Bishop Tod Brown & St. Mary's by the Sea

[Traditional_Ang]

I hope this rises to the level of a reliable news source:

The Church’s Great Divide
by Steven Greenhut
Senior editorial writer and columnist,
The Orange County Register

*Now that a veteran priest at a traditional Huntington Beach parish has retired, the diocese is stamping out the Tridentine Mass at that location, forcing devotees to drive to the overcrowded Mission San Juan Capistrano, where it is still officially sanctioned.

Basically, the forces of liberalism that are crushing traditional Roman Catholic piety are the same forces that unleashed the sex-abuse scandal within the church. As long as the leadership rejects traditional ideals of holiness and piety, nothing will be done to assure that holy men, and not those with lax sexual attitudes, dominate the priesthood.

Locally, Fr. Daniel Johnson, the kindly, traditionalist priest who led St. Mary’s by the Sea for 25 years, has retired. His retirement, and the retirement of the Tridentine Mass with him, is heartbreaking news to St. Mary’s parishioners.

It’s a mean-spirited act for the bishop to deny the parishioners the mass they love so much. The diocese says permission for the mass was granted for the priest only, and it retires with him. But the diocese could, if it wanted to, pass the permission on to someone else.*

The rest of the story, without the sensationalism, can be found here:
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/great-divide.htm
stjosephsmen.com/Members/brfrancis/Orange_County
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1137069/posts (Link to OC Register Article)

Here is the more sensationalist reporting:

Diocese: zero tolerance for traditional Catholics
March 07, 2006
Getting dumped at St. Mary’s
Another Canon lawyer on the St. Mary’s situation
March 06, 2006
Canon Law Society of America: St. Mary’s parishoners are not excommunicated
Mass explusions at Diocese of Orange
March 05, 2006
Is kneeling before Jesus a mortal sin in the Diocese of Orange?
Liberal ‘tolerance’ at Diocese of Orange
March 02, 2006
blogs.ocregister.com/orangepunch/2006/03/

Original OC Register Blogs with comments;
blogs.ocregister.com/orangepunch/2006/03/is_kneeling_before_jesus_a_mor_1.html
blogs.ocregister.com/orangepunch/2006/03/getting_dumped_at_st_marys_1.html#comments

The flier from Orange County - With Comments
bettnet.com/blog/index.php/weblog/comments/the_flier_from_orange_county/

Some may think that Blogs don’t qualify as newspapers, but I’m sure that one can see the level of documentation involved, and that the gist of the story is confirmed by the Orange County Register Reporter.

This is what Pope John Paul II said he wanted done with the Indult:

The Wanderer’s From the Mail - Vatican to narrow chasm in 'Church’s great divide’
2 July 2004
cruxnews.com/ftm/ftm-02july04.html

Please send emails and letters to Bishop Brown and Fr. Tran, but please be charitable, and stay factual.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Marilena]

It sounds like it was an SSPX Mass? If so, then everyone here knows what John Paul 2 has said. One must not support the
SSPX. They are in schism with Rome. Until it ends, one is not
to support it. There are many approved Latin Masses for people
to go to. One can still be tradtional and attend a Latin Mass but
one that is approved by the local bishop. The talks with Rome
continue. There is allegedly a meeting on the 23rd of March. While
I do feel for the people who have gone there, one must adhere to the
late pontiff’s decree until the issue is settled in Rome.

 

[MrS]

Marilena:

It sounds like it was an SSPX Mass? If so, then everyone here knows what John Paul 2 has said. One must not support the
SSPX. They are in schism with Rome. Until it ends, one is not
to support it. There are many approved Latin Masses for people
to go to. One can still be tradtional and attend a Latin Mass but
one that is approved by the local bishop. The talks with Rome
continue. There is allegedly a meeting on the 23rd of March. While
I do feel for the people who have gone there, one must adhere to the
late pontiff’s decree until the issue is settled in Rome.

I looked at the various links… most were the same or similar. But I must have missed what you saw about the SSPX. where did you see that??

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Still not news. Sungenis’ site is still suspect at best.

PF

 

[Marilena]

MrS:

I looked at the various links… most were the same or similar. But I must have missed what you saw about the SSPX. where did you see that??

