Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church


It Doesn’t Take a Rocket Scientist

April 25th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

Here is a view of  the standing room overcrowding at yesterday’s Easter Mass at St. Margaret Mary church in Irondequoit:

The image is further proof of why St. Thomas the Apostle must remain open and be utilized by the Irondequout parish. Blessed Kateri is going to lose all three of its parochial vicars come June (they will drop from four active priests down to one if no replacements are assigned). Fewer priests plus fewer Masses equals greater overcrowding. That is unless Fr. Tanck finally realizes that it is necessary to make use of the largest church building in Irondequoit; the 1,000 seat St. Thomas the Apostle church. As of today the smaller St. Margaret Mary, Christ the King, and (much smaller) St. Cecilia churches are being used by Blessed Kateri. This configuration will not work going into the future.

Must families be forced to stand throughout the Mass because of this priest’s stubbornness?

Tags: , ,


43 Responses to “It Doesn’t Take a Rocket Scientist”

  1. avatar Bill B. says:

    Nice hat in church. Stylish…

  2. avatar annonymouse says:

    When you cut the number of masses to 7 (10 on a normal Saturday/Sunday) for the second busiest mass day of the year, this was expected.

    To use STA is to admit your wrong. Not gonna happen.

  3. avatar Ludwig says:

    Thursday night, after Mass at St. Stanislaus (which ran from 7pm-8pm), we stopped by Saint Margaret Mary. The Mass at SMM (which also started at 7pm) didn’t end until after 9pm, and was standing room only.

    The sacrament was placed in the BACK of the sanctuary, in an area where the confessionals used to be. (Confessionals are now on the side of the sanctuary.)

    After the two-hour standing-Mass, about 90% of the attendees flooded out, hurrying past the sacrament without even a sideways glance.

  4. avatar Anonymous says:

    Having been a parishioner of St. MM for many years ( no longer) I can attest to the fact that their Holy Thursday and Easter Sunday Mass ( usually the “family Mass”) have always been standing room only.

  5. avatar Anonymous says:

    Anon 2:27
    If SMM was standing room only as an individual parish then those Easter services should have seen people out in the street now that 5 parishes had to fit into the one church. If what you are saying is true, then a lot of people went elsewhere or stayed home!

  6. avatar Monk says:

    Holy Cross had two Easter Masses at 10:00 am (one in the gym!) to handle the overflow crowd. This is award winning pastoral planning when you have a closed 1000 seat church that is less than 5 minutes away? STA parishioners petitioned Fr. Tanck to have a Mass at STA on Easter Sunday and he turned them down.

  7. avatar Anonymous says:

    The answer to your question is yes. It makes too much sense for them to do it the way you say; therefore, it won’t happen.

  8. avatar Bruce says:

    Why on earth is there a man wearing a baseball cap at Mass? The DoR is worse than I originally thought. We have much work to do in this wretched civilization of ours…even simple and basic manners are lost, let alone the much more dire abuses of liturgy. I guess when homosexuality and abortion are looked at without much concern by our shepherds, basic manners and civility are lost without much thought.

  9. avatar militia says:

    There once was a Bishop named Clark
    Who wanted to leave his mark;
    So he used Fr. Tanck
    Whose planning just stank
    And left many souls in the dark.

  10. avatar Anonymous says:

    Why is it against the law to wear a hat in church?

  11. avatar Sassy says:

    It’s called reverence.

  12. avatar Susan of Corning says:

    Militia, very funny!

    My experience is that leadership really doesn’t care if churches break the fire code on holidays. They are NOT going to add an extra mass or use a larger church (or one with better parking).

  13. avatar Anonymous says:

    Holy Cross’ additional Mass in the gym really had nothing to do with the closures in Irondequoit. That is where the more family oriented Mass has been held for years……

  14. avatar MD says:

    T-shirts, untucked wrinkled shirts, baseball caps…I’m sure some guys were wearing shorts. So much for your Easter Sunday best!

  15. avatar annon. says:

    Standing room only could turn people away. There are many people elderly,disabled,and parents holding and caring for young people that would leave and that equals sin. I sure don’t want distractions during this holy time but this presents itself not to just a few people.

