New prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship?

We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harasment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3
4

New prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship?
Topic Started: Monday, 13. October 2008, 21:59 (432 Views)
Quicunque vult	Friday, 17. October 2008, 20:44 Post #16
Posts: 484 Group: Members Member #86 Joined: May 18, 2007	I think Joseph Dylong is right - proper catechesis is absolutely vital. If only there was a greater awareness of the awesomeness of what happens at Mass, the tomfoolery would disappear in a flash. QV



Derekap	Friday, 17. October 2008, 21:22 Post #17
Posts: 3,408 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: September 26, 2006	I can't deny that there may occasionally be some "tomfoolery" during Holy Mass but I am sure it is by no means normal, frequent nor widespread. As I have said before I have experienced Holy Mass by several priests, in a wide variety of places and have never seen any serious infractions of the rules. At present I watch a video of Holy Mass on Boston Catholic TV two or three times a week by several different priests in turn from the Boston Diocese and I have yet to see any problems. I think it is extremely unfair to give false impressions.
	Derekap


Rose of York	Friday, 17. October 2008, 22:38 Post #18
Administrator Posts: 14,517 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	Derekap Friday, 17. October 2008, 21:22 I can't deny that there may occasionally be some "tomfoolery" during Holy Mass but I am sure it is by no means normal, frequent nor widespread. Derek it is by no means widespread, but when it is happening week after week, that is a dreadful situation for people who cannot pick and choose where to attend Mass.
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


Derekap	Saturday, 18. October 2008, 19:30 Post #19
Posts: 3,408 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: September 26, 2006	I agree Rose.
	Derekap


PJD	Saturday, 18. October 2008, 20:20 Post #20
Posts: 2,416 Group: Members Member #11 Joined: September 26, 2006	Bring back genuflection. Bring back bowing at the name of Jesus. BAN laity from wandering around during Mass, checking all is well. These are already done where I am Rose; and since I can remember. PJD



Rose of York	Saturday, 18. October 2008, 20:35 Post #21
Administrator Posts: 14,517 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	PJD Saturday, 18. October 2008, 20:20 Bring back genuflection. Bring back bowing at the name of Jesus. BAN laity from wandering around during Mass, checking all is well. These are already done where I am Rose; and since I can remember. PJD Few in our church genuflect. I think that may be due to: 1 The tabernacle not being central, or dominant. It is the the side of the sanctuary, and looks like a wall safe. 2 Absence of prayerful atmosphere on arrival. I tried turning up fifteen minutes early, for peace and quiet. Only two others were ever present that early, they talked loudly, close to me (it is a tiny church). 3 Bowing at the name of Jesus. The few who do, are noticeable because they do it.
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


Rose of York	Sunday, 19. October 2008, 11:58 Post #22
Administrator Posts: 14,517 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	Deacon Robert Saturday, 18. October 2008, 22:28 Emee wrote: "Do you think men need to be challenged more than women then?" Both need to be challenged. The problem today is in most homilies NO ONE is challenged. We spend 10 to 15 min listening to a Priest or Deacon spouting platitudes and non threatening staements so nobody is offended. I just returned from the Vigil Mass the homily was 20 min of nothing but set little groups of words grabbed at random in order to make 20 min. Top this off with the water not being mixed with the wine for consecration which propbably means an invalid Eucharist. I am more than just angry. I chose to copy this from the Catholic Men thread, because it demonstrates that abuses do happen.
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


