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

[Beeline]

I dont have a problem with a majority of what you
wrote and understand more, and I appreciate you laying it out.
But here are some problems.

The Sign of Peace
For more than 26 years at our parish, parishioners did not conduct the sign of peace at any of the Masses. Father Daniel Johnson always understood that the sign of peace was optional (in accord with GIRM #82):

The custom of the people at Saint Mary’s by the Sea, for more than 26 years, had been not to conduct the “sign of peace”.

Seems like the parishioneers are winging it on this one. Because there is some abuse, we(parishioners) dont want it.
Even though its part of the liturgy, you prefer to pick off the menu on this one.

I have seen priests during the homily instruct on the
‘sign of peace’ and indicate it was just for nearby people. So your protest is not doing it or are you protesting so that you will not have to do it?

It seems you are not doing it both as a protest and
that you dont want it at St. Marys.

Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion

For more than 26 years at our parish, Father Johnson rarely resorted to the use of extraordinary ministers for the administration of Holy Communion. Now the practice of distributing Communion under both species (the Sacred Host and the Precious Blood) has been introduced, essentially requiring the use of extraordinary ministers, and up to the present, not even 10% of parishioners approach the Precious Blood during the distribution of Holy Communion.

So the Patriarchial Families dont believe in Eucharistic Ministers? Or Father Johnson didnt believe in it? Some of this sounds kind of cultic, revolving around a leadership personality.
Obey the Bishop and pastor.

Kneeling After the Agnus Dei

It is not that we “like” to kneel; we are aware that we have the right to kneel. We have done this during the Ordo Missae promulgated by Pope Paul VI for more than 26 years with Father Johnson as pastor. Furthermore, this was the custom in our diocese (and all U.S. dioceses) until 3 years ago. However, at Saint Mary’s, we’d continued keeling after the Agnus Dei without any admonition from the bishop until after Fr. Johnson’s retirement.

URL=http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneeling.htm]Kneeling In The Mass

I havent looked at the link yet, but I found this on
this website as a ‘Ask an Apoligist’ question. So at the very least there is some contention on this issue.
I will look at the EWTN link later and comment if applicable.
From March 7,2006 on this forum
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=102200
States the the Bishop has the right , as given to the United Stated Catholic Conference of Bishops to dictate posture in this instance.

Frankly this is the least of what I consider protest or doing your own thing. I could care less if you stand or kneel. But the Altar boys are responsible to the pastor on this one!

Kneeling to Receive Holy Communion
Another of the intended changes was announced in the parish bulletin of July 17, 2005. Father Tran wrote that since “we are resurrection people we should now receive Holy Communion standing, and not kneeling.” Therefore, kneeling to receive Holy Communion was going to be restricted and the parishioners who insisted on kneeling were going to be catechized, but because of our efforts, Father Tran postponed this intended change.

The Holy See has guaranteed the right of Catholics everywhere to kneel for Holy Communion, as can be seen here:

Kneeling For Holy Communion
Must Catholics Stand?

Yeah, Fr Tran backpedaled on this one.
You won this one early on and rightfully so!
Not a matter of contention anymore.

Pastoral Service Appeal (PSA)
As for the statements in the fliers about the Pastoral Service Appeal (PSA), we have evidence to support them.

So far this has remained unsubstantiated!

Let me guess and let me guess because thats all you have given me! They buy Girl Scout Cookies, and since the Girl Scouts have been recently associated with Planned Parenthood thats your connection??
Or something similarly thin?

Frankly if the majority of Church goers were to be with you then more power to you. However, the situation is clearly, to me!!, of being one of the minority wanting things their way , the way they are accustomed, their traditions!
However local traditions dont perservere solely by the minority!

Stack the 2or 3 front pews of each Mass, lead the others in your postures, be the first to line the Communion rails, so that the pastor will have to adminstor communion from there. But you havent done it! I was the person in the front pew!

