Debate: Should the Church give up on the old-fashioned ‘single-priest’ parish?

We have a great love to the Catholic Church; however, it would not take long, though, to realize that most priests-at least too many of those we have encountered in parishes- seem to be far away from the holy example of the wonderful cure de Ars. This is said with all respect to the beautiful and encouraging exceptions.
Just a few examples: one priest literally hated every parishioner having been blessed by a particular gift; excellent reader, or radiating great holiness; or he would even personally do everything to prevent a professional singer of the parish, blessed with a wonderful voice, greatly appreciated by the parishioners, to ever sing again, when he was celebrating Mass. Why? The unfortunate, stunning and breathtaking answer is simply because he himself was driven by a great urge to being seen and heard, THE one, the ONLY one, and anyone with an exceptional gift or talent was to him only “something” to be removed, not by harsh words, but even worse, by ice cold, calculating psychological harassment, very well planned, well in advance,  exposing them to such deep humiliation, causing them such great suffering that they were faced with one single option: to finally leave, in order to survive spiritually
Another example: one priest was found to tell downrighjt lies, right in the face of his parishioners, encouraging them to invest an immense amount of time to a certain project, instead of informing them that it had all been cancelled half a year ago; his own pride prevented him from telling the truth, since this woulod have meant he would have lost some” prestige”(!!!) Some people lost both some money in the process, nad all the counless months, days and hours they ha been preparing for the very special event, which never came to be. Above all, there was a tsunami of loss of trust in him as a parish priest.

Another example: a parish priest ALWAYS and withy great skill avoids meeting his parishioners in a private talk; as ssoon as one approaches him, his eyes start rolling, as he is already on the run and he does not listen to what one says. Very frustrating!! And dont tell me that it would be due to “being busy” only, I know people in other professions who worh just as hard, or more, but who still seem to take care to listen.
  
Why do I mention this example? Because we have suggested, many times, to other parishioners, what an immense richness and opportunity it would be, if parish priests, instead of living alone in a parish, would be able to share his daily life, with other priests; to exchange experiences, good and bad and, very, very important: to recieve not only help and guidance from others, but the necessary CORRECTION by other priests, who know them well and whose advice they, hopefully, could trust .

Irene
 

“But it is a fact nonetheless and it is pointless wringing one’s hands about it.”

No – it is NOT a fact. There are, proportionally, more priests per parishioner in this country than there have been for some time. It is also a fact that there are many vocations being discouraged by the liberal episcopate for not fitting the mould the elderly trendies would like.

This does not equal a vocations crisis, not at all, and I find it more than slightly distasteful that you should revel in the situation because it works to the advantage of your own personal special interest – which it clearly is, as you appear to post on little else other than priests from the Third World.

I agree that it was a huge mistake, as it opened the floodgates to the experimentation which followed on the part of the likes of Bugnini. The idea was to re-engage the people with the Church. It failed. Indeed, it drove people away. Time to move on from it.

Vatican II has disembowelled the Church. What’s “not all bad” about that? 

We have to judge the tree by its fruits. 

His “Masses” are therefore invalid, confect no Grace. 

Common sense.

What wealth? 

The West in BANKRUPT in case you hadn’t noticed. 

 Sorry but your view is…
…NUTS!!!

I suspect that far more people left because of the changes than have been drawn to the Church as a result of them.

In Europe, the UK, and US — certainly.

But worldwide, there are about four times as many Catholics (and Bishops) as there were just prior to Vatican II, a growth exceeding that of the population growth ratio over the same period.

It’s not just the Old Mass, Matthew. It’s the Faith and mentality and “intimacy with the divine” that goes with it – an entire Catholic world-view and ethos unknown to the Novus Ordo Church. 

I do not appreciate being branded a liberal.  I am simply a lay Catholic who acknowledges the authority of the Pope and the teaching of the Magisterium and follow the faith according to Sacred Scripture and Tradition….Whereas, you, on the other hand, are one of those “Catholics” who by definition is now Protestant.  Simple as that.  You cannot have your cake and eat it.  While I acknowledge many of your arguments, the arrogance (and intellectual hypocrisy and dishonesty) of those who believe that the Vatican II was some kind of Protestant theological conference, and by definition claim that they are more Catholic than the Pope, is incredible.  I agree the Church should go back to much of its traditional teachings in certain matters, as does Pope Benedict XVI.  When we are talking about fundamental matters liek the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and his unquestionable authority in matters of faith and morals, and his ability to convene an ecumenical council, either you submit to the Church, or you leave it.  Simple as that..  Otherwise you are saying that the Catholic Church was corrupted, and you are trying to get back to a “pure” (pre Vatican II) church (which of course is a fiction in the main)…No different to Luther really.   Or, you are denying that the Catholic Church is the true church because it was promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against it and it would be infallible in terms of faith…. Or, you are saying that you are still looking for the “real” Church of Christ, in which case you are a Protestant in all but name!  Come on, try and intellectually engage with these arguments, so-called “Catholics”!!,  rather than just talking a load of crap.

” … t’s OTOH possible that the Church in Europe is simply going through some birth pains as it transforms into a more missionary presence” ..

NO, JABBA.

This is a tempting, though wholly false, and wishful, reading of what has happened in recent decades. The old Vatican II “From the ashes of revolution will arise a new, purer Church”.

“Iota Unum” is brilliant on this point. Somehow imagining that the destruction of the Church is a desired thing because what will follow will be better, younger, more dynamic, is an imposition onto the metaphysical of the biological. 

 No – Priest’s merely my surname – Lord bless you too….

