Saturday, February 9, 2019

THE PATH TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS


This is the manifesto written by the young priest concerning HIS plans for HIS parish. I personally think he was trying to do too much too quickly. I think too that the liberal, post Catholic types in the laity, a la Gov. Cuomo, objected to homilies that appeared political-- challenging their political allegiances especially to their sacrament of abortion.

Please note how many times he uses the pronoun "I" and the word "mine".


Opening Statement from Meeting at Our Lady of Peace Parish.
JANUARY 22 · PUBLIC
*Tonight at my parish was a meeting for folks to address their concerns about changes I have made. This is the statement I prepared so that folks could have in writing those decisions, and to curtail rumors*
Thank you all for meeting with me tonight to discuss the direction of Our Lady of Peace (OLP) parish. I want to let you know that I am hear to talk with you, and not at you. I realize that reading a written statement may not feel like that, but I have also learned that written statements reduce confusion, and increase clarity. In this statement I would like to address concerns about the direction of this parish that I have learned of in one way or another. The concerns are addressed in no particular order. I do not assume that this is an exhaustive list. After I finish, I would like us to have a respectful conversation about these matters.
The Why: As I mentioned in my homily for the Second Sunday of Advent this past year, the numbers in the Diocese of Saginaw are declining, and declining at a rapid rate. When we look around most parishes, we also see a lack of young adults attending. If we do not change to attract younger folks, parishes will continue to close, including ours. I’m on the border of GenX, and the Millennials, and work with the post-Millennials in campus ministry. Younger generations, overall, react very positively to more traditional, and more quiet worship. When my assignment to OLP was first made known, a handful of young adults in Bay City reached out to me with relative quickness. They simply asked how they could be of help to me. I told them that when I arrived, I would like to meet with as many young adult Christians as they could find who were willing to meet with me, and they did so. Several times over the summer I met with them on Midland street to discuss what they wanted to see, and what would help them evangelize. Without exception they all wanted to see more use of tradition, and clearer catechesis in preaching. They were all willing to help as well, so I began to use that help. The combination of declining numbers, few young Catholics, and the enthusiasm of that few for tradition is what is fueling my decisions to make changes.
Mass Times: I have discussed among the staff, and the parish council the possibility of moving the 10:30am Mass on Sundays to 11am. This would be done to offer Religious Education between the Masses. According to Genny, our Religious Ed. coordinator, this is quite popular among the parents of our students. She also states that other parishes that have done this have seen an increase of attendance at Mass, and in the classes. I am seriously considering this, and every mom and dad I have talked to about this said it would make religious education tremendously easier on their schedules. I have not made a decision yet, as the staff and I are trying to consider difficulties that may arise with this change. I can say, however, that I am strongly leaning to making this change after July 1rst. For this reason I will use the term “late Sunday Mass” throughout the remainder of the statement.
Overall direction of the liturgy: The major changes will take place at the late Sunday morning Masses. The Saturday evening Masses, and the early Sunday morning Masses will remain pretty similar to how they stand now in terms of music, and degree of solemnity.
Latin in the Liturgy: I do intend to use more Latin Mass parts (i.e. Angus Dei/Lamb of God, Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus/Holy Holy Holy). I will do so slowly, and with proper catechesis. This is in keeping with the call of Vatican II to preserve Latin in the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concillium, 36.1), and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM, 41). This will be done at the late Sunday morning Mass over time. There will be less use of Latin Mass parts to the 4pm Sunday, and 8:30am Sunday Masses, and will not be used as frequently. My thoughts for those two Masses is to employ a small amount during Advent, and Lent. This would be something as simple as the Kyrie (Greek not Latin), and the Angus Dei, but nothing more.
The Pre-VCII Mass: This is otherwise known as the Tridentine Mass, or the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. I have no intention of offering this Mass at all in the near future. I do not know how to offer it, and I do not see a pastoral advantage to learning it at the moment. I have only been to three of these Masses in my life thus far. I have stated publicly that I do believe it would be advantageous of this diocese to permit this Mass somewhere on a weekly basis. I have also made it clear that I am not the one to offer it.
