Posted on 11/24/2004 9:25:38 AM PST by wallcrawlr
An informal exorcism performed at the Cathedral of St. Paul this month was more profane than sacred and was directed toward gay Catholics, police and church authorities said Tuesday.
They said the ritualistic sprinkling of blessed oil and salt around the church and in donation boxes amounted to costly vandalism and possibly even a hate crime.
The damage was discovered Nov. 7 after the noon mass, and after words were exchanged between members of the Rainbow Sash Alliance, a gay rights group, and the opposing group, Catholics Against Sacrilege.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
LOL
Since when is expression limited to spoken words?
Universally? Meaning the recognizably same way throughout the world? You're kidding. It's not even 'celebrated' universally from parish to parish within the same diocese from week to week. And 35 years is really meaningless in Church time.
" Has she ever given a
blessing like this in approved apparitions before?"
Good question. We say God Bless you so often and a parent's blessing is a common request in stages of life...it doesn't seem odd to me that Mary, the spiritual Mother, would bless those beseeching her assistance.
Use a real live example of a heretical former priest ... maybe John Dominic Crossnan
"As long as the minister uses the approved rite, intention is to be presumed."
And when the approved rite is tweaked in verbage and the presentation is as casual as the local weatherman's and the chalice is some glass goblet that doesn't even approach waterford crystal in fineness (not to mention the Crucifix being replaced by cloth, the Tabernacle being moved etc.) at what point do you blink?
Provision for variations is built-in to the Missal and Rite.
I don't like it, either--but that's not the same as denying its validity or liceity.
"Huh? Blessed oil sprinking is a hate crime? Has everyone gone mad?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b69d0df724b.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828480/posts
The New Rite has morphed considerably since Paul VI. So much so, that the words to the Consecration have changed.
"Provision for variations is built-in to the Missal and Rite."
Believe me the variations many of us are seeing are not in the Missal.
"I don't like it, either--but that's not the same as denying its validity or liceity."
Almost all N.O. Masses I have attended have certainly been valid. Those others used probably invalid altar bread.
Licit is another matter. At least 90% of the N.O. Masses I have attended have been illicit to one degree or other. Ad libing, illicit actions, gestures, heresy in the sermon or music, sacriligious music - Lord of the Dance, Notre Dame Fight Song etc.
How do you reconcile the changing of the words of the Consecration resulting in a conflict with Sacred Scripture. Is the Bible wrong?
As past Popes, Aquinas, Bellarmine and other Fathers of the Church have so adequately pointed out, we are not obliged to follow any Pope who teaches something contrary to the Faith.
Ottaviani, Bacci and the rest of us have the right to resist.
"How do you reconcile the changing of the words of the Consecration resulting in a conflict with Sacred Scripture. Is the Bible wrong?"
Of course not. Assuming that you are referring to the "for many" vs. "for all", it is another case whre ICEL and the bishops stuck it to Catholic tradition. Since the essential "...This is My Body...This is My Blood..." is present, I feel safe in assuming the validity of the Mass. I just think their translation stinks.
On Holy Days we have tried to attend the Latin N.O. Mass in Portland (about a 7-8 hour round trip. In this Mass the priest says "pro multis" not "pro omnibus" so this is not an issue.
It's really very simple: proper sacramental intention on the part of the priest to do what the Church (and hence Christ) intends for and with the sacrament is essential for its validity.
Such proper intent is to be presumed, unless one can know for certain that it is lacking.
But one can sometimes know of a priest sacramental intention from what he says or writes. Some make it painfully obvious. Others are secretive about it.
But if one receives Holy Communion from a priest who is saying an invalid mass - and you innocently have no reason to suspect this (or lack the ability to discern it) you commit no sin. You get some small measure of grace by the fact that you are piously attending mass and receiveing what you believe to be the Sacrament. But certainly not the full measure of the graces which would come from a valid mass, and reception of the true Eucharist.
The New Rite has morphed considerably since Paul VI. So much so, that the words to the Consecration have changed.
Agreed. But what NO folks will neither admit nor discuss is the clearly verifyable fact that the Novus Ordo, even in its first appearance in 1970, is in clear violation of what is written in the V2 documents on the liturgy. This is even moreso today, with all of the tweaking that has occurred.
Thanks. OK, so what if the priest, himself knows the intent is lacking? For instance, he expressly intends that the bread remain bread, but you or I don't know what he intends. Does the presumption of intent still apply even though the priest clearly intends the opposite of what the Church intends?
I believe that the Church's teaching applies to a priest that has some doubt about what he's doing but does not apply to a priest who clearly intends the opposite of what the Church intends. I also believe the Church has been infiltrated by atheists and the presumption of intent cannot so easily be granted.
What makes you think that the text of the Consecration MUST follow one or another Biblical account?
Ah, yes, the Default Position of the Marcellites: we are obliged to deny the authority of Peter on the authority of Peter.
Makes perfect sense, of course.
I don't believe it can directly contradict a Biblical account. If the Bible is Divinely inspired then the ICEL form of Consecration cannot be Divinely inspired, becaue they contradict each other.
Demonstrate the "contradiction."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.