It would appear your correct. Therefore, my apologies to the OP.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Still, where the article was posted still makes it suspect. Sungenis as been going towards the radical traditionalists for awhile. I do not see his web site as reliable and the article is still an op ed piece.

PF

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Marilena:

It sounds like it was an SSPX Mass? If so, then everyone here knows what John Paul 2 has said. One must not support the
SSPX. They are in schism with Rome. Until it ends, one is not
to support it. There are many approved Latin Masses for people
to go to. One can still be tradtional and attend a Latin Mass but
one that is approved by the local bishop. The talks with Rome
continue. There is allegedly a meeting on the 23rd of March. While
I do feel for the people who have gone there, one must adhere to the
late pontiff’s decree until the issue is settled in Rome.

The Traditional Latin masses celebrated by the previous pastor were with the permission [indult] of the bishop. That permission was withdrawn when the new administrator was appointed.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

Marilena:

It sounds like it was an SSPX Mass? If so, then everyone here knows what John Paul 2 has said. One must not support the
SSPX. They are in schism with Rome. Until it ends, one is not
to support it. There are many approved Latin Masses for people
to go to. One can still be tradtional and attend a Latin Mass but
one that is approved by the local bishop. The talks with Rome
continue. There is allegedly a meeting on the 23rd of March. While
I do feel for the people who have gone there, one must adhere to the
late pontiff’s decree until the issue is settled in Rome.

What decree is it you are speaking of? (a link would be great)

Also, Cardinal Hoyos, just a few months ago, stated publicly (quoted in the Remnant interview, I think it was February 2006) that SSPX is NOT in schism.
remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-2006-0228-cfn-remnant.htm
(about 3/8ths of the way down the page)
and
remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-2005-1130-hoyos-30days.htm

Where did you get that it was schism? (a link from a reliable news source would be great here, too).

This happens so very often, people say that “they heard” or “I know”. When it comes to the teachings of the church - we MUST be accurate and specific.
Links or document titles should be required on these - (unless “you heard” and you are requesting the help of others to locate a link or document.)

No schism exists between SSPX and the Roman Catholic Church, per Cardinal Hoyos, prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, 2006.

St. Mary’s has ALWAYS been under the authority of Bishop Brown, before, during and after the Tridentine mass was allowed there.

One of the problems there is that they see (and every9one else in the diocese sees) EVERYONE ELSE gets the “mass of their own choosing and design” The Mexican and Spanish people get their singing and dancing and mariachis in the Diocese of Orange - the teens get their Lifeteen mass with singing and dancing and rock bands in the sanctuary and scanitly clad teens in the sanctuary during the consecration FOR YEARS in direct defiance of Rome and the GIRM, the Vietnames get their mass - whatever - the children (in many parishes) get their mass, the neo-catecumens - they sit down in a circle and pass the hosts around in a basket -defying MANY elements of the GIRM on a WEEKLY BASIS FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS - ALL OVER THE DIOCESE they defy the GIRM and ROME and ENCYCLICALS and ALL the Sacred Congregations. THEY ARE PROTESTANT!and Bishop Tod Brown allows every bit of it WITHOUT COMMENT. BUT GOD FORBID THOSE PEOPLE AT ST. MARY’S KNEEL!!! (which IS, by the way, the NORM for the US and perfectly allowable at ANY parish per Cardinal Arinze, prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Liturgy and Discipline of the Sacraments.)
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWCLAR.HTM

(This directive came just months after the Publication of the GIRM in English, 2003, as a clarification of GIRM 43 =and Cardinal Arinze addresses the ENTIRE GIRM #43 ( specifically stated in the response, which includes ALL POSTURES) Though the question was regarding ‘after communion’, the Cardinal’s answer includes “the various parts of the celebration… of the …mass.” Rather like a child asking mom, "Can I eat in the livingroom " and her response is,“Of course, honey, you can eat wherever you like”)

So, AFTER the GIRM 2003, in clarification of the GIRM 43 -the pastor/bishop may NOT regulate so rigidly that the faithful do not FEEL FREE TO KNEEL, during the various parts of ;the mass.

What Bishop Brown/Father Tran are REQUESTING isn’t UNITY - this is discrimination to all those who DON’T belong to any of those other groups (who can do whatever they like) and to those who for whatever reason ‘end up’ at one of those illicit masses.

