Because someone committed a sin, proudly spoke of the sin or because poorly catechized parishioners were edified by the story of sin?
Addressing DBerg, and it wasnt a question .
You tell me, please.
Here is the canon
Can. 927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.”
What do you think is the answer to your question?
I don’t think any true edification can take place if something is not in conformity to the Church.
You don’t have to read the lives of the saints for very long to notice certain patterns that repeat themselves every single time, in spite of the saints having wildly different & unique lives across the spectrum. Obedience is the supreme way of pleasing God, always.
Even though the Mass is the highest prayer of the Church, you would receive infinitely more graces by not having a Mass in obedience than by having a Mass in an act of disobedience, unless you were ignorant of the fact through no fault of your own (a priest would/should know better). The Mass is a sacrament and not a magical spell. God can and does give graces outside of the seven sacraments.
Are we called to honour or to obey our parents, the exemplars of all other relationships of authority?
Is removing an ass from a well on the Sabbath, or picking wheat, or eating the holy bread of the priests in the temple materially breaking the Mosaic Law?
The Parable of the Older Brother suggests obedience is a more complicated topic than evicent at first glance.
No edification took place during his homily…
I’m not really “upset.” I’m sort of disgusted. The Church couldn’t be clearer – this is NOT to take place! Yet by golly it DOES and apparently it’s something to be preach about. It brought me back to my reading on WWII POW priests who would wait and wait until a guard would gave them a teaspoon of wine and they would then immediately celebrate the Mass.
I think perhaps what I find the most troubling is the laity was lied to, and they lapped-up the lie like hungry dogs.
While it may have been unwise to preach this incident I have no great issue with the original event myself given the extreme circumstances.
Breaking laws is not the end of the world in all cases.
I am edified all the same. F1 and field hospitals…
Beware the elder brother approach with the disgust and obedience thing at all costs.
This reminds me many years ago when my parish had a “lay administrator.” A young lady of the parish committed suicide. Very sad. For the next 6+ weeks there was a running story in the bulletin about her upcoming “service” where her ashes would be spread at the beach. Week after week.
So I finally emailed the lay administrator and told him that it’s not a good idea to keep mentioning this in the bulletin because the Church does not allow the spreading of cremains. He was personally harsh in his reply.
I replied that he was setting up a problem for our next pastor. That others would demand ongoing bulletin write-ups of their decedents’ spreading ceremonies, that the priest would have to decline if they wanted to do the right thing and that it could well lead to problems.
It did, a number of times. When we finally got a new bishop and a pastor he was sacked, thanks be to God.
“Extreme circumstances”? He was at a secured base in Fallujeh. The troops he was with were not engaged in combat.
WOW! That says a great deal! This is not about using a stained coffee cup in place of a chalice. This is about doing something that the Church says is “absolutely forbidden” (Can. 927 "It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.”) So "absolutely forbidden isn’t enough for you?
Using “complication” as an excuse to do something that is “absolutely forbidden” by the Church is simply wrong. There’s really no way to spin this in a way that makes what you say true.
No, absolute obedience is not to be identified either with natural or supernatural virtue.
Just as the parable of the older brother demonstrates.
Much more salient question!
I think what most disgusted me is that priest was in essence saying “when it really comes down to it, one really doesn’t have to follow what the Church directs.” That sort of attitude has done a real number on the Church in practical terms.
Sure it is, in the case of something where ignoring the Church’s very clear directive did not result in anything positive.
The only negative result I see from all this is your disgust, everybody else saw the good in it and was edified.
Are you simply trying to inflame, to troll? I will admit that I was one of the few in the entire church that was aware of Canon 927 – but I would still have been aware that what he preached about was gravely wrong.
I honestly don’t know if you’re just trying to stir the pot or not, but if you’re being serious, your attitude about matters like this is truly despicable.
What you are trying to sell actually does disgust me. It boils down to “there’s really no rules (including canon law) that truly need to be followed.” That line of reasoning has done grave damage to the Church and to peoples’ souls as a consequence.
You haven’t read the posts from Fr. David yet, apparently. Surely a fellow priest would have great insight into priestly duties, as he performs them himself, and we should take his words to heart. . .
Perhaps a deeper reflection on the story of the critical elder brother is your best solution.
No amount of obedience to the letter of the law will bring us salvation.
And the sort of interior and exterior criticism levelled against a priest here appears indicative of that inverted approach to the law that Jesus came to release us from.
Fr. David had some reflections on the story. What is your take on his posts?
Perhaps more prudence on your part before posting what you do would be wise?
No amount of disobedience to the letter of the law will bring us salvation.
So that’s your ultimate excuse for allowing the grave liturgical abuse? Really? I recommend you re-read posting #1. It carried no “criticism.” It seeks answers to questions.
I think BlackFriar might have been talking about your internal criticism of this priest, of which, you made it known that his behavior disgusted you.
And, BlackFriar didn’t “allow” any kind of liturgical abuse. Perhaps you would like to accuse the soldier who was killed of that.