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

[cathguy]

I’m not talking about infalibity of the local ordinary or even obediance, I an talking about respect. Respect for the office, respect for the man, and respect for the house of God. There is a way to address a grievance with a bishop, shouting him down in the sanctuary and then posting a video on you tube is not the way.
Civil people can disagree, civil people also listen to the others point of view and civil people can find compromises to satify each side. Civil people do not celebrate with glee the attack on and embassament of one of thier leaders in the faith.

Peace,
FAB

FAB,

I can’t agree.

This will be my last post, and I want to thank you for your thoughts on this. I appreciate discussing it with you.

True story…

There was a man in England by the name of Underhill. I am writing from memory here because the book I have that details this story I can’t currently locate…

Anyway, Underhill was a black-smith I think… in any event he was a simple villager and tradesman.

The orders came down from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, that the altar was be turned around and called a table, the Mass was to be said in English, the laity were not to kneel when they received, there was to be no mention of the souls in purgatory, prayers at the foot of the altar were to be abolished etc. etc. etc.

Now, this isn’t 1960… more like 1560… or somewhere thereabouts.

In any event, the laity went to Mass and heard it celebrated… and did NOT like it.

They showed up, IN THE SACRISTY the following week. Underhill and some other men.

They asked the priest “What Mass are you to say today father?” or something like that.

Father said “In obedience to my Soverign and my Bishop I will say the new rite, in English, facing you.” (or something like that).

Underhill said (and this is a quote I remember…) “That you will NOT.”

He went on to say something like “We will hear Mass in the Latin tongue, as our ancestors did, and you will wear the old vestments as you and your predecessors have always done, and you will pray for the souls in purgatory, as we always have. You will say the Mass facing the tabernacle, and will give us the Body of our Precious Lord while we kneel at the rail.”

Or something like that.

Underhill and his friends were in no mood for a debate. They were simple villagers, weren’t prepared to offer arguments anyway. Some of them (perhaps most) couldn’t read.

But father could tell that they villagers had met and talked, and were in no mood for compromise. Father donned the old Vestments, and offered the Mass of the Ages.

Word spread quickly that the Mass had been restored in Underhill’s village.

And other villages followed suit.

A nobleman was dispatched. He wanted to talk to the people, convince them that had to be obedient to their King and their Bishop. He carried with them a letter promising total forgiveness for their disobedience if they just repented of their prideful and disrespectful actions.

They refused.

More nobles came to “speak” with the villagers, with both nice sounding words, and threats, and every thing laced with huge degrees of condescension. One of these nobles ended up cut to pieces.

That ended that. And that began the Western Uprising.

Now, these layman (villagers, commoners) wrote to their King a series of resolutions.

Each one began with “We will have…”

Not “We beg your sovereign majesty please…”

But “We will have.”

Their demands? The Mass as Henry VIII, even thought he split with Rome and made himself head of the Church, allowed them to have along with orthodox Catholic theology.

Archbishop Cranmer’s response is a study in clericalism, condescension, and arrogance.

Now, if by some chance of history Cranmer showed up in that village Church to deliver a sermon much like this Bishop did, to that audience, they would have reacted the exact same way that congregation in the video did.

And they would have been right.

Just as the congregation here was arguably right.

The “Bishop” is a protestantizer at best, a heretic at worst, and definitely a supporter of a liturgical praxis (and position on the natural moral law) at odds with Christ’s Church.

We aren’t called to be “sheep” in the sense of going along with stuff like that.

I know my mention of the Western Uprising you may find unseemly. But the facts are that there are Bishops (this one among them) who have far more in common with Cranmer and his ilk than St. John Fisher and his.

This Bishop (like Cranmer) is mocking Papal authority. This Bishop (like Cranmer) is protestantizing the liturgy. This Bishop (like Cranmer) is a study in condescension.

Good for them for yelling at him! He deserved it.

Peace!

 

[donanobis]

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

Wouldn’t it be absolutely awful if the guy who is parked in front of the good Bishop had roofing nails fall out of his rusted trunk? or a rotten egg dropped from a plane and hit his windshield? or a flying cow, well never mind that one.

[Tomorrow I had better visit the confessional…] :tsktsk:

 

[cathguy]

I’m not talking about infalibity of the local ordinary or even obediance, I an talking about respect. Respect for the office, respect for the man, and respect for the house of God. There is a way to address a grievance with a bishop, shouting him down in the sanctuary and then posting a video on you tube is not the way.
Civil people can disagree, civil people also listen to the others point of view and civil people can find compromises to satify each side. Civil people do not celebrate with glee the attack on and embassament of one of thier leaders in the faith.

