Parish in transition - losing members

[pnewton]

What I am afraid of is that I will sit there and be painfully aware of the losses.

Perhaps in the future there will also be some gains that you can focus on instead. Transition is not a stable state. There is always hope that things will be better than they were before after the priest and the parish become acclimitized to each other.

 

[Dicerning]

Here it is Paco, from Paschale Solemnitatis:

My pastor sang it once. The only problem was that he sang a paraphrase of it to the beat of a drum. It was an OCP composition. I called the Archdiocese of Portland and even their liturgy office told me that this was wrong. I dread this year’s Vigil for that reason.

I am in formation and God willing when I get ordained in 2013 I will have the opportunity to sing it some day. I have been practicing this song for quite some time. It is quite nice if done correctly.

 

[otjm]

Actually, I’m pretty sure that it was the Deacon who sang it, but I remember playing a musical piece at once called the Exsultet, but I’m not sure where - before, after, between proclamations. We hadn’t practiced it this year, so probably weren’t going to play/sing during the Exsultet anyway.

The Exultet comes at the beginning of the Mass on Holy Saturday night. If they are going to do the vigil Mass, it would be highly surprising that they did not sing it. However, it does not need to be accompanied by musicisians, as it is in chant form for one voice.

Which is not to say there have not been variations on that theme; jsut that it is chanted by the cantor if not the priest or deacon.

Given that my pastor is in his late 70’s, and needs his voice through the Mass, and the deacon can’t sing for squat, it will be sung by the cantor (who has a trained voice). As long as it is and as beautifyul as it is, I would hate to see someone stand on form and slaughter it musically. Just my $.02 worth.

 

[gloria97000]

There is nothing inherently wrong in changing parishes. Sometimes I would change because of sacramental abuses - sometimes I would change just because I need an environment where I can best bring my children. Anything from the priest’s inclinations toward the definition of “reverence” to the particular church architecture can influence my decision. This does not mean that I am running to a parish just because it suits my fancy and/or my vices. It means I am running to a parish where I can pay attention to the worship and be involved in the sacramental life. At the same time, if you are thinking of leaving a parish that you have loved, it may be worthwhile and respectful to express your concerns before making a decision.

 

[DiZent]

There is nothing inherently wrong in changing parishes. Sometimes I would change because of sacramental abuses - sometimes I would change just because I need an environment where I can best bring my children. Anything from the priest’s inclinations toward the definition of “reverence” to the particular church architecture can influence my decision. This does not mean that I am running to a parish just because it suits my fancy and/or my vices. It means I am running to a parish where I can pay attention to the worship and be involved in the sacramental life. At the same time, if you are thinking of leaving a parish that you have loved, it may be worthwhile and respectful to express your concerns before making a decision.

You have captured my dilemma. Right now, this problem is big in my perception and it is interfering with my worship and involvement in a parish that I have loved. It may be that “this too shall pass”. I have written a letter to the Pastor expressing my concern. Visiting neighboring parishes is something I often did over the summer months anyway.

 

[puzzleannie]

another thing that affects perception about change in the parish is HOW it is done. Is there explanation of the reasons, is it done gently and pastorally, and gradually. Does he meet with those most affected and at least ask for some (name removed by moderator)ut. If staff members leave does he tell the parishioners and so forth. DD’s parish used to have a lovely handbell ensemble we loved and looked forward to going to that Mass, but the new pastor simply hates handbells so they moved to another parish where their ministry is welcomed, but many still stay active in CCD etc. in the old parish in other ways. he had strong views on liturgical music in general, but he met with all the choirs and music groups and he also waited a year before making any big changes, including a new music director, as the old one retired, who shared his vision. the transitions were much less painful in this parish.

 

[Chatter163]

This is too bad,Is this the pastors personal view on the matter? In any case, it seems to me he might be letting his personal ideas get in the way of his job.

He is the pastor. He has been called upon to make prudential judgments concerning the parish, particularly about the liturgy. So long as he does not violate canon law or any specific guidelines, it is his function to make such decisions.

