Texas Pastor Removed Over Latin Masses

Seattle Catholic ^ | July 4, 2003 | Peter Miller

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

"So, you're whole problem is that this priest blind-sided the congregation?"

No, first, the priest violated his vow of obedience to his bishop. Even though in my own view, I think the bishop acted poorly regarding the indult in his diocese, that is not justification for disobedience.

Then, to compound the VIOLATION OF HIS SACRED VOW, the priest ALSO treated his flock with disdain and contempt.

I think that's called a twofer.


sitetest

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

No, first, the priest violated his vow of obedience to his bishop

What do you do when your bishop is disobedient to Rome? Follow the bishop or follow the Pope?

[Desdemona]

Please, read my post a little more closely. I said that Latin Mass is at an hour WHEN I AM WORKING. It is only 25 minutes, but because I need the income I have to work in a protestant church because Catholics don't pay.

It isn't good enough, but I'm not about to leave. And I don't think the occasional bucking of the rules in this way is horrid. I'd rather see men like this stand up and fight than knuckle under or slink away. The vows are being abused by the bishops in this way just as much. But maybe that's just the American in me talking.

I put up with a lot in my last parish to SERVE THE PEOPLE. That was the only thing that held me. The people who were touched by it. And they're still asking my mother where I am and am I coming back.

I understand a lot now. And one of those things is that there is a group of people who have some visceral reaction to any mention of restoring Latin Mass. Even the suggestion that they might have to attend one. Ever wonder why that is?

[narses]

I made a general comment that refered to the many, many discussions here about how a Universal Indult "would never work" because people aren't prepared. The irony is that here, the laity wasn't "prepared ", rebelled and yet there is no question raised about the Real Presence. If the issue is God and His Presence on the Altar and in the Consecrated Host, then the rest of this is simply more evidence (I posted Fr. Buckley's story to show this is neither unique nor confined to the present) that there is a grotesque double standard, one that reflects the invasion of the hierarchy by enemies of the Church who HATE that True Presence. The laity is and has been used throughout this process of deliberate destruction and desecration. The issue is the shepherds and the false shepherds, at least imho.

[ultima ratio]

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: "If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3).
____________________________________________________________
The deficiencies of the Novus Ordo had already been anticipated by Trent and condemned. The Old Mass views Christ's death as expiatory and necessary for Redemption. The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, is based on the wholly new theology of the Paschal Mystery, which claims to be a new way of looking at Redemption. This theology denies that Christ's death had any propitiatory value, viewing the whole concept of propitiation as repugnant and unworthy of the goodness of God. The perspectives of the two Masses are therefore incompatible. This is why we may truly speak of the effort to impose a new religion--a wholly new faith. Such notions as are now being taught had never before existed in Catholicism.

[Desdemona]

Then, to compound the VIOLATION OF HIS SACRED VOW, the priest ALSO treated his flock with disdain and contempt.

If that's a crime I know MANY priests who'd be convicted. That's nothing new.

[sitetest]

Dear CoD,

"What do you do when your bishop is disobedient to Rome? Follow the bishop or follow the Pope?"

If the bishop requires an intrinsically evil act, such as jumping off a bridge, disobedience is acceptable.

If the bishop requires something not intrinsically evil, such as exclusively saying the new rite publicly, obedience is required.

As for following the Holy Father, he has not directly instructed this priest to say the old rite. He has not generally instructed priests to say the old rite. He has said that priests MAY say the old rite WITH THEIR ORDINARY'S PERMISSION. Permission not granted, this priest is actually disobeying the pope, too, by saying the old rite publicly (noting that he'd already been given permission to say it privately).

Thus, even if the bishop is being disobedient to the Holy Father by refusing the indult in his See, the priest is not obeying the Holy Father by disobeying the bishop.

Rather, he is disobeying the bishops AND disobeying the pope, in that the pope's permission for the indult REQUIRES the bishop's permission.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

"'Then, to compound the VIOLATION OF HIS SACRED VOW, the priest ALSO treated his flock with disdain and contempt.'

"If that's a crime I know MANY priests who'd be convicted. That's nothing new."

You're unclear, here. If WHAT is a crime? Violating one's vows or treating one's flock with disdain and contempt?

My own opinion is that both are "crimes".

So this priest is doubly-guilty.


sitetest

[narses]

"What do you do when your bishop is disobedient to Rome? Follow the bishop or follow the Pope?"

