Die-hard fan who know Cardinal Tagle by watching TV. Sheesh!
Let's dissent his comment.
Actually by labelling your post as "liturgical abuse" you have implicitly [It was explicit! I said it so!] accused the prince of the church, descendant of the apostles with a grave error. [Obviously, he has not been reading my blog of how I questioned the Feng-shui bishop, and Cardinal Rosales and Cardinal Mahony....So since they are bishops, you don't criticize them, like what this FAN is saying. Ever wonder how the sex abuse scandal in the Church grew so bad? Yeah, sweep it under the rug. They are BISHOPS, SUCCESSOR OF THE APOSTLES AND PRINCES OF THE CHURCH ANYWAY. You don't criticize them!] I don't know where you really live [I live on planet Earth, dude!] but as far as I know true catholics [Wow! Like the one in Montana who followed the late Pius XIII?!] recognize that Your quote about the law is non-sequitur. [Uh...right. I quoted various liturgical laws and opinion of liturgists...Yeah....non sequitur....Got it.....Anybody have Advil there...Major migraine here!] As far as I know, [Not far enough.] vestments are part of the general instruction, not canon law. [Where the hell did I mention Canon Law here?!?!] Instead of tearing down the church [I maybe able to tear down a "c"hurch but no WAAAYYY will I tear down THE "C"hurch!] in the motherland, why don't you help to strengthen it? [Yeah, he is strengthening it by pooh-poohing errors of bishops. He calls it strengthening by defending his favorite media darling cardinal, even if he is wrong. That is STRENGTHENING!]
[Let the introduction to Redemptionis Sacramentum, the Instruction authorized by Blessed John Paul II answer why wearing the wrong liturgical color can be called a "liturgical abuse":
Someone may ask why there should be liturgical norms at all. Would creativity, spontaneity, the freedom of the children of God and ordinary good sense not be enough? Why should the worship of God be regimented by rubrics and regulations? Is it not enough just to teach people the beauty and the exalted nature of the Liturgy? Liturgical norms are necessary because “in liturgy full public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and by his members. From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of his Body the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 7). And the summit of the Liturgy is the Eucharistic celebration. No one should be surprised if, with the passage of time, Holy Mother Church has developed words and actions, and
therefore directives, for this supreme act of worship. Eucharistic norms are devised to express and protect the Eucharistic mystery and also manifest that it is the Church that celebrates this august sacrifice and Sacrament.
As Pope John Paul II puts it, “These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, no. 52).
It follows that “priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to these norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church” (ibid.). Obviously, external conformity is not enough. Faith, hope and charity, which also manifest themselves in acts of solidarity with the needy, are demanded by participation in the Holy Eucharist. This Instruction underlines this dimension in article 5: “A merely external observation of norms would obviously be contrary to the nature of the sacred Liturgy, in which Christ himself wishes to gather his Church, so that together with himself she will be ‘one body and one spirit.’ For this reason, external action must be illuminated by faith and charity which unite us with Christ and with one another and engender love for the poor and the abandoned.”
3. Is It Important to Pay Attention to Abuses?
An allied temptation which has to be resisted is that it is a waste of time to pay attention to liturgical
abuses. Someone wrote that abuses always existed and always will exist, and that therefore we should just get on with positive liturgical formation and celebration.
This objection, true in part, can be rather misleading. All abuses regarding the Holy Eucharist are not of the same weight. Some threaten to make the Sacrament invalid. Some are manifestations of deficiency in Eucharistic faith. Others contribute to confusion among the People of God and to growing desacralization of Eucharistic celebrations. They are not banal.
Of course liturgical formation is necessary for all in the Church. “It is vitally necessary,” says the Second Vatican Council, “that attention be directed, above all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 14). But it is also true that “in various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, no. 10). “Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty” (Instruction on the Eucharist, no. 7). “Arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal” (Instruction, no. 11) for which the Second Vatican Council hoped. “These abuses have nothing to do with the authentic spirit of the Council and must be prudently and firmly corrected by Pastors” (John Paul II: Letter on Fortieth Anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium, Spiritus et Sponsa, no. 15).
As for those who modify liturgical texts on their own authority, it is important to observe with this
Instruction that “the sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine, so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the diminution or to the elimination of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi” (Instruction, no. 10)]
Actually, the indult does not have to apply:
346. As to the color of sacred vestments, the traditional usage is to be retained: namely,
g. On more solemn days, sacred vestments may be used that are festive, that is, more precious, even if not of the color of the day.
[ON MORE SOLEMN DAYS....he himself quoted it. But the day is an OPTIONAL MEMORIAL of Our Lady of Lourdes. The Spanish Indult applies for FEASTS of the Blessed Virgin and to be used in Her Shrine or solemn processions, none of which apply to the case of Cardinal Tagle's use of the blue chasuble. The parish church is the patronage of Espiritu Santo.]
This is the reason why even Pope Benedict XVI, bless his soul, has used blue, and even yellow colored vestments before (I assume the place where he went to could not afford the more expensive gold colored vestments, but just had some gold trimmings). [That was the time when Archbishop Piero Marini was papal MC. When Msgr. Guido Marini took over, all these funny looking chasubles were not used anymore. This guy obviously does not know what he is talking about here. And obviously he did not read this one.
And I think he thinks this is ok. Thankfully that one got stored in the sacristy pretty quickly. Or I say if Benedict XVI gets beatified, shred it to pieces as relics!]
[Look who the papal MC is.]
Why don't you do something more spiritually and theologically productive, instead of taking things out of context and for all we know you are a wolf in sheep's clothing.
[I am not wearing any sheep's clothing. Trying to look for sheep's wool but all I got is this flimsy t-shirt from a local grocery store. And dude! This is productive. You know why? Fr. Geny Diwa follows my blog! Booya!]
Mr. I want to be Anonymous, and all those who see the cardinal through the lens of a TV camera...
Here is my prayer to you..."...forgive them for they know not what they do."
You better read this.
Here is a quote for you, from someone who knew the cardinal, closely!:
Local church observers said Tagle is a “poor administrator and that many Cavite priests do not like him.”
One of them is lay leader and former Malacañang Protocol Adviser Daniel Victoria who said Tagle has been an absentee Imus bishop as well as Manila Cardinal. “He is holy, he is honest, he is not corrupt, but he is a poor administrator.”
Victoria said Tagle is the Filipino equivalent of American Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who like the Tagle, was known for his preaching in mass media.
“Tagle is a good speaker. He inspires people, but when it comes down to managerial work, I give him a failing grade. “
Victoria added, “If he cannot run the Imus diocese well, and the Archdiocese of Manila, how can he run the entire universal Church?”
I have spoken many times about the cardinal in the past. So many times, I lost count and couldn't find my blog posts about it.
Guess Fr. Reggie is really getting mad at me. Makes him wonder who the heck really am I!