Posted on 10/29/2007 11:55:06 AM PDT by NYer
I hope the Pontiff sees fit to swing into Philadelphia. I saw JPII; I’d love to see Benedict XVI speak in person.
If that was somebody else, please correct me! I don't want to pin something on Boston that it's not responsible for.
I was at Paul VI’s Mass in Yankee Stadium in 1965! I’d love to be there again for this one, although there’s no way I could get a ticket since I don’t live in the diocese anymore.
I heard originally that this Mass (in the upcoming BXVI visit) might be in Central Park to accomodate the millions who will no doubt want to attend, but I guess not. I believe the DC Mass will be outdoors, so I might go to that one instead.
In my comments at the meeting I told my brother bishops that in the United States the number of people who participate in the Latin Mass even with permission is very low. Additionally, according to the research that I did, there are only 18 priories of the Society of St. Pius X in the entire country. Therefore this document will not result in a great deal of change for the Catholics in the U.S. Indeed, interest in the Latin Mass is particularly low here in New England.
. . .
This issue of the Latin Mass is not urgent for our country, however I think they wanted us to be part of the conversation so that we would be able to understand what the situation is in countries where the numbers are very significant.
I can't stand seeing his **(^&%$ comments again -- the headaches are coming back! "[S]o we would be able to understand what the situation is in countries . . ." as if the Pope is hoping for a promotion to CNN International anchor!
Yes, that was Cdl O’Malley.
I don’t know why O’Malley is popular with the Pope - remember, he was one of only 2 Americans invited to hear about the MP. However, it’s possible that O’Malley’s negative reaction has reduced his popularity a bit. Or perhaps it’s the fact that he’s busy closing as many churches as possible in Boston, and instead of seeking a solution, seems to be planning to just wind up the business and turn the lights off when he leaves.
One of the bizarre things is that Americans are getting punished for being so patient and faithful. The SSPX didn’t really get established here because traditional Catholics actually tried go through channels, request the indult mass, and make themselves take that 3 or 4 hour drive every Sunday at 4:30 a.m. to get to the inconvenient place (and time) where the TLM was scheduled by the grudging bishop. Or if the bishop refused, Americans just kept going to the NO and writing to Rome. We’re too nice and obedient!
And now of course, they’re making us jump through hoops to request a TLM in our parishes, regardless of what the Pope has said. In my diocese, one parish jumped through unreasonable hoops (200+ signatures) and the pastor simply said he can’t do it and the bishop didn’t even bother to respond. This despite the fact that we have young priests who would be willing and qualified to say the TLM.
But we’re still quiet and patient and jump through the hoops. It’s like the fairy tale where every time the hero fulfilled a task to win the princess, he was set another task that was even more impossible. And yet, precisely because we’re doing all they ask, they say we don’t really want the Tridentine Rite...
We don't even have hoops! Of course, now there's something for the Ecclesia Dei commission actually to enforce. They're planning an explanatory statement, and I guess they've been following responses. I'd love to see a real smackdown -- but failing that (and they're just a lot nicer than I am), at the very least a clear, words-of-one-syllable ultimatum!
Perhaps the Holy Father doesn't judge him based on his feelings towards the TLM. No doubt he has other redeeming qualities.
Or perhaps its the fact that hes busy closing as many churches as possible in Boston ..
He is not alone. Here in Albany, the Church closings continue. In the Buffalo diocese, the bishop is closing 30 churches including a Maronite Catholic Church that never switched its corporate papers to the Maronite Eparchy when it was formed in 1966. Many of these churches were built by Polish, Irish, Italian, French and even Lebanese immigrants, when they first arrived in this country. Their descendants have now moved south, necessitating the enormous growth of new Catholic Churches in the Bible belt.
Red hats are not given out willy nilly - they are earned. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and judge the actions of a Cardinal in Boston MA, without having the specifics. Leave the judgment up to our Lord, okay?
I don't see how it could have been interpreted otherwise.
