Recently His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, rang me up and asked me what qualities I’d want in our next bishop. He also wanted to know what difficult tasks lie ahead of him. Not buying it? Alright, I admit it. That didn’t actually happen. But let’s pretend. What qualities do you want in the next bishop? What should be his first order of business? Here’s my list (see Phil Lawler’s here):
Top qualities:
1) Fortitude
2) A zeal for souls
3) Intelligent
4) Unconcerned about popular opinion
5) Battles for the Church in the local media, instead of throwing the Magisterium under the bus and siding with dissidents.
In other words, I’d like a clone of Archbishop Chaput.
Tasks:
1) Doctrinal reform. Every Catholic ought to be left with no excuse for not knowing that dissenting on infallible doctrines separates one from full communion with the Church. They should know that the fate of their immortal souls depends on accepting these truths. To pretend otherwise is to forfeit your duty. The next bishop needs to communicate this message clearly and convincingly enough so that even all the graduates from SBI realize “they must unlearn what they have learned”. Also, adults and children preparing to receive Sacraments need to be fully educated about what they’re getting into instead of treating the Sacraments like boy scout badges.
2) Liturgical reform. Many masses in this diocese have become psuedo-protestant worship services. Even otherwise decent priests seem to be quite alright with banal worship that is completely devoid of the sense of the sacred. We should really look to what our Holy Father has to say about liturgy and look at how he celebrates. Authentic liturgical reform should be given a priority and not just left to a matter of taste. Get the organ working, stop with the awful folk music, get the choir in the back, stop using glass chalices, stop announcing starting lineups, stop crowded sanctuary syndrome, stop pretending like simply showing up at mass is a heroic act of virtue. Enable parishioners to hear the voice of God. If we claim to worship an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God who is really and truly present in our midst, we darn well ought to act like it. Then maybe we’ll hear His voice.
3) Laity are not pastors and we should stop pretending they are. Stop pretending that canon 521 doesn’t exist. Go a step further than changing these priestess’ titles and tell them to find employment elsewhere. They are doing the devil’s work. Put a stop to it.
4) Clean up SBI. To teach something other than Catholicism and call it Catholicism is doing the work of the devil.
This is our faith. This is what we believe. Our ancestors died for it. People all over the world are dying for it even in our present age. Are we willing to roll over and let it be taken away from us simply because we don’t want to get messy?
|
Great post, Ben. The only thing I would add is that the bishop needs to listen when people not only tell him, but also document serious issues in their parish. No more letters telling us to buck up because he has complete confidence in parish leadership.
Laughed out loud at this: “… stop announcing starting lineups, stop crowded sanctuary syndrome, stop pretending like simply showing up at mass is a heroic act of virtue….”
Excellent, Ben! Our new Ordinary will:
Love and obey the Holy Father,
Re-establish the Catholic Health Care System in the Diocese,
Say Mass in the EF and the OF, since pretty soon the two forms will be combined,
Re-establish the Catholic Physicians Association and the Catholic Lawyers Guild,
Bring back the missing Person of the Trinity: God the Father, and tell the people that he and all the pastors of the parishes (only ordained Priests) are their Spiritual Fathers.
Bring back Hell and Mortal Sin, so that the people know why we need Christ and the Church in the first place.
Bring back the missing Sacrament: Confession, so we can unburden ourselves of our sins.
Overhaul the chancery, bring in Catholic Orders of Sisters and Brothers to serve the People, and stop funding orders who have apostatized.
Fire all the lay administrators, and the various poobahs around the Diocese whose job descriptions are a mystery.
Bring back piety to his Children: he will publicly recite the Rosary, he will offer Benediction every Sunday afternoon,
he and his assistant bishops will travel to parishes to administer Confirmation.
Re-establish the Catholic School System in the Diocese. Oremus!
St. Jean-Marie Vianney, priez pour nous pauvre pecheurs!
I wonder what the responce of the priests will be if we are fortunate to be blessed with a truely orthodox bishop. Will they threaten to resign as a blackmail tool. If so, the bishop better have plan B in effect that “borrows” priests from other dioceses to make up for the shortage.
