you are not welcome here...

[fix]

it seems to me, you are only using the details of the example to avoid talking about what the example actually represents. let’s forget about this priest and his antics for the moment, and take this as an academic exercise. does the strong-arm tactic ever work in converting/reverting people? no, it doesn’t. and it seems to me the reason you are focusing on the details of the example instead of what it represents is because you do not want to admit that it doesn’t work. love your enemy, as Jesus says. showing love towards those you don’t want to show love to is quite difficult. it is easy to get angry and shout and yell at those we don’t agree with, it is difficult to show love towards those we find reprehensible.

Why do you call it strong-arming?

 

[BSHoop96]

it seems to me, you are only using the details of the example to avoid talking about what the example actually represents. let’s forget about this priest and his antics for the moment, and take this as an academic exercise. does the strong-arm tactic ever work in converting/reverting people? no, it doesn’t. and it seems to me the reason you are focusing on the details of the example instead of what it represents is because you do not want to admit that it doesn’t work. love your enemy, as Jesus says. showing love towards those you don’t want to show love to is quite difficult. it is easy to get angry and shout and yell at those we don’t agree with, it is difficult to show love towards those we find reprehensible.

We are not trying to be difficult. Really. Plain and simply I think that we are trying to determine if what you and those driven away think is “harsh, holier-than-thou and strong arm” is what we would think is “harsh, holier-than-thou and strong arm”. We have to be talking apples and applies not apples and oranges. That is yet to be determined.

We were hoping you would provide examples because that would shed light on whether you and these particular people are the kind that would call something perfectly legitimate, albeit blunt, “over the top” or if their complaints were in line with the Church. Maybe then we could consider their complaints about the *way things are handled *as more legitimate.

Frankly, if they were complaining about him correcting such things as, for example, lay people doing homilies, or reducing number of EMHCs, then I would have a tendency to dismiss the complaint of his “unchristian” attitude.

However this is all moot since you refuse to provide these details, which I guess is an answer in itself.

 

[palmas85]

it seems to me, you are only using the details of the example to avoid talking about what the example actually represents. let’s forget about this priest and his antics for the moment, and take this as an academic exercise. does the strong-arm tactic ever work in converting/reverting people? no, it doesn’t. and it seems to me the reason you are focusing on the details of the example instead of what it represents is because you do not want to admit that it doesn’t work. love your enemy, as Jesus says. showing love towards those you don’t want to show love to is quite difficult. it is easy to get angry and shout and yell at those we don’t agree with, it is difficult to show love towards those we find reprehensible.

Actually Dang, being blunt about things is remarkably effective with many people. Not all of us are so thin skinned that we cannot recognize and appreciate when our flaws and, yes, sins are pointed out. It doesn’t bother me, but then I have always felt that if I take it upon myself to do something then I accept the consequences for that action be they good or bad.

In the example you gave and more importantly the way you gave it, pointing out not once but several times that this seemed to be indicative of "traditionalist" behavior, there seems to be a clear agenda on your part. Your stonewalling on what actually drove the people away is actually pretty revealing on the entire issue.
Your comment here about the Priest and his “antics” as you call them is also pretty revealing towards the general point that you are trying to make.

No Dang, I think that a good many people here and me for that matter have prettty much come to the conclusion that this incident that you describe didn’t really come offf exactly as described, the circumstances leading up to it were not exactly as described and were used primarily to put forth your personal viewpoint that "traditionalist" both clergy and laity alike are cold uncaring people.

I am not saying that you are lying, no I won’t say that nor do I believe it, but I do believe that you have exagerrated this issue so it would work well for your agenda. The fact that you refuse to let us know what actually happened prior to the episode actually pretty much confirms that fact.

 

[palmas85]

it seems to me, you are only using the details of the example to avoid talking about what the example actually represents. let’s forget about this priest and his antics for the moment, and take this as an academic exercise. does the strong-arm tactic ever work in converting/reverting people? no, it doesn’t. and it seems to me the reason you are focusing on the details of the example instead of what it represents is because you do not want to admit that it doesn’t work. love your enemy, as Jesus says. showing love towards those you don’t want to show love to is quite difficult. it is easy to get angry and shout and yell at those we don’t agree with, it is difficult to show love towards those we find reprehensible.

