Kneeling, Standing Tear Parish Apart

In a struggle to remain faithful to the Church, some parishioners at St. Peter's parish in Fallbrook are feeling more isolated than ever. Since February, Father Bud Kaicher and his associate Father Bernard Rapp have insisted that parishioners stand before the end of the Eucharistic Prayer.

One Tuesday in early February, visiting priest Father Mel Young asked at morning Mass that people would not kneel or genuflect when receiving communion because a new General Instruction for the Roman Missal was about to be released which forbade such practices (the U.S. bishops were not informed of approval of the changes until March, and Bishop Brom did not send a letter to pastors authorizing the changes until April 9).

Father Young neglected to mention, however, that the new general instruction called for a sign of reverence, preferably a bow, before receiving Communion. Parishioner Fran Morgan sent a note to Father Young reminding him that the instruction stated that everyone should show some sign of reverence before communion and asked him if he could announce that at his next Mass. According to Dave Swanson, when Father Kaicher offered Mass the next day,"He said, 'You know, we've been trying to get you people to do what we say since 1992.' What he meant by that is that he's been asking people to stand up during the Eucharistic Prayer, during the final doxology until the Great Amen. He said, 'I'm authorized to do this because I've seen Bishop Brom do this. He voted on this at the bishops conference, so I'm just following what he's doing. I'm your spiritual father, and I'm very sad that you won't do what we say. You should get along because we are doing this for unity.' Well, the [general instruction] says exactly the opposite."

So Fran wrote a letter to Father Bud, telling him that at the next opportunity at Mass, he needed to correct his statement, because "it is not in keeping with the Church's teaching on the subject and that the unity called for is for everyone to follow the [general instruction] that hasn't changed since 1969. We're all supposed to be kneeling."

On Friday February 8, parishioners Dave Swanson, Morgan, and some others did some research on the general instruction and its recent changes. Morgan: "We pulled down the English translation and a study copy. It actually calls for a return to reverence. We made about 10 copies of it, then went to the Vatican II documents, which state clearly that nobody, not even a priest, has the authority to change the Mass. We just handed it out after Mass to people who had been kneeling -- after Father Bud's speech."

"So on Wednesday, February 12, Father Bernie gets up there, and he just ranted for about 20 minutes. He said, 'If you don't think your priests are doing a good job, then maybe you should find a new community -- you didn't think I'd say that did you?' He then called us 'pre-Vatican II Catholics who are stuck in the past,' then said, 'We know where that got Lefebvre, don't we? It got him nowhere.' He then screamed at the top of his voice, 'IT'S OVER!' shaking his hands up and down. I've gone to daily Mass for 36 years and have missed maybe about 10 Sundays in that time. I've never seen anything like that before. He then told the congregation that using the internet was like Adam and Eve using the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He said that our using the internet was evil, and that they were our spiritual fathers and that we should not question anything they say at all. He said we were sinning. He finished by saying, 'You come to ME when you have a question!' He never mentioned that what we handed out was a Church document from a Church website. They knew who we were, yet they never bothered to contact us -- they just started attacking us from the pulpit."

Swanson and his wife went home and wrote a four-page letter to Fathers Kaicher and Rapp refuting their assertions about liturgy and authority. "We told then that they were operating under a legal fiction and that they did not have the authority to change the Mass and we wanted to meet with them to discuss the issue of proper authority." The Swansons demanded a public apology and a proper catechesis on the incorrect points Father Rapp had made at Mass.

A meeting was arranged for February 20, and of the 12 parishioners who showed up, six were allowed in by Father Bud. (One of those refused entry was Mark Wheeler, a former apologist for Catholic Answers). "It was a liberal trying to control a crowd. Father Bud started by saying, 'We are not going to discuss Father Bernie's comments, since I wasn't there.' I said, 'Well Father, you are his boss, and he spoke therefore on your behalf, so you're responsible for his comments.' Instead of turning to Father Bernie and asking, 'Did you say that?' he just tried to protect him by refusing to discuss it.