But there is NOWHERE in the diocese for a parish that has ANY remnant of the reverence and silence and worship and awe that has existed in the church for CENTURIES!

Where is the respect for the “customs and traditions” of OUR parish?
Where is the concern for our souls, threatening us that we are in a state of mortal sin if we kneel, (yet Father Martin Tran continues to distribute communion to those souls - I beleive that would put HIM in a state of mortal sin) Older parishioners hear that and they shudder!

Please contact Bishop Brown and Fr. Tran and request that they allow the people of St. Mary’s to “keep to the traditions we (the apostles) have given you by word or by letter”. and leave St. Mary’s alone.
(phone nos. deleted)

Thank you,
Angel

 

[MrS]

Angels Watchin:

What decree is it you are speaking of? (a link would be great)

Also, Cardinal Hoyos, just a few months ago, stated publicly (quoted in the Remnant interview, I think it was February 2006) that SSPX is NOT in schism.
remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-2006-0228-cfn-remnant.htm
(about 3/8ths of the way down the page)
and
remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-2005-1130-hoyos-30days.htm

Where did you get that it was schism? (a link from a reliable news source would be great here, too).

This happens so very often, people say that “they heard” or “I know”. When it comes to the teachings of the church - we MUST be accurate and specific.
Links or document titles should be required on these - (unless “you heard” and you are requesting the help of others to locate a link or document.)

No schism exists between SSPX and the Roman Catholic Church, per Cardinal Hoyos, prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, 2006.

St. Mary’s has ALWAYS been under the authority of Bishop Brown, before, during and after the Tridentine mass was allowed there.

One of the problems there is that they see (and every9one else in the diocese sees) EVERYONE ELSE gets the “mass of their own choosing and design” The Mexican and Spanish people get their singing and dancing and mariachis in the Diocese of Orange - the teens get their Lifeteen mass with singing and dancing and rock bands in the sanctuary and scanitly clad teens in the sanctuary during the consecration FOR YEARS in direct defiance of Rome and the GIRM, the Vietnames get their mass - whatever - the children (in many parishes) get their mass, the neo-catecumens - they sit down in a circle and pass the hosts around in a basket -defying MANY elements of the GIRM on a WEEKLY BASIS FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS - ALL OVER THE DIOCESE they defy the GIRM and ROME and ENCYCLICALS and ALL the Sacred Congregations. THEY ARE PROTESTANT!and Bishop Tod Brown allows every bit of it WITHOUT COMMENT. BUT GOD FORBID THOSE PEOPLE AT ST. MARY’S KNEEL!!! (which IS, by the way, the NORM for the US and perfectly allowable at ANY parish per Cardinal Arinze, prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Liturgy and Discipline of the Sacraments.)
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWCLAR.HTM

(This directive came just months after the Publication of the GIRM in English, 2003, as a clarification of GIRM 43 =and Cardinal Arinze addresses the ENTIRE GIRM #43 ( specifically stated in the response, which includes ALL POSTURES) Though the question was regarding ‘after communion’, the Cardinal’s answer includes “the various parts of the celebration… of the …mass.” Rather like a child asking mom, "Can I eat in the livingroom " and her response is,“Of course, honey, you can eat wherever you like”)

So, AFTER the GIRM 2003, in clarification of the GIRM 43 -the pastor/bishop may NOT regulate so rigidly that the faithful do not FEEL FREE TO KNEEL, during the various parts of ;the mass.

What Bishop Brown/Father Tran are REQUESTING isn’t UNITY - this is discrimination to all those who DON’T belong to any of those other groups (who can do whatever they like) and to those who for whatever reason ‘end up’ at one of those illicit masses.

But there is NOWHERE in the diocese for a parish that has ANY remnant of the reverence and silence and worship and awe that has existed in the church for CENTURIES!

Where is the respect for the “customs and traditions” of OUR parish?
Where is the concern for our souls, threatening us that we are in a state of mortal sin if we kneel, (yet Father Martin Tran continues to distribute communion to those souls - I beleive that would put HIM in a state of mortal sin) Older parishioners hear that and they shudder!

