priest threatening to deny 7-year old FHC-help!

[Sarabande]

I find it quite interesting that people think that they can just simply make their Sacraments elsewhere. f you’ve read through the thread, you’ll see that the OP tried that.

Next, it’s hardly irrelevant. We all know full well (which is why this example has been largely ignored) that if a priest told a bride that she would be denied the Sacrament of Matrimony if she wore white that a “fuss” would definitely be made over that one and I hardly doubt that one person here wouldn’t have a serious issue with that (and please don’t go off on the “white might not be appropriate if she’s not a virgin” - assume virgin).

I agree with you.

But I do have to say, having worked as a musician for many bridal couples in all different denominations and of the generation where most of my friends and family are starting to get married, many of them are not virgins or at least not chaste - many live with their fiances and/or are open about their sexual lives - OR they don’t tell the priest about it. (Don’t get me wrong there are still virgins or celibate people who get married, but from those I know and worked for, it’s not the norm, so it’s difficult to assume “virgin” for others when the question is raised. And I think that is one the reasons why it is a little more difficult to try to compare. )

So, although it’s ideal to want to believe that the bride would be a virgin or at least celibate/chaste, many times the ones who would be throwing a big fuss over it would be the ones who don’t take the celibacy and chastity issue seriously in the first place. (Ever been on those secular bridal boards?) So, you are right about that - there would be a huge stink about it, but from those who don’t really follow the Church’s teachings to a T anyway.

But at the same time, white for weddings is only a 19th century phenomenon when Queen Victoria got married in 1838 (?) to Prince Albert. It didn’t have anything to do with purity or virginity originally. So, technically, a bride could make an argument for that.

But that is off-topic.

 

[lovesMary]

I am not going to search for the OPs post where he mentions that this priest is 3 years away from mandatory retirement, but he did say that bear06. This is an important part of this picture. This old, stubborn priest is not going to give in, just like your 80 year old grandfather is not going to change. The Bishop is most likely not going to force the old man to allow white dresses just because a new parishioner complained. He will probably ignore the letter just like the Mayor would ignore a letter that complained about the lack of a street light on an intersection. It’s just too trivial of a matter in the grande sceme of things for the Bishop to interfere on. It’s not a blatant liturgical abuse.

Now, let’s put the shoe on the other foot. What if a priest made a dress code for FHC that all children be dressed neatly and not wear blue jeans and T-shirts. Let’s say one family wanted their son or daughter to wear T-shirts. The priest insists that the dress code be adhered to. Let’s pretend that this mother or father then writes to the Bishop complaining that their civil rights have been violated, that they should be able to wear what they want. Do you think the Bishop should interfere?

Or, let’s take an example of a public school. They have dress codes. Let’s say that they require that everyone at graduation must wear a cap and gown. Is it okay for the school to do this? What about if they ban certain colors that are associated with gangs. Can they send the children home, or should the parents have a right to complain of a violation of their civil rights?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Really? Then please explain how it is different.

I’ll tell you what…Let’s ask a woman who has been beaten by her husband how it is different.

Frankly, comparing spousal abuse and wearing a white dress is way out of line.

I’d suggest you not go to extremes to make a comparison.

Here’s one for you…

My Pastor forces brides to get dressed at the church so they don’t play the ‘bride must be late game’ and delay our Saturday Vigil Mass.

That’s more of a comparisson.

 

[cotaface]

Ok-I was searching on the interned and found many a post about this pastor. I also found-in his own words-an essay by this priest explaining how he does FHC. I’ve removed his name from the post. Enjoy.

By now, I expect that most parishes have finished with their celebrations of first Communion. I have not been to a first Communion away from my parish in more than 20 years, but members of the parish keep me posted on the first Communions they attend. From their anecdotes, it appears that there is substantial variety in the way first Communion is celebrated in our diocese.

Over the past few years, we have attempted to integrate first Communion into our regular Sunday liturgies. We did this originally because of logistics. Our first Communion classes were comprised of more than 100 boys and girls. This necessitated adding an extra Sunday afternoon Mass just for those receiving first Communion and their families. As the numbers grew larger, we ended up with two Sundays with an extra liturgy. When were at the point of adding a third Sunday, we looked for a better solution.

