I wonder if my cousin, my cousin’s daughter and I will be going to hell – not to mention the priest who sat by as the three of us eulogized Aunt Elizabeth in the Catholic parish where she had been baptized into the faith more than 80 years ago. Eulogies are supposed to be forbidden at Catholic funerals. That’s why, over the years, we’ve seldom heard priests make personal remarks about the departed. Those few who did might have been asking for trouble.
I assume the priest who celebrated the funeral of Aunt Elizabeth probably still has his job; I’ve not heard otherwise.
Then again, he’s not a diocesan priest here in Baltimore, premier see of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.
In the premier see, under the new archbishop, apparently a priest can get in big trouble for seemingly small offenses, and let that be a warning to anyone else who might have ideas about tinkering with sacred rites, letting outsiders read the Gospel, or maybe even eulogizing the departed. There could very well be a crackdown coming.
That’s the signal one gets from the story out of South Baltimore – that after just six weeks on the job, the nation’s former military archbishop, Edwin F. O’Brien, has dismissed the priest who led three parishes for the past five years, because he allowed a female Episcopal priest to read the Gospel during a funeral.
In its account of this story Friday, Catholic World News reported this as “liturgical abuse.”
When the Sun and it’s writers can correctly distinguish between a “service” and THE Mass the hierarchy make actually pay attention.
I wonder to if his Aunt Elizabeth had a funeral service or a mass?
So what’s this big picture I keep hearing about? You mean the one with individuals deciding for themselves which canons to obey and which to disobey according to ones personal feelings?
yadda yadda. Voice of the Faithful, blah blah, Call to Action, wah wah..
I’m sorry, was there a real story there somewhere, or does the guy just not GET Catholicism?
You do the “prophetic action” you do the consequence. The guy knew [i]precisely[/i] what he was doing.
It was a symbolic, significant act, and is now enjoying symbolic, significant response.
I should probably stop commenting on this.
1. I know Dan Rodricks. Yes, he is a liberal, as is virtually anyone else working down on Calvert Street.
2. Yes, he understands Catholicism.
3. Big secret: a lot of Roman Catholics disagree with their church, on various issues. One wonders how we haven’t made them Anglicans…
Randall
“In the premier see, under the new archbishop, apparently a priest can get in big trouble for seemingly small offenses, and let that be a warning to anyone else who might have ideas about tinkering with sacred rites, letting outsiders read the Gospel, or maybe even eulogizing the departed. There could very well be a crackdown coming.”
Hope springs eternal.
“In the premier see, under the new archbishop, apparently a priest can get in big trouble for seemingly small offenses, and let that be a warning to anyone else who might have ideas about tinkering with sacred rites, letting outsiders read the Gospel, or maybe even eulogizing the departed. There could very well be a crackdown coming.â€
Rodircks makes that sound like a bad thing.
I thought it was common knowledge that only a priest (or deacon) can read the Gospel. And a female TEC priest is neither. Statmann
This morning I came across this quote at [url=http://joewalker.blogs.com/felixhominum/]felix hominum[/url], and I confess it reminded me of the situation in South Baltimore.
[blockquote]Terrible things seem to happen when church leaders project onto their staff their pastoral urge to take care of the needy, the downtrodden, and the weak. Nowhere in the parable of the sheep and the goats does it say ‘I was incompetent and you employed me’ or ‘I was abusive to everyone but you didn’t sack me’.[/blockquote]
The quote is from [url=http://anglicansonline.org/]Anglicans Online[/url].
I think I like their new bishop!