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Me, myself and I:

Thank you for writing. I can’t imagine how painful it is to be asked to leave the Parish one has been a member of for the last 26 years or to have the authorites in that parish accuse you of serious “Moral” sin for showing respect and adoration to our Lord.

Just a few questions: Has anyone created a comprehensive file and then sent copies of that file to the Vatican (Either the Pope, Cardinal Arinze or the new Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, or all of the above) and to Una Voce ( unavoce.org - Hit the e-mail button at the bottom of the page)? Have you sent the comprehensive file you just posted here to the Vatican, along with your documentation? Has any of you tried to post a full history here at Catholic answers (without the commentary about the renewal - Just what’s been done to you - So that we don’t get into a theological or liturgical discussion)? Has anyone contacted the Fraternity of St. Peter about providing a priest who is qualified in doing the Tridentine Latin Mass? Has anyone written Bishop Brown and Fr. Tran, just to inform them of your rights per Card. Arinze’s letter and under Ecclesia Dei?

I don’t think that handing out these fliers at the Masses is such a great idea - You can see that some who might have been sympathetic to you and your position have gotten resentful, which isn’t what you want. To get the Tridentine Latin Mass restored, and to get Bishop Brown to agree to treat you as he should, you’re going to need all the allies you can get.

I don’t like the “Huggy bear of peace” as it’s done in a lot of our parishes. I believe that the best thing to do is to extend a hand, or to kiss someone on the cheek and to say, “The Peace of the Lord be with you,” and to respond, “And with thy spirit.” Anything more elaborate, conversations, etc. should happen in the Parish Hall during the “Coffee Hour” or “The Agape” (Lunch after Mass). That’s why Masses should be scheduled far enough apart so that Masses can be done reverently and the faithful can still have a “Coffee Hour” (How about 2 hours).

You might want to try this rather than abstaining in protest. It allows you to participate in the valid liturgical worship of the parish without getting sucked into the abuses. It allows you to have a chance of fitting in and being members of the parish rather than stranger, or “nuts” as I heard here. The goal here is to restore a TLM at St.Mary’s.

I kneel to receive both our Lord’s Body and His Precious Blood. I see no reason to disdain accepting both since both were offered to early Catholics. That’s one reason to have an alter rail - You might want to bring it up. It makes it easier to do that and easier for the priest to give communicants the Body of Our Lord, while the Deacon distributes His most Precious Blood. You still have the reverent attitude that should attend the reception of the King of Kings, while being faithful to the full Tradition of the Church.

When I was in college, I was involved in Campus Ministry masses were we received only God knows what sitting down. I know they weren’t licit. I’ve come to the conclusion, because of the matter involved, that they probably weren’t valid.

I’m sure we both know which way Bishop Brown would do it if he thought he could get away with it.

The idea is to get him to accept a group of the faithful who are doing it in the way I first described.

Do you think you and your Brothers and Sisters could live with that?

The last thing I want to see is you and your Brothers and Sisters leaving the Church. I’m sure you feel that Bishop Brown, Father Tran and quite a few members of St. Mary’s by the Sea are trying to get you to leave the Church, but their opinion on this just doesn’t count. The only One whose opinion counts on this is our Lord, and He died to get you in the door. I can’t see why He’d want you to leave.

Pax Vobiscum, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Beeline:

I’ve already said they should join in the “Kiss of Peace” as described in the GIRM - They shouldn’t make concessions until someone in authority has listened to these people and tried to see what can be done to accommodate them…

Beeline:

Seems like the parishioneers are winging it on this one. Because there is some abuse, we(parishioners) dont want it.

I have seen priests during the homily instruct on the
‘sign of peace’ and indicate it was just for nearby people. So your protest is not doing it or are you protesting so that you will not have to do it?

…Homilies do no good unless the Sacred Ministers and the congregations act as if the King of Kings and Lord of Lords has entered the building. Having EXTRAORDINARY Ministers of the Holy Eucharist distribute Communion when those who are to be communicated could be taken care of in a timely fashion by the vested and ordained ministers only serves to detract from this.

