The Precious Blood

  • Thread starter Thread starter lakotak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benedictgal said:
The fact that the priest is not even mentioned as the first point of contact in any of these documents seems to me that the bishop is the initial point of reference. The matters are generally directed to the bishop first and foremost.
Click to expand...
By using your logic then, the only person mentioned is the Bishop…no one else…so does that mean you call the bishopric and insist on talking to the Bishop and only the Bishop to talk the matter over???

I don’t mean to ridicule here, but while certainly the bishop needs to know id abuses are occurring, does he need to know every time an “accident” or unintended error occurs?
This is the advantage of talking to the priest first. If what occurred was some sort of error (after all this priest just recently returned from many years of mission work) as opposed to deliberate abuse, it might be settled quietly and graciously and charitably without need to involve the Bishop.

As lovingly pointed out above, it’s very likely that the first question will be whether you’ve talked to the priest about it…that seems to speak volumes…

Peace
James
 
I personally just would not receive the Precious Blood. You have received all the source and summit of Jesus in the Eucharist. You do not need to receive the Precious Blood as well.

I’m not sure what I would do if it continues. The fact that I know the priest is in error would be a problem for me. I suppose the first chain of command would be to talk to the priest, and then the Bishop.

Blessings.
 
JRKH said:
By using your logic then, the only person mentioned is the Bishop…no one else…so does that mean you call the bishopric and insist on talking to the Bishop and only the Bishop to talk the matter over???

I don’t mean to ridicule here, but while certainly the bishop needs to know id abuses are occurring, does he need to know every time an “accident” or unintended error occurs?
This is the advantage of talking to the priest first. If what occurred was some sort of error (after all this priest just recently returned from many years of mission work) as opposed to deliberate abuse, it might be settled quietly and graciously and charitably without need to involve the Bishop.

As lovingly pointed out above, it’s very likely that the first question will be whether you’ve talked to the priest about it…that seems to speak volumes…

Peace
James
Click to expand...
It seems to me that this is what your post and Music Man’s seems to be doing. Part of the problem is that, as I have experienced it through my father, a lot of diocesan offices (and, sadly, by extension, bishops) may not necessarily read the documents. There is some very poor formation out there.

Second, the authoritative documents of the Holy See do not even mention the priest as the first point of contact. If you and those who seem to detract my posts can point these out, I’ll gladly concede. As far as being lovingly, perhaps this is a case where “tough love” would work best. Being loving is not all hearts, flowers and marshmellows.

It seems to me that what is lost here is the the gravity of the abuse. What the OP witnessed was something that is defined as grave by Redemptionis Sacramentum. This is not something that should be festering around for 30 days. This is something that needs to be addressed immediately. Consequences, perhaps, should be assessed. We aren’t playing around with what is sacred. We should not treat the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as though it were our own personal property.
 
benedictgal,

Perhaps there is some issues with language and terminology…Say the Priest DID receive poor formation. Say that he did this, not out of rebellious nature or disrespect, but out of ignorance. did he “Abuse” or did he “Err”
The parishioner makes an appointment, discusses it (referencing the proper documents and the priest thanks them profusely for their diligence and faithfulness. - Error corrected.
The Bishop now has his time freed up for other matters (I’m sure you agree that Bishops are very busy people)

On the other hand say the Parishioner talks to the priest and is rebuffed. NOW the parishioner know that what is being dealt with is not an innocent error, but an “Abuse”, not an error and can lodge a formal complaint with the Bishop so that it might be properly dealt with.

So perhaps what we are trying to say is that, as part of the investigation into the conduct of the priest, it would be good to find out if there truly IS an abuse to be reported…

Peace
James
 
wdtprs.com/blog/tips-for-writing-to-bishops-and-to-the-pc-ecclesia-dei/
According to these tips from Fr.Z “… * it is always good to work your way UP the chain of authority: pastor first, then bishop, and finally the Holy See, remember that every Catholic always and at any time has the right to go directly to the Holy See. But if you work your way up the chain, you have more of a paper trail and, perhaps, more proofs to offer that the Holy See should take interest. This is common sense.”*
 
JRKH said:
benedictgal,

Perhaps there is some issues with language and terminology…Say the Priest DID receive poor formation. Say that he did this, not out of rebellious nature or disrespect, but out of ignorance. did he “Abuse” or did he “Err”
The parishioner makes an appointment, discusses it (referencing the proper documents and the priest thanks them profusely for their diligence and faithfulness. - Error corrected.
The Bishop now has his time freed up for other matters (I’m sure you agree that Bishops are very busy people)

On the other hand say the Parishioner talks to the priest and is rebuffed. NOW the parishioner know that what is being dealt with is not an innocent error, but an “Abuse”, not an error and can lodge a formal complaint with the Bishop so that it might be properly dealt with.

