New priest conundrum

[OraLabora]

The context of my post was offering a reason why the OP’s priest might have banned communion on the tongue. He had not given us any information about that and was asking if he should leave the parish over it. I said in another post about my anecdote that I didn’t know if the priest was right or wrong in what he did, I was just explaining why he did it. The OP did say that one of the issues in his parish was with some traditionalists and it’s just a fact that some of them are a problem. Not all of course.

How does the Church deal with the problem of authors of discord within a parish? It’s a hard call for a Parish priest in the heat of a situation. We all know that there are some groups of traditionalists that want to outlaw communion in the hand altogether as a sacrilege along with lots of other VII reforms (as with the group that came to my parents parish). How are priests to address those hostile sorts? Jesus spoke of strict ‘letter of the law’ types as bringing death, not life.

I wonder if the law permitting or rather requiring that communion on the tongue be allowed to all who request it wasn’t intended primarily for the benefit of people from a parish or location where such is the normative practice, who happen to visit a parish or location where communion in the hand is the norm, so that they not be made to feel uncomfortable.

I suspect the law did not foresee people using COTT as a way to push an agenda in a parish. My guess is that if the priest were faced with the odd person in the communion line requesting COTT, he would have no issues with it. But if a large group came up for communion en bloc requiring COTT, he could perhaps have an problem with people using the Eucharist to promote their agenda, and rightly so. Doing so would be far more irreverent towards Our Lord than receiving in the hand. The Eucharist is a supreme gift to us and should never be used to push an agenda. Using it to push an agenda is in fact scandalous.

We have no idea if this is what has been going on here, whether the priest’s method of dealing with it is appropriate, or whether or not he has his bishop’s approval. It may be that the observance of the letter of the law is in fact allowing a scandal to happen, and the spirit of the law may require that to preserve the Eucharist from the irreverence and scandal of a few promoting an agenda, a temporary restriction is necessary.

Basically, I’m giving the priest the benefit of the doubt here. He may of course be totally off track but we simply don’t know his motives other than he appears to have some issues with traditionalists in the parish. Whether it is just a personal animosity or people causing scandal to promote an agenda, we have too little information and only one side of the story.

 

[Corki]

I wonder if the law permitting or rather requiring that communion on the tongue be allowed to all who request it wasn’t intended primarily for the benefit of people from a parish or location where such is the normative practice, who happen to visit a parish or location where communion in the hand is the norm, so that they not be made to feel uncomfortable.

I suspect the law did not foresee people using COTT as a way to push an agenda in a parish. My guess is that if the priest were faced with the odd person in the communion line requesting COTT, he would have no issues with it. But if a large group came up for communion en bloc requiring COTT, he could perhaps have an problem with people using the Eucharist to promote their agenda, and rightly so. Doing so would be far more irreverent towards Our Lord than receiving in the hand. The Eucharist is a supreme gift to us and should never be used to push an agenda. Using it to push an agenda is in fact scandalous.

We have no idea if this is what has been going on here, whether the priest’s method of dealing with it is appropriate, or whether or not he has his bishop’s approval. It may be that the observance of the letter of the law is in fact allowing a scandal to happen, and the spirit of the law may require that to preserve the Eucharist from the irreverence and scandal of a few promoting an agenda, a temporary restriction is necessary.

Basically, I’m giving the priest the benefit of the doubt here. He may of course be totally off track but we simply don’t know his motives other than he appears to have some issues with traditionalists in the parish. Whether it is just a personal animosity or people causing scandal to promote an agenda, we have too little information and only one side of the story.

I am having trouble seeing how a group of people who all receive on the tongue constitutes pushing an agenda. In our parish, the more traditionally minded tend to sit in the same general area of the Church on Sundays. In part, this is because they say a Rosary together before Mass and also they are larger families. They also gravitate to each other since they are not likely to be engaging in boisterous talking before or after Mass and they are the ones who leave immediately after the priest in order to prepare the coffee and donuts to serve after Mass. On any given Sunday, the majority of two or three pews would be receiving on the tongue. Should the pastor be able to dictate that they not sit together or that only a few of them come up for Communion on any given Sunday?

There seems to be some paranoia here that receiving on the tongue is part of some conspiracy or agenda.

