Skip to comments.Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit
Posted on 07/11/2012 6:23:41 AM PDT by NYer
An Illinois priest forced out of his parish by Belleville's Catholic bishop for improvising prayers during Mass will no longer be able to preach in public as of today.
The Rev. William Rowe said Monday that Bishop Edward Braxton has suspended him and removed his "faculties," or license to practice ministry under church law. The move has been associated in recent years with the punishment of clergy accused of sexually abusing minors.
Rowe, the pastor of St. Mary Catholic Church in Mount Carmel, Ill., has not been accused of abuse, but he has clashed with Braxton over altering the liturgical prayers of the Roman Missal the book of prayers, chants and responses used during Mass.
Last month, St. Mary's parishioners learned that Braxton had officially removed Rowe, their pastor of 18 years. But a separate letter from Braxton recently informed Rowe, 72, that not only would he have to leave the church, but that he could not preach in public anywhere.
Rowe said he could no longer celebrate public Masses or preside at weddings, funerals or baptisms. The only exception, Rowe said, involves a dying person; he can still hear a confession, baptize or anoint that person.
Rowe was scheduled to witness a wedding Saturday and four others over the summer but won't be able to preside. He also will not be able to preside over a funeral Wednesday for an elderly St. Mary's parishioner.
"That's very hard for the family," Rowe said. "I'll be there, but I can't participate."
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
All the texts of the Mass - prayers, responses, Epistles, Gospel - must be according to the norms approved by the Church. Under no circumstances can anything be changed outside of the rules laid down by the Church. This is clearly stated, even in Vatican II! The modernist usage of inclusive language is getting more widespread.
Sacrosanctum Concilium #22: (1) Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. (2) In virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops' conferences, legitimately established, with competence in given territories. (3) Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Canon 928 The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been lawfully approved.
Inaestimabile Donum #5. "Only the Eucharistic Prayers included in the Roman Missal or those that the Apostolic See has by law admitted, in the manner and within the limits laid down by the Holy See, are to be used. To modify the Eucharistic Prayers approved by the Church or to adopt others privately composed is a most serious abuse."
Be aware that it is possible to invalidate the Mass if the key words of the Eucharistic prayer are not properly performed as previously described. ("This is My Body" and "This is ... My Blood")
“...their pastor of 18 years”
Seems like that’s a big part of the problemo right there.
Freegards, thanks for all the pings
What’s wrong with this guy? Praying from the heart instead of repeating vain repetitions? Good grief! Probably he’ll use the Holy Spirit defense. If he wants to go that direction he should have chosen a church system that is not so ritualistic and legalistic. The authorities don’t want the Indians wandering off the reservation even if it’s to help some poor soul out. Show him no mercy.
There are times in Mass when the priest can ad lib and “pray from the heart” - the homily is an example. There are other times, however, such as when he is turning the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus, that there is no room for ad libbing. The priest must use the words of Jesus - “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood”.
Not all Christian denomination recognize the Biblical roots of the Eucharist and Jesus being present in the appearance of bread and wine. Those Christian denominations should refer to John 6 and they should refer to Matthew 16:18-20 to understand that Christ founded the Catholic Church.
What exactly did he do or change that caused this?
Is that what he changed?
The internet says yes. Just not the article in the OP. Another article says yes. This is very, very bad.
Here is an excerpt with one example:
During the Eucharistic prayer, instead of saying, Therefore, as we celebrate the memorial of his death and resurrection, we offer you . . . Rowe said, Therefore, as we celebrate how Jesus can free hearts from sin and fear and who died and rose again, we offer you . . .
Betcha this guy was a product of Kung/Rahner theology. “The Cosmic Christ”
When I was looking for a new church (the one I was raised in became part of the ELCA, which I did not know).
Anywho, I was calling Lutheran churches to interview the Pastors and one of the 1st questions was “Do you believe His Body and Blood are a symbol or the true Body and Blood of Christ”.
Most answered a “symbol”. Of course I thanked them for their time and told them they should really read up on their Bible.
