O
otjm
Guest
How about we go a bit easy on the term “abuse”? It is a sacramental, not a sacrament, and while it is misguided, there are things that are clearly an abuse. This in not one of them.
- Status
P
Pax2u
Guest
Yeah, we had a few years of sand in the bowls. I’ve never heard the word 'stoup" before…is that the official name of a holy water bowl?That’s a great story. One year, our pastor put dry leaves in the bowl (he can’t take it away, it’s part of the font). But this year, it’s just empty. Perhaps he is tempting me to put some of my Holy Water in.
M
Miserissima
Guest
Yep!
Stoups are bowls.
Fonts – think of the word ‘fountain’ – are large vessels that usually have a spigot from which holy water is poured (but the two words are often used interchangeably as smaller wall mounted stoups have various images of Christ, saints, angels, etc. and were initially made to represent larger fonts).
So…all fonts have stoups to catch falling water. But, not all soups have fonts, as they’re stationary basins.
Aren’t you glad you asked?
P
Pax2u
Guest
Hey, thanks Miserissima…This old dog likes to learn something new!!! (and when it turns up as a Jeopardy question and I know the answer, DH will look at me with astonishment and think I’m a geniusYep!
Stoups are bowls.
Fonts – think of the word ‘fountain’ – are large vessels that usually have a spigot from which holy water is poured (but the two words are often used interchangeably as smaller wall mounted stoups have various images of Christ, saints, angels, etc. and were initially made to represent larger fonts).
So…all fonts have stoups to catch falling water. But, not all soups have fonts, as they’re stationary basins.
Aren’t you glad you asked?
)
M
Miserissima
Guest
You made my day!Hey, thanks Miserissima…This old dog likes to learn something new!!! (and when it turns up as a Jeopardy question and I know the answer, DH will look at me with astonishment and think I’m a genius
O
otjm
Guest
Stoup is also a brewery in the Seattle area.Yep!
Stoups are bowls.
Fonts – think of the word ‘fountain’ – are large vessels that usually have a spigot from which holy water is poured (but the two words are often used interchangeably as smaller wall mounted stoups have various images of Christ, saints, angels, etc. and were initially made to represent larger fonts).
So…all fonts have stoups to catch falling water. But, not all soups have fonts, as they’re stationary basins.
Aren’t you glad you asked?
M
Miserissima
Guest
Ahhh, Stoup…a font of temporal happiness!Stoup is also a brewery in the Seattle area.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, that probably depends on whether one likes hops in excess, or one prefers to drink Schludwiller. Even my cat wouldn’t claim that stuff…
E
Elizium23
Guest
No, I think it’s quite accurate. Holy water fonts are regulated by the liturgical norms of the Church just like the Mass is.
O
otjm
Guest
There is a scale of importance; sacraments are head and shoulders above sacramentals. I seriously doubt that the vast majority of priests are even aware of anything from the Vatican concerning whether or not holy water is eliminated from the entrance of the church; but they are far more likely to know that the wine is to be fractioned before consecration and not after. In neither case did Rome write to all the priests; Rome writes to individual questioners, and to bishops, who are the chief liturgist in their diocese.
I will take something as an abuse when the individual charged with the action intentionally does something else. Where there is no intentional violation - which is the case when they have not been informed of the matter - then it is an error; the term abuse has connotations of intentionality.
I am not promoting removing holy water - I think it is one more misguided action by fuzzy headed liberals - but I really do not see this as an abuse. That charge is far too emotionally laden to be applied here. I would be happy to call it a stupidity; a bone-headedness; a weak suck excuse for liturgical creativity. I suppose we could think up a few more. But to presume this is an intentional violation is a bit beyond the pale. On the scale of issues facing the Church, this doesn’t amount to much more than a pimple on a gnat’s left wing. We have 55,000,000 aborted babies; we have a Church that is finally acknowledging that priests sexually abused teenage boys and doing what should have been done 50 years ago; we have jihadists executing or brothers and sisters in Christ in the Middle East for no other reason than that they are followers of Christ; we have some 70 to 75% of baptized Catholics who can’t find the parish door on Sunday; Europe has closer to 95% who can’t find that door; we have way, way too many people who do find the door who still insist that contraception is a right, who can’t defend chastity and probably can’t even define it; we have a government that is anti Christian, let alone anti Catholic, and they are modeling on what Canada and Europe did long ago; we have pew sitters who think the Pope is wrong about gay marriage, and if they heard their pastor say the same, they would cut him off at the pocketbook; we have heaven only knows how many self-professed Catholics who support gay “marriage” and “wymon priests” (I think that is how the ultra feminists spell it), and we have to get into a discussion about how not putting holy water in the fonts is abuse?
