Name of Church St. David of Wales
Address 5641 Esmond Avenue, Richmond, CA 94805
Phone number (510) 237-1531
Website www.stdavidofwales.com
Mass times Saturday Vigil 5 p.m.; Sunday 8:00 & 11 a.m. English, 9:30 a.m. Spanish; Monday – Friday 8:15 a.m, Tuesday – Friday 6:30 p.m., Saturday 8 a.m.
Music Cantor for the Sunday 8:30 a.m. Mass, Choir for the 11 a.m. The choir sings Gregorian chant and polyphonic harmony with the congregation; selections include Mendelsohn, Bach, Handel, Scarlatti and Palestrina. Choir director and organist is Richard Mix.
Confessions Saturdays 4-4:45 p.m.
Tuesday – Friday 5:30 – 6:20 p.m.
Names of priests Fr. John Direen, pastor. Fr. Joyzy Pius Egunjobi, priest-in-residence. Fr. Direen is a pious and orthodox pastor. He was a Franciscan for six years, but did not take final vows, and opted instead for the diocesan priesthood.
School Yes, PreK-8.
Devotions Exposition and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament Tuesday through Friday 5-6:20 PM which includes Rosary, Divine Mercy Chaplet and silent adoration; Perpetual Help Novena on Saturdays, 8:30 a.m.; Rosary Monday – Saturday, 7:30 a.m.
Special parish groups Knights of Columbus, St. David’s Food Pantry Guild, St. Vincent de Paul Society, Family to Family Ministry.
Parking There is a good-sized lot and street parking.
Cry room Yes.
Additional observations St. David is a parish in the Diocese of Oakland. It has a solid pastor and a quality music program. It is located near the vast Wildcat Canyon Regional Park.
(Updated November 12)
Ho-Hum: No TLM but there is a claim that the pastor is “pious and orthodox.” But, you can habla espanol for Mas if you want. But this kind of “choice” is beloved of all Novus Ordinarians, like Pope Francis (who recently provided us with a timeless explanation of why the NO is the “ordinary” Mass; answer why: because we say that it is).
Try to ask the local pastor to start the TLM because, you know, Pope Benedict gave him the direction to do this in Summorum Pontificum. This will produce heart palpitations. For those who love the Hilary-Podesta Catholic Church: time for a Trump Restoration in the Catholic Church.
St. C, this disingenuous at best. The implications are unsettling. Here is how it reads to a somewhat biased observer. No TLM, therefore the pastor can’t possibly be pious and orthodox. It says that it is wrong to speak the language of the people attending Mass. It is a bad choice to attend or like the Ordinary Form of the Liturgy. How do you know that the Pastor can’t/wont say the TLM, or that there is no call for it among parishioners. Pope Benedict didn’t give the Pastor to do this, he said he could if he wanted to. Please don’t make up your own religion and then try to force in on others.
It’s worse than that, Bob One. Summorum Pontificum said that the TLM could be offered where a “stable group” was committed to it and asked for it. It did not say that every parish should have one because “St.” Christopher asked for it or demanded it. Chris offers zero evidence that there is a stable group at the parish. And his entire post wreaks with disdain for his brothers and sisters who don’t practice the TLM. THIS is the rigidity that Pope Francis just spoke out against, and rightly so. It isn’t good, it isn’t catholic, and it isn’t Christian to speak of the People of God in this way.
Actually, Pope Benedict XVI directed that the BISHOP of the place should see to it that the TLM is available where there is “A STABLE POPULATION” which requests it. So Pope Benedict didn’t go quite as far as you indicate. Not meaning to nitpick you. Just trying to spare your dealing with “jon”‘s pontifications.
The above post was addressed to St. Christopher.
roberto.vicente is wrong. Article 2 of “Summorum Pontificum” allows that a priest may offer the Extraordinary Form “sine populo” (without a congregation) and that the priest will need no “permission from the Apostolic See or from his own Ordinary.” Therefore no group of the faithful existing in a stable manner is needed for the Extraordinary From to be offered in a parish. The priest is free to offer the EF on his own.
MOREOVER, article 4 allows that the faithful MAY request to join in the celebration of that EF that the priest has been offering “sine populo.” One might ask: well, how would the faithful have heard of this EF if it was being offered “sine populo?” Simple. The presumption is that the priest will have…
somehow informed them. We can therefore see the aim of Benedict here: which is to promote the EF, not merely to offer it only if there happens to be a group of the faithful who request it.
jon— tortured “logic”. If Pope Benedict had meant to do what you attribute to him, he could have said so expressly. As it is, your “interpretation” has him giving inconsistent instructions in the same document regarding the same matter. How does that make sense? You engage in what Scripture scholars call “EIsegesis” rather than “EXegesis”. The latter is an honest attempt to determine the meaning of a text by examination of the words, the source, etc. The former is to interpret a text, not to determine its true meaning, but to support a pre-conceived idea. But I suppose you already that, because you seem to know everything.
