Bongos, Dancers, and Father-Mother God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uxor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have literally had nightmares where liturgical abuses like that happen. In my nightmare, I stand up and say “What the hell are you doing?”
 
paramedicgirl said:
Transferring is the only one of your suggestions I don’t agree with. It would be risking more people to the loss of their souls.
Click to expand...
I think he probably meant a transfer to a super-prestigious, made-up post in the Vatican where the Holy Father can have an eye on him at all times.

Where’d the cool emoticons come from?🤷 :extrahappy:
 
bear06 said:
I think he probably meant a transfer to a super-prestigious, made-up post in the Vatican where the Holy Father can have an eye on him at all times.

Where’d the cool emoticons come from?🤷 :extrahappy:
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. Nice smilies. How’d ya do that? 😉
 
paramedicgirl said:
Transferring is the only one of your suggestions I don’t agree with. It would be risking more people to the loss of their souls.
Click to expand...
You realize that they transfer bishops not in line with the Vatican to defunct diocese, no?

That’s what I had in mind.
 
Ever notice that the same people who use terms like “Father-Mother God” are absolutely aghast when you mention terms like “Adversary-Adversariess devil”?

Satan is the old dragonness, the princess of darkness, and she is always out to decieve people; her and all of her demonettes.
 
Caveman said:
But let’s not forget… the hard core “progressives” never started a whole new religion, now did they?

Anyone remember that old “Smith Barney” commercial from years ago? Remember John Houseman saying “We make money the old fashioned way. We Eaaaaaarn it!”

Time for a Caveman twist —

We treat heretics the old fashioned way. We buuuuuuurn them!
Click to expand...
Oh, wow, I remember that one! I loved John Houseman, especially as “Professor Kingsfield”.

Great twist, by the way.
 
If this is the Traditional Catholicism section, what is the purpose of discussing non-traditional liturgical practices here…Isn’t there a more appropriate place for this?

Michael
 
Hesychios said:
If this is the Traditional Catholicism section, what is the purpose of discussing non-traditional liturgical practices here…Isn’t there a more appropriate place for this?

Michael
Click to expand...
I don’t even see that as nontradtional liturgical practice. I don’t know what it is. Why do you think we shouldn’t care what is happening to Christ’s Church and how He is suffering. We are not separate brethern even though some in the Church would view us as such.
 
Uxor said:
Some excerpts…of Father’s Rohr’s Mass…read the rest at:
calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=b9f5f434-6ee1-4c6c-821a-cb2495d30ade

The offertory procession began with two women waving banners, followed by two liturgical dancers, carrying a white tablecloth, sashaying up to the podium where Rohr sat waiting. They were followed by others who carried the hosts in large wicker breadbaskets and the wine in glass and plastic pitchers.

Rohr prayed over the gifts, “…make sure this people is hungry and ready to eat. Make sure we are not so filled with ourselves that there is not room for another person within us. Loving God, make sure this people is very hungry.”
Click to expand...

This is an illicit addition to the text. Of itself, it does not alter the consecration formula.​

Rohr changed some of the prayers of the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Opening the preface, he prayed, “Father and Mother God…”
Click to expand...

Some illicit additions to the Canon can, in principle at least, be defended as bringing out its sense; but not this - for this formula does not express the Faith of the Church in her God, but implicitly denies it, by substituting a radically different notion of God.​

Before the consecration of the host, he said, “before he was given up to death, a death he said ‘Yes’ to…”
Click to expand...

This is defensible, but undesirable, because it is not needed, & it is not what the Church desires that priests should say.​

Curiously enough, it obscures the nuance in the text, that this was a death He “freely my emphasis accepted”. Saying “yes” to death is entirely compatible with doing so under compulsion; the Death of Christ is remarkable because it was an entirely free, entirely willing, entirely uncoerced act; it was something which He was in no way whatever compelled to do: except by the unlimited & infinitely self-sacrificing character of His Love. ##
And before the consecration of the wine, Rohr prayed, “when supper was ended, he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his beloved…”
Click to expand...

What happened to “…ended, He took the cup…” ? The narrative of institution does not include this detail for no good reason. Apart from anything else, the text can be defended as helping to make His actions more vivid; & so, more memorable.​

It is not a trivial matter to alter the words of the Mass - the reason being, that no Mass, ever, without exception, is a purely private act. It never can be, for the Passion was not; nor is the adoration of God by all creation, of which the Mass is the perfect instance. All Masses are of their very nature public - even if offered by a hermit over a period of seventy years. No matter what the Rite, there is no such thing as a really private offering of a Eucharistic Liturgy.

That being so, no priest is entitled to change the words of the Liturgy, even with the best of intentions. It is not his property; it is his to offer, because to do so is part of his vocation - but it is not his to change, for:
  • it is not a private devotion
  • it is not his prayer alone, but that of all the people present
  • it does not originate with him
  • it comes to him as something he “enacts” - “Macbeth” would be very different from what Shakespeare wrote, if Macbeth spoke the words given to Julius Caesar. Such a play might be very enjoyable, but that is BTW - it would not be Macbeth, & that is the important point.
Following the consecration, Rohr said the Christ’s blood “will be poured out for you, and for all, so you will know your sins are forgiven.”
Click to expand...

This changes the sense of the formula. OTOH, it does not change what the formula designates - that is, the source, purpose, and consecratory effect of the formula. It does cast a shadow over the certainty of the effect it has had, by wrapping the formula in extraneous ideas; ideas which are too likely to be taken not in an orthodox sense (which they can indeed bear), but in a erroneous one (of which no priest should be the occasion). For these & other reasons mentioned several times, elaborations of the consecratory formula are absolutely to be avoided; they are never justified.​

In praying for the departed, he referred to them as “especially your own beloved who are already with the Lord.”
Click to expand...

The substitution is needless, & doctrinally ambiguous.​

If he wants to add to the words the Church directs that priests should pray, that can be done in the homily; preaching that brings out the doctrinal & spiritual value of the Liturgy is all too uncommon, & is much to be desired; that, but never during the Canon, is the time for elaborations of the Canon’s meaning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top