That has NOTHING to do with Fr. Johnson. What I’ve described is the clear instruction of the Church and was the Teaching of the Church for the last 1900 years. EXTRAORDINARY MINISTERS were only allowed as an INDULT after Vatican II.

St. Mary’s by the Sea is a small Congregation. According to the GIRM, there should be NO EMHE except on special occasions or when there is no second ordained minister available to assist in distributing the Eucharist.

Beeline:

So the Patriarchial Families dont believe in Eucharistic Ministers? Or Father Johnson didnt believe in it? Some of this sounds kind of cultic, revolving around a leadership personality.
Obey the Bishop and pastor.

You are telling the parishioners to OBEY an ILLICIT instruction, one which is rendered moot by a communication from Card. Arinze. Bishop Brown and Fr. Tran are the ones who need to OBEY.

Beeline:

…, but I found this on
this website as a ‘Ask an Apoligist’ question. So at the very least there is some contention on this issue.
I will look at the EWTN link later and comment if applicable.
From March 7,2006 on this forum
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=102200
States the the Bishop has the right , as given to the United Stated Catholic Conference of Bishops to dictate posture in this instance.

…As I’ve said, regarding kneeling after the Agnus Dei, the communication from Cardinal Arinze is the AUTHORITATIVE communication for the Faithful, and only the Pope has the Authority to countermand it.

And, we are be talking about a Bishop with a long history of defying Church Teaching and Authority. Why is it that you seem to have little problem with that history, while you demand that Traditionalists obey an illicit command from him?

Someone posted a copy of one of the bulletins on a blog, - plus St. Mary’s went at least a week without a bulletin. Are you really that willing to accept whatever excuse was offered in a operation that worked like clockwork?..

So far this has remained unsubstantiated!

Let me guess and let me guess because thats all you have given me! They buy Girl Scout Cookies, and since the Girl Scouts have been recently associated with Planned Parenthood thats your connection??

…Just because the Traditionalists are as clueless as I am about posting documents on the NET doesn’t mean they don’t have a copy of the bulletin that someone fished out of the trashcan.

In one of your posts, you said that people were calling them “nuts” among other things. Whose idea was it to call Brothers and Sisters in Christ a bunch of “Nuts”?

It doesn’t matter if the majority agrees with them, because these people are your brothers and sisters in Christ…

Beeline:

Frankly if the majority of Church goers were to be with you then more power to you. However, the situation is clearly, to me!!, of being one of the minority wanting things their way , the way they are accustomed, their traditions!
However local traditions dont perservere solely by the minority!

Stack the 2or 3 front pews of each Mass, lead the others in your postures, be the first to line the Communion rails, so that the pastor will have to adminstor communion from there…

…the only things that should matter are - Are they being handled charitably? or, Are they being blamed for all the problems and being told how wrong they are for wanting things as they were?

That is a good idea. I would say to stack 4 or 5 pews at 2 or 3 Mass. Since they don’t want EMHE, they should volunteer for the Permanent Deaconate program so that each Mass they attend will have 2 or 3 Deacons.

Part of the resistance you’ve seen is because it’s been administered by EMHO and not by ordained Priests or Deacons. When the Traditionalists see the Blood of Christ being administered at the Alter Rail by Deacons, they’ll be able to accept it.

In Christ, Michael

 

[me_myself_and_I]

Restore The Sacred has mentioned the abolition of the Tridentine Mass at St. Mary’s because many of our members loved attending that Mass; but also because Bishop Brown’s apparent desire to suppress and discourage the Tridentine Mass does not seem to be consistent with the mind of the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI, had this to say about the Traditional Latin Mass:

“I am of the opinion that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It is impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it declares that what was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent.” - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, (From his book) Salt Of The Earth, Ignatius Press, 1997

In the Motu Proprio, Ecclesia Dei, Pope John Paul II said the following about the Traditional Mass:

“Respect everywhere must be shown for the feelings of those Catholics attached to the Latin liturgical tradition by a wide and generous application of the directives issued by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal of 1962.”

