|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 26, 2008 15:17:55 GMT
Attending the LMSI courses and attending a proper seminary are not mutually exclusive. Just as a matter of curiosity, does Faithful have any particular seminary in mind? BTW is it not extraordinary to see priests such as Fr Sean Fagan and the chaplain at Waterford Institute of Technology (whose name I forget) writing articles in the IRISH TIMES and the IRISH CATHOLIC in which they essentially declare that priests are not essential to the Church and Irish Catholicism could survive just fine if there were no priests at all? Is it not even more extraordinary that they are not silenced by their superiors for taking this position, which amounts in my opinion to formal heresy? I entirely agree with Askel about the sort of top-down clericalism which existed here until the 1960s but much of the Irish Church appears to have ludicrously overreacted. A lot of commentators in the IRISH CATHOLIC etc seem to want to return to the situation which existed prior to St. Malachy's reforms in the eleventh century - a situation where bishops and priests are confined to administering the sacraments and the exercise of jurisdiction or of any temporal authority (e.g. running schools) is handed over to lay people. Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 27, 2008 12:41:02 GMT
Attending the LMSI courses and attending a proper seminary are not mutually exclusive. Just as a matter of curiosity, does Faithful have any particular seminary in mind? I am curious as to which seminary (seminaries?) he might be thinking about too.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Nov 28, 2008 13:30:53 GMT
Attending the LMSI courses and attending a proper seminary are not mutually exclusive. Just as a matter of curiosity, does Faithful have any particular seminary in mind? I am curious as to which seminary (seminaries?) he might be thinking about too. Do you know many seminaries in Ireland where a young lad interested in the Old Liturgy can go ?? Personally i don't. For a young person called and more or less tradi, the choice is : niet. Go abroad. I suppose the seminaries faithful is thinking about are the SPPX ones.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Dec 17, 2008 15:26:36 GMT
Guillaume,
The few Irish seminaries remaining are complete write-offs.
Askel.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 29, 2009 9:43:52 GMT
I was a bit surprised this morning to discover that the Feast of St. Catherine of Siena was not commemorated in the (Ordinary Form) Mass today in my parish. (St. Peter Chanel didn't get a look-in on his feast yesterday, but although he is a martyr he is not of the same rank as St. Catherine, who is a Doctor of the Church). I understand that one of the principles of the liturgical reform was that the pattern of the church's year should not be disrupted by breaking up major liturgical seasons with the feasts of unrelated saints, and I would understand St. Catherine being set aside if her feast fell in Holy Week or the Easter octave, for example, but should such a major saint really be passed over for the sake of a weekday in the third week of Easter? Does anyone know on what principle this is decided?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 29, 2009 11:29:06 GMT
I would guess the priest is making it up as he's going a long. Where I went, St Catherine was commemorated. And the rubric requires it outside Holy Week and Easter Week.
I don't know whether it was laziness or indifference.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 30, 2009 10:03:00 GMT
We had the Mass for St. Pius V today, which was said by the parish priest. (The Mass yesterday and the day before was said by a religious order priest who often ministers here.) I presume this means the non-celebration of the two earlier feasts was due to the individual celebrant.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 21, 2009 10:03:56 GMT
We had the Mass for St. Pius V today, which was said by the parish priest. (The Mass yesterday and the day before was said by a religious order priest who often ministers here.) I presume this means the non-celebration of the two earlier feasts was due to the individual celebrant. Certainly. But unfortunately the DIY approach to celebration pre-dominates.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 15, 2010 12:56:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jun 15, 2010 18:44:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 14, 2010 15:15:34 GMT
I'm using this thread to raise a point about the question of reception in the hand at TLM, in relation to the disgraceful event at the Knock pilgrimage on the 5th. My view on this issue is: (a) Communion on the tongue should be the norm (b) This should be announced before the Mass begins and made plain to all. (c) If such an announcement has been made a person who presents for communion in the hand should be refused (d) If such an announcement ahs not been made the person should not be refused. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Sept 15, 2010 10:14:56 GMT
I'm using this thread to raise a point about the question of reception in the hand at TLM, in relation to the disgraceful event at the Knock pilgrimage on the 5th. My view on this issue is: (a) Communion on the tongue should be the norm (b) This should be announced before the Mass begins and made plain to all. (c) If such an announcement has been made a person who presents for communion in the hand should be refused (d) If such an announcement ahs not been made the person should not be refused. Any thoughts? Communion on the tongue IS the norm. The priest at the TLM mass in Dublin, Saint Kevin, reminds that before each mass.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 15, 2010 11:58:10 GMT
I know it is the norm - the big question is whether someone who presents for communion in the hand should be refused for that alone. (This does not cover the person at Knock who was clearly engaged in some sort of demonstration and ended up accidentally knocking Hosts from the ciborium when he tried to self-communicate - self-communication is AlWAYS forbidden.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 15, 2010 11:59:03 GMT
In other words, I would hold that there is a RIGHT to receive communion on the tongue at the OF as I would always do. Does that mean there is a corresponding right to receive in the and at the EF?
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Sept 17, 2010 11:01:18 GMT
www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0916/1224278995071.htmlThis appeared in yesterday's Times. Would it surprise yous to learn it was the fourth most popular story in the online edition of the newspaper on that day? Especially as it is not usually the old codgers who read online editions. Anyway, it's not so long ago when the bulk of the older readers of the Times were mainly heretics our separated brethern.
|
|