Actually Dang, I am focusing on the details to try to find out what really happened and how that led up to the incident in question… Your outright and somewhat hostile refusal to provide those details which in itself is highly significant, would lead most people to believe that the entire incident either:

1 Didn’t happen exactly as described

2 Was taken out of context

3 Was used solely to put forth your personal opinion that uncharitable, unChristian like, in your opinion, behavior is indicative of "traditionalists" in general. You did make a point of poinmting out that the Priest is "traditionalist" whatever that means, and that his behavior mirrored that of other “traditionalists” that you knew.

As for using this as an academic exercise, how can we? We don’t have enough information to develop anything of value here. You have truncated the thing so completely that there is no way to come to any meaningful conclusion.

 

[GladCatholic]

it seems to me, you are only using the details of the example to avoid talking about what the example actually represents.

Okay, yes, the strong-arm tactic works and I can tell you someone with a strong personality like mine more often than not reacts ONLY to strongarm tactics.

I am in no way whatsoever going to disclose something personal like this, and I’ve a particular incident that occurred and had my director not stepped up to the plate, been blunt in my face, embarrassed me, jarred me into thinking, I would not have had the deepest part of conversion that I’ve ever encountered in my life occur.

And, yes, if you are not going to tell us what was so terrible that he changed, I’m just going to join the other exodus of posters…you see, it does matter. It appears he corrected abuses and you don’t want to say so because the “strong personality” of some of these posters would have a field day.

And even if the above is true, you’ll say “but he should love them to death because that’s the only way to conversion”–which is basically incorrect…loving some people to death will only lead them to hell.

Glad

 

[headin_home]

for the past few years, we have had a “traditionalist” pastor (we have had an NO mass followed by a TLM every Sunday for decades). our parish is very conservative, but he has made some changes that have driven away some members of the church, and when they complained to the bishop, our traditionalist priest got up in a homily and said “shame on you” and totally railed against the people who complained. this past Sunday he was speaking about pro-abortion politicians and those that support them, and while i agree that they are in a serious state of sin, he said they “were not welcome at this communion rail”. i am conservative, but i am not a fan of the EF or traditionalism in general, and i find his attitude very disturbing. Christ came to reconcile the world to Himself, and this traditionalist priest follows the same attitude i see from almost all traditionalists i have ever met, the “holier/better than thou”, “we don’t want your kind around here” attitude which only acts to separate people. how can he stand up there and say that some people are not welcome? these people who support abortion should refrain from communion, sure, but how can he say they are not welcome? why not invite them to confession, invite them to informational meetings, invite them back to Christ and a state of grace? invite them to anything, but don’t shut the door on them! this kind of attitude only drives people AWAY from Christ. shame on him, and i pray that Christ doesn’t say to him “you are not welcome here” when his time comes.

I used to think the same way until the following ?'s
came to mind-------
Is it my love of GOD that motivates my love fpr people ( fear of the LORD )
or
Is it my love of people that motivates my love for GOD ( fear of public opinion )

 

[jmcrae]

I used to think the same way until the following ?'s
came to mind-------
Is it my love of GOD that motivates my love fpr people ( fear of the LORD )
or
Is it my love of people that motivates my love for GOD ( fear of public opinion )

It should not be fear of public opinion that motivates our kind treatment of others, but our concern for their souls.

If a child is standing on something high, you don’t get them safely down by screaming at them hysterically - this will just cause the child to fall off and be killed - instead, you entice the child down gently and safely with kind words and maybe candy or something.

 

[headin_home]

It should not be fear of public opinion that motivates our kind treatment of others, but our concern for their souls.

If a child is standing on something high, you don’t get them safely down by screaming at them hysterically - this will just cause the child to fall off and be killed - instead, you entice the child down gently and safely with kind words and maybe candy or something.

If a child is running into the path of a speeding car,
you don’t calmly walk out to them—you SCREAM.
It depends on the nature of the danger.
My 38 year old daughter just missed Roe v Wade
by 3 years as her grandparents’ attempt to have her illegally aborted were thwarted by my friends’
dad, a local congressman. To me, this is such a serious issue that it needs to be treated with greater urgency.
However, nothing gives anyone the right to be unkind and unloving to anyone.
It is because I love GOD with all my heart that I love and respect all people, including the unborn.
I ask all to forgive me if my OP seemed to be judgmental for It was definitely not meant that way.
In GOD’s love, Steve

 

[jmcrae]

If a child is running into the path of a speeding car,
you don’t calmly walk out to them—you SCREAM.

