Question, How does one report suspected heresy

[Walking_Home]

]
One also has the right to make a complete *** of oneself over an issue that has no substance

. But then, what would bishops do with their spare time if any and everyone didn’t come forth with their misunderstanding of what the beleagured priest most recently needed to be misquoted on?​

Well to you —attending Mass,our Faith,Holy Communion, may be issues of no substance.

 

[otjm]

---

You having trouble reading otjm. What part of —“we shouldn’t be in church services at all”----does register. Taking a second look–it seems the priest is also denying our Catholic Faith and the graces that are received in Communion.

You are making the assumption that the OP made an exact quote. I have read enough statements and heard enough statements to know an exact quote when I see it, and that isn’t one of them.

Only through us all finding disempowered people and drug addicts ect and helping them will we be saved, Prayer and Faith and Communion will not save us.

Again, that is a paraphrase of what the Priest said, which in turn is a paraphrase of what St. James said. Or do you read the Epistles?

The Church is doing a bad job, we should’nt be in church services at all, we should be wondering the Earth finding poor and sick people, only then will we be saved.

Again, a paraphrase by the OP, who obviously is not particularly well trained in the faith, of what the priest said. Fr Groeschel has made similar statements, and I don’t know wanyone in their right mind who would call him a heretic.

In plain English, it is clear that the OP was surprised and upset by what the priest said. There is no indication whatsoever, that the OP has quoted the priest, or even correctly paraphrased what the priest said. You are getting yourself into a stir, and backing up farther and farther into a corner by trying to rely on what is not an exact quote and doesn’t even appear to be an adequate paraphrase. Further, the similarity to not only well-known orthodox priests but also to the Epistles leans in the direction of the priest either saying what is well within Catholic theological understanding of the Faith, or at worst a poor phrasing of that.

You keep going back to the OP’s statements as if they were accurate, word for word quotes; the OP didn’t even state that.

 

[Walking_Home]

You are making the assumption that the OP made an exact quote. I have read enough statements and heard enough statements to know an exact quote when I see it, and that isn’t one of them.

Again, that is a paraphrase of what the Priest said, whcih in turn is a paraphrase of what St. James said. Or do you read the Epistles?

Again, a paraphrase by the OP, who obviously is not particularly well trained in the faith, of what the priest said. Fr Groeschel has made similar statements, and I don’t know wanyone in their right mind who would call him a heretic.

In palin English, it is clear that the OP was surpirsed and upset by what the priest said. There is no indication whatsoever, that the OP has quoted the priest, or even correctly paraphrased what the priest said. You are getting yourself into a stir, and backing up farther and farther into a corner by trying to rely on what is not an exact quote and doesn’t even appear to be an adequate paraphrase. Further, the similarity to not only well-known orthodox priests but also to the Epistles leans in the direction of the priest either saying what is well within Catholic theological understanding of the Faith, or at worst a poor phrasing of that.

You keep going back to the OP’s statements as if they were accurate, word for word quotes; the OP didn’t even state that.

---

You take the cake—now you try to disparage the OP–by saying he is not well trained in the faith and is somehow confuse in what he heard. Good try–to diminish what he heard. He heard those statements from the priest. He came here to verify those statements with Catholic teaching. What are you going to come up with next.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Joysong:

I agree that the OP was asking and not condemning, otherwise he would not have begun the thread.

OK.

Joysong:

You were mistaken that I directed this to the OP, and if you read carefully, my post addressed Walking Home (W.H.) against her strong insistence that the priest was guilty of heresy

My mistake. Sorry.

Joysong:

As for your pictures, I haven’t a clue?

Oh, the pictures: a pot and a kettle. Actually this thread is a hoot. It reminds me of the Monty Python skit where the customer comes in wanting to purchase an argument from John Cleese.

