Posted on 12/28/2004 2:00:22 PM PST by CatherineSiena
"It's just trads being trads. Petty, spiteful, proud (the bad kind), and somewhat egomaniacal."
ME: It's just NeoCons being NeoCons. Petty, spiteful, proud (the bad kind), and somewhat egomaniacal." OOPS! And very JUDGMENTAL. I'd suggest reading St. Ignatius of Loyola and his admonitions toward assuming the intentions of others. Very traditional! But not "neo-Conservative" at all.
I don't know their particular situation, but I do know (from my days in NY) that Fr. Perricone is an excellent priest and very traditional. However, I think the parishioners' big fear is that there is no guarantee, once the archdiocese gets its hands on the parish, that it won't insist that the NO mass be celebrated there, also.
That at least is the fear of many independent chapels. The people build the parish with their own money and effort, and the diocese negotiates because it wants the property; but there is never any guarantee given that the NO won't be celebrated there or even that the Tridentine Rite will always be continued after the diocese gets the property.
Still, that said, I think this sounds like a fairly good offer, and I don't think Fr. Perricone would betray the parish or let the archdiocese do so.
Yet, those that favor that particular solution see no problem with that.
IMHO, in my recent exposure to the man, I don't think he is a good fit to carry on Father Wickens work.
My Personal opinion is that he is the best man drawing breath, to continue where Fr.Wickens left off.
Are you including me with your slander?
What was the final disposition of the lawsuit, mentioned in the 1994 Macomb Daily article, you referenced in this column...?
A lot of independent chapels are not SSPX - they're just what it says, independent, usually founded by a local group of disgusted Catholics who were unable to get indult masses but did not want to go in with the SSPX. But if they do have to do the latter, at least they know that the SSPX wouldn't force them to have the NO mass.
You seem to be missing the point here. It's about their wish to continue with the Tridentine Rite mass and, in fact, all of the pre-VatII practices, the calendar, etc. Few dioceses (if any) will guarantee them this.
Well the current situation at St. Anthony's does guarntee this. The Chapel is owned by the board members and only the 1962 liturgical rite are to be used at the chapel. Novus Ordo will never be allowed into the chapel, and if the diocse even thinks that its going to attempt to bring Novus Ordo in, the board members can kick the diocese out.
This basic situation played out ten years ago with Our Lady of Fatima Chapel in Pequannock. The Chapel used to be Independent, but then in 1994 the FSSP was given permission by the Diocese to staff the Chapel. In the ten years which Our Lady of Fatim has been under the diocese of Paterson, Novus Ordo has never reared its ugly head at all, and it never will as far as I'm concerned.
That's good news. A chapel I know of here in Florida is in conversations with the diocese, but the diocese is unwilling to give them any guarantees, and there have been other chapels that seem to have been absorbed by dioceses basically in order to disband them. It's a pretty frightening prospect.
I don't think Fr. Perricone would permit it, either, and hopefully the Bishop is an honorable man and is not considering it.
The point I was making, was that in the process of determining a course (and if you read the article you probably picked that up) many of those that left, wanted to bring in SSPX.
BUT..... SSPX wanted to run the Parish as a Mission Church, and wanted everything ceded over to them at the end of a two year period.
Yes, I saw that, but I meant that the important thing was keeping the Tridentine Rite, regardless of who owns the property, and certainly the SSPX would guarantee that (whereas the diocese might not).
Good luck, in any case!
No, there is no guarantee, that in 2.5 years time, after everything had been ceded, they could theoretically close the Parish, and take their booty. That was the problem.(not to mention running an established Parish as a mission church from Connecticut...rme)
The Archdiocese has a priest, technically "on loan" and no control over anything else.
So, you tell me, who comes away looking like the better bet, if your only concern is the health of the Parish?
Yes, that's the essence of it...
"It's just trads being trads. Petty, spiteful, proud (the bad kind), and somewhat egomaniacal"
You think this is what motivates them--or is it the faith? By the way--your post is exactly what you describe--petty, spiteful and proud.
"There are 2 Indult Masses in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Why are you going to the SSPX?"
Maybe because he prefers the SSPX.
Really, that would be news to the SSPX !!!!
You willingness to lie in order to insult csbyrnes84 renders you beneath contempt.
What I am saying is, the only nearly 'Local' (singular) Society mass, is in NYC. Which is not what you portrayed.
Otherwise more of you SSPX voluptuaries would leave the Essex House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.