Please contact Bishop Brown and Fr. Tran and request that they allow the people of St. Mary’s to “keep to the traditions we (the apostles) have given you by word or by letter”. and leave St. Mary’s alone.

Thank you,
Angel

now that is what I would call a post filled with lots of stuff… I liked it… thanks

 

[GoLatin]

Angels Watchin:

Also, Cardinal Hoyos, just a few months ago, stated publicly (quoted in the Remnant interview, I think it was February 2006) that SSPX is NOT in schism.
remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-2006-0228-cfn-remnant.htm
(about 3/8ths of the way down the page)
and
remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-2005-1130-hoyos-30days.htm

What Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos ACTUALLY said was something like “even if there is no schism” or “if there is no schism”.

And even if he had said “There is no schism”, what a Cardinal says does not take precedence over what the Pope says.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

GoLatin:

What Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos ACTUALLY said was something like “even if there is no schism” or “if there is no schism”.

And even if he had said “There is no schism”, what a Cardinal says does not take precedence over what the Pope says.

Again,
got a link on “what the Pope said”?Document of the church, encyclical, anything?

The process of declaring a schism is huge - there HAS to be PUBLIC documentation of it.

and “what the Pope says” , unless it is officially promulgated in union with the bishops, is just “what the Pope thinks”. It is NOT (necessarily) the declared, official teachings of the church.

Please, someone, a link?

Angel

 

[Marilena]

Here is what was pointed out to me about what JP2 said:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

 

[Beeline]

and “what the Pope says” , unless it is officially promulgated in union with the bishops, is just “what the Pope thinks”. It is NOT (necessarily) the declared, official teachings of the church.

Actually when the Pope declares dogma he is
sitting on the ‘Chair of Peter’, I dont think he
needs the Bishops on his lap also

 

[Beeline]

One of the problems there is that they see (and every9one else in the diocese sees) EVERYONE ELSE gets the “mass of their own choosing and design” The Mexican and Spanish people get their singing and dancing and mariachis in the Diocese of Orange - the teens get their Lifeteen mass with singing and dancing and rock bands in the sanctuary and scanitly clad teens in the sanctuary during the consecration FOR YEARS in direct defiance of Rome and the GIRM, the Vietnames get their mass - whatever - the children (in many parishes) get their mass, the neo-catecumens - they sit down in a circle and pass the hosts around in a basket -defying MANY elements of the GIRM on a WEEKLY BASIS FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS - ALL OVER THE DIOCESE they defy the GIRM and ROME and ENCYCLICALS and ALL the Sacred Congregations. THEY ARE PROTESTANT!and Bishop Tod Brown allows every bit of it WITHOUT COMMENT. BUT GOD FORBID THOSE PEOPLE AT ST. MARY’S KNEEL!!! (which IS, by the way, the NORM for the US and perfectly allowable at ANY parish per Cardinal Arinze, prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Liturgy and Discipline of the Sacraments.)

Very true, but it can’t be used as an excuse to avoid the discipline being imposed by a Bishop.

Its my contention with St.Marys is that they dont even have enough people on their side to re-establish a tradition.
One of their biggest issues is that the Communion Rail use has been replaced by the normal procession line. But its my contention that their arent enough Protesters to fill the front two pews of each Mass and have these people be the first to fill the Communion Rails.

Its one thing to be doing the same thing for years,
its another to find that the tradition doesnt have the people and numbers to support its continuance.
This tradition is further , ‘small t’ local tradition, not ‘Tradition’.

Frankly I’m just fine with the normal Communion procession line or the Communion Rail use if they
can re-establish the tradition…

As to the ‘offending flyer’ they’ve been creating new
flyers with new material for every Sunday for at least
4 months now. I dont see how any one flyer can be singled out. I dont think Fr Tran or the Bishop have singled out ONE particular flyer as being a reason
for anything. Once again, the theory of ‘THE OFFENDING FLYER’ I personally would view as propaganda from the protesters side. Although I could be wrong as I have not been frequenting the parish as of late for obvious reasons. But the ‘Offending Flyer’ that is in the link
is perhaps the most harmless of the bunch and is not representative of some of the unsubstantiated
or scurrilous claims they were making.
However, some of the material, in other flyers, was very scandalous and supported, or at least believable to me.