"It was a really bizarre meeting. Father Bud tried to monopolize the time by talking so fast that no one else had a chance to say anything. He was rude, controlling, and shameful. The six of us kept trying to ask him about this point [standing during the consecration]. The way he works is very clever. He makes you think that he said something that he actually didn't say. You have to pin him down. So Fran Morgan asked him point blank: 'Did the bishop give you the authority to have people stand during the Eucharistic Prayer?' He said, 'No, I don't have specific authority from the bishop.' So I asked, 'Where does your authority come from?' He said his authority came from the bishop because he had watched people stand at the bishop's Masses. Fran Morgan then asked him if the bishop had given him a specific instruction that he could do that at Mass, and he admitted that the bishop did not."

"He basically told us to leave the parish. How pastoral is that? What happened to 'Celebrating Diversity'? They're going through a building campaign up here and they have a prayer at the beginning of the formation sessions that reads, 'Welcome, Welcome, Welcome All.' In our letter we told him, 'History is full of those who did not want to submit to the Church's authority. They are called Protestants. The U.S. now has 33,000 different Protestant denominations. This parish is subject to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. If you do not want to submit to this authority, then you need to prayerfully consider the beauty of God's design for His Church on earth and your place in it as a leader. Remember that 'Whoever exalts himself will be humbled and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.' That really bugged Father Kaicher. He said, 'We could read this as you telling us to leave!' We just smiled at him."

The meeting turned more bizarre when Swanson asked Kaicher to explain his beliefs about the Real Presence. He's got this idea he's trying to push around the parish--and it's a heresy--that God's Presence is equal in every manifestation. He says, 'God is everywhere! He's in the Word and the Eucharist' So when he offers Mass, he never genuflects at the consecration. After the consecration of the wine, he'll bow -- the same bow he makes prior to reading the gospel -- and that's all he'll do. So I asked him, 'Father, if this is really what you believe, then why haven't you told everyone to stand throughout the entire consecration since the Eucharist is equivalent with the Word of God?' Do you know what his answer was? He said, 'You're right. But I did what I could get away with.' Then he said that some theologians said that they were not really sure when the consecration takes place, including some who believe it doesn't take place until the Great Amen! We said told him that we had evidence of when it happens, mentioning the ringing of the bell during the Tridentine Mass. We also told him about the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano which proved exactly when it happens. Father Bud countered that this was simply an allegory. I said, 'Are you telling us the Christ was a liar when he said, 'This is My Body? Or was it not really His Body until all the apostles stood up?'"

Swanson said that the meeting concluded with Father Bud refusing to take any corrective action or make any apologies. "We brought some documents to the meeting, including a Southern Cross article that showed the proper rubrics and postures for the Mass. Then we brought some documents from the diocese -- one that came out in 1990 -- and this is what Father Kaicher said: 'I am the authority to interpret Church documents.' He set himself up to interpret any documents we might bring. Then he challenged us for actually reading Church documents, as if though we weren't qualified to do so. Yet he gave us a letter from Mary Ann Fallon (diocesan director of liturgy and spirituality) explaining the upcoming implementation of the revised instruction. He finally said, 'The only thing I'll do, if Bishop Brom tells me to do something, I have an oath to obedience to him, and I'll do what he says.' That was the only concession we got out of him."

Prior to the meeting with Father Bernie, Fran Morgan called Mary Ann Fallon's office to verify where the diocese stood with regard to the current general instruction and the correct postures for Mass. A secretary faxed Morgan the minutes of a May 17, 2000 meeting of the diocesan presbyteral council, which stated that Bishop Brom explained that the current directive is that we are to maintain the same posture from the end of the Sanctus until the Great Amen. After receiving the fax, Morgan wrote Fallon and asked her to confirm that the current general instruction directives, as sanctioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and approved by Rome is reaffirmed by Bishop Brom. The text of the fax from Fallon reads:

In response to your request concerning the posture of the people at Mass, specifically with regard to the Eucharistic Prayer, Bishop Brom affirms the current directive as stated in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. The directive states: "Unless other provision is made, at every Mass the people should ... kneel at the consecration unless prevented by lack of space, number of people present, or some other good reason." The appendix to the General Instruction for the Dioceses of the United States adapts this norm to:

"The people kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, that is, before the Lord's Prayer.

