Posted on 12/16/2005 6:39:40 PM PST by Petrosius
My knowledge of the matter is that Archbishop Rigali had been approached by parishioners of St. Stanislaus desirous of an accounting by the lay board whom had been functioning in a rather heavy-handed fashion when it came to the parish funds. Our local secular-humanist fish wrap, the Post-Dispatch, is virulently anti-Catholic and has taken the part of the board in a trumped up cause celebre which largely ignores the position of the Archdiocese as well as the fact that the majority of the parish families have left to attend Polish services at another church designated for this purpose. Archbishop Burke is acting totally within his prerogatives and has displayed remarkable patience with the recalcitrant board that seems to be using the church and its considerable wealth as its own private preserve. They appear to be more fearful of oversight than of the peril to their souls. This is the root cause of the schism, not anything that can be placed on the archbishops plate.
I don't know. I just thought that the folks on FR who hadn't been following the story should hear both sides.
I don't keep a scorecard, so I don't know who the good Bishops are or who, in most cases, who the pro - homosexual and/or pro - abortion bishops are. Is this one of the good guys or one of the others?
Wha? Where'd that come from? The sentence read: Time will tell and the evidence will be whether He allows this Congregation to prosper or wane. And no where in there is there anything singling-out "material wealth". God has already Blessed them with the title to their own building and possessions and I have no doubt that if they are proceeding in accordance with His Will for them that He will continue to support them both Spiritually and materially. My statement did not single-out one over the other.
Correct - they, at the withdrawal of support from the organization and its apparent lack of dialogue and any presentation of cooperation or desire to dialogue (viz. posting #6 - the 5 lines starting with 'June 2004'), have decided to hire their own Pastor (with apparent due consideration and polling from their members - posting #6 - Aug 2005 and following) and it seems to me you maybe use a pretty broad brush to immediately paint them as homophiles.
I seem to remember in some vatican missives there being words to the effect of forgiveness of past actions as long as those identified individuals didn't further persist in their sin by action. Shouldn't that also apply to this man? Indeed, I see nothing in the material on the church's website that in any way implies a pro-homo stance by the congregation.
Given the strong nationalism, orthodoxy, conservatism, and sense-of-Family of Slavic ethnic groups I firmly believe that the AB-SO-LUTE LAST thing you'd find in such an ethnic-Polish congregation would be a tolerance for pro-homo activities (I speak from a Slovak/Polish heritage). And even less-so the idea that such an independent congregation would interview and hire a man who had any intent of promulgating such activities. He's hired as their spiritual Shepherd - not placed there by a diocese wherein the congregation has no say in his staying or going (i.e. "we put him there: like it or lump it") - have any of you honestly never known of congregations not happy with a priest assigned to them, for whatever reason, that the diocese would not reassign? That can be a sure-fire cause for division, schism, and separation especially if there's a "we can't hear you"/"we won't listen to you"-position taken by the diocese.
I'm sure the congregation is spiritually and theologically mature enough to realize if his actions ever deviate from Scripture and will make the proper remedies for any such situations. rome may be more liberal in their limits to "forgive and forget and reassign" but these people are at-the-scene and have more at stake regarding their spiritual welfare and the welfare of their families, and are apparently dissatisfied with the performance of that diocese regard their needs that they've sought God's Will and feel that It is to take that responsibility upon themselves.
Many other congregations are independent and God has Willed them to either prosper or fail, and this one is no different. Again: time will tell.
I may be mistaken, but it was my understanding that the Bishop removed the old priest, and never assigned a new one. The new priest is one that they found on their own.
It would be so if that is what I did. My point was that when an individual or congregation separates itself from apostolic teaching authority, as this one has done, it soon falls into error. That is what happened with the reformers and their congregations since the 1500s. That was my point. Mainline Protestantism is today irrefutably evidencing the effects of separation from apostolic authority and succession in acceptance of homosexual acts as being morally acceptable. Some sort of serious error will soon rise from this separation as well: when those who have no teaching authority (teaching authority is not a vote!) make theological decisions, error soon follows from those same persons, even if those errors are ratified by a vote!
Also, as soon as you denied asserting using material prosperity as a sign of Divine approval, you asserted it again. I did not isolate material from spiritual prosperity. Schismatics may prosper apparently in many ways, but the fruits of the spirit moving them will soon evidence theological and corruption. When Scripture interpreted by individuals is the final authority, you soon end fissioning into thousand of sects (see contemporary Protestantism for an example of this phenomenon).
Best regards.
They are excommunicated for disobedience. Or maybe that is business as usual for them.
On a side note, Bishop Leibrecht celebrated his 75th birthday on Aug 8, 2005 source
He is close to retirement.
The 'other side of the story' didn't seem to shed much light on the subject. Why have they separated themselves from the Diocese? What brought them to this decision?
That's better...
