Images of a priest being dragged from a condemned St. Rita church anger the French right

  • Thread starter Thread starter JurisPrudens
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I assume that the church isn’t being demolished just for the fun of it?
 
Liberty, equality, fraternity. Except if you’re Catholic. Why behave like a second-string Daesh? :mad:
 
Kaninchen said:
I assume that the church isn’t being demolished just for the fun of it?
Click to expand...
No. The church’s land was sold by the previous owner, the Association of Catholic and Apostolic Chapels, years ago for 3 million euro and it was slated to be demolished in October by the owner to make way for an apartment complex. While the priest and altar boy and congregation made for a good headline, fact is they had all been trespassing for quite some time in the long boarded up church. It’s a sad situation, but fact remained they’d been in the wrong for some time now and it finally caught up with them.
 
Does not the bishop have the authority to resolve this matter?

If it’s possible to be saddened in heaven, the saints might be sad to see a church torn down.
 
EIF5A said:
Does not the bishop have the authority to resolve this matter?

If it’s possible to be saddened in heaven, the saints might be sad to see a church torn down.
Click to expand...
I’ll grant you that, it’s sad. But what’s worse, a Catholic Church closed and torn down, or a Catholic Church closed and sold to a schismatic Sedevacantist sect that masquerades as Catholic?
 
They don’t care about any place, you in the way and they get rid of you, even when you are in the middle of prayer…

Money talks…:mad:
 
simpleas said:
They don’t care about any place, you in the way and they get rid of you, even when you are in the middle of prayer…

Money talks…:mad:
Click to expand...
To be fair, the priest and congregation were trying to make a point as they were knowingly trespassing and had been for a very long time. It’s not like they were innocents being dragged out for no reason, they were protesting their planned eviction on Wed. 🤷
 
Padres1969 said:
a schismatic Sedevacantist sect that masquerades as Catholic?
Click to expand...
  1. Where did you get it, that the priest was “sedevacantist”? The CH expressly states, he was not.
  2. Even if they were “sedevacantists” (which they are not), the Mass is still the Holy Mass, the church is still sacred.
 
I’m not understanding this, obviously, but if whatever it was Church sold the church building and the new owner wants to demolish it, shouldn’t the anger be directed towards the people who sold the building (ie the Church authorities, whoever they may be) rather than to the new owner?
 
The priest was in the wrong here. The building was sold and it might be sad for the ex parishioners, but ultimately once it has been deconsecrated, there is nothing wrong with selling a church.
 
ShrodingersCat said:
The priest was in the wrong here. The building was sold and it might be sad for the ex parishioners, but ultimately once it has been deconsecrated, there is nothing wrong with selling a church.
Click to expand...
Interesting…I didn’t know something can be deconsecrated.
 
JurisPrudens said:
  1. Where did you get it, that the priest was “sedevacantist”? The CH expressly states, he was not.
  2. Even if they were “sedevacantists” (which they are not), the Mass is still the Holy Mass, the church is still sacred.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t referring to this church or priest. Rather another church that was shut down and its congregation forced to go elsewhere, but rather than being demolished and turned into apartments the Archdiocese of Boston sold the church to a Sedevacantist sect. Being leveled and turned into apartments seems a much better fate.
 
Padres1969 said:
I wasn’t referring to this church or priest. Rather another church that was shut down and its congregation forced to go elsewhere, but rather than being demolished and turned into apartments the Archdiocese of Boston sold the church to a Sedevacantist sect. Being leveled and turned into apartments seems a much better fate.
Click to expand...
You might call them a “sect”, but if they serve a Holy Mass there, the church is obviously used according to its purpose.
 
ShrodingersCat said:
The priest was in the wrong here. The building was sold and it might be sad for the ex parishioners, but ultimately once it has been deconsecrated, there is nothing wrong with selling a church.
Click to expand...
I dislike the use of the word "wrong’ here… I actually DON’T believe what he did was wrong in the idea that the church is SACRED… something most of the world does not believe in anymore and most of the world scoffs at. The priest was right in sticking up for what he knows is right. It might be legally wrong, but since when do Catholics believe exactly what the law says is right , is right with God? If that were the case we’d all be hailing abortion as heavenly.

Someone was in the wrong here, but it wasn’t the priest. I don’t think it was the law officials either.

Its wrong to remove a landmark… that’s what it says in HOLY Scripture.

A church is a place where people congregated in the Holy Name of The Lord for years. Dwindling congregants or even age do not diminish its sacredness… Funny how here in the states if an Ancient Indian burial ground is threatened, laws are passed to protect it because it is held sacred to a few, but if its a Catholic church that hardly anyone goes to anymore or needs lots of funds to upkeep, let’s ditch it like its nothing. I find this scandalous, irreverent, disrespectful to the highest high.
Code: 
 The reasons because the number of souls that prayed there, that shared memories there, that contributed financially to its maintenance and beauty.    They did this so that we all could have a piece of beauty to worship at.. something dedicated to God that was done to glorify God.  Its wasn't cheaply slapped together.
We have a very old parish here. It can’t hold all of the parish’s people now, but it is filled with art offerings with names of parishioners now departed. It would be DISGUSTING to tear that down when the people who contributed it meant for certain people to be memorialized within its walls as a tribute for parishioners of the future to share in too. No doubt this church in France had that too, seeing its of the same age… that was common at that time. So vile to do that to people- even if they are dead. Its total disrespect for those who paved our way. You are not supposed to remove the ancient landmarks according to GOD’S WORD!

