Catholic priest whose style split NC mountain parish is leaving

[ringil]

There is nothing silly about a biretta. If there is then you could say all liturgical dress is silly.

The cappa magna is pretty silly and I have seen a few clerics wear those as well.

There are some liturgical garb which simply shouldn’t be worn nowadays- especially in a NO parish.

 

[Wandile]

So if a group of parishioners request the extraordinary Mass, the TLM, the priest can refuse their request ?

Yes and many priests do.

Contradicts what Pope Benedict XVI stated in Apostolic Letter “Summorum Pontificum” issued Motu Proprio

Not at all. His Motu Propio only allowed for the mass of St Pius V to be said by priest wanting to say it without needing the approval of the bishop.

If the priest has primacy over the format and style of worship, how is it he loses it when a group requests the TLM ?

Jim

He doesn’t. You misunderstand pope Benedicts Motu Propio. It says the priests should accede to the requests but it doesn’t say they have to. It just an advisory note that he should try his best to accommodate them. It further says if the priest declines to offer the Mass of St Pius V then those parishioners must go to the bishop who must find a way to accommodate them in whatever way he can but the bishop can decline it also. Read articles 2, 5, 6 and 7 of SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Wandile

Not at all. His Motu Propio only allowed for the mass of St Pius V to be said by priest wanting to say it without needing the approval of the bishop.

Again, this is what it says and differs from your interpretation and the interpretation of people in CAF when it was first issued.

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.

If the pastor is not capable of celebrating the TLM, he must send a request to his Bishop and the Bishop should make every effort to make it happen.

However, since then, there are so few priest who are fluent in Latin and willing to celebrate the TLM, it’s not happening very often.

The point however is that it is the desire of the people to celebrate the TLM, which serves to show that in parishes like in the OP article, if they parish does not want to celebrate the Mass in Gregorian Chant as the priest was attempting to force on them, the priest must back off and adhere to the desires of the parish. As long as what they’re asking is in accord with the norm set by the Bishop, the priest can not refuse.

BTW, I doubt this priest was made pastor, but was more likely a “Parish Administrator,” which is common for Bishops to assign a new priest who lacks experience to a parish.
When that priest proves himself capable, the Bishop can then many him Pastor of the parish.

My parish just went through this situation. The priest assigned to us as administrator, was just make Pastor.

Jim

 

[Wandile]

Wandile

Again, this is what it says and differs from your interpretation and the interpretation of people in CAF when it was first issued.

If the pastor is not capable of celebrating the TLM, he must send a request to his Bishop and the Bishop should make every effort to make it happen.

However, since then, there are so few priest who are fluent in Latin and willing to celebrate the TLM, it’s not happening very often.

The point however is that it is the desire of the people to celebrate the TLM, which serves to show that in parishes like in the OP article, if they parish does not want to celebrate the Mass in Gregorian Chant as the priest was attempting to force on them, the priest must back off and adhere to the desires of the parish. As long as what they’re asking is in accord with the norm set by the Bishop, the priest can not refuse.

BTW, I doubt this priest was made pastor, but was more likely a “Parish Administrator,” which is common for Bishops to assign a new priest who lacks experience to a parish.
When that priest proves himself capable, the Bishop can then many him Pastor of the parish.

My parish just went through this situation. The priest assigned to us as administrator, was just make Pastor.

Jim

Again I’ll say You misunderstand pope Benedicts Motu Propio. It says the priests should accede to the requests but it doesn’t say they have to. It just an advisory note that he should try his best to accommodate them. It further says if the priest declines to offer the Mass of St Pius V then those parishioners must go to the bishop who must find a way to accommodate them in whatever way he can but the bishop can decline it also. **Read articles 2, 5, 6 and 7 **of SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM

Secondly read the canons of the church on the authority of the priest. We just had. Situation at my parish where my former priest invoked the canons as a means to abuse the church but that’s a story for another day. Canonically he was allowed to do that. But what he did harmed the church so the bishop stepped in.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Again I’ll say You misunderstand pope Benedicts Motu Propio. It says the priests should accede to the requests but it doesn’t say they have to. It just an advisory note that he should try his best to accommodate them. It further says if the priest declines to offer the Mass of St Pius V then those parishioners must go to the bishop who must find a way to accommodate them in whatever way he can but the bishop can decline it also. **Read articles 2, 5, 6 and 7 **of SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM

Secondly read the canons of the church on the authority of the priest. We just had. Situation at my parish where my former priest invoked the canons as a means to abuse the church but that’s a story for another day. Canonically he was allowed to do that. But what he did harmed the church so the bishop stepped in.