I want the new bishop to be known for his PERSONAL HOLINESS and let it shine forth in his works and his personal relationships. Hopefully, meeting him will seem like encountering Francis de Sales because of his patience, the Cure’ d’Ars because of his dedication, or Phillip Neri because of his sense of humor which he will need in the DOR.
I am also looking for a prophetic priest/bishop who has a vision for us and the wherewithall and skills of implementing it.
Re-reading the list from Lawler made me realize just how many of these things +Chaput is doing.
Just my opinions…
Qualities I’d like to see in our next bishop:
1. Personal holiness
2. Demonstrates a mastery of Church teaching
3. Unafraid to defend the truth in the Church and in public
4. Willingness to listen
5. If 1 through 4 are true, may he be 40 years old and serve us for 35+ years
Tasks worthy of consideration:
1. Make Christ the center of our communities once again by mandating that every church have the tabernacle front and center. This has been done elsewhere (see Bp. D’Arcy).
2. Stop appointing lay administrators. The presently appointed lay admins could serve out the rest of their four year terms without renewal upon completion. This would generate the least amount of resistance and bring about the desired change in a timely manner.
3. Faithfully enforce the Church’s norms on lay preaching.
4. Completely overhaul St. Bernard’s. The lay theologate should be shut down and the school converted into a minor seminary with a formation program for Rochester deacons.
5. End all diocesan ties, official and unofficial, with dissident organizations like Fortunate Families, Dignity-Integrity, and the St. Joseph House of Hospitality/Oscar Romero church.
I am new to this site. It is clear from the posts I have perused that most of the folks who post here are significantly lacking in understanding the doctrines and theology of the Roman Catholic Church. The main example is your calling most everything infallible. Only the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption is INFALLIBLE. The other current teachings are NOT infallible and may be changed. (Look up the Infallible teachings on slavery.)
Do you have any idea about worship in the early church…and the role of women in those services? i SUSPECT NOT.
But if you were educated there would be very little to rant about!
Before anyone wastes their time responding to v2tom’s comment above, be advised that I have an post coming soon on infallabile teachings of the Magisterium. It hearkens back to some of the questions raised by BigE a few months ago. Instead of going back and forth I decided to delve a little further and report back on it more thoroughly instead of continuing to have these one-off debates. It might be a couple of weeks, but it will clearly show the error of v2tom’s comments. Feel free to respond to v2tom, but just wanted to throw this out there before this becomes a firestorm.
Ignorance seems to be blissful for Ben.
I’d like to know the source of your seemingly infallible posts. Where did you study Theology? Degrees?
v2tom;
“Only the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption is INFALLIBLE”.
I think there was an Immaculate Conception somewhere in there, wasn’t there????
v2tom: Maybe you could enlightened us on worship in the early Church and the role of women in those services? That is a topic of particular interest to me. Your comment is rather vague and general and I suspect not really grounded in scholarship -that’s just my initial reaction which could certainly be incorrect. I, myself, have come to the conclusion that there is very little that can actually be proven and so we have to infer from cultural and societal norms, and that can be VERY tricky indeed, and b)’primitive’ Christianity is often taken to be ‘pure’ whereas it should be understood as ‘original’, that is, not yet fully understood, developed or actualized. At any rate. I am not likely to be impressed by theories that suggest the role of women was suppressed by a male dominated Church. I am also not going to be impressed with theories of worship that fail to take into account Jewish public and domestic liturgical contexts. And, yes, we certainly can guess as to what the early Christians may have done based upon what Jesus taught and said and did but that could be a far cry from what they actually did. We risk inserting what we think they should have done with what actually happened. And so, I am equally skeptical of theories that claim that the early Christians would have worshiped this or that way because it would have fit Jesus’ teachings.
With all that in mind, have at it.
I too would love to hear v2tom bestow his knowledge of the role of women in the early Church. Also, I hope he can explain why he believes the Assumption is the only infallible doctrine of our Catholic faith.