  16. avatar Anonymous says:

    Hey Bruce,

    “Wretched civilization” describes wearing a baseball hat in Church? Granted, it’s not appropriate and someone should have reminded the person, however, wretched is hardly the fitting adjective.Maybe the person wasn’t even Catholic and didn’t know–as I said, someone should have gently reminded or informed him. However…
    Do you know what’s really “wretched”? babies dying ( both in utero and after because of abuse or neglect; terrorism; famine; rampant poverty; addictions; pornography; sexual abuse…I can go on. Wearing a hat in church is against “the law”–a manmade law that could change tomorrow…Let’s not use the inflammatory words for the little battles( can you in your wildest imaginings picture God getting steamed up over a guy wearing a baseball hat in the back of church???)–let’s save the inflammatory words for the bigger, more important stuff.
    I know there are some that get their backs up over the label “Pharisee”, but this is exactly what they would do: they railed against Jesus and His Apostles not properly ritually cleansing; they chastised them for not following proper fasting procedures; they held the importance of minutiae above the really important issues of the day

  17. avatar Ink says:

    There’s not a law against wearing men not wearing hats in church; it’s a custom. It is actually inherently linked to why women should cover their heads in the presence of the Sacrament. It pertains to the transcendental natures of the man and the woman and their respective roles as individual representatives of Christ and His Church. Because the man is representative of Christ, he bares his head before his Master; similarly, because the woman is representative of Christ’s Bride, the Church, she veils her head as a sign of modesty and an outward indication of the intrinsic mystery of women.

  18. avatar Bro AJK says:

    Dear Ink,

    Thank you for explaining the chapel veil.

  19. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    not necessarily disagreeing w/ you, Ink, but I thought this was interesting:

  20. avatar Mike says:

    From what I saw Holy Cross has good attendance Holy Thursday, Good Friday and for the Easter Vigil Mass. (I wasn’t there on Easter Sunday and wasn’t taking pictures Good Friday.)

  21. avatar annon. says:

    Annon.9:07 Take a pill.

  22. avatar Anonymous says:

    Sounds like the fundamentalist Muslim reason for the burka. Hmmm.
    Transcendental nature of man and woman? Bride of Christ? So a man, because he has a penis, is the representative of Christ, and the woman, because she somehow is not privileged to share that body part with Jesus, is His bride??? I am a man and I am offended on behalf of my wife–and all women. What a load of garbage! This is not even remotely Catholic theology.
    And my guess is that you will never post this–you have sunk to an all-time low. I might as well be on a “skin-head” website–

  23. avatar Anonymous says:

    The confessionals have been at the side of the “sanctuary”as you say, ( which in a Catholic church only applies to the area around the altar)for well over 35 years. I don’t know how long it’s been since you’ve been in the church. As to the congregation flooding out…that is their problem. Those who wanted to stay to spend time with the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament did so–and receieved the graces for it. Most Holy Thursday Masses are close to two hours. It is one of the more beautiful Masses in the Roman calendar.

  24. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    anon, 8:30 AM – chill out! So you disagree with Ink. Can’t we civilly disagree like gentleman and ladies? I’m afraid we all need a refresher in combox warfare and the dangers that entail from it.

  25. avatar Bruce says:

    If anonymous 8:30am is offended by what is actually Church teaching, he is a moron. That you would be offended because of the truth makes you look so silly, it is difficult to type this with a straight face. Go ahead and join a protestant sect who denigrates the Mother of God and is far more sexist in the way that they make men and women to be no different. Guess what? THAT is insulting to any woman…to suggest that she is no different than a man. Ever had an anatomy/physiology course? Ever met a woman? They are not the same. We are equal in dignity but we are not the same. That is reality. You must not be in touch with it.

  26. avatar Anonymous says:

    There is something seriously wrong here. A real Christian man would see a woman as his equal. Ink, please read Catholic theology on the relationship of women and men ; women and the Church; men and the Church. Women are not the enemy, nor are they to be put on a pedestal. A woman is made in God’s image and likeness as is a man. The “theology” you espouse is flirting pretty close to the sin of sexism. My wife is not Christ’s bride, she is mine–and I am her husband. She and I are equal partners in the Presence of the Lord and in His Church.
    Because , Ink, you are not just a “commenter” but a writer for this Blog, you need to take responsibility for your words. You, in a very real sense, represent this Blog along with the other writers. Your words in this post are seriously turning away loyal, orthodox, Catholics who can recognize fringe opinions when they see them. This isn’t good for Catholicism, nor for anyone who truly wants to come to this site for intelligent discussion and traditionally Catholic catechesis.

