You tell me, please.So could a priest in prison and under observation to prevent religious activity quietly consecrate bread and share it with fellow Catholics without breaching the canon?
Are we called to honour or to obey our parents, the exemplars of all other relationships of authority?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.
The Parable of the Older Brother suggests obedience is a more complicated topic than evicent at first glance.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.
No edification took place during his homily…Are you more upset because he did it, he spoke about it, because he proudly spoke about it, or because your fellow parishioners were edified by the story?
“Extreme circumstances”? He was at a secured base in Fallujeh. The troops he was with were not engaged in combat.While it may have been unwise to preach this incident I have no great issue with the original event myself given the extreme circumstances.
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?Breaking laws is not the end of the world in all cases.
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.The Parable of the Older Brother suggests obedience is a more complicated topic than evicent at first glance.
Much more salient question!Because someone committed a sin, proudly spoke of the sin or because poorly catechized parishioners were edified by the story of sin?
Sure it is, in the case of something where ignoring the Church’s very clear directive did not result in anything positive.No, absolute obedience is not to be identified either with natural or supernatural virtue.
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.The only negative result I see from all this is your disgust, everybody else saw the good in it and was edified.
Perhaps more prudence on your part before posting what you do would be wise?Perhaps a deeper reflection on the story of the critical elder brother is your best solution.
No amount of disobedience to the letter of the law will bring us salvation.No amount of obedience 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.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.
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.
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.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.
Of course not! That would be wrong to do!And, BlackFriar didn’t “allow” any kind of liturgical abuse. Perhaps you would like to accuse the soldier who was killed of that.
No amount of obedience to the letter of the law will bring us salvation.
One wonders if there is any rule or law in the Church that must be followed according to people like “BlackFriar”? Would beef jerky and water have been suitable substitutes for bread and wine? Is abortion a matter of choice? Is murder allowed so long as we do not show disgust for the decedent? Where are the lines drawn? Are there any lines at all according to some?The only negative result I see from all this is your disgust, everybody else saw the good in it and was edified.