I really wish the Holy Father would hurry up and set the dates for Washington DC or NYC.
We either need to start our American Government curriculum and make campground reservations or get the party bus ready to meet our dear Cyborg!
Red hats are given based on whether or not the Archdiocese had a red hat before. The archdiocese of Boston looks like it contains a large number of Catholics, unfortunately, many are Catholic-in-name only.
Don’t get me started on what Cardinal Sean has done for Boston. :-(
Pope Benedict would not have gone through the immense difficulties he did to get the MP published to have one of the largest diocese in the US just ignore it.
I’m not judging his immortal soul. I’m simply judging his actions, or as they appear to me, and I think that’s perfectly legitimate. If lay Catholics had been more alert 40 years ago and more willing to simply say, sorry, your Excellency, but that’s wrong, the Faith would not have been ripped out of our hands by renegade bishops and clergy.
Supposing, instead of closing churches, a new evangelization had been launched, and the new inner-city residents had been invited into the former immigrant churches? But the Faith was so drained of content by these heretical teachers that there was nothing with which to evangelize.
I have no doubt that O’Malley (who does publish an entertaining blog that I read) is not a heretical teacher and is well-intentioned. But he is completely resistant to any suggestion of the Latin Mass, regardless of what the Pope has said, and while he was brought in to clean up the mess left by his predecessors, he simply seems to see himself as being the last one out and the one to close the door and turn out the lights. And I think those approaches are simply wrong.
I think the hoops, in our case, were just to buy time. That is, they were hoping it would take forever to assemble signatures, and that in the interim, people would forget about it or the modernists could consolidate their opposition in some way.
They’ve been pretty successful with the latter, btw, and are working hard to marginalize the conservative priest and even parish members they perceive as conservative. Even the fact that parish income has been declining since they started on this punitive course doesn’t seem to bother them, because they are obsessed with preventing the TLM in this parish and, if they can, in the diocese altogether.
He may not be herectical but he surrounds himself with them...
As you said in another post, it looks like he's just shutting down the operation, gradually instead of all at once. AFAIK, he has never once expressed any sorrow at closing a parish -- the attitude is more, "Well, we're closing it, and you people are jerks!"
I would think they could have -- at least in some cases -- kept the churches open, and have the priests moved to another rectory; they all have cars. Sell the rectories and convents and halls if they had to, but keep at least one or two Sunday Masses in every church. Meet with the parents about schools and be open to suggesions or offers to help in keeping the school open. Breaks my heart to see a church near me that is now condos -- and it's a 19th century church, gray stone, with a cross still on the steeple! Couldn't ever have been anything but a church.
Just a thought I've had recently, but around here anyway, it's the poorest churches that really have pathetic attendance. I really think the NO is better suited (or more satisfying anyway) to those who are relatively affluent and not badly off. It's the people who are in desperate circumstances (as we all are, well, depending on how you look at) who really need visible acknowledgment of the mystery of suffering and sacrifice -- not this "Aren't we wonderful!" stuff!
I don't even know that he's "popular" with the Pope. I believe he's credited with doing a good job of cleaning up aften the sex abuse scandal in Fall River. In Boston, as far as I can tell, the abuse was pretty well cleaned up before he came -- all over but the lawsuits and settlements.
As for why he was invited to the meeting in Rome, maybe the Pope was aware that he was unsympathetic but thought he was more malleable.
That's an excellent observation! I have always thought that the NO (in a number of the canons and certainly the way it's generally celebrated) is stuffed with a type of Pelagianism that appeals to the comfortable middle class, who know they're all nice people who are going to go to sleep someday and float off comfortably to Heaven no matter what. The poor are forced to confront their own daily existence and moral choices on a different level, and I think this is why the NO has less appeal to them. It comes across as just being fluff.
No crucifixes in an NO parish. No suffering, saving Christ in the NO, thanks!
Wasn't it recently reported that a top aide or something is a big gay marriage supporter?
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.