Posted on 05/24/2005 4:00:52 PM PDT by NYer
One man's scruples are called another man's rubrics. But don't let that get in the way of your personal preference, which is what this all boils down to.
Personal preference over rubrics and pastoral solicitude.
"Perhaps you consider the NO rite incapable of confecting a valid Sacrament."
Your two feigned "holy than thou," "we are with the Church" attitude has crossed way over the lines of charity here. Te lucis told you what he meant, therefore you should accept it.
And I don't recall him every saying ANYTHING about the NO rite being incapable of confecting the sacrament. Those are words you put into his mouth. I hereby acknowledge and profess the Novus Ordo rite is capable, when certain proscribed conditions are followed, of confecting the sacrament. I would venture to guess that EVERY Novus Ordo rite Mass in the U.S. on a weekly basis does not ALWAYS confect the sacrament. In fact, my confirmation Mass and my wedding Mass were BOTH invalid in the early 1980s.
I wonder how many Traditional Latin Masses, even those said by priests of the SSPX, are INVALID? Hmmm????
Hardly.
"As the dicastery charged by our Holy Father with carrying out the provisions of his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, this Pontifical Commission and only this Pontifical Commission has the right to make provisions regarding the use of the 1962 Roman Missal. No group outside of and independent of the Holy See has the authority to decide on what provisions of previous documents are binding or to rule on what constitutes an illegitimate "interchanging of texts and rites". Quattuor abhinc annos also prohibited the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal in parish churches except in extraordinary cases which were to be determined by the diocesan bishop, but we note that no one is interested in insisting on that condition."
When Te Lucis explains to me how "swallow" and "pun intended" in #42 squares with the assertion that he was referring to "the unwarranted use of EEMs, altar girls, etc" and not to the Holy Communion itself in #62, I will take his #62 as truthful and retract my accusation in #68.
So where is the document from Ecclesia Dei Commission authorizing laymen to distribute Holy Communion?
Dittos here, I'm annulling, she's converting. Our parish is small enough though, that everyone knows each other, and Father remembers to bless us rather than offer a host.
While Cardinal Hoyos' private correspondence to Michael Davies may be true currently, I would posit that as a private correspondence, and not as a publicly promulgated document, its binding force and interpretation on all Catholics is questionable at best.
Good. So you should join me in encouraging him to clean up the mess he made.
But it is possible that while the law might prohibit a priest from being forced to use altar girls, what I "heard" might not be "wrong" since we know that the law oftentimes does not reflect the reality.
You are a poseur and a liar.
That does sound a bit triumphalistic doesn't it? I guess it's OK to call names, it just depends who does it to whom.
The request was specifically to remove the blasphemous paragraph of the post, the only clean way out of this. It remains the only clean way, and the spin you put on it makes it worse.
I consider the bannings of traditionalists here completely unwarranted. I am generally sympathetic with Catholic traditionalism.
I consider every Freeper, including, of course, Te Lucis and other Catholics of every persuasion, my friend (*), and I continue to communicate with them.
(*) Semptertrad's oblique reference was to an unrelated thread where I defended the Church communicating in a friendly manner with non-Christians, while others advocated not communicating.
See my post above and also #84
TL's comment in #42 (including the "pun intended" part) was, at best, intemperate and ill advised. The "preview" feature in the posting page is quite valuable, and for more than just making sure the HTML is correct. Similarly, the standard PS/2 keyboard has a Backspace key and two Delete keys. Sometimes it's best to use them, rather than post that oh-so-clever sarcastic remark.
A word (or two) to the wise.
LOL; you mean like this one?
Apparently this equation was not impossible to avoid, because I completely missed it. I had no idea what you were going on about until I read this post, saying what you thought t.l. meant.
Very sporting of you to admit it, but things move better when everyone tries to keep up.
"Are you a permanent deacon?"
Yes - whatever permanent means, and assuming I don't transfer rites! ;)
"If the Scripture is not understood in light of the teaching of the Catholic Church, yes."
And why would I not understand Scripture in the light of the teaching of the Catholic Church?
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.