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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ljubim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi fellow catholics with an affinity towards traditionalism, is there not something in CCC that states that a Bishop/Priest can be removed from office due to “unabounding hatred of the people” that is the Bishop can be removed by Rome because the parisheners can not tolerate him? I have it somewhere buzzing around in my head but I can’t remember where I read it or how it worked or if there are any historical examples… do any of you know?

cheers
 
ac_claire said:
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?
Click to expand...
The parishioners had already been told, that’s why they were there and why there was a sign on the church door advising the Bishop that he and the replacement priest were not welcome.

The parish was no longer going to have a pastor but, along with a few other parishes, was going to become what I’ve seen referred to on these boards as a cluster parish. The Vicar General was to become the priest responsible for the cluster. He was interviewed in a separate video and made the comment that when one has repeatedly disobeyed one’s bishop it shouldn’t come as a surprise that one is removed. From the reading I’ve done it seems that Fr. Michel had repeatedly refused to be assigned to another parish since he’d been in Thiberville 23 years.

While it is being portrayed as a fight between traditionalists and their modernist bishop, that doesn’t come out in what was planned for the parish where the EF was going to continue to be celebrated (Fr. Michel celebrated both the EF and the OF ad orientum),

As for the rainbow chasuble the Bishop was wearing, it dates back to the Millenium celebrations when France’s Bishops’ Conference chose the rainbow as their symbol. The rainbow was officially approved by Rome last year as the new liturgical colour for Feasts of God’s alliance with his people. Not sure why it was being worn at the Epiphany because the press release speaks only of the 34th,35th and 36th Sundays OT which are now the Feasts of St Noah, St Abraham et St Moses in the French calendar.
 
The lady pulling her son from serving the altar says a lot as to what is going on here. Can bishops in France sell parish property like they do in the U.S.?

Who is in charge here? The Vicar General? Who was in charge of the homosexuals rampant in Sodom and Gommorah before God destroyed them?

Remember Lot’s wife.

Peace.

James Least
 
All Catholic Churches in France are state property by the 1905 secularist law but their use is granted to the Catholic Church. However the French government does not really care who celebrates the Mass there as long as Mass is celebrated and thus the FSSPX have gotten away with ‘stealing’ several churches in France.
 
There may have been a political reason for the Bishop’s decision, because from what I read Fr. Michel has definite royalist leanings, regularly celebrating Mass for Louis XVI.
 
In my opinion the parishioners went over the top in how they misused the Mass, but the Bishop was simply asking for it by his provocative behaviour.

Although it must be said that his rainbow robe at mass was not actually anything new or homosexual, it was worn by all the French Bishops during JPII’s 1997 World Youth Day in Paris.
 
Phemie said:
The parishioners had already been told, that’s why they were there and why there was a sign on the church door advising the Bishop that he and the replacement priest were not welcome.

The parish was no longer going to have a pastor but, along with a few other parishes, was going to become what I’ve seen referred to on these boards as a cluster parish. The Vicar General was to become the priest responsible for the cluster. He was interviewed in a separate video and made the comment that when one has repeatedly disobeyed one’s bishop it shouldn’t come as a surprise that one is removed. From the reading I’ve done it seems that Fr. Michel had repeatedly refused to be assigned to another parish since he’d been in Thiberville 23 years.

While it is being portrayed as a fight between traditionalists and their modernist bishop, that doesn’t come out in what was planned for the parish where the EF was going to continue to be celebrated (Fr. Michel celebrated both the EF and the OF ad orientum),

As for the rainbow chasuble the Bishop was wearing, it dates back to the Millenium celebrations when France’s Bishops’ Conference chose the rainbow as their symbol. The rainbow was officially approved by Rome last year as the new liturgical colour for Feasts of God’s alliance with his people. Not sure why it was being worn at the Epiphany because the press release speaks only of the 34th,35th and 36th Sundays OT which are now the Feasts of St Noah, St Abraham et St Moses in the French calendar.
Click to expand...
Thanks for explaining. 🙂
 
It is the rightful place of the congregation to confront the bishop when the situation warrants.

I don’t have the verses handy , but if you see a sin you tell someone, then two then the church(which at that time was the congregation).

So they were doing the right thing.

If the congregations took their responsibilities more seriously we would have a church that more closely conforms to what Jesus taught.

Peace
 
portarica said:
It is the rightful place of the congregation to confront the bishop when the situation warrants.

I don’t have the verses handy , but if you see a sin you tell someone, then two then the church(which at that time was the congregation).

So they were doing the right thing.

