Angry Parish Erupts At Bishop

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 February 2010 - 01:30 AM' timestamp='1265873411' post='2055208']
Catherine I am surprised by your comment. The priest in the Australian case was - to be frank - a heretic, while this priest in the present French case is theologically and liturgically orthodox.
[/quote]
Oh, I agree the guy in Australia needed to be removed. Unfortunately, he needed to be removed 20 years ago. I was just commenting on the mirror image of the cases. I am for priests staying no longer than 5-7 years in any parish posting, and for giving Bishops the benefit of the doubt, even if I don't agree, because they are entitled to it. If a Bishop, or a priest for that matter, is a heretic, it's not up to me to make that judgment.

[Apotheoun]

[img]http://webspace.webring.com/people/up/pharsea/clown.jpg[/img]

If only the priest depicted above, who not only celebrates clown Masses, but who also says that adultery and fornication are not always wrong, would be shouted down by the lay faithful.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='11 February 2010 - 12:35 AM' timestamp='1265873751' post='2055211']
Oh, I agree the guy in Australia needed to be removed. Unfortunately, he needed to be removed 20 years ago. I was just commenting on the mirror image of the cases. I am for priests staying no longer than 5-7 years in any parish posting, and for giving Bishops the benefit of the doubt, even if I don't agree, because they are entitled to it. If a Bishop, or a priest for that matter, is a heretic, it's not up to me to make that judgment.
[/quote]
But the cases are not mirror images, because the priest in the Australian case was removed for promoting ideas contrary to Church doctrine, while the priest in the French case was removed for celebrating the older Roman Rite liturgy and for being theologically orthodox.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='11 February 2010 - 12:35 AM' timestamp='1265873751' post='2055211']
. . . is a heretic, it's not up to me to make that judgment.
[/quote]
This is false. Certainly you do not make a canonical judgment, but you must make a moral judgment, and it is never legitimate to participate in evil. Lack of judgment is not a virtue.

P.S. - Nor are you judging the person, but only the actions and statements of the person, and if those actions and statements do not conform to the doctrine of the Church you are obliged object.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

I personally witnessed events very similar to those in the French case, and watched as a theologically orthodox priest was abused by a bishop, and a priest who advocated positions contrary to the moral doctrine of the Church was given the pastorate of a very orthodox parish.

[Apotheoun]

The attitude that holds that the laity must quietly suffer through the pastorate of a heretical priest or bishop is utter non-sense. The laity have a right to the orthodox doctrine and liturgy of the Church. I am reminded of an incident involving Cardinal Newman, who responded to the question "Who are the laity?" by saying "The Church would look odd without them."

Edited February 11, 2010 by Apotheoun

[CatherineM]

If I believe a priest has done something improper, I would never shout at him, especially in church. I would take it up privately with him, and if that didn't work, I would take it up with the bishop. If I believe a bishop has done something improper, I would attempt to take it up privately with him, if I could get an appointment with him. If that didn't work, I'd take it up with his superior. It is then in their court to deal with. Army brat who believes in the chain of command. My father once said that even if you don't respect the man, you have to respect the rank. It does us no good to publicly dissent. That just gives our enemies ammunition.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='11 February 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1265876887' post='2055229']
If I believe a priest has done something improper, I would never shout at him, especially in church.[/quote]
All well and good, but I am sure that I do not need to tell you about the fact that historically the laity have often shouted down heretical bishops, and they have also elected bishops by acclaim (e.g., St. Ambrose).

[quote name='CatherineM' date='11 February 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1265876887' post='2055229']
I would take it up privately with him, and if that didn't work, I would take it up with the bishop.[/quote]
I have done that many times, with absolutely no impact; but I have no regrets in connection with my actions in defense of holy orthodoxy.

[quote name='CatherineM' date='11 February 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1265876887' post='2055229'] If I believe a bishop has done something improper, I would attempt to take it up privately with him, if I could get an appointment with him. If that didn't work, I'd take it up with his superior. It is then in their court to deal with.[/quote]
That is always one way to approach the matter, but it is certainly not the only way to handle it. In the Eastern Churches the doctrine of sobornicity promotes the notion that the good of the Church is the work of both the hierarchy and the laity. After all, the lay faithful are not passive lumps of coal, which is why they have a right, and even a duty, to defend orthodoxy both privately and publicly.

[quote name='CatherineM' date='11 February 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1265876887' post='2055229']
Army brat who believes in the chain of command. [/quote]
Alas I am not an army brat, and so I have no problem making my concerns known, and refusing orders that I know are wrong.