  27. avatar Ludwig says:

    Anon 9:27 – I don’t take issue with the sacrament being placed in the area where the confessionals used to be. I was just providing context for anyone who knows that spot.

    I was there for Thursday mass. I’ve never seen the sacrament placed in the back of a church before. Maybe this is the norm at SMM? Maybe this is even the norm elsewhere? As I’ve said before, I’m a relatively new Catholic so I don’t have a huge history to relate to. I’ve only ever attended Holy Thursday mass at St. Cecilia and St. Stanislaus prior to this.

    From what I could gather, nobody in the front of the packed church could see the sacrament for the final 20 minutes of the mass, as it was about 3 feet above ground level in the back. It just struck me as odd. I had just been to St. Stanislaus, where the sacrament was placed prominently in front of a side altar.

    I’m genuinely curious if this is the norm at SMM or elsewhere.

  28. avatar Thinkling says:

    Anon 10:36,

    I won’t comment on Ink’s tone, but you are arguing from a false dichotomy.

    Simply put, man is equal to woman =!= man is synonymous with woman.

    So you can be right that your wife is your equal, but he is right that you and she are different.

    This false dichotomy is also present in anon 8:30. A woman would not be privileged in having a penis because it would violate her nature as a woman. Indeed rather she is privileged in having a uterus et al. because that is what it means to be a woman.

  29. avatar Anonymous says:

    Thinkling:That “privileged” comment was said facetiously.

  30. avatar Anonymous says:

    Man and Woman have equal dignity in the sight of God–No one is truly “equal” to another. We all have different gifts and strengths. By purposely “misunderstanding” Anon.’s comment you are muddying the waters of true intellectual dialog. The Jim Crow laws were also based on the “equal/synonomous” argument: there was “scientific” proof that Whites were intellectually superior to Blacks, as well as “morally” superior. That was how White Christians were able to degrade their fellow human beings and still think they were fulfilling God’s Will, because they did not see their Black brothers and sisters as equal in any way to them–by their very nature. In fact, “White” churches ( both protestant and Catholic in the South restricted Blacks to the back of the church–or did not allow them at all. Whites were seen as being of a “higher nature”. Sound familiar?
    No one said that women and men aren’t “different”, but for Ink to imply that males are more “representative” of Christ because of a shared gender is just plain bad theology and “Ink” needs to be called on it.

  31. avatar Dr. K says:

    And my guess is that you will never post this–you have sunk to an all-time low. I might as well be on a “skin-head” website–

    I already warned you about these inflammatory posts. However, since I am in a generous mood today, I will give you one more chance.

  32. avatar Thinkling says:

    That “privileged” comment was said facetiously.

    OK, sorry to imply otherwise. But…..

    In general my point still stands, and I reiterate it as it is clear some still don’t get it. Or perhaps don’t wish to.

  33. avatar annonymouse says:

    To Anon 11:57 –

    “No one said that women and men aren’t “different”, but for Ink to imply that males are more “representative” of Christ because of a shared gender is just plain bad theology and “Ink” needs to be called on it.”

    He must have peddled bad theology, but about-to-be-Blessed John Paul II didn’t just imply the same thing, he said it out loud. It’s also one of the principal arguments for our priesthood being restricted to males. Disagree if you wish, but consider for a moment who’s more qualified in matters theological – you or John Paul II.

  34. avatar Hopefull says:

    I was listening to WHIC last night, with Pia DeSolleni (doubtless spelled wrong) and Patrick Coffin, and there were three points which I hadn’t heard said quite that way before:

    1. Those who attempt to say that Christ couldn’t ordain women because it went beyond the cultural bounds seem to totally ignore the many times when Jesus leapt over cultural bounds…turning over the tables, calling the Pariah-sees “whitened sepulchres,” refering to Himself in Messianic terms, touch lepers….do I have to go on? Jesus was certainly no wimp; He was going to be killed any way so why wouldn’t He have instituted the priesthood JUST the way he wanted to?

    2. We know that there was a band of women, including the Blessed Virgin, who were following Jesus, and of course in that culture it was women who drew water and did the cooking. Yet Jesus had His Apostles follow a MAN with a water jar, and had them, men, go to prepare the Passover. It seems that He had at the Last Supper just whom He wanted to be there, and even leaves us these words to prevent confusion.