Rose of York	Sunday, 19. October 2008, 12:11 Post #23
Administrator Posts: 14,517 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	Rose of York Sunday, 19. October 2008, 11:58 Deacon Robert Saturday, 18. October 2008, 22:28 Emee wrote: "Do you think men need to be challenged more than women then?" Both need to be challenged. The problem today is in most homilies NO ONE is challenged. We spend 10 to 15 min listening to a Priest or Deacon spouting platitudes and non threatening staements so nobody is offended. I just returned from the Vigil Mass the homily was 20 min of nothing but set little groups of words grabbed at random in order to make 20 min. Top this off with the water not being mixed with the wine for consecration which propbably means an invalid Eucharist. I am more than just angry. DerekAp Friday 17 October I can't deny that there may occasionally be some "tomfoolery" during Holy Mass but I am sure it is by no means normal, frequent nor widespread. As I have said before I have experienced Holy Mass by several priests, in a wide variety of places and have never seen any serious infractions of the rules. At present I watch a video of Holy Mass on Boston Catholic TV two or three times a week by several different priests in turn from the Boston Diocese and I have yet to see any problems. I think it is extremely unfair to give false impressions. Derek YOU have not seen the abuses. This reminds me of when I warned my neighbour not to feed a particular wild animal, because it carries disease that can be fatal to humans. He replied "It's the first I've heard of it" and he continued until I found proof in a published document. I am pleased you have not come across abuse, but Fortunatus, Deacon Robert and I have all experienced it. That makes three of us, out of this small discussion group. Some abuses invalidate the Mass, others are very distressing and make it difficult to pray. That leads to damage to the spiritual welfare of members of the congregation. Coming from an ordained Deacon, we now have an example of an abuse that may have invalidated a Mass. That alone demonstrates the need for rules to be made, and enforced.
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


OsullivanB	Sunday, 19. October 2008, 12:18 Post #24
Posts: 2,193 Group: Moderator Member #205 Joined: August 14, 2008	Rose, what Deacon Robert described looks to me more like incompetence than abuse. A dull sermon is surely not abusive. And one man's excellent and ehlpful sermon is another's pile of platitudes. As to the apparent failure to mix water with the wine, this seems baffling given that the priest presumably did say to himself "By the mystery of thie WATER and wine...". If he really failed to add the water, I cannot see that this would have been done deliberately, which is what I would have thought would be needed for there to be abuse. Abuse as I have seen it discussed arises from conscious decisions to change the Mass usually by adding what shouldn't be there rather than by taking away what should. There is no excuse for incompetence but it surely is in a different category from abuse. Edited by OsullivanB, Sunday, 19. October 2008, 12:23.



Deleted User	Sunday, 19. October 2008, 13:21 Post #25
Deleted User	OsullivanB Sunday, 19. October 2008, 12:18 Rose, what Deacon Robert described looks to me more like incompetence than abuse. A dull sermon is surely not abusive. And one man's excellent and ehlpful sermon is another's pile of platitudes. As to the apparent failure to mix water with the wine, this seems baffling given that the priest presumably did say to himself "By the mystery of thie WATER and wine...". If he really failed to add the water, I cannot see that this would have been done deliberately, which is what I would have thought would be needed for there to be abuse. Abuse as I have seen it discussed arises from conscious decisions to change the Mass usually by adding what shouldn't be there rather than by taking away what should. There is no excuse for incompetence but it surely is in a different category from abuse. OSB liturgical abuse is an act that may or may not be conscious, although if the latter, it probably isnt sinful, although depending on where such abuse takes place it could invalidate the Consecration or other Sacraments. [redit][/redit]
Deleted User


Deleted User	Sunday, 19. October 2008, 13:30 Post #26
Deleted User	Delete[redit][/redit]
Deleted User


