MERGED: Priest Implies Support for Error During Mass

[Mrs_Sally]

Yes, you must contact the bishop if the deacon truly did mean to teach heresey and the pastor has not corrected him. But please be sure of these facts before you start calling or writing to the chancery or the Vatican! Speak to your priest in person. Ask him to explain the homily. Point out the issues of concern. Make sure you understand what the deacon said.

The next time the deacon preaches, listen carefully. Take notes even. Be sure you are hearing him correctly. If he continues in this way and after you speak to the priest, he continues to allow the deacon to preach, THEN you can go to the bishop. Document your complaint with dates of the deacons homilies and your conversations with the priest and your notes on the homilies. But please be very sure of your accusation and steps to have it corrected before you go to the bishop.

First of all, the deacon deserves a chance to explain or realize his error. Secondly, the bishop will likely not take your complaint seriously if you haven’t even tried to talk to your pastor about it.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Yes, you must contact the bishop if the deacon truly did mean to teach heresey and the pastor has not corrected him. But please be sure of these facts before you start calling or writing to the chancery or the Vatican! Speak to your priest in person. Ask him to explain the homily. Point out the issues of concern. Make sure you understand what the deacon said.

The next time the deacon preaches, listen carefully. Take notes even. Be sure you are hearing him correctly. If he continues in this way and after you speak to the priest, he continues to allow the deacon to preach, THEN you can go to the bishop. Document your complaint with dates of the deacons homilies and your conversations with the priest and your notes on the homilies. But please be very sure of your accusation and steps to have it corrected before you go to the bishop.

First of all, the deacon deserves a chance to explain or realize his error. Secondly, the bishop will likely not take your complaint seriously if you haven’t even tried to talk to your pastor about it.

Hi Mrs. Sally

yes, I understand what your saying. I pray I did mis-hear him, or he simply mis-spoke/wasn’t clear on what he REALLY meant to say. Now that I’m calmer I agree with you - I need to speak to him/them both privately, and find out the case. I’m grateful to God I realized I was too upset to bring it up immediately after Mass. I don’t think I would have given the poor man much chance to explain.

Thank-you to everyone who responded for the links and support. I will keep you posted as to what happens, though I may not make it to Mass again until next Saturday…

Rest assured, if that IS what he meant, and especially if more instances like this occur - I WILL do something about it. I can’t help but think of some poor person, in the pew, who doesn’t know any better, thinking to themselves “So let me get this straight…God wills us to sin? So it isn’t my fault? then why do I have to confess it? wait…what?? why do I even worry then if God has already determined where I will end up?? what’s the point?” I can’t let that happen, or if it has already happened, continue to happen.

Please pray for me, and my Parish.

Pax

John

 

[quiet52]

I would be upset too.
Please try to phone the deacon, and then the pastor, on Monday.

 

[Peter_Burke]

This probably is one of the few occasions where I would have been thankful the congregation didnt pay any attention to the homily.

 

[diggerdomer]

I think the argument is that these originally were abuses not permitted by the law, but because they had become widespread the Vatican finally gave in and permitted them formally. So, if we don’t want some other abuse X, we need to stamp X out where it occurs or the Vatican may wind up regularizing it too.

To what extent the claim is true historically, I’m not entirely certain, but I think that this is the claim.

You are free to think that things approved by the Vatican are abuses, or not. Up to you.

Personally, I’m not aware of any true abuses that the Vatican approves of.

 

[MarkThompson]

You are free to think that things approved by the Vatican are abuses, or not. Up to you.

Personally, I’m not aware of any true abuses that the Vatican approves of.

Please don’t take me out of context; I said what I thought the argument was that was responded to above; I didn’t say this was my belief.

Also, with all due respect, you’re completely missing the point of the claim. It’s this: using altar girls and receiving Communion in the hand used to be forbidden by the Vatican – in other words, an abuse, but people did it anyway. There’s no, “you’re free to think they were abuses” about it; they were abuses. Rome said so.

Over time, however, rather than stamp out these practices, Rome decided – for “pastoral reasons,” a change of heart, just to go with the flow, whatever – Rome agreed to formalize and permit them. (And once Rome allows something in the Mass, even begrudgingly or for bad reasons, it’s no longer an abuse … maybe that’s where we’re mixed up here?)

Anyway, the argument says, that’s the pattern we don’t want to follow: Rome forbids something, the rules are disregarded and it’s done widely as an abuse which Rome takes few steps to eradicate, eventually Rome gives in and just allows it.