Peace,
FAB

In case you are interested, I found the book. Here is what the people sent the Bishop and the King:

The Articles of vs the Commoners of Duonshyre and Cornewall is duers Campes by East and West of Excettor.

First we wyll have all the general counsall, and holy decrees of our forfathers observed, kept and performed, and who so euer shal agayne saye them, we hold them as Heretikes.

Item we will haue the Lawes o four Souerayne Lord Kyng Henry the viii concernynge the syxe articles, to be in vse again, as in hys time they were.

Item We will haue the Mass in Latten, as was before, and celebrated by the Pryest wythoute any man of woman communycatyng with hym.

Item we wyll haue the Sacrament hang ouer the hyeghe aulter, and there to be worshypped as it was wount to be, and they whiche will not thereto consent, we wyl haue them dye lyke heretykes against the Holy Catholyque fayth.

Item we wyl haue holy bread and holy water made euery sondaye, Palmes and asshes at the tymes accustomed, Images to be set vp again in euery church, and all other auncient olde Ceremonyes vsed heretofore, by our mother the Holy Church.

Item we will not receyue the newe seruyce because it is but lyke a Christmas game, but we wyll haue oure old seruice of Mattens, masse, Euensonq and procession in Latten as it was before. And so we the Cornyshe men (wereof certen of vs vnderstade no Englysh) vtterly refuse thys new Englysh…

It goes on for a couple of more items…

not very long… but VERY clear.

The Archbishop’s response began with a defense similar (it seems to me) that defenders of the Bishop of this video are making:

Is this the fashion of subjects to speak unto their prince, “We will have”? Was this manner of speech at any time used of the subjects to their prince since the beginning of the world? Have not all true subjects ever used to their sovereign lord this form of speaking, “Most humbly beseecheth your faithful and obedient subjects?..”

He goes on in a similar vein for a long time. His response is verbose…

He was aghast especially by their request for Latin:

For all the whole that is done should be the act of the people and pertain to the people, as well as to the priest. And standeth it with reason, that the priest should speak for you, and in your name, and you answer him again in your own person; and yet you understand never a word, neither what he saith, or what you say yourselves?.. Had you rather be like pies or parrots, that be taught to speak, and yet understand not one word what they say, than be true Christian men, that pray unto God in heart and in faith?

The end result of this tiff were a lot of dead Catholic laymen and priests (some 5000 of them). Priests who refused the new Mass were sometimes killed and hung on spikes above their Churches. Underhyll was dead on the field of battle.

The priests who tried to keep the Mass (and what was left of the Catholic faith) fared no better:

The chaplain of those who refused the protestantized “Mass” was a Father Welsh.

He was sentenced to death.

A fanatical Protestant, Bernard Duffield, was commissioned to carry out the sentence. Under his directions the gallows was erected on the top of Welsh’s own church, and the vicar, clothed in his Mass vestments, with a holy water bucket, sprinkler, sanctus bell, rosary “and other popish trash” attached, was hoisted on a rope round his waist, and hanged in chains, long to dangle there as a warning to others. He met his end with contemptuous silence. “And there he hung… till the clothes rotted away, and the carrion crows had pecked him into a skeleton - and down below in St. Thomas’s church order reigned, and a new vicar read the English liturgy.”

Now, these men were loyal English men. They were not out to overthrow the King, or even undo what King Henry VIII had done. They simply wanted the Mass, and Catholic orthodoxy. They could have marched on London at one point unopposed and burned the King at the stake. They didn’t. They just wanted the Mass and the Catholic faith.

And they got the sword.

Today, the opponents of the Mass don’t use the sword of course. They simply ignore the Pope… and end the pastoral ministry of traditional priests (or refuse to allow them to be ordained to begin with).

Do you know when the people in this video really started yelling? When they got really hot? When the altar boy stormed out of the Sanctuary?

The Bishop said “Father Micael is no longer a parish priest.”

Why? For what? Because he followed Pope Benedict, because he preached the Catholic faith, and the Bishop didn’t like it.

Whether the terrorism is violent (as it was during the English reformation) or if it is modern, and involves ending the priestly ministry of good priests, putting members of the Lavender Mafia in the right places, sticking the old Mass in the most inaccessible times etc. etc… It deserves a response from the laity.

