What Bishop Lynch Thinks about Rome and the Liturgy: Enough already!

Adoramus.org ^ | March 2005 | Adoramus

[Cato1]

Bishop Lynch to FDLC: "Enough already" "I wonder when and where the current movement backward in liturgy will end and lead", said Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg in his speech to the national meeting of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions (FDLC) held in Orlando, Florida, in October.

Bishop Lynch, who worked at the US bishops' conference from the early 1970s, and was associate and general secretary of conference from 1984 until 1995 when he became bishop of St. Petersburg, recalled the "courage and resolve" of liturgical reformers working in the conference, who "courageously fought for proper liturgical implementation of the controlling documents, often refusing to take no as the first response from the Roman congregations and ultimately winning the day with a variety of prefects and congregational staff".

Continuing his reminiscence, Bishop Lynch said that the conference's liturgical staff "were supported by an episcopacy with both backbone and resolve. Your speaker yesterday, Abbot Cuthbert [Johnson], was a staff member of the Congregation [for Divine Worship] at the time with whom we occasionally did 'holy' battle. They were good days".

Speaking of the bishop's authority to govern the liturgy in his diocese, Bishop Lynch said, "I would understand that it is my duty to find the middle between the law and proper liberation from the law which might allow for cultural or local adaptations which are not in strident disagreement with the law". The bishop deplores "pontificalism", the "sin of symbolic and ceremonial excess", but says he does not hear of much pontificalism in his diocese. And he adds his voice to those who object to "Vatican interference":

"We now find ourselves in the difficult situation of taking back an indult previously given, and here I speak of the preparation of the gifts and the distribution of the Precious Blood. The extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must now be instructed that what was previously approved is now wrong. The more astute are baffled or worse by this turn of events. No matter how it is explained, it usually ends up not making sense. Those of us who know the history of this issue find it hard to explain that what was previously OK with past Prefects [of the Congregation for Divine Worship] seems now anathema to the present Prefect. It seems like personal legislation. But whatever it is, we must implement the change, and I am certain we will. It may take some time, especially if we are dedicated to the option of Communion under both species, and it is that we must protect. That would be the 'liturgical ditch' that I might choose to die in were that also some time in the future to be forbidden or limited.

"We have thrown a lot at our people these past few years, and they need a rest. For this reason, I am happy that the new translation of the Roman Missal will be delayed. For this moment I think of these things like I think of four hurricanes within six weeks in Florida: Enough already, Lord".

The bishop's speech to the FDLC was published in Origins, December 2, 2004.

Swiss Bishops on Lay Preaching A recent pastoral letter by the Swiss bishops provoked controversy when it apparently advocated preaching by lay "pastoral assistants" who have theology training in lieu of the priest's homily at Mass.

The document, "Laity in the Service of the Church", issued shortly before the Swiss bishops' ad limina visits to the Holy See in early February, said that "appropriate proclamation of the gospel", requires more preparation than priests "who are growing older and getting fewer" can give to preaching. Thus, the bishops said, "We agree that pastoral assistants with an appropriate education and preparation may give a sermon or meditation in lieu of the homily, provided that the celebrating priest agrees with this". They cautioned, however, that this permission not be construed as blanket authorization for pastoral assistants to preach, and noted that "priests and deacons are the primary proclaimers of the Gospel in the parishes".

The bishops' document said that lay men and women who are "pastoral assistants" were already preaching at services, and it acknowledged that this practice does not conform to Church law concerning the homily. The Swiss letter also said that a visiting priest "may not be denied" his right to preach, "otherwise we consider this [lay preaching] to be an abuse".

Source: KATH.NET - News agency for German-speaking Catholics, February 15

[Cato1]

Shiavo? He has bigger fish to Fry. Showing his opposition to Rome

[B Knotts]

When a bishop is weak on life issues, you know he's a liturgical "reformer."

[Loyalist]

Church paid $100,000 to Bishop Lynch's aide (homosexual harassment of diocesan PR man)

[undirish01]

This, the same bishop who banned Eucharistic Adoration in his diocese in 2000. (As noted yesterday on this site)

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=6956

Let's see: Rejects adoring the Lord, tells Terri's parents to "deal with it" (guess he doesn't "see" Jesus in Terri?), now tells Rome to "take a hike".

