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

[dixieagle]

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.

First, I wonder why he has been there 20 years. That is virtually unheard of, and would certainly contribute to his running the parish like a fiefdom. My guess is he has lots of clout on the priests’ council that decides who goes where (we have a similar situation in my parish…)

I am concerned about his views on kneeling at the Consecration.

He is clearly anti-tradition - even harmless, symbolic traditions. While concern for the have-nots is fine, I think that if children are receiving FHC with their families, the problem of hordes of children, some in fancy bridal-like dresses and veils, and others in simple white attire, processing into the church, is perfectly moot. If I read a previous post correctly, there are now just small numbers of children each week, receiving with their family members.

His visceral dislike for white as a symbol of purity is disturbing. “Pure” to me, means without sin; those young enough to be receiving FHC are likely about as “pure” as they will ever get. His rant about “worthiness” and “groveling before God” is bizarre.

 

[dixieagle]

It also occurs to me that, if this priest is so adamant about implementing post-Vatican II reforms, then he missed the class about a greater voice for the laity.

 

[dixieagle]

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

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

I’m not even a traditionalist, but he is WAY out there. His words speak for themselves. (Interesting that he thinks that bishops should have the last word re: motu proprio, but ignores his own bishop when instructed to straighten up!)

 

[cotaface]

I’m not even a traditionalist, but he is WAY out there. His words speak for themselves. (Interesting that he thinks that bishops should have the last word re: motu proprio, but ignores his own bishop when instructed to straighten up!)

And, did you note that he refers to the Pope as the “Bishop of Rome”. I am really in trouble with this pastor…

 

[iamrefreshed]

First, I wonder why he has been there 20 years. That is virtually unheard of, and would certainly contribute to his running the parish like a fiefdom. My guess is he has lots of clout on the priests’ council that decides who goes where (we have a similar situation in my parish…)

Maybe he’s there 20 years because he’s doing a good job? I woulldn’t venture to guess

I am concerned about his views on kneeling at the Consecration.

We only have the OP’s word on that.

He is clearly anti-tradition - even harmless, symbolic traditions. While concern for the have-nots is fine, I think that if children are receiving FHC with their families, the problem of hordes of children, some in fancy bridal-like dresses and veils, and others in simple white attire, processing into the church, is perfectly moot. If I read a previous post correctly, there are now just small numbers of children each week, receiving with their family members.

His visceral dislike for white as a symbol of purity is disturbing. “Pure” to me, means without sin; those young enough to be receiving FHC are likely about as “pure” as they will ever get. His rant about “worthiness” and “groveling before God” is bizarre.

I didn’t think it was a rant. He clearly stated the only requirements to receive were… properly disposed and not in mortal sin.

His comment on purity seemed to me to indicate that purity IS NOT necessary to receive.

In fact the OP mentioned early on theat her daughter was ‘pure’.

It looks to me like he is trying to show his flock that purity is NOT necessary to receive Eucharist because NO ONE is really worthy.

 

[Brenda_V]

And, did you note that he refers to the Pope as the “Bishop of Rome”. I am really in trouble with this pastor…

Just a point of fact the Pope is indeed the Bishop of Rome! Now if that is used to mean that he is just another Bishop then indeed that is wrong because the Bishop of Rome is the most important Bishop in the Catholic Church due to his call and acceptance as The Bishop of Rome!

Brenda V.

 

[iamrefreshed]

And, did you note that he refers to the Pope as the “Bishop of Rome”. I am really in trouble with this pastor…

That’s what he is.

 

[jmcrae]

Maybe he’s there 20 years because he’s doing a good job? I woulldn’t venture to guess

No. One of the punishments for being a good priest is that they get moved around to all the parishes that are in desperate need of conversion.

Another theory is that the Bishop has simply decided to let this particular parish fester and eventually fall off by itself, rather than spread this priest’s bad ideas around the whole Diocese.

I didn’t think it was a rant. He clearly stated the only requirements to receive were… properly disposed and not in mortal sin.

His comment on purity seemed to me to indicate that purity IS NOT necessary to receive.

Enlighten me: what is the difference between being “pure” and being “without mortal sin and properly disposed.” It seems to me that these are synonymous.

In any case, I find it difficult to see how a good little Catholic girl can help being pure, even if there is a difference.

In fact the OP mentioned early on theat her daughter was ‘pure’.

