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

[Annabelle_Marie]

I’m newly returned…but doesn’t a priest promise obedience to the Bishop?

If there is a break everytime a parish doesn’t like something the leadership did…well…isn’t that Protestantism?

 

[catharina]

I’m newly returned…but doesn’t a priest promise obedience to the Bishop?

If there is a break everytime a parish doesn’t like something the leadership did…well…isn’t that Protestantism?

No flaw in your memory.
Welcome back, newly-returned!

 

[laszlo]

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.”

The problem is that a priest deserted his post from the Militant Church. The desertion from the military is serious problem. The bishop addressed this problem, and this problem only.

The parishioners has their right to buy a place (even the old Church) and pray together there, supposed that they attend regular Masses and receive the Sacraments in a parish approved by the bishop. They have no right to support desertion, such support excludes them from the Church.

 

[Brendan]

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.
.

The FINDING of a parish is something the faithful do. The establishment or suppression of a parish is something that bishops do.

There is a shortage of priests, if the priest was needed elsewhere, the bishop has not just the right, but the DUTY to reassign him.

And the priest had the duty to obey,

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.

Some people could not, and they too seperated from the Church, the CMRI come to mind. These people are no different.

The correct solution was to do was the remainder of the ‘Traditionalists’ did, continue to petition, for decades even, but remain faithful and obedient to the bishop.

Perhaps they could have a few of their young men go into the seminary. A bishop is always happy with new vocations, and in a few years, there will be new priests to assign to the parish.

And I don’t know about Cleveland, but here in Detroit ( where we have also had parish closings), the archdiocese has never closed a parish that was creating vocations.

 

[jbtrevor]

The answer to all the questions lie in the response from the people about Robert Marrone “he is the glue” that holds them together…
Christ is the glue! Robert Marrone is a false idol.

 

[curlycool89]

The answer to all the questions lie in the response from the people about Robert Marrone “he is the glue” that holds them together…
Christ is the glue! Robert Marrone is a false idol.

This is a very good point. Once Fr. Marrone leaves, or retires, or eventually when he passes (because we all eventually do), what happens then? The community will fall apart, or they will be like Protestants and pick their next pastor from among themselves because they’re not getting another priest.

That’s the difference between Catholics and others. Priests may shuffle, parishes may shuffle, but it doesn’t matter. If you have a Catholic Priest (with faculties, etc) and a Catholic parish, that is good enough. If Fr. gets sick, a “substitute” priest is brought in and Mass goes per usual.

 

[kentuckyliz]

If their loyalty is to their priest, they can go to Mass wherever he is reassigned.

Though I suspect he might be on monastery assignment for a while, praying about his fidelity of his promise of obedience to his bishop.

Priests who dislike obedience to their bishop don’t make the church or the vocation seem very supernatural. He makes himself seem like any other schlub who hates his boss.

 

[ChadS]

I’ve been following this story from the beginning since I have some personal ties to it. The Bishop has been upfront and forthright with this parish from the beginning. And, from the beginning they have shown nothing but anger, hostility and bitterness to the Bishop.

The member’s disobediance from this parish has only grown from the moment the closure was announced. At first they rented out that storefront to continue their old parish ministries such as a foodbank and St. Vincent de Paul society. The Bishop said that’s fine because this is what the church does, but you can’t have mass at all there. They said they had no intention of having mass there.

The Bishop was also going to officiate at the parish’s last official mass, but the members threatened to boycott that mass and have their own last mass. The Bishop backed down and didn’t attend, although I think he was trying to get to as many last masses as he could.

Soon after that they announced they were going to start using the storefront for masses. The Bishop reminded them they were putting their salvation in jeopardy by breaking away from the Church. The church board and the former parishoners reacted and accused the Bishop of threatening to take away their salvation. Completely missing the point that it was themselves who were taking away their salvation or at least jeopardizing it.

And now the Bishop has finally sent a letter saying to the priest that if he doesn’t disassociate himself from this group he will no longer be a priest in good standing in the diocese. This has been going on since last April and the Bishop is now taking this step to remove him. In my opinion this shows incredible patience and a hope that this problem can be solved before having to invoke various sanctions.

We always seem to hear about these breakaway Catholic groups and I wonder how many of them would never get off the ground if the priest stood firm against his parishoners that wanted to start a group or if the priest didn’t rabble rouse to stir up trouble. My old parish in Pittsburgh is the result of three parishes merging and a woman who went on to lead the RCIA team said they were initially saddened when their parish was on the list to be closed and they wanted to do everything they could to fight to keep it open. But, the priest said that wasn’t the right thing to do, that it’s not the building that’s important but the communion with the Church and Mass. I don’t know what would’ve happened otherwise but in light of what’s going on in Cleveland this priests response of reminding them what’s important may have stopped a similar movement before it could begin.

What if the priest in Cleveland had told his parishoners to carry on their old parish’s ministries in their new homes, to help the ones already established or to start new ones? What if he’d told them that in April he was going to lock the church doors and go to his new assignment and that they could come if they wanted or find parishes closer to their homes? All of this disobediance and acrimony could’ve been avoided.

ChadS