Catholic priest whose style split NC mountain parish is leaving

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually, the pastor of my parish IS trained in the EF, but presently will not celebrate it due to multiple other factors. He’s a younger priest too. The Latin mass contingent is not very large within my parish.

Can’t answer for your pastor, but Pope Benedict’s “Summorum Pontificum” is clear.

Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church. ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum.htm

Personally, I feel Pope Benedict XVI was wrong issuing this compromise to the members of SSPX.

It caused more divisions than unity as we see in this forum and did little to draw members of SSPX back to full union with Rome. The division continues as they reject the Novus Ordo and Vatican II.

Pope Francs must be a real problem for them

Jim

 

[ctb95]

Can’t answer for your pastor, but Pope Benedict’s “Summorum Pontificum” is clear.

Personally, I feel Pope Benedict XVI was wrong issuing this compromise to the members of SSPX.

It caused more divisions than unity as we see in this forum and did little to draw members of SSPX back to full union with Rome. The division continues as they reject the Novus Ordo and Vatican II.

Pope Francs must be a real problem for them

Jim

What counts as a “stable group?” 3 people? 5? 10? 100? I think that’s open for interpretation.

As far as Pope Francis goes, I think he has made a lot of headway in dialogue with the SSPX.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What counts as a “stable group?” 3 people? 5? 10? 100? I think that’s open for interpretation.

As far as Pope Francis goes, I think he has made a lot of headway in dialogue with the SSPX.

Actually it hasn’t gone anywhere with SSPX. The demands they keep piling on just aren’t going to happen.

As far as the LTM, it’s been a disruption in the parishes which had it in my state.

It was attended by mostly people not of that parish, some traveling 80 miles away. The parish had to schedule the TLM after the regular parish Masses on Sunday, because the people traveled so far, they wanted to have lunch and fellowship afterwards, and would hang around for hours, taking up parking spaces and making noise during the other Masses.

The last parish in my area, stopped having it as the priest was arrested for embezzling funds from the parish.

Jim

 

[billy15]

You know Jim, over the course of this thread, especially on the last two pages, I feel that you have said many ridiculous things. We get it. You dislike the Extraordinary Form. But your posts that are full of innuendo, accusations and downright disappointing rhetoric is exactly what you despise about the Extraordinary Form and the people that find great spiritual solace in it…

divisive.

I don’t support the SSPX at all, but for you to say that Pope Francis hasn’t made headway is par for the course with you… ridiculous. You honestly believe Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio has caused mostly “bad fruit”? Absurd. You’ve gotten so far off topic, it’s disgraceful. Many other parishes offer the EF besides SSPX parishes, and those include archdiocesan parishes, where much good fruit has been born as people learn more about and rediscover their authentic Latin traditions, just as Byzantine Rite Catholics regained their traditions after removing Latinizations throughout the last few decades.

As far as the LTM, it’s been a disruption in the parishes which had it in my state.

Hmmmm, hasn’t in my state. Whose anecdote takes precedence, Jim? Yours or mine? Neither?

they wanted to have lunch and fellowship afterwards, and would hang around for hours, taking up parking spaces and making noise during the other Masses.

I’ve had the same problem with other parishes that only say the OF. How silly is this, that you use this to deride those who find spiritual growth in the EF.

The last parish in my area, stopped having it as the priest was arrested for embezzling funds from the parish.

So what?! Seriously… why add this? Why, except to be divisive? How many pastors, in any rite or usage, have done this in the past? More than a few, unfortunately, right? What are you trying to imply here? Honestly. What are you implying here? Again, your innuendos are disgraceful, and it’s extremely divisive.

Nowback on topic. How many things have you assumed about this Fr. Riehl? First, you claim he replaced all he vernacular hymns with Gregorian Chant. Nowhere in the OP or other NCReporter article does it say that. We don’t know how much of the propers were used. You’re speculating, and thinking the worst of this priest.

The Bishop didn’t tell the parishioners to get with the program the priest was invoking,

Another assumption. He told the parishioners to stop worshipping at the retirement home. Where do you think he encouraged them to go worship?