Despite a signed petition by 1,200 Catholics, Bishop Brown removed permission for the Tridentine Mass to take place in our parish, forcing devotees to drive to the overcrowded Serra Chapel at the Mission San Juan Capistrano, where it is still officially sanctioned.

This bears elaboration:

Despite hundreds of letters and 1,200 signatures on petitions, the Tridentine Mass remains forbidden at St. Mary’s by the Sea.

In the Diocese of Orange, we have one remaining indult Mass location, serving a diocese of over 1,044,191 Catholics in a county of 2,760,948 people.

The Tridentine Mass at that location is only offered at 8:00 A.M. on Sundays and non-transferred Holy Days, is attended by 300+ persons every Sunday, and 450+ on the first Sunday of every month.

The Serra Chapel is designed to hold approximately 170 persons.

Many of these people drive from as far as 50 miles away. The Mass is at 8:00 AM, and they should plan to arrive up to 45 minutes early if they plan to get a seat!

Does that sound pastoral? Does it sound like a “wide and generous application of the directives issued by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal of 1962”? Or does it sound like an attempt to discourage attendence at the Tridentine Mass?

After the cancellation of the Tridentine Mass at Saint Mary’s, many of the Tridentine’s attending parishioners left for an “independent” chapel, Our Lady Help Of Christians, which is located in Garden Grove. The members of our group did not approve of that choice, as they feared the appearance of seperation from the Church.

I am linking Discovering Discipline: For Believing Catholics Only by Thomas A. Droleskey, as an example of the division that has been caused by the abolition of the Tridentine Mass at St. Mary’s. The parishioners who remained were deeply saddened to have this painful split in their parish.

Mr. Drolesky’s article only underscores the need for Bishop Brown to more generously apply the Vatican instruction to allow the wide and generous application of the ancient Mass. It can only be seen as pastorally insensitive not to do so. He should lovingly welcome Catholics at Our Lady Help Of Christians back into the diocese by allowing the Tridentine at St. Mary’s again (as the church is constructed for the Tridentine, with an altar rail, which other parishes do not have). How can it be pastorally sensitive to write off the 700+ Catholics who attend Mass at Our Lady Help Of Christians?

We are only requesting that Bishop Brown fairly apply the rules set forth by the Vatican.

There was incredible tolerance and compassion shown to the priests who violated our children. There was more compassion to these priests than to the victims. Money will never compensate for the devastating heartbreak these victims and families have endured.

It took only seventeen weeks of* Restore The Sacred* fliers for 65 people to be invited to leave not only the parish, but the entire diocese!

If only the same determined action had been directed at priests who have not followed the teachings of the Church and priests who violated a sacred trust through their sexual misconduct with minors!

It feels like Bishop Brown has been light handed with sex offender priests and pro-abortion Catholic politicians and heavy handed with people who desire to adore God by kneeling and/or attending the Tridentine Mass.

Where is tolerance and diversity when you need it?

 

[Angels_Watchin]

me:

The Serra Chapel is designed to hold approximately 170 persons.

Many of these people drive from as far as 50 miles away. The Mass is at 8:00 AM, and they should plan to arrive up to 45 minutes early if they plan to get a seat!

I called the Serra Chapel (historical office)approx 2 years ago regarding this. The maximum occumpancy they gave me was 100, not 170. When speaking with the San Juan Cap Basilica (the diocese people) they said 120.

In ALL cases, as you noted, - its simply ridiculous!
Angel

 

[Angels_Watchin]

Beeline:

Thanks for your reply Trad.Ang

Unfortunately I have discontinued attending St Mary’s by the Sea some
4-6 weeks ago because I find it polarizing and unacceptable that this small group of longtime parishioners are disobeying the Bishop in licit matters with not a simple protest but a rather nasty
and ugly one(re: HagiaSophia post).