 

[benedictgal]

He is the pastor. He has been called upon to make prudential judgments concerning the parish, particularly about the liturgy. So long as he does not violate canon law or any specific guidelines, it is his function to make such decisions.

In fact, from what the OP reported, things had reached the point where the auxiliary bishop had to intervene. What the pastor is trying to do, as I read the post, is to right the ship. Inasmuch as there may have been some collateral damage as a result of these actions, he is trying to act in the best interests of the parish. However, the handbell issue needs to be resolved. There is nothing in the documents that prohibits the handbells, Lent, notwithstanding. The only legitimate concern that I can see is if the instruments have somehow managed to overpower the singing of the choir and the faithful.

 

[gmcbroom]

Forgive me if I’m wrong. But, while the priest is there for the people to preach the good news. He is also the one that has to keep the faith from turning into a rock concert. Perhaps I’m just being uncharitable, and if so I apologize. But, I go to church to worship God and hear the good news not dwell on the musical score. Its ironic. That the church in which I was raised a Disciples of Christ church, had a choir, pipe organ and that was it. No guitars drums etc. Yet, that service when done was very spiritual and up lifting. I broke with that church over a differing of opinion and seeing the minister behave badly when I was a teen. The crazy thing is every church I went to after that I went seeking a similar service from liturgy to music. Now after many years I am finally coming to the catholic faith and I love it. However, it took quite a few church visits before I found the church for me. It just happens to be Maronite. Now note. I read the rules here so this post will be the only time i invoke the word Maronite here so I’m not banned. I’m just saying that the church I am joining doesn’t just have drums or guitars either. So in a strange way I’m going back to what I liked as a kid. Thus, I can understand and even sympathize with those affected by the sudden changes. If anything the only way it could have been improved for the OP here was to have the changes come gradually. But, keep in mind the priest probably felt that a sudden change would be best. To get it over with quicker. So if your like that church I recommend you stay for a time and even discuss the changes with the priest. Just bare in mind it’s ultimately his choice. The sad fact is that the church that I went to as a kid is still in existence, but now they also use guitars and drums. The pipe organ is still used too but the rock concert is now in residence there. That’s an example of what happens when the congregation has more control over the minister and the affiars of the church.

 

[gloria97000]

I am so sorry to hear of your dilemma. It is, of course, only a decision that can be made between you and God -and any family members if they are involved - what is best to do. My experience has been that when I sense a little something is a little wrong it usually means a lot of things are really wrong. But certainly no one can discern this for you, and we certainly have good and holy friends who are quite happy at parishes where we were appalled. I will pray tonight for your best decision to be made.

 

[Chatter163]

In fact, from what the OP reported, things had reached the point where the auxiliary bishop had to intervene. What the pastor is trying to do, as I read the post, is to right the ship. Inasmuch as there may have been some collateral damage as a result of these actions, he is trying to act in the best interests of the parish. However, the handbell issue needs to be resolved. There is nothing in the documents that prohibits the handbells, Lent, notwithstanding. The only legitimate concern that I can see is if the instruments have somehow managed to overpower the singing of the choir and the faithful.

This post confuses me. The auxiliary bishop intervened before the new pastor arrived.

As for the handbells, if the pastor feels that they are not appropriate, that is his call to make. He did not claim that they are forbidden by the Church, but he is within his rights to not have them at his parish.

 

[Paul1961]

“he is within his rights to not have them at his parish.”

This is mentality that is a problem for me.

It is not “his” parish. It is our parish. The community of people. He is the visitor. Like most parishioners, she has been there for decades. He is the temporary visitor to their community.

A heavy hand will drive many away. Here is the Baltimore area, we are lucky to have many churches to choose from. Within a 15 minute travel time, I could probably reach well over 15 parishes. He will be preaching to empty pews. Some will join another parish and become active participants. Others may not reconnect with another parish, and turn into yet another family that only visits a church at Christmas and Easter.

If he will not listen, perhaps a delegation could call the Archdiocese and explain their concerns to Archbishop O’Brien.