Deleted User	Sunday, 19. October 2008, 13:51 Post #27
Deleted User	De Defectibus (never heard of this, from the internet it seems to link with the Council of Trent) B) DEFECTIVE WINE IV. I. If the wine has become mere vinegar, or wholly had, or has been made from sour or unripe grapes, or has been mixed with so much water that the wine is adulterated; the Sacrament is not consecrated. IV. 2. If the wine has begun to go sour, or bad, or is to a marked extent acid, or is unfermented grape-juice, or has been mixed with rose-water or some other distillation; the Sacrament is consecrated, but the Celebrant commits a mortal sin. IV. 3. If the Celebrant discovers before the consecration of the Blood, even though he has already consecrated the Body, that the wine or water or both are not in the chalice, he must immediately take wine and water, and after offering them, proceed to consecrate, beginning at the words: Simili modo, etc. IV. 4. If he discovers after the words of consecration that water and not wine has been put into the chalice, he must put the water into some other vessel, then put wine with water into the chalice, and consecrate it, beginning at the words: Simili modo, etc. IV. 5. If he makes this discovery after receiving the Body, or the unmixed water, he must again take another host to consecrate, and also wine and water in the chalice, offer both, consecrate them, and receive them, not with-. standing that he will have broken his fast. Or, if the Mass is being celebrated in a public place, where a number of people are present, he may, to avoid scandal, take only the wine mixed with water, offer it, consecrate it, and immediately consume it, thereafter continuing the Mass. IV. 6. If he discovers, either before or after the consecration, that all the wine is sour, or otherwise had, the same rule will hold good; he must proceed as if he had discovered that no wine, or only water, had been put into the chalice. IV. 7. If the Celebrant remembers that he has put no water in: then if the chalice has not yet been consecrated, he must immediately put water in., and say the words of consecration; but if the chalice has been consecrated, he is not to do so, for the water is not essential to the Sacrament. IV. 8. If by reason of defective bread or wine the requisite materials are altogether unobtainable; then, if the Body has not yet been consecrated, he must proceed no further. If after the consecration of the Body, or even of the wine, he discovers that one element is defective, even though already consecrated; then, if the requisite material is absolutely unobtainable, he must proceed and finish the Mass, omitting however all words and actions relating to the defective element; but if it can be had by waiting awhile, he should wait, so that the sacrifice may not be left incomplete.
Deleted User


OsullivanB	Sunday, 19. October 2008, 13:52 Post #28
Posts: 2,193 Group: Moderator Member #205 Joined: August 14, 2008	JD, there is then no distinction between a mistake and an abuse? And the oversight as to the water would not invalidate the Mass/Consecration? Edited by OsullivanB, Sunday, 19. October 2008, 13:54.



Deleted User	Sunday, 19. October 2008, 14:00 Post #29
Deleted User	OsullivanB Sunday, 19. October 2008, 13:52 JD, there is then no distinction between a mistake and an abuse? I think most abuses are mistakes, which is why a Priest has to be very careful. This is why a Priest as a Seminarian practices over and over again to make sure he knows what to do. The Church doesnt seperate mistakes from abuse as evident in Redemptionis Sacramentum, although, it does recognise serious grave ones like making the mass invalid from minor ones, such as a mistake, which are illicit. Quote: Let bishops, priests, and deacons, in the exercise of the sacred ministry, examine their consciences as regards the authenticity and fidelity of the actions they have performed in the name of Christ and the Church in the celebration of the sacred liturgy. Let each one of the sacred ministers ask himself, even with severity, whether he has respected the rights of the lay members of Christ�s faithful, who confidently entrust themselves and their children to him, relying on him to fulfill for the faithful those sacred functions that the Church intends to carry out in celebrating the sacred liturgy at Christ�s command. For each one should always remember that he is a servant of the sacred liturgy (186). [redit][/redit]
Deleted User


Deleted User	Sunday, 19. October 2008, 14:03 Post #30
Deleted User	OsullivanB Sunday, 19. October 2008, 13:52 JD, there is then no distinction between a mistake and an abuse? And the oversight as to the water would not invalidate the Mass/Consecration? If that document is proper, which I think it may be, then the Consecration would still be valid. Although, if possible they should rectify the problem before consecration. IV. 7. If the Celebrant remembers that he has put no water in: then if the chalice has not yet been consecrated, he must immediately put water in., and say the words of consecration; but if the chalice has been consecrated, he is not to do so, for the water is not essential to the Sacrament. Looking at the document there is a lot for a Priest to think about in regards to the bread and wine being used etc. My canon law commentary states (Beal), water that is added to wine in greater or equal amounts makes it invalid.[redit][/redit]
Deleted User


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Mass , Liturgy, Sacraments, Priesthood · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4