Article worth reading: A DISCUSSION OF INFALLIBILITY
To understand the role of women in the early church I suggest reading the New Testament. It’s all there, the Mary’s, Pheobe, etc. Then read some of the first century writings not in the Canon.
The Assumption is the only doctrine that fills the requirements for an infallible teaching; proclaimed “ex-cathedra” and accepted by the universal church. Again you need to read the definitions and documents from the two Vatican councils. It’s all there
In other words, skip first century scholarship and substitute Bernie’s and the rest of the cabal’s infused knowledge.
Oftentimes the new converts in the early Church would incorporate some of their previous pagan rituals into the new liturgy. Early missionaries had a terrible time discerning and rooting out pagan practises from the “Lord’s Supper”. Sometimes the agape afterwards turned into a less than Christian party. The Council of Laodicea of about 363-364 forbade the use of churches for celebrating the Agape or love feast. When you talk about the early Christians, we have to rely somewhat on the churchmen of that time to determine what was legitimate.
A few years ago we went through the same situation when some college chaplains were attempting to consecrate pizza and coke as part of the Mass. They had to be told that, while pizza and coke were cultural icons, they did not become the Blessed Sacrament at the consecration.
I,and many others, have read the New Testament and 1st century writers “other than the Canon” so you will have to be a little more detailed in your comments. Can you discuss something specific where you think we disagree?
A while ago a very articulate Catholic but misinformed woman wrote to the D and C about birth control,religious ritual and infallibility. She stated that the pope only became infallible after the First Vatican Council.
Infallibility does not mean that a doctrine is invented at that point in history; it maintains that the doctrine has been held by the faithful since the beginning of the Church or close to it but may even have evolved in understanding. Infallibility is the pope’s stamp of approval in a matter of faith and morals for what is generally held by the majority of the clergy and of the faithful.
Hooray, finally some agreement.
I’d quibble with the ” Stamp of approval” comment, but that is not critical.
This recalls an interesting amazon review of a book defending the all-male priesthood. The commentor said he accepted ordinatio sacerdotalis but guess what? Since the Church hadn’t infallibly defined what maleness was, it was still an open question. With dissenters, the Church will always be one infallible proclamation short of settling any hot-button issue.
Jim M. here: Getting back to Ben’s original discussion, I would agree with the list that Ben posted. I would also add, a man with a genuine love for the people that he serves…someone with a gentle nature in dealing with people, similar to the way that Bishop James Kearney treated people. He wasn’t filled with phony pious platitudes, but was able to be down to earth, and he was definitely NOT AFRAID to teach the Truths of the Catholic Church. He also had a very strong devotion to Our Lady.
Back to the original discussion- In addition to what Ben, Susan, and others have posted, it would be so refreshing to have as our new bishop a man who would not be afraid to lead pro-life prayer vigils in front of an abortion clinic. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I cannot recall a single instance where either our current bishop or any previous bishop of this diocese has done so, even though it has been almost 40 years since Roe v. Wade and 42 years that abortion has been legal in New York State.
v2tom,
1) “To understand the role of women in the early church I suggest reading the New Testament.” Do so with a solid grounding in Greek.
2) “It’s all there, the Mary’s, Pheobe, etc.” What, exactly, is there? Have you read St Paul? Do you think he was wrong?
3) Then read some of the first century writings not in the Canon. (Like the Didache? If you’re referring to the various gnostic “gospels,” they were written centuries later, save for the “Gospel of Didymus Judas Thomas,” which some date to the second century. Even so, by the third century, we have accounts of it being denounced as a fictitious account of a heretic. The rest were all composed later.
4) “The Assumption is the only doctrine that fills the requirements for an infallible teaching; proclaimed “ex-cathedra” and accepted by the universal church.” No, it is one of a whole plethora of dogmas. It’s a dogma, not merely a doctrine. Also, ever dogma is infallibly true. Scripture is infallible. You’re simply wrong on this point.
50 “Again you need to read the definitions and documents from the two Vatican councils. It’s all there” (Apparently the Church started in 1868. Did you throw away the first 19 post-apostolic ecumenical councils?)