Really?
To tell the truth, I get sick and tired of the self anointed liturgy police. It’s wrong to remove the holy water. I agree. And it is such a minor issue, I can’t understand why we all insist in abusing so many electrons.
If Christ walked into that parish and saw the water gone, would He throw a hissy fit over it? Or would He be asking us all some rather penetrating and uncomfortable questions about what we have done to our fellow man? Would He be taking the cord off to give someone a whipping over the holy water imbroglio, or asking us about how we voted in the last election for the politician who won - and is backing Planned Parenthood more strongly than anyone ever has, since they first formed?
C
Crux_Sacra
Guest
Perhaps you can change your pastor’s mind by discussing with him the benefits of blessing ourselves with holy water. Some of those benefits are deterring the devil and remission of venial sin, as well as reminding us of our baptism and baptismal promises and declaring our rejection of the devil, his works and empty show.
During the season of Lent we battle the lure of the devil, the world, and the flesh. Holy water would then be a powerful weapon in that battle, especially when combined with frequent reception of the Sacraments. What pastor would not want to strengthen his flock with the most powerful weapons he could against temptation and sin?
-God Bless!
During the season of Lent we battle the lure of the devil, the world, and the flesh. Holy water would then be a powerful weapon in that battle, especially when combined with frequent reception of the Sacraments. What pastor would not want to strengthen his flock with the most powerful weapons he could against temptation and sin?
-God Bless!
E
Elizium23
Guest
But it is an intentional violation because liturgical legislation requires that holy water be available in all churches. As the letter from CDWDS says, removing it is praeter legem. That means there must be some existing law to violate. That means that priests are not unaware and bishops are certainly not. This is a clearly intentional violation: how else do you explain a priest, whose parish has perpetually offered holy water for the faithful to use, year after year, season after season, who suddenly gets it into his head to remove it? This is unheard of so the idea had to come from somewhere, and it was certainly not from the top down, because as we have seen, the legislation already contradicts it. This is an abuse and a serious one. It deprives the faithful of a vehicle of grace which should be freely available at all times, particularly when entering a church building. Of all the times of the year to deprive people of a way to remind ourselves of our baptism, when we are fervently singing the Psalm “as the deer longs for running streams” it is incredibly ironic how we can be robbed of this grace just when we need it the most.
R
roadsend
Guest
Yup.Considering the quality of the so-called music selections in many Catholic parishes these days, the latter situation could actually be a blessing.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, since you seem so all fired up about it, I would suggest that you contact the appropriate dicastery in Rome and file your complaint. Understand - I think it is a lot of nonsense taking the holy water out; but on a scale of 1 to 10 , it is about a .02. And I suspect that the dicastery will feel likewise. In short, not a lot is going to get done, except that you will have sent the letter. Which is another way of saying, Rome is not going to get too stirred up about it either.
It is not a serious abuse. It is a lot of nonsense. There are serious abuses; this is not one of them. Please - if you don’t believe me, write to Rome. Their response, assuming you can even get one, is going to go nowhere. No one will be defrocked; no one will be keel hauled, no one is going to have their hands slapped. At the very best, a "naughty, naughty!’ letter might be written - and the likelihood of that is nil and none. The bishop is not going to get a letter demanding that he change the practice of Father so-and-so and report back to Rome what he did.
And no, you are wrong - priests by and large do not know about the existence of the letter from Rome. Rome simply does not micro-manage.
E
Elizium23
Guest
You don’t seem to read anything. The letter is immaterial. Nobody needs to know about the letter. The letter isn’t the law. The liturgical law is promulgated publicly and all in the Church who need to know about it, do. The letter merely explains and comments on the law which already exists.