Have you read the response to the dubium from the Sacred Congregation regarding GIRM 43 and says “the various parts of the mass” “to NOT regulate posture rigidly …that those who wish to kneel …no longer feel free?”

catholic.com/library/liturgy/arinze_1.asp

"The mens is that that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation **for the various parts of the celebration of the Holy Mass, and on the other, to ****not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.
**
Francis Cardinal Arinze
Prefect, Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

That was issued just a few months after the new GIRM, for clarification. It does not override, it clarifies. And, as you can see, he speaks about GIRM 43, IN IT’S ENTIRETY! and, Cdl. Arinze said SPECIFICALLY, “for the various parts of the celebration of the Holy Mass…” , we’re supposed to “feel free” to kneel.
It’s Bishop Brown and Fr. Martin Tran who are demanding something they have no right to demand. Wouldn’t that would make THEIR actions illicit?

Heaven Help Us,
Angel

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Me, Myself and I:

I’ve concluded that, aside from listening to your complaints, trying to sympathize with you and praying for you, there’s not much that we as your fellow posters can do for you.

I think that what you really need is relief from the Vatican. Either in the form of an order restoring the TLM at St. Mary’s (or some other convenient parish), or the replacement of Bishop Brown.

I would appreciate a chance to discuss this OFF-BOARD with you, as this is the type of activity is frowned on by the MODS here. I think I might be able to help you to formulate a strategy.

There is one thing I can say that the MODS would approve of.

The officials in the Vatican most often come to the aid of those Catholics who (so they say) are being submissive to the Church, and aren’t so sympathetic towards those they think are making an unnecesary ruckus. I just don’t see how handing out fliers condemning Bishop Brown and Fr. Tran and refusing to engage in the “Passing of the Peace” in any form whatever are helping to create the needed impression.

Therefore, I believe that you need to obey LICIT commands while quietly disregarding those that are ILICIT. I don’t hink that’s easy or simple, but it can be done. The officials who look at this need to see that you are the ones who are being submissive, and that Bishop Brown and Fr. Tran are the ones who are being disobedient. There can be no question about this.

I’ve said my peace. If you want me to help out, send me a pm, and I’ll see what I can do. I

In Christ, Michael

 

[me_myself_and_I]

I know that people think we should try to work with Bishop Brown, and we have tried. We have written him, and sought dialogue through our parish council. We were refused to be given any hearing.

We are trying to work through proper channels and are being assisted by The St. Joseph Foundation and Adoremus.

We have heard, from some of the faithful in Idaho, that when Bishop Brown was the bishop of Boise, he retired an orthodox Roman rite priest, and then proceeded to micromanage and “educate” the parish. They resisted. One day, without warning, they came to church to find the doors locked and a cease and desist notice telling them where they would be going to Mass from that point onward.

For details on Bishop Brown’s Idaho tenure, see: Yes He Is! No He Isn’t! by Christopher Zehnder, Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission, September 1998

What is deeply upsetting for our cause is that Rome has been negligent in disciplining bad priests and bishops. If you don’t believe me, believe Pope John Paul II, who admitted as much when he said, “I think that in this aspect, maybe I have done too little. There is always this problem of how to balance authority and service. Perhaps I need to criticize myself for not having tried hard enough to lead,” in his book, titled, Get Up! Let Us Go!

As Karl Keating has said:

“If the Church had the kind of inquisitorial bureaucracy that its critics imagine it has, the Vatican would be disciplining 24 people each week, not 24 each 26 years. Even then, at 24 per week the total number disciplined during this papacy would be less than 7,500–not a large number when one thinks about the population and internal disarray of the Church… If we were talking about 24 cases of discipline in a storefront denomination, maybe there would be cause for concern, but the Catholic Church boasts 1.1 billion members. This means that, on average over the last quarter century, the Vatican has disciplined only one out of a billion members per year.”

