A
ATeutonicKnight
Guest
I know. Isn’t is just the greatest?
Priest beaten up in front of his mother for celebrating the Traditional Mass
- Status
A
ATeutonicKnight
Guest
Well, I can see why you would think that, but many Saints “imposed” their beliefs on their laity. If someone walked up to Saint John Vianney or Saint Padre Pio and told them they didn’t like something that they did they told them where they were going to put that comment and went along doing it. Saint Padre Pio was especially forceful in these ways. He had no problem giving someone a kick and a slap if they deserved it. That’s part of the reason he’s my confirmation Saint. He had no problem telling people off. I realize you’re more passive, but many of the Saints weren’t and didn’t take any complaints from the people.
I
InquisitorMax
Guest
A priest has the responsibility for saving souls. He decided to say the old rite, I hope to that end. His parishioners may gripe, but they can’t and shouldn’t dictate the liturgy.
I’ve seen plenty of the latter and it just leads to … cheese. Bad art and distracting masses. I think the old rite frees a priest to ‘get on with the job’, do his duty and not have to worry about marshalling lay lectors and EMHCs.
As for beating up a priest: forget it. Even if he was a murderer, I wouldn’t do it.
I’ve seen plenty of the latter and it just leads to … cheese. Bad art and distracting masses. I think the old rite frees a priest to ‘get on with the job’, do his duty and not have to worry about marshalling lay lectors and EMHCs.
As for beating up a priest: forget it. Even if he was a murderer, I wouldn’t do it.
J
JRKH
Guest
This seems an odd statement considering how much effort from the laity went into getting the EF liberalized so that “any stable group” may request it’s being said and being taken seriously. My guess is that you supported these efforts and applauded the decisions of JP II and Ben XVI to restore the use of the EF.
Now consider this for a moment…If as you say above, “…parishioners may gripe, but they can’t and shouldn’t dictate the liturgy”, where does this leave the “stable group” who wishes to hear the mass in the EF? Likewise, if there is a “stable group” who wishes to have the mass in the OF, why should they be denied? It just makes no sense. You seem to wish to apply a double standard.
Was it OK for the supporters (laity, parishioners) of the EF (TLM) to lobby for it’s use?
If so then your statement that the “parishioners…can’t and shouldn’t dictate the liturgy” is false.
I agree that there can be problems with too much laity (name removed by moderator)ut. However, in order for these abuses to occur, in most cases, it requires either a priest who is too weak to prevent the abuses (like a new priest coming into an abusive situation) or it takes a priest who is openly supportive of the abuses.
However, a truly devout priest need not be buffeted by the laity. He simply imparts to them that, whichever form of the mass celebrated, it will be done so reverently and strictly according to the rubrics.
As to the specific things you mention, the pastor simply makes the request of the parishioners and the parish council for the liturgy, for lectors and EMHC’s. If an insufficient number come forward…so be it. He simply goes on with mass, doing the readings himself, and distributing communion. In other words, just like he does in the EF…
Peace
James
L
Link0126
Guest
Not at all.
I
InquisitorMax
Guest
Sure, but I never barracked a priest about it. I mentioned my interest in the old rite to
one or two and I think I gave reasons why, to one. A long way from open mutiny.
The old rites Masses I’m aware of are not truly part of parish life, except in one case. They’re an add on, at odd times. No priest who favours the new Mass has been disturbed by us, AFAIK.
I sense, and sense only, that a lot of priests may be in a bit of a fix: if they want to say the old rite, they’d have to ‘let go’ a lot of lay people. Also, how do you explain: “Well, we had CITH for X years, but now we’re doing COTT”? and “You’re turning your back on us, Father!” etc.
Tricky, if you’re not truly the master of your church.
R
rinnie
Guest
May God’s grace lead this Priest into a speedy recovery. And may his mercy be given to this Man who is clearly a very disturbed individual.
J
JRKH
Guest
No one is condoning an “open mutiny”. This is about your statement as follows, “His parishioners may gripe, but they can’t and shouldn’t dictate the liturgy”.
This followed the comment that,
“A priest has the responsibility for saving souls. He decided to say the old rite, I hope to that end.”
I agree with this, that the priest has the responsibility to save souls. However, is he likely to accomplish that by running roughshod over his parishioners and not taking their feelings and desires into account? The answer is no. Feeling ignored and marginalized is precisely the thing that irritates those who desire the EF.
There has to be a middle ground. The kind of middle ground that is afforded by having both masses given equal status by the Holy Father.
If a priest has not developed interpersonal skills and good shepherding skills, then perhaps it would be better if he were not in parish work. Most parishes have more than one mass, so there may be room for accommodation of both forms. Or, if it is a small parish with only a single mass, the forms could be alternated.
My point being that there are lots of choices other than “my way or the highway”…
As for the CITH vs COTT, the priest must understand that both are OK in the OF and accept that. Likewise, in the EF, the rubrics are different and the Laity must accept that.