 

[Joe_Monahan]

Test

 

[HagiaSophia]

While there have been numerous headlines proclaiming, ”parishioners being excommunicated for kneeling” the issues seem to be a bit different.

We find the diocese administrator saying:

“In this spirit of a spiritual surgery, as your Administrator, I need to let you know the general situation of our parish. We all know “Save Saint Mary’s” group existing in our parish. The brothers and sisters in this group are trying their best to restore what they call “traditions” of this parish. They might have a good intention, but the means or the tactic that they are using to achieve their goal is mean and wrong: personal attacks/harsh words against Bishop Brown, myself, other parishioners who try to follow/obey the current liturgical norms of the Diocese; false allegations against the Bishop, myself, the American Bishops; false accusations/condemnations against several ministries of the Diocese (in the PSA program) such as Institute for Pastoral Ministry, Diaconate Program, Catholic Charities, Orange County Catholic Newspaper as heresy, supporting abortion and contraception. Furthermore, without any permission from the Bishop, they set up their own liturgical norms such as no sign of peace, kneeling after the Lamb of God, and so on, in total disobedience to the mandate of the Bishop so to create misleading, confusion, hostile environment, chaos and division in our parish“

In order to see if any of the above has some truth in it, we can look at one sample flyer distributed which in part says:

“But there is an even more insidious effect on the faith of the people in the Eucharist stemming from the changes enacted by the American Bishops’ conference which tolerated illicit liturgical abuses such as communion-in-the-hand, female altar servers, and then proceeded to legislate them into law!

Please remember that PSA supports: • Institutionalized Heresy (Institute for Pastoral Ministry)
• Abortion & contraception (Catholic Charities)
• Heresy (Diaconate Program)
• Heresy (Orange County Catholic Newspaper)”

Based upon the above there is a great deal more going on here than the issue of “kneeling”. If these attacks upon the bishops authority were coming from the left we would see posters in the thread quoting at least 6 popes, several other bishops and the Pope on obedience and canon law.

To those who chafe at being denied the wider use of the indult which JPII of blessed memory requested, you have my total and sincere empathy. Pastoral care in handling of these matters should be the accepted norm.

As Fr. Martin mentions in his letter the implementation methods being used have caused bitter dissention, a rupture in the parish itself and a direct challenge to the authority of the bishop. If the truth be known mistakes in implementation have probably occurred on both sides but it does appear the real issue is about a fight for who is “supreme” in the parish, the bishop or a handful of parishioners and based on the flyer and the administrators letter, some of those charges appear to have been borne out.

We are not bound to agree with every decision made, but we are bound as Catholics and persons of integrity to be honest about the issues involved, about how we choose to voice our disagreement and lastly how we express what we feel within the confines of being members of a “loyal opposition” to policies instituted.

It does no great service to a parish to bring up a host of side issues, none of which have anything much to do with the actual problems as has been done by some in the thread.

In this season of Lent, which is not simply a time of penance and reparation but of deep spiritual reflection we can choose it seems, to be part of the problem by adding more confusion or part of the solution, by pouring the oil of reason in our discussions, by praying for the bishop, the priest and the people of St. Mary’s that before the end of Lent, the Spirit of their mutual faith burns deep enough in their hearts to forgive one another for the wild rhetoric, to bridge the hard feelings, to exorcise the spirit of division which now exists and that together this Easter they find it possible to receive side by side in the house of the Lord, their parish, joined by the common faith which binds us and share together the Eucharistic bread of life which is offered to us all.

As Catholics I am certain that most of us will join in remembering, “love one another as I have loved you” in our hope that a healing will descend upon this parish, its people and its bishop. There but for the grace of God go any of us…may His peace be upon us all.

 

[Elzee]

Angels Watchin:

What decree is it you are speaking of? (a link would be great)

Also, Cardinal Hoyos, just a few months ago, stated publicly (quoted in the Remnant interview, I think it was February 2006) that SSPX is NOT in schism.
remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-2006-0228-cfn-remnant.htm
(about 3/8ths of the way down the page)
and
remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-2005-1130-hoyos-30days.htm

Where did you get that it was schism? (a link from a reliable news source would be great here, too).