Now don’t we have anything better to do than answer trolls?
I just have to say it was very considerate of our dear Pope to ask your opinion on the new Bishop, Ben! I expect I will be getting a call requesting my opinion any day now, too.
So I will tell him that I also wish for a Bishop with personal holiness, and one with courage and fortitude. I would like him to have great love of Christ and love of those who are His and those who are His lost, and a love for His Holy Catholic Church, and a zeal to uphold its teachings. A true catechist. And in our times that must be someone brave and strong. Someone like our Pope himself!
I wish the new bishop would ban any ‘vibrato’ from any cantor, male or female, in the diocese. Vibrato is ugly, disturbing, annoying and totally unnecessary.
Now then, Choir, natural vocal coloration is perfectly fine. Warbly old ladies and people jiggling their chins and shaking their heads for vocal effect are the enemy here!
Vibrato is hideous when heard in either chant or polyphony or if a cantor is upfront leading and leading the singing.
I hate it when they (choir) jump to a high note which is sharped or flatted. It sounds like a factory whistle from a 1940’s movie.
My old choir director had a sign above his office that said “Help stamp out opera.” Now, I happen to like well-done opera, but I take his point that people with no sensitivity for sacred music tend to employ vibrato that could slice cheese. But that gets us back to the larger problem that I have banged the djembe for endlessy. Namely, all the efforts to restore reverent liturgy are for naught until will start purging all the fluff from the music.
I’m just noting that in, say, baroque motets, a touch of vocal coloration really makes the piece shine. Credo I with vibrato sounds like a cat caught in a tree.
Boy,
If only every diocese had bishops adhering to the contents of this post!
(1) New bishop should be over the age of 60, maybe 65, so that it will be a relatively short “reign”. Either that – or choose a younger man, but impose a 10-year limit. And, if ordinaries have to resign at 75, the Bishop of Rome should do the same.
(2)Liturgy- I’d like to see parishes use the “chant” that the diocese had suggested when the new “translation” (into a strange form of English) was implemented. The chant version would help us all remember the new wording (“people of good will” is a choking hazard)… and might even facilitate occasional Latin chant for the people.
(3) I, too, prefer not to have glass “chalices”.
(4) Infallibility – Usually it is acknowledged that the Assumption and Immaculate Conception are two infallible dogmas. Some would also say that the proclamation on Infallibility is itself infallible, which has logical difficulties. All the statements in the Nicene Creed must be held. (Problem: “Eastern” Orthodoxy opposes the “filioque” – by the way, does anyone here know why “filioque” was added to the Creed? Why don’t we just drop the “filioque” and go back to the original?)
The previous remarks have mentioned many things I would like in a new Bishop, in addition I would like a new Bishop to address the following:
Dress for Mass. Currently there are those wearing tank tops, short shorts, super mini skirts and all kinds of outrageous fashions.
Promote the wearing of veils by the women.
Stop the social gatherings before and after mass in front of the tabernacle.
Stop the practice of giving communal absolution during so called Penance Services.
But most of all, offer the traditional Mass at more churches.
I would like the bishop to:
1.Encourage his priests to preach about abortion, birth control, homosexuality, premarital sex and pornography.
2. Institute 24/7 Eucharistic adoration in multiparishes throughout the diocese.
3. Ensure authentic theological and moral teaching was done in Catholic schools.
4. Participate in rosaries in front of Planned Parenthood.
5. Replace any priest , deacon and nun who persist in the modernist heresy.
6. There was a great post on this site last year as to how a good bishop would conduct himself. That speaks volumes.
If Rochester priests have to resign at 70, the Bishop of Rochester should do the same.
As a former teacher in a Catholic elementary school now closed, and the product of 12 years of Catholic education myself, my hope is for our new bishop to see the value in promoting Catholic elementary schools, not just the dollar value on the bottom line. But the value to the souls of the children in attendance. The value in vocations realized from daily immersion in our faith from an early age. And the value in building the next generations of faithful Catholics. Where else will they come from?
