OK folks, I have to admit that I'm missing the point here.
The article in question describes in some detail the various ...innovations... within the Minneapolis Archdiocese. And most of us are familiar with the travails of Fr. Altier. This is clearly a questionable Archdiocese from a theological perspective. However, the Archbishop is very much in control of the Archdiocese, and absent his (unlikely) removal and replacement, the situation isn't going to change anytime soon.
Minneapolis is also a big metropolitan area and has no fewer than 5 eastern Catholic churches. 2 Ukranian, 2 Maronite, and one Ruthenian. So there are orthodox Catholic alternatives available to anyone who wants to seek them out. Yet I'd be willing to bet that those same eastern Catholic churches are relatively empty as compared to the average Parish in the Diocese.
Obviously, there are orthodox western Catholics who are unhappy with the situation in the Archdiocese. But they stay. And they complain. And I have to ask: why? To what end?
I can understand the concept of bearing witness. I can also understand a reluctance to change. But at a certain point you'd think that logic would dictate seeking something else.
I guess people just don't think that way.
you raise a good point.
What are you smoking?
These priests have no right to do what they’re doing and they’re still doing this same garbage more than four years later in the same Diocese.
As long as people in the pews are complaisant, nothing will change.