Skip to comments.St. Rose Latin Mass: COPS CALLED, Parishioners Banned from Mass
Posted on 05/02/2006 2:08:05 PM PDT by Knock3Times
This past Sunday, April 30, Robert Petratos, a parishioner of St. Rose of Lima Parish in Cleveland, was shoved by an usher and banned from attending Mass by the new associate pastor of St. Rose, Father William Rooney, O.F.M. Petratos, a longtime parishioner, was accosted for passing out to other parishioners a personal letter he had written concerning the abrupt decision by the new "pastoral team" (including Father Bill Rooney) to end the Traditional Latin Mass at St. Rose.
According to Petratos, a humble man and devout Catholic, "after passing out a few letters at the 8:00 am Mass (a Novus Ordo Mass), I was pushed and followed by one of the ushers." He continues, "when Fr. Rooney saw this, he rushed right over and said to me 'Don't do that!' (referring to the letter distribution)" According to Patrastos, Father Rooney then said to the usher: "We're going to have to call the police."
Thereafter, Petratos went home to obtain more copies of his letter to distribute at the 10:00 am Traditional Latin Mass.
"I was passing them out in the parking lot as people were coming in and putting them on windsheilds...when I noticed a cop car."
Petratos approached the police to determine if there was any problem with his actions.
"They asked what I was doing and I said I was passing out a personal letter to my fellow parishioners with my phone number to call me. They didn't seem to care."
At this point Father Rooney came over and very adamantly told them Petratos had to leave parish property and that Petratos was forbidden from handing his letter to his fellow parishioners.
Petratos gives the following account of what happened next:
After several minutes of a back and forth between all of us, I asked Father Rooney point blank to clarify if he was saying that I could not attend Mass. He said "I want you to leave right now."
I repeated myself a second time and asked for another clarification by saying "are you saying that I can not go to Mass? He repeated himself and said "I'm telling you to leave right now and NOT to come back at the 12:00."
I was then told by the police that "since Father does not want you here, ff you come back you will be aressted for tresspassing."
According to the parish website, Father Rooney (the welcoming and inviting new inclusive Franciscan associate pastor at St. Rose) can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org .
I read the entire article (for once) and respond with a hearty, HUH? Whats the problem with what Petratos was doing?
It depends on the content of the letter.
If the letter reflected poorly on the new pastor, the bishop, or anyone else in the hierarchy, whether one agrees with its contents or not, it is a bit of bad form. Coming into a pastor's church and distributing a written document critical of him or his boss is certainly a reasonable reason to be asked to leave.
Even if the letter doesn't reflect poorly on the new pastor, or any of the hierarchy, one should obtain the permission of the pastor before passing out literature in church. I belong to my parish's Knights of Columbus Council, and we often pass stuff out after Mass. With the full and enthusiastic support of our wonderful pastor! However, we would never pass anything out without first running it by the pastor.
To do otherwise would be very rude.
Diago previously posted this account of the ending of the Latin Mass at St. Rose:
A friend just e-mailed me with this very sad news:
How fitting that as one of his final acts, Bishop Pilla appointed a liberal Pastor to St. Rose of Lima parish. The new pastor's first official act was to end the Latin Mass at St. Rose effective May 14. Happy Mother's Day! St. Rose curently has four Masses, but the Latin Mass draws more people than the other three combined and has a bigger collection than the other three combined. This only makes sense as a punitive act to punish some of his most outspoken critics.
Please contact the incoming Bishop:
Bishop Richard Lennon Office and Residence: 2101 Commonwealth Av. Boston, MA 02135-3192 Phone: 617-782-2544 FAX: 617-782-8358
The Petratos letter is quite calm and is mostly devoted to praising the Old Mass and the former pastor of St. Rose. The final paragraph reads:
"We ask for your help in building a dialouge among all concerned parishioners with any time or suggestions in rectifying this situation. If you love St. Rose as much as I do, contact me, your fellow parishioner Robert."
I'm with you trubluolyguy, not sure why Father Rooney went off the deep end.
Let me get this straight. With only two months remaining in the Pilla regime, a left wing "pastoral team" is appointed to take over one of the diocese's few orthodox and traditional parishes. In fact, St. Rose is probably the parish best know for its orthodoxy in the Diocese of Cleveland.
Shortly thereafter, without consulting anyone in the parish, the pastoral team announces that after Sunday May 14 (Mother's Day, 1st Communion Day and PIILLA's LAST DAY as bishop), there will be no more Trational Latin Masses at St. Rose. And you are saying some poor soul trying to organize his other parishioners should run his letter by the tradition-hating "pastoral team" before handing it to his fellow parishioners? Get serious.
I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I am a lifelong Catholic, but not an idiot. I have the obligation to voice my opinion as to how my parish is run. The pastoral team exists to serve us, not vice-versa.