So perhaps what we are trying to say is that, as part of the investigation into the conduct of the priest, it would be good to find out if there truly IS an abuse to be reported…

Peace
James
Click to expand...
My question to you is this: it’s all in the GIRM. Why not pick it up and read it, especially if you are the celebrant? These are basic things, elemental that every priest should know. This is one of those things that does not vary from country to country or conference to conference; rather, it is standard.

It seems to me as though not a few of posts want to let the celebrant off the hook rather easily. But, this is a serious problem.
 
What’s wrong with letting him off the hook easily if he corrects the behavior? Why do you want to punish this guy?
 
I am at the point I don’t know what to do. I am not out to crucify this priest. He is a very devout man. He has been in the missions for nearly 3 decades, in the depth of Africa, probably never had a computer or much of anything modern. I believe this is happening out of ignorance as most of us are ignorant to many parts of our faith, priest no exception. I only happened to find out that this action was an abuse by accident. When we had a different pastor at the church I belong to this happened most of the time at morning Mass, but I did not know it was an abuse. This particular pastor had also been 35 years in the missions.

I wonder if this article number 94 was addressed about those who know and still do. At this point, I wonder what Jesus would do. I am not out to see this priest punished, just shone the error of what he is doing.
 
benedictgal said:
The fact that the priest is not even mentioned as the first point of contact in any of these documents seems to me that the bishop is the initial point of reference. The matters are generally directed to the bishop first and foremost.
Click to expand...
So are you denying that parishioners have a right to complain to their pastors?

It seems to me that we all have a right to complain to our pastors about whatever we think is important. It’s the sometimes-difficult job of the pastor to tell parishioners they are all wet, and should worry about more important issues, or that they are correct, but for pastoral reasons a problem will continue, or that the concern is justified, but he disagrees with the parishioners about the best course of action. Regardless of his answer, the parishioners obviously have the right to complain to the Holy See or their bishop.

I would guess this guarantee is present because in the past some of the faithful have been intimidated and bullied into thinking they had no right to appeal an action of the pastor to the bishop or higher. But I think the right to complain to one’s pastor is consistent with Matthew 18, and was assumed in Redemptionis Sacramentum, without need to state it explicitly.
 
lakotak said:
I am at the point I don’t know what to do. I am not out to crucify this priest. He is a very devout man. He has been in the missions for nearly 3 decades, in the depth of Africa, probably never had a computer or much of anything modern. I believe this is happening out of ignorance as most of us are ignorant to many parts of our faith, priest no exception. I only happened to find out that this action was an abuse by accident. When we had a different pastor at the church I belong to this happened most of the time at morning Mass, but I did not know it was an abuse. This particular pastor had also been 35 years in the missions.

I wonder if this article number 94 was addressed about those who know and still do. At this point, I wonder what Jesus would do. I am not out to see this priest punished, just shone the error of what he is doing.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to sound mean or unfeeling, but, in our diocese, we have a priest who has been conducting annual summer missions to Mexico for many years. Nonetheless, he has introduced a lot of liturgical abuses (including having the EMHCs administer Holy Communion by intinction) into the Masses he celebrates. Nothing was done. The matter was never corrected until the new pastor came in and stopped the intinction by EMHCs and other anamolies. In civil law, ingnorance of the law is not necessarily an excuse. Even though he may be in an area where a computer is not to be had, there is still the written text of the GIRM and other documents.

As to what Jesus would do, He took the cultic sacrificial worship of Ancient Israel quite seriously, to the point of throwing out those who were profaning the sacred space of the Temple that had been reserved as an area of prayer for the Gentiles. God, the Father, also took the liturgical “norms” seriously because He, himself, dictated them.

Rubrics and norms should not be treated so casually. That is the frustration that not a few of us experience here.
 
Digitonomy said:
So are you denying that parishioners have a right to complain to their pastors?

It seems to me that we all have a right to complain to our pastors about whatever we think is important. It’s the sometimes-difficult job of the pastor to tell parishioners they are all wet, and should worry about more important issues, or that they are correct, but for pastoral reasons a problem will continue, or that the concern is justified, but he disagrees with the parishioners about the best course of action. Regardless of his answer, the parishioners obviously have the right to complain to the Holy See or their bishop.

