Dramatic footage of a trendy bishop being booed by Mass-goers

[littlequestion]

Did you all read the ariticle? The priest in question is now saying Mass elsewhere sans episcopal permission. …That can’t be good.

That is absolute OK for him to do. Every priest is required to say the Mass daily, and a priest who is not attached to a parish can say it elsewhere. He can’t be prevented unless he is stripped of his priesthood, as far as I know. Lots of Latin Masses are said discretely in places where they don’t have the clout and resources to have an open parish Mass.

 

[ljubim]

Can anyone tell me what the gay agenda is? I know quite a few homosexual persons, and they cannot enlighten me.

Can you, archangel?

I believe it’s them being recognized as morally legitimate. When it comes to the Church, it would be having their mortal sins looked over, and not called sins .

 

[MarineGuy]

Wow is right. Is this the Catholic equivalent of the Tea Baggers Party?

That’s crude! I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re just unaware, but “tea bagging” is slang for a certain perverse sexual practice and hence leftists use “tea baggers” as a term of derision to label participants of the political “Tea Parties”.

 

[John1360]

That brings home how fortunate I am for having a FSSP Parish within walking distance, with Mass every day of the week.
I’m glad to hear this has been resolved - I watched the longer clip & felt a deep sadness for the people streaming out of the mass totally disillusioned.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Whether the rights and wrongs of the bishop in question, is this a respectful way of treating a successor of the apostles?

St Nicholas slapped Arius. Not very respectful huh?

A side question. If a person is not teaching the Apostolic Faith how you he rightly be called a successor to the Apostles?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[FAB]

I am truely wondering were tradtionalist on this site are coming from. Your are taking glee from the disobediance of the bishop? I thought you were all about pre-vatican II when the obsuluted obediance to ordinary wasn’t questioned.
The ordinary has the right to remove a priest at any time for any reason. His decision is to be resprected, disagreement handled in a civil way.
These threads that attack our ordinaries, take glee in thier falure are sinful and the work evil withinn the church.

Peace,
FAB

 

[LilyM]

St Nicholas slapped Arius. Not very respectful huh?

A side question. If a person is not teaching the Apostolic Faith how you he rightly be called a successor to the Apostles?

Yours in Christ
Joe

For starters St Nicholas was a bishop, not a layperson.

Now a bishop holds the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders upon their ordination, as long as the sacrament was validly conferred, and doesn’t lose it regardless of what they do afterwards.

The sacrament is what confers on them their status and authority as successor to the Apostles, not their behaviour afterwards. Hence the Apostles laid hands on Matthias after they’d chosen him to replace Judas - that precursor to our modern ordination ceremony is what effectively sealed him as Judas’ successor.

It’s a bit like being baptised in a Catholic ceremony and then doing something heretical - you may be an heretical (sinful) Catholic but you’re nonetheless a Catholic, you don’t lose that effect of the sacrament.

In a similar way an abusive or unfaithful husband is still your husband in the eyes of God regardless, as long as the marriage ceremony was valid, because of the status conferred by the sacrament. It’s independent of his behaviour.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s crude! I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re just unaware, but “tea bagging” is slang for a certain perverse sexual practice and hence leftists use “tea baggers” as a term of derision to label participants of the political “Tea Parties”.

You must know. I’m just a regular lynch mob guy myself.

But I’ll agree with those who say the Mass is not the proper venue for expressing disapproval with the bishop, even if the strategy appears to have worked. There are better long-term solutions for this.

 

[ac_claire]

I finally was able to watch the whole thing with subtitles on youtube. I’m glad that it seems the bishop has come around, but I’m confused why the whole thing happened to start with. Seems very harsh to just come up on a parish and announce something like that, telling them their priest is no longer their priest, this is no longer a parish, etc. What exactly was going to replace Fr. Michel?

 

[archangel04]

Can anyone tell me what the gay agenda is? I know quite a few homosexual persons, and they cannot enlighten me.

Can you, archangel?

Well in politics, it’s about being recognized as legitamate marriages and other things. As for the Church, well they want to be allowed to be “married”, have their homosexual acts not considered a sin, and to be able to join the priesthood.

I believe it’s them being recognized as morally legitimate. When it comes to the Church, it would be having their mortal sins looked over, and not called sins .

Glad someone else sees the truth.

 

[FAB]

Well in politics, it’s about being recognized as legitamate marriages and other things. As for the Church, well they want to be allowed to be “married”, have their homosexual acts not considered a sin, and to be able to join the priesthood.

Glad someone else sees the truth.

Instead of looking at the vestment as a symbol for the homosexual movement you should look back to scripture. The rainbow is a sign of God’s covenant with Noah. Let’s reclaim our own symbols instead of looking for some hidden agenda.

Peace, FAB

 

[Abenadar]

Now a bishop holds the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders upon their ordination, as long as the sacrament was validly conferred, and doesn’t lose it regardless of what they do afterwards.