You’re the one misunderstanding here.

The statement I posted shows that the request must be responded to. In other words, the priest is obligated to respond to the format of Mass they desire, in this case the TLM, but the opposite would be true as well. If they people do not want a Latin Mass with Gregorian Chant, but the official ordinary of the Mass, the priest must serve the people’s desire unless the Bishop orders otherwise.

The priest is the authority, as far as following Church law and doctrines, but he can not force Gregorian Chant or Latin responses down the throats of the congregation and I know of no Bishop who would allow such a thing.

The days when a priest was placed up on a pedestal are how priests could abuse people with impunity. Those days are long gone.

The priest is assigned by the Bishop to serve the people of the parish as Jesus instructed the Apostles.

Jim

 

[Wandile]

You’re the one misunderstanding here.

The statement I posted shows that the request must be responded to. In other words, the priest is obligated to respond to the format of Mass they desire, in this case the TLM, but the opposite would be true as well. If they people do not want a Latin Mass with Gregorian Chant, but the official ordinary of the Mass, the priest must serve the people’s desire unless the Bishop orders otherwise.

The priest is the authority, as far as following Church law and doctrines, but he can not force Gregorian Chant or Latin responses down the throats of the congregation and I know of no Bishop who would allow such a thing.

The days when a priest was placed up on a pedestal are how priests could abuse people with impunity. Those days are long gone.

The priest is assigned by the Bishop to serve the people of the parish as Jesus instructed the Apostles.

Jim

Read the canons

 

[goout]

…
Face it.
People shop for what they like. We see it all the time around here. “Should I switch parishes???” And what is always the common response: “YES! DRIVE 45 miles to another parish to your liking!”

I’ll never understand that.

Sorry, but this article just made me feel really sad.

:sad_yes:
See my tag line.

 

[Brendan]

You’re the one misunderstanding here.

The statement I posted shows that the request must be responded to. In other words, the priest is obligated to respond to the format of Mass they desire, in this case the TLM, but the opposite would be true as well…

What you are missing that only defines the Form and the Missal used. The priest would be able to do a Low Mass, a Missa Cantata, or get a few friends together, and have a High Mass.

Under S.P., the faithful could only ask that the Missal of 1962 be used. After that, it’s the choice of the priest on how that could be celebrated.

The music would not even need to be Gregorian, it could be African Missa Luba ( youtube.com/watch?v=ToNb-02n3KY) or a Classical Mozart Mass. The faithful could not force the priest to do a Missa Cantata when he prefers to do a Low Mass ( which does not even involve music at all).

The priest would have the complete choice of the music used, as long as it was approved for use for the Form.

He still would be required to conform to the rubrics, and the congregation would have to use the approved responses, but the priest would still have authority over the music and any other options provided for under the rubrics of the Mass used.

if the faithful prefer the Gloria from the Mass of the Angels, but the priest prefers it simply recited, the faithful cannot force him to do so.

So your analogy falls very flat.

 

[ctb95]

The cappa magna is pretty silly and I have seen a few clerics wear those as well.

There are some liturgical garb which simply shouldn’t be worn nowadays- especially in a NO parish.

What is your standard of what should or shouldn’t be worn?

 

[ctb95]

So if a group of parishioners request the extraordinary Mass, the TLM, the priest can refuse their request ?

Contradicts what Pope Benedict XVI stated in Apostolic Letter “Summorum Pontificum” issued Motu Proprio

If the priest has primacy over the format and style of worship, how is it he loses it when a group requests the TLM ?

Jim

Of course the priest can refuse their request, and I don’t think that Summorum Pontificum states that a priest must accept their request. At one parish I attend, there have been several parishioners asking about having the EF, but my pastor has denied it due to multiple factors.

Not knowing the EF or being too busy to add the EF into one’s schedule are obvious reasons why a priest might deny a request.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What you are missing that only defines the Form and the Missal used. The priest would be able to do a Low Mass, a Missa Cantata, or get a few friends together, and have a High Mass.

Under S.P., the faithful could only ask that the Missal of 1962 be used. After that, it’s the choice of the priest on how that could be celebrated.

The music would not even need to be Gregorian, it could be African Missa Luba ( youtube.com/watch?v=ToNb-02n3KY) or a Classical Mozart Mass. The faithful could not force the priest to do a Missa Cantata when he prefers to do a Low Mass ( which does not even involve music at all).

The priest would have the complete choice of the music used, as long as it was approved for use for the Form.