 

[Joysong]

Thanks, Ani Ibi,

Man, was I off base! I saw a piece of pottery (a decorated clay vase) and a metal pitcher and couldn’t figure the message. Jeremia maybe with his potter’s clay? I need it spelled out in some cases … Duh!

Back to your post. I never saw the Monty Python skit, either. But I certainly agree the thread has run amuck. Your picture may be providential, since it helps to illustrate how differently people see what is before their eyes with regard to “understanding.” (And hear with their ears, as with the OP’s situation.) Since the OP has been given good direction, maybe now the thread can die a pleasant old age.

 

[otjm]

---

You take the cake—now you try to disparage the OP–by saying he is not well trained in the faith and is somehow confuse in what he heard. Good try–to diminish what he heard. He heard those statements from the priest. He came here to verify those statements with Catholic teaching. What are you going to come up with next.

I haven’t tried to disparage the OP; he is the one who couldn’t figure out what he was about. And as I said, those are not direct quotes. The statements have been verified, and you are the one who continues to insist they are not within Catholic teaching - in large part becasue you insist they are accurate quotes by your repeated going back to them.

If he was well trained in the faith we would not have this joust, as the OP would recognize them for what they were - hyperbole designed to get pew sitters off their duff and follow Christ.

 

[Walking_Home]

I haven’t tried to disparage the OP; he is the one who couldn’t figure out what he was about. And as I said, those are not direct quotes. The statements have been verified, and you are the one who continues to insist they are not within Catholic teaching - in large part becasue you insist they are accurate quotes by your repeated going back to them.

If he was well trained in the faith we would not have this joust, as the OP would recognize them for what they were - hyperbole designed to get pew sitters off their duff and follow Christ.

---

Saying the Church is doing a bad job and people should not be in Mass—I guess can be hyperbole—with a lot of twisting of the imagination and ignoring the meaning of the statements. I guess by doing that—most of the false information that is being spread around can be explained away.

 

[Joysong]

Walking Home,

The problem is, YOU did not hear the words to know the priest’s intended meaning. Only the OP listened, and he MAY have misinterpreted hyperbole, which is a literary form, as are similes, metaphors, parables, and such. The first thing any biblical student learns, particularly in the commentaries, is to distinguish the literary form that the author uses to write scripture. All are not historical or literal, and must not be interpreted that way.

Jesus used all kinds of literary forms that must not be taken literally. Example, Mt. 5:29-30, advising one to pluck their eye or cut off their arm. Another, “Call no man Father.” Again, “If you do not hate your mother, father, etc, you cannot be my disciple.”

HYPERBOLE – a deliberate exaggeration for effect or emphasis.

Principles for Interpreting Figures of Speech:

• Identify a figure by trying to take the passage literally. If it makes no sense to apply it literally, then it’s probably a figure of speech.
• Let the context determine the meaning of the figure.
• Look for what is behind the figure; what is represented.
• Look for specific points of similarity and difference.
• Don’t push the figure past the author’s intended meaning – there’s a limit to the meaning of any figure of speech.

You are not in a position to know what the OP heard and that the priest meant it “literally.” It appears that you have a serious prejudice against priests, and are way too willing to believe evil of them. That is the product of reading about many abuses, but it is judgmental to assume all priests are “satan’s helpers” (and that’s hyperbole). As Father Groeschel has often stated, the media is responsible for this hatred toward them, and those who perpetuate and promote the slander will pay a heavy price spiritually.

The OP has apparently dropped this issue, perhaps heeding the good advice he received. Why are you still fighting? The only ones who will bear influence in a report are other parishioners besides the OP who can corroborate it. In law, one’s word against another is never adequate for a conviction without other witnesses and concrete proof.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking Home,

The problem is, YOU did not hear the words to know the priest’s intended meaning. Only the OP listened, and he MAY have misinterpreted hyperbole, which is a literary form, as are similes, metaphors, parables, and such. The first thing any biblical student learns, particularly in the commentaries, is to distinguish the literary form that the author uses to write scripture. All are not historical or literal, and must not be interpreted that way.