 

[franklinf]

You are free to think that things approved by the Vatican are abuses, or not. Up to you.

Personally, I’m not aware of any true abuses that the Vatican approves of.

They **were **abuses that the Vatican approved. Local ordinaries and priests had been disobeying the Vatican in regards to CITH / girl altar servers and eventually the Vatican caved.

 

[michaeldaniels]

“by their fruits, you shall know them”…

No there isn’t a crisis in today’s NO Churches…Where are these rogue, unorthodox priest coming from??? Who the heck is ordaining them? These people shouldn’t even be admitted into Seminary…

 

[michaeldaniels]

You can’t tell some of these people anything…there is nothing more annoying that arguing a point with someone who doesn’t even know the facts…which is sadly the majority of Catholics today that support this abomination and many other abominations…most are out of ignorance, but a great deal of them are Anti-Catholic Catholics…Catholics only in name who despise The Church, disagree with it, and want it to change

They **were **abuses that the Vatican approved. Local ordinaries and priests had been disobeying the Vatican in regards to CITH / girl altar servers and eventually the Vatican caved.

 

[Ockham]

I think the argument is that these originally were abuses not permitted by the law, but because they had become widespread the Vatican finally gave in and permitted them formally. So, if we don’t want some other abuse X, we need to stamp X out where it occurs or the Vatican may wind up regularizing it too.

To what extent the claim is true historically, I’m not entirely certain, but I think that this is the claim.

That’s exactly my argument and it’s based on historical fact. However, facts are things digger conveniently ignores when it doesn’t suit his argument.

 

[ljubim]

That is exactly the proper course to take. Faithful Catholics should not be forced out of their parishes, although finding another one is better than staying home. If more parishioners raised objections to breaches in Church teaching we wouldn’t have things like altar girls and Communion in hand now.

I agree. If the liberals had the audacity to applaud, then the faithful should have had the audacity to boo. (Ok, might be a bit overboard…)

But the progressives have been pushing far harder than the faithful have been pushing back. That’s why we have so many problems. We need to fight for what we have before we lose even more.

There is always hope. For example, the more I speak to my priest the more I realize that he’s an orthodox man in an unorthodox, irreverent parish. Even more reason to pray for him, and all priests, because we don’t know who they are deep inside based on how they are acting/ what they allow.

 

[diggerdomer]

Please don’t take me out of context; I said what I thought the argument was that was responded to above; I didn’t say this was my belief.

Also, with all due respect, you’re completely missing the point of the claim. It’s this: using altar girls and receiving Communion in the hand used to be forbidden by the Vatican – in other words, an abuse, but people did it anyway. There’s no, “you’re free to think they were abuses” about it; they were abuses. Rome said so.

Over time, however, rather than stamp out these practices, Rome decided – for “pastoral reasons,” a change of heart, just to go with the flow, whatever – Rome agreed to formalize and permit them. (And once Rome allows something in the Mass, even begrudgingly or for bad reasons, it’s no longer an abuse … maybe that’s where we’re mixed up here?)

Anyway, the argument says, that’s the pattern we don’t want to follow: Rome forbids something, the rules are disregarded and it’s done widely as an abuse which Rome takes few steps to eradicate, eventually Rome gives in and just allows it.

slavery used to be approved by the Church also. Just because the Church approved or abrogated a certain practice at one time does not mean such approval cannot change…

Rome approves of female altar servers (though leaves it up to each Bishop to implement) and communion in the hand (given the approved GIRM for each region/conference) so there’s no abuse there. My point was that anyone thinking that female altar servers or communion in the hand are abuses in today’s Church are likely not paying attention to Church teaching.

 

[diggerdomer]

They **were **abuses that the Vatican approved. Local ordinaries and priests had been disobeying the Vatican in regards to CITH / girl altar servers and eventually the Vatican caved.

Again, if you think authoritative, Magisterial teaching of the Church is based on “caving” rather than fidelity to Christ and the Gospel, well, that’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it.

If Catholic teaching is based on “caving” then can you share where Catholics can find “true” teaching, if not with the Vatican/Rome?

 

[diggerdomer]

You can’t tell some of these people anything…there is nothing more annoying that arguing a point with someone who doesn’t even know the facts…which is sadly the majority of Catholics today that support this abomination and many other abominations…most are out of ignorance, but a great deal of them are Anti-Catholic Catholics…Catholics only in name who despise The Church, disagree with it, and want it to change

What specifically is the abomination you are referring to? Thanks.

