The St. Mary's by the Sea story is breaking
What a story in the Diocese of Orange, and it is starting to hit all over the Net now.
In St. Mary's by the Sea, the administrator is so upset at 55 parishioners who wish to keep kneeling after the Agnus Dei that he wants them out of the parish.
Let us keep track of this situation and pray for a just and Catholic resolution.
In St. Mary's by the Sea, the administrator is so upset at 55 parishioners who wish to keep kneeling after the Agnus Dei that he wants them out of the parish.
Let us keep track of this situation and pray for a just and Catholic resolution.
posted by Quintero at 12:11 AM
27 Comments:
Is this some sort of joke? I go to a Jesuit University, and even here there is kneeling during the Agnus Dei.
Is the problem kneeling after or during the Agnus Dei? And is the pastor as persnickety about other forms of liturgical abuse?
I have heard it said that the devil has no knees; he refuses to kneel in adoration is why.
The hatred for holy posture is not a good sign at all.
Patrick,
This situation is a bit complicated. It started when Father Johnson retired about two years and Bishop Tod took this as an opportunity to cancel the indult mass. Since then he has been chipping away at the customs of the parish and implementing “Mahoney style” changes to the liturgy. The new pastor is implementing these changes with very little consideration for the parishioners. It seems that this issue of kneeling is going to be the straw that breaks the camels back.
Btw, this property that St. Mary’s sits on is about two blocks from the beach in an expensive area. It could go along way in helping to build the bishops new Cathedral.
...if the property is sold the cash could be a great help in building the bishop’s new cathedral.
In "the dolorous passion of Christ" of Sr Anne Catherine Emmerich, towards the last of the book she has a vision of hell.
It resemples a church in the round with demons chained in circular rows one behind the other with the pit in the middle. When Christ enters, the demons are loath to kneel prefering to suffer the cruelest punishments instead however an angel present commands them to kneel and they obey.
In regard to the value of the property, there used to be a cloistered Carmelite Convent along the beach in Long Beach, Cardinal R.M. ordered it sold and the nuns now live in a trailer in Buelton. I believe the convent is now a buddhist monastery.
Do you know why the Tridentine Latin High Mass is no longer offered at St. Mary's by the Sea?
Response to jack Clough
Jack according to the media director of the Diocese of Orange, Father Fenson, the indult for the Tridentine Mass at Saint Mary's ended with the retirement of Father Johnson and is very hard to get otherwise. Also according to the previous Secretary of the Bishop, Father Michael McKiernan, there are not trained priets who can celebrate the Tridentine Mass. But as we know that is a lie, I have it from very good sources that originally Father Kerry Beaulieu, was going to replace Father Johnson and he was getting trained to say the Tridentine Mass, but when he was told that the indult was going to be revoke after the retirment of Father Johnson, he asked to be send to another parish. That is how he ended up being pastor at Our Lady Queen of Angels in Newport Beach.
There were already several priests ready and willing to say the Tridentine. A Norbertine, Father Justin Ramos, had already been filling in for Father Johnson when he was ill (He was excellent). The truth is that Tod Brown didn't want the Tridentine or the trads and he is pushing them out.
Father Kerry was studying the Tridentine? Is that true? I know and love Father Kerry but I can't imagine him saying the Tridentine.
Catholic need wake up out of their denial "everything is going to ok" attitude get your heads out of the dirt and speak! A good place to start would be a demonstration posted in here about Cardinal Roger Mahony's Religious Education Congress. Write a letter to the papal nuncio, and The Holy Father write to all the Congregations at The Vatican bombard them with letters and email go on blogs like oc punch the Orange county register to voice your faith. If you don't stand up to these scandals we deserve what we get! Yeah! we pay the bills!
Isn't amazing how the bishops are so open to having dialog with all sorts of people except Catholics who have an attachment to the Tridentine Mass. The sad thing is, I suppose, some of those who were going to St. Mary's are attending Trid Masses in independent chapels, etc.
Pope Benedict needs to clean house and begin with the likes of Brown and Mahony.
Dear Ken,
I think all word verification things are that way.
At least it's fun to try to pronounce the "words."