And while we don’t have both sides of the story, we do know that the pastor made a demand he is not allowed to make. Whatever his motivation is, he was wrong to do that and it is not surprising that the parishioners are confused or offended. If he did so without explanation, that’s a bigger problem but making that demand at all is going beyond his authority.

 

[EasterJoy]

The context of my post was offering a reason why the OP’s priest might have banned communion on the tongue. He had not given us any information about that and was asking if he should leave the parish over it. I said in another post about my anecdote that I didn’t know if the priest was right or wrong in what he did, I was just explaining why he did it. The OP did say that one of the issues in his parish was with some traditionalists and it’s just a fact that some of them are a problem. Not all of course.

How does the Church deal with the problem of authors of discord within a parish? It’s a hard call for a Parish priest in the heat of a situation. We all know that there are some groups of traditionalists that want to outlaw communion in the hand altogether as a sacrilege along with lots of other VII reforms (as with the group that came to my parents parish). How are priests to address those hostile sorts? Jesus spoke of strict ‘letter of the law’ types as bringing death, not life.

The pastor doesn’t have the authority to refuse to distribute Holy Communion on the tongue. He can ask, he can announce, but when push comes to shove he cannot deny Holy Communion to a communicant who elects to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.

The police have to deal with “authors of discord” on a regular basis. They still have to give Miranda warnings and stay within all the other boundaries placed on authority for the sake of the rights of those they serve.

The priest dealing with those who want to outlaw communion in the hand can point out that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament stated very plainly in Redemptionis Sacramentum that “if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her.” It’s kind of like dealing with people who call the police over something they do not like that is not in violation of the law.

 

[revert_jen]

The context of my post was offering a reason why the OP’s priest might have banned communion on the tongue. He had not given us any information about that and was asking if he should leave the parish over it. I said in another post about my anecdote that I didn’t know if the priest was right or wrong in what he did, I was just explaining why he did it. The OP did say that one of the issues in his parish was with some traditionalists and it’s just a fact that some of them are a problem. Not all of course.

Actually, no. The OP did not say that there was a problem in his parish with traditionalists. In fact, here, the OP stated specifically that there was NOT such a problem. The OP said that the new pastor, who wouldn’t have had time to know at a personal level whether there was such a problem or not, made an announcement at his first Mass at the parish, that COTT would not be allowed. The only thing that the OP mentioned that is even within sight of what you said above is here: that the new pastor made “Other troublesome comments about how people are too hung up on tradition etc.” Since I have actually heard people say something like “they’re too hung up on tradition” about people who wanted to follow their bishop’s specific direction against liturgical dance, the fact that people say it doesn’t make it so.

How does the Church deal with the problem of authors of discord within a parish?

Well, they don’t start by breaking Canon Law. The don’t deal with perceived discord by refusing a right to all of the faithful. And there is no evidence that there is any discord at all in the OP’s parish, so it really doesn’t arise.

We all know that there are some groups of traditionalists that want to outlaw communion in the hand altogether as a sacrilege along with lots of other VII reforms (as with the group that came to my parents parish).

Well, I’m not sure that I know that. What I know is:

• Most people who don’t agree with Vatican II are either in such a small minority that they can’t do much harm, or attend a parish of their own (e.g. SSPX).
• Communion in the hand, as I believe has already been mentioned in this thread, is not a Vatican II reform. It was not mentioned in the documents for Vatican II. It wasn’t allowed until many years later (like 10? 15?). (I don’t remember exactly what year, because I was too young, but Vatican II was finished before I was born.)
• Many of the practices that are referred to as “Vatican II reforms” are not things that were mandated by the documents of Vatican II, but were newly allowed. Not wanting to take advantage of something that is now allowed is not the same as being a subversive element.

What I don’t know is what happened at your parents’ parish. You probably don’t know exactly what happened at your parents’ parish. It’s entirely possible that your parents don’t even know exactly what happened at their parish. Here is what you said:

There may be underlying issues with radical traditionalists in the Parish. A few years ago in my parents parish the Priest asked (not mandated) for people to receive in the hand because of a group of hostile parishioners who were trying to force through quiet aggression… pre VII practices. They (the group) left the parish after that. It was a problem that was known about at diocesan level and the measure was an attempt to diffuse the abuse of the communion line by a hostile group.