Ad Orientem Mass: The post-Vatican II Mass, or the Novus Ordo Mass, or the Ordinary Form of the Mass, may be offered Ad Orientem in which the priest faces the apse of the Church during various prayers. I do offer this from time to time at SVSU, and have since my rookie year, as the students react to it quite positively. This past Advent I offered it for the first time on a Sunday there, as the students had been asking, and took care of all I told them they needed to take care of for me to offer this Mass. I have no intention of offering Ad Orientem Mass at OLP. I am open to the idea of doing so, but that would need to be a ground up movement, and, if that were to happen, I would do so at the late Sunday morning Mass.
Music: I have hired Jason Payne to offer chant at all of our late Sunday morning Masses starting in July. An anonymous benefactor inquired as to how much this would cost. I gave him an estimate, and he stated he would pay for half of it. When I discussed the payment terms with Mr. Payne, he agreed to them. Other anonymous benefactors (a married couple) have since approached me, and are considering paying the other half. None of these benefactors are his future family-in-law who belong to this parish. I have hired him because of his unique talent, and professional training regarding ancient chant. This is not a slight to our current cantors, but an employment of an asset we can afford. Since his debut in Advent no less than five young adults have asked me about learning this chant. Younger Catholics have told me how much they enjoy that music, and look forward to its regular use. We will still employ the use of some hymns at those Masses, which may mean also having other cantors lead those hymns. The 4pm, and 8:30am Masses will not employ this chant.
I do want to purchase new hymnals, as I do not like spending the amount of money we spend every year on disposable ones. I am, however, going to take my time on this change. I am currently planning to purchase “Breaking Bread” for 2020 while I consider other options for the future.
Incense: Incense is another favorite among younger Catholics, but not just them. Older Catholics have told me how much they appreciate the smells of their childhood faith returning to the church. I anticipate using it quite frequently at our late Sunday morning Mass. I do not plan to use it with any frequency at the other Masses. On high feast days, however, I do plan to use it at all the Masses to add to greater solemnity, but this will depend if I have the servers to help or not. I am looking into hypoallergenic blends, and better coal. I am also looking into seating for those who may struggle with incense. As always, incense will be used at funerals.
Bells: I plan to use bells during the Eucharistic prayer for all the Masses, so long as we have the servers to do it. All the servers, old and young, seem to like this responsibility, and I want to encourage that enthusiasm. Like incense, many Catholics of older generations have told me how their use brings them joyful memories of their childhood in the Church.
Homilies: I have never preached about how to vote. I went out of my way to say that my homily was not about voting. I was preaching about our spiritual responsibility to fight against the evil of abortion. The closest thing I said to anything about voting is that we will be held accountable for how, and why we voted in the next life. The overarching point of my homily is that Christ is King over all matters: Church, state, and otherwise. I have the text of this homily.
I preached a homily about divorce, marriage, and annulments. I several times spoke that I was not preaching about anybody’s particular situation, and that if folks were in various situations, to talk to me one on one. I was preaching about what marriage, divorce, and annulments are. I have the text of this homily as well.
SVSU Students: I employed the use of SVSU students in large numbers for one Sunday in August. I did this because my predecessor’s time was not split between the parish and a campus ministry. I wanted folks in the parish to see the ministry that would be occupying a decent amount of my focus and time. There are two SVSU students who regularly serve at the altar at our parish. One is a 25 y/o Army veteran who is also a recent convert to Catholicism. He told me over the summer that he was feeling too old for campus ministry, and that he wanted to join a parish. I told him he was welcome at mine, and that other places would welcome him as well. He attended a few Masses over the summer, and was warmly embraced by several of our parishioners, so he know belongs to this parish. Another regular SVSU student-server is a young man who lives in Bay City, and commutes to SVSU for classes. It is simply better for his schedule most weekends to attend Mass here, and I’m not going to turn down his eagerness to serve.
In Conclusion: I am making major changes to one of our three Sunday Masses. I am doing so to embolden young Catholics, and reach out to traditional Catholics who have not felt as if they have had a home in a long time. The late Sunday morning Mass seems to have more young families attending, and I know there are young singles who are inviting their friends to it. The other two Masses on the weekends will not see the use of incense (except holy days), or chant.
Thank you.

