USCCB meeting

19 Comments

1. Ralph says:

   15 June 2011 at 4:52 PM

   I am so very often frustrated with our Bishops. But, I rarely think about what a difficult job they have. Thank you for the reminder.

   Don’t they call the room that leads to the papal balcony the room of tears, or something like that, due to the fact that the men who are called to the papacy weep from the thought of the huge burden of it? I imagine it’s the same, but to a lesser scale, for the bishops.
2. APX says:

   15 June 2011 at 5:37 PM

   I am so thankful for our bishop, whom we’ve had for just over a year now. I don’t think people in my diocese realize just how blessed we are to have him.
3. St. Rafael says:

   15 June 2011 at 6:22 PM

   Prayers for the bishops. May they find some inspiration similar to what occured with the English bishops, when they made an unexpected move for the restoration of meatless Fridays.
   It doesn’t have to be meatless Fridays. It could be some other pious devotion, but something big, traditional, something that will affect the lives of Catholics.

   I don’t mean pastoral letters and documents. With all due respect, nobody will read any patoral documemt put out by the USCCB. Catholics aren’t going to be bothered and go out of their way to read a USCCB letter. I am a traditional practicing Catholic, that takes the time to read and comment on Catholic blogs, but even I will be too bored to actually read, bother, and get interested in a USCCB document. The idea of it puts me to sleep.

   Another thing that really bothers me about the USCCB, is why in the world do they have meetings twice a year. Is it really so difficult for a bishop to run his diocese for six months that they have to meet each other every six months? Why not have the USCCB meeting be just once a year and not waste so much time, energy, resources, and all the money in meeting twice a year in the fall and spring? It is for a reason that the USCCB is seen as a bloated bureacracy with too much unnecessary power that reduces the importance and control of an individual bishop over his individual diocese.
4. Random Friar says:

   15 June 2011 at 6:54 PM

   Any man who loves meetings and arranges them for the sake of having a committee is ipso facto no of a sane mind, and should not lead a small choir, much less a diocese.

   The meetings may seem frivolous to us. They know not everyone, or even most, will bother to read them. But they are still guides for them in setting priorities and missions for their own respective dioceses (yes, I agree that the bureaucratic part of the USCCB sometimes takes itself too seriously).

   But there is another great benefit. They have one of the loneliest jobs in the world, lost in a sea of priests and laity who often do not appreciate just what a burden they carry (and I am guilty of that at times). Meeting together, for the sake of supporting the brothers, building bonds of friendship and collegiality, is very important for one’s spiritual and mental health in these times. I’d say let them have a getaway once a year where they just all play cards or do what they like among themselves in some secluded place, but then people would complain about how frivolous they are.
5. Jack Hughes says:

   15 June 2011 at 7:11 PM

   @Random Friar

   Dear Father I like the idea your Idea about letting our Bish’s getaway once a year:), they could go to to a Blackfriars Oxford and play cards with the novices.

   Personally I am against the idea of Bishops conferences as it seems to result in games of insanity, here in Britain a Bishop (who is now retired) was blasted by his Brothers for taking charge of Catholic education in his diocese only to be informed it was the duty of the E&WBC Educaiton officer. Also for some reason my Bishop is in charge of the E&BC forign affairs dept, why on earth he had to fly to Beruit last year is beyoned me……………..
6. Iowander says:

   15 June 2011 at 7:27 PM

   I sometimes wonder why Fr. Z hasn’t been made a bishop yet. I suppose it would necessarily decrease his audience.
7. ikseret says:

   15 June 2011 at 7:37 PM

   Fr. Z were you in Georgetown today?
   If not, you have a doppleganger!
8. Lori Pieper says:

   15 June 2011 at 9:09 PM

   I was listening to the USCCB meeting on EWTN. There was a report by Cardinal Wuerl on the formation of the Ordinariate. He said (I hope I got this right) that around 100 Anglican/Episcopal priests had expressed a desire to join the U.S. ordinariate. He didn’t say anything about the number of parishioners, but I’m sure it must number in the thousands! A really fascinating discussion of the whole process of them coming into the Ordinariate ensued.

   I’m sure Fr. Z will report more on this very soon!
9. KAS says:

   15 June 2011 at 9:10 PM

   I try to pray daily for our Bishops and Priests. By name I pray for our parish priests, local bishop, the archbishop, the Pope, and also the archbishop for the area to which we will eventually move.

   Prayer for the clergy is essential since they are under constant spiritual attacks.
10. Alan Aversa says:

    15 June 2011 at 10:51 PM

    I went to this link on the conference, and it was the first time I’d heard about a new Spanish translation of the U.S. propers. I never knew they were changing it. All I know is that the Spanish translation of the Novus Ordo is much better than the current English one, so I hope this new translation of the Spanish propers is an improvement.
11. Patti Day says:

    16 June 2011 at 12:00 AM

    I managed to see a little of the conference on EWTN TV while preparing dinner. Various Bishops were asking questions about the Ordinariate and how priests and laiety will be affected. I didn’t get the name of the Bishop who was responding to the questions, but he was very knowledgable on an array of dizzying subjects

    Raymond Arroyo will devote his Thursday night EWTN program, The World Over, to a roundup of events.
12. Lori Pieper says:

    16 June 2011 at 1:41 AM

    Patti, that was Cardinal Wuerl, the Archbishop of Washington D.C., who is the liaison (if that’s the right word) for the Ordinariate in the U.S., and I must say his report was very concise and informative, and his answers were knowledgable. But many of the bishops seemed quite baffled by the process and what it would mean in their dioceses where the Ordinariate will exist alongside their parishes. Also very interesting the discussion of the Ordinariate priests possibly being able to say Mass in the Ordinary form (Extraordinary too?) for other parishes who need priests to occasionally fill in. You can see how that would be an advantge, given the shortage of priests. Some amazing developments down the road.
13. Lori Pieper says:

    16 June 2011 at 1:43 AM

    Patti, that was Cardinal Wuerl, the Archbishop of Washington D.C., who is the liaison (if that’s the right word) for the Ordinariate in the U.S., and I must say his report was very concise and informative, and his answers were knowledgable. But many of the bishops seemed quite baffled by the process and what it would mean in their dioceses where the Ordinariate will exist alongside their parishes. Also very interesting the discussion of the Ordinariate priests possibly being able to say Mass in the Ordinary form (Extraordinary too?) for other parishes who need priests to occasionally fill in. You can see how that would be an advantge, given the shortage of priests. Some amazing developments down the road, I’m sure.
14. Christine says:

    16 June 2011 at 7:13 AM

    @St. Rafael,

    I think it’s important for the bishops to get together, not necessarily to discuss policies but to spend time with their brother bishops.
15. robtbrown says:

    16 June 2011 at 7:15 AM

    Lori Pieper says:

    But many of the bishops seemed quite baffled by the process and what it would mean in their dioceses where the Ordinariate will exist alongside their parishes. Also very interesting the discussion of the Ordinariate priests possibly being able to say Mass in the Ordinary form (Extraordinary too?) for other parishes who need priests to occasionally fill in. You can see how that would be an advantge, given the shortage of priests. Some amazing developments down the road.

    Of course, with the shortage of priests bishops would be interested in increasing their work force, even though an extra 100 priests for the US averages about one half priest per diocese. My guess, however, is that the bishops are more concerned about what authority they would have over priests and parishes of the Ordinariate in their dioceses. The answer is not much.
16. Centristian says:

    16 June 2011 at 9:03 AM

    I, like other readers, managed to catch the bishops in conference participating in Cardinal Wuerl’s question and answer session on the Anglican Ordinariate. I found the whole thing fascinating, actually.

    I was first of all impressed by the level of refinement and cordiality I observed in their interactions, from the bishops’ very politely-worded inquiries, to the cardinal’s ever-diplomatic responses. I think it is safe to say that some of the bishops’ questions were designed more to underscore flaws that they perceived about the ordinariate than to gain greater insight into it, but even those bishops nevertheless proceeded with supreme grace and self-restraint. You would not have guessed this was a room full of American men who wield power.

    Some interesting questions were raised, for example, if an Anglican/Episcopal community converts to the Catholic Church corporately, yet there are individuals within that community who do not wish to come over with the whole community as part of the Ordinariate, but individually and simply join their local RC parish, how is that to be handled? What if a Roman Catholic lay person happens to stumble upon an Ordinariate parish and decides he likes the Anglican Use better than the Ordinary Form (or the Extraordinary Form, for that matter)? Can he join the parish?

    One of the bishops, I think, seemed to have a problem with the concept, altogether, of a separate ordinariate for Anglican converts, seeming to hint that, to him, it was odd that Protestants of other denominations are received into the Church individually while Anglicans, for some reason, are welcomed differently, parishes at a time, with their own ordinariate in the works (why no Lutheran/Methodist/Presbyterian/&c ordinariates?). He seemed perplexed by the whole affair, and concerned that non-Anglican converts would perceive that Anglican converts were receiving special treatment, even to the point of being able to retain their Anglican style of worship, whereas, say, Lutherans, Baptists, &c do not get their own Missal designed to reflect their style of worship (alas, untrue…all those traditions can be mimicked using the Roman Missal in English, versus populum).

    All in all, I found the exchange riveting (I don’t get out much) and the comportment of the American bishops most edifying.
17. robtbrown says:

    16 June 2011 at 12:03 PM

    Centristian says:

    He seemed perplexed by the whole affair, and concerned that non-Anglican converts would perceive that Anglican converts were receiving special treatment, even to the point of being able to retain their Anglican style of worship, whereas, say, Lutherans, Baptists, &c do not get their own Missal designed to reflect their style of worship (alas, untrue…all those traditions can be mimicked using the Roman Missal in English, versus populum).

    I don’t find that so puzzling. The others don’t believe in the ministerial priesthood, and so any Eucharistic service bears little relation to even the most superficially said Novus Ordo.

    Among American Episcopalians attitude toward the Eucharist has varied. In Low Church Episcopalians there would not only not be daily services sometimes not even weekly. High Church Episcopalian worship (which I assume comprise those entering the Ordinariate) bears strong resemblance to the mass.
18. St. Rafael says:

    16 June 2011 at 1:57 PM

    “@St. Rafael,
    I think it’s important for the bishops to get together, not necessarily to discuss policies but to spend time with their brother bishops.”

    They can get together and spend time with each other once a year. Is it really necessary for them to do it every six months? I think they can handle meeting each other every year and spending the rest of their time with the administration of their diocese.
19. Random Friar says:

    16 June 2011 at 3:44 PM

    @Alan: I remember seeing the first Missal from the Mexican bishops’ conference after the Council. Some of it was good, other parts were just awful Spanish, sounding like a first draft, or parsed through an old internet translation engine (they are getting better at it, praise God!)

    Yes, it is much closer to the NO Latin. There’s still a little room for improvement, and they will add the newer dismissals (already present in some translations, e.g., “Id y glorifiquen Dios por vuestras vida” being one example, I think), and delete some of the options. If you think the English Missal has options, you should see the Spanish!

    The project is not as urgent as the English project, but I’m glad to see it in progress.

Comments are closed.