I havent often agreed with jon’s positions, but jon’s notes on Summorum P. are informative.
I had never read carefully SP 2 & 4 on other means of permitting the TLM. Thank you. Anytime facts want to be discussed, like these, great.
I am stunned to admit it, but “jon” is correct. Of course Benedict was not perfect in his Summorum, but the intent was clearly to educate the Catholic World about the TLM and to offer it, as St. JPII said, with “a wide and generous application.” (Ecclesia Dei, 7/2/1988). The problem is disobedience of the Bishops.
No, Vatican II did not command anything like the disappointment of the Novus Ordo Mass. In fact, St. John XXIII clearly expressed his will that Latin be required of the clergy in its training (suggesting nothing less than continuation of the TLM as the “ordinary” mass). See, “Veterum Sapientia” (2/22/1962).
St. Christopher, I did not say that jon’s statement was incorrect. I merely said that the “logic” he used to support it, using Summorum, was in fact illogical.
To be more specific, jon states that Summmorum explicitly affirms the right of a priest to offer the TLM “sine populo” [without a congregation] with no prior permission of the local Ordinary or the Holy See. I agree. jon further writes that Summorum allows the faithful who happen upon the TLM celebrated “sine populo” to assist at it. I agree.
But under Summorum, the right of the priest to celebrate the TLM and for faithful to assist at it (beyond that allowed by S’s general provisions) is expressly conditioned upon the priest’s having intended a “sine populo”…
[continuation]
celebration. This limiting condition of “sine populo” is clearly violated if the faithful, before the celebration, were advised when and where it would take place—as jon advises. Therefore his argument is based on a false premise, which defeats the possibility of a logically correct conclusion.
roberto vicente, please do read Summorum Pontificum. Your assertion that my point is based on a “false premise” is proven wrong by Article 4 of the same motu propio. You only have to read it there yourself. Article 4 reads: “The celebrations of Holy Mass mentioned above in Art. 2 [which is the Mass sine populo] may be attended also by members of the lay faithful who spontaneously request to do so….” Obviously that original “sine populo” Mass ceases to be “sine populo” once you have a group of people in attendance. THEREFORE, with Article 4, Benedict as legislator–without necessarily having to explicitly state it—intends for the promotion of the EF. This is very evident roberto vicente by just reading the law…
As another indication that roberto vicente is wrong, that there is no such “limiting condition” exists in the use of the EF, back in January 2010, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei clarified that “A Mass in the usus antiquior may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the Ordinary Form.” MOREOVER, Ecclesia Dei clarified at the same time that “A parish priest may schedule a public Mass in the Extraordinary Form on his own accord (i.e. without the request of a group of faithful).”
Therefore roberto vicente, the legislator’s intent (Benedict’s) is for the LIBERALIZATION of the use of the EF and for its promotion. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to: but you can’t ignore the law nor misinterpret it.
I continue to believe each Diocese should offer a Latin mass at several parishes [the same parishes, same time, not rotating] for say six months. I think this would establish a fairly good sense of how many people prefer Latin. Surveys of attendees would establish if another parish might be a better location.
Yes, this will require some driving. From where I live in San Diego I can be at any of five parishes in no more than a half hour in Sunday traffic.
So I think some sort of regional program can meet the legitimate needs of those who prefer Latin.
Yes, mikem, but many (certainly not all, but a good number of them) bishops don’t want to do that because they don’t want the TLM to develop a stable, growing “community”. They, like many here, view the TLM attendees as a “threat to unity” rather than an asset.
If you have read here at Cal Catholic and what other posters have said happened in San Jose, where the bishop clearly did not want a thriving TLM group, it is obvious.
Where oh where is the TLM folks,? That would put the icing on the cake!!
The dinner table and felt banners have to go the 70’s are over. It looks ridiculous and has no place in a Roman Catholic Church.
Bob one stop with the “disingenuous” remarks we are sick and tired of peoples “feelings” already, be a man and tough up. You could however go to a safe place or get a puppy or a coloring book and cry somewhere just like our college students are after the election of our new leader TRUMP! We get it you hate the TLM and everything that goes with it, this is typical Novus Ordo thinking and very childish to say the least.
jon, dear jon— Can’t you see that nothing in your most recent post contradicts what I wrote? Reasoning logically is clearly not your strong suit. I’d suggest you stay away from higher mathematics.