I let it go before because I thought it was just a summary. But looking at this from another angle (and I’m not saying it is the right angle, just that it is a possible angle), given that:

• you don’t specify what the " …pre VII practices" were
• you incorrectly think that COTT is part of Vatican II
• it wasn’t your parish
• even if it had been your parish, most of this can’t have been happening in the open, so
• unless you were working at the diocesan office or were in some official position at the parish, you are extremely unlikely to know of your own knowledge that the diocese was involved and even so, the fact that the diocese is involved isn’t the same as saying that the Bishop is involved
• presenting oneself for COTT can in no way be referred to as “abusing the communion line”

Given all of that, it could have been like this:
There were somewhat traditional Catholic souls who were hoping that they could influence a parish to do things that are allowed, and even encouraged by Vatican II and the GIRM, like saying the ordinaries in Latin, using chant, and using the universally allowed practice of COTT. None of these things are aggressive, contrary to Vatican II, or liturgically incorrect. These people hoped to find a parish where they could feel more at home, and to make sure that they didn’t, they were singled out, and made to feel unwelcome, and they gave up and went on in their search.

I don’t say that this is what happened. But before I acccept the premise that there are groups of hostile traditionalists, trying to force people to engage in pre VII practices by quiet aggression, I’m going to need to see some evidence of it. Even with that evidence, acting contrary to canon law would never be the correct way to proceed, and trying to make them feel uncomfortable in God’s house by refusing to let them receive Him in an allowed way would not be the answer, even if it were not contrary to canon law.

I was trying to see both sides here, but this is going too far.

–Jen

 

[OraLabora]

Actually, no. The OP did not say that there was a problem in his parish with traditionalists. In fact, here, the OP stated specifically that there was NOT such a problem.

In post 71 the OP said:

Other troublesome comments about how people are too hung up on tradition etc.

This would suggest to me that there was a problem with traditionalists in the parish, or some sort of conflict between traditionalists and the priest or the priest senses that there is one.

But we simply have too little information to know to what degree the problem was, and whether the bishop is involved or not.

 

[Vico]

I wonder if the law permitting or rather requiring that communion on the tongue be allowed to all who request it wasn’t intended primarily for the benefit of people from a parish or location where such is the normative practice, who happen to visit a parish or location where communion in the hand is the norm, so that they not be made to feel uncomfortable.

I suspect the law did not foresee people using COTT as a way to push an agenda in a parish. My guess is that if the priest were faced with the odd person in the communion line requesting COTT, he would have no issues with it. But if a large group came up for communion en bloc requiring COTT, he could perhaps have an problem with people using the Eucharist to promote their agenda, and rightly so. Doing so would be far more irreverent towards Our Lord than receiving in the hand. The Eucharist is a supreme gift to us and should never be used to push an agenda. Using it to push an agenda is in fact scandalous.

We have no idea if this is what has been going on here, whether the priest’s method of dealing with it is appropriate, or whether or not he has his bishop’s approval. It may be that the observance of the letter of the law is in fact allowing a scandal to happen, and the spirit of the law may require that to preserve the Eucharist from the irreverence and scandal of a few promoting an agenda, a temporary restriction is necessary.

Basically, I’m giving the priest the benefit of the doubt here. He may of course be totally off track but we simply don’t know his motives other than he appears to have some issues with traditionalists in the parish. Whether it is just a personal animosity or people causing scandal to promote an agenda, we have too little information and only one side of the story.

There is some basis for a priest or use a different time to administer the sacrament of Eucharist to avoid scandal. The priest could also make an announcement. Due percaution is specifically mentioned in canon law with regard to eastern Catholic infants that receive the Eucharist from a Latin Catholic priest, also in Latin canon law why it could scandalize.

Eastern CCEO Can. 710 With respect to the participation of infants in the Divine Eucharist after baptism and chrismation with holy myron, the prescriptions of the liturgical books of each Church sui iuris are to be observed with the suitable due precautions.
Latin CICCan. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 913 §1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion. §2. The Most Holy Eucharist, however, can be administered to children in danger of death if they can distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food and receive communion reverently.

