28 June 2011

Can an Entire City be Placed under Interdict?


Sorry, it was my first reaction.

ht to Rorate Caeli

16 comments:

Melissa said...

My 8 yr old son was watching this over my shoulder and his response was "what the heck happened there?!" I think that sums it up perfectly... I would say thanks for posting but I think I'm sick now :(

Anonymous said...

I got 1 min. 58 sec. in before turning it off. My young son came up behind me and asked, "What is that??" I answered, "A carnival."
Bleah.

Anonymous said...

yuck

Anonymous said...

Unnecessarily uncharitable. It is a Mass, after all.

That being said, I will admit that a polka during the Eucharist was, um, unusual. I would fully support a "no accordion" policy, if Pope Benedict were to adopt it.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I'm not familiar with this church. Is this one of those "Unity" or "Unitarian Universalist" churches? Confused.

TLMer said...

The title had me laughing my backside off. The only good thing about this happy meal is that it wasn't in my diocese!

Ray from MN said...

Sounds to me like it was a Mahony-extravaganza. Thank the Lord and Pope Benedict that Los Angeles has a new Archbishop and there was no delay in appointing one.

Long-Skirts said...

RED

Vestments of red
Altar cloth too
Martyrs who bled
Did this for you.

Gold Tabernacles
Veiled in red’s hue
Martyrs in shackles
Hung for this view.

Red mums full bloomed
In water and brass
Martyrs consumed
Burned for this Mass.

Red rays of sun
Rose-streak the nave
Their suffering done –
Now red we must crave!

Anonymous said...

It is definitely not my taste. But it is helpful to distinguish between matters of taste and heresy, style and validity.

That's an Opus Dei Archbishop clapping along. If it was either heretical or invalid, my guess is that you wouldn't have the line up of the episcopacy there.

That said, there is a reason I don't go out of my way to attend these things anymore.

Rory said...

Tasteless, insipid, and embarrassing liturgical options are permitted by and often participated in by bishops all over the world. This is what they like. Just as this is revolting to Traditionalists, so Tradition is revolting to them. The two are incompatible. That is why there is conflict when parishes try to have both the Traditional Mass and what you see above. You don't have crossover. You don't have unifying love. You have mutual disdain. So goodbye, Fr. Lockwood. The bishop isn't on your side.

These are the "shepherds" who insist that there is no crisis in the Church such that a faithful Catholic could possibly think an officially suspended SSPX priest might be granted by God jurisdiction to hear their confessions and marry their children. Not in their dioceses. Not under their care for the flock could such a thing be allowed. Nope. The SSPX must remain illicit and if Traditionalists insist on that nasty old nostalgia Mass, they will just have to do it right next door if possible to wherever the SSPX has set up shop. That way, hopefully (from the typical strategy of the episcopates), those barely tolerated Traditionalists in the diocese who have a prudent fear of defying the bishop, can at least be useful to the bishop by being set up in opposition to the SSPX faithful who, with great anxiety have decided that there truly is a crisis in their diocese that makes them hope that a mericful God will give them the Sacraments in a canonically irregular circumstance.

90% of the bishops view all Traditionalists with an evil eye, and where they can do it, they use those Traditionalists who remain obedient to them like human shields in the spiritual warfare that often results when things can be arranged so that the SSPX appears to be competing with the the Society of St. Peter or the Institute of Christ the King, or perhaps even an indult parish.

Just for the record, I applaud a Traditional Mass in any setting. I appreciate Traditional Catholics who are convinced that my daughter's recent marriage is invalid because it was witnessed by a suspended priest. But don't have any illusions about the love of most of your bishops. They feel no more love for you than they do us and that is why they try to put us in positions where we will have occasions of conflict.

Sadly, our Holy Father seems torn. He knows what is best. But he seems to hope for what cannot be. The "Ordinary Form" and "Extraordinary Form" are like oil and water. They are not complimentary. When ardent supporters of either meet, they can only view each other with suspicion. To me, having two such decidedly opposed and licit options for liturgical worship as that dorky choreography on the video and a Traditional Mass offered by a canonically regularized community, constitutes an undeniably deunifying crisis in the Church.