 

[Guitar]

He is the pastor. He has been called upon to make prudential judgments concerning the parish, particularly about the liturgy. So long as he does not violate canon law or any specific guidelines, it is his function to make such decisions.

I respectfully disagree that this pastor is within his rights to decide that handbells are not permitted when, as BG points out there is nothing in the documents that prohibit them, or that he is within his rights to be more “Catholic” than the Vatican when it comes to womens’ dress (except that his position on that issue isn’t “Catholic” at all).

It would be shame to see a new pastor with generally the right aproach squandering respect for his authority by imposing his opinion in matters that are demonstrably just that.

In my view, a pastor intent on fundamental change would be wise to stick to matters that can be backed up by the governing documents of the church, As we all know, there are plenty of people who, having worked out that change X is only Father’s personal opinion, will then proceed to treat all Father’s changes as Father’s personal opinion and therefore to be disregarded at will. This is not right of course but it makes the task of reform a bit harder and a bit slower, so why hand your opposers that ammunition if you don’t have to?

Wise parents learn to pick their battles so as not to squander their authority. Pastors should too.

 

[Bluegoat]

He is the pastor. He has been called upon to make prudential judgments concerning the parish, particularly about the liturgy. So long as he does not violate canon law or any specific guidelines, it is his function to make such decisions.

Which is why I said might. But leaders always need to be careful about letting what they would personally prefer become something that is treated as a requirement. It is something that can easily happen, even with good intentions.

 

[DiZent]

“he is within his rights to not have them at his parish.”

This is mentality that is a problem for me.

It is not “his” parish. It is our parish. The community of people. He is the visitor. Like most parishioners, she has been there for decades. He is the temporary visitor to their community.

A heavy hand will drive many away. Here is the Baltimore area, we are lucky to have many churches to choose from. Within a 15 minute travel time, I could probably reach well over 15 parishes. He will be preaching to empty pews. Some will join another parish and become active participants. Others may not reconnect with another parish, and turn into yet another family that only visits a church at Christmas and Easter.

If he will not listen, perhaps a delegation could call the Archdiocese and explain their concerns to Archbishop O’Brien.

Exactly. And one of those within 15 minutes has a handbell choir. Geographically, I live an equal distance between two parishes. I’d say 1/3 of my parish has left in the past 3 years, many to a nearby parish described as “extremely well run”. Other long-time members left for protestant churches. The bishop intervened to “stop the bleeding”. I also have to consider my daughter’s connection with the faith which is tied to this parish - youngest grandchild will be baptized next Sunday, and grandson makes his First Communion in May.

 

[Chatter163]

I respectfully disagree that this pastor is within his rights to decide that handbells are not permitted when, as BG points out there is nothing in the documents that prohibit them, or that he is within his rights to be more “Catholic” than the Vatican when it comes to womens’ dress (except that his position on that issue isn’t “Catholic” at all).

It would be shame to see a new pastor with generally the right aproach squandering respect for his authority by imposing his opinion in matters that are demonstrably just that.

In my view, a pastor intent on fundamental change would be wise to stick to matters that can be backed up by the governing documents of the church, As we all know, there are plenty of people who, having worked out that change X is only Father’s personal opinion, will then proceed to treat all Father’s changes as Father’s personal opinion and therefore to be disregarded at will. This is not right of course but it makes the task of reform a bit harder and a bit slower, so why hand your opposers that ammunition if you don’t have to?

Wise parents learn to pick their battles so as not to squander their authority. Pastors should too.

But you see, after stating that you do not believe that the pastor has the right to prohibit the hand bells, you offer nothing to support that claim. You merely make the point that the pastor should be more prudential in his judgments, which means nothing in terms of his prerogative to do so.