We thought of going back to having first Communions on Saturday but rejected this idea because we felt strongly that first Communion should be celebrated on Sunday. It was at this point that we decided to do away with the extra Mass altogether and have our celebration of first Communion spread over a six-week period. Families select the date and time for their family celebration. We limit the number of families to six per liturgy. The 8 a.m. Sunday Mass is not terribly popular, but a few courageous families chose it, much to the delight of the regulars at that liturgy.

Their delight was one of the fortunate side effects of our changed procedure. Families who no longer had children of first Communion age were able to be part of the celebration that they say enriched and renewed their appreciation of the Eucharist. First Communion was now part of a total parish celebration that was not possible in our former manner of celebration. This was not a total surprise, because we experienced the same thing a number of years ago when we incorporated baptisms into our regular Sunday celebrations. It turns out that the community at large wants to be part of celebrating both baptisms and first Communions.

Along the way, we have made other adaptations to the manner of celebrating first Communion. No longer are the children receiving first Communion segregated from their families. The children do not march in as a class and are not seated by themselves. They process in with their families and sit with them. When it is time for Communion they come up with their families to receive. Not only does this seem to make sense, it also seems to have a calming effect on the first communicants.

Some changes were more easily introduced than others. The most challenging change was the decision to do away with the white dress, veils and gloves for the girls and blue blazers and special ties for the boys. We did this for several reasons. One reason was the expense. In some cases, a scandalous amount of money was being spent on what was, after all, a non-essential aspect of the celebration. Some children were luxuriously clad; others were not. This seemed to introduce the suggestion of “the haves” and the “have-nots” which is antithetical to the proper spirit for the Eucharist. (I Cor 11:22) In some cases, the outfits were seen as more important than the first Communion itself. The practice of wearing white dresses and a special shirt and tie is relatively new in the long history of the church and, in our opinion, had outlived its usefulness. The most important reason for doing away with this custom was its implied notion of innocence as a prerequisite for Communion.

To receive Communion for either the first or the umpteenth time, the baptized believer needs only to be properly disposed and free of mortal sin. Innocence somehow has gotten caught up in worthiness and unfortunately, in some cases, has become an obstacle to receiving Communion. No one is worthy of receiving Communion. Communion is not a reward for being good; Communion is a source of strength to become better. Every time we gather to celebrate Eucharist, we say, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you. Say but the word and I will be healed.” This is obviously the prayer of the centurion in the New Testament, which is a prayer recognizing the power of God to heal our infirmities. How it got changed into a prayer of humility is one of the accidents of history. Over time, it got so far removed from its original meaning that some of us remember that in the old Latin Mass when we said this prayer, “Domine non sum dignus” we bowed our heads and beat our breasts. Groveling before God may appeal to some, but is it a proper disposition for the reception of Communion? Historically, theologically and spiritually, I think not.

It has been more than 40 years since the Second Vatican Council issued its “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.” It has been more than 40 years since the altars have been turned around, the vernacular has replaced Latin and the people of God have been invited to “full, active and conscious participation” in the liturgy. Unfortunately, the way we celebrate first Communion has, in some parishes, continued to be celebrated as if the council’s liturgical reforms never happened. Perhaps now would be an appropriate time to begin discussions on how to improve next year’s celebration of first Communion.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Father Creedon is a modernist known for tolerating theological revisionism and implementing liturgical abuses in his parish. He is also a supporter of Voice of the Faithless

 

[iamrefreshed]

From my view, the priest and his ilk have accomplished what they are trying to do. The symbols of our Church, having a properly disposed soul and canon law just don’t matter that much.

And from my view, when one refers to a ‘priest and his ilk’ they are less than charitable and in serious need of some compassion.

 

[dixieagle]

Comparing a wife staying with an abusive husband to obeying a priest about dress color is not even close!