Jesus used all kinds of literary forms that must not be taken literally. Example, Mt. 5:29-30, advising one to pluck their eye or cut off their arm. Another, “Call no man Father.” Again, “If you do not hate your mother, father, etc, you cannot be my disciple.”

HYPERBOLE – a deliberate exaggeration for effect or emphasis.

Principles for Interpreting Figures of Speech:

• Identify a figure by trying to take the passage literally. If it makes no sense to apply it literally, then it’s probably a figure of speech.
• Let the context determine the meaning of the figure.
• Look for what is behind the figure; what is represented.
• Look for specific points of similarity and difference.
• Don’t push the figure past the author’s intended meaning – there’s a limit to the meaning of any figure of speech.

You are not in a position to know what the OP heard and that the priest meant it “literally.” It appears that you have a serious prejudice against priests, and are way too willing to believe evil of them. That is the product of reading about many abuses, but it is judgmental to assume all priests are “satan’s helpers” (and that’s hyperbole). As Father Groeschel has often stated, the media is responsible for this hatred toward them, and those who perpetuate and promote the slander will pay a heavy price spiritually.

The OP has apparently dropped this issue, perhaps heeding the good advice he received. Why are you still fighting? The only ones who will bear influence in a report are other parishioners besides the OP who can corroborate it. In law, one’s word against another is never adequate for a conviction without other witnesses and concrete proof.

---

I have a serious prejudice against false information—no matter who it comes from. The difference here is—I do not come up with methods to try and cover it up.

You ask why I am still fighting. I was not aware that I was. It would seem that anyone who disagrees with you is fighting. Oh–I had dropped the issue—apparently you haven’t since you posted to it again.

 

[Joysong]

Walking Home,

I have a serious prejudice against false information

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking Home,

Quote:
I have a serious prejudice against false information

---

Thankyou for the little sleep icon. It explains why the cancer within the Church has spread. We have for to many years --closed our eyes to it. You can go ahead --and keep yours closed—but do not encourage others to do the same.

 

[srp643]

---

Thankyou for the little sleep icon. It explains why the cancer within the Church has spread. We have for to many years --closed our eyes to it. You can go ahead --and keep yours closed—but do not encourage others to do the same.

Yep, and the cancer originates at one source. I’m still more troubled by the priest’s alleged actions/words during the Liturgy of the Faithful. If he is saying something other than the prescribed words during the consecrations, uh oh.

 

[Joysong]

I’m still more troubled by the priest’s alleged actions/words during the Liturgy of the Faithful. If he is saying something other than the prescribed words during the consecrations, uh oh.

I’m glad you said “alleged”, for that is what it is at this moment. And not a word was said about it being the consecration.
You have no need to be troubled, srp, until the OP returns and gives clarification. I am puzzled why you are attempting to read more into this than has been revealed.

Papal_Follower:

The priest arrived to my parish this year, and during then huges changes have happened in his masses, for instance holding the bread and wine at both the same time and saying this is the body of Christ, and not saying much else.

My take on it is something I have seen in older days when a priest, on occasion, would elevate both the chalice and the host saying, “This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.”

Apparently, the OP only heard, “this is the Body of Christ” and “not saying much else” of the customary wording. In itself, it is not heresy. In fact, I’m not sure it qualifies as GRAVE abuse, even though it is not according to the current rubrics. Yes, I know, I’m a liberal and he should be hung by the rafters for this horrendous infraction … (hyperbole, huh?).

Nevertheless until the hanging, how about reiterating that the OP approach him in private to discuss his concerns and follow the chain of command laid out by other posters. I repeat, he will need other witnesses and perhaps a picture or videotape if he submits a report, should the private meeting not go well.