Can. 914 It is primarily the duty of parents and those who take the place of parents, as well as the duty of pastors, to take care that children who have reached the use of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession, are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible. It is for the pastor to exercise vigilance so that children who have not attained the use of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently disposed do not approach holy communion.

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Therefore scandal can be given, if the Latin faithful mistakenly think that these eastern children receive when it is not lawful.

 

[EasterJoy]

In post 71 the OP said:

This would suggest to me that there was a problem with traditionalists in the parish, or some sort of conflict between traditionalists and the priest or the priest senses that there is one.

But we simply have too little information to know to what degree the problem was, and whether the bishop is involved or not.

The thing is that reception of Holy Communion on the tongue is a right of the faithful. The Vatican has been clear on that. They cannot be denied that because a pastor feels that too many people who elect to receive on the tongue are unmitigated pains in his neck, even if they absolutely are.

 

[Dulcinea2721]

In post 71 the OP said:

This would suggest to me that there was a problem with traditionalists in the parish, or some sort of conflict between traditionalists and the priest or the priest senses that there is one.

But we simply have too little information to know to what degree the problem was, and whether the bishop is involved or not.

Just to clarify, there is no problem with traditionalists at our parish.

This is the context…father is talking about parishioners who just had a baby and desired baptism for their newborn. Father was saying that having a conversation with them to find out their story, where they come from, how they came to our parish etc. Was more important than to attend baptism class. It is that sort of "tradition"that he was referring to. The tradition as in baptism class.

My immediate thought was…Can you just decide that baptism classes are not necessary? I have not looked into this subject to find the answer. Maybe it is perfectly fine for him to cut out those classes. It is the comment which struck me because it translated to me a sort of disregard for the rules of the church.

He is definitely a person who wants to do his own thing his own way. If it is in line with the church, I have no issue , but a few things so far have shown me that this line has been crossed.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Just to clarify, there is no problem with traditionalists at our parish.

This is the context…father is talking about parishioners who just had a baby and desired baptism for their newborn. Father was saying that having a conversation with them to find out their story, where they come from, how they came to our parish etc. Was more important than to attend baptism class. It is that sort of "tradition"that he was referring to. The tradition as in baptism class.

My immediate thought was…Can you just decide that baptism classes are not necessary? I have not looked into this subject to find the answer. Maybe it is perfectly fine for him to cut out those classes. It is the comment which struck me because it translated to me a sort of disregard for the rules of the church.

He is definitely a person who wants to do his own thing his own way. If it is in line with the church, I have no issue , but a few things so far have shown me that this line has been crossed.

The pastor is obligated to see to it that those involved in the baptism are prepared properly for it. This is often done via classes, but not necessarily so. No reason he cannot do so via individual interviews.

tee

 

[LongingSoul]

The thing is that reception of Holy Communion on the tongue is a right of the faithful. The Vatican has been clear on that. They cannot be denied that because a pastor feels that too many people who elect to receive on the tongue are unmitigated pains in his neck, even if they absolutely are.

There’s two aspects needed to answer to a problem that the OP brings up. There is to establish what the laws of the Church are and there is to develop a sense of what they mean in the scheme of Catholic faith and practice.

Dulcinea who I gather is quite new to the faith, is seriously asking about contacting the bishop or leaving the parish in the light of the Priests announcement and other things. In the last 24 hours I’ve had a private exchange with a lovely lady here who has stopped going to Mass because of Pope Francis and for some reason I’m devastated by that. When I woke this morning I said a quick rosary in bed for the restoration of her faith and it makes me teary to think of what she is going through.

It also takes me back to the 80’s when I was working in a huge multi story government building that one day out of the blue banned smoking in the building. There was a memo but this was in the days before everyone had a computer in their face 24 hours and loads of people missed it. It brought out this unusual gestapo mentality in some people. They started reporting people to a higher authority when they caught them smoking instead of just going and saying to them ‘do you realise that smoking is banned in this building now’. What is this glee with being like the gestapo reporting to the SS just to see another person humiliated or diminished by censure?