Our family has been at St. Mary's for over 16 yrs. I and many other people learned more about the doctrines of the Church in 1 yr at St. Mary's than we had in 25yrs at other parishes because Fr. Johnson provided the solid Catholic atmosphere in which to grow spiritually.We have developed a deep love of the Church and are willing to defend Her against any enemy, even those within her who have demonstrated that they don't care about souls. It's not just about filling a Church, (although St. Mary's WAS packed)It's about teaching and feeding a flock, so that they will be ever more disposed to receiving the Graces of the Sacraments, so that they can become holy, so that they will go to Heaven.That's what it's all about. Now the atmosphere at St. Mar's is more distracting with all the changes and the sermons are all about social issues. The people are becoming malnourished and it shows. We are not free to worship God as the Catholic Church teaches and as we are obliged to. We have been obedient,and we know that obedience is holy, but if a bishop is no longer caring for his flock, and the sheep are in danger, we must fight, not only for the sake of the other sheep but for the soul of the shepherd as well. We fight for those who don't know better. We fight for those who hate us. We fight for those who are too afraid to stand up and be counted. We fight for good priests who can only look to the laity for help. we know that this is Christ's Church and that it will survive, And this is exactly how it does,by the Grace of God.
This is the best string of posts I've read on this blog. I just wanted to express thanks to everyone who posted...they all brought up excellent points and didn't get petty.
From what I have read, Rome has given approval for the local bishop to decide whether the congregation should stand or kneel. Although I prefer to kneel, I am a Roman catholic and will abide but Rome has allowed the local bishop's to prescribe. That said, I will continue to hammer away at real abuses (like the use of unapproved glassware, etc.).
I attend a parish in Orange County where the pastor has said that it is optional whether to stand or kneel after receiving communion. Everyone kneels. It is a shame that Bishop Brown has treated the parishioners at St. Mary's with such disdain.
For those not familiar with the case, in Los Angeles, Orange and possibly a few other dioceses, the bishops chose to ask cognregations to remain standing after the Agnus, until after they have received communion.
This dispute sounds like it is about a lot more than kneeling. Even Bishop Brown says Catholics who kneel for communion should not be denied.
http://www.rcbo.org/offices/images/pdfs/English%20POSTURE%20OF%20THE%20PEOPLE%20AT%20MASS.pdf
I know the folks at St. Michael's Abbey in Silverado Canyon, north of Lake Forest and east of Orange, well. Local residents who want a good and reverent Mass should visit them.
Matthew,
You should consider this quote from the Latin Version of the 2000 General Instruction of the Roman Missal.
"Where it is the custom that the people remain kneeling from the end of the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, this is laudably retained."
On the other hand the approved version of the of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal for the United States says, "The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop
determines otherwise."
But what bothers me about the Bishop Brown's position on this matter is the adamant insistance to implente this rule at a parish where it has been the custom to do otherwise for more than 20 years. On the other hand, liturcal abuses are out of control all over the Diocese and they have been bronght to his attention, but the complaints have falled on deaf hears.
What is wrong with that picture?
The double standard.
Some, or I will say most, can get away with murder, but others will be punished to the fullest extend of the law.
Where Are You Leading Us, Bishop Brown?
It has been brought to our attention that you have expressed confusion and distress as to why many of the laity within your diocese should be unhappy with your leadership. As Catholics who respect the authority of Pope Benedict XVI, strive to be faithful to the Magisterium, and are informed about Church teaching, we care deeply about our diocese. This document is intended to clarify some of the reasons for our extreme disappointment with your actions as our bishop.
Upon your arrival in the Diocese, you had an interview with the Orange County Register that appeared in their July 1, 1998 edition as a means of introducing yourself to your new flock. The article was titled, `Middle of the road' bishop to lead O.C. Catholics RELIGION: Tod Brown is praised by his Idaho diocese, but his moderate views `riled' some. In that interview, we were disappointed to see that you referred to yourself as a moderate. Was Christ a moderate, Bishop Brown? Did He introduce Himself to His disciples as “middle of the road”? We prayed that your moderation was not in regard to your fidelity to Christ and upholding the teaching of His Church. However, we had grave apprehension as our contact with some of the faithful in Boise had given cause for serious concern. (“Yes He Is! No He Isn't!” Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission, September 1998: http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/1998/0998cz.htm )
In the same interview, you listed your activism in the area of homosexual rights among your accomplishments. The article states, “…he has not been afraid to ruffle feathers, speaking out in favor of gay civil rights…” and later added that, “In one instance, some were upset when he refused to support an anti-gay initiative in Idaho. The bishop said it would have "contributed to attitudes of intolerance and hostility directed at homosexual citizens. “ We saw this as significant because, as you must know, first impressions are important. By letting us know upon your first introduction that homosexuality is an issue close to your heart, you revealed (perhaps more than you meant to) the direction you wish to take us.
