Posted on 12/25/2005 11:30:34 PM PST by jecIIny
Excommunicated priest holds ‘illicit’ Mass Hundreds attend service in St. Louis despite Church objections The Associated Press Updated: 5:11 p.m. ET Dec. 25, 2005
ST. LOUIS - 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.
The Rev. Marek Bozek left his previous parish without his bishop’s permission and was hired by St. Stanislaus Kostka Church earlier this month. As a result, Bozek and the six-member lay board were excommunicated last week by Archbishop Raymond Burke for committing an act of schism.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
IBINB--fair warning:
It's not kewl to contradict the Leading Member of the TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary.
In fact, it can result in hot--not cool.
Des is a lot closer to the situation than you are, and DOES happen to know the facts.
Which brings up the question: are you a Roman Catholic?
Grammatically, this sentence is nonsense. I really have no idea what you're trying to say. Please try using the "preview" button to proof-read your posts before sending them off. It will allow you to communicate more effectively with us.
Who pardons sin? Not Peter, but Christ!
Paul, you mean. And he pardons it "in the person of Christ" or "in the guise of Christ". Christ works through his human minsters. The same is true of our priests, which is why we call them "alter Christus" or "another Christ" - as Paul did, they act in persona Christi (in the person/guise of Christ) and forgive sins and celebrate all the Sacraments by his sole authority.
Look, the catholic church is really no different than the Jewish hierarchy of the priest in Jesus day
Incorrect. The Catholic hierarchy is the fulfillment of the Jewish hierarchy. In the New Covenant, the symbols of the Old Covenant become effective signs and means of grace, the heavenly reality which they communicate to men. Christ continues his visible ministry on earth through the ministry of his Church, which he established and continues to guide until the end of the world (St. Matthew 16:18-19; 28:19-20). Thus, we are told to baptize in the name of, that is, "by the power of, by the authority of," the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (see St. Matthew 28:19-20). We are told that the Apostle forgives sins "in the person of Christ." Christ commands his Apostles, his first priest-bishops, to celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist using the words He Himself used: "This is My Body ... This is the chalice of My Blood." Christ Himself appears to Paul and declares that in persecuting the Church, he has been persecuting Christ himself - the first image of the Mystical Body which the Apostle expounds in his letters. All this goes to show what I have said, that Christ continues in the New Covenant to work through a hierarchy of men.
After Jesus' sacrifice the "veil" was torn in two meaning everyone could go into the Holy of Holys and commune with God,
This cry rent the veil, and opened the tombs, and made the house desolate. And He did this, not as offering insult to the temple (for how should He, who saith, "Make not my Father's house a house of merchandise,") but declaring them to be unworthy even of His abiding there; like as also when He delivered it over to the Babylonians. But not for this only were these things done, but what took place was a prophecy of the coming desolation, and of the change into the greater and higher state; and a sign of His might. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on the Gospel of St. Matthew)It is understood that there were two veils; one veiling the Holy of Holies, the other, the outer part of the tabernacle or temple. In the Passion then of our Lord and Saviour, it was the outer veil which was rent from the top to the bottom, that by the rending of the veil from the beginning to the end of the world, the mysteries might be published which had been hid with good reason until the Lord’s coming. “But when that which is perfect is come,” [1 Cor 13:10] then the second veil also shall be taken away, that we may see the things that are hidden within, to wit, the true Ark of the Testament, and behold the Cherubim and the rest in their real nature. (Origen, Comment on St. Matthew 27:51, from the Catena Aurea)
The veil of the temple is rent, because from this time the nation was dispersed, and the honour of the veil is taken away with the guardianship of the protecting Angel. (St. Hilary of Poitiers, Comment on St. Matthew 27:51, from the Catena Aurea)
Again, God by the rending of the veil implied that the grace of the Holy Spirit goes away and is rent from the temple, so that the Holy of holies might be seen by all; also that the temple will mourn amongst the Jews, when they shall deplore their calamities, and rend their clothes.
This also is a figure of the living temple, that is, the body of Christ, in whose Passion His garment is torn, that is, His flesh.
Again, it means another thing; for the flesh is the veil of our temple, that is, of our mind. But the power of the flesh is torn in the Passion of Christ, from the top to the bottom, that is, from Adam even down to the latest man; for also Adam was made whole by the Passion of Christ, and his flesh does not remain under the curse, nor does it deserve corruption, but we all are gifted with incorruption. (Theophylact, Comment on St. Mark 15:38, from the Catena Aurea)
As a matter of fact, your interlocutor has NO regard for what is true.
Bingo! You get the St. Stephen's day prize for intuition and discernment.
He WAS removed, by the competent territorial authority--excommunication is the method.