51 comments:

The Egytian said...

wow what a monster, (snark off) if he,s not wanted up there PLEASE send him down here ASAP

Gene said...

Well, what does old Angus Dei say about it?

Dan said...

Perhaps I'm a "weird" Catholic, but a priest trying to be MORE Catholic, and taking the time to explain to the parish, would have pleasantly surprised me these days. I would not have been offended.

fogartykck said...

Father, you say Fr Dwyer tried to do too much, too quickly. The new Missal was imposed abruptly in 1970. Any restoration of worship will seem abrupt, too. No way around it.

Anonymous said...

"*Tonight at my parish..."

Nope. It is not "his" parish. Therein lies his first and most egregious error. All the rest flows from that misapprehension.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Imposing the "spirit" of Vatican II on parishes, meaning complete disregard for parishes, their churches ruined by stripping and reorienting them, was despicable and should never be done again in what was then (and I've said before and will say it again) imposing post-Vatican II theology and ideology on the laity in the most pre-Vatican II authoritarian and clerical way!

We can't make that mistake again and when we do we get the messes we've contended with for the past 50 years and now renewed by traditionalists using the same method. Change of this type has to be organic, have the bishop and pope's backing and done carefully.

The Egyptian said...

my parish
I've heard that from every pastor we have ever had, especially in the use of "NOT IN MY PARISH".
It is his parish until he is removed.
He probably got ambushed by some old blue hairs, Believe me I've had my share of confrontations with some of the old bats. Tried to have a Latin Mass as part of our parish 150 year anniversary several years ago. Was informed by a group of 5 old ladies that if we tried they would appeal to the bishop to stop it, "that mass is sexist, misogynistic, and horrible, WE will raise hell if you try." Scared Fr and he wants no controversy. The committee was forced to use certain servers, we sent a letter to all asking for "black shoes, and slacks for all to give a proper look for the occasion, The boys showed up looking fine, both serverettes showed up in shorts, flip flops and big earrings, when asked about the letter one mother stated, "this is good enough, it's just mass" Poor Fr just gave in, "we don't want to ask them to do too much, they might quit"
pleease I'll take a Fr Dwyer any day, at least he seems to have a pair

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Your pastor should have ascertained that he had his bishop’s support in these things and then do it and deal with the naysayers by ignoring them. If there are other parishes they will leave. But if the pastor does not have a good repor with his bishop, he needs to move very slowly.

Dan said...

"Egregious error" NOT!! When people ask, I'll gladly tell them about MY town, MY University, MY State, MY Country, and even MY Parish... take your quivering chin of outrage somewhere else. It's fake upset.

John Nolan said...

It appears to me that this young priest has correctly identified the problem and is doing something about it, but in a measured and sensitive way. And if a lay person can talk about 'my parish', so can the parish priest. Presumably Kavanaugh (for it is he) regards himself as the only person in his parish who may not use the possessive pronoun.

Fr McDonald may care to explain how one can have organic growth from a non-organic product. He knows perfectly well that neither bishop nor pope will mandate a return to tradition in the foreseeable future, does not want when approaching retirement to compromise his successor, and so opts for a policy of inertia.

The use of sung Latin, Gregorian chant and incense at one of the three parish Masses should not be controversial, particularly if the priest sings his parts using the (English) missal chants which are essentially Gregorian.

Bishops in the US seem to have more autonomy regarding liturgical practice in their dioceses. It's a much larger country and the USCCB has less centralizing authority than its counterpoint over here, the CBCEW. Yet even an excellent archbishop like Alexander Sample can only make polite suggestions whereas bishops hostile to tradition can be as heavy-handed as they like and get away with it.

TJM said...

Since this was his personal story, I did not find the use of the pronoun "I" troublesome, recalling that one recent president we had was an "I" specialist.

