I think this says a LOT!

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=7300

Well, without a link to the whole original piece, I don't have adequate information, but I don't see how the quote in the first paragraph constitutes "harsh words of condemnation". One could conclude that the Bishop was saying, "Don't scare the gays." I don't think that was the case, but again, reporting is inconclusive.

He was four years ahead of me in the seminary. He loved my renaissance chorale (we sang unaccompanied polyphony and chant at seminary masses for six years). He is a wonderful human being.

Thanks, Paul. Perhaps his love of polyphony will be made manifest in some of the musical moments of his installation, I pray. Maybe he'll consult with you (wishin' and-a hopin') so that the joy of Cristobal Morales will resonate as well should there be songs of Jaime Cortez resounding (another wonderful human being.) I just hope for a bit more than a total "Somos el Cuerpo..." songfest for these historical moments.

Read the PRIEST's original letter, to which the bishop responded.

The priest is wrong, the bishop right. The priest actually says in his original letter that any Catholic who doesn't ACTIVELY oppose homosexuality and their "agenda" is guilty of the most grievious sin, then, to top it all off, he uses some REALLY over the top language about "evil horns" appearing in relation to gays.

How much do I have to ACTIVELY oppose their "agenda"? Is marching in anti-gay pride parades enough for Father? How about writing to my legislators every day to outlaw gay marriage and maybe even homosexuality?

The priest's language was VERY harsh and over the top. The bishop was merely putting things in context and saying "This is Church teaching, but we aren't going to compare you to devils when your sin is no greater than any other mortal sin."

Neither had I, until now. At first, I too, was puzzled as to why the bishop even responded to what seemed to be a mild statement of faith from the priest. Then I discovered that the article only quoted the priest's most MILD statements.

Charles, given El Paso's liturgical guidelines, I think Bishop Ochoa might be a bit on the liberal side when it comes to Communion, but he does seem to hew closely to the rubrics on the Liturgy of the Word.

That last bolded statement is scary. With all due respect to the bishop, he does not seem to understand Ecclesia de Mysterio:

1. The canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. The same discipline establishes that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the Bishop, the Priest and the the Deacon.(96) Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those instituted as acolytes and the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, 3.(97)

A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situations, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations ad actum vel ad tempus (acting or temporarily appointed) or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.(98)

2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;
association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;
the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of "a great number of the faithful".


While the bishop gets it right on some instances, the last two statements in his policy seem to go against the general mindset of the Holy See.

Now, intinction is actually encouraged by the Holy See (and in even in the USCCB's own norms) as it is an excellent option to provide for the distribution of Holy Communion under Both Kinds without needing EMHCs.

I'm down with Fritz, rip out all the pews, restore the Communion rails, and let the great liturgical amoeba find its way, like the Orthodox. All of the mandates that are left for our bishops to discern, despite the heroic efforts of Fr. Smith and Fr. McDonald of Macon, end up being mere targets for wingnuts on both ends of the spectrum to shoot down like ducks in an arcade booth.
I just wanted to know if anyone had any direct experience with Ochoa, the Liturgist.
Seems like that answer is no. But everyone has an opinion nonetheless on his person and disposition.
Thanks. I'll just wait and see what happens when he comes around my neck of the woods. Hope he still likes polyphony and chanted propers.
C

PS. Too bad he couldn't come to CenCA early. He missed the Bach "Magnificat" and Vivaldi's "Gloria" at our church last night. 'Specially "Domine Deus," wherein my wife reminded me why I'm so not worthy of ever having been graced by her consent to matrimony. I'll try to get it to YouTube/Cafe by tomorrow night. GalPals, MAC, MJB, KP, GH, JD.....just wait, Christmas comin' early.

Charles: I am very eager to hear your recordings--thank you for being willing to share!

Re: the last two points from the Diocese of El Paso
--Those seem to be completely off-the-wall. Almost like someone with no liturgical background at all wrote them. If I were visiting a parish where everyone stood from the AD until the Communion rite had fully concluded, I don't know what I would do! It would certainly be off-putting to say the least. Hopefully there's been some mistake...

Charles, I might just have to break out Ecce sacerdos magnus or Sacerdos et pontifex when he comes out to Cal City.... :-)

Wasn't all this tiresome standing during Communion business an outgrowth of Cardinal Mahony's "Gaither Faithfully Together?" I didn't hear any outcry about micromanaging of the faithful from the liturgical establishment when the then Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles mandated certain postures during Mass. As I understand it, the whole document was written by Gabe Huck.

Ignoring the actual reference from the GIRM that points out that the bishop wasn't wrong, I see ...

@PGA, the Holy See did commend the United States for retaining the posture of kneeling after the Agnus Dei. I really do not understand why some bishops are allergic to kneeling.

However, priests or bishops in other places who have invoked such norms in such a way as to micromanage the postures of the faithful did overstep their authority: this is the point of the dubium response to Cdl. George which I cited above.

I read the letter to the El Paso Times. My "characterization" is my opinion of it. What I have said is neither inaccurate nor unfair, but my assessment of the letter.

I agree

So we only say positive things at all times and no one disagrees?

Why not just put a notice on the top of the board that says "people who post here aren't even necessarily CMAA members and no one's opinion or stance represents the organization."

Seems a lot better than over moderating conversation and making sure everyone is positive at all times about everything.

By the way - a great deal of what is said here that is ON TOPIC regarding liturgy would be a "turn off" to most people, if you really want to talk about this board "representing the CMAA."

There's a difference between talking liturgical and musical issues, even vehemently disagreeing, and engaging in character assassination.

Let the blogs attack the bishop or his priests. We have more important things to do here. And neither do I want to be associated with a group that makes a hobby of attacking specific priests, bishops, composers, musicians, etc.

......forever and ever. Amen.

Or you can change it and "whisper" it to yourself, and it will disappear.