Posted on 07/11/2012 6:23:41 AM PDT by NYer
An Illinois priest forced out of his parish by Belleville's Catholic bishop for improvising prayers during Mass will no longer be able to preach in public as of today.
The Rev. William Rowe said Monday that Bishop Edward Braxton has suspended him and removed his "faculties," or license to practice ministry under church law. The move has been associated in recent years with the punishment of clergy accused of sexually abusing minors.
Rowe, the pastor of St. Mary Catholic Church in Mount Carmel, Ill., has not been accused of abuse, but he has clashed with Braxton over altering the liturgical prayers of the Roman Missal — the book of prayers, chants and responses used during Mass.
Last month, St. Mary's parishioners learned that Braxton had officially removed Rowe, their pastor of 18 years. But a separate letter from Braxton recently informed Rowe, 72, that not only would he have to leave the church, but that he could not preach in public anywhere.
Rowe said he could no longer celebrate public Masses or preside at weddings, funerals or baptisms. The only exception, Rowe said, involves a dying person; he can still hear a confession, baptize or anoint that person.
Rowe was scheduled to witness a wedding Saturday — and four others over the summer — but won't be able to preside. He also will not be able to preside over a funeral Wednesday for an elderly St. Mary's parishioner.
"That's very hard for the family," Rowe said. "I'll be there, but I can't participate."
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
As freeper dangus pointed out, there is ALWAYS a Bible in a Catholic Church during Mass. The Catholic Church compiled the Bible!
When you say "not all of scripture is read at Mass", are you suggesting that other churches read the entire bible during their service from Genesis to Revelation? How long does that take?
The priest may do so, if he makes sure someone brings a Bible for that purpose.
He blesses the congregation with the Bible from which he has just read the Gospel!
Are your statements based on experience or hearsay?
Is that horse presenting evidence for something?
Saying so, does not make it true. I provided a link from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops which points out only the Lectionary is used for readings. The book on the alter is the Roman Missal. I provided links for the books used. generally folks don't provide lists of what's not used, but the link from the USCCB provides the reasoning for not using a Bible itself. Also, before Trent, the readings came from several separate books. Note that the Tridentine Lectionary was more limited and covered only one years worth if readings, whereas the one prescribed by Vatican II covers 3 years worth.
"The Catholic Church compiled the Bible!"
No. The Catholic Church compiled their doctrines, Lectionaries, Missals, ect... The Bible was compiled by those who were taught by God.
"When you say "not all of scripture is read at Mass", are you suggesting that other churches read the entire bible during their service from Genesis to Revelation?"
No.
"He blesses the congregation with the Bible from which he has just read the Gospel!"
No; that is a Lectionary he read from.
"Are your statements based on experience or hearsay?"
Experience, of course. I was told during the Mass that there normally was no Bible present during a Mass and we went over that whole subject after the Mass. There was no time to rustle up a Bible, so I had to peruse and choose from a pile of what was at hand.
Your statement is correct, but not complete. In addition to the Lectionary and the Missal there is always a "Book of Gospels" present that is proclaimed within the Liturgy of the Word.
Note that the Liturgy of the Mass predates the Bible. One of the driving forces to produce a Bible was the need for clarity in which readings were recognized as being acceptable for reading during the Mass.
Peace be with you.
>> I provided a link from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops which points out only the Lectionary is used for readings. <<
LOL! What a miserable logic FAIL if ever there was one. The fact that a lectionary is used for readings no way negates the presence of a bible.
But just so you know, what we today call “the Bible” consists of those books which were deemed by the Catholic church to be suitable for reading in the Catholic liturgy.
What's notable in the concept of a "recently approved vernacular Lectionary". The Lectionary published by the USCCB is what's generally used at Mass the US and it is not a Bible.
Ha, ha, lol... whatever...
"But just so you know, what we today call “the Bible” consists of those books which were deemed by the Catholic church to be suitable for reading in the Catholic liturgy.
The Jews don't agree with you, nor do others. The Catholic version of the Bible is simply that; it is not "The Bible", or "The Sripture".
The Jews reject all of the New Testament. We are discussing the Bible, not the Tanakh.
That's a new one on me. What do you mean by "estin", and how does this affect the dogma of Transubstantiation?
Actually, here in Baltimore MD, at the Cathedral of Mary our Queen there are copies of the Bible in virtually every pew. Admittedly though, that is rare to find Bibles in Catholic church pews.
Most of the Mass is taken right from Scripture though; I always find it a bit ironic when someone complains there aren’t Bibles in Catholic churches, given that fact.
Besides, the main purpose of Mass isn’t to read the Bible, unlike in Protestant/non-Catholic Christian services. The main purpose, or really focus of the Mass is the Eucharist.
Which is what makes ad-libbing the words of Consecration so dangerous.
The Bible contains what is referred to as the Old Testamnet. The Catholic version of the O.T. doesn't agree with the O.T. held by the Jews, or as I pointed out — others.
And when the Jews excluded the deuterocanonical Old Testament books in the Council of Jamnia, decades after Christ, because they alluded to an imminent Messiah (Jesus), they were popular among the Greeks, and they proclaimed the resurrection, we should follow them and not the ancient Christians because...?
That's unfortunate. If you had chosen one of those prescribed by the Church it would have been at hand and available for all to read along.
What was the purpose of the prepared notes you forgot?
why a Bible was not and is not normally present at a Mass so that this reading was available and at hand to be read aloud.
A Bible is normally present, but the Church provides the written Scripture readings for all. And again, the purpose of the Mass is not for Bible study as your study of the day's Scripture readings should be done before attending Mass. One of the reasons the Church provides the Scripture readings of the day through the Missal for everyone attending is because people often forgot their Bibles, just as you did.
True, at least for the Jews after the Council of Jamnia. The fact is, Scripture itself does not specify which books belong in the Bible, and the canon is a Tradition of the Church. Who's tradition do you use?
Those in hand, the word Jesus used for “is” at the memorial meal, in Greek, is “estin”.
There were no Christians more ancient than the time of Christ. The Jews did not reject books according to your claims. They rejected them for their own reasons. If what you said was true, they would have tossed Ezekiel 37 in particular, and Isaiah 63:1-6, ect... They did not.
"That's unfortunate.
I see.
No. Bibles were not used, as I pointed out and folks never did bring their own as a rule.
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.