DonCope makes a point about dressing for Mass. Yes – tanktops and short shorts need to be banned. Parishes should definitely have a dress code for Extraordinary ministers of holy communion.
BUT – veils for women? I am sure you’re serious, but there is NO reason for women to be veiled at Mass!! The little doilys of yesteryear were silly. The old 1917 Code of Canon Law on which head coverings were mandated also says: “1262.1 Conformable to ancient discipline, it is desirable that the women be separated from the men in church.” Now, really… does anyone here want to go back to THAT?!?
The present Canon Law does NOT contain any mandate about head coverings or separation of men and women. Deo gratias!
I do hope that a new Bishop will ahve the sense to listen to the faithful before he starts promulgating this-that-or-the-other-thing. He should visit lots of parishes to get a sense of how things are here and leave it to him to see who and where some issues need to be addressed.
We don’t want a new Bishop like the one who was removed from Scranton a while back. In Scranton there was a rebellion – not just from priests – but from the faithful. It was tragic because the poor man squandered his authority and his episcopacy by assuming that a diktat was all that was necessary. He then had to resign “for health” reasons.
I assure you that if the next one starts mandating the EF and birettas and capes and chapel veils, he’ll be out of here within 5 years. Even Dolan will not put up with it.
Even before the new Canon law, the headcovering rule was largely ignored in most places in the United States. Not all laws in the Canon law are equal.
I believe Bp. Martino when he claims to have had health problems. If that Vatican is going to pressure a bishop to resign early, don’t you think there are far more worthy candidates than one who is faithful to the Church?
The 1983 code of canon law makes clear that if something was not explicitly changed from the 1917 code, it ought to be considered unchanged. The 1983 code simply does not mention chapel veils, and as such, it is implied that they ought to still be worn. In addition, veiling comes directly from scripture (St Paul), separation of men and women does not appear in the New Testament at all, to the best of my knowledge, so you’re comparing apples to oranges anyhow. Ergo, you are wrong for two reasons, Scotty.
Also, EMHCs ought not exist, you called scripture silly, Bishop Martino was not removed, and a Bishop cannot mandate “the EF and birettas and capes” (what do you mean by capes? In what context?) Also, with all due respect to the good Cardinal, Archbishops have very little control over their suffragan dioceses, so your comment that he would not “put up with it” sounds rather silly. The fact that people were disobedient in the past does not mean that something is a bad idea.
I believe Bp. Martino when he claims to have had health problems.
Exactly. I have seen no evidence other than wild conjecture or salicious gossip that it was otherwise and anyone passing such along should examine their conscience.
Abaccio: “The 1983 code of canon law makes clear that if something was not explicitly changed from the 1917 code, it ought to be considered unchanged.
The following is from the vatican website:
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.
§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.
I think a new bishop should reform whatever educational institution granted v2tom a degree. Immediately. Catholic institutions should teach TRUTH, with a healthy dose of humility, and not lead their students to split hairs about which teachings are infallible and which are not (implicitly, therefore, the ones we don’t have to adhere to!).
v2tom – you would do well to adhere to all of the Church’s teachings. And if a Catholic institution taught you that Mary’s Assumption is the only infallible teaching of the Church (and therefore all the rest are up for grabs), they sadly failed you. You should demand your money back.
drforjc:
Can. 20 A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.
Can. 21 In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.
Clearly I miswrote. I believe the doctrine of the Assumption was the last teaching declared ex-cathedra and therefore infallible. This doctrine was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. Sorry for the confusion; my bad
I find the statement “a healthy dose of humility, and not lead their students to split hairs about which teachings are infallible and which are not” hypocritical for most folks posting on this board!! As I read the messages, mo0st seem to adhere to the feeling that everything from Rome is infallible!!
“Let the dead bury their dead!” Right-away obedience to Our Lord is how I show my love for God the Father.
He has given us the great grace of life, salvation in Christ, and His Holy Church. Our Holy Father the Pope has the grace of Infallibility in matters of Faith and Morals. This dogma all Catholics believe.