His changes strike me as fairly modest and ones that were not going to be utilized at ALL Masses. He was careful to point that out. It seems he was trying to accommodate and balance the needs of both Faithful and fake Catholics (the dim bulbs who know NOTHING about their Faith or proper Liturgy).

I thought he had insulated himself from criticism by indicating he did not plan to implement the EF at the parish, but for the haters on the left, even when confronted with the facts on Sacrosanctum Concilium could not deal with the truth and hunkered down in their stupidity and mean spiritedness. I suspect these same folks had ZERO sympathy when radical changes were imposed on us in the 1960s. At least this priest told them what he planned to do and why.

In closing, all I can say is that this parish lost a fine young priest and I hope they remember on the day the parish closes, because the young ones with their children do not show up, that they had a young priest who was willing to shake up the status quo in an attempt to reinvigorate the Faith and the liturgy.

rcg said...

Money walks, BS talks. What many laity don’t realize is that if the bishops are responding to complaints its because they have not been getting corresponding letters praising the priest. If the young folks are responding positively to the new priest they need to draft a letter saying so and sign it en masse. If that is ignored then attach a cheque. It sounds crass, but it works.

TJM said...

Anonymous "You know who" said:

"Nope. It is not "his" parish. Therein lies his first and most egregious error. All the rest flows from that misapprehension."

This from a guy who could care less that a priest makes it "his Mass" by deciding which options he is going to use, or add things that aren't even there in the Missale Romanum.

Clericalism on steroids

TJM said...

John Nolan,

It is nice to see we are on the same page. Isn't the snark from Anonymous (Kavanaugh) indicative of some kind of personality disorder? If I "snark" people know it's me. I let it "all hang out" as they used to say.

Anonymous said...

It's not "his" parish. Or maybe he could claim that the earth is "his" planet and, without regard for how his actions will impact or be appreciated by the rest of the inhabitants, start doing what he pleases and/or thinks is best for the rest of us.

Canonically, the parish belongs to the diocese. As most dioceses are, in civil law, a "corporation sole," the legal owner is the bishop.

Priests who think that they are lord of the manor forget that they are 1) servants of the people entrusted to their care and 2) co-workers with their orfinary.

DJR said...

Anonymous said..."It's not 'his' parish."

The priest was merely employing the English language the way it is commonly done by most people (my parish, my city, my country, et cetera). Then there is a complaint about the way the priest spoke, and the person complaining responds with similar usage. Lol.

"Priests who think that they are lord of the manor forget that they are... co-workers with their orfinary (sic)."

Assuming the word meant is "ordinary," the ordinary is not theirs, as he does not belong to them.

Just like the parish does not belong to the priest.

Complaining about something that someone else does, and then doing the very same thing, is usually considered hypocrisy.

Pot/kettle.

ByzRC said...

He should take it very slowly. Why? It's obvious time is on our side.

It is so nice to be free of this, principally the intolerant laity and unsupportive bishops, in the Christian East.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

What I miss about the pre-Vatican II Church's liturgy is that it was simple. By this I meant there was the Low Mass, the High Mass and the Solemn High Mass. If there was going to be a sung Mass, you did chant and you chanted the Mass. The type of chant depended on the resources of the parish and the music director/organist. If you could do more complicated things fine and the parish appreciated it. If you didn't have resources, plain chant sufficed.

The laity knew that a chanted Mass meant precisely that and that a High Mass would be chanted, there would be bells and incense would be used.

But most parishes also had a low Mass with no chanting and maybe four traditional Catholic hymns usually Marian. There were not a lot of options, thus noble simplicity.

Prior to Vatican II a parish would be upset if a pastor eliminated the early Low Mass or made all Masses chanted. The principle Mass was chanted usually, although for serious reason it might be a low Mass. Things were simple and there wasn't any push back from parishioners for the most part and they expected Catholic teaching in the priest's sermons and they loved being read the riot act if need be.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

We've Balkanized the Church with wide differences not only from diocese to diocese and parish to parish but also from Mass to Mass and all based on styles of Mass and music. There is simply to much music and musical choices. NOBLE SIMPLICITY needs to be applied to all of this and the Mass is in need of reform now more than ever but it shouldn't take an ecumenical council to do it. The Mass prior to Vatican II was not in the disarray that the Ordinary Form today is.