In February of 2000, you faxed each priest in the diocese two articles by Fr. Gerald D. Coleman dealing with the Prop. 22 ban on homosexual marriage. You wrote that Fr. Coleman's article “expresses very well my own thoughts on this subject.” In that article, Fr. Coleman argued, “Some homosexual persons have shown that it is possible to enter into long-term, committed and loving relationships, named by certain segments of our society as domestic partnerships.” We have a copy of your message, and it was chronicled in the Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission. (“Damnable Falsehood”, Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission, January 2001: http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2001/0201cc.htm) It is shocking that you felt secure enough in your position to fax an article to every priest in the diocese written by Fr. Coleman that claimed that homosexual partners are entitled to the same rights as married couples, adding that Fr. Coleman's sentiments are the same as your own.
Why did you hide Fr. Cesar Salazar when you knew he was looking at pornographic pictures of young boys and young men on his computer? (No Vow Of Silence Here, OC Weekly, Dec. 26, 2003 - Jan. 1, 2004, http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/04/16/news-arellano.php ) Why did he remain assigned to a parish with a school when he was already known to be feeding an unhealthy sexual appetite with pornography that is understood as deviant even in the mainstream of our oversexed culture? Only after your duplicity was exposed did you choose to act. Yet you continued to attempt to posture yourself as concerned about the faithful in this time of crisis.
You have not done much better in choosing Fr. Gerald Horan, O.S.M. as the Superintendent of Catholic Schools. Fr. Horan is a known dissenter who has a history of persecuting orthodoxy, yet you have chosen this man to run Catholic education in our Diocese.
Fr. Horan’s progressive views on moral theology have made headlines since media attention focused on the presence of twin five-year-old boys in the kindergarten class at St. John the Baptist school in Costa Mesa who have been adopted by a homosexual (male) couple living in a domestic partnership.
This story has been widely reported in the press (not without some confusion as to the facts of the case) and is a potential source of confusion as to Church teaching.
It is our understanding that the couple adopted these boys (and other children) and had the children baptized Catholic. We also understand that these men, known to the parish as a homosexual couple (wearing wedding bands, adopting children, and living in a domestic partnership) were being given Holy Communion at Mass (until concerned parishioners brought the matter to the attention of the pastor, Fr. Martin Benzoni, O. Praem). These men were introduced to families within the school as a couple and were listed in the family registry as “father” and “father” of these children. They were also seated in a place of prominence during at least one monthly St. John the Baptist school parent/faculty meeting next to Sr. Mary Vianney Ennis, SM, the school principal, in what appeared to be a show of solidarity. It became clear to a number of families in the parish school that progressive teachers and parents involved at St. John the Baptist were showcasing this couple in order to promote an agenda. The perception is that there is a movement within some faculty and parents involved in the school to encourage the full acceptance of homosexual unions as another type of family equal in dignity and value to that of Catholic marriage.
There is evidence that the men involved in this homosexual union belong to a group called the Family Pride Coalition (http://www.familypride.org ) that advocates “equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) parents and their families” and seeks to “influence and support laws establishing [the] ability to create and protect [these] families”. The male couple with custodial rights over the twins enrolled at St. John the Baptist is featured in the Fall 2003 “Family Tree” newsletter: http://www.familypride.org/education/publications.php published by the Family Pride Coalition. On page eleven of the newsletter, they are photographed with the adopted children with a caption that reads, “Members of the Pop Luck Club enjoyed time with their kids and each other during the Family Pride Coalition’s Palm Springs event in 2002.”