[quote name='CatherineM' date='11 February 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1265876887' post='2055229'] My father once said that even if you don't respect the man, you have to respect the rank. It does us no good to publicly dissent. That just gives our enemies ammunition.[/quote]
Respect - both for a man and his office - does not require that one never confront the individual when he is doing something wrong, and we must not forget that the Old Testament prophets were often rough and tough and even called kings to task, and - of course - the prophetic office did not end when the New Testament was inaugurated. All Christians possess the royal priesthood, which makes them truly, and not in mere appearance, prophets, priests, and kings.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Skinzo]

[quote name='MithLuin' date='11 February 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1265866419' post='2055141']
But, as I pointed out on the last page, the rainbow is associated with gay pride [i]in the US[/i], not in Europe. In Europe, if someone puts a rainbow flag out their window, it will have the word "peace" written on it, and is a form of anti-war protest. Since this video takes place in France, it is quite safe to say that the 'unfortunate' implications that we all are applying to his vestments are locally irrelevant.

In other words...there are grounds to call rainbow vestments liturgically inappropriate, but simply because the tradition is to use particular colors for particular seasons, not to sport them all at once.
[/quote]

Not true. The rainbow flag is used by the gay community in Europe. As the following link shows a rainbow flag was unfurled at "Christopher Street Day" demonstrations in Berlin in 1997. If you google around you will easily find other pictures of rainbow flags at gay demonstrations in other parts of Europe as well.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christopher_Street_Day_1997.jpg

S.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='10 February 2010 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1265859548' post='2055074']
I've never heard that members of the SSPX resent being called Lefebvrites. [/quote]

Maybe that's because you haven't actually talked with too many SSPX chapel-goers?

[quote name='Skinzo' date='10 February 2010 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1265859548' post='2055074']
As they reject all dialogue and compromise, it's a moot point. [/quote]

You do realize that they the SSPX and the Vatican are dialoguing right now.

[quote name='Skinzo' date='10 February 2010 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1265859548' post='2055074']
Trumpeting Vatican I at every opportunity is also not conducive to dialogue with the Orthodox, or anyone else. It is not the approach the Church has taken since Vatican II.


S.
[/quote]

The Church will always teach and emphasize the divinely revealed dogmas defined at Vatican I; it has never stopped trumpeting them.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='11 February 2010 - 08:30 AM' timestamp='1265891415' post='2055252']
Maybe that's because you haven't actually talked with too many SSPX chapel-goers?





You do realize that they the SSPX and the Vatican are dialoguing right now.

Dialoguing? That's not what Fellay calls it. "Dialogue" is a word he rejects as belonging to the Vatican II Church



The Church will always teach and emphasize the divinely revealed dogmas defined at Vatican I; it has never stopped trumping them.

[/quote]
No, I don't frequent SSPX chapels. I avoid schismatics and heretics, it's wise. Zenit, Catholic News Agency, and other Catholic news sites refer to them as Lefebvrists. I hear no outcry. Fellay and Williamson have both issued pessimistic remarks recently on the "dialogue".
Trumping? That means something quite else. Presumably you mean "trumpeting"? Please cite examples of the Church trumpeting Vatican I in the last forty five years in ecumenical dialogue.

S.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Skinzo

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='11 February 2010 - 08:30 AM' timestamp='1265891415' post='2055252']
The Church will always teach and emphasize the divinely revealed dogmas defined at Vatican I; it has never stopped trumping them.
[/quote]
I think you mean "trumpeting" them.

"trumping" them could be see as a freudian slip.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='11 February 2010 - 08:05 AM' timestamp='1265893516' post='2055255']
I think you mean "trumpeting" them.

"trumping" them could be see as a freudian slip.
[/quote]

Eh... it was a typo. I meant "trumpeting".

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='11 February 2010 - 08:03 AM' timestamp='1265893426' post='2055254']
No, I don't frequent SSPX chapels. I avoid schismatics and heretics, it's wise. [/quote]

I don't frequent SSPX chapels, either.

But that's not what I asked you. I asked if you had talked to very many people who go to SSPX Masses. Such conversations can take place at work, school, the grocery store, or even online.

Those who attend SSPXers are not (necessarily) schismatics or heretics, though if you really do avoid schismatics and heretics, I assume you shun all Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians, which must be quite difficult for you.

[quote name='Skinzo' date='11 February 2010 - 08:03 AM' timestamp='1265893426' post='2055254']
Zenit, Catholic News Agency, and other Catholic news sites refer to them as Lefebvrists. I hear no outcry. Fellay and Williamson have both issued pessimistic remarks recently on the "dialogue". [/quote]

You probably hear no outcry because, as you already stated, you don't talk to anyone associated with the SSPX.

[quote name='Skinzo' date='11 February 2010 - 08:03 AM' timestamp='1265893426' post='2055254']
Trumping? That means something quite else. Presumably you mean "trumpeting"? Please cite examples of the Church trumpeting Vatican I in the last forty five years in ecumenical dialogue.

S.
[/quote]

I never said that ecclesiastical authorities trumpet Vatican I in "ecumenical" dialogue; I wouldn't know, since I don't really follow "ecumenical" dialogue very much. What I did say was that the Church still trumpets the divinely revealed dogmas taught at Vatican I. See [i]Lumen Gentium[/i] and the [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i].

[TotusTuusMaria]

This was so sad