Anonymous said...

"The priest was merely employing the English language the way it is commonly done by most people (my parish, my city, my country, et cetera)."

By his actions it seems he had a different understanding of what "his" parish meant.

"Priests who think that they are lord of the manor forget that they are... co-workers with their orfinary (sic)." Assuming the word meant is "ordinary," the ordinary is not theirs, as he does not belong to them.

"Their" - "belonging to or associated with the people or things previously mentioned or easily identified"'

Sorry, no ceegar. The priest is "associated with" his ordinary.

Anonymous said...

The young priest is a "white martyr" if I correctly remember the applicable description for him. Plenty of other parishes would love to have him. It is good that he is a take charge person, takes seriously his mission to catechize and teach the chief prayer of the Church. I find the reluctant Catholics insensitive and churlish in their behavior. The dissenting member of the parish found the solid teaching of their priest 'hard sayings" could not stand it. Well now, I have read something similar happened to the Head of the Church in some old book. He too was abandoned by some but not all of his disciples. History vindicated the ones who chose to remain loyal.

Let us hope more young priests and some older ones who have nothing too loose will follow in Fr. Dwyer's steps. The ones you loose are already lost. Judas left too. Maybe later most will repent and return.

rcg said...

We have not yet heard from Fr Fox, who has a similar, if much more measured approach. He has introduced more perennial Catholic liturgical practices in his outpost parish in Russia with what appears to be some success in fact, some of our schola sing there at times.

rcg said...

We have not yet heard from Fr Fox, who has a similar, if much more measured approach. He has introduced more perennial Catholic liturgical practices in his outpost parish in Russia with what appears to be some success in fact, some of our schola sing there at times.

Dan said...

For someone that claims they won't be responding to TJM, you sure do respond a lot - under different names trying to hide.

Grammaticaster said...

Several times on this blog (and indeed on others), I have come across people who write 'could care less' when they actually mean 'couldn't care less'. The distinction is important, since the one expression negates the other.

TJM said...

Dan,

The poor man has issues!

DJR said...

Anonymous said..."'Their' - 'belonging to or associated with the people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.'"

"My" - belonging to or associated with the people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.

It's absurd to argue in one instance that "my parish" is incorrect but "their orfinary" (sic) is somehow different.

Utter hypocrisy.

Sorry, you can keep your ceegar, as well as your "orfinary."

Dan said...

Grammaticaster, show evidence or retract your calumny!!

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

My dad used to say (deliberately misquoting it) "The road to hell is paved with people with good intentions."

When we'd correct him he'd just smile and walk away, and the next time it was appropriate to say, he'd say it the same way.

So now every time we say that expression, we say it like my dad used to.

And we imagine a long road to hell with people used as paving stones, those people who had only good intentions, but did so much bad stuff. :-)

God bless.
Bee


T

Anonymous said...

When I say, "This is my city," I am expressing the fact that I am a member of a larger community. Those statements do not indicate ownership or control of the city or the country.

When I say, "This is my belt," I am indicating ownership. Ownership implies that I may do with my belt what I wish. I can wear it or not, I can hang it in the closet or place it on the bed or put it in drawer in the dresser.

It seems, given his actions, that when this young priest said, "This is my parish," he was expressing the idea that he was in control and that he could do with "his" parish what he wished. And, given the circumstances, it seems that he did so without much regard for the others who were also part of the larger community of the parish.

A "white martyr" is not someone who is opposed for making unpopular decisions or someone who is criticized for the actions he/she has taken. A priest who is removed from his position because he favors the use of bells, Latin, incense, or ad orientem worship is not a white martyr.

White martyrdom is suffering for faith in Jesus Christ. Choices in the style of the celebration of the Mass do not rise to the level of martyrdom, white, green, or red.

