Pastor Style

[wasserfall]

Wait! It sounds like you just judged the previous pastor.

No. When I said I can’t judge the previous pastor I was speaking specifically in response to your question whether the previous pastor was saving souls.

I have no way of knowing whether the previous pastor was good for the souls of his parishioners, as I cannot see the state of the souls of those parishioners.

However, I can infer from what has been publicly said, that the previous pastor probably didn’t do much to warn the parishioners that their souls are in danger of eternal damnation, and I consider that to be a prudential error on the part of the previous pastor.

 

[wasserfall]

No. You just did.

You are conflating two different things.

To think that my approach to a given situation is better than another person’s approach to the same situation is not the same as thinking that I am a better person than the other.

As I said before, everyone thinks that their approach to a given situation is the best, otherwise they wouldn’t use that approach, so the fact that the current priests think that their approach to shepherding the souls in the parish is best says nothing whatsoever about whether or not they consider themselves better priests in general, or whether they look down on other priests.

There is no evidence that they are arrogant or disparage other priests.

 

[Laetus]

If it were me, I’d announce the decision in my first sermon at the parish, in which I would spend the whole sermon reading quotes from Popes, saints, and doctors of the Church about how service at the altar is reserved to men alone.

Perhaps you would choose to remove the girls from altar service in another way.

As I said before, neither one of us is the pastor of the parish, so our opinions aren’t so important.

You have never been trained in a leadership or even a managerial (not to mention pastoral) way have you? Have you ever had to act as a leader? Ever been the captain of a football team or been in the service? First, you would be wrong to suggest or even infer the Church prohibits or even discourages females from serving at the altar. If you did, I would find that to be intellectually dishonest (or ignorant) and a huge turn-off despite the fact I am strongly in favor in only males serving at the altar. You’d lose credibility with me on the spot.

Read carefully what I am about to type. If I was a pastor of a church I would very much prefer to simply tell everyone that in the next X days there will be a transition to a male-only group of servers for the various reasons. But I wouldn’t Thankfully I’ve been around long enough and had enough strong mentors to hammer enough wisdom into my head not to make that mistake you are suggesting. All you would do is offend people with your “sermon.”

First I would move slow. I would engage the people and get to know them while they got to know and hopefully trust me. I don’t know the particulars of this parish but I think I would simply start recruiting and training more and more boys to serve Mass and as a means to foster possible vocations. I would take on the scheduling of servers myself and slowly schedule more and more males to serve Mass. It could be done tactfully and with great love.

In time I would create a group for the male servers and quite possibly for female sacristans. As I have said before I would make a big deal out of both ministries and I would make sure both were trained and run right.

 

[Laetus]

If their Bishop is supporting the Priests then everybody else including the parishioners, you and I need to be disciplined and be quiet.

Catholics are called to obey their Bishops, are we not.

This is unproductive talk bordering on gossip, innuendo and slander.

We need to tame your tongues.

shhh

Stop judging others.

 

[wasserfall]

You have never been trained in a leadership or even a managerial (not to mention pastoral) way have you? Have you ever had to act as a leader? Ever been the captain of a football team or been in the service? First, you would be wrong to suggest or even infer the Church prohibits or even discourages females from serving at the altar. If you did, I would find that to be intellectually dishonest (or ignorant) and a huge turn-off despite the fact I am strongly in favor in only males serving at the altar. You’d lose credibility with me on the spot.

It is not difficult to fill a 10 minute sermon with nothing more than reading quotes from popes and saints condemning female service at the altar. That is not to dispute the fact that it is currently lamentably permitted in OF masses.

Read carefully what I am about to type.

As I already said, if you were pastor, you could choose to remove females from altar service in any way you wished. I don’t dispute that.

However, you aren’t the pastor in Platteville.

 

[Laetus]

It is not difficult to fill a 10 minute sermon with nothing more than reading quotes from popes and saints condemning female service at the altar. That is not to dispute the fact that it is currently lamentably permitted in OF masses.

As I already said, if you were pastor, you could choose to remove females from altar service in any way you wished. I don’t dispute that.

