Thorn,
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21680 "Phtographs of the sacrileges and theft. (Not caught in action, but the situation is represented, including the huge unguarded chalice with precious blood in order to dip the hosts.)"
That is the bold text just above where the egregious pictures begin.
My interpretation of the statement was that the writer either witnessed himself or someone else told him about it, and that a good-faith effort was made to re-create the situation--that's my interpretation of "Not caught in action, but the situation is represented."
In any event, I am sad to say that I do not doubt that this happened; I think it is more likely that it happened than that it did not happen. I'm just not 100% sure that it happened.
Do I hold the Pope personally responsible--not exactly. I do wish he would put us on a much faster track to getting things back to normal (which I consider at least pre-V-II, and ideally probably back into the 1940s).
I wish Pope John XXIII had never called V-II; I wish Pope Paul VI had immediately ended V-II and certainly not bastardize the Mass; I wish, and was deluded into expecting, Pope John Paul II to turn back to normalcy; and have seen the greatest event of my lifetime regarding a Pope in what Pope Benedict XVI has done with the "Motu."
My list of what else I want done (not all inclusive, simply what immediately comes to mind, as I am busy with my work) is the fast and abstinence rules reinstated to what they were in the 1940s; T.L.M. to become the norm, N.O. phased out as the baby-boomers phase out, tolerated long enough not to endanger their souls by driving them away with the shock of change, as they are the ones most attached the the bastardized Rite (though I believe, in most instances (not sure about whole wheat--I trust my instincts, which is about all I had to rely on growing up in a liberal N.O., and I have always had an aversion to the whole wheat), it is really a Mass, which saddens me all the more), and though I am certain the boomers were immediately thrilled with it, it wasn't there call to make that we got it.
(I'm sure there are very conservative traditional boomers--not attributing love of the N.O. to all boomers--speaking generally, that has been who I have observed to be particularly attached to it).
This horrible incident is not going to push me into doubting that the Pope is the Pope!
What do I mean by "not exactly" blaming the Pope? This sorry state of circuмstances is attributable to each and every Pope at least as far back as Pope John XXIII, as delineated above, and most of the rest of the clergy. But as much as one may not like their nation's leader, it doesn't change who it is and what his power is. Same for the Pope.
As far as the concept that he was responsible for physically guarding the Real Presence, he is an 80 some odd year old man, and besides, though a big shin-dig such as was should not have been made of the Mass in the first place (Pope has to a be somewhat to blame here), the other clergy present should have also been ensuring that the Real Presence was secured.
These are horrible errors in judgment, errors that I want the culture from which they are borne changed drastically, but they do not shake my faith that the Pope is the Pope.
TKGS,
I know I am in the minority in the sense of now having a conservative N.O. parish with solid teaching, because the 27 years of my life I don't believe I ever so much as visited one, and I visited many (on vacation, etc.). The Real Presence is stressed in many homilies in my current N.O. parish (Motu also); the Sacraments are stessed in may homilies, etc. I can assure you, as stated by my priests, that even so much as a particle is not considered a non-issue.
I am saddened and all to aware that many (I sadly feel certain by far most) N.O. parishes, conduct themselves with that sense of laxity (apparently condoned) on this grave issue.
Topic: Sacrilege Regarding the Eucharist (Read 2200 times)