John Nolan said...

Kavanaugh, a priest who is removed from his parish for trying to implement what the universal Church mandates for the celebration of the liturgy may not be a white martyr but is certainly a victim of injustice.

A parish priest is responsible for the liturgy in his parish as it is he who celebrates it. He might be expected to know more about the subject than do his parishioners (I know that this does not apply in your case, but you are more liturgically ignorant than most).

Now just give it a rest. We are sick and tired of listening to your half-baked opinions.

Anonymous said...

He wasn't removed for implementing what the universal Church "mandates."

He was removed for being imperious, for being intentionally provocative, and for failing to recognize that exercising his responsibility has limitations.

He created his own difficulties - he is no victim of injustice.

No, I will not give it a rest. What you may be sick and tired of hearing is of no concern to me.

Dan said...

My poetic contribution:

There once was a man quite nefarious
Whose comments on blogs are hilarious
He thinks he is wise, but we know his disguise,
When he signs his name as "anonymous"

Joe Potillor said...

Kyrie Eleison.

TJM said...

Dan,

Ring, ring, ring. You are a winner!!!!

DJR said...

Anonymous said... "It seems, given his actions, that when this young priest said, 'This is my parish...'"

First, in an act of hypocrisy, you complain about someone using a possessive determiner that every English speaking person would expect to hear, except perhaps for you: "my parish"), and then you yourself do that very thing ("their orfinary").

Upon being called out, you double down and actually make the case against yourself, indicating that it's okay for you to say "their orfinary" because "the priest is 'associated with' his ordinary," when logic dictates that it would then be correct for a priest to speak about "my parish" because, obviously, a priest assigned to a parish is "associated with" that parish.

Then on top of that, you falsify and misrepresent what Father Dwyer stated. He didn't say, "This is my parish." He said, "Tonight at my parish...," which is the way every English speaker in the world, except perhaps for you, would expect the priest to speak.

What person in her right mind, when encountering a priest she knows, would say to him, "Hey, Father, how are things at the bishop's parish" as opposed to saying, "How are things at your parish?"

Although posted as Anonymous, some people here apparently think that you are Father Kavanaugh. If that is the case, then the hypocrisy is even that much greater.

On the website of the parish of Saint Peter the Apostle, Savannah Diocese, one can find a letter signed by "Michael J. Kavanaugh" where, in the body of the letter, the term "our parish" can be plainly seen.

Well, if Father Dwyer cannot properly use the term "my parish" when speaking about the parish where he was stationed because the parish does not belong to him but, rather, to the local "orfinary," then neither can that website properly make the statement that Saint Peter the Apostle is "our parish," as the parish belongs neither to Father Kavanaugh nor to its parishioners; it belongs to the "orfinary."

However, if it is proper for Father Kavanaugh to use the term "our parish" when referring to Saint Peter the Apostle parish in the Savannah Diocese, then it cannot possibly be improper for Father Dwyer to have used the term "my parish" when referring to the parish where he was.

In fact, the first seven words used by Father McDonald in his article entitled "DO PRACTICING YOUNG CATHOLICS HAVE THE SAME HATRED OF HUMANAE VITAE AS MY GENERATION OF CATHOLICS (THE 1960'S)?" are: "MY new parish in Richmond Hill, Georgia..."

That's how most people speak. To complain about such usage, and then turn around and do the exact same thing, is, as I stated before, rank hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

"Bakersfield is 'my' city.

Even though Bakersfield is "my" city, this does not mean that I get to do what I want, when I want, without regard for the wants and needs of others in Bakersfield.

"Sacred Heart is 'my' parish." It seem that this priest thought that he could do what he wants, when he wants, without regard for the wants and needs of the others in Sacred Heart parish.

Were a priest to arrive in a parish where the EF was celebrated, where Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion were not used, where only males were allowed to act as altar servers, and were he to stop the EF without consultation, were he to initiate the use of Extraordinary Ministers, were he to begin allowing females to act as altar servers, and were he to say, "Well this is MY parish and I can do what I think is right," there would be an uproar here. "Clericalism on steroids" would be the cry.