St. Stanislaus Kostka Chuch was built by Polish immigrants in the 1880's. It is currently the last Polish Roman Catholic parish remaining in St. Louis. St. Stanislaus Kostka Church is presently maintained and run as a not-for-profit corporation by the church parishioners and is recognized as such under the laws of the State of Missouri. Under a land deed signed by Cardinal Kenrick in 1891, the parish property was assigned to a parishioner-run corporation in perpetuity. Since that time, the parishioners of St. Stanislaus have grown the parish to include the eight (8) acres of land immediately surrounding the Church. The parishioners recently raised money for the construction of a $2.5 million dollar state of the art Polish Heritage Center. The total value of St. Stanislaus Church the land, buildings and financial assets - is estimated at approximately $9.5 million dollars.
St. Stanislaus is completely self-sustaining. The parish operates without the financial support of the Archdiocese and has done so for its entire existence. The parishioners pay for and are responsible for the upkeep, development, restoration and improvement of the church and the church grounds. The pastor is appointed by the Archdiocese and is responsible for the religious affairs of the parish. The parish has always been in good standing with the Archdiocese of St. Louis.
In July 2003 Archbishop Rigali notified the Board of Directors that the Archdiocese wanted to take control of the financial assets and property of St. Stanislaus. As a result of Archbishop Rigali, and now Archbishop Burke's actions of trying to gain control of all the assets, the Board of Directors and Parishioners are in a struggle to preserve not only St. Stanislaus, but also our Polish Heritage. Until the priest was taken away on August 4, 2004 he maintained complete spiritual control over the parish and parish operating funds. However, the Board of Directors oversees financial stability of the parish, and became alarmed after Fr. Bene spent thousands of dollars in his short time at the parish and depleted for the first time in parish history the funds he was responsible for administering. It is very difficult for the parishioners to understand the current attempts by Archbishop Burke since for over 100 years the Archdiocese never offered financial assistance, even during the difficult periods and the priest maintained complete spiritual control. Knowing the financial difficulties of the Archdiocese and the timing of the attempted takeover, clearly leads to the only explanation possible, this is all about Archbishop Burke trying to gain control of St. Stanislaus's assets.
http://www.saveststans.org/page2.html
The authority of the apostles came from Christ through "handshake familiarity" - meaning that THEY were THERE with Him at the time and were in intimate contact - but how about the authority of Paul? He never met Christ in the presence of the 12 but Christ came to him individually and privately. He then went to the 12 and they (guess what) essentially 'ratified him by vote'(!). :) Not, of course, that it would have made a difference; he'd already gotten his 'marching orders' from the Boss Himself.
So, then, God doesn't speak to individuals any more? But only to the self-perpetuating 'management class' who then disseminates everything to the congregants?
_I_ don't see that. If anything, God's desire is for _all_ to attain their highest possible level of spiritual maturity and that there isn't any more of a "feeder vs. fed" hierarchy than is necessary: some will always need to be ministered-to, but it _should_ be the aim of every Christian to be able to 'feed' others and not remain at a level of abject dependence - which is what I see more of in the 'mainline' churches of every denomination and less of in the 'independent' congregations of which I am familiar (or of whose members I am acquainted).
Yes, I _did_ say it, but I did not assert material prosperity ALONE: I coupled it with Spiritual prosperity, as it should be. God's Gifts are spiritual as well as material: a place to worship (with the means to keep it going) and the individual physical wherewithal to worship (transportation, health, and so forth) AS WELL AS the spiritual/mental/cognitive abilities (being able to learn, and teach, and support others) to worship Him.
You assert that: "When Scripture interpreted by individuals is the final authority, you soon end fissioning into thousand of sects (see contemporary Protestantism for an example of this phenomenon)". And I take that to mean that you don't believe God is capable of raising people (those outside of the 'umbrella' of Rome) to the same level of theological understand and maturity and competence as these others.
All the theological seminaries and colleges and universities not affiliated with Rome are a waste of time? No. No; twice. No; three times. It is the caliber of the individuals that come OUT of these institutions that must be examined; not the institutions as a whole - there are the Good as well as the bad (and the same holds true for those out of the institutions of Rome). The institution provides the environment; God provides the tools and His resources, and it's the individual who ultimately decides whether to properly use or waste what's been provided.
Closing a parish is NEVER "plain and simple."
If any among them are willing to put aside their sins of pride, disobedience, defiance and scandal and come groveling back in abject humiliation, certainly Archbishop Burke will consider entertaining individual pleadings. The rebellious priest, Mark Bozek, should be defrocked, never to be restored, as an example to others in other schisms of recent note.
Solitas: When Catholics need your opinion as to how OUR Catholic Church should be governed, we will be sure to ask.
One of the very best guys.
Do you mean "the other side of the story" as being the press release in posting #6?
Have you gone to their website and read the FAQ there (as well as the other documents)?
I see lots of stuff there that appears to me to adequately explain and reinforce their decision and their actions.
Individuals are free to accept or refuse the opinions of others; to deny them their right to express them is listed as one of the definitions of another word.
I've not implied that other's arguments are not wanted here, or told anyone to shut up, or go away, or keep quiet.
Now it is time to go finish stacking wood. Merry Christmas; even to you. :)
He is close to retirement.
Wow, good find. Wonder if he has sent his resignation yet?
Yeah, all right: "ecclesiastical". I didn't hit the spellcheck… :\
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.