Fr. Bozek was kicked out of seminaries in Poland for promiscuous homosexual behavior. He admitted this yesterday to his new parish...only because it was about to come out anyway.
He should never have been ordained. Bishop Leibrecht is complicit in this whole mess. He knew or should have known Bozek's history.
It's clear, GBC, that the MOPIS (My Own Personal Interpretation of Scripture) disease has become operative in this poor addled fellow's brain.
"Waste of bandwidth" rules are in play.
BizzeeMom,
Thank you for your post. I want to add one thing though:
"Fr. Bozek was kicked out of seminaries in Poland for promiscuous homosexual behavior. He admitted this yesterday to his new parish...only because it was about to come out anyway."
Please note that he only admitted that he was kicked out because of claims of such behavior. He denied actually engaging in these perverted acts. I think someone just reading your post could get the impression that he actually acknowledged these allegations as true.
Rome has spoken:
From the Congregation for the Clergy, 11 November, 2004Dear Mr. Krasnicki,
With regard your recourse against the Most Reverend Raymond L. Burke, the Archbishop of Saint Louis, this Congregation encloses its canonical response.
After reviewing the documentation relating to the foundation and organization of the Polish Roman Catholic St. Stanislaus Parish, as well as its more than 100 year history, this Congregation is greatly troubled by the current situation. There can be no denying that when Archbishop Peter Kenrick founded the Polish Roman Catholic St. Stanislaus Parish, he created a Roman Catholic parish to serve the needs of the Polish ethnic population in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. The civil form of incorporation under the "Benevolent, Religious and Education Association" laws of the State of Missouri was only one of the vehicles by which Archbishop Kenrick accomplished this purpose.
The actions of the Board of Directors in attempting to take control of the Parish represents a clear affront to the authority of the Church and the intentions of the Parish founder. Through careful and premeditated revisions of the By-laws of the civil corporation, you have attempted to make the role of the pastor impotent, attempted to wrest control from the local Ordinary, and attempted to transform St. Stanislaus into an entity which has no resemblance to a parish as envisioned by either the tradition or current law of the Roman Catholic Church.
This Congregation strongly urges you and the parishioners of St. Stanislaus Parish to work in cooperation with your local Ordinary to restore St. Stanislaus Parish to the status envisioned by its founder, that of a parish of the Roman Catholic Church with a pastor who "exercises the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the diocesan Bishop, whose ministry of Christ he is called to share, so that for this community he may carry out the offices of teaching, sanctifying and ruling with the cooperation of other priests or deacons and with the assistance of lay members of Christ's faithful, in accordance with the law." (C.I.C. Can. 519).
With assurances of prayers and best wishes, I remain,
Yours sincerely in Christ,
Csaba Ternyac, Sec.
Grammatically it might not, but others with less ridgid, uppity standards might grasp a clue. What are you, some fifth grade english teacher with your nose stuck up in the air teaching in a snobish, elite, upper westside grammer school?
Paul, you mean. And he pardons it "in the person of Christ" or "in the guise of Christ". Christ works through his human minsters. The same is true of our priests,...
Show me in scripture, where you get the idea, that any other "priest" is bestowed this same authority? This is so wrong, it borders on sacrilege.
We are told that the Apostle forgives sins "in the person of Christ." Christ commands his Apostles, his first priest-bishops,...
No, that's wrong. These Apostles were Christ's friends, he EXCLUSIVELY gave those Apostle power and ONLY them. To try and make this authority juxtapose for a continuation of this on other men, not only takes this position of bestowment completely out of context, but ADDS an unscriptual element to the condition of it's meaning.
The rest of your post I could go on and show the twisting of scripture to fit your religious view, but that's not why I posted what I did. The Catholic church has problems just like every other church, my premise is simple, get back to God and stop letting the world infiltrate the church and dictate how we who love God live our lives.
Grammatically it might not, but others with less ridgid, uppity standards might grasp a clue. What are you, some fifth grade english teacher with your nose stuck up in the air teaching in a snobish, elite, upper westside grammer school?
Paul, you mean. And he pardons it "in the person of Christ" or "in the guise of Christ". Christ works through his human minsters. The same is true of our priests,...
Show me in scripture, where you get the idea, that any other "priest" is bestowed this same authority? This is so wrong, it borders on sacrilege.
We are told that the Apostle forgives sins "in the person of Christ." Christ commands his Apostles, his first priest-bishops,...
No, that's wrong. These Apostles were Christ's friends, he EXCLUSIVELY gave those Apostle power and ONLY them. To try and make this authority juxtapose for a continuation of this on other men, not only takes this position of bestowment completely out of context, but ADDS an unscriptual element to the condition of it's meaning.