He still would be required to conform to the rubrics, and the congregation would have to use the approved responses, but the priest would still have authority over the music and any other options provided for under the rubrics of the Mass used.

if the faithful prefer the Gloria from the Mass of the Angels, but the priest prefers it simply recited, the faithful cannot force him to do so.

So your analogy falls very flat.

It’s actually the same as the case for the parish in the OP article.

Both the TLM and NO are authorized formats and the parishioners of the parish can request either one.

True, it doesn’t have to be Gregorian Chant, but the priest in the article, made it Gregorian Chant and the music director resigned because of it.

Three years and the parishioners signed a petition to have him removed and were successful.

Now, if the priest actually had the authority to force his style of Mass, although a legitimate style, the Bishop would’ve informed the people of the parish to work with the priests and help him in this venue. He didn’t apparently.

If you think the parishioners must toe the line and obey what the priest wants when it comes to throwing out approved hymns and responses in the vernacular, think what the priest would end up with if he can’t get parishioners to volunteer to help with fund raising and other aspects of parish life ? This is what he’d face if he chose to be a hard*ss about it.

The majority of parish priests I’ve met in my life, work with the parishioners and serve their needs, not the other way around.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Of course the priest can refuse their request, and I don’t think that Summorum Pontificum states that a priest must accept their request. At one parish I attend, there have been several parishioners asking about having the EF, but my pastor has denied it due to multiple factors.

Not knowing the EF or being too busy to add the EF into one’s schedule are obvious reasons why a priest might deny a request.

He can’t ignore their requests, but can refuse to celebrate that format which he is not trained in. However, he must bring their request to the Bishop who is suppose to find a priest who is willing to celebrate the TLM for that parish, if he is able to do so.

The problem is, few priest are able or willing to celebrate the TLM, period and Bishops and pastors must tell those requesting it, they can not have it.

This is probably the case for your parish.

Jim

 

[billy15]

It’s actually the same as the case for the parish in the OP article.

Both the TLM and NO are authorized formats and the parishioners of the parish can request either one.

True, it doesn’t have to be Gregorian Chant, but the priest in the article, made it Gregorian Chant and the music director resigned because of it.

Three years and the parishioners signed a petition to have him removed and were successful.

Now, if the priest actually had the authority to force his style of Mass, although a legitimate style, the Bishop would’ve informed the people of the parish to work with the priests and help him in this venue. He didn’t apparently.

If you think the parishioners must toe the line and obey what the priest wants when it comes to throwing out approved hymns and responses in the vernacular, think what the priest would end up with if he can’t get parishioners to volunteer to help with fund raising and other aspects of parish life ? This is what he’d face if he chose to be a hard*ss about it.

The majority of parish priests I’ve met in my life, work with the parishioners and serve their needs, not the other way around.

Jim

You know what I’v noticed over the last couple of days? Brendan makes some excellent and lucid points, and you dismiss them with speculation. How is it apparent that Bishop Jugis didn’t ask the people of the parish to work with Fr. Riehl? On the contrary, according to the NCReporter article, “Some parishioners now attend Sunday Mass at the office of a local dentist, after being asked by Jugis to cease Sunday worship at the nearby Living Waters Retreat House.”

Do you think that Bishop Jurgis asked the people to go to a dentist’s office, or back to their parish? One thing I’m sure on, and this is not speculation: Bishop Jugis did not ask these parishioners to go to a dentist’s office after he told them to stop hearing Mass at a retreat house.

Why do you think the “church in exile” parishioners were successful in removing their pastor because of a petition? Fr. Riehl, in his own words, said the decision was his own. Are you ready to call him a liar and still contend that Bishop Jurgis acquiesced to the irate parishioners and told Fr. Riehl to resign? Because you have no evidence of that outside of calling Fr. Riehl a liar.

Also, who’s saying Fr. Riehl did not work with parishioners? Keep in mind, the parish had over 300 members. Around 100 signed the petition. That’s a sizable number, but still less than half. It is a fact, going by the provided numbers, that most of the parish did not have a problem without Fr. Riehl did, and it’s reasonable to presume that some wanted these changes.

In this case, who makes the final decision when a parish is divided? The parishioners that stay at the parish, in obedience to their priest. Or the parishioners, some of whom apostatized, who signed a petition, got loud and noisy, and complained to the rag that we know as the National Catholic (read, Schismatic) Reporter? How anyone cannot see how blatantly out of line these parishioners of the “church in exile” are, is beyond me.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You know what I’v noticed over the last couple of days? Brendan makes some excellent and lucid points, and you dismiss them with speculation. How is it apparent that Bishop Jugis didn’t ask the people of the parish to work with Fr. Riehl? On the contrary, according to the NCReporter article, “Some parishioners now attend Sunday Mass at the office of a local dentist, after being asked by Jugis to cease Sunday worship at the nearby Living Waters Retreat House.”