You know something?
I’m sick to the back teeth of Blessed John Henry Newman being dragged out into arguments to justify any position the appellant holds…

a] We’re not talking about the Oratory – we’re talking about parishes and their proposed destruction…
b] There is NO justification whatsoever for imposing a Cardinal’s very exclusive form of Priesthood as the normative form for a secular priest…
c] The Oratory is not a form available to the average priest in a parish  – or even to a collection of priests living in a pastorally-demanding regional centralised hub – therefore IT CAN be ignored – it has bugger-all to do with stifling any spirit – let alone the Holy Spirit – we’re talking about reality – not castles in the air emulating a paradigm wrought in a period where we had a profusion of clergy.
d] ‘It is not good for man to be alone’ refers to marriage and the physical & spiritual complementarity of man and woman forming one flesh and their love overflowing into a single-nature family thus emulating the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity
- it is NOT in reference to those who in the words of  Mk 10:29
Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house
or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my
sake and for the gospel,

30
who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and
brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with
persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.

The Priest has sacrificed himself for his flock and renounced that physical and spiritual intimacy in order to take up his vocational cross…and serve those placed in his care by Christ through the Apostolic commission of that Priest’s Ordinary….

Fully formed in community?
I will agree that a Priest requires spiritual, intellectual, experiential and psychological training among his brother priests and the faithful before he is able to stand on his own – but he has his desert in which to dwell – with a mission to create an oasis for the Faithful….

Clerical sexual abuse was wrought by monsters..tyrannical psychological tormentors who sought to violate, persecute and dominate every aspect of their victim like some puppetmaster – and this spilled over into their ministry – very rarely were they anything but abusive in a myriad of other ways – and far from being ‘lonely’ their vows of chastity – along with poverty & obedience – had been abandoned a long time ago…they did not rape young men because they were lonely but because they were victims of their own malice, spite and lust for dominating power…only for a very few was it an lapsing/falling oblivious yearning for sexual release where they used an available victim as a masturbatory tool…rather it was normatively a sexual form of the prevaiing abusive nature of their entire lives….

Assuredly – priests in solidum – therefore WE NEED MORE PRIESTS
…and THERE IS NO GLOBAL SHORTAGE…

The reason we do not have priests in solidum in every parish throughout the land is due to national and diocesan and conference and futurechurch ideological POLICY…

The pro-Lay-empowerment mob have ensured that vocations were either thwarted or dismissed or wilfully prevented…are you seriously telling me that 94% lapsation of our youth is NOT deliberate?
That the destruction of our Catholic schools was not both an economical and an ideological conspiracy?

[Thank God for Michael Gove preventing the systemic closure and selling-off of our Schools by allowing them to become academies and preventing dioceses wilfully destroying them to eradicate a financial drain and garner extra finances for diocesan vanity projects like superchurchs and pastoral/religious education centres to accommodate the professional laity!!]

We need priests – IN PARISHES – and they are available…
[I repeat - India has more than it can provide with parishes!!]

Your proposition invlves the eradication of parishes and having an ‘oratory-like’ central hub which would dispossess. disenfranchise , alienate, neglect and abandon the many to placate and posture and pander to the elitist few….

..and that’s why it’s NUTS!!!

I’m dorry but you’re attempting to square a circle,,,you really mean the destruction of the parishes
seriously – check out the Anglican initiatives of the late 80s/early 90s and the present French/Dutch situations…

You might not INTEND it by your hypothetical – but that’s what it is is reality…

On the contrary, my experience here is that those who detract from the Traditionalist position have little intellectual capacity of their own but merely talk in soundbites from the 1970′s.

You may read what “suggestions” you like into my posts, which are carefully written for the most part. 

Did I write that the NO is invalid per se? No, I did not. Are very many individual NO “Masses” invalid? Without any doubt. 

Does the Pope have the right to impose a new rite of Mass onto the Church? This question is much more complex than you appreciate I would suspect. Many theologians and Canonists would say “no”, he does not. 

“Anti-Church” was a phrase used by Pope John Paul II among others. 

Anti-Church exists at all times. In our own days it has won an almost-total victory over the Church (which can never die, even if it is found in a group of 10 men in a jungle somewhere one day).

I believe they would be illicit. Validity is another matter; I mean, there is an opinion that saying only the words of institution is valid, but definitely illicit. We would need concrete examples to determine validity…

Well of course I am! But I stand by my opinion-that there are certain traditionalists who do just as much damage to the Church as the liberal dissenters.

It may be complex, but ultimately, if the doctrine of infallibility holds out, then he does have the ability to promulgate a new rite of the Mass. the Mass is certainly a matter of faith and morals. Christ wouldn’t allow the Church to go so awry as to keep people from the sacraments.
The origins of the phrase concern me less than the way you use it, to describe people who are definitely within the Catholic Church and faithful to the Pope.

I just think it’s sad that you continue to support their irregular status.

I do so out of principle, and so do at least one million others, with many, many more millions more than sympathetic.

May be you should start asking yourself why.

Don’t know anything about the various Traditionalist groups in the US. I do know them from Portugal and Kenya and those priests (and laity) have been entirely grounded, though suffering from a siege mentality (which is absolutely not their fault). 

Why give the impression of being a heretic or schismatic then?

Yes I agree, but I do think that care needs to be taken when expressing that notion, so as not to tar the innocent with the same brush as the guilty.

 With such “insight” and “knowledge”, like this, you clearly should have become a bishop rather than an ex-seminarian.  Oh I forgot, egoism is not an apt quality for a Christian.