Posted on 01/09/2005 8:03:14 PM PST by Mike Fieschko
The Institute of Christ the King is at St. Agatha Parish, and will probably remain there for the forseeable future.
This has always been Church teaching, though not very well practiced. Vatican II only underscored these relations. But notice how it's been interpreted--along liberal lines, putting the laity in the sanctuary, for the most part, and blurring the liturgical line between priests and laity. Meanwhile the bishops kept charge of the money. Clericalism is rife and worse than ever.
Many of the SSPX chapels and facilities, I understand, are owned and run by the laity. Maybe that's why its priests are able to stay focused on the Gospel. They have heavy workloads and live and breathe poverty. They will drive across states hundreds of miles in bad weather to administer Extreme Unction or to say a Mass. SSPX bishops confide in the people and show respect for them.
I have never objected to changes in the Church which have nothing to do with doctrine or liturgy and which make good sense. My objection to the Novus Ordo is principled. I oppose it because it is deceptive by nature and was designed to protestantize Catholics. It is therefore very dangerous to the Catholic faith.
I didn't say he's at "fault." He's right, canonically.
But he is handling this poorly, from a PR perspective, and will not likely have the support of many people and priests in St. Louis.
He will have to sue to get this parish, and that could get ugly.
I agree with what you say in regard to the medieval model of church administration vs the capability of hte average modern western man. Since I am not feeling well, I cannot rise to your level of eloquence in expressing what you very thougtfully said.
But let me add a tidbit.......
The attitude of the clergy to the laity, up until V2, was noted as being: "Pay, Pray, and Obey".
That has changed, as you indicated. Now it is: "Pay, Pay, and Get Out of the Way!!!".
Am in total agreement with you that there is nothing contradictory in having the laity own and manage the temporal affairs of the Church, leaving the priests free to attend to the spiritual needs of their flocks. Such a concept does not run counter to the faith.
One of the fears reagrding lay adminstration of church property is that of the laity dictating to the clergy what to preach/teach. In a former time, when there was unity in church dogma, this could be a valid point. Yet even then, the hierarchy has the authority to appoint and remove pastors, and to use suppression and interdict against parishes (and even whole regions) who are professing or supporting heresy or apostacy.
Bearing in mind this power of the heirarchy to enforce orthodoxy and fidelity to the faith, there really is no problem. Of course, had the hierarchy used such power - with real teeth, and truly enforced it, we would not have the problems we have in the Church Universal as we have today.
In a former time, I would have said that the laity should not be saying who should/should not be a postor or a bishop. I am still not in favor of that - the heirarchy must be respected so that its authority and power is not diluted. BUT......in these extraordinary times, I do feel that the lessons of the poast 40 years have taught us that the laity MUST have at least some very real advisory input on the selection of pastors/bishops. That they should be consulted.
Let me make it very clear that I am NOT in favor of the laity voting upon the selection of pastors/bishops. That is going way over the line. But, for the laity to have advisory input in selections.......perhaps yes.
I think that there are a lot of parents of children who, if they were informed, and their opinion were asked would not want Fr. Effeminata to be their next pastor.......or for the plain clothes, lesbian/wiccan nun (there are quite a few of those out there) to be named as the parish DRE.
But because the laity are treated like twits - and only their $$$ is respected, we have the situation which we are in.
Those of us who are cognizant of history know that it is $$$, and clerical greed, which have caused many of the troubles in the church over the centuries. And it is precisely this, which was the motive force for the founding of the major monastic orders.
Could you please explain to me how Burke could possibly sue the parish? From my understanding of things, the Archdiocese is not the deedholder to the property, nor do they have a lien on it, nor any of the parish assets.
Unless I am missing something here, I do not think he has a legal leg to stand on in a civil court of law. Secular courts are not interested in canonical disputes over authority........only reagarding debts, and ownership of assets. So, since the parish has the deed to its assets "in perpetuity", and the diocese is not named as a receiver, lienholder, or member of the corporate board..........
......it would seem to me that, in the matter of civil law, burke is SOL !
This affair with Archbishop Burke is not about money only. It's about achieving justice in the way the hierarchy relates to the laity. Giving a few men and women the right to read the Epistle and handle the Blessed Sacrament is not going to heal the relationship. The resentment goes too deep to be remedied without reform--and it's aimed not at this Archbishop personally, but at the hierarchy in general. The bishops have very little to brag about when it comes to performing their spiritual duties--and much to feel ashamed about, including decades of enabling the sexual violation of Catholic youth, intimidation through attorneys of the victims' parents, payouts of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in hush money, failure to get at the root of the homosexual crisis in their own midst which has been worsened by the elevation of cronies, and coverups in general which have resulted in bankruptcies and church closings on a broad scale. It is the laity which has been victimized by all this. It'll be a very long time before credibility and respect is restored. This dustup doesn't help.
Priory of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin MaryCanons Regular of the New Jerusalem.
1635 Kehrs Mill Road
Chesterfield, MO 63005-4310
Phone: 636.536.4082
The Traditional Mass in Latin is offered Monday Through Saturday at 7 a.m.
Do they? They've already taken over at St. Agatha's too, haven't they? St. Agatha's is going to remain the primary Tridentine parish for the Archdiocese, for the time being, and I think the Archdiocese is going to spend its own money to fix up St. Francis de Sales. At least, that's my understanding from some parishioners of St. Agatha's.
Advisory roles are worthless. Unless the people have a real vote, this advisory stuff is nothing but smoke and mirrors. A pacifier for the peasants.
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.