Yelling at the Bishop and letting him know how they felt?

I think it is okay. I think it is good even. He was out of line. And Rome corrected him.

 

[Dominique1234]

In case you are interested, I found the book. Here is what the people sent the Bishop and the King:

It goes on for a couple of more items…

not very long… but VERY clear.

The Archbishop’s response began with a defense similar (it seems to me) that defenders of the Bishop of this video are making:

He goes on in a similar vein for a long time. His response is verbose…

He was aghast especially by their request for Latin:

The end result of this tiff were a lot of dead Catholic laymen and priests (some 5000 of them). Priests who refused the new Mass were sometimes killed and hung on spikes above their Churches. Underhyll was dead on the field of battle.

The priests who tried to keep the Mass (and what was left of the Catholic faith) fared no better:

The chaplain of those who refused the protestantized “Mass” was a Father Welsh.

He was sentenced to death.

Now, these men were loyal English men. They were not out to overthrow the King, or even undo what King Henry VIII had done. They simply wanted the Mass, and Catholic orthodoxy. They could have marched on London at one point unopposed and burned the King at the stake. They didn’t. They just wanted the Mass and the Catholic faith.

And they got the sword.

Today, the opponents of the Mass don’t use the sword of course. They simply ignore the Pope… and end the pastoral ministry of traditional priests (or refuse to allow them to be ordained to begin with).

Do you know when the people in this video really started yelling? When they got really hot? When the altar boy stormed out of the Sanctuary?

The Bishop said “Father Micael is no longer a parish priest.”

Why? For what? Because he followed Pope Benedict, because he preached the Catholic faith, and the Bishop didn’t like it.

Whether the terrorism is violent (as it was during the English reformation) or if it is modern, and involves ending the priestly ministry of good priests, putting members of the Lavender Mafia in the right places, sticking the old Mass in the most inaccessible times etc. etc… It deserves a response from the laity.

Yelling at the Bishop and letting him know how they felt?

I think it is okay. I think it is good even. He was out of line. And Rome corrected him.

God bless you and don’t bother commenting to FAB. It’s futile. Pointless, useless, etc… I’ve tried and tried and to no avail it’s simply not worth your time. Keep up the Good Works!

Pax! Dominus Vobiscum!

 

[FAB]

God bless you and don’t bother commenting to FAB. It’s futile. Pointless, useless, etc… I’ve tried and tried and to no avail it’s simply not worth your time. Keep up the Good Works!

Pax! Dominus Vobiscum!

You guys are a lot of fun.

Today, the opponents of the Mass don’t use the sword of course. They simply ignore the Pope… and end the pastoral ministry of traditional priests (or refuse to allow them to be ordained to begin with).

Do you know when the people in this video really started yelling? When they got really hot? When the altar boy stormed out of the Sanctuary?

The Bishop said “Father Micael is no longer a parish priest.”

Why? For what? Because he followed Pope Benedict, because he preached the Catholic faith, and the Bishop didn’t like it.

Whether the terrorism is violent (as it was during the English reformation) or if it is modern, and involves ending the priestly ministry of good priests, putting members of the Lavender Mafia in the right places, sticking the old Mass in the most inaccessible times etc. etc… It deserves a response from the laity.

Yelling at the Bishop and letting him know how they felt?

So you want to find parrells of an unrully crowd, who in your mind is defending the faith, to a polical over throw of the Church by a king 500 or so years ago.
And what were they defending? Both the EF and the OF are valid forms of the mass. Who’s faith are they so call defending? The ideas of SSPX? Which would mean that it wouldn’t matter what Pope Benidict were to say, he’s not seen as a true successor to Peter by that group.
Yelling at the ordinary is never an appropriate way to address an issue. He is not infallible, but does share in the apostolistic tradition. For that matter the same is true for the pope. If he indead fail to follow the wishes of the pope to allow the use of the EF, then that is an issue to be taken up by the Holy Sea. I have always contentend that the full story has never been reported. Only those aspects which showed this bishop in a bad light.
Allowing the EF or the previous restriction of it still falls on a displinary level of the Church. It fails on several points to be considered infallible teaching.

Peace,
FAB

 

[cathguy]

You guys are a lot of fun.