That’s to let the driver know there is a child in the vicinity - screaming doesn’t influence the child’s behaviour, usually - it depends on the child’s age, of course, but my experience is that if a child has his heart set on moving in a certain direction, there is no amount of yelling that will get him to change direction - if the child’s safety depends on the child’s own behaviour (not the behaviour of other adults who are around), you entice them with something they like; you don’t yell at them.

It depends on the nature of the danger.
My 38 year old daughter just missed Roe v Wade
by 3 years as her grandparents’ attempt to have her illegally aborted were thwarted by my friends’
dad, a local congressman. To me, this is such a serious issue that it needs to be treated with greater urgency.

I certainly agree that abortion has to be made illegal. I’ve had best results when I teach people the stages of life in the womb, and make it personal to them, by saying, “here is what you were like at this stage of development,” and so on.

Girls who personally identify with the pictures of healthy fetuses in the womb tend to keep their babies when they get pregnant; boys who identify with them tend to stick around and take care of their kids.

However, nothing gives anyone the right to be unkind and unloving to anyone.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Dang - you stated:“as Jesus says. showing love towards those you don’t want to show love to is quite difficult. it is easy to get angry and shout and yell at those we don’t agree with, it is difficult to show love towards those we find reprehensible.” I suggest you take your own advise and start loving your new Pastor!

Peace,

Gail

 

[CradleCath]

Exactly.

Dang, now that you are back can you PLEASE tell us what some of the changes are that drove people away? It would help us determine the climate and mindset of the parish if we knew a little more. Besides that, I’m just snoopy.

AND I want to know whether you & the people who were offended enough to go to the Bishop about this chastisment…tried to talk to the priest first.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Paul…back up a little. Are you talking about the OP? In fairness, the OP never supported abortion. He has even said that people who support abortion should not be receiving communion. His complaint was that he thought the manner in which the priest handled the situation was uncharitable and would alienate people. Now I don’t agree with that but in fairness let’s not put words in the mouth of the OP.

I am frustrated with him myself because he says things like “the priest made changes and alienated people” and then he won’t provide any examples, however, that does not mean he supports abortion.

I was not referring to the OP, but to King Alfred. Please find his post. He stated, to paraphrase:

• Many Catholics become “too wrapped-up” in abortion and become confused/fanatical, or something in that vein.
• It is a “political issue” (meaning, I assume, that we shouldn’t give a rat’s *** about it, and/or that there’s no real right or wrong here).

Presumably because of these things, he supported the OP’s attitude that the priest was wrong to do what he did, despite the fact that he acted exactly in accordance with Church teaching - which is very clear in general and to this very specific issue.

 

[BSHoop96]

I was not referring to the OP, but to King Alfred. Please find his post. He stated, to paraphrase:

• Many Catholics become “too wrapped-up” in abortion and become confused/fanatical, or something in that vein.
• It is a “political issue” (meaning, I assume, that we shouldn’t give a rat’s *** about it, and/or that there’s no real right or wrong here).

Presumably because of these things, he supported the OP’s attitude that the priest was wrong to do what he did, despite the fact that he acted exactly in accordance with Church teaching - which is very clear in general and to this very specific issue.

Oh…thus the reference you made to “King”. Sorry.

Not to get further off topic but he does have a point on one issue…people (not restricted to Catholics) can become confused/fanatical no matter which end of the spectrum they fall on. For instance, I am prolife absolutely, but I in no way support the bombing of abortion clinics.

 

[ElizabethPH]

I think that obviously tip toeing around these sort of folks that condone abortion and placating them so as not to hurt their feelings isn’t working. Being loving sweet and kind to them isn’t working. They obviously aren’t getting it!! So hense the two by four. They need it; as a lot of us sometimes do in life to get us on track. I don’t believe the priest was abusive in any way, but telling like it is. Simple straight forward and not pussyfooting around.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Oh…thus the reference you made to “King”. Sorry.

Not to get further off topic but he does have a point on one issue…people (not restricted to Catholics) can become confused/fanatical no matter which end of the spectrum they fall on. For instance, I am prolife absolutely, but I in no way support the bombing of abortion clinics.

To me, talking about following the Church’s teachings on life and blowing up clinics in the same breath makes as much sense as linking nose-picking with global warming (though that’s been done).

In other words, among although the very staunchly pro-life (appropriately staunch) people I’ve known, I’ve certainly never known anyone who would look at bombing clinics as anything other than lunacy.

