This can't be Catholic church.
The Communion rail alone makes this church automatically "schismatic".
Posted on 12/25/2005 9:36:27 AM PST by I Believe It's Not Butter
ST. LOUIS (AP) — At least 1,500 people attended Christmas Eve Mass presided by an excommunicated Roman Catholic priest, despite warnings from the archbishop that participating would be a mortal sin.
...
Bozek said he doesn't believe that receiving sacraments at St. Stanislaus, especially Holy Communion, puts a Catholic at risk of mortal sin.
The Rev. Charles Bouchard, moral theology professor and president of Aquinas Institute of Theology in St. Louis, said Burke was following canon law "to the letter" in excommunicating Bozek and the board.
But some argue that St. Stanislaus' more than century-old governing structure holds the same authority as church law and the bishop lacked merit for imposing excommunication, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at 9news.com ...
Why exactly was he excommunicated ??Does he say the LAtin Tridentine MAss...what the low down?/
This can't be Catholic church.
The Communion rail alone makes this church automatically "schismatic".
Yes, looking to understand this too. Is the priest just too orthodox??
If you look at their web site, just google save st stans, look at their Christmas Eve mass 2005 pictures. You will notice while there are only altar boys, the priest makes use out of EMHCs and distributes both species, with women distributeing the cup. Also the priest they hires had a liberal reputation in his previous diocese. So expect for only having altar boys, St Stans seems more or less identical to what one would get in most parishes.
"Bozek said he doesn't believe that receiving sacraments at St. Stanislaus, especially Holy Communion, puts a Catholic at risk of mortal sin."
It doesn't matter what he thinks, if the local ordinary declared the Church excommunicated and it a mortal sin to participate in mass there - then it is. Has this astute theologian never heard of the authority to "bind and loose" Christ granted his apostles? Unless the decision of the bishop is appealed to Rome and overturned (which almost NEVER happens), his word is law in his diocese whatever this guy "thinks" .
"But some argue that St. Stanislaus' more than century-old governing structure holds the same authority as church law and the bishop lacked merit for imposing excommunication, he said."
Hmmm, wrong. The Church is not a democracy no matter how muc h the liberals cry and whine (thanks be to GOD!)nor can She change her structure to pacify them. A 100 year old custom does not supercede Sacred Tradition or the authority of the successors of the apostles.
This whole mess is about money. It is not about theology, liturgy, or tradition. Abp. Burke has made St. Agatha, in South St. Louis the Polish ethnic church, so he is accomodated the needs of the Polish community. Sadly, St Stans has taken the final step towrds full on schism.
He disobeyed his Bishop and left his Diocese, came to St. Louis and disobeyed the Archbishop here in taking a job as pastor of St. Stanislaus.
Here is a link to a Google cache that has his homilies from his last assignment in Springfield, St. Agnes Cathedral....read the November 6, 2005 homily, for a completely different interpretation of the Parable of the Ten Virgins.
The problem with this argument (ie, that the agreement stood for 100years and now comes Archbishop Burke suddenly breaking it)...is that the St. Stanislaus corporation changed the agreement from what it originally was, without Archdiocesan approval. IIRC, originally the board was to be appointed by the Archbishop. That's been written out of the bylaws by the board of St. Stanislaus in a couple of unauthorized revisions they've made to the original agreement over the years.
I would love for someone in the press to ask them if the bylaws they follow are the same as 100 years ago, because they're not. The local press knows this, but they're not asking...
There ha have been threads about St. Stanislaus.
"It doesn't matter what he thinks, if the local ordinary declared the Church excommunicated and it a mortal sin to participate in mass there - then it is."
I don't buy this.
The archbishop is not the pope.
Even if he were the pope, papal infalibilty was never meant to apply to financial disputes.
Making a financial dispute into a moral issue is, IMO and that of many other folks, abuse of episcopal authority, a very common situation over the past several decades.
The good archbishop needs to pay more attention to the real problems in his diocese and stop viewing functioning parishes as cash cows to be sold and slaughtered with the money being used to pay for debts resulting from previous episcopal negligence.
Dear rogator,
It isn't primarily a matter of finances, but of church discipline and ecclesiology.
These folks appealed to Rome, and Rome told them they were in the wrong, and Archbishop Burke was in the right.
The original bylaws and articles of incorporation provided for the archbishop to appoint the board, and for the bylaws to be changed only with his approval and within the laws of the Catholic Church. In that they changed the bylaws without his permission, he sought to force them to change them back. They appealed to Rome, claiming that their changes were acceptable within church law.
The pope disagreed, and said that their current form of governance just isn't Catholic.
I wish them well on their journey into Protestantism. But as long as they believe that they can run a parish any old way they want, without regard to the local ordinary or to Rome, then they are no longer Catholic.
sitetest
No, he's not even from that parish. In the 19th century, the parish control was given to a parish board. At the time, such parish baords were staffed exclusively by the parish. When the post-vatican "reforms" led to independently selected boards, no-one realized that this would mean that the parish board was both independent and authoritative, in violation of church law. No-one from the diocese cared, until the board began defying the diocese recently. After the Polish familiaes for whom the parish existed withdrew their support from the diocese over things they disagreed with the boardover, the duiocese withdrew the priest from the parish. A proest from a neighboring diocese quit his post, and, in violation of his own bishop and the local bishop's orders, began offering mass there.
Go figure that 1,500 people who never attend mass ever ever ever except for Christmas (and Easter?) would be attracted to a mass held illicitly.
The high attendance is because people are so eager to bash anything conservative.
Looking at the comments on the StLtoday blog (and even here!)...quite a number of people have said things like..."I'm not Catholic but I support the actions of the St. Stanislaus board." Archbishop Burke is a big meanie, blah, blah, blah.
People came from Chicago and beyond to participate in the illicit Mass last night. Betcha a good percentage of attendees are still in a rage over the 2004 election!...support for the dissenters has very little to do with the actual facts of the situation.
Martin Bozek should never have been ordained in the first place. He was thrown out of 2 seminaries for homosexuality before being ordained by a very liberal bishop. He abandoned his diocese without permission to join this schismatic group in St. Louis.
Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis is one of the most faithful and orthodox Catholic bishops(he made headlines last year for denying the Eucharist to John Kerry.)
This explains why liberals are attacking him.
I'd also bet that of the 1,500, mebbe about 100 have been to church since Easter. You know, there's nothing like the intuition that the Real Presence is in the Eucharist to keep those people away who have no intention of purifying their souls.
ping
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.