Bishop warns the Rev. Robert Marrone to stop breakaway church Masses

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lutheranteach
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder what led the bishop to close a church that had been there for 151 years.:confused:
 
I wonder what led the bishop to close a church that had been there for 151 years.:confused:
 
Warrenton said:
I wonder what led the bishop to close a church that had been there for 151 years.:confused:
Click to expand...
the reasons for closing parishes in the Cleveland dioceses have been fully documented, including the process parishes could have gone through to prove themselves self-sustaining. No need to go into it again here, as the topic of this thread is disobedience and dissidence, putting the parish above the universal church. nothing new in Cleveland history btw, there were break-away Polish and other ethnic parishes in the early days, most of whom are now reconciled long since.
 
Telling - quoted from the article
Members of the congregation regard themselves as traditional Roman Catholics. Their split with the diocese, they say, is due to the closing of their church.
Click to expand...
🤷
 
Warrenton said:
I wonder what led the bishop to close a church that had been there for 151 years.:confused:
Click to expand...
I do not know details about this, but usually closed churches were
  • financially not solvent
  • drawing only a few people
  • has other Church in the neighborhood
In the US there are 25 million active Catholic churchgoers and 40,000 priest, so an average priest must serve minimum 600 active churchgoer. This priest has only the half, 300 churchgoer. He deprives at least 300 men from his priestly power.

It may be very satisfying for him, that this 300 applaudes him as their own private priest, but a priest can not be private to any small community.

As for the 151 years most of the US Churches were established by ethnic communities, who later left their Churches moved or were forced to move elsewhere. If the vibrant community leaves the Church, the parish dies.
 
There is a distinction to be drawn between documenting the reasons for doing something and telling the truth about why one is doing something.

People hire lawyers every day to “create paper trails.”

Too many churches are being closed. If the bishop is threatening otherwise orthodox Catholics with excommunication for worshipping together, then the reason for other, far more outrageous scandals come into sharper focus.
 
Bishops rule in their dioceses…bottom line is if the Cleveland bishop says to do it you do it. Dissent is one thing, but the Bishop holds the cards , and the keys. Modern Catholics seem to think that the church is a democracy. it’s not and hasn’t been for 2000 years. Walk the walk.
 
Warrenton said:
Too many churches are being closed. If the bishop is threatening otherwise orthodox Catholics with excommunication for worshipping together, then the reason for other, far more outrageous scandals come into sharper focus.
Click to expand...
The bishop treated only his priest with some censure. The priest severely break his required obedience to the bishop. The former members of that parish are not forbidden to get together and pray. Only they cannot call it parish, the parish belongs to the bishop’s rule.
 
Warrenton said:
There is a distinction to be drawn between documenting the reasons for doing something and telling the truth about why one is doing something.

People hire lawyers every day to “create paper trails.”

Too many churches are being closed. If the bishop is threatening otherwise orthodox Catholics with excommunication for worshipping together, then the reason for other, far more outrageous scandals come into sharper focus.
Click to expand...
We’ve already established many, many times that the Bishop is on the right side of the law here (see CIC 515.2). It is within the Bishop’s canonical authority to suppress a parish.

The parishioners need to frankly get over it and find another parish (there’s probably within walking distance). Parishes close, the Church goes on.
 
curlycool89 said:
We’ve already established many, many times that the Bishop is on the right side of the law here (see CIC 515.2). It is within the Bishop’s canonical authority to suppress a parish.

The parishioners need to frankly get over it and find another parish (there’s probably within walking distance). Parishes close, the Church goes on.
Click to expand...
St. Paul well said: not all things I can do, I should do.

This applies to the closing of parishes. The people built the parish and if they want to keep it, they should. The closing of parishes can only be a symptom of the bishop’s failure, not his success.

Saying they should “get over it” is like telling people they should “get over” the suppression of the tridentine mass, or the absence of altar rails, or the refusal of the priest to make a sick call.

The people are telling the bishop he is wrong. Maybe he should “get over it.”
 