I really don’t think its good to encourage new people to become so hung up on monitoring the priest that they might leave the parish. Generally the Arch/Bishops in a diocese are really aware of what’s going on in parishes with priests, especially nowadays.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Correction:
If there is a serious risk of profanation, a priest may mandate reception on the tongue.
By my understanding, no priest has the authority to mandate reception in the hand.

tee

There is a woman in a different parish who takes the host in hand and then puts it in her coat/jacket and takes it home! I’ve brought this to the attention of an extraordinary eucharistic minister but she told me the priest knows and did nothing about it.

And sometimes I go to a latin rite mass celebrated by a friar (?)/priest and he ONLY will give communion kneeling and on the tongue, of course. But he does not believe in putting the host in the hand under any circumstance. I’d have to agree with this.

About 3 months ago a woman dropped the host in front of the priest and she didn’t know what to do; finally the priest picked it up and put it aside (in the cup). Too many things happen.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

FOR LONGING SOUL

You say:

In the last 24 hours I’ve had a private exchange with a lovely lady here who has stopped going to Mass because of Pope Francis and for some reason I’m devastated by that.

What could Pope Francis possibly have said??

God bless

P.S. I agree with your post but some priests are really getting out of hand. What to do about it? One of my friends spoke to a priest about something he does wrong for the Liturgy of the Eucharist (this is not my forte’ so I can’t remember what) and he told her that he’s the priest, not her.

 

[LongingSoul]

FOR LONGING SOUL

You say:

In the last 24 hours I’ve had a private exchange with a lovely lady here who has stopped going to Mass because of Pope Francis and for some reason I’m devastated by that.

What could Pope Francis possibly have said??

God bless

P.S. I agree with your post but some priests are really getting out of hand. What to do about it? One of my friends spoke to a priest about something he does wrong for the Liturgy of the Eucharist (this is not my forte’ so I can’t remember what) and he told her that he’s the priest, not her.

I don’t want to betray any confidences but many traditionalist Catholics found Laudato si, the straw that broke their camels back. I most dearly want to try and help people trust in Pope Francis even if he seems not to their liking. I know that Cardinal Pell has been quoted as having doubt about the encyclical but I feel sure that in time he will come around too. I love Cardinal Pell muchly, but I trust in the papacy more.

 

[ServusHumilis]

There is a woman in a different parish who takes the host in hand and then puts it in her coat/jacket and takes it home! I’ve brought this to the attention of an extraordinary eucharistic minister but she told me the priest knows and did nothing about it.

And sometimes I go to a latin rite mass celebrated by a friar (?)/priest and he ONLY will give communion kneeling and on the tongue, of course. But he does not believe in putting the host in the hand under any circumstance. I’d have to agree with this.

About 3 months ago a woman dropped the host in front of the priest and she didn’t know what to do; finally the priest picked it up and put it aside (in the cup). Too many things happen.

God bless

If I witnessed what you mentioned in the first paragraph I would go after the woman and at the very least see if she has permission to do that from the priest to bring it home for someone who is perhaps a shut in. I wouldn’t think any priest would allow someone to just put the Eucharist in their pocket rather than using a pyx, but then again I think many priests today don’t even believe in the real presence. Telling an Extraordinary Minister is useless; the priest needs to be told personally and every time until something is done about it. In all probability I would make a scene if necessary and forcibly take it from her and make sure she knows she isn’t welcome to keep doing it. This cannot be tolerated and it is up to the faithful to put a stop to it if no one else will. Who knows if she’s taking it to be desecrated in a “Black Mass,” or whatever.

What do you mean by “Latin Rite Mass?” Almost every Mass is a Latin Rite Mass. If you’re referring to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, what you describe is the only option for distribution of communion. In my opinion the reason the “Old Mass” was given wider permission to be offered was to show us how it’s supposed to be done (we’re so far-gone from where we were we don’t even know why we do what we do anymore), back from the days where what you described above would not as easily happen. In at least one parish I’ve attended in the Ordinary Form they have two people standing at either side of the sanctuary watching to make sure every host is consumed. Perhaps you can suggest this is something they start doing.

I’ve seen one instance where the host was dropped and the priest simply picked it up, put it in his mouth, and kept on going with Communion. Someone else I mentioned this to before said they’ve witnessed the same happen in their own parish.