Bottom line, at this point in time, it is not our concern. We have “counselled the doubtful” and have no business passing judgment. Our job here is finished.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Please close the thread. Please.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m glad you said “alleged”, for that is what it is at this moment. And not a word was said about it being the consecration.
You have no need to be troubled, srp, until the OP returns and gives clarification. I am puzzled why you are attempting to read more into this than has been revealed.

My take on it is something I have seen in older days when a priest, on occasion, would elevate both the chalice and the host saying, “This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.”

Apparently, the OP only heard, “this is the Body of Christ” and “not saying much else” of the customary wording. In itself, it is not heresy. In fact, I’m not sure it qualifies as GRAVE abuse, even though it is not according to the current rubrics. Yes, I know, I’m a liberal and he should be hung by the rafters for this horrendous infraction … (hyperbole, huh?).

Nevertheless until the hanging, how about reiterating that the OP approach him in private to discuss his concerns and follow the chain of command laid out by other posters. I repeat, he will need other witnesses and perhaps a picture or videotape if he submits a report, should the private meeting not go well.

Bottom line, at this point in time, it is not our concern. We have “counselled the doubtful” and have no business passing judgment. Our job here is finished.

Quote=Joysong
You are not in a position to know what the OP heard and that the priest meant it “literally.” It appears that you have a serious prejudice against priests, and are way too willing to believe evil of them. That is the product of reading about many abuses, but it is judgmental to assume all priests are “satan’s helpers” (and that’s hyperbole). As Father Groeschel has often stated, the media is responsible for this hatred toward them, and those who perpetuate and promote the slander will pay a heavy price spiritually.

---

For someone who throws the word judgemental around —it does not appear it applies to you. Where do you come off --accusing me of assuming all priests are “satan’s helpers”. Furthermore—it apparently is not beneath you ---- to use Fr. Groeschel to take a stab at what you percieve to be the state of my soul.

We have both had our say in this thread. Go back to sleep and let this thread go.

 

[kangnamdragon]

If the priest simply holds up the bread and wine and says" This is the Body of Christ" and nothing else, and if this is really all he says,

WHY IS NOBODY QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THIS MASS?

 

[Joysong]

Walking Home:

Where do you come off --accusing me of assuming all priests are “satan’s helpers”. Furthermore—it apparently is not beneath you ---- to use Fr. Groeschel to take a stab at what you percieve to be the state of my soul.

In your haste to bash me, you failed to notice I addressed this post to SRP … not you. And did you fail to see the word “hyperbole” after my sentence with a huge LOL smilie?

Ma’am, I’m convinced you need to take a rest from this thread as you are not perceiving rationally. We have had our go-arounds in the past, which explains your antagonizing and unwillingness to let this sick thread die. I’m out of here, and again, I will put you on ignore.

 

[down_under]

because the vast majority of the time. The clergy simply defend the clergy against all commers even after it becomes fairly obvious that something is amiss. I have seen it on this site in various threads I have seen it in real life. where you bring a video tape of a priest destroying the creed to be politically correct and you get told you destroyed the sanctity of the mass by taking it so you were just as wrong.

That having been said do what everyone here told you to do. Follow the chain up the line but start with the priest in question. Then go up the line from there.

 

[otjm]

If the priest simply holds up the bread and wine and says" This is the Body of Christ" and nothing else, and if this is really all he says,

WHY IS NOBODY QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THIS MASS?

If you are saying that he does this at the Consecration (which was not what the OP said), then yes, it would be a legitimate question. However, the OP was not clear where in the Mass this occured, and as there is a subsequent elevation, it is just as likely it occured then; in fact more so as one presumes the priest is not that off the wall. That presumption is one we are to make in charity in a circumstance so inadequately described as this was that one could not ascertain which elevation the OP was referring to.

 

[srp643]

If the priest simply holds up the bread and wine and says" This is the Body of Christ" and nothing else, and if this is really all he says,

WHY IS NOBODY QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THIS MASS?

I did. You and I are on the same page, brother.