 

[MarkThompson]

slavery used to be approved by the Church also. Just because the Church approved or abrogated a certain practice at one time does not mean such approval cannot change…

Rome approves of female altar servers (though leaves it up to each Bishop to implement) and communion in the hand (given the approved GIRM for each region/conference) so there’s no abuse there. My point was that anyone thinking that female altar servers or communion in the hand are abuses in today’s Church are likely not paying attention to Church teaching.

I haven’t reread every post in the thread, but I don’t think anyone was saying that. People said that it used to be an abuse, which is true. And people can discuss whether or not it is currently a good idea without having to claim that it is currently an abuse.

Again, if you think authoritative, Magisterial teaching of the Church is based on “caving” rather than fidelity to Christ and the Gospel, well, that’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it.

If Catholic teaching is based on “caving” then can you share where Catholics can find “true” teaching, if not with the Vatican/Rome?

Sorry, the current norms regarding how Communion is to be administered and who is permitted to be an altar server are not part of the “Magisterial teaching of the Church,” in the sense that adhering to them has anything to do with “fidelity to Christ and the Gospel,” any more than whether we are to kneel after the Agnus Dei, how many candles should be used for a ferial Mass, whether altars should be detached from the wall, or what readings are assigned to the 11th Sunday in Ordinary Time. There’s no “true teaching” about posture, candles, or readings; in fact there’s no “teaching” at all to be concerned about: there’s just the current norms and regulations.

Is it awkward to have a free-standing altar in your church? Then by all means, have it attached to the wall. Do people in your diocese traditionally stand after the Agnus Dei? Then, of course, your bishop can determine that standing is the normative posture. See what I mean? These aren’t issues over which you say, “Heretic! The One True Way is kneeling!” Likewise, if it’s a very elderly-heavy diocese and the bishop hears a lot of complaints from people with arthritis who find it too difficult to kneel for very long, you don’t say, “I believe he was moved by the Holy Spirit! If you want to think that he was persuaded by elderly arthritic people rather than by fidelity to Christ and the Gospel, well, you’re welcome to your opinion.” It’s just a non-sequitur, or a complete misunderstanding of how decisions are made in the Church concerning miscellaneous regulations.

 

[Ockham]

Again, if you think authoritative, Magisterial teaching of the Church is based on “caving” rather than fidelity to Christ and the Gospel, well, that’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it.

If Catholic teaching is based on “caving” then can you share where Catholics can find “true” teaching, if not with the Vatican/Rome?

Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:

1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?

Yes: 597

No: 1,233

Yes, but with reservations: 315

Invalid votes: 20

MEMORIALE DOMINI
Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship​

Issued on May 29, 1969.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

 

[Ockham]

1. There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers.[27]

Inaestimabile Donum
Instruction Concerning Worship Of The Eucharistic Mystery

James R. Cardinal Knox
Prefect Virgilio Noe Assistant Secretary

Prepared by the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship
Approved and Confirmed by His Holiness Pope John Paul II 17 April 1980

papalencyclicals.net/JP02/JP2inaest.htm

 

[canadiangoose]

That is exactly the proper course to take. Faithful Catholics should not be forced out of their parishes, although finding another one is better than staying home. If more parishioners raised objections to breaches in Church teaching we wouldn’t have things like altar girls and Communion in hand now.

HUH…CITH has been around since the VERY FIRST MASS. And in some Catholic Rites it is the norm not an indult. And as far as altar servers being girls…perhaps you should lecture the pope.

 

[canadiangoose]

Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:

1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?

Yes: 597

No: 1,233

Yes, but with reservations: 315

Invalid votes: 20

MEMORIALE DOMINI
Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship​

Issued on May 29, 1969.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

I receive COTT…but there is nothing inherently wrong with receiving in the hand. At leas according to Rome. You can post a thousand polls…but the church is not a democracy. It is authoritative…and if you don’t agree with some of what it teaches…that is your weakness. And I don’t mean that snidely. I have a hard time with some teachings…but that’s my problem. Women priests…probably not going to happen for good reason. Female altar servers…nothing wrong with that.

 

[michaeldaniels]

Women’s Ordination

What specifically is the abomination you are referring to? Thanks.