Ohhhhhhhh. That’s one big boo boo! Jesus was VERY clear in His words.
Before we get into this discussion, lets start by saying the pledge of allegiance. Ill lead.
I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the flag of any immigrants, and to the rainbow flag; and to the democracy for with it stands, multi-cultural, with liberty and justice for the disadvantaged.
Any problems with that?
words matter. Their meanings matter. We Catholics have a saying: Lex Orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi - As we pray, we believe. As we believe, we live. When he changes the liturgy, he changes what it means. He may have meant no harm, but was likely warned to cease before having faculties removed, which means that he chose to continue, out of disobedience. This is a serious matter, and there has been much liturgical abuse in the last 40 years. It needs to stop, and this is actually a good thing. One hopes that this time apart will give the priest in question time to reflect, and to amend his ways. It is shame when a priest runs this particular risk to the souls in his care, not to mention the peril it places him in. Pray for him. Seriously. I will.
4. Serious Abuses - Those which Invalidate the Mass
The serious abuses which invalidate the Mass are all those which inhibit transubstantiation, that is fail to bring about Jesus’ True Presence in the Eucharist. The Church has very specifically defined what must - and must not - occur so that transubstantiation will result. There are four conditions required for a valid Consecration resulting in the miracle of transubstantiation. All of these conditions must be present for a valid Consecration. This is dogma. Therefore, anyone who denies these requirements is liable to heresy.”
But since the bread remains bread with all the attributes of bread and the wine remains wine with all the attributes of wine how would anyone know when or if this transubstantiation has taken place?
They don't, the whole doctrine is the result of a willful misunderstanding of the word “estin”.
I was to do a reading during a Mass once and forgot my prepared notes. I wasn't worried about it, because I figured they had a Bible there I could read from. I was wrong; there was no Bible. There's generally no Bible in a Catholic Church.
The lack of understanding could be on the other side. In no place do I see Jesus rebuke anybody for not repeating "magic words". Jesus looked upon the heart. Jesus knew what was inside of them. The Catholic Church does not know where the True Church is or Who the Head of it is. (Hint: It ain't in Rome and it ain't the Pope). Jesus fought against religious authorities who ritualized and commercialized the worship of God. They were the ones who incited the people against Him.
Peace be unto you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
Jesus rebuked Jews, not Christians for standing firm in their traditions. Paul’s quote above shows that Christian traditions should be held.
What a bunch or Hooey, seriously do you expect anyone that has ever been into a Catholic church to believe this?
For those that have never been into a Catholic Church, when the Priest, servers and readers process into the Church, the reader (Which spunkets claims to be) Carries a copy of the Lectionary. This contains all of the readings for the year. The Catholic Church is on a three year cycle. If you attend daily Mass you will hear almost the entire Bible.
In addition most sacristies have at least one Bible and the priest will either have his divine liturgy of the hours or a Bible in the confessional.
Some thing else that is down right hilarious about spunketts comments is that the claim used to be that the Catholics chained the Bible down so that no one but the priest could read it. Disregarding the fact that Bible were so expensive because they were hand copied.
I have to side with my Catholic brethren on this one. You should FReepmail verga or NYer with details of this incident or detract. I argue against Catholicism on a theological/Biblical basis and nothing else. They are fine people. Your story strains credulity and ,although possible, is so abnormal it seems improbable.
Pauls quote above shows that Christian traditions should be held.
Paul is dead. I cannot hear it from him by mouth. I will hear it from him by letter. I choose the Word of God over the commandments of men.
"For those that have never been into a Catholic Church, when the Priest, servers and readers process into the Church, the reader (Which spunkets claims to be) Carries a copy of the Lectionary. This contains all of the readings for the year. "
A Lectionary is not a Bible, nor does it approximate a Bible.
"The Catholic Church is on a three year cycle. If you attend daily Mass you will hear almost the entire Bible."
A subset of selected readings, however cycled are not the Bible.
"In addition most sacristies have at least one Bible and the priest will either have his divine liturgy of the hours or a Bible in the confessional."
