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 ...
A false story.
The original bylaws and the revised bylaws (2001, 2004) are publicly available on the Archdiocesan website. I've linked you to them already. Why don't you show all of us ignorant Catholics why SaveStStans.org is right and the Archdiocese wrong?
Let me help you out. Here are the points of the "archdiocesan bureaucrats" about the original bylaws. Following is the language from the bylaws proving each right.
• Archbishop appoints six directors and successor directors; the Pastor is also a director
SECOND. This corporation shall receive as its President such person as said Archbishop, or in his absence, the Vicar-General of said Diocese, or in his absence, the Administrator of said Diocese, may appoint as the pastor of said parish of Polish Roman Catholic St. Stanislaus Parish and whenever such person shall be removed from said position of pastor by said Archbishop, Vicar-General or Administrator of said Diocese, said office of President of said corporation shall become vacant, and such person so removed shall not exercise or have any power or authority as President of said corporation, and shall cease to be a member of its Board of Directors. ...NINTH. Whenever the office of director shall become vacant, the Archbishop of said Diocese, or in his absence, said Vicar-General or Administrator of said Diocese, shall have the right to appoint any member of said corporation possessing the qualification set forth in the charter, to fill said vacancy. If said Archbishop, Vicar-General or Administrator, fail to make such appointment within two months after delivery to him of a notice in writing of such vacancy, then the President of said corporation may make such appointment.
• Any dispute or controversy among the directors is referred to the Archbishop whose decision is final and binding
EIGHTH. If any dispute or controversy arise between the members of said Board of Directors which they cannot settle, they shall submit same, without delay, to the decision of said Archbishop of said Diocese of St. Louis, and if he be absent, to the Vicar-General, and in his absence to the Administrator of said diocese of St. Louis, and the decision of said Archbishop, Vicar-General or Administrator, shall be final and binding on all parties. Either party refusing to abise by said decision, after being duly notified in writing thereof, shall forthwith cease to be a director of said corporation, and his place shall be declared vacant by the other members of said Board of Directors.
• The powers of the corporation must be exercised in accordance with Church law and any amendment to the Bylaws must not conflict with Church law
FIRST. The corporate powers of the corporation shall, under the laws of the State of Missouri, be exercised in conformity with the principles and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, and in accordance with such rules and regulations as may be established from time to time, for the government of said church, by the Roman Catholic Archbishop in the Diocese of St. Louis, or by his authority. ...TWELFTH. ... Nor shall any amendments be made at any time which shall in anywise be in conflict with any law of the State of Missouri, or with any rule, regulation or requirement of the said Diocese of St. Louis in force at the time of such proposed change.
• Upon dissolution of the corporation, all assets become the property of the Archbishop
Art. VII. In the event that said corporation be dissolved by reason of any nonuser or misuser of its corporate powers, or from any other cause, then, and in that event, all property of said corporation, at the time of such dissolution, shall, subject to payment of the corporate debts, become the absolute property of the individual who, at said time, shall be the Roman Catholic Archbishop of said Diocese of St. Louis. (From the Original Charter, not the Bylaws)
It's a real shame that it came to it, but the assets are much more likely to be used for their original purpose: the glory of God and sanctification of His people under the management of the parishioners than when they would be in Burke's hands.
And I'm supposed to be impressed by the journalists' selective hearing? Did YOU read the context from which this quote was excised and painted as though Abp. Burke were suddenly abandoning his position of June 2004?
If you actually took the time to read the pastoral letter, you would see that he maintains his original position.
...and none of them was excommunicated for abortion or the support of it.
And now, I find it troubling that by insinuating that Abp. Burke said that it's okay to vote for pro-aborts, you make it appear as though the disobedience of the lay board is justified. Why would you do that I wonder?
Handing it over to Burke and his bureaucrats would assure the end of it within a decade or two.
As has been pointed out multiple times, the property would not be handed over to Archbishop Burke. If you continue to claim this, you prove yourself a liar to everyone here, thus discrediting yourself and your attempt to defend this band of schismatics who have stolen the property of St. Stanislaus Parish from the Catholic faithful to which it belonged by right.