 

[Rosebud77]

Yes we can travel to any parish but we do not officially join a parish our home parish is where we live. I live in a area with a vibrant busy parish and I feel lucky but sometimes I go to other parishes for mass.

I am in Ireland too and yet have no connections with or “loyalty” to the parish I live in… For many reasons which are better not aired here! I belong wherever I am. Never heard of “joining” a parish here either … we have far more freedom than you suggest here.

 

[Rosebud77]

Perhaps this has nothing to do with “germs” at all and the priest just does not like it.

I have seen where “flu season” is a reason given to quell any blow back by people who wish to receive on the tongue. It always amuses me because if COTT is done correctly, no saliva is touched. Meanwhile, the entire congregation does not wash their hands. As long as the EM is doing things correctly, there should be no issue.

Also, if “germs” are the real reason of such deep concern that Father wishes to cause spiritual turmoil, then this should logically present itself in other ways as well. Perhaps Father could announce that the Bathrooms will be closed until flu season is over. Or forbid his parishioners from going to the grocery store after mass to get things for breakfast. Or even just mandate that the bathrooms are cleaned more frequently… But alas, no, COTT seems to be the number one spreader of germs…

maybe the wrong word but your last para comes across as… silly! In the same vein, maybe it is that too many parishioners have bad breath…

 

[Rosebud77]

You are doubly blessed @biffoqueen!

again your experience in Ireland is totally different to mine.

 

[Dulcinea2721]

Dulcinea who I gather is quite new to the faith, is seriously asking about contacting the bishop or leaving the parish in the light of the Priests announcement and other things. .

Don’t know how you came up with this one but it is incorrect.

I am a cradle catholic. I have gone to church every Sunday (barring some university years), attended in many different countries in many different languages at many different parishes. I have been in this parish over 15 years. Married there, 4 baptisms there, 4 communions there. Have seen many priests come and go. I am not however, a liturgical scholar.

In my gigantic city, there are at least 5 parishes close to me where I can easily switch without scandal.

I feel it is my duty to safeguard my kids against false teachings. They are entering the confirmation stage.

Because I have been at church my entire life it really struck me when these things were happening and were said. It bothered me enough to come here and ask questions. The response I got from this forum gave me the impression that some things were egregious. This gave me concern.

If I feel that a priest is playing fast and loose with the rules of the CC, it gives me pause. I have choices leave/stay, report/not report, talk to the priest/not talk to the priest, be passive do nothing…I asked for opinions and am considering my choices.

 

[tee_eff_em]

[ASIDE]

Because I have been at church my entire life it really struck me when these things were happening and were said. It bothered me enough to come here and ask questions.

And that was a great thing to do. We are many of us quite parochial, and when something unfamiliar is observed, we should question it.

It is a refreshing change from some who come here sure they have witnessed a liturgical abuse (*They didn’t offer the cup! *; *They used white wine! *; *The readings were different! *; et cetera), when nothing of the kind has taken place.

:tiphat:
tee

 

[frangiuliano115]

I don’t want to betray any confidences but many traditionalist Catholics found Laudato si, the straw that broke their camels back. I most dearly want to try and help people trust in Pope Francis even if he seems not to their liking. I know that Cardinal Pell has been quoted as having doubt about the encyclical but I feel sure that in time he will come around too. I love Cardinal Pell muchly, but I trust in the papacy more.

Sorry. I didn’t intend for you to betray a confidence, just wondered what the POPE might have said to anger your friend.

The Laudato Si. I can understand why it might disturb some people. It kind of disturbs me too. I say “kind of” because there are other ideas more important going on all over our world that bother me more, but it does go to that idea of a one world order and maybe even a one world religion. It has to start somewhere and already has and maybe even the catholic church is getting onboard?

I’ve read some of the encyclical - it’s difficult to read and really understand the whole doc, but I ask if the church should even be involved in such matters. Isn’t our goal to save souls??

And I take this opportunity to repeat that EVERY document our church publishes is too difficult to understand easily and many remain confused. I’m on another forum and the misunderstandings of our docs is unbelievable (I do understand some from which I’ve had to teach).

I also know very traditional catholics that do not care for our Pope. I’m not one and this certainly would not be the reason for me to consider leaving the church.

“To whom shall we go?” Peter asked Jesus.

God bless you
Fran