Bishop removes Saginaw priest Fr. Edwin Dwyer from all assignments

  • Thread starter Thread starter otrrl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@ bjryman

Some Boomer Catholics just freak if it looks like the post-conciliar liturgical “reforms” (in the radical sense they understand them) are being tampered with at all.

At my Novus Ordo parish, there is an old side chapel with the altar up against the Eastern wall, so the Mass can only be celebrated ad orientum . There are approved vernacular liturgical rubrics in the Pope Paul VI liturgy for this.

The chapel is called the “St. Joseph’s Chapel.” Last St. Joseph’s Day, the young associate priest thought it would be nice to celebrate daily Mass in the chapel…rather than the usual “Divine Mercy Chapel” which features folding chairs and a bonsai tree front and center behind the altar, in front of St. Faustina’s Divine Mercy picture.

He told everyone that they were not changing the regular liturgy at the parish. Even so, there were unfounded complaints to the pastor and the bishop! But nothing came of it, at least nothing that I am aware of.

In this case I think there was an elderly bishop who shared their concerns about a growing counter revolution of “rigidity”, etc. However, I also get the impression (as you mention) there may have been an obedience problem as well.
 
Last edited:
I agree, and it seems to be like a festering wound. Our original church was a missionary traditional church that holds about 200 folks. It can easily be converted for ad orientum use. (though moving the altar back would probably take four people). Our last three Associate Pastors were all trained and allowed by the Archbishop to make use of the alternate rubrics. The only condition was that a “reasonable” number of the faithful asked for the change so that we were not continuously resetting the venue for a very few. More or less decided that the term reasonable meant about 25. Our parish membership is about 2,000 families and no-one has ever actually followed through on the request. Probably because there is another parish not to far away that offers one Mass ad orientum monthly.

And yes, one issue that has been reinforced in our Archdiocese is the vow to the Archbishop. Now challenging that legitimate authority would create a major problem.
 
Last edited:
@bjryman

Democratizing the issue, is a problem with Summorium Pontificum. It probably should have been clarified if any qualified priest believes there is a need (call it “pastoral”) and wishes to celebrate the Extraordinary Form, then that should happen – period (of course, in the case of associate pastors –the senior pastor’s wishes have to be taken into account) – no need to hand out questionnaires. This is the kind of thing an obstructionist bishop will do – to do that which the Apostolic Letter was designed to remedy.

So far as just wishing to share and introduce the parish to the ad orientum using the vernacular (or using incenses, bells, altar candles, etc --the minor changes this priest introduced at one or two of the Masses) is there any vox populi requirement? After all, we are not Congregationalists!
 
Last edited:
Thanks to all for your comments. The diocesan website (saginaw.org) has apparently been updated with the letter sent by the Bishop to all parishioners.

You can read there, in the first paragraph of the Bishop’s letter, that “issues” with the liturgy have divided the congregation. I had no idea of that, that there was some division. I didn’t see anything controversial. Dwyer was a new pastor since last July, he did things his own way, like every pastor does.

So, publicly, the “issues” with the liturgy is the official explanation, although Fr. Dwyer said in his announcement at the end of Mass on Saturday, that he was not going to comment on the Bishop’s announcement, except to assure us that he hadn’t done anything wrong, as he put it.

As I said at the beginning, apparently there was a parish “town hall” meeting that I knew nothing about. So, part of what I am doing here is “fishing” to find out if anybody was there and can say what transpired.
 
I don’t think anyone besides Fr. Dwyer, the bishop, and a few more officials in the chancery will ever fully know the reasons. The official explanation is that his changes to the liturgy “divided” the parish, but I have my doubts about that. His changes were so tame that I have a hard time believing that the bishop would remove a priest over adding a few candles to the altar and a little bit of Latin. My guess is that the real reason is either (1) the bishop isn’t a fan of tradition/traditional priests and wants to move him somewhere where he will have less influence before he does something truly drastic like (gasp!) say mass ad orientum, or (2) someone influential complained (like a big donor to the parish or diocese) and the bishop is removing him to appease them. If he really did move him just because of the “division” in the parish, well, then if a bishop is not going to stand up for your priest over something little like this and remove a priest at the first hint of trouble, then I feel sorry for the priests of that diocese if anything more serious happens to them.