It looks to me like he is trying to show his flock that purity is NOT necessary to receive Eucharist because NO ONE is really worthy.

So, can we go ahead and sin our little brains out, or not?

 

[iamrefreshed]

No. One of the punishments for being a good priest is that they get moved around to all the parishes that are in desperate need of conversion.

Another theory is that the Bishop has simply decided to let this particular parish fester and eventually fall off by itself, rather than spread this priest’s bad ideas around the whole Diocese.

Which diocese did you run in this fashion?

Enlighten me: what is the difference between being “pure” and being “without mortal sin and properly disposed.” It seems to me that these are synonymous.

In any case, I find it difficult to see how a good little Catholic girl can help being pure, even if there is a difference.

So, can we go ahead and sin our little brains out, or not?

Well, I guess ‘pure’ would be without sin. And none of us are.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, I guess ‘pure’ would be without sin. And none of us are.

Actually, all of us are, when we come out of the Confessional. Remember, Baptism washes away Original Sin, and every time we go to Confession, we are washed clean of all of our actual sins. :angel1:

 

[cotaface]

That’s what he is.

I can’t believe you missed his sarcasm! Yes, it is technically correct, but it is a backhanded comment. He has a habit of that.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Hello,
I need some guidence. The pastor at our church prohibits us from dressing our child in white for her First Holy Communion. We have been warned not to “test” this policy as it may lead to our daughter being rejected. In other words, denied FHC because of the color of her clothing.
The Diocese has instructed the pastor that the church does not support this and that not only does it violate the church policy, but it violates our civil rights. The pastor has essentially defied the bishop at this point and continues to ban white.
Is a Canon lawyer appropriate for this? And if so, how do I retain one?
Thank you!!!

Here’s the original post. It’s all about the ‘right’ right to wear a white dress.

The links to try an discredit this priest after 15 pages of posts are particularly sad, and to me, indicitive of the motive of the OP.

Is this how we treat our priests? No wonder vocations are down!

 

[pnewton]

Is this how we treat our priests? No wonder vocations are down!

I have heard many things blamed for the down turn of vocations, but never internet posting. How would you deal with a nutty priest? It is not that dress color is a big deal, but that this priest considers it a bigger deal than receiving the Eucharist. That is odd behavior for a priest.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I have heard many things blamed for the down turn of vocations, but never internet posting. How would you deal with a nutty priest? It is not that dress color is a big deal, but that this priest considers it a bigger deal than receiving the Eucharist. That is odd behavior for a priest.

I’m not talking about the postings. I’m talking about the willingness to argue and fight over a rule set by a priest for the good of his parish.

If you read what this priest wrote he said that it was the dress of the communicants that was being elevated by the parents as more important than Eucharist. That was why he instituted the policy.

If I thought a priest was out of line (I refrain from ‘nutty’ out of respect) I would report his actions to the bishop and let the bishop do his job.

It just seems to me that there is less and less respect for our priests.

 

[dixieagle]

Here’s the original post. It’s all about the ‘right’ right to wear a white dress.

The links to try an discredit this priest after 15 pages of posts are particularly sad, and to me, indicitive of the motive of the OP.

Is this how we treat our priests? No wonder vocations are down!

Well, apparently the Diocese agreed with her and saw the real issue: the “right” of priest who clearly is in disagreement with the Church to put his own spin on things and force the congregation to go along.

This is in his own words:

“How about extending the hand of welcome to those who left the priesthood and married? How about extending a welcome to those who have divorced and remarried? How about a motu proprio repenting the church’s discrimination against women? How about removing a few of the excommunications issued against progressive, moral and dogmatic theologians?”

I’d say he has quite an agenda.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Well, apparently the Diocese agreed with her and saw the real issue: the “right” of priest who clearly is in disagreement with the Church to put his own spin on things and force the congregation to go along.

This is in his own words:

“How about extending the hand of welcome to those who left the priesthood and married? How about extending a welcome to those who have divorced and remarried? How about a motu proprio repenting the church’s discrimination against women? How about removing a few of the excommunications issued against progressive, moral and dogmatic theologians?”

I’d say he has quite an agenda.

What does any of that have to do with a white dress?

If the OP was so concerned with this priests theology why was her first post here about her “right” to the white dress.

I don’t agree with what you have posted above but it is off topic.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.