In the light of your own memorandum sent to all diocesan priests on February 15, 2000 in support of civil unions for homosexuals and the inclusion of the Gerald Coleman article, “Is Proposition 22 Discriminatory?” with your added comment that Fr. Coleman’s thoughts on the matter are your own, we feel that there may be some confusion in the minds of Catholics and non-Catholics as to the teaching of the Church on homosexual activity (as being intrinsically evil), the homosexual orientation (as being an intrinsically disordered orientation) and domestic partnerships among homosexuals and non-married heterosexuals (as being contrary to Church teaching and a grave threat to families, society, and the moral order).
This confusion is compounded by the comments of Fr. Gerald Horan, OSM, superintendent of schools and director of religious education for the diocese, made to the media. When questioned about the matter by the press, Fr Horan made the following statements to the Los Angeles Times that were quoted in literally hundreds of news articles that picked up the story:
But Father Gerald M. Horan, superintendent of schools run by the Diocese of Orange, rejected the idea of a parental covenant. If the school barred gay parents from enrolling their children, they would also have to ban children of parents who violate other church teachings, including those who are divorced, use birth control or weren't married in the church, he said.
"This is the quagmire that [the parents'] position represents," Horan said. "It's a slippery slope to go down." (Los Angeles Times, Sunday, January 2, 2005)
These statements have been reprinted at homosexual activist websites such as www.advocate.com: http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=14716&sd=01/04/050, www.gay.com: http://www.gay.com/news/election/article.html?2005/01/03/2, and www.planetout.com: http://www.planetout.com/news/election/article.html?2005/01/03/2 among others, with resultant confusion as to Church teaching on all of the matters mentioned by Fr. Horan (and no longer just those of homosexual activity and domestic partnerships).
Fr. Horan was also quoted as saying:
"It's not really our role to make moral judgments on the life choices of our parents," said Father Gerald Horan, the diocese's superintendent of schools. "We're there for students, not to endorse or condemn parents."
Furthermore, Horan said, the kindergarten- through eighth-grade campus is a private school, and if parents don't approve of who is allowed to attend, they have the option to enroll their children elsewhere. (Orange County Register, Tuesday, January 4, 2005)
Media reports that parents want the children removed from the school, or “punished” for the “sins of their fathers” are inaccurate. All parents want is for Church teaching on these matters to be made clear to all parents and students at St. John the Baptist (and now the general public at large). Ordinarily, teaching on matters such as domestic partnership and homosexuality are not appropriate for Catholic school students before high school age. However, in this instance, the nature of the relationship between these men was known (prior to any public criticism of the nature of that relationship).
Parents asked that those who enroll their children at Catholic schools sign a form stating that they support and understand the fact that the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church on matters of faith and morals will be taught to students in all Catholic schools within the diocese. Diocesan officials rejected this policy as unworkable. Why?
Is it Church policy to baptize children whose parents are not practicing Catholics that are faithful to the teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals, especially when the infidelity is not a private matter of conscience, but a public act of rebellion from Church teaching on both sexual morality and domestic partnership?
Will you, as Bishop of Orange, make a public statement clarifying for all at St. John the Baptist school, the diocese at large, and the media, Church teaching on the matters of homosexual activity, the homosexual orientation, and domestic partnership, thereby further clarifying your position since the time of your February 15, 2000 memorandum?
We are deeply troubled by the fact that many news outlets reported that Fr. Horan said, “If Catholic beliefs were strictly adhered to, then children whose parents divorced, used birth control or married outside the church would also have to be banned.” This amounts to a public admission on the part of Fr. Horan that, by diocesan policy, Catholic belief is not strictly adhered to within Catholic schools in our diocese.
Since Fr. Horan has attached the issues of divorce, the use of birth control, and marriage outside the Church to this matter in a way that suggests that many Catholics in schools throughout the diocese would be adversely affected “if Catholic beliefs were strictly adhered to”, we strongly encourage you to make Church teaching on those matters clear as well. This would also avoid the danger of accusations of discrimination against persons who retain custodial relations with minors enrolled in Catholic schools within the diocese who are also involved in domestic partnerships.
During your first ad limina visit as bishop of Orange with Pope John Paul II, the pope specifically noted his pleasure with the program of perpetual adoration in our diocese begun under Bishop McFarland. Yet, within a short time of your arrival, you sent each parish two new directives. Both directives were sent through the office of the infamous Fr. Rod Stephens. The first directive stated that Catholics must receive communion in the standing position. (In other words, you intended to prohibit Catholics from kneeling for Holy Communion.) Your second directive stated that in all newly constructed or renovated churches, there was to be made a separate chapel for the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament. In establishing these new rules, you made clear to us that you side with the liberal elite who have deemed kneeling to receive the Holy Eucharist archaic and who believe that the Real Presence of Christ does not belong in the body of a church in plain view of the faithful.