If the congregations took their responsibilities more seriously we would have a church that more closely conforms to what Jesus taught.

Peace
Click to expand...
When did the church cease being the congregation? Who authorized that?

Peace,

James Least
 
James_Least said:
When did the church cease being the congregation? Who authorized that?

Peace,

James Least
Click to expand...
When that was originally written there was no church in the administrative sense.

Now there is, so the meaning of church has changed. Originally the congregation was all there was and now there is so much more.

Peace
 
portarica said:
It is the rightful place of the congregation to confront the bishop when the situation warrants.

Peace
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but there’s a time and a place to confront, and also a WAY to do it, and the Mass isn’t it, neither is booing the person you have a disagreement with, which is simply childish.

Remember Jesus said if anyone who was at the altar (ie at Mass) remembered something he had against his brother, he was to LEAVE, go make peace with his brother and only THEN to return and offer his gift (hear Mass). The clear message is to leave your quarrels at the Church door. That’s why we have the Sign of Peace in the Mass, to show that we are, at least for the duration of the Mass, putting aside all our differences with our brothers.

Again, whatever their problems with the Bishop, the Mass was not the time or place to address them.
 
LilyM said:
Absolutely, but there’s a time and a place to confront, and also a WAY to do it, and the Mass isn’t it, neither is booing the person you have a disagreement with, which is simply childish.

Remember Jesus said if anyone who was at the altar (ie at Mass) remembered something he had against his brother, **he was to LEAVE, go make peace with his brother and only THEN to return and offer his gift **(hear Mass). The clear message is to leave your quarrels at the Church door. That’s why we have the Sign of Peace in the Mass, to show that we are, at least for the duration of the Mass, putting aside all our differences with our brothers.

Again, whatever their problems with the Bishop, the Mass was not the time or place to address them.
Click to expand...
👍

Kudos, Lily, for continuing to press this point.

If the Mass is no place for clapping (see other threads), then it certainly is no place for booing.
 
archangel04 said:
I saw this a couple of weeks ago on Real atholic TV. This is just another problem in our Church. I am glad those people rebelled against him.

From what I’ve read, the Bishop has a gay agenda, so I really doubt the rainbow has anything to do with the old testament. Pretty funny when they all started to boo
Click to expand...
My thoughts too.

And I would have grabbed my son too.
 
FAB said:
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.
Click to expand...
So the 1986 Assisi wasn’t a heresy? Were we all supposed to follow the example and do the same? Why bother with having our own churches and Mass if a MegaChurch suffices?
 
LilyM said:
Absolutely, but there’s a time and a place to confront, and also a WAY to do it, and the Mass isn’t it, neither is booing the person you have a disagreement with, which is simply childish.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. the Mass of the Ages is never a time for such a display. I suspect neither was it the time for the Bishop to make such an announcement. 2 wrongs, as the cliche’ goes, do not make a right, but the Bishop as bishop may have excersised better discretion and chosen an appropriate time to make his announcement.
 
ProVobis said:
Wow is right. Is this the Catholic equivalent of the Tea Baggers Party?
Click to expand...
That would be the Tea Bag Party.

Tea Bagger is a sexual euphemism and is very derogatory when describing this group.
 
Allan_M said:
Hi fellow catholics with an affinity towards traditionalism, is there not something in CCC that states that a Bishop/Priest can be removed from office due to “unabounding hatred of the people” that is the Bishop can be removed by Rome because the parisheners can not tolerate him? I have it somewhere buzzing around in my head but I can’t remember where I read it or how it worked or if there are any historical examples… do any of you know?

cheers
Click to expand...
I have no proof that the “unabounding hatred of the people” can cause a Bishop to be removed. However, this Bishop was punishing a priest for saying the Latin Mass. The Pope gave all priests that right & they don’t have to have the approval of the Bishop. So, the Archbishop was defying the Pope & for this he can be removed, even excommunicated is need be…as Marcel Lefebvre was. Though their offenses were different, they were both disobeying direct orders from the Pope & that’s a BIGGIE.
 
maurin said:
I agree with you. the Mass of the Ages is never a time for such a display. I suspect neither was it the time for the Bishop to make such an announcement. 2 wrongs, as the cliche’ goes, do not make a right, but the Bishop as bishop may have excersised better discretion and chosen an appropriate time to make his announcement.
Click to expand...
The Bishop wasn’t there to make the announcement, which had already been made, but to introduce the priest who was now responsible for the parish and to explain his decisions. The parishioners, OTOH, were there to express their displeasure and had already posted a sign on the door of the church telling him he was not welcome. This was not a spontaneous reaction but a planned demonstration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top