I would guess this guarantee is present because in the past some of the faithful have been intimidated and bullied into thinking they had no right to appeal an action of the pastor to the bishop or higher. But I think the right to complain to one’s pastor is consistent with Matthew 18, and was assumed in Redemptionis Sacramentum, without need to state it explicitly.
Click to expand...
However, you have not produced anything in the documents that states that the priest is the first point of contact. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that sometimes, going through the pastor does not work. They will either dig in their boots and continue the ilicit practice or outright ignore the person issuing a legitimate complaint.

The bishop bears the weight of ensuring the liturgical integrity of the Masses celebrated in his diocese. That is his first and most important obligation. The priests, as his collaborators, share in this duty. However, the bishop is the high priest and he is accountable.
 
lakotak said:
I am at the point I don’t know what to do. I am not out to crucify this priest…

I wonder if this article number 94 was addressed about those who know and still do. At this point, I wonder what Jesus would do. I am not out to see this priest punished, just shone the error of what he is doing.
Click to expand...
Ultimately what he’s doing is not allowed, and he probably knows it. If the bishop finds out, he’ll probably get scolded. If you feel comfortable doing so, you could politely inquire about why he does it this way, and that you didn’t realize it was OK since at other parishes (or even at this one) you’ve seen it done a different way. However you want to sugarcoat it. His conscience will perhaps be nudged by your concern, or perhaps not.

Assuming his answer is not satisfactory, I would then write the bishop. Whether you talk to the priest or not, there is a good chance the priest will know it was you. I don’t think the bishop is under any obligation to keep from the priest the identity of those complaining about him - although you could request the bishop do so.

On the other hand, if all of this makes you exceedingly uncomfortable, you could just put up with it. The Church urges all of us to do what we can to protect the integrity of the Eucharist. But if it is not reasonable for you to take action, someone else may be better-suited to pursue this - perhaps you know such a person.
 
benedictgal said:
However, you have not produced anything in the documents that states that the priest is the first point of contact. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that sometimes, going through the pastor does not work. They will either dig in their boots and continue the ilicit practice or outright ignore the person issuing a legitimate complaint.

The bishop bears the weight of ensuring the liturgical integrity of the Masses celebrated in his diocese. That is his first and most important obligation. The priests, as his collaborators, share in this duty. However, the bishop is the high priest and he is accountable.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you wrote here.🤷🙂
 
Digitonomy said:
Ultimately what he’s doing is not allowed, and he probably knows it. If the bishop finds out, he’ll probably get scolded. If you feel comfortable doing so, you could politely inquire about why he does it this way, and that you didn’t realize it was OK since at other parishes (or even at this one) you’ve seen it done a different way. However you want to sugarcoat it. His conscience will perhaps be nudged by your concern, or perhaps not.

Assuming his answer is not satisfactory, I would then write the bishop. Whether you talk to the priest or not, there is a good chance the priest will know it was you. I don’t think the bishop is under any obligation to keep from the priest the identity of those complaining about him - although you could request the bishop do so.

On the other hand, if all of this makes you exceedingly uncomfortable, you could just put up with it. The Church urges all of us to do what we can to protect the integrity of the Eucharist. But if it is not reasonable for you to take action, someone else may be better-suited to pursue this - perhaps you know such a person.
Click to expand...
I did mention it to a woman that comes to Mass each day and also is heavily involved in the parish–and her response was “Oh!! don’t go there!”
 
40.png
lakotak:
I did mention it to a woman that comes to Mass each day and also is heavily involved in the parish–and her response was “Oh!! don’t go there!”

That is not a good sign; however, that is also all the more reason why someone should “go there.” This is a grave abuse.
 
benedictgal said:
My question to you is this: it’s all in the GIRM. Why not pick it up and read it, especially if you are the celebrant? These are basic things, elemental that every priest should know. This is one of those things that does not vary from country to country or conference to conference; rather, it is standard.

It seems to me as though not a few of posts want to let the celebrant off the hook rather easily. But, this is a serious problem.
Click to expand...
You make a good point that it is all in the GIRM and every celebrant should know this stuff…

I’ll also your reference earlier does not mention the priest as first point of contact…

So I will capitulate to you and say that the OP should call the Bishop and complain - and then let the bishop ask if he/she has talked to the priest… 🤷 (as another poster mentioned is likely they will ask)…

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top