Sunday, June 17, 2018

EUCHARISTIC PROCESSIONS IN TEXAS

This is a great, short video. There are two "Benedictions." The one in the Texas State House is great. I wonder how they got permission?

But the rigid doctor of the law in me has to complain about the young priest carrying the Monstrance in Procession in front of the Austin Cathedral. I do believe it is not appropriate for the priest to wear his biretta while in procession and certainly not in giving the Benediction. In fact a bishop would not wear his zucchetta either and certainly not his miter! But apart from that, it is splendid.


18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just a picky note. The one priest should not have been wearing white gloves and the other priest should not have been using a green humeral veil. The rubrics were changed and the Church calls for a white humeral veil to be always used for benediction regardless of the color of the cope. It was beautiful. But if you are going to go it do it correctly. And yes Father, that priest should not have worn a biretta.

TJM said...

No, he should have worn burlap and looked like a slob, then you would have been thrilled!

Anonymous said...

“No, he should have worn burlap and looked like a slob, then you would have been thrilled!“

What does that snarky comment even mean?

I have no problem with beautiful traditional vestments. But you don’t add and change things at while because of a personal preference or because of ignorance. You do what the Church says is to be done. And the Church has always taught that you don’t carry the MBS in a monstrance with a covered head. And It has NEVER been the practice for a priest to wear gloves during any liturgical action (a bishop wears gauntlets for pontifical Mass only). And the Church changed the rubric calling for the humeral vile to always be white. My point is whether someone is traditional or off the rails liberal, the liturgy is not the personal property of any priest or bishop. No one has the authority to add,remove or change anything in the liturgy.

Anonymous said...

TJM...what is your point? No one was criticizing the vestments.

Anonymous said...

TJM - I am truly sorry you are so very, very angry. I hope you can find a way out of the darkness soon. Peace.

TJM said...

Anonymous,

When then state "Just a picky note?"

Unknown said...

Perhaps a debate on the Eucharist will wake you up out of your spiritual coma...

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/malakyeopening.html

Anonymous said...

from a different anon:
TJM, I do read here from time to time since Fr. started this blog (how those years have flown carrying all those issues with them!). I, too, really can’t understand the angry responses his posts generate. He is not a divisive priest (quite the contrary in fact). Nor has he ever been since I first met him going on 25 years ago. And yet his posts here often attract and generate snarky, angry, sometimes malicious responses from “serious” Catholics, both lay and ordained. Why?
If we are truly Catholic and committed to our faith, led by Christ, why such anger?

Anonymous said...

“Anonymous,

When then state "Just a picky note?"

Um, because it’s just that. Picky. Wearing the biretta and gloves and a colored humeral veil isn’t exactly scandalous or offensive to Almighty God the way something like communion given out in plastic cups would be. But none the less an abuse it is. It’s an abuse because it is something OTHER than what the Church calls for. That’s all. I would suggest you stop being so reactionary. Besides being weird it shows that you can’t articulate yourself in a rational, adult fashion which I am sure you would like to be doing.

Anonymous said...


Unknown @ 1:47
Why did you post some Protestant's take on the Eucharist and
not the following rebuttal?

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/mattfirstrebuttal.html

TJM said...

Anonymous, from a different anon,

If you do read here regularly, you know I admire Father McDonald and laud his intellectual honesty and growing liturgically when he was trained in a very trying time. HE has grown, others of his generation remained mired in an infantile and erroneous view of the Liturgy.

What irked me with the first comment was that it was unnecessary and I could not determine the commentor's motivation, which resulted in my sarcastic comment. Instead of lauding what was being done, the commentator just HAD to make an unnecessary and petty comment.

Anonymous said...

TJM - Your anger resulted in your sarcastic comment, not what someone else posted. Your claim not to know the poster's motivation is laughable, since you frequently determine the motivation of those who post comments with which you disagree.

Instead of lauding the work of people, mainly priests, who do not share your perspectives and your preferences, you lash out, hurling invective, making unsubstantiated accusations, railing against those you desire to hurt.

It is your anger, not what other say or do, that drives your behavior. I hope you are able to find your way out of that dark place, soon. Peace.

Anonymous said...

“, the commentator just HAD to make an unnecessary and petty comment.

Again, and for the last time. That’s why I said it was “picky. It wasn’t unnecessary or petty. The liturgy of the Church is not the personal property of anyone. That is why I “had” to comment. My point was to show that traditional Catholics doing whatever they perceive as traditional often times isn’t. It’s just a personal preference. That’s all. The liturgy does not belong to Cardinal Burke anymore than it belongs to Cardinal Kasper. No one has the authority to add remove or change anything in the liturgy just because they think it is better. It’s wrong for a priest to wear a biretta for a number of reasons including the Church does not call for it. Therefore you don’t do it. Not rocket science. Tap down the pride. It’s obvious you are a reactionary and not very thoughtful. Work on that because you are showing yourself to full of pride and yes foolish.

TJM said...

Anonymous,

Engaging in projection? In retrospect, it seems like you were trying to point out that some horrible liturgical abuse was taking place, either that or how "brilliant" you are in matters liturgical. It was off putting.

Anonymous said...

TJM - For the last time for me, too, it was not some other person's comment that triggered your response. You chose to respond.

The other anonymous pointed out an error - something you decry all the time. But because it was an error, a deviation from the rubrics, that you want to approve of, you look the other way. If someone not in your liturgical camp does something similar, you let loose with everything you've got, accusing them of murder, drooling, apostatizing, etc.

That kind of behavior is off putting.

Anonymous said...

From a different anon:
TJM, thanks for your response. Perhaps in the future you could avoid all the negative/angry responses to your posts by using this more reasoned explanatory response instead on “one-liners”? But you are absolutely not alone in this—we all are guilty given our feelings & beliefs about the issues FRAJM introduces here. It’s up to us to choose wisely our written responses guided by our Lord.
Thanks again and blessings to you.

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh, that last response was actually pretty good. But I still am wondering why the need to pick at this. Do you have a problem with the nice photo of the ordination in England at the top of this blog?

Anonymous said...

TJM - Do I have a problem with people who pretend it is 1950 or 1750 or 1550? No. None whatsoever.

Traditionalists can do what they please. If is no skin off my nose.