This conflict must be resolved correctly. The parishioners prevail. I can't resist the sarcasm involved in saying that if gay issues (in a positive light) had been the subject of Mr. Petratos' letter, all might have been well ...
"And you are saying some poor soul trying to organize his other parishioners should run his letter by the tradition-hating 'pastoral team' before handing it to his fellow parishioners?"
I'm saying that whether or not this person is on the side of the angels, if he doesn't clear the written hand-out he wishes to distribute in the church after Mass, he should expect to be thrown out and asked not to return.
If the pastor doesn't like the material to be handed out, the party wishing to hand it out should anticipate that he very well may have his request rejected.
Because you view the actions of the new pastor as being immoral or wrong, you refuse to see it from his perspective. However, whether the new pastor is objectively right or wrong, I think it's likely he thinks he is doing what is right.
From the perspective of the new pastor and the new associate pastor, here is a man coming to challenge their authority in their parish, in their church, and when this man is told to stop, he goes home, gets some more ammo, comes back, and does it some more. From their perspective, this is open defiance!
Lots of folks disagree with the actions of lots of pastors. Often, pastors make mistakes in the decisions that they make. Nonetheless, they have the authority to make the decisions for their parishes, and they certainly have the authority to control what material will be distributed through their parishes.
This fellow acted rudely and obnoxiously. I have a lot of sympathy for the folks who were attending the old rite Mass at this parish, because due to the actions of this fellow, it is likely that the new bishop will reject their pleas for a return of the old rite at this parish.
There will be a new Bishop, right? What will the new Bishop think of the gentleman's actions? The gentleman should seek a private audience with his new Bishop. If that fails, he can bring with him more faithful to another meeting. If that fails he can write a letter to Rome and cc it to the bIshop and he can move from that Diocese.
That is what I did in my previous Diocese.
We don't always get what we want in a particular Diocese but we ought follow the Bible in how to address problems, no?
The simple truth is Jesus gave authority to the Bishops to bind and loose within their own Jurisdictions
So...he could...with the help of others, hand the letter to all who enter the parking lot(s)....with an addendum stating the efforts to silence him.
bump for later
Dear Fellow Parishioners and Friends of St. Rose
It is with a broken heart and much regret that we write this letter to all of you. By now you have noticed the sad and rapid decline of our beloved parish since the forced removal of our pastor and especially since the new "pastoral" team has taken over. We are being quickly and systematically stripped of our customs, traditions and, more importantly, our sensitivities and spirituality. Our spirituality here at our precious St. Rose, has grown and developed naturally over a period of many decades, not a few years. It is a strong and vibrant spiritualiy deeply rooted in the ancient practices of our Church. We have nurtured beautiful liturgies, richly representing our faith and always in the light of the traditions of our forefathers. The addition of the Tridentine Mass was the culmination of decades of Spirit led, naturally evolving formation NOT a novelty. This addition was barely noticeable because our Novus Ordo (the "new" mass), was celebrated correctly, so very reverently, at times with chant and Latin and other customs maintained from our precious Roman Rite. When you add all that to the beautiful, insightful, intelligent and educational sermons given by Fr. Viall, the experience was truly moving and uplifting. Anyone who experienced the illicit travesties of this past Holy Week knows how obviously this is no longer the case.
This "pastoral" team, with no knowledge of whom and what we are, has set about to force their own brand of spirituality upon us. They certainly have every right to, and a place for their spirituality. It's called the Friary. We ALSO have a right to our own spirituality IN OUR OWN PARISH without being told that if we don't like it we can leave.
So many of us expressed such grief and frustration at being overlooked and dictated to , thinking there is absolutely nothing we can do. This is NOT the case. We are entitled to speak out even when not asked! We are entitled to be who we are even if it is not liked! We have built up this parish with our blood sweat and many tears and prayers. Thay have not. We have contributed to the financial upkeep and beautiful spirtiuality of St. Rose parish. They have not.
What they have done is hurt and offend many by letting people go without warning. Order the removal of Fr. Viall's name from the bulletin (contrary to custom and our wishes), and pass along decrees without any sort of dialogue whatsoever. You must have noticed the irony (or hypocrisy) of a "pastoral" team that supposedly lives "in community" and call each other "brother", dictating to us loly commoners from lofty thrones far out of state.
If you have been saddened and hurt by all this, if you are offended by the callous disregard for who and what we are, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not fund these actions with your precious very hard earned monies. I ask all of you to consider making the painful decision some of us have made and respectfully withhold your financial donations until these concerns can be addressed by the diocese and all of us here at St. Rose. If you feel the need, please return your evelope (without the monies) as a sign of our belief in a resolution.