Houston, we have a problem......

[Arguss]

"often refusing to take no as the first response from the Roman congregations and ultimately winning the day"

Read that as, ignoring Rome's responses to frivolous requests to obfuscate the Liturgy. That is standard operating procedure.

And whatever the issue he is pontificating and posturing on here, sounds like business as usual, as he is in no rush to comply.

Just as an observation of my own, it would seem that whoever appointed him Bishop knew exactly what to expect of him, and is indeed getting the desired results.

[siunevada]

I suppose the Arians thought things were going pretty well for several hundred years. Lots of bishops signed up for the program.

[Dominick]

It pains me to see this in my own home.

[sassbox]

I read Lynch's full letter on banning Adoration somewhere else on FR, and afterwards was mad enough to spit nails! How on earth does this kind of person get to become a bishop? Why would someone with this kind of attitude towards Our Lord want to be a bishop, or even a priest, in the first place?

The people of St Petersburg have my deepest sympathies.

[AlbionGirl]

"courageously fought for proper liturgical implementation of the controlling documents, often refusing to take no as the first response from the Roman congregations and ultimately winning the day with a variety of prefects and congregational staff".

What controlling documents is he referring to?

Speaking of the bishop's authority to govern the liturgy in his diocese, Bishop Lynch said, "I would understand that it is my duty to find the middle between the law and proper liberation from the law which might allow for cultural or local adaptations which are not in strident disagreement with the law". The bishop deplores "pontificalism", the "sin of symbolic and ceremonial excess", but says he does not hear of much pontificalism in his diocese. And he adds his voice to those who object to "Vatican interference":

"We now find ourselves in the difficult situation of taking back an indult previously given, and here I speak of the preparation of the gifts and the distribution of the Precious Blood. The extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must now be instructed that what was previously approved is now wrong. The more astute are baffled or worse by this turn of events. No matter how it is explained, it usually ends up not making sense. Those of us who know the history of this issue find it hard to explain that what was previously OK with past Prefects [of the Congregation for Divine Worship] seems now anathema to the present Prefect. It seems like personal legislation. But whatever it is, we must implement the change, and I am certain we will. It may take some time, especially if we are dedicated to the option of Communion under both species, and it is that we must protect. That would be the 'liturgical ditch' that I might choose to die in were that also some time in the future to be forbidden or limited.

"We have thrown a lot at our people these past few years, and they need a rest. For this reason, I am happy that the new translation of the Roman Missal will be delayed. For this moment I think of these things like I think of four hurricanes within six weeks in Florida: Enough already, Lord".

All I can say, hopefully without sinning, is I hope this guy is a dying breed.

[Dominick]

I read Lynch's full letter on banning Adoration somewhere else on FR, and afterwards was mad enough to spit nails!

As a practical matter, the directive was meant for an abuse where a consecreated host was being used for years, and not replaced. Many ignored it, but most parishes did not have adoration. It caused a lot more Parishes to have adoration, where many did not.

It bothers me that my Bishop is dropping the ball. I have to look past this frail Bishop to to Christ, "who else has the words of eternal life?"

[franky]

###"The extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must now be instructed that what was previously approved is now wrong."###

Of course it was wrong. It was wrong for Ems to clean the Sacred Vessels and when they did, to just wipe at the holy vessels as they were doing dishes at home. It was wrong for EMs to finish the Blood of Christ while walking up the altar steps. And as Cardinal Arinze states, "It is wrong for EMs to open, close and put their hands inside the Blessed Sacrament."

[undirish01]

You wanna know something funny sass?

I attended the ordination of one of my firends this past summer. He, along with a couple of other fellows, were the first THREE-MAN "class" our diocese has had in----oh, over twenty years easy (usually just one man---if any).

Anyway, Bishop Lynch was invited by the diocesan vocations director, who's brother was being ordained that day.

I could not make out who the bishop was until our bishop announced it was Lynch. My eyes got great big. I thought, "No! Our bishop is a friend with this guy? No wonder Eucharistic Adoration is not promoted in our diocese----and no wonder we have almost zilch priestly vocations."

Well, like I said above he was there for the brothers.

I told more than a few folks about this guy. The reply was, "Only our diocese."

BTW, our vocations director is not too fond of Eucharistic Adoration I am told.

Imagine that.