introduction the calamities that befell the Church shortly thereafter.Cardinal Ratzinger may prefer another form of the Mass, and may see some deficiencies in the Novus Ordo, but that is in no way the same as saying that the Novus Ordo is harmful to the faith, subverts Catholic dogmas, is reprehensible to the Holy Spirit, much less to say that the validity of the Mass means very little. You can try to name drop, but you are pretty much out there on the fringe with those statements.
As for your whacky ideas about schism--you get the definition right, but you ascribe it wrongly out of prejudice. You seem to think that a schism takes place merely because a pope says so in a letter, whether or not such an act has ever objectively taken place. It would be a strange kind of Church if that could happen unilaterally, at the mere surmise of the Pope.Strange indeed. Catholic even.
Perhaps you don’t understand this, but Vatican I made it quite clear that the Pope is the supreme judge in the Church on earth, his rulings are final. You can try to dismiss it as a “mere surmise” but he made a very clear statement in a very clear letter that was very formal. He ruled. You can call it “wacky” of me to be one of those strange Catholics who follows that wacky Pope. I’ll wear that as a badge of honor, whether it comes from schismatic modernists or schismatic trads.
But whether or not one is schismatic depends upon whether one had committed a schismatic offense, not on whether the Pope has said so. To believe otherwise is not Catholicism, it is pope-worship.Then Vatican I apparently engaged in Pope Worship. I believe another schism that left shortly after Vatican I essentially accused it of just that.
patent
Wait a minute. The Lord knew when to get tough and drive the moneychangers out of the Temple. He called the Pharisees to task as liars and hypocrites for perverting the Law and substituting their own tradition for that of Moses. There's a time to tell it like it is. What's going on now is from Hell. It's disgusting to people of real faith. And it's coming from the very top. So maybe some anger is more than justified.
Give up then. The FACT is that the law is what the judge says it is. No law was passed legalizing all abortions, judges did that. Statutes of limitations came up 'cause our anonymous internet deacon claimed that certain lawsuits were going to fail due to that one single factor, a factor about which he is clueless. You abject to my posts with neither fact nor theory, just a claim of knowledge. What was your point?Actually, I did provide you facts. For instance you claimed Roe V. Wade changed a statute of limitations. This was a fact you alleged that was in error. I corrected you that Roe addressed a mootness issue, and did not address SOLs. Those were two facts, and they were both correct. Even that one you can’t seem to give up. You aren’t willing to learn the difference.
I’ve provided you with legal theory as well, as in the different roles of courts v. legislatures in using SOLs. You just don’t care to listen.
patent +AMDG
Oh yeah? Well I'll raise you a MAXIMA culpa!
"For instance you claimed Roe V. Wade changed a statute of limitations."
Wrong. My point is VERY simple -- judges make laws. What they want, they get.
"I’ve provided you with legal theory as well, as in the different roles of courts v. legislatures in using SOLs."
Ignoring my point -- that COURTS and LEGISLATURES will do whatever they have to do to PUNISH the roman collars that abused children. Your "points", well stated as they are, ignore what I've pointed out, that JUDGES make law and that SODOMITES are destroying the hierarchy of the AmChurch.
"The Lord knew when to get tough and drive the moneychangers out of the Temple."
When you (or I) walk on water, we can act like we are God, until then we ought to obey Him, no?
Jesus calls us to act like Him, does he not? Why should we just act like him in some ways and not in others? ...as long as we don't believe we ARE Him, of course.
Fine. Drive moneychangers out of the Temple. How did Our Lord act towards others on the internet?
Card. Maida "secretly re-assigned" a known "serial child molester" as pastor of a parish, how much more needs to be said?
Check, now recite a Perfect Act of Contrition and mean it. :)
Here's your problem. You state: "To say that a valid Mass, which by definition brings tremendous Grace into this world and brings the Body and Blood to our presence, is harmful to the faith, is truly un-Catholic." But it is a wrongful assumption to think that by definition a valid Mass brings Grace into the world. Validity is a separate matter altogether from efficaciousness. A Mass may be valid, but lack efficaciousness in terms of bringing grace. Are Black Masses the vehicles for grace do you think? Yet these too may indeed under certain circumstances be valid.
As for the Pontiff's being the Supreme Judge in the Church--you are right. But this only means he has the last word on disciplinary and canonical matters. But for all his power, he can't make an innocent person guilty of an offense that was never committed. He can't make his judgment correct if it is incorrect. Nor can he overrule his own papal Canon Law, for instance, if that law provides canons which exempt an individual from culpability. Neither can he retroactively deny these same laws, rewriting them to suit his new perspective--Canon Law itself prohibits this. In other words, he cannot make someone guilty merely because he wishes it.
"How did Our Lord act towards others on the internet?"
Right reason and a properly formed conscience allow us to extrapolate from Our Lord's actions to the principle that, if people are acting in ways analagous to the behavior of the moneychangers in the temple, then it is correct to act towards them in ways analagous to Our Lord's conduct toward the moneychangers.
He only had 56k, so, in disgust, He walked away from the internet and cursed it as He did the fig tree. That's why we had to wait all these long centuries for Al Gore to reinvent it for us.
I love your English, your courage and your razor-sharp reasoning, sir. No wonder my dad speaks so highly of you.
I agree. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.