We ask for your help in building a dialogue among all concerned parishioners with any time or suggestions in rectifying this situation. If you love St. Rose as much as I do, contact me, your fellow parishioner Robert, by e-mail or, if absolutely necessary by phone so we can begin the process of moving forward.
With love, respect and prayer,
email@example.com (intentionally misspelled)
Now they'll throw him a bone and have 1 Latin Mass on Saturday evening.
Just to rub it in.
voice your complaint here:
According to the parish website, Father Rooney (the welcoming and inviting new inclusive Franciscan associate pastor at St. Rose) can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
He went too far, but apparebtly he was pushed into rebellion by the new priest, Thwworst thing about the new mass was the way that it was pushed on the people, the worst kind of clericalism. For people who employ the idea of community so freely, they have little respect for the necessary consent. In truth they have no authority over the people, only over correct doctrine. They can banish parishoners, but what an example to set.
**The simple truth is Jesus gave authority to the Bishops to bind and loose within their own Jurisdictions**
This whole story is about obedience to those in charge. Priest, bishop, etc.
So, he did what he should have, and the priest did what he should have. Now, the parishioner should continue organizing as best he can, but from off the parish property.
Some may protest that he should ask the priest before distributing literature on the parish grounds, but I know of no Church law to that effect, and the story does not tell us that the priest had issued some prior command to that effect, so I see no reason that the distribution of the literature was wrong. Maybe it contravenes the social mores of some, but that hardly makes it wrong.
You can't pass out stuff on church grounds.
It gives the impression that the church has sponsored the pamphlets.
This would include political, social or even papers asking for contributions.
Simple politeness says you stop when asked to stop. I'm not sure why the cops were called. Sounds like overreach. However, Mr. Petratos should accept arrest meekly and pay his fine, and offer his suffering to the Sacred Heart in reparation for all the sins of blasphemy.
FYI: Once I objected to playing the organ for a hymn that lauded us "in our diversity"...the way I read it was that it was supporting homosexuality. So I walked out.
To this day I'm not sure it was right to make a fuss. Looking back, I should have pulled the "I can't play it...it's too hard" which is how I got around other stupid hymns... (e.g. gather us in, City of God, etc)
I think he probably should have moved off parish property when told to do so, but I think he was perfectly within his rights to protest the actions of the new pastor (and the incredible spite and vindictiveness of the departing bishop, Pilla!).
Many people objected to the changes to the liturgy after VatII, not even necessarily to the NO itself, but to the bizarre things that happened, the insulting liturgies, the removal of the Tabernacle, the turning of the altar and stripping of the churches, etc. We were all told it was the bishop's decision and we had no right to protest it and if we didn't like it we could leave. And that's what many of us were eventually forced to do. No concern about being "inclusive" where conservatives or even simply people distressed by the New Church were concerned; we were simply inconvenient and they were glad to see us go.
The bishop has the obligation to listen to his flock with fatherly concern, something that seems to be entirely absent from most bishops. Curiously, many bishops seemt to permit a lot of divergence from Church teaching, and blind obedience is only called for by these bishops when they cannot legitimately explain or defend their actions or base them on Church teaching (which Pilla and the new pastor obviously cannot in this case). I am assuming that Petrakos has made efforts to contact the bishop and the pastor about this, and he is resorting to this publicity stunt after having been ignored by them.
I think in this case, it will be counterproductive, because bishops stick together, no matter how rotten one of their members may be, and the new bishop will not be friendly to him, either. But I think one has a legitimate right to protest the decisions of a bishop; like any other person, he can be wrong. Bishops can also be heretical and evil, just like any other person; the history of the Church is filled with bishops who have been exactly that. We cannot be obedient to evil and claim that we were just following orders. Certainly, the burden will be on us; we are the ones who will have to leave our church jobs, parishes or even dioceses in protest, but I think we have every right and even a duty to protest when a grevious wrong is done.
It seems in this day and age that the reserve of tradition has largely been kept filled by the laity and not by the heirarchy, who have done everything possible to drain it and wipe out any memory of its existence. If more of us had protested and fought for tradition at the beginning of the Liturgical Terror, we might have preserved more of it and given strength and courage to the clergy (and even bishops!) who were steam-rollered by the whole project and had no support from within their own ranks.
That said, I don't think Petrakos' approach was particularly helpful, but I can certainly understand the pain and frustration that were behind it.
*Maybe the gentleman, having been richly blessed in having a Liturgy he loved, was spiritually unprepared to face hardship.
One wonders if this particular challenge is being allowed to occur so as to reveal to men their own hearts?
I suspect the idea is, if one lets one guy pass out information without permission, however justified his complaints, every person will have to be allowed to do so. Since one will get Davinci Code devotees and all sorts of flakes, the just will have to grow silently among the weeds.