A divine litergy of the hours os not the Bible. There might be a Bible in Father's car too, nevertheless, it's not present, or at hand during the Mass.
"Some thing else that is down right hilarious about spunketts comments is that the claim used to be that the Catholics chained the Bible down so that no one but the priest could read it. Disregarding the fact that Bible were so expensive because they were hand copied."
Vain repetition? Are you kidding? How many times hae you said the Lord's Prayer (rounded to the nearest hundred?)
That’s right, bipolar. What do them apostles and church fathers know? Pastor Bob’s winging HAS to be better... it’s *heartfelt*!
(Of course, the real goal would be to conform one’s heart with that of Christ’s so that the prayers of the His Church would be the most perfect expression of his heart.)
Open is good.
"details of this incident or detract."
What I said is the truth.
"I argue against Catholicism on a theological/Biblical basis and nothing else. They are fine people."
Irrelevant. There is no Bible present at their Mass. Lecitonaries are not Bibles and they don't resemble Bibles.
So he disagrees with the message that the Church is conveying in the prayers from the missal? Is that what I'm reading here?
I don't keep track of such things. I say it when I feel compelled to do so. When you incorporate a ritual on a regular recognizable basis then it loses its spontaneity. It is expected. It is repeated. And you go to the next thing. It loses meaning over time. I can see the allure to rituals. It makes one feel comfortable. But that was NOT the style of Jesus. He confronted and challenged their cherished beliefs.
Christ is the Rock that the church is built on, not Peter.
Alrighty then. We shall await with bated breath for all of the damning details to come out.
Yet it was the Catholic Church that tells us which scripture was inspired by God. You accept that even though it is a Tradition of men passed down from the Apostles to disciples and others over centuries.
So you accept the Word of God in the Bible AND you accept the Word of God passed down by commandments of men in the form of Its Table of Contents?
Bob you and I have disgreed on numerous topics numerous times, and I want you to know that I do appreciate you stepping up on this one.
Not even close tot he truth. As Bob said just waiting for the details to come out. I am betting they will be as much whole cloth and your original claim.
Not even close to the truth. As Bob said just waiting for the details to come out. I am betting they will be as much whole cloth and your original claim.
We still get used to new/old translation NYER at my church
BTW did you hear Katie Holmes is back with Cathoic church kinda of
Nobody thought that was was what Jesus was referring to until some “enlightened” people came up with that idea in the past few hundred years. Find one historical reference to one sect/denomination anytime that believed what you are saying in relation to Matthew 16:18-20. It is made up and a fabrication.
God works in mysterious ways. -)
There’s always at least two bibles in a Catholic Church, and I believe this is according to Canon Law. One bible must be placed on the altar during mass. Another is to be presented to the congregation. The grain of truth is that catholics do not, however, as a rule bring their own bibles; they typically use a missal, or missalette to follow along with the prayers or readings.
Of course, the great irony here is that the formal prayers of the mass are composed nearly entirely of biblical quotations, even if the missals don’t point out the chapter and verse that they come from. So while most prayers of most “bible churches” are just off the top of the head of the pastor, the prayers of the Catholic Church are the ancient prayers selected by the apostles and Church Fathers from the bible, itself.
Does it matter? I followed a girl I liked once to a bible church where they prayed to the god of “Shadrach, Mischach and Abednego.” Seemed pretty solid to him, those being the names of three devout Jews from the Book of Daniel. Unfortunately, his bastardized, protestant bible leaves out the part where its explained that those were the pagan names given to Hannaniah, Misha’el and Azariah. Oops... he just led his congregation in prayers to Babylonian demon-gods.
Abednego = “servant of Nergal,” a Babylonian rooster god of the netherworld.
Shadrach = “command of Achu,” a Babylonian moon god.
Don't you just hate those bastardized protestant Bibles? I have numerous Bible versions. Several commentaries. A comprehensive concordance. And still it boils down to me understanding what God wishes to impart to me. I think that is what is special about being a YOPIOSer. Now Shadrach, Mischach and Abednego may have been Babylonian names given to Daniel and his friends but his God is the same regardless of what you called Daniel. You can call Daniel "Bozo" but his God is the same. That didn't change.
