Doesn’t this say it all about the sit-ins by Boston-area Catholics who want their parish re-opened? They have refused an offer to have Sunday Masses because it was conditional on them ending their overnight occupation of the building and on them removin the Eucharist from the church, since the building is no longer a parish and they must have obtained it and brought it in there illicitly.
Then on Sunday, the protesters said they were at impasse. They refused a meeting with Archbishop O’Malley and complained that he had no plans to re-open the parish. Well, duh, that’s what he said from the beginning. The archdiocese’s position is that this goes on only until the final canonical appeal from the Vatican is handed down.
[Update: Click on link below.]‘‘The archbishop wants to let the canonical process continue, and they [parishioners] want something more definite, and we’re not able to give that,” [Father Jack Ahern] said, adding that he would again take parishioners’ concerns to O’Malley.
... Ahern expressed disappointment in the outcome of last night’s meeting. ‘‘I think the archbishop has made a good-faith proposal,” he said. ‘‘I think he’s shown some flexibility. What do they lose by sitting down with the archbishop? I don’t understand that. I think they’re entrenched.”
Domenic, I think you’re right.
When Catholics lose what it is that makes them Catholics, they become Protestants, if they remain Christian. This is a sort of common-sensical observation, but it appears lost on a lot of people.
This is precisely what happened at the Reformation. And if we don’t teach young Catholics their faith truly and carefully, we will have a lot more new Protestant groups.
Catholics who don’t teach Catholicism or practice Catholicism set up the situations where people can opt to form these groups of new ex-Catholics.
Christians, especially Catholic Christians, are supposed to be a beacon to a world of darkness. When Catholics don’t function properly, people go out and get lost in the dark and don’t know the difference.
This is kind of interesting because it’s a substitution of what is probably a Communion service for Mass. That means either:
a) a priest is involved who could be censured, have his faculties removed, or
b) the laypeople are trying to confect their own Eucharist.
If the parish is a very progressive parish, it really could be either one, because the understanding that would enable them to tell the Eucharist confected by a priest from the “eucharist” confected by a layperson could be faulty since it is rife among progressives to be confused about the roles of priest and layperson.
If both are going on, they probably can’t tell “what” they have.
The trick to it, of course, is for the Archbishop to haul all diocesan personnel out unless they act under his direct authority. Perhaps that is what is happening here.
Personally, I would guess the diocese is going to lose this one.
Or an earlier reference Jaime:
Dom, at podium pointing finger: “I did NOT defend/attack that… man/woman (insert name)…”
Dom, we feel your pain…:)
Lose this one, how? As in lose the parishoners? Well, yes, but it seems some of them have already been lost.
Or do you mean these people will infect another parish with their faulty understanding of Catholicism? Though, again, it’s not the parishoners’ fault entirely – as mentioned above, many have no clue why what they’re doing is wrong. This is a failure of the pastor and ultimately the bishop.
If these people had been properly taught, then instead of this mess, they might have understood the bishop’s actions, or they might honestly be Protestants, and thus this brou-ha-ha would be moot.
But the pastoral council said the price of Mass is too high….
Thank God Jesus didn’t say that the price of His Sacrifice was “too high.”
As for the abuse of the Blessed Sacrament…this is too much.
For an idea—if any is necessary—as to who is “supporting” this action, check out:
http://stalbertsweymouth.org/wiki.php/FriendsOfStAlbert/ContactUs
The letters VOTF appear numerous times, of course. And then there’s this gem, at the bottom of the page:
Yours is a just and holy undertaking. Be at peace, continue to do good things, you are a light to the nations. -Fr. Dick (married priest)
By the way, is there anyone else not surprised that the former parishioners slapped the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass down after a three-hour party with Father Ron Coyne?
Oh, lose the people…lose the property, etc. Shades of the Reformation.
Maybe they should just contact the man and woman from Rochester who are “priests” in their own church now, but who used to be Catholics and one of them even a Catholic priest. Spiritus Christi parish? Well, something like that anyway. The bishop might even consider selling them the church, since he has no need of it anymore. This is where they are headed if they don’t change their ways.
They have lost the sympathy of any believing Catholic when they refused the Mass.
Yes, Spiritus Christi is what you have described—and interesting thing. That particular group ended up having their services in the basement of another protestant church. The Vatican stepped in in time to prevent the church building from being taken, I believe….
The parish staff that was involved was forced to leave and many people followed. The church property was held because:
1) some people stayed—split about half & half if I remember correctly, and
2) a new parish staff was appointed very quickly to replace the old leaving ones.
I’m pretty sure those conditions haven’t been met in this one, from what I am hearing…
Yes, of course, refusing Mass is a hot-spot for practicing Catholics. Their hand was forced and they showed themselves for what they are.
What We Want, etc.
It’s interesting to note their occasional use of “catholic” (lowercase c) throughout the site. Their mission statement, replete with euphemisms (cf. “as a eucharistic people”… Uh, say what? Do you know what that means?), shows how “horizontal” they are. The Why We Are Here page would be complete if it included a photo of a child holding his breath until he got his way.
Nah, the title> https://www.bettnet.com/?p=4179Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:52:37 -0500
In reality, neither. I pointed to the story, made some comments, and then said that since I don’t know the whole story and emotions surrounding it are running very high, I’d rather stay out of the line of fire. Of course, I ended up getting caught in the crossfire, so what can I do? You can’t win for losing, I guess.
As for Bill’s other assertions, since The Wanderer article wasn’t published any speculation as to what was going to be in it is just that: speculation. And I guess Bill’s assuming the worst. As I’ve said before Barbara Kralis could have been looking for any background information on Archbishop Harry Flynn that her circle of friends could offer (and she has already admitted that her use of the word “scuttlebutt” was ill-advised because it caused people to misunderstand her intent.) That said, I will remind people that I wasn’t defending Barbara either, just pointing out the weirdness of the archbishop’s response and that there were other rational explanations that didn’t have to assume ill intent.
]]>Sorry Dom I couldn’t resist the reference.
Jaime