Also, you treat the NCReporter as if there’s no bias. It’s the Catholic equivalent of the National Enquirer; it’s a dirty rag. You think they don’t have an axe to grind (as you appear to) with those who appreciate Latin traditions? You don’t give the pastor any benefit of the doubt, you expect the worst of him. It is an undeniable fact that the parishioners that left the parish for the dental center (the “church in exile”) and those that apostatized acted extremely uncharitably. Notice I don’t mention those that went to other parishes in the diocese; that’s their prerogative. Instead, the “church in exile” members made Fr. Riehl’s life very difficult, by complaining to anyone they possibly could, because they, 100 parishoners out of a parish of over 300 members, couldn’t stand the changes he made when he comes in. Every priest makes some changes whenever he comes to a new parish. The on;y thing we can definitively say that Fr. Riehl was guilty of , is that he may have made the changes too fast. But we don’t know for sure. So you’re derision of Fr. Riehl and of all Roman Catholics who love the timeless traditions inherent in the Latin Rite is unwarranted. Your attitude has, frankly, been disgusting, and I’ve been tired of watching it unfold the past couple of days.

Here’s my anecdote to compare against yours from earlier. I attended an archdiocesan parish for over two years. I had only attended the Latin Mass twice before registering at this parish, my territorial parish. In a melting pot community, this parish offered 2 Spanish OF Masses, 2 English OF Masses, and 1 Latin EF Mass every Sunday. The fellowship that was shared at this 9:30 AM EF Mass was lovely. My wife and I soon decided to attend this Mass each week with our young family. I was able to interact with my Spanish brothers and sisters in a way I never would’ve if not for the EF being made available each week, with an absolutely beautiful schola to boot. Many parishes are segregated (even to this day) when a Spanish Mass is said in a parish that was once European in origin (here in the US). But at my former parish, the Latin Mass brought us together to worship in a common tongue, and gave us an opportunity to interact each week. So I say to you, Jim, divisive my foot!

Also, you should read my post #27 again to get another side of the story about Fr. Rihel. Check out the parish’s website for his homilies, and check out the parish’s Facebook page to see all the wonderful things this pastor did for his flock.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You know Jim, over the course of this thread, especially on the last two pages, I feel that you have said many ridiculous things.]

I just went to Confession today, so I won’t respond to this.

Jim

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Can’t answer for your pastor, but Pope Benedict’s “Summorum Pontificum” is clear.

Personally, I feel Pope Benedict XVI was wrong issuing this compromise to the members of SSPX.

It caused more divisions than unity as we see in this forum and did little to draw members of SSPX back to full union with Rome. The division continues as they reject the Novus Ordo and Vatican II.

Pope Francs must be a real problem for them

Jim

Jim, you seriously think this was all about issuing a ‘compromise to the members of SSPX?’

And you feel Pope Benedict was wrong too?

Let’s just say I will be very, very interested to see what kind of response your statements above elicit.

Very interested indeed.

 

[ctb95]

billy15,

Though I do agree with some of your statements, I don’t think that your response to Jim was particularly charitable.

-ctb95

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim, you seriously think this was all about issuing a ‘compromise to the members of SSPX?’

.

Cardinal Sean O’Malley was on the commission when Pope Benedict XVI issue the letter and he said it was a compromise in order to bring the members of SSPX back in union with Rome.

Not my opinion, but fact according to Cardinal O’Malley

Jim

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Cardinal Sean O’Malley was on the commission when Pope Benedict XVI issue the letter and he said it was a compromise in order to bring the members of SSPX back in union with Rome.

Not my opinion, but fact according to Cardinal O’Malley

Jim

Cardinal O’Malley said that he **thought ** it was a compromise. However, the actual letter itself addresses ‘members of the faithful’. There are many people who are not associated with SSPX who wish to celebrate the Latin Mass. In my former hometown, the Latin Mass is now celebrated at one of the three churches weekly. There was never an SSPX group within 500 miles or more of that town. The 250 or so people (average) who come to celebrate Mass come, some because they remember it from their youth, some because they ARE youth and have through earlier views on You Tube or some such been caught by the beauty and are delighted to celebrate it themselves. NONE are SSPX.