Archdiocese Proposal for the St. Stanislaus Parish Structure
St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church
(New Parish Corporation)•A new Missouri nonprofit corporation based on the model for all other parishes of the Archdiocese of St. Louis
•Leases parish property from the Irrevocable Parish Trust with no payment of rent
•Operates the Parish with full responsibility for maintenance of parish facilities
•Receives transfers of funds from the Irrevocable Parish Trust for operation of the Parish
St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church Fund
(Irrevocable Parish Trust)•A new charitable Trust formed by the Archbishop of St. Louis
•Archbishop appoints trustees who must all be parishioners, plus the Pastor who is a trustee, ex officio
•Holds and invests cash and securities for the Parish
•Transfers funds to the Parish Corporation, upon the request of the Pastor, for parish needs
•Holds title to parish real estate which it leases to the Parish Corporation
•Maintains $500,000 endowment for the upkeep of parish facilities
•If the Parish closes, transfers all parish assets to the Residuary Corporation (the present parish corporation renamed)
Polish Roman Catholic St. Stanislaus Parish Fund
(Residuary Corporation and Present Parish Corporation)•Present parish corporation which will amend its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws to be the residuary recipient of the parish assets if the Parish should close
•Present directors, except the pastor, remain as directors
•Parishioners elect successor directors who must all be parishioners
•Transfers all of its assets, except $10,000, to the Irrevocable Parish Trust
•Unless the Parish closes, will have no current activities, conduct no fundraising and hold no more than $10,000 in assets
•Would receive parish assets, if Parish would close, and would then administer parish assets for religious, educational and charitable activities for Catholics of Polish descent in the Archdiocese of St. Louis
•Has authority to enforce the obligation of the Irrevocable Parish Trust to use parish assets for the purposes of the trust and to transfer parish assets to it, if the Parish closes
Archbishop's Letter Regarding St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish
Because much misinformation has appeared in the public media, I am now writing to all the faithful in the Archdiocese and am including, with my letter, the accompanying questions and answers, as well as other pertinent information. You need to know and have the right to know that I have no desire to take the assets of the Parish or to close the Parish, contrary to what has been repeatedly said by members of the Board of Directors of the parish corporation and some other parishioners. Such statements are simply and completely untrue.To allay the fears of the Board of Directors and some other parishioners, I and those assisting me have listened to each of the concerns expressed. In January 2005, I approved for presentation to the Board a proposal which completely addressed each and every concern which had been expressed. I had the proposal drawn up in such a way that the commitment to use the parish property and assets only for the Parish and the Catholic faithful of Polish descent would be permanent and legally enforceable in civil law.
He said too much and did the required backpedaling in his "pastoral letter". I am not accusing him of being pro-abortion, only that he has his priorities confused. His position on material property grab is much tougher than his position on the pro-life teachings of the Church.
Under Burke it's too easy to get excommunicated for not letting him take your own property. I don't believe this type of "excommunication" to have any meaning. It's like a priest-confessor refusing the absolution to a penitent who refuses to go to bed with him.
I don't blame them. They are happy to have a priest, any priest, celebrate the Mass after 17 months.
I belong to the body of Christ - the Bride of Christ. This is His Church founded on the foundation of His covenant with all those that believe in Him, accept his Grace and obey Him and His Word. This makes the Church I belong to several hundred years older that the Roman Church which left my Church when it began to co-opt the prerogatives of God Himself.
Recommended reading: St. Augustine's On Mendacity.
Whatever 'Church' you belong to, then, it's obviously not the bride of Christ.
St. Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the ChurchBut, beloved brethren, not only must we beware of what is open and manifest, but also of what deceives by the craft of subtle fraud. And what can be more crafty, or what more subtle, than for this enemy, detected and cast down by the advent of Christ, after light has come to the nations, and saving rays have shone for the preservation of men, that the deaf might receive the hearing of spiritual grace, the blind might open their eyes to God, the weak might grow strong again with eternal health, the lame might run to the church, the dumb might pray with clear voices and prayers--seeing his idols forsaken, and his lanes and his temples deserted by the numerous concourse of believers--to devise a new fraud, and under the very title of the Christian name to deceive the incautious? He has invented heresies and schisms, whereby he might subvert the faith, might corrupt the truth, might divide the unity. Those whom he cannot keep in the darkness of the old way, he circumvents and deceives by the error of a new way. He snatches men from the Church itself; and while they seem to themselves to have already approached to the light, and to have escaped the night of the world, he pours over them again, in their unconsciousness, new darkness; so that, although they do not stand firm with the Gospel of Christ, and with the observation and law of Christ, they still call themselves Christians, and, walking in darkness, they think that they have the light, while the adversary is flattering and deceiving, who, according to the apostle's word, transforms himself into an angel of light, and equips his ministers as if they were the ministers of righteousness, who maintain night instead of day, death for salvation, despair under the offer of hope, perfidy under the pretext of faith, antichrist under the name of Christ; so that, while they feign things like the truth, they make void the truth by their subtlety. This happens, beloved brethren, so long as we do not return to the source of truth, as we do not seek the head nor keep the teaching of the heavenly Master.
If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;" yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her." Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?"
And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source.
Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,--when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated.
The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, "He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth." He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, "I and the Father are one;" and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one." And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.
You should think before you apply this statement to the RC Church. My Church worships the Lord of all Creation and the author of Salvation not a corrupt institution. My knees bow before no one accept Christ.
And this private judgment of yours arose from which deposit of faith?
I don't blame them. They are happy to have a priest, any priest, celebrate the Mass after 17 months.