However, you aren’t the pastor in Platteville.

I didn’t think you had any training or experience in leadership…

If you inferred that the Church does not allow females to serve at the altar, I’d smile, start leaving my checkbook at home and begin treating the parish as a distributor of sacraments that I otherwise avoided. I’d just put my time, talents and treasure in neutral (or I would divert them) until you were one day replaced. Then again if you actually gave such a “sermon”, you’d probably be replaced in fairly short order anyway. Thanks be to God that’s you’re not the pastor of that parish.

 

[SusansChoice]

I don’t know the details as to this situation, but I read the Bishop’s letter, and then I read an open letter that Fr Faustino wrote to his parishoners at St.Mary’s. He certainly came across as a sympathetic figure to me

stmaryplatteville.org/wp/?p=1395

 

[wasserfall]

I didn’t think you had any training or experience in leadership…

If you inferred that the Church does not allow females to serve at the altar, I’d smile, start leaving my checkbook at home and begin treating the parish as a distributor of sacraments that I otherwise avoided. I’d just put my time, talents and treasure in neutral (or I would divert them) until you were one day replaced. Then again if you actually gave such a “sermon”, you’d probably be replaced in fairly short order anyway. Thanks be to God that’s you’re not the pastor of that parish.

Well hopefully you won’t have your heart broken when female service at the altar is once again banned worldwide.

 

[robertmidwest]

There is no evidence that they are arrogant

At least 40 percent of the parishoners sign a petition to get rid of the pastor. Their income has dropped thousands of dollars a month below what they need to run the parish.

How much more evidence do you need?

 

[YoungTradCath]

At least 40 percent of the parishoners sign a petition to get rid of the pastor. Their income has dropped thousands of dollars a month below what they need to run the parish.

How much more evidence do you need?

Frankly I think most people are a little too sensitive. Do you know how hard it is, for example, to run a decent sized Protestant church as a pastor? And I don’t mean money, or resources, or whatever. I mean, it is HARD to please everyone. People looooove love love love love to complain, but are short when it comes to sitting down and actually listening to the reasons X, Y, or Z are being done and not A, B, or C. This is why Protestant pastors are fired left and right. People are short on patience and high on selfishness.

It’s so easy to say, “Well, Father obviously didn’t care and he was a meanie and blah blah.” What more can Father do than say, “Well, I’ve thought about this for a while, I’ve seen examples in other parishes, and so we’re going to do ___?” That seems respectful and decent, doesn’t it?

When we collectively get rich and selfish as a country, and no group except maybe the Amish and Mormons are an exception, our deference to reasonable authority and our sense of understanding seem to be killed on the block rather quickly.

That’s really what it comes down to, I think. There is no problem with priests who want to do things the way they’ve been done since time immemorial. The problem is with the culture that we laity live in. We’re too used to being pampered and when some priest finally comes along and tries to set the record straight, well, oh boy, better look out…

 

[liturgyluver]

Well hopefully you won’t have your heart broken when female service at the altar is once again banned worldwide.

There are no such plans for a ban. The Vatican has already pronouned that it is perfectly permissible.

 

[robertmidwest]

We’re too used to being pampered and when some priest finally comes along and tries to set the record straight, well, oh boy, better look out…

See, here it is again with the idea that the new pastor has it “right” and the old pastor had it “wrong”. According to Bishop Morlino it is only a matter of style.

If Bishop Morlino is correct then this pastor is willing to sacrifice the parish to impose his will, or his “style”.

 

[robertmidwest]

there are no such plans for a ban. The vatican has already pronouned that it is perfectly permissible.

woo hoo

 

[robertmidwest]

We’re too used to being pampered and when some priest finally comes along and tries to set the record straight, well, oh boy, better look out…

Exactly who’s record is getting set straight? Setting the record straight means someone else is wrong.