The sacrament is what confers on them their status and authority as successor to the Apostles, not their behaviour afterwards. Hence the Apostles laid hands on Matthias after they’d chosen him to replace Judas - that precursor to our modern ordination ceremony is what effectively sealed him as Judas’ successor.

Right, it’s an indelible mark on the soul, like Baptism, and their behavior doesn’t effect this mark. However…

It’s a bit like being baptised in a Catholic ceremony and then doing something heretical - you may be an heretical (sinful) Catholic but you’re nonetheless a Catholic, you don’t lose that effect of the sacrament.

…This is not correct. The mark of baptism (or holy orders) is forever on the soul, which is why it’s even worse for a baptized person or a priest to fall away from the True Faith, and why their torments in hell will be worse than a person who hasn’t been baptized. You don’t lose the ‘effect’ of the sacrament (as a mark on the soul), but if you become a heretic you certainly aren’t a Catholic anymore until the heresy is renounced, even though you still have the mark of baptism.

 

[Abenadar]

Instead of looking at the vestment as a symbol for the homosexual movement you should look back to scripture. The rainbow is a sign of God’s covenant with Noah. Let’s reclaim our own symbols instead of looking for some hidden agenda.

Peace, FAB

It’d be nice if we could reclaim that symbol…But in this instance I think it doesn’t mean what it ought to mean. Unfortunately, this bishop seems to have ulterior motives and hidden (or not-so-hidden?) agendas. I wish it weren’t so…

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

You can see it with English subtitles here:

youtube.com/watch?v=c143C70nMi8

youtube.com/watch?v=szXs2lwofv0

 

[MarineGuy]

I am truely wondering were tradtionalist on this site are coming from. Your are taking glee from the disobediance of the bishop? I thought you were all about pre-vatican II when the obsuluted obediance to ordinary wasn’t questioned.
The ordinary has the right to remove a priest at any time for any reason. His decision is to be resprected, disagreement handled in a civil way.
These threads that attack our ordinaries, take glee in thier falure are sinful and the work evil withinn the church.

Peace,
FAB

FAB, pre-Vatican II circumstances were a bit different because “ordinaries” weren’t heretical, at least not publicly, and if they were discovered to be heretics Rome would de-frock them instead of pandering to/bargaining with/encouraging them. Catholics could trust their bishops back then to be shepherds who safeguarded the faith from wolves (e.g. false doctrine, heretical practices).
Today, what with the mass apostasy from the true faith on the part of bishops and clergy since the disastrous 2nd Vatican Council, obedience can often be dangerous to the spiritual welfare of Catholics. Catholics do not owe obedience to heretics.

 

[FAB]

FAB, pre-Vatican II circumstances were a bit different because “ordinaries” weren’t heretical, at least not publicly, and if they were discovered to be heretics Rome would de-frock them instead of pandering to/bargaining with/encouraging them. Catholics could trust their bishops back then to be shepherds who safeguarded the faith from wolves (e.g. false doctrine, heretical practices).
Today, what with the mass apostasy from the true faith on the part of bishops and clergy since the disastrous 2nd Vatican Council, obedience can often be dangerous to the spiritual welfare of Catholics. Catholics do not owe obedience to heretics.

Such is the problem with traditionalist. You justify your stance, by doing the same thing you accuss of others. These are serious accusation to call our teachers heretics which there is no of. The fact that you refuse to follow thier teaching and thus Church teaching make you the heretic.

Peace,
FAB

 

[ac_claire]

Such is the problem with traditionalist. You justify your stance, by doing the same thing you accuss of others. These are serious accusation to call our teachers heretics which there is no of. The fact that you refuse to follow thier teaching and thus Church teaching make you the heretic.

Peace,
FAB

exactly who’s teaching does the poster you’re replying to not follow? And what is that teaching?

Furthermore, (diff topic now), anyone want to hazard an answer to my question in post #29?

 

[Abenadar]

What exactly was going to replace Fr. Michel?

A rainbow…YAAAY!

 

[FAB]

exactly who’s teaching does the poster you’re replying to not follow? And what is that teaching?

Furthermore, (diff topic now), anyone want to hazard an answer to my question in post #29?

the poster was questioning the teaching of the bishops.

From the clip, there were two other priest in the parish. Also the bishop does not give to give notice of his decision, if he tells a priest to go , the priest in obedinace goes.

Peace,
FAB

 

[ac_claire]

the poster was questioning the teaching of the bishops.

Right, I read the post. What teaching(s) by which bishops?

From the clip, there were two other priest in the parish. Also the bishop does not give to give notice of his decision, if he tells a priest to go , the priest in obedinace goes.

Peace,
FAB

From what I saw of the story, the priest didn’t fight the bishop’s order to go. The people just didn’t like it, and they were vocal about it.

ac claire;6266878:

What exactly was going to replace Fr. Michel?

A rainbow…YAAAY!

LOL ok that was funny. But can I get a *real *answer please?!