However, Bishop Brom has advised the pastors not to change their current practice until we have received the official English edition of the the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal. He wants the few things that need to be changed to be all at one time in an effort to minimize disruption. There are some parishes in our diocese that do not follow the letter of the law as stated above [some are prevented because of their space] but I believe the reason for that is that there has been quite a bit of confusion in trying to anticipate what was or what's not going to be agreed upon by our National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Issues over the revised General Instruction such as this have been going on for several years and there is no denying that the long delay can be frustrating. I am certain your parish will comply with the changes and follow the directives of the revised General Instruction when our bishop notifies the pastors of the appropriate time for implementation. Please be patient for a little while longer and recognize the wisdom of implementing the changes all at one time. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me."

Morgan faxed Fallon back on March 4th and tried to pin her down about whether the bishop had approved what Fathers Kaicher and Rapp were doing according the the current directives of the instruction. Swanson's wife, Connie, faxed Fallon the same day, asking for the same specific clarification. Neither Morgan or Swanson received any further reply from Fallon.

When Swanson called to set up a meeting with Father Rapp, he found Father Rapp to be more restrictive than Father Kaicher. "He said that he would only meet with me and my wife, Connie. He refused to meet with the six of us, and he set the meeting for two weeks later. He said the others would have to set up their own meeting -- he was trying to divide us all up. I told Father Bernie that was fine, but that Father Bud was not invited to this meeting. When we wrote our letter, we attached several Church documents to back up our points, and we told him that if he had some documents that could demonstrate his authority, please bring them. We were open to the possibility that maybe he had received some special exception from the Congregation for Divine Worship, but if he did, we wanted to see it. He brought nothing to the meeting. We brought him some more documents from the Code of Canon Law about changing the Mass and some comments from Cardinal Ratzinger, and he wouldn't take them from us."

Probably most troubling to Father Rapp was a witness document that Swanson and his friends compiled before their meeting with Father Rapp. The witness document contained notes from Father Rapp's remarks at the Mass on February 12, with 12 signatures from eyewitnesses who had attended the Mass verifying the accuracy of the remarks. "We got people together who had heard it. Some took notes immediately after the Mass. We wrote up about a page and a half and made sure it was a fair as it could be.

"This time around, [Father Rapp] was a very nice guy. At the first meeting, Father Bud wouldn't let Father Bernie say anything and even told him to be quiet at one point. We prepared a 21-page document, including stuff from the GIRM, Vatican II documents and the letters to and from Mary Ann Fallon, and we spiral-bound the whole thing. In the front was the witness document, and we told him that we were representing the whole group. Father Bernie told us that he wasn't going to discuss our letter or the points of his speech. He just went on and on about how we misunderstood what he was trying to say. We asked him point blank if it wasn't the author of a document who was entitled to interpret it and he said, 'No, not necessarily.' At the end of the meeting, he alluded to the fact that Mary Ann Fallon had answered Fran Morgan's first letter, so we told him that two other letters [Morgan's second and Connie Swanson's] had gone out to Fallon and we were expecting a response soon and that they were in the 21-page document. After we said that, he took the document. He looked at it and said, 'Oh my.' I asked him several different ways if he was willing, from the pulpit, in the same manner had spoken before, to make a proper catechesis to the points he made and make an apology to those who were dealing in obedience to the Church. After a half hour, he finally said, 'No. I am not willing to do that.' That's all we needed to hear. We were done at the parish and decided to go to the bishop. As we left the meeting, we walked past Father Bud's office and heard him say loudly into the phone, 'Oh, hello Mary Ann!'"

The following afternoon, Father Bud called the original six parishioners who met with him and asked for another meeting. "We met the following Wednesday, and Father Bud told us that he called the chancellor (Rod Valdivia). Fr. Bud said the bishop responded by saying, 'I want to make sure that the families understand that I did not authorize Father Bud to allow the congregation to do this [stand during the Eucharistic Prayer] but since it is a long-standing tradition, and they've been doing it since 1992, he may continue to invite the parish to stand.' And that is the word Father Bud is using to defend himself -- he's never used the word 'command' but says that he is 'inviting' us to stand. And that's a good point, because he doesn't have the authority to command it. But they make it as though it is a command, and Father Bernie doesn't distinguish between 'telling' versus 'inviting.' But even if Father Bud is only 'inviting' us, he is inviting us to misbehave.