I don’t know why you suggest I should go to Rome, this is not my problem. I’m just a commentator in a public forum. Phemie is the one affected by it. I’m not in her parish nor her diocese. Phemie knows the situation on the ground and will take appropriate action or none at all, as is appropriate. I’m not here to take action, I’m here to comment and give my opinion, like you are.
Living on the Internet and the Blogosphere as I do, I come across plenty of abuses worldwide on a daily basis. If I got all tied up in knots about all of them, and wrote their bishops and Rome every time I perceived a problem, I wouldn’t get any work of my own done. I have to mind my own business. Firstly, remote complaints have almost no weight with the competent authority. What bishop is going to evaluate a Tweet, or an email or even a paper letter from some bloke in Anytown, USA when he’s in charge of the Diocese of Tegucigalpa. “Hi, I saw a video on the Internet and you’ve got some abuse on your hands.” Ridiculous. He’s going to file that in the circular file after five seconds. So would I, as a bishop. Furthermore, our senses are impeded here on the 'net. We should never believe our eyes. Liturgical abuses should be witnessed live and in person in order to truly verify them. The principle of subsidiarity should be observed, so that the presider is contacted first, then the pastor, etc. We can’t simply fly off the handle based on someone’s anonymous account of an abuse on the forum. All we can do here with Phemie’s report is speculate and offer evaluations of its legality, there is no basis for a legitimate complaint from any of us.
So I am doing my job here in the forum, I don’t know why you see fit to criticize and contradict me, because I’m simply offering my opinion based on the facts, and that opinion is that it’s a sad state of affairs that Phemie’s parish members are deprived of this vehicle of grace. In my humble opinion, a vehicle of grace is an important thing to have in a church, and Rome agrees with me, as can be seen in her liturgical legislation requiring holy water be present in all churches at all times. No priest would be laicized (we don’t “defrock” in the Catholic Church, that’s a word the Protestants made up, used against us by the MSM, so don’t use it in serious discussions), Rome will send no letters, nobody will suffer discipline from this offense, but it’s just another minor incident in the saga of minor incidents which Phemie has recounted from her parish, and it was clearly enough to perturb her into posting it here.
P
Pax2u
Guest
A bowl for every reasonStoup is also a brewery in the Seattle area.
O
otjm
Guest
Facts say otherwise.
A lot of liturgical law exists, as well as a goodly amount of non-liturgical law. You are presuming that since the law exists, everyone knows it. Quite assuming; the facts show otherwise.
You are the one carrying on about it; your stress and insistence on a minor matter shows that it is of importance to you. QED
You are the one who is worked up about it, as shown by your posts. I have not said it is right; but I have said that on a scale of one to ten, it is a minor annoyance. You are the one who keeps pounding it.
Because you are overworking a minor matter. You lack perspective.
Let it rest. To anyone following this thread, you are approaching beating the issue into the ground. You have stated your opinion that this is an abuse, and I have stated mine.
there are any number of good and holy priests out there who have parishioners who go off on tangents. The priests’ main job is not being politically correct according to your view of liturgical law; their main job is saving souls. Any number of them are faced with a choice of correcting some of those parishioners about liturgical law, or saving their souls. It is not for no reason that a wise priest knows when to take a stand, and when not to; a wisdom that you might wish to explore, instead of repeating how this is an abuse. Which it is not. It might be a pain in the seat of the pants, but it is not an abuse. Period.
And while you are at it, you might pay attention to Pope Francis - he gets what is important.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Actually, the facts we know about Phemie, her parish and her priests confirm that they are very likely to already know the law and choose to disregard it. She has explained on several occasions how they have been shown documents, acknowledged awareness of it, and then proclaimed that disobedience was preferable to them.
I pay quite a bit of attention to him, thank you very much. He has his emphases and I have mine. I happen to specialize in liturgy, Culture of Life, and music, while he doesn’t. That is what is important to me, it is not important to him. It is important to the Church as a whole so I will stand by my preferences no matter who is Pontiff.
As for this thread, it is as nothing to me. It occupies less than ten minutes of my day. I read, think and then post in it, and I put it behind me, and forget it. The only reason I remember is because you keep insisting it is pointless.
- Status