"My" and "our" are words. Actions taken by those using those words indicate, it seems to me, how they understand the meaning of those words.

Hypocrisy much?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Therein you hit the nail on the head concerning the liturgical disarray we experience in the Church caused by liberalizing imposition of a horizontal ecclesiology on the liturgy. Just who imposed the vernacular, Mass facing the people, lay ministers to include Eucharistic ministers, male and female servers, etc, choir facing the congregation, folk music, guitars and you get my drift.

So a priest has a particular theology that convicts him and he wants to impose it on the parish to which he is assigned, regardless of the theology, far right, far left, middle of the road.

Effectively we have become less catholic and more congregational, like the Baptists. It only follows that the congregation should hire its priest so they get the ideology they want.

Vatican II cause this by bishops who imposed it on unsuspecting Catholics many of whom, like children, accepted it. Yes there is a new paradigm in the Church, it is called Protestantism and Vatican II is its source.

TJM said...

Kavanaugh at 8:18,

Poor analogy. The difference is, the EF is the inveterate Rite of the Roman Church, the OF is not. All of the things you mention are options, not requirements, available to the clericalism on steriods types in the OF. The EF celebrant does not have that kind of latitude. He is a servant of the Liturgy not its master.

DJR said...

Anonymous: "'My' and 'our' are words. Actions taken by those using those words indicate, it seems to me, how they understand the meaning of those words."

So, a priest can use the term "my parish" when he acts in accordance with your paradigm, in which case, because he is "associated with" the parish, the use of that term is fine.

That provides cover for you to avoid being labeled a hypocrite, as you use language in the exact same way ("our parish").

But a priest cannot use the term "my parish" when he acts contrary to your paradigm, in which case, even though he is "associated with" the parish, the use of that term is incorrect.

Yet, because he is "associated with" his "orfinary," he may say "my bishop."

So, even though the priest was assigned to the parish in question, he has to say... what, exactly, when he refers to it?

"Tonight at the bishop's parish..."

According to you, depending on a priest's actions, he must change his use of the English language.

If his actions do not pass muster with you, he cannot say, "My parish did this today," or "One of my parishioners told me this," or "At my Mass this morning, I gave the following sermon."

Rather, he must say, "The bishop's parish did this today...," et cetera.

And, of course, all this only "seems" to you to be the case, as you reiterated nearly half a dozen times.

Sorry, the hypocrisy here is all yours.

And it is also hypocritical of you to misrepresent what the priest actually said ("This is my parish" as opposed to "Tonight at my parish...")

You yourself don't use language in that fashion, but you are requiring it of others with whom you disagree regarding ideology or methodology.

Isn't that really the truth of the matter?

Well, that is the textbook definition of hypocrisy, and you may keep that, the ceegars, and your orfinary, thank you very much.

Anonymous said...

"So, a priest can use the term "my parish" when he acts in accordance with your paradigm, in which case, because he is "associated with" the parish, the use of that term is fine."

It's not "my" paradigm. "My" and "our" have their own meanings that I don't determine.

"According to you, depending on a priest's actions, he must change his use of the English language."

"And it is also hypocritical of you to misrepresent what the priest actually said ("This is my parish" as opposed to "Tonight at my parish...")"

A difference with no distinction. The word "my" is in both and that is what I have commented on.

No, a priest can use whatever words he chooses. His actions give, I think, a better understanding of how he understand s the meaning of those words.

John Nolan said...

Were a parish priest to insist on celebrating all of his Masses in Latin, his bishop would be justified in calling him to account, since the vernacular is permitted and many people prefer it.

In the early 1990s the Oratorians took over a parish just north of Oxford city centre. It had originally been the Jesuit church; Newman had preached there and Gerard Manley Hopkins had at one time been curate.

However, by 1990 the Jesuits had left (not before vandalizing the church, burning all the relics and selling the vestments - including two mitres which had belonged to Pius IX - to theatrical companies). By 1990 the parish had become distinctly run down.