For the above, see: The Repression That Wasn’t

Cardinal Arinze has indicated that the Holy See is going to be equally gentle under Pope Benedict XVI:

“I do not expect an aggressive correction of abuses. I don’t think the pope is going to use the ecclesiastical hammer,” Cardinal Arinze said.

“Pope Benedict has very clear doctrine and convictions. What many people may not know is that he is not rough. He is gentlemanly, in the sense of what the prophet Isaiah said: ‘A bruised reed he will not break,’” the cardinal said.

Many liturgical abuses, Cardinal Arinze said, are “based on weakness of faith or ignorance” or on a wrong idea of creativity. Where improper practices occur, it is important to begin identifying them and talking about them, but without harming the people involved, the cardinal said.

Here, I disagree with the cardinal and fear that the Holy See does not see, or is unwilling to admit, that much liturgical abuse (not all) is rooted in more than ignorance. It is rooted in dissent and false notions of the autonomy of conscience. It is also rooted in lifestyles that are diametrically opposed to Christian doctrine that, while embraced by dissenting priests and bishops, darkens their intellects, weakens their wills, and strangles the life of their faith.

It is painful to hear good Catholics constantly insisting that we obey disobedient priests and bishops. It comes across as condescending. It implies that our actions are not prayerful, and haven’t involved careful reflection and sound spiritual direction. We do obey every licit directive. I mean that in all sincerity.

As far as silent disobedience, the parish administrator is watching. He has already dismissed three people from the parish council for kneeling. Only one of them was a member of Restore The Sacred (with their name listed on the fliers). Four altar boys were dismissed for kneeling, as well. The parish administrator is also agressively pursuing people who kneel and reprimanding them personally, even to the point of bringing sweet old ladies to tears.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

M;

It sounds to me like you’re going about this the right way. You’ll see my suggestions in the E-mail…(more below)

Regarding the old ladies, please make sure you get statements from them saying exactly what was said to them to the best of their recollection and iinclude this in the packages. Also inculde the actions of this administrator in those packages - He’s not acting without orders. The problem is that he’s placed those orders above Christian Charity and Common Human decency.

That’s what happens when you don’t have enough vocations.

Pray for him, and make sure that he never has the opportunity to go after the more fragile members of the parish without a watchdog present.

Please be careful, and avoid any unnecessary disputes.

Pax Vobiscum, Michael

 

[me_myself_and_I]

"Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning." (1 Timothy 5:19-20)

It is depressing that Catholics, when describing our actions, are running around using words like “calumny”, “detraction”, and “scandal”, words that have meanings that they clearly don’t understand.

Scandal is to lead another into sin by word or example. It requires public correction, as it is a public sin.

Our group is not encouraging sin, so the use of the word scandal makes me shake my head. It is not sinful to expose a corrupting evil that threatens the faithful. All the faithful have a right to know which shepherds are wolves in sheep’s clothing, especially if they are sexual predators, or men who facilitate such activity. They also have a right to know that the priest who told them to follow their conscience about contraception (with a wink) has a homosexual lover, etc.

We are not guilty of slander, as we have said nothing false. We are not guilty of libel, as we have written nothing false. We are not guilty of detraction for two reasons:

**1) Nothing we have exposed was not publicly available knowledge.

1. There is a sufficiently weighty reason for revealing the actions of Bishop Brown and his some of his chancery officials; namely, the good of the faithful.**

Sometimes Rome’s tendency to manage things discreetly has done more harm than good. If going to Rome or telling proper authorities were all it takes, there wouldn’t be much of a problem.

Legitimate and good Church authorities hate bad publicity and so are more inclined to grease the squeaky wheel; the bad priests and bishops, those on the side of darkness, can’t sweep things that are publicly known under the rug.

Whatever else may be said, the darkness still hates the light!

The sheeple don’t realize that if they banded together, supported one another, and stopped giving money, the policies would change, overnight!