Paul Nichols said...

Thanks be to God that I don't live in that nightmare of an Archdiocese.

"And let's have a special hand for the devi- I mean Mahony for dragging this archdiocese into the depths in which we find ourselves today."

This represents the triumph of Vatican II.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but I'm really troubled by the following descriptions of what, to all indications, is a validly celebrated Mass:

"depths in which we find ourselves"
"tasteless"
"insipid"
"embarassing"
"Unitarian Universalist"
"I think I'm sick now"
a sarcastic "triumph of Vatican II"

Our Savior was present at this Eucharist, yet the descriptions above, the general tones of disimissive sarcasm, and the mockery are somehow less disrespectful than accepting the Eucharist in the hand?

Anon 18:13 has it right when discerning between matters of taste and matters of heresy. Like it or not from a taste perspective, all indications are that the Mass pictured is a valid one as determined by Holy Mother Church. as such it deserves our respect, even if we would prefer not to see some of the choreography. It certainly does not deserve our mean-spirited derision.

thetimman said...

It deserves derision if it is a Mass that is valid but illicit-- meaning, if the rubrics of Mass are deliberately violated, ignored and despised, then it is celebrated in a manner contrary to the Church's requirements. It would be sinful if it were done with knowledge, reflection and intent.

You see, validity is a good thing; it means the Eucharist is confected. But it isn't the whole story. As some have pointed out before, a black Mass is valid, but surely you would agree it deserves disapproval and derision.

Liturgical dancers, abuse of the possibility of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, and the rest are serious offenses. This is all in addition the "mere" horrific taste and soul-killing pablum.

So, this isn't an "I don't like the n.o." thing. This Mass, as you see it celebrated, is an abomination.

Rory said...

Hi anonymous of the 29th at 11:26. Several of the descriptors that you found disturbing in regards to opinions of the valid Mass in the video were offered by me. Would you prefer the words offered by our present Holy Father when his words were under a little less scrutiny than now? How about "banal"? That is the word Cardinal Ratzinger used to describe a liturgy that didn't grow organically, but was composed and then imposed on the faithful for a purpose that seems less than inspiring to some Catholics including myself.

I am not suggesting that we should feel the liberty to despise the Blessed Sacrament when present in a Novus Ordo Mass. It is with a regard to the Blessed Sacrament that taking my cues from a forthright Cardinal Ratzinger, I declare that the Novus Ordo Mass is not merely embarrassing. In those places, and on those occasions where it is celebrated according to the rubrics, the Novus Ordo liturgy remains a watered down Catholicism that deliberately removes genuflections, signs of the cross, and references to the saints and our Blessed Mother for the purpose of appeasing non-Catholics. It is a discreditable way of trying to trick Protestants into thinking that the Catholic Church is more like they are than it really is or ever could be. As such, it is deceptive, and does discredit to Christ, truly present in the Blessed Sacrament at a Novus Ordo Altar...or should I say, Lord's Supper Table?

Anonymous said...

Nice performance by one and all - fitting for anything you might expect to experience at the Fox or a tent revival ... meanwhile, the marginalization of yet another gemstone in the crown of Catholic Tradition in Saint Louis is made complete; this day, one fine Priest departs for his new home in KC.

How long must we endure these devastations?

/Steve

Latinmassgirl said...

My whole family viewed this with me and it drew outrage from all of our children. I think it was a sacrilege and a disgrace to the Catholic Church. Dancing with the flames and bare feet at a Catholic mass? Now our mass is sooooo boring that we must have dancing to entertain people? I thought the mass was about worshiping Jesus and participating in the sacrifice of the mass.

Maybe next time they can hire a male "dancer" so the women can have equal time as the men did at this mass. Why stop there? There are so many people who weren't included in this all-inclusive mass. How about some Italian, or Japanese being spoken and sung or maybe even the Polka?