    3. Why does gender seem to be the ONLY exception “culturally” to what Christ did? For example, no one (well, maybe in Rochester I should say “very few”) says “bread and wine was a cultural thing at that time” but today we should use bottled water and granola?

    I just thought these three points in particular were interesting and I wanted to share them with you in this discussion.

  35. avatar Thinkling says:

    Those who attempt to say that Christ couldn’t ordain women because it went beyond the cultural bounds seem to totally ignore the many times when Jesus leapt over cultural bounds…turning over the tables, calling the Pariah-sees “whitened sepulchres,” refering to Himself in Messianic terms, touch lepers….do I have to go on? Jesus was certainly no wimp; He was going to be killed any way so why wouldn’t He have instituted the priesthood JUST the way he wanted to?

    Agree, and you missed the best example yet (IMO), the Samaritan woman at the well. Compare how He spoke with her with how the Apostles did after they came back from town. They didn’t…they practically scorned her altogether. Even she was astonished that He spoke with her as an equal. Clearly He could see past any male/female cultural barriers.

    Let’s remember that inviting tax collecters and prostitutes is the equivalent today of terrorists and serial child murderers. No I don’t think cultural norms impeded Him…

  36. avatar Ink says:

    What, we’re commenting on my tone now, and calling me out for assuming I style myself a commenter? Honestly, the reason I haven’t posted much is because I have a very busy life: I’m a full-time student with a lot of homework. AP exams are coming up next week. So I really don’t have the time to defend myself constantly. Thank you to everyone who backed me up with JP2.

    Angry Anon (I’m just going to call you that because I’m pretty sure you’re the same person all the time, and you seem like a very angry person. I love these new Unique IDs.), you really might want to look up your Theology of the Body. Actually, I’m going to be writing an essay on it for a scholarship some time soon, would you like me to send it to you? ^_^ It IS traditional Catholic catechesis–I’ve done my research. I’m planning on getting married, believe it or not (oh my goodness, who would marry some crazy old-beyond-her-years teenager?! /sarcasm) and I can tell you that my husband will recognize me as the Bride of Christ just as much as I am his bride. And we are equal partners–but not the same person.

  37. avatar Jim says:

    Jim M. here: It was sad for many of us who belong to St. Thomas, to see the overcrowded conditions at St. Margaret Mary’s, Holy Cross, and other churches in the area, while the beautiful, large St. Thomas Church building remained empty throughout the three days of the Easter Triduum. You could probably fit all of the congregations from either Holy Cross, or St. Margaret Mary’s into St. Thomas, utilizing only two or three Masses…and people wouldn’t be packed in like sardines! But as someone already stated…that would make far too much sense!! Monk had it right when he said that St. Thomas and Holy Cross are only about five minutes apart. Pastoral planning with common sense would have advised the Holy Cross people to drive over to St. Thomas, and fill it up! But Fr. Tanck would have only blown a fuse!

  38. avatar Kevin says:

    It baffles me as to why STA was not used. I hate to say this about a priest, but this Fr. Tanck sounds like a moron. Any idiot knows to use the largest space available when you have overcrowding problems and if you don’t, everyone is uncomfortable.

  39. avatar Bruce says:

    Tank probably wants to empty the churches except for a handful of butchy babes from the 1960s who long to wear vestments and pee standing up. [Tone it down a bit]

  40. avatar Ludwig says:

    Tank probably wants to empty the churches except for a handful of butchy babes from the 1960s who long to wear vestments and pee standing up.

    Ha! Stay classy, Bruce.

  41. avatar annonymouse says:

    Not only is STA larger, but the back row is considerably closer to the altar at STA than at St Margaret Mary. If the goal is full and active liturgical participation (I believe the Vatican II fathers said something about that) then how could STA be closed and SMM remain open?

    I am not one who is prone to be attached to a building – it really should be about the community, the comm-UNITY. But just on the merits of the buildings, STA should not have been closed. It makes no sense. The IPPG decision really should be re-considered.

  42. avatar Raymond F. Rice says:

    There is not a Roman Catholic Mass held anywhere on Easter, and Christmas, that is not overcrowded with “holiday/not holyday) Catholics!!!

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-