Of course in the particulars of the OP, it appears now that we have a hard-nosed priest meeting up hard-nosed parishioner…Immovable object meets irresistible force…
A very unfortunate situation.
Let us all learn from this. Calm discussion and charity are far better tools.
Peace
James
O
odile53
Guest
There is definitely no shortage of lunatics.
D
Denise1957
Guest
While there seems to have been some extreme opposition to the EF and other traditional practices at this parish in Italy; it seems, too, that many (or even most?) of the parishioners went along with the changes.
The perpetrator of the violence against the priest reacted in an extreme manner, which should not be construed as a normal reaction to having changes imposed on the faithful.
I recall that after SP was introduced four years ago, a parish in a small town in my state decided to add an EF Mass on Sunday, in addition to the usual OF. Well, at the very first EF Mass there, a male parishioner went up to the communion rail and stood there, not kneeling, and put out his hand for communion. Well, the priest just passed him by, ignoring him and not giving him communion. After the priest passed him by, the man became beligerent and started yelling that he wasn’t given communion. Well, a couple of other parishioners escorted him out. The priest did the right thing by passing him by. But this situation shows how opposed some are to COTT, and how they will do extreme things to show their disfavor.
The perpetrator of the violence against the priest reacted in an extreme manner, which should not be construed as a normal reaction to having changes imposed on the faithful.
I recall that after SP was introduced four years ago, a parish in a small town in my state decided to add an EF Mass on Sunday, in addition to the usual OF. Well, at the very first EF Mass there, a male parishioner went up to the communion rail and stood there, not kneeling, and put out his hand for communion. Well, the priest just passed him by, ignoring him and not giving him communion. After the priest passed him by, the man became beligerent and started yelling that he wasn’t given communion. Well, a couple of other parishioners escorted him out. The priest did the right thing by passing him by. But this situation shows how opposed some are to COTT, and how they will do extreme things to show their disfavor.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Flip this around; someone kneels when everyone else stands, and has a scene. They’d be lauded, no doubt.
J
JRKH
Guest
Possibly (it might depend on the parish) but one must also take into consideration that there are two different rubrics for the masses. In the EF, the rubrics specify kneeling and COTT. in the Rubrics for the OF, either practice is permitted.
Therefore the priest may not refuse COTT in the OF, but is obligated to refuse CITH in the EF…
Peace
James
R
rben20
Guest
Let’s not put one against another. As JRKH said the EF requires ONLY COTT. In the OF COTT is the norm while CITH is the exception. If you chose to receive while kneeling and on the tongue, a priest has no right to deny you communion or force you to receive in the hand. There is no double standard here.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I’m not pitting anything against anyone, all I’m saying if the roles would be reversed people wouldn’t be slamming, they’d be praising.
It’s like I said in another thread here; people don’t like disobedience and rejection unless it involves something they agree with, then they’re fine with the ends justifying the means. Here in this case, we relive stories of mentally unbalanced people who want things done a certain way, which is used a thinly veiled attempt to cast certain actions in an inferior light.
It’s like I said in another thread here; people don’t like disobedience and rejection unless it involves something they agree with, then they’re fine with the ends justifying the means. Here in this case, we relive stories of mentally unbalanced people who want things done a certain way, which is used a thinly veiled attempt to cast certain actions in an inferior light.
J
JRKH
Guest
Yes I’m afraid that you are right in this. Darn human nature…
not sure what you mean here. Are you referencing the incident in the OP…Who are the imbalanced people to which you refer?
I’m trying to understand your meaning.
Peace
James
M
Melchior_1
Guest
The OP, the example Denise gave. Both are rather extreme examples. Obviously not everyone who receives COTH is like this, but why else say the stories unless you’re trying to prove a point of some kind?
D
Denise1957
Guest
You’re right. It would be a good idea, too, to refrain from using extreme examples across the board, on all issues, right?
H
hudson
Guest
What are you talking about? Like he said the EF requires COTT while kneeling. The OF has COTT as the norm while CITH is the exception. What is complicated about that? The roles can’t be reversed. If CITH was required in the OF then the roles could be reversed. So if a Bishop/Priest wants to only have COTT then it should be no problem and the Laity should suck it up and do it. If the rule came down where it was required for us to receive CITH, then we would all do it. We may not be overly joyed about it, but we wouldn’t go beating up Priests.
H
hudson
Guest
Why mention any stories on here? Oh yeah its a forum to discuss things.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
This is what I’m talking about. You don’t see something wrong with saying this or a general attitude where people take the extreme case and almost try to pass it off as the norm.
“We wouldn’t go beating up priests”. I suppose I could say “people wouldn’t go and perform illicit and/or schismatic acts” if things didn’t go the way I wanted them to, unlike some people.
- Status