Which of the 3 Scripture readings were you doing? You don't need prepared notes unless you're doing the homily.
I wasn't worried about it, because I figured they had a Bible there I could read from. I was wrong; there was no Bible.
Why would there need to be a full Bible there for you to use, when the Scripture for that day is provided? You do know that the Mass is not a Bible study session, and that you should do your study of the day's readings in the context of the full Bible before you go to Mass, don't you? The Mass is a celebration of the Eucharist and Bible study is held separately.
Largely true, impimp, but not exactly accurate.
While defending the notion of the primacy of Peter, one of the Church Fathers (I’m sorry, but I forget which one) defined that Peter’s faith was that within Peter upon which the Church was built.
HereInTheHeartland’s assertion is simply wrong. “Peter” comes from the Greek, “Petros,” which is a translation of “Cephas.” The bible repeatedly notes that Peter was actually named “Cephas,” and neither “Petros” or “Petra.” Thus, Jesus said, “You are Cephas, and upon this Cephas I will build my church.” The notion that Jesus meant some distinction between “Petros” and “Petra” is both anachronistic, and, when considering that Jesus was speaking in Hebrew/Aramaic, nonsensical.
(Anachronism: Certain Greek poets would poetically speak of a “motherlode” as “Petra”, and a hewn rock as “Petros,” but this distinction is alien to the bible. “Petros” is simply the masculine form of “Petra.” It exists nowhere in the Greek bible, including the translated Old Testament. )
But Peter would become the embodiment of the church: “I am the Good Shepherd,” Jesus says, but later says, “Peter, shepherd my sheep.” But the Church would not be comprised in the sinful MAN named Peter, but in the faith embodied and professed by Peter. Thus, Peter is told, “Whatever you declared bound (law) on Earth, (has been/shall be)* bound in Heaven, and whatever you declared loosed (permitted) on Earth, (has been/shall be)* loosed in Heaven.”
*The verb suggests a constant state, thus although it is often translated, “shall be,” it also will always have been. Bonus points for translating “will always have been” into Greek!
Some Protestants and their Bible worship makes me laugh. It's more than paper pages with ink words. It's the Word of God and proclaimed in every Holy Mass.
We really don't need it like this..
to get the full effect.
In fact, I would dare say that any kid in Awana can spout the words from cards given to them by their leaders. They don't need the "book". And if anyone needs to hold a bible like a talisman, you're doing it wrong. It's the Word of God. If it's in your heart, you don't need it sitting in front of you moment to moment.
>> I have numerous Bible versions. Several commentaries. A comprehensive concordance. And still it boils down to me understanding what God wishes to impart to me. <<
Congratulations. And I’m sure every single last one of them has been censored by Martin Luther. And every single commentary written by someone who followed him into apostasy, right?
Yeah, sure, and by applying that Lego Block Method of Scripture Interpretation along with frequent references to personal preferences, those who worship their own, Most High and Holy Self claim:
Matthew 4:4 Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.
means "every written word",
James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
means, "by faith alone", and that
Matthew 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
means, "this is is a symbol for my body but I'm too stupid to say what I really mean".
People who will twist and torture Scripture that way love darkness rather than light and will do whatever it takes to avoid the light. Like fleeing from a crucifix the same way 'B' movie vampires do. All anyone can do for them is pray for them because they only love and worship their own, Most High and Holy Self. Sad, but true.
And by the by, Christ is the Cornerstone and the Apostles are each foundation stones in the foundation. That's explicitly stated in Scriptue although those enamored of various heresies tend to pretend they never happened across that passage and then change the subject right away.
have a nice day
I stand behind what I said. Show me a reference to an historical figure who thought that Jesus was talking about himself in Matthew 16:18-20.
impimp, you’re asking me to argue a straw man’s argument I didn’t make. I characterized your statement as “largely true,” and HereInTheHeartland as flat-out wrong, so don’t act like I’ve taken up opposition to you.