 

[liturgyluver]

You’re getting very close to heresy here. The pre VII church is still the same as the post VII church, and by the way, most of the things that happened after VII were not actually asked for by VII, but rather were innovations made up by those who thought they knew better. Throwing out the new innovations that never should have been there is in no way regressing. Let’s look at a few:

• Altar servers: Males still have preference (Prot. N.2451/00/L, google it)
• Mass in Latin: The majority should still be in latin (Sacrosanctum Concilium no. 36, A VII document, I might add)
• Gregorian Chant: still the norm (Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 116)

Your point is?

You have been selective in your reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium in using it to say that “the majority of the mass should be in Latin” It says no such thing. No.36 makes clear that Latin should be preserved but then clearly gives ecclesiastical territories the authority to decide how much should be preserved, subject to approval. This isn’t an “innovation by those who thought they knew better” but Bishops exercising their lawful authority, and confirmed by the Apostolic See.

It doesn’t say that Gregorian chant is the “norm”, but that it is specially suited to the Roman Liturgy and *all other things being equal *should be given pride of place. Musicam Sacram (1967) further clarifies that Gregorian Chant should have pride of place “in sung liturgical services celebrated in Latin.”

In short, I find the implication that masses wholly in the vernacular or non-use of Gregorian chant as examples of unauthorised execution of the liturgy really quite offensive, when both are authorised by our Bishops.

 

[Canto]

The parishoners are not ignorant. They see the changes being made in their parish as the begining of heading down a slippery slope of regressing to Pre Vatican II days. I am proud of them for standing up for themselves.

Are they turning back the so called clock, or are they actually (as someone once said of BXVI) bothering to look at the clock?

In his letter the Bishop has stated: “From the beginning, some have claimed that the priests I sent do not teach according to the precepts of the Church and, particularly, as restated in the documents of the Second Vatican Council… But I’ve not received a single substantiated claim of false teaching or of a liturgical violation. I am still open to receiving claims of such correctable errors (with suitable reference to the proper documents).”

People make the claim that my Priest is pre Vat II (doctrine etc not liturgical style) but not from what I’ve read in the documents.

Elsewhere the Bishop states: “I think, however, that at the end of the day, the Catholic faith is being taught according to the proper understanding of the Second Vatican Council, and that what remains are personal likes and dislikes, along with **i****nflated rumors and gossip, some of which may even rise to the level of calumnious inciting of hatred of your priests, ****the faith, and myself. ** For these likes and dislikes, gossip, and hurt feelings, the Catholic faith is rejected and a school is closed.”

At least 40 percent of the parishoners sign a petition to get rid of the pastor. Their income has dropped thousands of dollars a month below what they need to run the parish.

How much more evidence do you need?

60% didn’t sign the petition. What’s the old saying about the majority rules.

If they went back to the old ways, maybe the 60% would get all worked up. Would the Priests still be arrogant?

In lieu of the above quote from the Bishop, it seems that it is not the Priests who are being arrogant. “…and a school is closed.”

The truth is not determined by a majority vote nor by $$$. As for liturgical preferences we may not always see eye to eye with our Priests but if they are acting within the rules we can make our opinions know (as I have to my Priest, Tabernacle in the center, 6 candles not 2 please ), but ultimately we must accept their decisions even if we disagree with them.

 

[Canto]

You have been selective in your reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium in using it to say that “the majority of the mass should be in Latin” It says no such thing. No.36 makes clear that Latin should be preserved but then clearly gives ecclesiastical territories the authority to decide how much should be preserved, subject to approval. This isn’t an “innovation by those who thought they knew better” but Bishops exercising their lawful authority, and confirmed by the Apostolic See.

It doesn’t say that Gregorian chant is the “norm”, but that it is specially suited to the Roman Liturgy and *all other things being equal *should be given pride of place. Musicam Sacram (1967) further clarifies that Gregorian Chant should have pride of place “in sung liturgical services celebrated in Latin.”

A friend noted (and Fr Z. blogged on this too) that a literal translation of Sacosanctum Concilium (Vat II) reads:

#116.The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as characteristic to the Roman liturgy: which therefore in liturgical actions, other things being equal, should occupy the first place.

