Walker, Iowa Ranger
It seems that Bishop-elect Walker Nickless of Sioux City has deviated from recent custom in the plans for his episcopal ordination next 2o January.
As opposed to the informal protocols explained in an earlier post here, Jacob relays a communique from the diocese stating that Nickless has selected Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence to stand as a "Con-celebrant" [sic] alongside "Con-celebrant" [sic] Archbishop Chaput (his former ordinary) and "principal celebrant" [sic] Archbishop Jerome Hanus of Dubuque, metropolitan of the province in which Sioux City is situated.
Wow. All of a sudden, I've got my hands full -- it's Jujitsu time.
If the director of communications for the diocese of Sioux City did his homework and actually read the ritual books -- which he is charged with communicating to the secular press, who are eager to know what on earth happens at an ordination -- he'd know three things. First, he'd know that all bishops and priests present and vested at large Masses of whatever kind are all concelebrants, no difference here. That's #1.
Second thing he'd know from reading the ritual -- which he is charged with communicating to the secular press, who are eager to know what on earth happens at an ordination: that a bishop-elect selects two other bishops alongside the principal consecrator to serve as ceremonial co-consecrators, even though all bishops present (who, let us be reminded, are all concelebrants) participate in the rite of ordination through the laying on of hands and their common recitation of the necessary matter of the prayer of ordination, which in its revised translation begins "Pour out now upon this chosen one...."
Third nugget he'd know from reading the ritual -- which he is charged with communicating to the secular press, who are eager to know what on earth happens at an ordination: while, at all episcopal ordinations, the principal consecrator presides over the Liturgy of the Word and the rite of episcopal ordination, in those cases where a diocesan bishop is being ordained in his own church -- which this is (anyone wanna quibble about that?) -- the new bishop serves as the principal celebrant of the Mass as, his ordination and enthronement completed, he presides over the Liturgy of the Eucharist, gives the final blessing, etc.
Please, please, pretty please (with a cherry on top), dear liebchin-communications director -- Get your terms straight; you don't get paid the People of God's hard-earned money to be inaccurate and have me, of all people, say so. It's not rocket science, just say "yes," read the ritual books so you know what you're talking about in future, and we'll move on.
But, hell, if this kind of confusion is the norm for dioceses in transition, I should just set up shop travelling around the country and get paid ($$$) to do media and logistics for episcopal ordinations and installations. Wouldn't that be nice? I'd put the fear of God into the press people, whip 'em into line like Rove on Evangelicals or something.
It's not as if I haven't seen so many of these ceremonies that they've all become a blur over 10 years. And it shouldn't take a genius to know the difference between a "Con-celebrant" [sic] and a "Co-consecrator" -- but if it does take one, then I stand fully prepared.
-30-
As opposed to the informal protocols explained in an earlier post here, Jacob relays a communique from the diocese stating that Nickless has selected Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence to stand as a "Con-celebrant" [sic] alongside "Con-celebrant" [sic] Archbishop Chaput (his former ordinary) and "principal celebrant" [sic] Archbishop Jerome Hanus of Dubuque, metropolitan of the province in which Sioux City is situated.
Wow. All of a sudden, I've got my hands full -- it's Jujitsu time.
If the director of communications for the diocese of Sioux City did his homework and actually read the ritual books -- which he is charged with communicating to the secular press, who are eager to know what on earth happens at an ordination -- he'd know three things. First, he'd know that all bishops and priests present and vested at large Masses of whatever kind are all concelebrants, no difference here. That's #1.
Second thing he'd know from reading the ritual -- which he is charged with communicating to the secular press, who are eager to know what on earth happens at an ordination: that a bishop-elect selects two other bishops alongside the principal consecrator to serve as ceremonial co-consecrators, even though all bishops present (who, let us be reminded, are all concelebrants) participate in the rite of ordination through the laying on of hands and their common recitation of the necessary matter of the prayer of ordination, which in its revised translation begins "Pour out now upon this chosen one...."
Third nugget he'd know from reading the ritual -- which he is charged with communicating to the secular press, who are eager to know what on earth happens at an ordination: while, at all episcopal ordinations, the principal consecrator presides over the Liturgy of the Word and the rite of episcopal ordination, in those cases where a diocesan bishop is being ordained in his own church -- which this is (anyone wanna quibble about that?) -- the new bishop serves as the principal celebrant of the Mass as, his ordination and enthronement completed, he presides over the Liturgy of the Eucharist, gives the final blessing, etc.
Please, please, pretty please (with a cherry on top), dear liebchin-communications director -- Get your terms straight; you don't get paid the People of God's hard-earned money to be inaccurate and have me, of all people, say so. It's not rocket science, just say "yes," read the ritual books so you know what you're talking about in future, and we'll move on.
But, hell, if this kind of confusion is the norm for dioceses in transition, I should just set up shop travelling around the country and get paid ($$$) to do media and logistics for episcopal ordinations and installations. Wouldn't that be nice? I'd put the fear of God into the press people, whip 'em into line like Rove on Evangelicals or something.
It's not as if I haven't seen so many of these ceremonies that they've all become a blur over 10 years. And it shouldn't take a genius to know the difference between a "Con-celebrant" [sic] and a "Co-consecrator" -- but if it does take one, then I stand fully prepared.
-30-
posted by Rocco Palmo at 17:42
<< Home