Proposition 2 - The Liturgical Reform of Vatican II

The Synodal Assembly recalled with gratitude the beneficial influence that the liturgical reform carried out since the Second Vatican Council has had for the life of the Church. It has highlighted the beauty of the Eucharistic action that shines in the liturgical rite. Abuses were verified in the past; they are not even lacking today, although they have diminished greatly. However, such incidents cannot darken the goodness and validity of the reform, which still has riches that are not totally explored; rather, they call for greater care in regard to the "ars celebrandi," which favors "actuosa participatio."

I could not help but wonder if some bishops are unaware of the great number of liturgical abuses which have arisen since the Second Vatican Council, many of which have gone uncorrected. This is not to say that no abuses existed prior to the Council, but it boggles the mind to think that the abuses have diminished greatly. Perhaps in some places it has. At some local parishes, the problems have gone uncorrected.

Just this past Sunday, for instance, a layman (whose has apparently assumed the job of 'pouring the Precious Blood' into glass wine goblets), was called to the altar before Holy Communion to - as spoken by the priest - "Pour the wine."

What a theological nincompoop! He is the same priest who believes that women will one day be 'priestesses" and that Jesus didn't know He was God till, presumably, after the Resurrection. And one need no longer wonder why so many have such a corrupted understanding of transubstantiation - and the Faith in general! When a priest, AFTER the Consecration, states that the wine is still wine, it is inexcusable. It makes no difference whether it was a deliberate statement or a careless remark - it is, and always will be, inexcusable. Just how many years of theological training does one need to make the distinction:
BEFORE the Consecration, bread and wine; AFTER the Consecration, the BODY and Blood of our Lord?

I can only wonder whether the priest actually believes that Christ is really, truly, and SUBSTANTIALLY present under the appearance of bread and wine? I can only wonder if he (and others like him) actually love the Church which Christ gave to us to help us in our journey?

Further, the Precious Blood is NOT to be poured into other vessels after the Consecration. This was addressed in Redemptionis Sacramentum. But hey, who needs to listen to to Rome these days, anyway. We prefer to do it our own way!

About 3 to 4 years years ago after the edict came from the Vatican and Bishop Gregory published the mandate from the USCCB about the prohibition of lay people 'fractioning' the Precious Blood, I personally handed a copy of the directive to this 'layman'. I had highlighted the most important parts which indicated that he could NOT do what he was doing. I also faxed and hand delivered copies to our priests and deacons. Still today, after repeated notifications of the prohibited practice, I can only surmise that we have flagrantly disobedient priests and others who persist in defying lawful authority and ignoring liturgical directives.

What a nest of disobedience! Perhaps one of these days when I unexpectedly show up for Mass at my registered parish, the Good Lord will have a surprise for me - Perhaps His graces will have touched and converted the hearts of those who play fast and loose with the liturgy and with the faith! Perhaps he will also grant me the patience to pray for them more fervently.

I suppose our Lord sends these people into our lives as tests of our faith, hope and charity?