Warrenton said:
If enough of them close, then it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
All over the world, Christians gather to worship, hoping they will not be
slaughtered by governments, rebels and terrorists. I’ll never accept that
any American has the right to defy a bishop’s directive about the
need to close a parish. We are FREE to worship. Find a parish and do so.
 
catharina said:
. We are FREE to worship. Find a parish and do so.
Click to expand...
The freedom to which you refer exists between the faithful and the government. The finding of a parish is a question as between the faithful themselves.

You are confusing a set of rights which does not resolve the question posed by the Cleveland parishners.
 
Warrenton said:
The freedom to which you refer exists between the faithful and the government. The finding of a parish is a question as between the faithful themselves.

You are confusing a set of rights which does not resolve the question posed by the Cleveland parishners.
Click to expand...
No - they are confusing the question of rights.
Quite typical of some “American” Catholics.

They seem to have no questions at all.
Instead they have decided ‘we shall “create” an unchurched parish’ -
despite the directives of the Bishop to the contrary.

Pathetic of them.

Good for the bishop.
 
Some of the parishioners of the former St. Peters parish decided to remain Catholic and joined one of the neighboring parishes suggested to them by the dioceses. I am very glad they did this, their presence will help those parishes remain viable.

It appears that others decided that the Bishop had no right to tell them how to be Catholic or where to worship, so they left the Catholic Church. I am sorry that they followed that path.

My main concern is to offer support to the remaining parishes so that they can quietly continue to make their parishes grow and prosper.
 
Warrenton said:
St. Paul well said: not all things I can do, I should do.

This applies to the closing of parishes. The people built the parish and if they want to keep it, they should. The closing of parishes can only be a symptom of the bishop’s failure, not his success.
Click to expand...
And yet that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Canon 515.2 says the Bishop can suppress a parish if he believes it’s for the good of the diocese, end of story.
Warrenton said:
Saying they should “get over it” is like telling people they should “get over” the suppression of the tridentine mass, or the absence of altar rails, or the refusal of the priest to make a sick call.
Click to expand...
Apples and Oranges. They probably only have to walk a couple blocks to find the exact same Mass they were already attending. It’s not like they’re no longer allowed to receive CITH, or sing badly or something. They’re being offered the exact same thing in a different location.
Warrenton said:
The people are telling the bishop he is wrong. Maybe he should “get over it.”
Click to expand...
And maybe people should remember some humility. The Bishop is the superior of the Faith for all non-consecrated Catholics in the diocese. It’s not that far from saying the Bishop should “get over” women “priests”. Dissension is dissension, no matter what the reason is.
Warrenton said:
If enough of them close, then it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
And the Pope or one of his representatives would step in if they saw something stupid like that happening.

We need to remember that as Catholics our worship is not tied to a particular place. You can go to your local parish, or you can go to the Cathedral, or you can go to an Eastern Rite Church; the Mass is the Mass is the Mass, and it’s equal at all those places. Saying that you can’t worship unless in a particular building is bordering on idolatry, and it’s definitely missing the entire point of the Mass.
 
curlycool89 said:
And yet that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Canon 515.2 says the Bishop can suppress a parish if he believes it’s for the good of the diocese, end of story.

Apples and Oranges. They probably only have to walk a couple blocks to find the exact same Mass they were already attending. It’s not like they’re no longer allowed to receive CITH, or sing badly or something. They’re being offered the exact same thing in a different location.

And maybe people should remember some humility. The Bishop is the superior of the Faith for all non-consecrated Catholics in the diocese. It’s not that far from saying the Bishop should “get over” women “priests”. Dissension is dissension, no matter what the reason is.

And the Pope or one of his representatives would step in if they saw something stupid like that happening.

We need to remember that as Catholics our worship is not tied to a particular place. You can go to your local parish, or you can go to the Cathedral, or you can go to an Eastern Rite Church; the Mass is the Mass is the Mass, and it’s equal at all those places. Saying that you can’t worship unless in a particular building is bordering on idolatry, and it’s definitely missing the entire point of the Mass.
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top