And let’s do some checking. John Paul II back in 1984 made the Latin Mass available; was that for the SSPX? In 1984, that was barely 14 years after the ‘change’; how old would the person ‘yearning for the old Mass’ have been then? If a person was 30 in 1970, he’d be 44 in 1984 --hardly a 'hidebound elder!

The fact remains that Pope Benedict XVI never ever said that the Moto Proprio was something put forth as a concession to SSPX people. I’d say a Pope trumps a bishop here. Bishops, and I say this with the greatest respect, have their own ideas, their own pet hobbyhorses, their own opinions. Benedict XVI did not limit himself to Boston (which is Cardinal O’Malley’s place); Benedict XVI was speaking for all the dioceses in all the countries in all the world. Your thinking is more than a little insular and biased.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Cardinal O’Malley said that he **thought ** it was a compromise.

Cardinal O’Malley said it WAS a compromise and he ought to know, he was on the board which worked with Pope Benedict XVI on the issue.

The Latin Mass was always available, but required permission, especially in parishes across the US.

Pope Benedict’s letter made the use widely available and all that was needed was a stable community of people requesting it.

Jim

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Cardinal O’Malley said it WAS a compromise and he ought to know, he was on the board which worked with Pope Benedict XVI on the issue.

The Latin Mass was always available, but required permission, especially in parishes across the US.

Pope Benedict’s letter made the use widely available and all that was needed was a stable community of people requesting it.

Jim

Cardinal O’Malley is an individual and capable of error of interpretation.
Suppose Pope Benedict had said, "I am opening up the use of the Latin Mass to stable groups of those who have an attachment to it’ (which is exactly what the Motu Proprio says).

Others on the committee remark about the SSPX and their adherence to the Latin Mass.

Pope Benedict responds, “Yes, they would certainly appreciate and benefit from this being made more available. In fact, my predecessor Pope John Paul II has been advocating this as well and had made overtures since the 1980s.”

Cardinal O’Malley hears “This entire THING is a concession to the SSPX people.” and thinks," I’ve had them in my territory, but I personally think giving them an inch would make them take a yard." (Remember, bishops have their own opinions and Cardinal O’Malley has made his, shall we say, lack of interest in the Latin Mass fairly clear over the years).

People hear what they want to hear, and people are very capable of hearing only those aspects that tie in with their own beliefs and ignoring the rest.

And of course, I am still curious (and the crickets are still chirping) about your calling Pope Benedict wrong.

Isn’t that a little above your pay grade???

 

[Prince_Ire]

While I prefer Gregorian chant and a generally more traditional liturgy, I do think the pastor in question made a mistake by firing the music director. I prefer chant but the newer hymns are still perfectly acceptable for liturgical use. She wasn’t publically comitting some grave sin or rebuking Church teaching so there was no reason to fire her. Its unfortunate the pastor had to resign, but perhaps this can be a learning experience for him. Hopefully, at his next parish the pastor will still try to move towards a more traditional liturgy but will move slower and be less forceful about it.

 

[tafan]

Oh the horror, people want to hang around the parish after Sunday mass for fellowship.

 

[Ubenedictus]

While I prefer Gregorian chant and a generally more traditional liturgy, I do think the pastor in question made a mistake by firing the music director. I prefer chant but the newer hymns are still perfectly acceptable for liturgical use. She wasn’t publically comitting some grave sin or rebuking Church teaching so there was no reason to fire her. Its unfortunate the pastor had to resign, but perhaps this can be a learning experience for him. Hopefully, at his next parish the pastor will still try to move towards a more traditional liturgy but will move slower and be less forceful about it.

Some of the newer hymns aren’t actually theologically sound even the popular ones… One of the papers mention that the priest threw out “amazing grace”, that song is popular but certainly deficient theologically, it advocates a Protestant Sola fide where it claims justification “the hour I first believe”. My priest asked the choir to drop the song or at least a verse some time ago. Well my parish also have chants, we have once a month OF Latin mass. And everybody sings at the top of the voices. I don’t believe they are hard to learn and I happen to invite non-Catholic to mass with me. Chant always make them discuss after mass in fact many now download Catholic chants. The pater noster seem to be the favourite Chant ever for my Protestant friends. .