Any discussion of theological truths by Catholics can only be conducted within the framework of obedient love for the Blessed Trinity and all the truths taught by Christ’s Catholic Church. This has always been the framework for legitimate fides quaerens intellectum.
The mindset of the pseudo-intellectual that, if it isn’t “an infallibly defined doctrine” I don’t have to obey it, has never been a Catholic way of thinking, it is not of God the Father. What does one think of a son who only minds when his father yells? He’s a bad, unfaithful son… A “theologian” who proceeds on such a perverted premise cannot bear good fruit. The reading of today from Amos should give us all pause. Let us examine our conscience and purge ourselves of all disobedience to Our Lord Jesus and His Holy Church. It is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me. Our Lady, Queen of Peace, pray for us!
v2tom – to be clear, just because a promulgation from Rome is not declared infallibly does NOT mean that we are free to disregard it. We are required by our Faith to give intellectual assent to everything that Rome promulgates. In other words, Rome gets the benefit of the doubt. We are called to humbly submit. If we disagree with something, we should endeavor to understand how we are seeing things differently and attempt to align our thinking with that of the Church. For to assume I am correct and Rome is mistaken would be a supreme act of hubris on my part, would it not?
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/
Questions 5-7 should explain, from a perspective you might even agree with, the proper understanding of truths, V2Tom.
As I read the messages, mo0st seem to adhere to the feeling that everything from Rome is infallible!!
Not at all. When Rome came out with the Ten Commandments of Driving, none of us thought they were infallible. 🙂
What I would like to see in the next Bishop of the Diocese of Rochester can best be understood in terms of attitude or perspective.
What attitude does the next Bishop have regarding the Second Vatican Council?
Like those theologians who continued contributing to the journal CONCILIUM, does the new bishop perceive the Church looking forward and promoting Vatican Council III?
Or like the theologians who broke from the CONCILIUM and began the journal COMMUNIO, does the new Bishop see the Second Vatican Council over, completed and now the Church continues the great work of implementing Vatican II and living in continuity with what proceeded it?
So what is it you want to see in the new Bishop, brother of penance? Get to the point!
As Father Robert Barron discusses a Yves Congar book on the Second Vatican Council, the perspectives and attitudes of those who founded COMMUNIO in contrast to those who founded and remained with CONCILIUM are the same perspectives and attitudes I hope to find in the new Bishop of the Diocese of Rochester.
Enjoy Father Barron’s video in which he discusses these perspectives. Please watch and listen to the entire video to better appreciate what it is I am getting at regarding the perspective and attitude of the man who replaces Bishop Clark.
http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr–Barron-comments-on-The-Meaning-of-Vatican-II.aspx
I am hoping thet the new bishop will follow his episcoplal calling to be a prophet; that he will not only lead us out of “Egypt” (sin) but will lead us to the promised land (union with God).
and again on Abaccio’s statement:
see here
With a tip o’ the hat to St. Paul and his pithy comment about what the Judaizers could do regarding their fixation with circumcision, our new ordinary will advise all the lay altar-kissers (neo-judaizers all) to cut it out or cut them off (their lips, that is…)
Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us!
Ben: “In other words, I’d like a clone of Archbishop Chaput”.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but doesn’t Holy Mother the Church forbid cloning as indicated in “Dignitas Humanae” by His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI?
🙂 notice I didn’t say I’d like to clone +Chaput, just that I’d like a clone of him. I don’t condone cloning in any way, shape, or form, but if there already exists such a clone, we might as well harness his powers.
“Stop pretending like simply showing up at Mass is an heroic act of virtue.” In some places, it is an heroic act of virtue, if not outright white martyrdom. For me, it is sometimes a near occasion of sin, for all the people I’m tempted to scream at, slap in the face, or eviscerate . . . not counting the hymnals I’d like to burn.
One commentator suggests: “Bring back Hell and Mortal Sin.”
We never abolished them; we empowered them instead.
Next time the Holy Father calls, tell him that what he’s just done for San Franciso will be perfectly acceptable for us, as far as I’m concerned. ^_^