This happens so very often, people say that “they heard” or “I know”. When it comes to the teachings of the church - we MUST be accurate and specific.
Links or document titles should be required on these - (unless “you heard” and you are requesting the help of others to locate a link or document.)

No schism exists between SSPX and the Roman Catholic Church, per Cardinal Hoyos, prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, 2006.

St. Mary’s has ALWAYS been under the authority of Bishop Brown, before, during and after the Tridentine mass was allowed there.

One of the problems there is that they see (and every9one else in the diocese sees) EVERYONE ELSE gets the “mass of their own choosing and design” The Mexican and Spanish people get their singing and dancing and mariachis in the Diocese of Orange - the teens get their Lifeteen mass with singing and dancing and rock bands in the sanctuary and scanitly clad teens in the sanctuary during the consecration FOR YEARS in direct defiance of Rome and the GIRM, the Vietnames get their mass - whatever - the children (in many parishes) get their mass, the neo-catecumens - they sit down in a circle and pass the hosts around in a basket -defying MANY elements of the GIRM on a WEEKLY BASIS FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS - ALL OVER THE DIOCESE they defy the GIRM and ROME and ENCYCLICALS and ALL the Sacred Congregations. THEY ARE PROTESTANT!and Bishop Tod Brown allows every bit of it WITHOUT COMMENT. BUT GOD FORBID THOSE PEOPLE AT ST. MARY’S KNEEL!!! (which IS, by the way, the NORM for the US and perfectly allowable at ANY parish per Cardinal Arinze, prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Liturgy and Discipline of the Sacraments.)
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWCLAR.HTM

(This directive came just months after the Publication of the GIRM in English, 2003, as a clarification of GIRM 43 =and Cardinal Arinze addresses the ENTIRE GIRM #43 ( specifically stated in the response, which includes ALL POSTURES) Though the question was regarding ‘after communion’, the Cardinal’s answer includes “the various parts of the celebration… of the …mass.” Rather like a child asking mom, "Can I eat in the livingroom " and her response is,“Of course, honey, you can eat wherever you like”)

So, AFTER the GIRM 2003, in clarification of the GIRM 43 -the pastor/bishop may NOT regulate so rigidly that the faithful do not FEEL FREE TO KNEEL, during the various parts of ;the mass.

What Bishop Brown/Father Tran are REQUESTING isn’t UNITY - this is discrimination to all those who DON’T belong to any of those other groups (who can do whatever they like) and to those who for whatever reason ‘end up’ at one of those illicit masses.

But there is NOWHERE in the diocese for a parish that has ANY remnant of the reverence and silence and worship and awe that has existed in the church for CENTURIES!

Where is the respect for the “customs and traditions” of OUR parish?
Where is the concern for our souls, threatening us that we are in a state of mortal sin if we kneel, (yet Father Martin Tran continues to distribute communion to those souls - I beleive that would put HIM in a state of mortal sin) Older parishioners hear that and they shudder!

Please contact Bishop Brown and Fr. Tran and request that they allow the people of St. Mary’s to “keep to the traditions we (the apostles) have given you by word or by letter”. and leave St. Mary’s alone.
(phone nos. deleted)

Thank you,
Angel

I think much of your post would an exceellent addition to the mail received by the Bishop.

 

[MrS]

Sounds like the Bishop needs to set up a “town hall” meeting with the parish so that he or his representative and a handful at most of parishioners can dialogue to a resolution.

Too many bishops just “can’t find the time” to discuss. Too many parishioners seem to think that is the first problem. Often I tend to agree.

And too often it results in concerns about money flow to the diocese.

 

[Beeline]

MrS:

Sounds like the Bishop needs to set up a “town hall” meeting with the parish so that he or his representative and a handful at most of parishioners can dialogue to a resolution.

Too many bishops just “can’t find the time” to discuss. Too many parishioners seem to think that is the first problem. Often I tend to agree.

And too often it results in concerns about money flow to the diocese.

Most parishioners are not part of the protest.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Beeline:

Most parishioners are not part of the protest.

They may not be taking part in the protest, but I suspect that most are more sympathetic to protesters than to the administrator. Most of the parishioners are in that parish because they liked the old ways, and it was the only parish that continued them.