I think you have really missed the underlying point; that this priest has unorthodox theological views that are actually scandalous (not having to be “pure” to receive the Eucharist, etc. and banning white dresses because they represent purity.) This isn’t about his not liking the color white! This is nuts.

 

[iamrefreshed]

In reading your Pastors statement it only solidifies my impression that you have blown this completely out of proportion.

Obviously you gloss over his statement of the ‘haves’ and have nots’?!

Let’s see.

• He’s included the parish in FHC and Baptisms
• He’s instituted a dress code so some children don’t feel left out.
• He’s reeled in parents who only care about dresses spending ‘scandalous’ amounts of money. "Some children were **luxurouiously **clad, others were not’
• Children now receive FHC with their families.

Yeah, that helps your cause.

 

[dixieagle]

So you, knowing next to nothing about this priest other than one side of a story, want the press dragged in and the priest removed from duty.

This is so sad how people will cry about the lack of vocations and then demand removal of priests because they don’t cater to the laities desires for photo ops!

Again, you miss the underlying point; this has little or nothing to do with “photo ops.” This has to do with a priest pushing loony theology.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I think you have really missed the underlying point; that this priest has unorthodox theological views that are actually scandalous (not having to be “pure” to receive the Eucharist, etc. and banning white dresses because they represent purity.) This isn’t about his not liking the color white! This is nuts.

Please define ‘pure’.

So between Penetential Rite and receiving you need to not have sinned?

 

[dixieagle]

Really? Then please explain how it is different.

This priest is abusing his authority. As such, he should not have said authority. Yet, you want the OP to “obey” him even though he is wrong, and God will somehow bless her in this obedience.

We have an obligation not to follow another into sin, even a husband, even a priest. The Catholic Church has never taught it is OK to sin if somebody else is doing it, even one’s husband or one’s priest.

And this priest is indeed sinning by coming up with his own take on the theology of the Eucharist, and using the color of dresses to discriminate against who gets FHC, and who doesn’t.

So explain. How is it different?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Again, you miss the underlying point; this has little or nothing to do with “photo ops.” This has to do with a priest pushing loony theology.

I see you are posting as you read the thred dixieagle. Let me know what you think after you read the post the OP copied of the priests article.

 

[dixieagle]

I am not going to search for the OPs post where he mentions that this priest is 3 years away from mandatory retirement, but he did say that bear06. This is an important part of this picture. This old, stubborn priest is not going to give in, just like your 80 year old grandfather is not going to change. The Bishop is most likely not going to force the old man to allow white dresses just because a new parishioner complained. He will probably ignore the letter just like the Mayor would ignore a letter that complained about the lack of a street light on an intersection. It’s just too trivial of a matter in the grande sceme of things for the Bishop to interfere on. It’s not a blatant liturgical abuse.

Now, let’s put the shoe on the other foot. What if a priest made a dress code for FHC that all children be dressed neatly and not wear blue jeans and T-shirts. Let’s say one family wanted their son or daughter to wear T-shirts. The priest insists that the dress code be adhered to. Let’s pretend that this mother or father then writes to the Bishop complaining that their civil rights have been violated, that they should be able to wear what they want. Do you think the Bishop should interfere?

Or, let’s take an example of a public school. They have dress codes. Let’s say that they require that everyone at graduation must wear a cap and gown. Is it okay for the school to do this? What about if they ban certain colors that are associated with gangs. Can they send the children home, or should the parents have a right to complain of a violation of their civil rights?

If you read the OP’s recent post, you will note that the priest is NOT “elderly”. Also - the incidents you cite above have nothing to do with promoting faulty theology.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Ok-I was searching on the interned and found many a post about this pastor. I also found-in his own words-an essay by this priest explaining how he does FHC. I’ve removed his name from the post. Enjoy.

By now, I expect that most parishes have finished with their celebrations of first Communion. I have not been to a first Communion away from my parish in more than 20 years, but members of the parish keep me posted on the first Communions they attend. From their anecdotes, it appears that there is substantial variety in the way first Communion is celebrated in our diocese.

