Having read through this thread I can come to one major conclusion. As long as the Mass being celebrated is a Pauline Mass, the Ordinary Form as it were, the Priest can change virtually anything he wants to, apparently including the words of consecration and it is all good. Everything is fine as long as he has the correct intention which would be to conefct the Eucharist… He can teach anything he wants from the pulpit and that is fine also and we, the faithful are to suck it up, offer it up and forgive the Priest or in the minds of some not even think about it as we are apparently unworthy to do so. Even if this Mass is illicit, it is OK to attend it and we are supposed to do so.{/QUOTE] There is a prior post which sets out what makes a Mass illicit per se; you might try reading that again. And I believe it was mentioned that changing the actual words of Consecration (e.g. This is a representation of My Body) would make the Mass invalid as well as illicit per se, as would using, e.g. a rice cake instead of wheat host.
MIKE46;6222405:
Now on the other hand, if you attend an SSPX Chapel, you are doomed and a schismatic because the Masses are illicit and the Society itself is in a form of ecclesiastic suspension.
I don’t think anyone has used the word “doomed”. That seems a bit - what, petulant? there has been sufficient infromation out of Rome to indicate that it may not be the wisest choice for some, and that seems to be about as far as Rome has gone on the issue.
My question is, why is it OK to overlook illicit behavior in an Ordinary Form Mass, indeed we are apparently to pay no attention to it at all, but not to overlook them in an SSPX Mass?. It would seem to me that illicit behavior either is or is not a reason not to attend Mass.
Many (but certainly not all) of those who complain about illicit behavior in the Mass reached puberty long after Vatican 2 closed, the OF was promulgated and the chaos began.
That is not to fault them, but wisdom comes slowly. It is easy to pick a battle with no veiw to the past, go full tilt boogey at it, and come away in worse shape than before one entered the battle.
Some of us have been around far longer than others; and some have picked up enough wisdom to know when to fight a battle, and when not to engage.
It is a plain and simple fact that bishops do not know what the day to day processes are in any given parish, or even any of them. Bishops have full plates - many of them more than full plates - and they have staff. And the short of it is that the staff they have is there, like it or not, to filter out what the bishop is going to deal with on any given day, week, month or year.
Some of those staff - shock of shocks - are going to filter out letters complaining of irregularities, real and/or perceived, so that this never reaches the bishop’s desk. That is what has been happening for the last 35 or so years.
And even if a letter reaches Rome, Rome simply sends it to the bishop requesting tht he respond to the issue; and the bishop may or may not have a chat with the priest, and then we all go about our business.
I have seen one circumstance, several years ago, in which some members of a parish - I think it was in the upper mid West - actually video filmed a Mass by a priest who was egregiously over the edge. They then contacted the bishop; got no response, and then sent mulitple copies of the film to the mambers of the appropriate discatery in Rome. That one got a response that actually had some teeth in it. And if I recall, they were using the services of a Canon lawyer, rather than simply trying to do this on their own.
In 35+ years, this is the only incident I have heard of that actually got something done. Undoubtedly there have been others, handled quietly; but from what goes on in many dioceses, those are the rare exception rather than the rule.
So the OP is certainly capable of writing to the bishop. Depending on the diocese, the letter might actually be read by the bishop. If the OP gives no more details than they did in this thread, the odds are the letter will go into the round file. If they can give sufficent details over months of Masses - in other words, put enough details in that the bishop is convinced that things are worth his stepping in - what does the OP expect to happen? That the priest will be pulled from the parish? How likely is that when almost all dioceses are short of priests?
Slap him verbally on the hands and say “Naughty! Naughty!”? What is that going to accomplish? If this priest sees nothing wrong with what he is doing now, how likely is he going to take corrections from the bishop? And if he doesn’t, what is the bishop to do, when about the most he could do would be to put the pastor somewhere else - that is, simply shuffle the problem somewhere else? And why would he do that?
And what is the likelyhood, if the pastor sees nothing wrong in what he is doing and saying, that he is suddenly going to have a change of heart and mend his ways? What if he is doing what he has been taught?
The short answer is, what do you want to occur, if you could change places with the OP? And how would you accomplish it in the real world? The world that we have - weak bishops, poorly instructed priests, lack of replacements to the incalcitrant ones, - is no longer the lockstep world that we had 50 years ago.
I did not suggest doing nothing - I suggested praying. Maybe that doesn’t count for anything any more. I also suggested that no priest could drive me away from worshiping Christ every Sunday - and the OP is not the only one who has had to deal with these issues. But maybe that doesn’t count either.
And if that doesn’t work for you, how long does it actually take to drive to the next parish? What is your faith worth?
