Posted on 08/15/2004 11:42:32 AM PDT by ninenot
"I am absolutely convinced that at least one active pastor up here simply does not believe in transubstantiation."
I can quite easily believe it.
Just in passing, my V.G. happened to mention to me that he thought it interesting that in my conversion from Presbyterianism, I had moved to a belief in transubstantiation, whereas he had "now accepted 'consubstantiation'".
Needless to say he seldom genuflects, and he only tolerates occasional adoration in order to keep his "coterie of bread-worshippers and young fogies happy".
God alone knows what this man's true intentions are when he says Mass - and publicly at least he uses the ICEL words of consecration.
However, after what he said to me, I would not be happy thinking that my obligation had definitely been fulfilled or my communion had definitely been valid, if I had been to one of his Masses.
If I have to preach at his parish on a Sunday, I will always go to another Mass as well.
BK, I agree with you.
OTOH, Sink's concurrence with Sklba's thesis is reasonable--if you accept the premise that there are a lot of people who: 1) Know every single rubric and 2) Make a big scene out of every single error/omission, complete with letters, threats, canonical denunciations, etc., etc.
In the past, we have noted that the "Herald of Hope" column was used by Rembert to defend the atrocities committed by certain of his favorite pastors (at one time, he wrote 3 weeks' worth of drivel to support his pastor at a very prestigious western suburban parish.) NB that this pastor had purchased several dozen copies of Fr. Strange's demi-heretical 'Catechism' and was distributing them freely to anybody who walked through the grounds...of course, he used Parish funds to make the purchase. Fr. Rodney Strange, an Englishman, was a very good friend of Rembert, and visited here regularly.
We don't think this is a co-incidence.
There is no reason not to do so, and plenty of reason to do so.
Then, people will not be distracted by liturgical experimentation, and we can all hold hands and listen to another homily about how everyone will be saved except Republicans. :-)
I really don't see what is so hard about that.
Bp. Sklba's comments are especially relevant in light of this article, in which "an 8-year-old girl who suffers from a rare digestive disorder and cannot consume wheat has had her first Holy Communion declared invalid because the wafer contained none, violating Catholic doctrine."
Sklba is correct -- and the above is an example of rubricism at its finest.
Your take on the article is flawed.
Without getting into the agenda of the Mommy here--the consecrated WINE is also the "body, blood, soul, and divinity" of Christ--a point Mommy seems to wilfully miss.
Secondly, as the article should point out, the Church already has considered the needs of people with the girl's condition and has authorized low-gluten hosts.
The first point is far and away the most important one--there's a serious lack of either 1) catechesis on the parish's part or 2) belief in the doctrine on Mommy's part.
Take your choice--but it ain't rubrics, my man.
That is not about rubrics at all; it's about proper matter.
Without proper matter, transubstantiation does not take place. You can't consecrate a doughnut.
The only thing close to "rubricism" was the insistence by the mother that her daughter receive under some approximation of the species of bread. If she had simply accepted the Church's teaching that the full, real presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Blessed Lord is in both the Body and the Precious Blood, there would have been no controversy.
Bovine feces. With all due respect.
God doesn't care if the kid's wafer contained wheat or not. The insistence that He does, is a wonderful example of the sort of "rubricism" this article is talking about.
To see Jesus's take on such matters, look under "Pharisee" in the Gospels.
BK--don't feed the trolls.
LOL! Nice try.
Hello. Remember Blessed Mother Teresa's teaching that the fruit of abortion is nuclear war. Pray for cities not to be erased. Thank you.
10-4
As an observer to this discussion , I am wondering how you can disregard the content or intent of a mans heart? Over and over the bible says that God reads and judges the heart, I do not see any biblical exceptions to that .
“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.” Mark 7:21-23
Prov 15:8
8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.
Prov 15:29 The LORD is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous. (KJV)
Proverbs 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer [shall be] abomination
Jeremiah 7:16 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee.
Jeremiah 11:14 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up a cry or prayer for them: for I will not hear [them] in the time that they cry unto me for their trouble.
Lamentations 3:8
Also when I cry and shout, he shutteth out my prayer.
Lamentations 3:44 Thou hast covered thyself with a cloud, that [our] prayer should not pass through.
Psa 66:18If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear [me]:
Mic 3:4 Then shall they cry unto the LORD, but he will not hear them: he will even hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved themselves ill in their doings.
Jhn 9:31
Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
Proverbs 28:9;
"One who turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.
ISAIAH 59:2-
"But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you, that He will not hear
1Pe 3:12
For the eyes of the Lord [are] over the righteous, and his ears [are open] unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord [is] against them that do evil.
It seems to me that if you rely on the words alone , then any non priest saying the words would produce a "valid" communion. It makes the words and not God the primary actor . It sounds like superstition
That's incorrect. While so long as no contrary intention is expressed externally, the Sacrament is to be presumed valid, it could in fact be invalid if the priest had a contrary intention internally. Pertinent texts:
The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. (Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 33)
The minister's intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially if it be manifested outwardly. (St. Thomas, Summa theologiae, III q. 64 a. 10)
OK, thanks.
We should presume validity if proper matter and form is present. We should NOT if they are not. That's OK.
What is the effect of sacramental grace, if any, in the case that proper matter and form are used, but the priest INTERNALLY did not intend...with the Church?
IIRC with regard this question, M4629 found text which cast doubt on any 'sacramental grace' ....
Well, the person upon whom the invalid sacrament was conferred obviously wouldn't receive the Sacrament itself.
If he had a desire to receive it, I suppose he would receive the reality of the Sacrament, if it should be Baptism, Holy Communion, or Penance.
Depends on the definition of "significant group."
C'mon...I would think you would recognize what this bishop is up to here. He's trying to defame those that have the nerve to complain about liturgical experimentation.
As I said, the solution is simple: just follow the rubrics, and then people won't have a reason to complain.
But, that doesn't seem to be the desired solution for some of our more liberal clerics.
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.