You are happy in their state of sin?
What is it that everyone present witnessed that day? They saw Jesus, the carpenter's son, forgive a man's sins. The Pharisees were shocked. This was blasphemy because only God can forgive sins. Jesus read their thoughts and commented that the power to forgive sins had been given him by the authority of God.
To whom did Jesus pass this authority?
Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me." Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.
apostles.
John 16:14-15 - what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. The authority is not lessened or mitigated.
John 17:18; 20:21 - as the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the apostles. The apostles have divinely appointed authority.
What did the apostles do with this authority?
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 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.
1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.
2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.
If this is the case why did Christ have to die if any man who goes to seminary can forgive sins?
Heb. 9:12 - Christ's sacrifice secured our redemption, but redemption is not the same thing as salvation. We participate in and hope for salvation. Our hope in salvation is a guarantee if we are faithful to Christ to the end. But if we lose hope and fail to persevere, we can lose our salvation. Thus, by our own choosing (not by God's doing), salvation is not a certainty.
We can lose salvation through our own free will.
Luke 8:13 - Jesus teaches that some people receive the word with joy, but they have no root, believe for a while, and then fall away in temptation. They had the faith but they lost it.
Luke 12:42-46 - we can start out as a faithful and wise steward, then fall away and be assigned to a place with the unfaithful.
Matt. 10:22, 24:13; Mark 13:13 - Jesus taught that we must endure to the very end to be saved. If this is true, then how can Protestants believe in the erroneous teaching of "Once saved, always saved?" If salvation occurred at a specific point in time when we accepted Jesus as personal Lord and Savior, there would be no need to endure to the end. We would already be saved.
For these reasons, Christ instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation so that those who drift away may return. He did this, as noted above, by passing His authority to forgive sins, to the Apostles and they passed it on through the laying on of hands, to their successors.
Precisely. How do you think this priest and the Parish Directors will respond?
Go back thru my post and read what I pointed out several times what this was about. I used the Catholic church as an example only because of the spotlight on the recent problems it was having, as really ALL churches are having.
Is this Tribunal of Penance REQUIRED for forgiveness of sins by the church?
Not on this archdiocese. Before Burke got here, under Rigali, it was all put in trust so that it couldn't be seized by the state.
Burke doesn't do power grabs. He has a lot to learn about diplomacy and knowing how to say the right thing at the right time, but there is no way the man is power hungry. Sorry. Don't believe that.
Please...Post-Disgrace. Joseph Pulizer must be turning in his grave at the state his beloved paper has assumed. It's realy pitiful.
I know you don't want to believe this, but really, the people at St. Stans brought it on themselves. They were afraid that the parish would be closed based on the fact that there has been quite a bit of restructuring of late. The big historic parishes, for the most part, were left open.
You're barking up the wrong tree and really don't know much about the situation, namely that the SL P-D takes every opportunity and opening to beat the Church to a bloody pulp no matter who is in charge. Even when May was archbishop - and he was a beloved leader by everyone - the Post went after him and twisted everything so that it was unrecognizable.
If people think that a "preist" can forgive sins alone, they are being deceived. If the emphasis is not on Christ and on the priest who actually, sits in judgement, how is this justified? All the scripture you're pointing too has to do with the Apostles whom Jesus gave the "authority," not the power, to forgive sin. Now, I realize our argument might be semantic, but it's central to what I'm referring too. Christ is the focus, it is Christ that forgives sin and ONLY him, he is the advocate for US to the Father. When we sin the father does not look upon a priest, he sees Christ sacrifice.
Your taking these scriptures and applying them to your church, as I could just as easily twist the scripture to fit a particular view. That's why we have cults and NO, the Catholic church is not a cult!
Go read the letters to the Seven Churches and then you'll get some idea of what I'm trying to say. Those letters apply to Every church and are basically saying you all are allowing things not of Christ to prevail, stop it! Oh and btw, All seven churches letters apply to All churches of Christ.
By putting emphasis on the Pope, Mary, Bishops, Priest, takes away the focus on the person whom you should, and that is Christ, OFF the cross, because he is risen TODAY!
If I ask in the name of Jesus to forgive my sin and no priest is around, does Christ forgive my sin?
I'm sorry your theory doesn't jive with John 3:16, or a multitude of other scriptures I could quote.Jesus taught that we must endure to the very end to be saved. If this is true, then how can Protestants believe in the erroneous teaching of "Once saved, always saved?"
This tells me alone where you're coming from and you're totally worng on this too...I don't think Christ has to get back up on the cross everytime I sin. Stop listening to satan's lies about whether or not Christ can save you once and for all eternity. If we can lose are salvation, then it was never eternal, which would turn God's word into a lie if we could lose our salvation...You don't believe God's word is a lie. Christ died once, for all, stop putting him back up on the cross!
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.