The Oratorians transformed it. Out went the EMs, for the simple reason that they were not needed. In came the Solemn Latin Mass on Sundays and Holydays. A new organ was installed and a good choir recruited. The polychrome interior of the church was gradually restored. New vestments were acquired. The Tridentine Mass is now regularly celebrated, all the Fathers being bi-ritual. Yet most of the Masses are in English, celebrated according to the books. And the pastoral outreach which is a characteristic of the Oratorians is much in evidence.

The result? Mass attendance has increased FIVE-FOLD. And one of the founding fathers of the Oxford Oratory, Robert Byrne, has just been named diocesan bishop of Hexham and Newcastle.

A lesson here?



Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

John, graduality and the priests keeping their cards close to their chest. Giving a manifesto of what a priest plans while transparent also can cause hysteria.

Dan said...

Thank God for people like "Anonymous" and "Anonymous 2" etc., that focus on the really important stuff like the use of the word "my" and not on the silly things like a young priest being punished for trying SOMETHING to attract people to the Faith.

I'm sure we will be blessed by their (is it okay to use this word?) laser like ability to focus in on the most important aspect of any future post.

John Nolan said...

Fr AJM

No, not at all. Everyone knows what the Oratorians stand for and there was no need for a timid gradualism; the transformation was immediate. No hysteria either. I also know of other parishes which were returned to liturgical orthodoxy and sanity because the PP explained to his parishioners what he was doing and why. People are not stupid (even the rump of Catholics who still attend Mass and only like what they know).

I get the impression that you are advocating a via media which aims to be inoffensive to the majority, in other words 'say the black, do the red' but put up with bad music and trendy innovations like EMHC and serviettes, the abolition of which might offend people for the wrong reasons.

One does not have to be 'ultra-conservative' to criticize this approach, and I, for one, would have little truck with it.

Anonymous said...

"...a young priest being punished for trying SOMETHING to attract people to the Faith."

He wasn't punished for "trying SOMETHING." He was removed for being imperious, for being intentionally provocative, and for failing to recognize that exercising his responsibility has limitations.

I can't speak for Anon 2, but what I have repeatedly said that is was his actions, not the words he chose, that caused the difficulties.

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

Knock it off. When you want to write something like you just wrote, use your name, we know it's you anyway. Speaking of "imperious" most any "liberal" or "progressive' priest I have ever met is far more high-handed and imperious than any pre-Vatican II monsignor. It is THEIR (ok?) way or the highway.

What the hell is imperious about telling people (mostly ill-formed catholics and liturgical morons) what you are going to do and why? That is far more than WE (is that ok to say we?) were provided when a bunch of brain dead clerics ran rough-shod over us when introducing the "reforms" which have served to empty out the pews and the collection baskets. Buzz off unless you want to add something substantive to the debate.
.

Anonymous said...

I will not buzz off, knock it off, or give it a rest.

I think it is telling that you refer to your fellow Catholics in such a condescending way: "...mostly ill-formed catholics and liturgical morons..."

Of course, in using such dismissive language you think you are making yourself look good.

You are not.

DJR said...

Anonymous said..."A difference with no distinction. The word 'my' is in both and that is what I have commented on."

The word "my" is there, yet you have stated that that is incorrect because the parish is not the priest's; it's the "orfinary's."

Therefore, according to you, no priest, ever, nor any parishioner, ever, can ever properly use the term "my parish" because... well, it's not their parish; it belongs to the "orfinary."

The fact remains: You don't demand such English usage of yourself or the people at "your" parish. For you to expect it of this particular priest is blatant hypocrisy, and the only reason you made the comment is because you disagree with his ideology and his methodology.

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

I believe the consensus here is that YOU are always attempting, however feably, to make yourself look good and desperate to have the last word. If you were honest you would admit in the post Conciliar Church that the bulk of the laity are ill formed in the Faith and liturgical morons. Truth is a defense! Instead of giving the young priest kudos for trying to educate his congregation, you call him imperious? Projecting much?

Anonymous 2 said...

Oh my! How did I get implicated in this particular conversation?