It is absolutely depressing to me that so many Catholics are so poorly catechized, but still think they know the faith, and the one element they remember (and incorrectly apply) is that we must obey superiors (and keep giving them lots of money). I think sheeple have warped understandings of what they read in the Lives of the Saints stories as children, about saints suffering unjust persecutions, etc., and fantasize that obedience to disobedient bishops and priests makes them holy like the saints.

The truth is: The evil that is everywhere in this world is also deep within the Church. Pope Leo the XIII noticed it and composed the “Prayer to St. Michael”. Pope Paul VI announced that the “Smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary”! Throughout the history of the Church it has always been those who are within that have caused the most damage. Remember that Judas was a bishop. Nearly all the heresies that have ravaged the Church throughout history have come from priests and bishops. Take, for one example, the Arian heresy: one out of every three Catholic bishops became Arian. Do you not think such a thing could happen today?

There is an expression: The Church has always had three major flaws: bishops, bishops, and bishops!

There is a good deal of truth in that expression.

In an earlier age we were better equipped to deal with this evil and protect the truth. As St. John Chrysostom said, “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their sign posts.”

If we wish to survive these days with our faith intact we should learn the lessons of history. We live in a time when the laity must rise up to save the true Church. This is very difficult because we are coming out of an age when the laity looked to the hierarchy for guidance, but as it was in the time of King Henry the VIII, you may follow your pastor or even your bishop and as a result find yourself outside the true Church!

That is why it is so important to obey the Holy Father and the Magesterium in union with him.

This is not an age that will suffer weak faith. Soon there will only be two kinds of Catholics - strong Catholics and ex-Catholics.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

I realize this post has kind of died down, but something dawned on me today while attending the noon, Latin Novus Ordo (which replaced the well attended, weekly, Tridentine). I arrived at 11:59.

Our beloved Fr. Johnson, after just a few years at St. Mary’s by the Sea, DID have a problem at the parish. The only problem I was ever aware of, but it was a definite problem. And this problem persisted throughout his pastorship, and it got worse every year. It was discussed by most parishioners both before and after every mass, both publicly and privately. Fr. Johnson, God bless him, with his hours in front of the blessed sacrament on his knees, always with rosary in hand, was never able to solve this parish difficulty.

But, I must give credit where credit is due. With our first administrator to replace Fr. Johnson, for one year, the problem did diminish significantly, and it was noticed by all. But, our current administrator has completely solved the problem. It no longer exists in any way, shape or form and that fact is noticed by all.

The only problem that did exist and no longer exists at St. Mary’s by the Sea?

PARKING!!!

Angel

 

[Batjacboy]

Angels Watchin:

I realize this post has kind of died down, but something dawned on me today while attending the noon, Latin Novus Ordo (which replaced the well attended, weekly, Tridentine). I arrived at 11:59.

Our beloved Fr. Johnson, after just a few years at St. Mary’s by the Sea, DID have a problem at the parish. The only problem I was ever aware of, but it was a definite problem. And this problem persisted throughout his pastorship, and it got worse every year. It was discussed by most parishioners both before and after every mass, both publicly and privately. Fr. Johnson, God bless him, with his hours in front of the blessed sacrament on his knees, always with rosary in hand, was never able to solve this parish difficulty.

But, I must give credit where credit is due. With our first administrator to replace Fr. Johnson, for one year, the problem did diminish significantly, and it was noticed by all. But, our current administrator has completely solved the problem. It no longer exists in any way, shape or form and that fact is noticed by all.

The only problem that did exist and no longer exists at St. Mary’s by the Sea?

PARKING!!!

Angel

LOL!

I am, of course, laughing at the funny way you presented it, not the fact that St. Mary’s is losing its parishoners.

I, too, go to St. Mary’s, and I routinely go to one of the earlier Masses. I remember thinking to myself this weekend as Mass started that there had been a 50% drop in the number of parishoners at that Mass since Father Johnson left.

It’s sad. It was such a great parish.