So you want to find parrells of an unrully crowd, who in your mind is defending the faith, to a polical over throw of the Church by a king 500 or so years ago.
And what were they defending? Both the EF and the OF are valid forms of the mass. Who’s faith are they so call defending? The ideas of SSPX? Which would mean that it wouldn’t matter what Pope Benidict were to say, he’s not seen as a true successor to Peter by that group.
Yelling at the ordinary is never an appropriate way to address an issue. He is not infallible, but does share in the apostolistic tradition. For that matter the same is true for the pope. If he indead fail to follow the wishes of the pope to allow the use of the EF, then that is an issue to be taken up by the Holy Sea. I have always contentend that the full story has never been reported. Only those aspects which showed this bishop in a bad light.
Allowing the EF or the previous restriction of it still falls on a displinary level of the Church. It fails on several points to be considered infallible teaching.

Peace,
FAB

Hi Fab… Actually yes… I do draw these parallels.

Things in Belgium and the Netherlands are just that bad.

You cannot IMAGINE how bad things are over there:

Read this this months New Oxford Review on Belgium. It will give you an inkling.

Speaking of the famous Cardinal Daneels’s "watch in Belgium…

“Three decades is a long tenure, and during those years Daneels made headlines with a number of outspoken challenges to Church teaching, and in a way that would even make an Archbishop Weakland marvel.”

I am speaking here of HUGE abuses and silences, against not only Catholic moral teaching, but also religious teaching.

The Belgium hierarchy gave us a Catechism co-written with protestants that directly contradicted Catholic truth. The hierarchy publicly dissented on Humanae Vitae.

They have absolutely DESTROYED the liturgy.

The University in Louvain makes Notre Dame look like an SSPX seminary.

These are NOT exaggerations. That hierarchy and those Bishops have literally been waging a war against the Catholic faith for decades.

FAB, you do not know this because you haven’t followed the issue, studied the history of the Church in Europe. I myself only knew alittle about the abuses, but they are being well-publicized.

We need to pray for the Pope. He finally replaced Daneels, and the end result is that the Belgium government is throwing a hissy fit.

The more I read about Belgium, the more I realize how brave and true those parishioners are. We do them a disservice by criticizing them.

I absolutely draw a direct parallel between the British bishops who attacked the papacy and sided with Henry the VIII and the Belgium Bishops of the last 40 years.

No doubt about it.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

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

In Normandy, a modernist Catholic bishop’s attempts to remove an orthodox parish priest have provoked an extraordinary outburst of fury from parishioners.

Mgr Christian Nourrichard, Bishop of the Leftist diocese of Evreux, has booted out Fr Francis Michel from the church of Saint-Taurin, Thiberville, where he has had an outstandingly successful ministry for 23 years. The bishop favours instead one of those team ministries where, as in England and America, the role of the priest is largely replaced by that of self-obsessed lay “ministers”.

On the feast of the Epiphany, January 3, the bishop arrived to celebrate Mass in Thiberville dressed in one of those disgusting rainbow chasubles favoured by Magic Circle clerics everywhere. As he haughtily explained his plans, some of Fr Michel’s supporters completely lost their rag…

More: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100021534/dramatic-footage-of-a-trendy-bishop-being-booed-by-mass-goers/

WOW
At first I think that such reverent people should not have been acting this way at Mass, but then I think of Our Lord turning over tables at the Temple and I think they were justified. Watch the video, what stuck with me was the mother going up to the altar, grabbing her son the altar server, and walking out the door.

I thought you guys would have a lot to say about this

The Church Militant

 

[FAB]

Hi Fab… Actually yes… I do draw these parallels.

Things in Belgium and the Netherlands are just that bad.

You cannot IMAGINE how bad things are over there:

Read this this months New Oxford Review on Belgium. It will give you an inkling.

Speaking of the famous Cardinal Daneels’s "watch in Belgium…

“Three decades is a long tenure, and during those years Daneels made headlines with a number of outspoken challenges to Church teaching, and in a way that would even make an Archbishop Weakland marvel.”

I am speaking here of HUGE abuses and silences, against not only Catholic moral teaching, but also religious teaching.

The Belgium hierarchy gave us a Catechism co-written with protestants that directly contradicted Catholic truth. The hierarchy publicly dissented on Humanae Vitae.

They have absolutely DESTROYED the liturgy.

The University in Louvain makes Notre Dame look like an SSPX seminary.

These are NOT exaggerations. That hierarchy and those Bishops have literally been waging a war against the Catholic faith for decades.