The only solid report I have seen was that his last mass this past Sunday was packed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/amtcrz/father_eddies_last_mass_at_our_lady_of_peace
 
Last edited:
Bishops make decisions about where priests are assigned all the time. It is part of his job. Well loved priests are transferred all the time. It is the right and the duty of the Bishop to do this.
Why is this case special?
 
@Tis_Bearself

While this shotgun approach is not helpful in one sense, in another it is. I don’t think it is accurate to say these other incidents in the flagged comment do not have “anything” to do with the situation at hand. One way to regularize and domesticate the revolution in the postconciliar Church is to compartmentalize these types of incidents – which do after all have a common thread.
 
Last edited:
It has everything to do with the current situation we find ourselves in. Every sign, every modernist action shows we are entering into the era Our Lady warned us about in several Approved revelations. Bishop vs. Bishop, Cardinal vs. Cardinal, treachery in the Priesthood, Heresy within the Church. I stand by my post and my statement. God Bless.
 
What happened at the townhall was that a number of elderly baby boomers called together about 30-40 people who had a bone to pick with Fr. Eddie and essentially complained that they didn’t like the changes he was proposing for only one of the weekend masses in an attempt to draw in more young families. Families who supported Fr. Eddie were told the town hall wasn’t meant for them.

What Fr. had to endure that night was sickening. The rudest, most vile, vitriol was spewed at him and he kept his cool and charitable attitude. This small contingent complained to the bishop and he removed Fr. Eddie while the vast majority of the parish who liked him are now without a beloved pastor.

My question is, if it only had to do with division in the parish, why was he also removed from the campus ministry which had grown upwards of 5x in the past year? Was it because the students were begging for ad orientem Mass and he acquiesced to their request?
 
Last edited:
If your account is accurate, it sounds like the priest was railroaded out of the parish by a small vocal group who complained. The Bishop likely only heard one side of the story, theirs. Now, the priest in question has a black mark on his record. For his sake, I would write a very respectful letter to the bishop, explaining what you know. Make sure it does not read as if you are attacking the bishop or his decision, just that you want him to know there were many parishioners who were very close to this priest and he was mistreated by a small group of parishioners.
 
Mi_Rose said:
Why is this case special?
Click to expand...
Generally bishops will reassign priests and then move them. This bishop has moved the priest but has not given him a new assignment. The fact that he has two other priests covering down on this priest’s former assignment shows that it is not a normal reassignment.
 
Last edited:
Bishop Hurley is about 85. It may be helpful to explain all the whys and wherefores but the man has done his job.
He has a reason for what he did. Maybe it is none of our business.
One assignment of a priest does not mean that the Saginaw Diocese is falling into the abyss of modernism.it means the Bishop made a decision that he had the right to make.
 
They are divisive, like to spead half-truths, and spin things in the most unflattering light to those they oppose.

Better to tell the truth, the whole truth, without spin than to use hyperbole and theatrics to get your point across.
 
Last edited:
deification said:
What happened at the townhall was that a number of elderly baby boomers called together about 30-40 people who had a bone to pick with Fr. Eddie
Click to expand...
If the division was generational, that is still a division, and that many people is not insignificant. It may be that the bishop did not want such a division over something that could be corrected by some changes in the liturgy. For all anyone knows, he may have already tried to unsuccessful have Fr. Dwyer fix the problem.

It should not be a bad mark on anyone’s record that they fail at one task or another. We all have our talents and strengths, and our blind spots and weaknesses. That is one factor in parish assignments.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top