Over the past few years, we have attempted to integrate first Communion into our regular Sunday liturgies. We did this originally because of logistics. Our first Communion classes were comprised of more than 100 boys and girls. This necessitated adding an extra Sunday afternoon Mass just for those receiving first Communion and their families. As the numbers grew larger, we ended up with two Sundays with an extra liturgy. When were at the point of adding a third Sunday, we looked for a better solution.

We thought of going back to having first Communions on Saturday but rejected this idea because we felt strongly that first Communion should be celebrated on Sunday. It was at this point that we decided to do away with the extra Mass altogether and have our celebration of first Communion spread over a six-week period. Families select the date and time for their family celebration. We limit the number of families to six per liturgy. The 8 a.m. Sunday Mass is not terribly popular, but a few courageous families chose it, much to the delight of the regulars at that liturgy.

Their delight was one of the fortunate side effects of our changed procedure. Families who no longer had children of first Communion age were able to be part of the celebration that they say enriched and renewed their appreciation of the Eucharist. First Communion was now part of a total parish celebration that was not possible in our former manner of celebration. This was not a total surprise, because we experienced the same thing a number of years ago when we incorporated baptisms into our regular Sunday celebrations. It turns out that the community at large wants to be part of celebrating both baptisms and first Communions.

Along the way, we have made other adaptations to the manner of celebrating first Communion. No longer are the children receiving first Communion segregated from their families. The children do not march in as a class and are not seated by themselves. They process in with their families and sit with them. When it is time for Communion they come up with their families to receive. Not only does this seem to make sense, it also seems to have a calming effect on the first communicants.

Some changes were more easily introduced than others. The most challenging change was the decision to do away with the white dress, veils and gloves for the girls and blue blazers and special ties for the boys. We did this for several reasons. One reason was the expense. In some cases, a scandalous amount of money was being spent on what was, after all, a non-essential aspect of the celebration. Some children were luxuriously clad; others were not. This seemed to introduce the suggestion of “the haves” and the “have-nots” which is antithetical to the proper spirit for the Eucharist. (I Cor 11:22) In some cases, the outfits were seen as more important than the first Communion itself. The practice of wearing white dresses and a special shirt and tie is relatively new in the long history of the church and, in our opinion, had outlived its usefulness. The most important reason for doing away with this custom was its implied notion of innocence as a prerequisite for Communion.

To receive Communion for either the first or the umpteenth time, the baptized believer needs only to be properly disposed and free of mortal sin. Innocence somehow has gotten caught up in worthiness and unfortunately, in some cases, has become an obstacle to receiving Communion. No one is worthy of receiving Communion. Communion is not a reward for being good; Communion is a source of strength to become better. Every time we gather to celebrate Eucharist, we say, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you. Say but the word and I will be healed.” This is obviously the prayer of the centurion in the New Testament, which is a prayer recognizing the power of God to heal our infirmities. How it got changed into a prayer of humility is one of the accidents of history. Over time, it got so far removed from its original meaning that some of us remember that in the old Latin Mass when we said this prayer, “Domine non sum dignus” we bowed our heads and beat our breasts. Groveling before God may appeal to some, but is it a proper disposition for the reception of Communion? Historically, theologically and spiritually, I think not.

It has been more than 40 years since the Second Vatican Council issued its “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.” It has been more than 40 years since the altars have been turned around, the vernacular has replaced Latin and the people of God have been invited to “full, active and conscious participation” in the liturgy. Unfortunately, the way we celebrate first Communion has, in some parishes, continued to be celebrated as if the council’s liturgical reforms never happened. Perhaps now would be an appropriate time to begin discussions on how to improve next year’s celebration of first Communion.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Father Creedon is a modernist known for tolerating theological revisionism and implementing liturgical abuses in his parish. He is also a supporter of Voice of the Faithless

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Yeah, he can mandate it. He does. And he is within his rights.

And my guess is if the bride showed up 5 minutes late and he cancelled it he would be derided for that.

