A bit of a side track here… Would this not invalidate the entire consecration?
I have Baptist friends who REFUSE to believe Jesus drank wine, they say He drank grape juice.
no, he was a practicing jew. I am an ethnic jew who was born into Catholicism, but this man was an unconverted jew.
Yes it would invalidate it.
It would depend. If he used pasteurized grape juice (eg. Welchs), the Precious Blood would not be confected. It would not impact the consecration of the hosts though. It would result in an invalid Mass.
If he used unpasteurized grape juice without other additives (AKA “mustem”), the Precious Blood would be confected, but it would be illicit to use mustem in that manner.
Well, I do recall peeking into the sacristy and seeing some of those kid’s fruit punch kind of juice boxes…it was definitely invalid.
my parish always keeps a few Capri Suns in the mini fridge we store our altar wine in, in case someone faints- are you sure it wasnt a situation like that?
Well, if so, then the priest wouldn’t have stopped in the middle of the Canon of the mass to let people know that he didn’t use wine but grape juice instead…
ahhh then it was
Interestingly enough, the priest didn’t last even a year in the diocese. A few months later, he was “recalled” by his religous order.
well that’s a relief…
Abusive? No. Well intended? Probably. Proper and respectful of the Blessed Sacrament? I wouldn’t say so.
@Duesenberg My two cents: a forum, or any public discussion, is not a place for parish gossip that servers no purpose (since it creates scandal and does not solve anything). Furthermore, the average parishioner hardly has the trained eye to spot actual liturgical abuse. Many call “liturgical abuse” what they don’t understand or don’t like.
Sure it does. At the very least it’s a sanity check. I’m at the point right now where I’m beginning to wonder if anything is really set in stone with regard to the Church, or can it all be explained away or justified?
There’s no scandal. I didn’t mention the name of the priest or the parish church.
I do. I know the difference between an actual abuse (all three levels according to Redemptionis Sacramentum), versus mere irregularities or personal peferences.
Gossiping is no sanity check - it is mere gossip. It is also toxic to the soul - as prove by your very statement:
“I am at the point where I am beginning to wonder if anything is set in stone with regard to the Church or can it all be explained away or justified”.
St. Ignatius of Loyola was adamant:
We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchic Church defines it thus.
[The Spiritual Exercises]
St. Francis of Assisi went as far as to command his brothers in his Testament, as a model of imitation:
God inspired me too, and still inspires me with such great faith in priests who live according to the laws of the holy Church of Rome…that if they persecuted me, I shuld still be ready to return to them for aid. I refuse to consider their sins.
And here we are, arguing that this statement is heretical, and that action is a liturgical abuse, and we forget the log in our own eye. You state:
I know the difference between an actual abuse (all three levels according to Redemptionis Sacramentum), versus mere irregularities or personal peferences.
I suggest that if you do have such knowledge, then it is better to share the knowledge rather than the abuse, and report the abuse politely through the proper, private channels. After all, every Ordinary (as you surely know) is the supreme liturgist of his Church.
Also, it is wiser to use a keen eye in introspection than in seeking the faults outside of us, or so does suggest “The Imitation of Christ”.
Hope some of this helps. It helped me when I was a “liturgical policeman”.
It wasn’t gossip. With so many in today world/Church trying to poo-poo away any and all legitimate concerns, one really does begin to wonder just how deep one has to dig in order to hit granite?
Unless to rose to the level of Graviora delicta or other grave matters, I wouldn’t waste my time reporting an actual abuse.
@Duesenberg Please don’t take everything personal. I hardly ever address people’s posts at a personal level. I refer to the fact that you started a thread asking people to post about serious liturgical abuses and it now has 220 posts. I think the poo-poo tends to float up every time we stir the “liturgical abuse” cauldron. What do you expect to achieve with your thread?
If it is not worth reporting, it is not even worth thinking about. At mass, we should only be focusing on the fact that we are in the holy presence of God.
Anyways, as I do not tend to engage in long debates, I hope some of my posts gave the readers food for thought. Moving on to other threads now
Naw. I have seen a number of things that should/should have been corrected but they won’t be – at least under the current pastor. If a new pastor came along and he exhibited some true leadership, I would make mention. Chances are good such a priest would recognize them on his own and remedy the situation without a word.
Following an explicitly permitted form of communion is not a liturgical abuse.
I acknowledge your point.