"We sent a five-page letter with all the attachments by certified mail to the bishop. We called ourselves the 'Scandalized Parishioners of St. Peter's,' and it was signed by at least 17 people. We said at least three times in the letter that the whole issue was one of proper authority and the fact that people who responded in obedience to the Church have been attacked from the pulpit by the assistant pastor, and his comments have not been retracted. We told him that we had been 'excommunicated' from the parish and then defined what we meant by that. We asked that our 'public excommunication' be reversed and that a public apology be given with the proper catechesis and that orthodoxy would be restored to our parish. We also said that we turned to him only because we had tried to settle this unsuccesfully at the parish level and asked him to respond within three weeks. We concluded by saying that we placed ourselves under his apostolic protection under the mantle of Our Lady. We asked him to respond within three weeks.

"The bishop didn't even respond on point to our letter. He enclosed a copy of his directions sent to all priests and deacons in the diocese. It's a two-page document, dated April 9.

Father Kaicher has implemented some of the changes of the new instruction and did correct the difficult situation of asking parishioners to stand at the wrong time -- all on July 1 -- the last day of the time frame given by Bishop Brom. Other violations against the instruction are still in effect at the parish.

Everybody involved in this have too much time on their hands.

The priests did a very poor job of handling the situation. OTOH, I don't understand why the GIRM hasn't been implemented in San Diego. We've had all our changes in place since Advent.

Really. Reading this for the second time, it sounds like a bunch of teenagers fighting.

I just cannot believe the priest told them that he was their spiritual father and they should do what he said, without questioning it apparently.

To be asked to leave a parish from the pulpit has to be one of the most painful experiences of a lifetime. I know some Orthodox to whom this happened and the priest was removed shortly afterward. I can really sympathize with these people. The laity should be standing up for the church and faith, that is their job.

In our diocese the bishop instructed the priests to follow the new GIRM. Our former pastor followed the ones he wanted to and ignored the rest. IOW, the parts that we had to change but none that involved him. We were good parishioners and stood and sang until everyone had returned from Communion and then he allowed us about 15 seconds to kneel before the closing prayer. NO-ONE liked it but we did it. When our new pastor had his first Mass I knelt and so did the rest of the parishioners. He hasn't said anything about it and he's been here 4 months.

Father "Bud" needs a good freeping and the congregants should start tape recording the homilies of "Bud" and Bernie.

Rev. Edward "Bud" Kaicher

Rev. Bernard A. Rapp

St. Peter's Fallbrook, California

Kneel anyway. What can they do? Shoot you?

What they have done, in our 3 local parishes, when certain individuals genuflected before receiving and a local priest supported their show of reverence, is have 2 or more ushers physically escort the parishioner from the premises, bar their return (ushers standing guard at the doors) and refuse communion to anyone foolish enough to try to imitate them. And the priest who supported them was unexpectedly transferred. Actually, he had no position for more than a year, while our local parishes were in need because of the illness of one other priest. That was a few years ago. Fr. L, transferred again since and a pastor once again, was changed by the experience and seemed to age overnight.

So far, the handful of kneelers, myself & my son included, in our local churches have been tolerated. But there has been an abrupt, unannounced transfer - 1 out , 2 in - so I expect things to heat up. The priest who supported kneeling and said so from the pulpit is gone.

I am dreading actually going next week and having to 'raise my hands in a sign of community during the Our Father'. I opposed this the last time they tried it. Now more people are used to it, I expect it will fly. I thought the Eucharist was our sign of community???

And what of reverence for the Eucharist? Like a light switch, it is suddenly irreverent to kneel, but must stand to show community?

"So far, the handful of kneelers, myself & my son included, in our local churches have been tolerated. But there has been an abrupt, unannounced transfer - 1 out , 2 in - so I expect things to heat up. The priest who supported kneeling and said so from the pulpit is gone."

I hate reading this stuff, it breaks my heart and angers me. The 'Catholic Church' in the U.S. isn't Catholic anymore, it's as protestant as it can get. They haven't obeyed a directive from the Holy Father in many years, and have become a renegade Church. My advice to you is just to go to an indult Latin Mass, where everyone kneels to receive the Real Presence of Our Lord.

Also, I understand the the Vatican will be releasing an Apostolic Letter soon, making the Latin Mass more widely available by allowing any priest to say the Mass in Latin without permission from his bishop. This is the rumor anyway. Here's hoping it's true.

God's blessings to you!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Kneeling, Standing Tear Parish Apart

Whose Authority Final in Fallbrook?