I did not say he could not cancel it if she was late as a matter of fact I said he could. What I said is he can not mandate it He can make all the demands he wants but that does not mean they have to be followed. The Bride can make the decision to get dress were ever she wants, ( why she would want to do it some place other than at the church and risk getting something on the dress is beyond me) but that is her prerogative. If he told them that if she was late then it would not matter he would be correct in canceling it. But no matter were she gets dressed she could still be late. But back to the OP the mother is within her rights to dress the child in white if that what she wants the priest is stepping way over his bounds in making this decree of no white dresses. He has noting to back him up on this stance and if we are being told the truth is willfully being disobedient to his Bishop. He is also not obeying Church law by not giving Confession first.

I have great respect for our Priest they have made the sacrifice to service God and the People of the Church. However that does not mean they are always right and that we must do as we are told regardless. I do not know this lady or this Priest, what I do know is no matter how small of an issue may seem to those not involved it can be a very big deal to those that are and for anyone to try to minimize it is wrong. I pray that this as with any issue involving the happenings in the Church can be resolved without a big blow up.

Also I think that the little girls in there white dress and little boys in there white shirt and ties look just wonderful and all being dress in the same color just helps to make is special for them, kinda if you will like at a school graduation with all the students wearing the same color gowns. But you know thats just me.

So now you can tell me how wrong I am as well.

God Bless and I pray that the little girl gets to were her dress.

 

[cotaface]

In reading your Pastors statement it only solidifies my impression that you have blown this completely out of proportion.

Obviously you gloss over his statement of the ‘haves’ and have nots’?!

Let’s see.

• He’s included the parish in FHC and Baptisms
• He’s instituted a dress code so some children don’t feel left out.
• He’s reeled in parents who only care about dresses spending ‘scandalous’ amounts of money. "Some children were **luxurouiously **clad, others were not’
• Children now receive FHC with their families.

Yeah, that helps your cause.

Why are some people, such as yourself, insistent on being rude to me. I don’t have a cause. This priest has threatened to deny my daughter FHC if she wears white. I’m trying to find out if this violates any rights. Again, why would you be rude to me? Have I personally done something to offend you?

 

[cotaface]

And please don’t tell me you think that parents won’t go overboard and dress their children in expensive, elaborate outfits just because they aren’t white. Prohibiting white doesn’t solve that issue.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Why are some people, such as yourself, insistent on being rude to me. I don’t have a cause. This priest has threatened to deny my daughter FHC if she wears white. I’m trying to find out if this violates any rights. Again, why would you be rude to me? Have I personally done something to offend you?

You’ve stated, just recently, your cause is to fix this by April 13th.

I’m not being rude to you. I disagree with you.

This priest told you no white dresses. You spoke out against this, he then told you no white dresses or no FHC. You posted his reasoning on why the dress code, in his own words. Those words only reinforce that you are being stubborn for your own purpose-a white dress. If you think that’s rude then so be it. I think it’s being honest.

You stated your civil rights were being violated. They are not.

 

[iamrefreshed]

And please don’t tell me you think that parents won’t go overboard and dress their children in expensive, elaborate outfits just because they aren’t white. Prohibiting white doesn’t solve that issue.

My guess is that, over his last 20 years of dedicated service to your parish (which you said was too long) is that he has seen many more FHC’s than you, and is a better judge of what parents will do.

 

[cotaface]

You’ve stated, just recently, your cause is to fix this by April 13th.

I’m not being rude to you. I disagree with you.

This priest told you no white dresses. You spoke out against this, he then told you no white dresses or no FHC. You posted his reasoning on why the dress code, in his own words. Those words only reinforce that you are being stubborn for your own purpose-a white dress. If you think that’s rude then so be it. I think it’s being honest.

You stated your civil rights were being violated. They are not.

Please becareful what you say. I did NOT say my civil rights were being violated. The Diocese said my civil rights were being violated and that if denied, then canonical rights were violated as well.
Maybe noone ever taught you this, but “rolling your eyes” and using sarcasm (“yeah, that helps your cause”) is not a method of demonstrating disagrement. It is, quite simply, rude.

 

[cotaface]

If you want to learn more about how this priest offends, click:

angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15506&highlight=