Don’t get me wrong; I completely agree that his decision was unfortunate and possibloy even ill-advised. I would personally favor at least an occasional use of the handbells. However, the point at issue here is whether or not he is entitled to make this change. And, as has been pointed out here, the documents do not make any reference to such things as the use of handbells for musical accompaniment. That is precisely why he is able to make such a change. Because he is the pastor, it is his function to make decisions about things that are not regulated by Church documents. If it were something that is contained within Church documents, then there would be no prudential decision to make. But there is not and it is not. It is no different than saying that the last pastor preferred a certain style of vestments, so the new pastor must wear the same. Each pastor gets to make his own decisions.

Again, I believe that the decision is unfortunate, and hopefully someone will respectfully explain to him that many people appreciate the handbells, and request that he consider using them at least once in a while. However, in the absence of any Church regulation, and because the pastor has control over the liturgy in his parish, parishioners must obey. Pastors have made both good and bad decisions for centuries, so this is nothing new. I disagree with some of my pastor’s decisions, but that counts for nothing. Parishioners must accept such decisions with a spirit of obedience–something that is not very popular in this day and age, but is still quite necessary.

 

[Paul1961]

Is the Bishop aware that this new pastor has not “stopped the bleeding”, but instead seems bent on inflicting more wounds on the parish body.

“parishioners must obey.”

No, they won’t. They walk out the door. He can preach to empty seats and empty collection baskets.

 

[pro_multis]

However, in the absence of any Church regulation, and because the pastor has control over the liturgy in his parish, parishioners must obey. Pastors have made both good and bad decisions for centuries, so this is nothing new. I disagree with some of my pastor’s decisions, but that counts for nothing. Parishioners must accept such decisions with a spirit of obedience–something that is not very popular in this day and age, but is still quite necessary.

This is not the case in ordinary form parishes. Ordinary form priests have taken calculated steps to marginalize their role within their churches over the past several decades. For them to try to all of the sudden wrestle control back from the various lay ministries is a no-go. Parishoners do not have to accept such decisions with a spirit of obedience. They have myriad options at their disposal to restore the lay ministries to their appropriate standings,

 

[Chatter163]

This is not the case in ordinary form parishes. Ordinary form priests have taken calculated steps to marginalize their role within their churches over the past several decades. For them to try to all of the sudden wrestle control back from the various lay ministries is a no-go. Parishoners do not have to accept such decisions with a spirit of obedience. They have myriad options at their disposal to restore the lay ministries to their appropriate standings,

There are not separate rules for OF and EF parishes in this area. Please show us where the Church has changed its teachings regarding obedience to one’s pastor. Be sure to include references to Church documents that discuss the “myriad options” to which one may have recourse to ring hand bells during Mass. And while you are at it, be sure to read Ecclesiae de Mysterio, which is the 1997 Vatican clarification **On certain questions regarding the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the Sacred ministry of the priest. **This instruction states, among other things, that:

"The Code, having referred to the rights and duties of all the faithful,(46) in the subsequent title devoted to the rights and duties of the lay faithful, treats not only of those which are theirs in virtue of their secular condition,(47) but also of those tasks and functions which are not exclusively theirs. Some of these latter refer to any member of the faithful, whether ordained or not,(48) while others are considered along the lines of collaboration with the sacred ministry of cleric.(49) With regard to these last mentioned areas or functions, the non-ordained faithful do not enjoy a right to such tasks and functions. Rather, they are 'capable of being admitted by the sacred Pastors … to those functions which, in accordance with the provisions of law, they can discharge’ "

The same document cautions against the excessive use of the word ministry, and delineates their use to the ordained ministry and a few other very limited uses, such as that of EMHC, which, the document reminds us, is also a deputation by the priests. There is no such “right” otherwise, and certainly not where choir bellringers are concerned.

 

[benedictgal]

This post confuses me. The auxiliary bishop intervened before the new pastor arrived.

As for the handbells, if the pastor feels that they are not appropriate, that is his call to make. He did not claim that they are forbidden by the Church, but he is within his rights to not have them at his parish.

This is from the OP:

After several years of less than stellar leadership and a brief intervention by the auxiliary Bishop, we got a new pastor in August.

Thus, things must have been really bad for the auxiliary bishop to have intervened before the new pastor arrived.