So other things being equal, i.e. in normal circumstances, GChant should have first place, not last place or no place at all. This seems to suggest is is the norm. I think it was Pope JPII or BXVI who said GChant is the the chant/song proper to the Roman Rite.

Musicam Sacram #4 (again with a literal translation) states:

b) Under the term sacred music come these:
Gregorian chant,
ancient and modern sacred polyphony, in its diverse styles,
sacred music for organ and other permitted instruments,
and the sacred music of the people, liturgical or religious.

“For the celebration of the Eucharist with the people, especially on Sundays and feast days a form of sung Mass (Missa in cantu) is to be preferred as much as possible, even several times on the same day (Musicam Sacram #27, 1967).”

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal states: 41. The main place should be given, all things being equal, to Gregorian chant, as being proper to the Roman Liturgy.

Elsewhere it says (of the Entrance Chant): 48. This chant is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. It is possible to use the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum or the Graduale Simplex, or another chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year,and whose text has been approved by the Conference of Bishops.

No mention of folky/pop guitar songs.

The quote you offer from Musicam Sacram does not say Gregorian Chant holds first place only when Mass is in Latin, or that if it is in the verncualr one is exempt from chant.

As for Latin, yes the limits of the vernacular may be extended but the Council never said it can be abolished altogether. It said it must be preserved, that the faithful should be able to say or sing their bits of the Mass in Latin, and that her priceless treasure of sacred music (in Latin mostly in the Roman Rite) be fostered.

 

[robertmidwest]

60% didn’t sign the petition. What’s the old saying about the majority rules.

If they went back to the old ways, maybe the 60% would get all worked up. Would the Priests still be arrogant?

.

40% signed the petition. How many of the remain 60% agreed with the petition and didn’t sign it. How many would like to see the priest go away, but didn’t feel strongly enough to sign the petition? We don’t know. The point is to say that all of the sixty percent who didn’t sign support the new priests is incorrect.

Looking at the archives of the parish bulletins the parish needs $11,500 weekly to survive (I don’t know if that is with or without the school). and they are now collecting approximately half. How much longer wil the parish survive? If the bishop is correct and this is only style changes will they let the parish shut down over the priest imposing his will over the parishoners?

 

[liturgyluver]

So other things being equal, i.e. in normal circumstances, GChant should have first place, not last place or no place at all. This seems to suggest is is the norm. I think it was Pope JPII or BXVI who said GChant is the the chant/song proper to the Roman Rite.

The quote you offer from Musicam Sacram does not say Gregorian Chant holds first place only when Mass is in Latin, or that if it is in the verncualr one is exempt from chant.

As for Latin, yes the limits of the vernacular may be extended but the Council never said it can be abolished altogether. It said it must be preserved, that the faithful should be able to say or sing their bits of the Mass in Latin, and that her priceless treasure of sacred music (in Latin mostly in the Roman Rite) be fostered.

Have a read again at point no. 50 in Musicum Sacrum. It specifically refers to sung celebrations in Latin in relation to Gregorian Chant. The document also assigns the propers of the mass to the 3rd degree, not the 1st!

I wasnt advocating no Latin never, just correcting the mistaken assumption that a fully vernacular mass is illicit when it clearly is not.

 

[agnes_therese]

40% signed the petition. How many of the remain 60% agreed with the petition and didn’t sign it. How many would like to see the priest go away, but didn’t feel strongly enough to sign the petition? We don’t know. The point is to say that all of the sixty percent who didn’t sign support the new priests is incorrect.

Looking at the archives of the parish bulletins the parish needs $11,500 weekly to survive (I don’t know if that is with or without the school). and they are now collecting approximately half. How much longer wil the parish survive? If the bishop is correct and this is only style changes will they let the parish shut down over the priest imposing his will over the parishoners?

I could be wrong, but it seems that you haven’t read Bishop Morlino’s letter:
stmaryplatteville.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Bishop-Letter-10-31-2010.pdf
Would you have him remove priests who are, apparently, not doing anything wrong, just because people are throwing tantrums and won’t/can’t even provide any specific examples to back up their claims against the priests? Shouldn’t there be solid doctrinal reason to remove priests?