FAB, you do not know this because you haven’t followed the issue, studied the history of the Church in Europe. I myself only knew alittle about the abuses, but they are being well-publicized.

We need to pray for the Pope. He finally replaced Daneels, and the end result is that the Belgium government is throwing a hissy fit.

The more I read about Belgium, the more I realize how brave and true those parishioners are. We do them a disservice by criticizing them.

I absolutely draw a direct parallel between the British bishops who attacked the papacy and sided with Henry the VIII and the Belgium Bishops of the last 40 years.

No doubt about it.

I do know a bit about church history. The papacy through the middle ages gained great authority. There were also conflicts between kings and the popes as far as who actually had authority and power including who appointed bishops. Lots of political intrigue. The pope was a property owner witht he papal states and all that intailed.

I am also careful when speaking of abuses when it comes to bishops. It they occur, it is up to pope to deal with them. What then parishioners did, was to turn thier displeasure into public scandle. There seem to be far to many ready to jump on the band wagon, I am not. Remember the devil never rest, the attacks come form the outside and unfortunatly the inside of the Church as well. Taking bishops down is certainly not the work of God.

Peace,
FAB

 

[JaMc]

I think a better way to have handled this would have been for the parishoners to go to Mass at a different time, or at a different parish, and let the Bishop try to offer Mass to an empty church. It would send just as powerful a message, without creating a disruption in the presence of the Body of Christ in the Tabernacle.

 

[cathguy]

I am also careful when speaking of abuses when it comes to bishops. It they occur, it is up to pope to deal with them. What then parishioners did, was to turn thier displeasure into public scandle.

No…

This is wrong.

Especially today, in light of the scandal in the Church we cannot hold to such a clericalist position.

This is a distortion of the true Catholic virtue of obedience because our first allegiance is to God and to the Truth. If a Bishop contradicts Truth, you don’t stay silent and go along.

That is incorrect.

Peace!

 

[Jane11]

Good for those people! The guy was probably an infiltrator of the church - why else would he push the “rainbow” homosexual thing?

 

[donanobis]

Not that long ago, a spectacle took place in St. Patrick Cathedral in New York when a pro-gay activist group called Act Up threw condoms at Cardinal John O’Connor at a Mass, during Communion, because he had spoken against their agenda. This is the same thing, only the opposing side speaking up against a perceived injustice. They were doing the same thing as they did in New York; rubbing raw the sensibilities of the people to make a point and gain attention to their agenda.

 

[cathguy]

Not that long ago, a spectacle took place in St. Patrick Cathedral in New York when a pro-gay activist group called Act Up threw condoms at Cardinal John O’Connor at a Mass, during Communion, because he had spoken against their agenda. This is the same thing, only the opposing side speaking up against a perceived injustice. They were doing the same thing as they did in New York; rubbing raw the sensibilities of the people to make a point and gain attention to their agenda.

No.

The big difference is that the pro-gay activists are heretics, and the people in this video are standing up for the Truth of Christ as revealed through the Magesterium of Holy Mother Church.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

 

[Palaeologos]

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

I think this point needs to be balanced with the consideration of whether he is acting in a manner which befits a successor of the apostles.

There are no pat answers. As a priest, I have vowed to obey my bishop in all things lawful. If he requires something of me that is not lawful, he no longer commands my obedience. If this is true for me, the bishop’s vowed subordinate, isn’t it also true for the laity of a diocese who have made no such avowal?

 

[cathguy]

I think this point needs to be balanced with the consideration of whether he is acting in a manner which befits a successor of the apostles.

There are no pat answers. As a priest, I have vowed to obey my bishop in all things lawful. If he requires something of me that is not lawful, he no longer commands my obedience. If this is true for me, the bishop’s vowed subordinate, isn’t it also true for the laity of a diocese who have made no such avowal?

I think this is an excellent point!

 

[Hesychios]

I think it is pretty sad to see a bishop being booed in public.

As a shepherd he should be Baa-a’ed ! :hey_bud:

 

[NPC]

While I understand that the parishioners wanted to take a stand against the bishop’s decision, to do so during a celebration of the Holy Mass was wrong, in my opinion. This was the Feast of the Epiphany - a great feast of the Church - and one must wonder, where was infant Christ in the minds of the people when they were shouting and booing the bishop. We get questions here on CAF about the Blessed Sacrament being removed from the tabernacle if there’s a secular function taking place - out of respect for our Lord. What respect was shown to the Blessed Sacrament in this case - very little, as far as I can see; what was supposed to be a Holy Mass turned into a disgusting theatrical display most unbefitting the House of God.