The American hierarchy has seen so many acts of disobedience to Rome that the mind boggles. Time and again the AmChurch has, and often continues, to ignore Rome. From Confession to the role of Bishops and Catholic politicians, to baptism and conversion and the design, construction and management of the actual physical facilities, disobediance to Rome has become an American "tradition". What to do? Stay faithful to the Deposit of Faith, obey the Divine Law and when given a choice between violating that Law and violating a man-made rule, follow the Law.

[Desdemona]

Treating the flock with disdain and contempt. You've established your vow obedience stance. Normally, I would agree, but this priest had been asking for years and nothing. What's so horrible about it?

[narses]

"This theology denies that Christ's death had any propitiatory value, viewing the whole concept of propitiation as repugnant and unworthy of the goodness of God."

Hence the modern view, expressed here by our resident Deacon that Hell may well be empty.

[ultima ratio]

Funny how important obedience becomes when a Novus Ordo bishop is being resisted. Yet the same bishops routinely disregard the commands of the Pope himself in liturgical matters. Many of the innovations that have become permanent were made so because of initial acts of disobedience on the part of Novus Ordo bishops and priests. This bishop, in particular, had disobeyed the papal injunction to be "generous" toward those faithful desirous of attending the Old Mass. This papal assertion apparently went in one ear and out the other.

Also have to laugh at your continual recitation of the claim that the Novus Ordo--which is profoundly unCatholic--is the "normative" Mass--as if by reciting this mantra often enough you will make it so. But nothing will ever make the Novus Ordo anything more than a bad turn on the road to salvation, the cataclysmic event that Ratzinger has cited as the cause for a reversal of the Church's fortunes in modern times. It is a concoction dreamed up by a liberal claque. As such it purports to replace the ancient Mass of over a thousand years that had been shaped and guided by the Holy Spirit throughout the ages.

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

"Normally, I would agree, but this priest had been asking for years and nothing. What's so horrible about it?"

?????

Come on, Desdemona! We don't get to break our vows because we ask for something for years, even a good thing! If a man's wife refuses him sex, even for some years, he is not then justified to violate his wedding vows! His wife may be wrong, but her sin does not justify his adultery!

And Desdemona, that doesn't mean we can't see the priest's situation with some compassion. Just as we may see the poor slob compassionately who, weak with temptation, sins against his marriage vows, I can understand the priest's frustration with this bishop of his.

But one cannot excuse the adulterer's sin against his wedding vows, because of his wife's prior sin against him, and one cannot excuse this priest's sin against his priestly vows, because of his bishop's prior sin against him.

VIOLATING SACRED VOWS IS A BIG DEAL, even when committed in difficult circumstances.

But of course, this priest isn't even in an analogous position to the poor man whose wife denies him use of their marriage. This priest had been permitted to celebrate Mass, even celebrate the old rite privately! But that was not enough! The better analogy would be a man whose wife gives him use of their marriage, but does not wear the lingerie he wishes she would wear for the occasion.

And then, he justifies his adultery, his violating his vows, over it. One would not be unjustified if one felt very little compassion for such a one as this.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

You didn't answer my question. Could you go back, read my post to you, and if you can manage it, is it possible that you might answer my question?


sitetest

[Desdemona]

No, sorry comparing sex to Mass is just not in the cards.

The dog needs a walk and I have to work in the morning.

Good night.

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

I'm sorry I misunderstood this post, about timing and the old rite, for you.

But Desdemona, if the new rite is sufficiently harmful to souls as to justify VIOLATING ONE'S SACRED VOWS, then certainly you cannot justify continuing to go to the new rite, even at the cost of some of your income, no? After all, the new rite is harmful to your soul! Harmful enough to justify a priest's violating his vow of obedience not to say the old rite publicly (even though he'd been permitted to say it privately)! What's a little money when your soul is on the line?

Listen, Desdemona, if you REALLY believed the new rite is actually harmful to souls, I don't think you'd hesitate to do the right thing. But I don't think you really believe that. And thus, the priest's disobedience was entirely unjustified, even as the bishop's refusal for any public indult Masses his dioceses is probably unjustified, as well.


sitetest

[Land of the Irish]

Now please answer the question, do you think the new rite is intrinsically harmful to souls?

Yes, absolutely. That is why it should be avoided at all costs.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I see the SSPX has a new Priest ...

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

"No, sorry comparing sex to Mass is just not in the cards."

Why not? Sex in marriage is a good to which a married person is generally entitled.

But remember, no one has shown that the priest was denied the ability to celebrate the Mass. Only that he was denied the ability to celebrate a particular rite of the Mass in public.

You haven't at all made a case for this priest's blatant disobedience, nor for his shockingly poor treatment of his own flock.

Good night.


sitetest

[cpforlife.org]

Re your 102 & 105: Thanks for the info.