** Surely God will not look kindly upon this action.
**

It frankly bothers me that people are so quick to dismiss any sort of disorderly conduct as ‘in the wrong’. History… especially that of the Catholic Church… should show you that’s not always the case. BTW, I’m not condoning anti-government behavior. This priest wasn’t brandishing a gun or anything. He was quite peaceful about standing up for what he knows to be right. If only most catholics were as brave and believing the THE FAITH.
 
AnneElizabeth said:
I dislike the use of the word "wrong’ here… I actually DON’T believe what he did was wrong in the idea that the church is SACRED… something most of the world does not believe in anymore and most of the world scoffs at. The priest was right in sticking up for what he knows is right. It might be legally wrong, but since when do Catholics believe exactly what the law says is right , is right with God? If that were the case we’d all be hailing abortion as heavenly.

Someone was in the wrong here, but it wasn’t the priest. I don’t think it was the law officials either.

Its wrong to remove a landmark… that’s what it says in HOLY Scripture.

A church is a place where people congregated in the Holy Name of The Lord for years. Dwindling congregants or even age do not diminish its sacredness… Funny how here in the states if an Ancient Indian burial ground is threatened, laws are passed to protect it because it is held sacred to a few, but if its a Catholic church that hardly anyone goes to anymore or needs lots of funds to upkeep, let’s ditch it like its nothing. I find this scandalous, irreverent, disrespectful to the highest high.
Code: 
 The reasons because the number of souls that prayed there, that shared memories there, that contributed financially to its maintenance and beauty.    They did this so that we all could have a piece of beauty to worship at.. something dedicated to God that was done to glorify God.  Its wasn't cheaply slapped together.
We have a very old parish here. It can’t hold all of the parish’s people now, but it is filled with art offerings with names of parishioners now departed. It would be DISGUSTING to tear that down when the people who contributed it meant for certain people to be memorialized within its walls as a tribute for parishioners of the future to share in too. No doubt this church in France had that too, seeing its of the same age… that was common at that time. So vile to do that to people- even if they are dead. Its total disrespect for those who paved our way. You are not supposed to remove the ancient landmarks according to GOD’S WORD!

** Surely God will not look kindly upon this action.
**

It frankly bothers me that people are so quick to dismiss any sort of disorderly conduct as ‘in the wrong’. History… especially that of the Catholic Church… should show you that’s not always the case. BTW, I’m not condoning anti-government behavior. This priest wasn’t brandishing a gun or anything. He was quite peaceful about standing up for what he knows to be right. If only most catholics were as brave and believing the THE FAITH.
Click to expand...
THIS.
 
AnneElizabeth said:
I dislike the use of the word "wrong’ here… I actually DON’T believe what he did was wrong in the idea that the church is SACRED… something most of the world does not believe in anymore and most of the world scoffs at. The priest was right in sticking up for what he knows is right. It might be legally wrong, but since when do Catholics believe exactly what the law says is right , is right with God? If that were the case we’d all be hailing abortion as heavenly.

Someone was in the wrong here, but it wasn’t the priest. I don’t think it was the law officials either.

Its wrong to remove a landmark… that’s what it says in HOLY Scripture.

A church is a place where people congregated in the Holy Name of The Lord for years. Dwindling congregants or even age do not diminish its sacredness… Funny how here in the states if an Ancient Indian burial ground is threatened, laws are passed to protect it because it is held sacred to a few, but if its a Catholic church that hardly anyone goes to anymore or needs lots of funds to upkeep, let’s ditch it like its nothing. I find this scandalous, irreverent, disrespectful to the highest high.
Code: 
 The reasons because the number of souls that prayed there, that shared memories there, that contributed financially to its maintenance and beauty.    They did this so that we all could have a piece of beauty to worship at.. something dedicated to God that was done to glorify God.  Its wasn't cheaply slapped together.
We have a very old parish here. It can’t hold all of the parish’s people now, but it is filled with art offerings with names of parishioners now departed. It would be DISGUSTING to tear that down when the people who contributed it meant for certain people to be memorialized within its walls as a tribute for parishioners of the future to share in too. No doubt this church in France had that too, seeing its of the same age… that was common at that time. So vile to do that to people- even if they are dead. Its total disrespect for those who paved our way. You are not supposed to remove the ancient landmarks according to GOD’S WORD!

** Surely God will not look kindly upon this action.
**

It frankly bothers me that people are so quick to dismiss any sort of disorderly conduct as ‘in the wrong’. History… especially that of the Catholic Church… should show you that’s not always the case. BTW, I’m not condoning anti-government behavior. This priest wasn’t brandishing a gun or anything. He was quite peaceful about standing up for what he knows to be right. If only most catholics were as brave and believing the THE FAITH.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I understand how attached people can be to the church they have attended since childhood.

But first off, it’s only about 100 years old - that is a very modern church by European standards and would be unlikely to qualify for protection as a historical landmark.

For us Catholics, “sites” are only sacred because of what happens there, i.e. the Mass. It is perfectly valid for a bishop to decree that it is no longer reasonable to maintain a church, that that church then ceases to be consecrated and that it can be sold. As such, this action is permissible in God’s eyes, else it would not be in Canon Law (1222).

So, while I see that the priest could have been trying to protect a place that was associated with many fond memories for his parishioners, he was trespassing and, in my opinion, his reason perhaps wasn’t a very strong one since the sale and demolition of the church was perfectly legitimate and the church is falling apart.

You have to remember that the demolition of any building might be heart-rending to someone, be it an apartment block or library or city hall or church.
 
They did this to Catholics and to a Catholic church.

Would you imagine they do this to a mosque? NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top