Now, perhaps the bishop should not have used the Mass to make his announcement, knowing as he did that there were going to be tensions, but the reaction from the people in the situation they were in - i.e. the Mass - was inappropriate. Maybe the bishop deserved to be booed, but the Mass is not the place for that - Christ is supposed to be the centre, and the only drama should be the “drama” of Calvary which is re-presented before our eyes.

 

[Dominique1234]

You guys are a lot of fun.

So you want to find parrells of an unrully crowd, who in your mind is defending the faith, to a polical over throw of the Church by a king 500 or so years ago.
And what were they defending? Both the EF and the OF are valid forms of the mass. Who’s faith are they so call defending? The ideas of SSPX? Which would mean that it wouldn’t matter what Pope Benidict were to say, he’s not seen as a true successor to Peter by that group.
Yelling at the ordinary is never an appropriate way to address an issue. He is not infallible, but does share in the apostolistic tradition. For that matter the same is true for the pope. If he indead fail to follow the wishes of the pope to allow the use of the EF, then that is an issue to be taken up by the Holy Sea. I have always contentend that the full story has never been reported. Only those aspects which showed this bishop in a bad light.
Allowing the EF or the previous restriction of it still falls on a displinary level of the Church. It fails on several points to be considered infallible teaching.

Peace,
FAB

The bishop was kicking out a priest of his parish for following Rome. Who do you follow? If a bishop told you it was okay to give communion to a Protestant, would you let him do it? In this case the bishop was throwing the priest out of his parish because the bishop refused to allow him to say the latin rite, which the Pope and our CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS is the original and still the FIRST language to be used in any Catholic rite, unless the bishop allows otherwise but CANNOT remove the latin rite. To REMOVE the latine rite completely from Mass is going against the Catholic Church and Rome. You are correct that either the OF or the EF are both legitimate, but one comes first and the bishop removed the priest because he followed Rome and our Catholic Church.

Who’s side are you on? Where do you get off telling us to follow a rogue bishop? I agree that this could have been handled differently, but as Christ overturned tables and raised His Holy voice in the Temple, so did these loyal parishioners to Rome in this instance! What would Jesus do?..

I’m not here to make you feel better FAB, I’m here to speak the Truth. If that makes you dislike me or uncomfortable, then know this. I am not here to make you feel okay and wishy washy about our Faith. It’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic way, or the highway… take it or leave it. I’m not trying to push you away from our Faith either, but it’s this way I returned, knowing there was only ONE way in totality to Christ. The Catholic way.

I’m not here to offend you either. The Truth hurts, yes, I know. I’m sorry it does. God bless you FAB.

 

[Dominique1234]

I think a better way to have handled this would have been for the parishoners to go to Mass at a different time, or at a different parish, and let the Bishop try to offer Mass to an empty church. It would send just as powerful a message, without creating a disruption in the presence of the Body of Christ in the Tabernacle.

AMEN! That would have been the ideal thing to do. I think personally it happened the way it did to make it personal. The parishioners WANT the Latin rite. The bishop wanted to remove that and action was needed. That’s just my opinion though. Not a definite truth.

I think if the parishioners would have petitioned in the parking lot and left the bishop to say his Mass alone, that would have been ideal as well!

But would there have been any footage put up about this event if no one showed up? Would there have been anything done about the bishop by the Holy See if this hadn’t happened? Something to ponder on, I believe, and it is what it is. A good thing for many parishes who are ‘stuck’ following wolves rather than shepherds…

As someone on this site would put it, it’s the devil’s work within the Church. Sadly, this person meant the parishioners actions, not the bishop’s… anyone against the Holy See is not a member of the Catholic Church. Anyone who tries to change the laws of the Church by removing good, wholesome shepherds like this priest (for following the Holy See, I might add) is not for the Church but against it. Now, who’s working for the wrong team here? Sadly, it’s our leaders, those we are supposed to follow and those who are supposed to lead us TO the Church, not against it. PRAY FOR OUR BISHOPS!!!

It’s the year of the priest! PRAY FOR OUR PRIESTS!!! They are the ones who have to deal with rogue bishops such as this one! God bless you for your comment. It’s a blessing to have good Catholics make these kinds of comments! Keep up the good work!