Posted on 06/02/2005 11:17:53 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Oh don't be so sensitive. What are you the Liturgical Police? It's all in the "Spirit of Vatican II". I'm sure the Holy Spirit was raining down on all of you. You should be focusing on Our Lord instead of what is going on. Geez oh man, at least those people showed up.
/sarcasm off/
(I've been spending too much time in Catholic Answers)
Archdiocese of Baltimore..
@@
What is your parish? I am also in that Archdiocese. I think Keeler is a weakling.
I have less than charitable comments to say about Keeler, so I will not say them here....
I think the even greater problem with Baltimore is the chancery/priests' council. Most of the notorious liberal pastors sit on that.
Now, I haven't lived in MD that long (5 years), and we plan to move outta here next year anyway, so I could care less about this place. No offense intended to you and any others suffering in this cesspool.
We've skipped around to many parishes. Personally, I have been a Trad since I was 10. My family joined the SSPX but we later grew apart from the Society for reasons beyond the scope of this conversation. By that time I was an adult, and I came to a decision to align myself with the Indult TLM/Conservative Novus Ordo position (if such an alliance exists). Whatever the case, I attend the TLM now at St. Alphonsus downtown (though reluctantly because I am a liturgical perfectionist and that place has a less than par TLM in my opinion). If I am traveling, I usually seek out a conservative NO if an Indult TLM is not available. My present situation was not always the case. My wife and I gave it a try to seek out conservative NO's in Baltimore mostly because traveling for Mass became difficult while she was getting along with her pregnancy. But that effort was futile. It came to head earlier this year when I was physically threatened by a priest I respectfully approached after Mass about his liturgical abuses. We then decided to bide our time at St. Alphonsus until we reach our ideal situation next year in New Jersey at Mater Ecclesiae TLM Diocesan Parish.
The short answer to your question is that we do not belong to any parish in Baltimore. We do not give any money either. Technically, we are already registered at Mater Ecclesiae and our contributions go there and to the FSSP.
Yes, twee primitivism is always a bad sign that liturgical outrages are shortly to follow. Hell, the only point of a glass chalice is a defiant overemphasis on horizontality on the part of what I call "the meal people". Ditto the studied disrespect for the Blessed Sacrament.
Pyro, I feel bad for your sister and the other young people there. I'm sure she was deeply moved. I'm sure she and her classmates came there expecting to be deeply moved, because (they have been taught, I'm sure) that the point of liturgy is an emotional response. Sentimentalism is not just bad taste. It's bad theology, because it encourages a view of the isolated individualistic self as the standard by which things should be judged.
Don't worry about desecration, Pyro. You can be rest assured no transubstantiation occurred.
A point I made on another thread yesterday is that Catholics compare unfavorably with the Orthodox when it comes to defense of tradition. Lay Catholics traditionally have been trained to look to the institutional Church to handle it. The Orthodox regard tradition as their personal property and don't take kindly to its being messed with. Almost all of us are guilty in this culpable passivity, and the hierarchy are culpable in their encouragement of this passivity. This has got to change, because things are not going to get better until the people demand it. If this sounds a bit "we-are-church-y", so be it. When attacking the Left, it's always best to attack from the left.
That's because they're the real Church, and we are all sub-catechumens.
Villanova is IN the territory of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, but its priests are not subject to the bishop. Short of expelling the entire order (and hence, shutting down the University, and with it the billions of dollars of entrusted moneys and dealing with all the resulting legal crises), there's not much the Bishop can do. Don't look to the Vatican... the new guy at the curia, Abp. Levada, had a wildly heretical college in his diocese, USF, and did nothing.
You think so? The Eucharistic Prayer was valid.
Don't forget about Anglican Use. They aren't plentiful, but the one I attended in Houston was a beauty.
I could probably start a little black book of all the good (i.e. safe) churches to attend in various locales. For that matter, I could write a phone book for all the bad churches!!! It's sad that anyone has to do this, but you know the current situation makes it obligatory to do so.
When any of us defend tradition we get accused of being our own pope. The modernist concept of false obedience is a big hurdle.
Yes, but the wine was not held in a noble substance. The Eucharistic prayer being off only makes the mass illicit (unless there are entire elements of the formula off.) And invalid substance prevents transubstantiation.
Surely the Religion Forum could stand a thread in which all could contribute names for your Little Black Book. Catholic Freepers planning their summer getaways would thank you.
That is forbidden, but does not invalidate. A judgment of invalidity is serious business and should not be lightly undertaken by a layman -- on whom the burden of proof rests.
LOL...I think I'll field questions on a case by case basis. My little book would only be limited to mostly places in the NE anyway.
I believe that if the very act of transubstantiation would cause desecration to the Eucharist, no transubstantiation occurs. Since an ignoble material inherently desecrates the Eucharist...
But you do make a correct point. I should state myself more carefully: Based on Pyro's description, there is grave concern that such a mass is invalid, and hence it is prudent not to receive communion
As long as the substance of the wine was not not tampered with, you have no case. The substance of what contains the wine has no relevance unless the container could somehow corrupt the wine (e.g. broken pieces of pottery cause the wine to be mixed with clay dirt). Romulus is correct...that is a serious charge and very difficult to prove. Best to err on the side of validity.
Sadly, this is true for many "sheeples" today; they question nothing. ((((head shaking))))
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.