We are all too familiar with this mindset. It is one that seeks to separate the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist from His people in the hope that when He is out of sight, He will soon be out of our minds. Frankly, we think those who aim to accomplish this are out of their own minds. They want to push Christ aside and bring their own agenda to the forefront. How can you honestly believe you are encouraging the devotion to the Blessed Sacrament the pope encouraged you to continue to foster when you require that the Blessed Sacrament must be hidden from the faithful and you deny them the right affirmed by the Church to kneel when they are receiving the God who made them in Holy Communion? We have videotape and photographic evidence of you grabbing a woman in order to force her stand for Holy Communion. The photograph and video shows that you first grabbed her folded hands and then grabbed her arm trying to physically pull her up. When she asked you why she was being commanded to stand, you responded, “Because that's the way we receive communion here. Now get up, you're causing a scene!” She claims that your tone with her was demeaning. We have spoken with her and other Catholics who have similar stories.
We are also troubled by the way you handled the problem of Fr. Rod Stephens, your former director of Liturgy and Evangelization. What baffled us was why you pretended to be unaware that Fr. Rod was effectively living with Howard Sellers as his domestic partner and business partner. It was known to be an open secret in the diocese, yet you looked the other way. It is unbelievable that donations of hard-earned money from the laity were given to Howard and Rod through their business, Sacra Forma, so that churches could be rendered less beautiful and less overtly Catholic in their identity. It is absolutely sickening that Rod and Howard then used this money in order to finance their penguin-watching love cruise. Yet you did nothing about this, even years after it was exposed, until you found out that evidence had been obtained through a private investigator demonstrating that Fr. Rod was still sleeping at Howard's house in direct disobedience to your own instruction. We were not surprised by Fr. Rod's decision to disregard your request. He privately told friends and family that you and Cardinal Mahony were well aware of his behavior and approved of it.
Although Fr. Stephens has since taken a leave of absence from the priesthood, you have retained his consultation services through the diocese and paid him handsomely, reportedly to the tune of around $300.00 an hour at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish, St. Anthony Mary Claret Parish, and the Mission San Juan Capistrano.
Why are you allowing this, Bishop Brown? What are we to conclude from your actions?
Where are you leading us, Bishop Brown?
Militia of our Lady of Guadalupe
militiaofourladyofguadalupe@yahoo.com
Patrick,
You are right Patrick, this dispute is more than about kneeling, I believe is about the fact that the Bishop is bothered that this parish has been a liturgical oasis at the Diocese of Orange for more than 20 years under the care of the Father Johnson and he wants to removed that reminder. Liturgical nonsense happens every day around the Diocese and I am not aware that he has ever corrected these abuses. Have you heard about the Neocatechumenate Movement? This movement is thriving at the Diocese and we can very well argue that some forms in which they celebrate the Mass are extremely questionable, but we have never head that the Bishop has corrected them. http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=21939&eng=y
What about the Life Teen Masses? Oh boy, don’t get me started. As I have stated it before, the double standard is scandalous because he has never corrected any other parish or group because of their nonsense.
In the parish bulletin Father Tran has stated several times that these norms are to be implemented to comply with the uniformity around the Diocese. But this is an outright lie, there is no such thing as uniformity in worship around the Diocese. The only uniformity is the of respect for liturgical norms.
The problem with the Abbey at Saint Michael’s in Silverado is that it is not a parish. Why should these people be forced to leave the parish at which a great part of their life evolves around? Besides, do you know what the distance is from Huntington Beach to Saint Michael’s Abbey? According to Yahoo Maps it is 29 miles.
Unfortunately as for your comment, “even Bishop Brown says Catholics who kneel for communion should not be denied” I consider that lip service on the part of Bishop Brown. I personally know about an incident and I have photographic evidence that he denied Holy Communion to a woman who wanted to receive kneeling during the installation Mass for Father Benzoni at Saint John the Baptist in Costa Mesa.
Donatists?