Do you think that Bishop Jurgis asked the people to go to a dentist’s office, or back to their parish? One thing I’m sure on, and this is not speculation: Bishop Jugis did not ask these parishioners to go to a dentist’s office after he told them to stop hearing Mass at a retreat house.

Why do you think the “church in exile” parishioners were successful in removing their pastor because of a petition? Fr. Riehl, in his own words, said the decision was his own. Are you ready to call him a liar and still contend that Bishop Jurgis acquiesced to the irate parishioners and told Fr. Riehl to resign? Because you have no evidence of that outside of calling Fr. Riehl a liar.

Also, who’s saying Fr. Riehl did not work with parishioners? Keep in mind, the parish had over 300 members. Around 100 signed the petition. That’s a sizable number, but still less than half. It is a fact, going by the provided numbers, that most of the parish did not have a problem without Fr. Riehl did, and it’s reasonable to presume that some wanted these changes.

In this case, who makes the final decision when a parish is divided? The parishioners that stay at the parish, in obedience to their priest. Or the parishioners, some of whom apostatized, who signed a petition, got loud and noisy, and complained to the rag that we know as the National Catholic (read, Schismatic) Reporter? How anyone cannot see how blatantly out of line these parishioners of the “church in exile” are, is beyond me.

There are two NCR Articles. I read the one linked in the OP article,

here

North Carolina ‘Church in Exile’ battles restorationists

The one you have about the Dentist office is the result of parishioners having to celebrate Mass outside of their home Parish because of Fr Riehl. They were driven to this, it’s not something they want. They would rather be celebrating Mass in the Vernacular with their approved hymns in their home parish, but Fr Riehl has driven them away. How wonderful some Catholics feel about this is perplexing.

In all, this is nothing to celebrate, but is what Pope Francis has been speaking out against.

Bishop Jugis seems to be split between the two camps and allows both sides do do as they will, despite destroying parishes in his dioceses. Not what Christ would want, you can be sure.

Pope says pastors must ‘serve, not use’ laypeople

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Clericalism is a danger to the Catholic Church not only because on a practical level it undermines the role of laity in society, but because theologically it “tends to diminish and undervalue the baptismal grace” of all believers, whether they are lay or clergy, Pope Francis said.
“No one is baptized a priest or bishop,” the pope said in a letter to Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops and president of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America. The fundamental consecration of all Christians occurs at baptism and is what unites all Christians in the call to holiness and witness. catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2016/pope-says-pastors-must-serve-not-use-laypeople.cfm

I know CAF is heavily of the Pre-Vatican II restorationists ideology, thinking the Church was much better back then than now.

Like those of St John the Evangilists who grew up in the Pre-Vatican II Church, it wasn’t what younger people think it was.

The division caused by all of this is akin to the division in US politics, and it really has no place in our spirituality.

Unfortunately, it’s the driving movement among some younger Catholics, while the majority of young Catholics have left the Church and have no interest in returning in such a narrow minded religion that they see.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

It’s actually the same as the case for the parish in the OP article.

Both the TLM and NO are authorized formats and the parishioners of the parish can request either one.

Correct. The faithful can request an authoritized Form of the Mass. On this we agree

True, it doesn’t have to be Gregorian Chant, but the priest in the article, made it Gregorian Chant and the music director resigned because of it.

Yes, we agree that it does not have to be Chant, but the priest chose to do so.

Three years and the parishioners signed a petition to have him removed and were successful.

They were not successful in having the bishop remove him. If there was a concern regarding the celebration of the Mass, it would not have taken the bishop 3 years to act. The priest would have been removed, or compelled under obedience to act in accord with the relevant liturgical law.

Now, if the priest actually had the authority to force his style of Mass, although a legitimate style, the Bishop would’ve informed the people of the parish to work with the priests and help him in this venue. He didn’t apparently.

Highly doubtful

If you read the fishwrap article on the incident, they give a quote from one of the older priests of the diocese about the bishop

According to some older priests, Jugis has promoted restorationist practices, but not in a public way. The result is confusion.
“We have no direction. We have no mission. What are we supposed to be doing?” said one priest.

And a religious sister refused to give her name in a quote, expressing the thought that doing so would incur the bishop’s displeasure

“The clericalism has been canonized,” said a religious sister active in parish ministry in the diocese who also did not want to be named for fear of incurring the wrath of the bishop.

ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/north-carolina-church-exile-battles-restorationists

So it seems highly doubtful, based on the quotes above, that +Judis would be unsupportive of the pastor.

 

[Brendan]

As as FYI to all, here is Bishop Jugis saying Mass in his own Cathedral

youtube.com/watch?v=sL3YZk6p5Tk

Note the same chants being used by the Bishop himself.

Kyrie at 9:23
Gloria at 10:53 sec
Chanted Gospel at 22:12 ( by a transitional Deacon, so this soon to be new priest gets a good understanding of what type of liturgy the bishop prefers)

Sanctus 1:13:14
Agus Dei 1:25:21

So, in general, I would be highly doubtful that Bishop Jugis would be in any way critical of a priest who is celebrating Mass in the exact same way that the Bishop himself does so.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As as FYI to all, here is Bishop Jugis saying Mass in his own Cathedral

youtube.com/watch?v=sL3YZk6p5Tk

Note the same chants being used by the Bishop himself.

Kyrie at 9:23
Gloria at 10:53 sec
Chanted Gospel at 22:12 ( by a transitional Deacon, so this soon to be new priest gets a good understanding of what type of liturgy the bishop prefers)

Sanctus 1:13:14
Agus Dei 1:25:21

So, in general, I would be highly doubtful that Bishop Jugis would be in any way critical of a priest who is celebrating Mass in the exact same way that the Bishop himself does so.

Notice it’s an Ordination at the Cathedral with a full choir, not a Sunday Mass at a parish in the diocese. Having been involved in music ministry in the past, you can bet the Bishop goes along with how the parish sings hymns and responses at the various parishes in his dioceses when he visits them. There is a marked difference in how a High Mass is celebrated by the Bishop at the Cathedral and that of average parishes.

Also the Choir sang “Lift High the Cross,” in the vernacular as well as other hymns including the recessional hymn.

This was not the case with Fr. Rieh, who threw out the hymns at the parish and replaced them with Gregorian Chant, and not just the parts of the Mass.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

Notice it’s an Ordination at the Cathedral with a full choir, not a Sunday Mass at a parish in the diocese.
Jim

Still doesn’t matter. The Bishop chose to have that music, and it happened. It did not matter if any or all of the attendees wanted other music. The bishop said what music would be, and it was.

And yes, the bishop could have freely chosen chant if he so desired. Could the choir director overrule him? The faithful?

Is there any liturgical law at all that would prevent the bishop from conducting the same style Mass every single Sunday.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Still doesn’t matter. The Bishop chose to have that music, and it happened. It did not matter if any or all of the attendees wanted other music. The bishop said what music would be, and it was.

And yes, the bishop could have freely chosen chant if he so desired. Could the choir director overrule him? The faithful?

Is there any liturgical law at all that would prevent the bishop from conducting the same style Mass every single Sunday.

Oh it does matter. The Bishop is the pastor of the Cathedral of the Dioceses and no, the director will not go against the Bishop’s desires, and neither would any parish in his diocese.

But this isn’t what happened at the NC Mountain Parish.

Here’s some of what the original article said;

They described why they left: Their de facto pastor told the mostly cradle Catholics they had been doing everything all wrong. The liturgy — overwhelmed with popular contemporary hymns and such standbys as “Amazing Grace” — was not deemed Catholic enough. Veteran catechists were told they weren’t teaching traditional Catholicism. A blind parishioner, holding her guide dog with one hand and seeking Communion with the other, was told she lacked proper reverence. The host was stuck into her mouth.

Most of the contemporary hymns were replaced by Latin chants. A women’s group was disbanded after a dispute flared over where the money they raised would go. Catechists and choir members were told to get with changes or leave, so many did. A dispute over church repairs fractured the parish finance council. Funerals dispensed with any discussion of the deceased, with homilies focused on the church doctrine of purgatory.
ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/north-carolina-church-exile-battles-restorationists

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

OH and BTW, Bishop’s have been wrong in their response to parishes in the past and the Vatican has had to step in.

I hope for the people of this parish, the Vatican steps in again.

Jim

 

[ctb95]

He can’t ignore their requests, but can refuse to celebrate that format which he is not trained in. However, he must bring their request to the Bishop who is suppose to find a priest who is willing to celebrate the TLM for that parish, if he is able to do so.

The problem is, few priest are able or willing to celebrate the TLM, period and Bishops and pastors must tell those requesting it, they can not have it.

This is probably the case for your parish.

Jim

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.