The rest of your post I could go on and show the twisting of scripture to fit your religious view, but that's not why I posted what I did. The Catholic church has problems just like every other church, my premise is simple, get back to God and stop letting the world infiltrate the church and dictate how we who love God live our lives.
Language has to be accurate or it communicates nothing. The sentence I objected to had no meaning. No, I am not an English teacher. I am a native speaker of American English and I hate to see my tongue mangled.
I know that Catholic priests have authority from scripture. We read in Acts that the apostles appointed priests over the churches. St. Paul says: "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28) We also read in the Pastoral Letters (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) that Paul appointed bishops such as Sts. Timothy and Titus, who themselves had authority to appoint priests. I also know this from tradition, which from time immemorial has recognized in the Catholic Church the divinely conferred power of binding and loosing sins.
Christ's conferral of this power upon his one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church, Mother and Teacher of all Christians, is certainly no sacrilege.
He denies the promiscuity charge but refuses to answer whether or not he is homosexual. He says it "doesn't matter". That taken with many other background facts we have learned about him over the past month makes it unlikely he is straight.
But your point is well taken, you are correct, he has not yet admitted to the gay promiscuity allegations from Poland.
Alright, I'm not going to discount your affection for the language, I apologise for my rude response.
"Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28)
So where's the authority to FORGIVE sin and confess sin to priest for forgivness in this? Where's the hierarcial structure imposed by the catholic church in scripture of TODAY?
It's quite a twist to take this verse as an example to set up a justification for a POPE! Bishops were equal to Apostles, not any other men of the church...This just adds a extra nonbiblical meaning to scripture that is not there.
Christ's conferral of this power upon his one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church, Mother and Teacher of all Christians, is certainly no sacrilege.
Please don't go there, I could just as easily say the Catholic church is the direct opposite of what Christ intended his church to be. And point to many scriptural references to back my argument.
Christ is the one with the power and ALL have to go to HIM and HIM alone for the forgiveness of sin, and to teach anything else is wrong.
Christ is the bridge, not the Pope.
The crutch of the ignorant is always to say "show me where." You're big enough to educate yourself, junior.
In your thinly veiled attack on Catholicism you invoked the Apocalypse of St. John without knowing what it says. Not very bright of you. You could learn a lesson from the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8.
Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.
Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."
Acts 1:22 - literally, "one must be ordained" to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority.
Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.
Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.
Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.
Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.
Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.
2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.
Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word "episcopoi" (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul's use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.
Furthermore, by setting up a system in which people are taught you have to confess your sins to a priest is not only wrong, it's a slap in the face to God who who set up the ONLY way for man to be forgiven his sins was by the brutal death of HIS son, our SAVIOR. <.i>
John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.
Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to "men."
Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the "Son of man" has authority to forgive sins on earth.
Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus' authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.
To not go directly to him yourself, has to be quite an insult. Think about this.
1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness.
Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse.
Out of his great love, Jesus instituted this sacrament through which a sinner who is sorry receives pardon and peace and is restored to the fullness of grace with God. "You also should do as I have done to you" (Jn 13:15). Mercy is the absolutely free initiative by which God has chosen his priests: "You did not choose me but I chose you" (Jn 15:16).
Think about this!
Your elementary rantings aren't proving your point at all. They aren't any better than your grammar or spelling.
Paul didn't even meet the person of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Paul wasn't one of the original Apostles either. And by your own argument there is no authority beyond the original Apostles and we should just forget it.
Your box of YOPIOS must be running low.
Thanks for playing.
LOL! Boy, you're really showing me arn't ya, pops!
In your thinly veiled attack on Catholicism you invoked the Apocalypse of St. John without knowing what it says.
Oh really, well since you're too lazy to back the specious practices of Catholicism, let me ask this:
In Christ letters to the Seven Churches why do you think Christ suddenly reverses the order in his letters of "He that overcometh" and He that has an ear?"
Rev 2:7
Rev 2:11
Rev 2:17
REVERSE
Rev 2:26-29
Rev 3:5-6
Rev 3:12-13
Rev 3:21-22
We'll find out who doesn't really know what it says?
The parish is 125 years old and so is its system of management; that is older than Burke and older than the, so frequently mentioned, 1983 Code of Canon Law. Burke should respect that much. He finally resolved in a shepherd's way - "gimme that or go to hell".
***Issuing an edict of Excommunication is a very painful thing***
So painful that Burke had to party before it. Shortly before announcing that six lay members of the board of directors of St. Stanislaus Kostka parish and their pastor had been excommunicated, St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke made a surprise visit to the St. Louis Labor Council Christmas party.
***Des is a lot closer to the situation than you are, and DOES happen to know the facts.***
Sure, sure, and Burke is a Canon lawyer. Duly noted.
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.