A bishop's Plan to Destroy a Parish:
1) Summarily cancel the Tridentine Mass which flourished for years and drew 200-300 people a week, even though several priests are willing to offer it, and hundreds of people have requested it.
2) Torment the parishioners, most of whom have been very traditional for many years, by instituting widespread changes in liturgical practices and
causing them great distress. Insist upon absolute obedience to your will, even though the Vatican has said a rigid uniformity in these matters should not be imposed on people.
3) Expel the non-conforming parishioners en masse from the parish. Humiliate them by naming them publicly.
4) Continue to push a liberal agenda down the throats of the remaining parishioners.
5) Watch as the formerly flourishing parish empties out.
6) Close the parish, due to "a steep decline in the parish enrollment." Tell the few remaining holdouts to go somewhere else.
Sell the valuable church property for a very high price.
7) Take the 8-10 million dollars proceeds and park it in your Cathedral Fund.
8) Look around and survey your beautiful liberal diocese and rejoice that the one remaining traditional parish is no more.
9) Keep on the lookout for any more signs of traditional Catholic faith and devotion that might break out.
Fernando:
Thanks. Interesting you mentioned the installation of Fr. Benzoni. He's a Norbertine from St. Michael's. I live a few thousand miles away (St. Louis, MO) but am still fascinated with what is going on in the diocese I grew up in. I will pray for you all.
Also, I noticed that the abbey will be moving from its location to another one in the diocese once it finds suitable open space to deal with the large amount of vocations it has had over the past few decades. Maybe it will be a better location for visitors.
And I agree on the right of parishioners to have a reverent Mass at their parish. We have a good bishop here, but it is hard to get him interested in what's going on at the parish level. I can only wonder how hard it must be for those which bishops who are less orthodox.
Prayerfully,
Patrick
I grew up in the LA area, and when I visited family, I often attend St. Mary for the Latin Mass. It is with great sadness to hear what has since occurred. It seems to show that there is a need for the indult Mass their, which is precisely why Ecclesiae Dei was promulgated. Hence, the Bishop is in some way disobeying the mind of the Church in this matter.
I fail to see how it is a matter of obedience whether one kneels after the Agnus Dei or not. People have been holding hands in the Orans position for years during the Our Father, which does not seem to be kosher according to the rubrics. The Bishop does not feel the need to make that a matter of obedience. I believe that Rome has spoken and stated that one's chosen posture at communion time is a matter of personal preference, and not a matter of obedience, no matter what the local priest or ordinary might believe.
Now, it seems that the best thing about St. Mary's is its proximity to the beach.
Miguel
We have noticed that since Flyer #15 was posted on the web, people who read it for the first time and who are not aware of the background of Saint Mary’s, are constructing/drawing their own conclusions about (the “RESTORE THE SACRED” & “SAVE ST. MARY’S”) group. Such is the case at yesterday’s portion of the closedcafeteria blog, http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/. Based on this turn of events, we’ve decided to post a response at this blog. After reading the material we had prepared and posted, we’ve concluded that we could use this “post” at the different blogs and maybe use it as our mission statement explaining our goals. Therefore, we want everybody who sees it to give us their feedback.
The genesis of our group (“RESTORE THE SACRED” & “SAVE ST. MARY’S”) was not because we wanted to bring the Tridentine Mass back. Most of the group members are fine with the Novus Ordo but we will welcome the Tridentine Mass back.
After the cancellation of the Tridentine Mass at Saint Mary’s most of the Tridentine’s attending parishioners left for an “independent” church, Our Lady Help of Christians. Most of the members of our group do/did not approve of this action/decision.
The genesis of our group was in response to the liturgical abuses that began to surface after the retirement of our beloved pastor, Father Daniel Johnson. We sent letters of complaint to Bishop Brown of Orange and to each of the current parish administrators but our letters were never answered.
Before we were a group, 14 parishioners secured a meeting with Father Tran, the current administrator, to discuss the many abuses and unjustifiable changes to the Novus Ordo at our parish. In the presence of these parishioners, Fr. Tran stated that he believes women should be ordained as priests. He also blatantly refused to secure... along with a blatant refusal to secure canonical interpretations of our inquiries relative to the changes to the Mass that were being conducted at the parish (dismissing the group as showing signs of disobedience to the “norms” assigned by the Bishop). A few days after this meeting, one of the participants received a letter from Father Tran with instructions to pass the information of his letter to the other participants. “This is final!”, said Fr. Tran. He added that there would be no more meetings and all the announced changes were going to take place. “If any of you feel that you are not happy with this, you are free to go back to your home parishes; and please feel free also to leave the Parish Council.” This is when our group was born. Meanwhile, through the weekly parish bulletins, we were being informed about all the intended changes.