The fact that you’re seeing some link there is a bit disturbing to me - though I’m sure you’re quite pro-life as you say, the other side’s propaganda may have had some subtle influence on you, which is understandable.

It’s the other side of this “debate” that is not infrequently violent. Subscribe to lifesitenews.com for the straight story.

 

[fix]

If a child is running into the path of a speeding car,
you don’t calmly walk out to them—you SCREAM.
It depends on the nature of the danger.

Perhaps not screaming but a command tone to get their attention. Perhaps this priest used such a tone to get the attention of those who do not want to act as they should?

It can and does work depending on circumstances.

 

[headin_home]

Perhaps not screaming but a command tone to get their attention. Perhaps this priest used such a tone to get the attention of those who do not want to act as they should?

It can and does work depending on circumstances.

Thank You

 

[Cinette]

I belonged to a Parish that I loved for a number of years. The priest’s homilies were excellent and he was an excellent organizer. Holy week was magnificent. He drew many people to the Church. My husband, who had been an athiest for all his life eventually came into the Church.

HOWEVER:

As time went by we became increasingly dissatisfied. Here are some reasons:

• I was a minister of the Eucharist and was disturbed that the consecrated “host” was a pizza bread. It appeared to be to be somewhat “folkloric”. The MOST disturbing thing was that there were crumbs and particles which got lost.
• The priest would say “Father/Mother God…” The Holy Spirit became a “she” in the creed.
• The female altar servers were not appropriately dressed - boobs and belly buttons exposed. I protested but was ignored.
• Inclusive language was encouraged. I have no problem with manhood, mankind and the like.
• The priest was in favour of women priests. In fact, a parishioner who was a nun went to Spain and was ordained - she is now a “bishop” and is ordaining other women.

My husband and I left that Parish of course. This priest is very popular. I saw some of the parishioners at a funeral and other ceremonies at a neibouring Church and they are very nice but I think they cannot understand why we did not approve of how things were done.

This is sad indeed.

 

[bilop]

I belonged to a Parish that I loved for a number of years. The priest’s homilies were excellent and he was an excellent organizer. Holy week was magnificent. He drew many people to the Church. My husband, who had been an athiest for all his life eventually came into the Church.

HOWEVER:

As time went by we became increasingly dissatisfied. Here are some reasons:

• I was a minister of the Eucharist and was disturbed that the consecrated “host” was a pizza bread. It appeared to be to be somewhat “folkloric”. The MOST disturbing thing was that there were crumbs and particles which got lost.
• The priest would say “Father/Mother God…” The Holy Spirit became a “she” in the creed.
• The female altar servers were not appropriately dressed - boobs and belly buttons exposed. I protested but was ignored.
• Inclusive language was encouraged. I have no problem with manhood, mankind and the like.
• The priest was in favour of women priests. In fact, a parishioner who was a nun went to Spain and was ordained - she is now a “bishop” and is ordaining other women.

My husband and I left that Parish of course. This priest is very popular. I saw some of the parishioners at a funeral and other ceremonies at a neibouring Church and they are very nice but I think they cannot understand why we did not approve of how things were done.

This is sad indeed.

Those are some pretty serious abuses. I can see why you left. I would have run away from that parish.

Referring to God as “she”, and advocating the ordination of women, might actually rise to the level of heresy.

You should write to inform the bishop of these things.

Also, one small correction. You were an “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion”. The only “minister of the Eucharist” is a priest.

God Bless

 

[RyanML]

Those are some pretty serious abuses. I can see why you left. I would have run away from that parish.

Referring to God as “she”, and advocating the ordination of women, might actually rise to the level of heresy.
You should write to inform the bishop of these things.

Also, one small correction. You were an “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion”. The only “minister of the Eucharist” is a priest.

God Bless

I’m not a fan of refering to God as “she” and I certainly don’t support the ordination of women, but I don’t think we could call feminine references to God “heresy”. The Scriptures use feminine words and ideas for God. One of the most common was in the Old Testament when refering to the Spirit of God as Wisdom, which is feminine. In the Greek it is sophia. So to refer to the Spirit as Sophia would actually be Biblical, in my understanding. But the term these days has become synonymous with liberal womens’ movements so I can certainly understand a Catholic not wanting to use it. It’s not apart of our tradition and it’s not how Our Lord refered to the Father so while i don’t think it’s heresy, there’s no reason aside from political correctness to use it.