FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Fr. Michael Briese in hot water
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Fr. Michael Briese, pastor of St. Mary's Parish since 2017, cleared the church prior to the funeral of one Agnes Hicks after a chalice placed near the altar (which likely means on the credence table) was knocked over and damaged by one of the congregants.  Why they were greeting in the sanctuary, I do not know, but the callous attitude of the congregants obviously angered the priest and he ordered everyone out.

From all that is being reported, the congregants did not perceive the sacred nature of the chalice, and did not find it reprehensible that the chalice was damaged.  They simply wished to defer the discussion of consequences only after the funeral. 

I think the priest was right, but it looks as if he's been made to apologize and as if the diocese has distanced itself from his actions.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-w...82989.html
He did the right thing. I would have scolded them, and questioned their ability to receive the Sacred Species, as it is clear that they were not well instructed in their faith.
While I have empathy for the priest's frustration and righteous anger, I think this was handled poorly.

It appears the people were acting out of ignorance, not malice, as is the case with most acts of sacrilage these days.

It would have been an opportunity for instruction and further catechesis.
Not sure what to think about this one.  He was absolutely correct in demanding proper respect.  The MSM Fake News is reporting that the priest ordered everyone out, but didn't elaborate on why he did so.  I'm interested in what really led up to him telling everyone to leave.

That being said, if he really used the kind of language described in the article in a church, especially referring to the deceased as a "thing", that's entirely uncalled for and unjustified.

Question for those more knowledgeable than me: could the priest have told everyone to leave, yet held the funeral Mass for the deceased?
Don't know, but I would also bet that the race issue played a part in people's perceptions. :/
If the language reported in the article is correct, the priest was wrong to use it. But "get this thing out of my church" could mean the argument, not the deceased.

It's also unclear where the chalice was. Even though 'sanctuary' properly means the area around the altar, some people use it mean the entire church space, as distinct from, say, a reception room or hallways or parish offices. And why would someone be greeting visitors by the altar?

More likely, the chalice was at the back of the church, to be brought up by family members during the presentation of the gifts during the Offertory, this being a canonisation of the deceased NO funeral.

This is what happens when you turn a church into a reception hall. Greeting people should be done outside the church, and the sacred vessels should remain in the sanctuary to be handled only by the priest, or at least by the servers. This sort of thing never would have happened at a TLM, because the chalice would have been either on the altar already or in the sacristy.
(07-03-2018, 02:20 PM)Jeeter Wrote: [ -> ]Question for those more knowledgeable than me: could the priest have told everyone to leave, yet held the funeral Mass for the deceased?

I don't see why not. The presence of the faithful isn't necessary for Mass, although it's preferred. Paragraph 254 of the GIRM says, "254. Mass should not be celebrated without a minister, or at least one of the faithful, except for a just and reasonable cause. In this case, the greetings, the instructions, and the blessing at the end of Mass are omitted."

And funerals are not required to have the body present, as there are times when that's impossible.

(And not to derail the thread, but that last sentence of p. 254 says a lot about the theology of the new Mass and how man-centred it is. The Mass and the Office are the public worship of the Church even when said alone, which is why the priest says the prayers in the plural even privately, and, until 1960, would say Dominus vobiscum and reply Et cum spiritu tuo when saying the Office by himself.)
(07-03-2018, 02:56 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]More likely, the chalice was at the back of the church, to be brought up by family members during the presentation of the gifts during the Offertory, this being a canonisation of the deceased NO funeral.

Similar to my thoughts, but I'm wondering if it was actually a chalice, or if that is the result of ignorant, secular reporting. I think it's more likely that it was a ciborium for people to put their host in before Mass, probably sitting on a table at the back of the main aisle.
(07-03-2018, 02:56 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]If the language reported in the article is correct, the priest was wrong to use it. But "get this thing out of my church" could mean the argument, not the deceased.

It's also unclear where the chalice was. Even though 'sanctuary' properly means the area around the altar, some people use it mean the entire church space, as distinct from, say, a reception room or hallways or parish offices. And why would someone be greeting visitors by the altar?

More likely, the chalice was at the back of the church, to be brought up by family members during the presentation of the gifts during the Offertory, this being a canonisation of the deceased NO funeral.

This is what happens when you turn a church into a reception hall. Greeting people should be done outside the church, and the sacred vessels should remain in the sanctuary to be handled only by the priest, or at least by the servers. This sort of thing never would have happened at a TLM, because the chalice would have been either on the altar already or in the sacristy.

The chalice was reported to have been near the altar when it was damaged.  Not at the back of the church.
Ahh so they were doing the polka on the altar and they knocked it over. That makes much more sense.
Pages: 1 2 3