Sign of Peace
For more than 26 years at our parish, parishioners did not conduct/observe the sign of peace at the Novus Ordo Masses. Father Daniel Johnson always understood that the sign of peace was optional in accord with GIRM #82, “as for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.” Again, the custom of the people at Saint Mary’s by the Sea, for more than 26 years, had been to not conduct/observe the “sign of peace”. While Father Johnson was the pastor, none of the Bishops (the late Bishop Johnson, Bishop McFarland nor Bishop Brown) ever reprimanded him for this custom during their respective tenures.
Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion
For more than 26 years at our parish, Father Johnson rarely used extraordinary ministers to provide/offer Holy Communion. Then, against common sense and directives from Rome, this practice was forced upon our parish and up to today, not even 10% of parishioners approach the Precious Blood during the distribution of Holy Communion.
Kneeling After the “Agnus Dei”
It is not that we “like” to kneel, we are aware that we have the “right” to kneel. We have done this for more than 26 years under the care of Father Johnson in the Novus Ordo. Furthermore, this was the custom at our Diocese until three years ago. However, at Saint Mary’s, we’ve kept keeling after the “Agnus Dei” and we are not aware that Bishop Brown asked Father Johnson to change this practice. This letter from Rome, Prot.n 2372/00L Dubiam, supports our positions. Is it the case that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by No. 43 of the GIRM, intends to prohibit the faithful from kneeling during any part of the Mass except during the Consecration, that is, to prohibit the faithful from KNEELING AFTER THE AGNUS DEI and following the reception of Holy Communion?
Response: NEGATIVE
Vatican City, 7 November 2000 Jorge A. Card. Medina Estevez, Cardinal Prefect
Altar girls and female lectors
Never having had altar girls or female lectors at our parish, these proposed changes were especially foreign to us. Parishioners most upset about these particular changes were/are the women. Meanwhile, this parish has flourished with vocations and fine altar boys. Frequently, there would be Novus Ordo Masses with up to seven well-trained altar boys. Do you see the connection?? On a frequent basis, there would be Novus Ordo Masses with up to 7 well trained altar boys.
Kneeling to Receive Holy Communion
Another of the intended changes was announced in the parish bulletin of July 17, 2005. Father Tran wrote that since “we are resurrection people, we should now receive Holy Communion standing, and not kneeling.” Therefore, kneeling to receive Holy Communion was going to be restricted and the parishioners who dared to kneel were going to be catechized as to why they should not kneel. But because of our efforts, Father Tran found himself to postpone this intended change for a latter day.
Pastoral Service Appeal (PSA)
Regarding the grave accusations for the Pastoral Service Appeal (PSA), we have evidence to support these statements. In other words, if we say that the cat is missing some hairs, it is because we are holding them in our hands.
Our original group of 14 has grown to more than 65 parishioners. Many more share and support our positions, but for different reasons, do not place their names on the “Restore the Sacred” flyers. To date, our group has distributed 17 weekly issues after every Mass/at all Masses.
Before more than 65 parishioners received the sad letter inviting us to leave our parish and our diocese, Father Tran said in the parish bulletin that it was a “mortal sin” to kneel after the “Agnus Dei" and dismissed four fine altar boys for the “newly discovered crime” of kneeling after the “Agnus Dei.”
We hope this clarifies the position of the “Restore the Sacred” & “Save St Mary’s” group.
If anybody would care for more documentation regarding this matter in its entirety, you can send your request via e-mail to militiaofourladyofguadalupe@yahoo.com
You know, for all Mahony's faults and defects, I don't think he is as bad as Bishop Brown on these issues. There are several parishes in LA where people continue to kneel after the Agnus Dei (e.g., St. Victor's) and nobody is told to get out of town by sunset.
Mike...that's a snarky use of the term you snarky....you bleedin' donatist!
Post a Comment
<< Home