Excommunicated priest holds ‘illicit’ Mass

MSNBC ^ | 12-26-05 | AP

[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.

[smpb]

A lot of people are posting opinions without knowing anything about this. There was a time when many Polish Catholics in this country wanted to have a high degree of autonomy over their own parishes. They resented the fact that the hierarchy was largely Irish. Also, they were ultra-nationalist Poles. This led to a schism which was the origin of the "Polish National Catholic Church", which had hundreds of thousands of members. (Look in any almanac under denominations and you'll find it.) Also, there was a tendency in the 19th century for Catholic parishes in parts of the U.S to have more autonomy than was the norm worldwide. This parish in St. Louis is obviously a relic of such history. It probably has nothing to do with "liberal-conservative" issues, but rather whether the parish is subject to the legitimate authority of the bishop. It also has nothing to do with money, as the diocese was not trying to take the parish's money. If one is a Catholic one believes that bishops govern the Church by divine right and institution. If one thinks a parish priest has the right to defy the legitimate orders of his bishop, then one is not an orthodox Catholic. It is as simple as that. This is analogous to a captain refusing to be obedient to his general.

[sirchtruth]

God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all.

Yes, and when Christ died the veil was rent, meaning the HIGH PREIST was now God himself, which all can come directly too.

I can't find anywhere in the context of scripture where God gives man AUTHOIRITY to forgive sin, or have him to go thru a preist to confess such. The hiearchy of the Catholic church is unscriptural in their current establish, not to say they are bad leaders or leading people astray, just wrong about God's structured council.

The whole point to Christ death and ressurection was so man could go thru Him to seek God, not go thru priest...Remember, "Seek and you shall find" Christ was speaking of himself, not another.

[sirchtruth]

You seem to have skipped those parts describing the Catholic Mass; the altar, "Holy, Holy, Holy", incense, vestments, the Eucharist, prayers of the saints in heaven, the Lamb of God, et al contained within.

Fine. Point these out to me.

[sirchtruth]

Before you suggest that your interpretation of Scripture holds more weight than the interpretation of the Church, the culmination of 2000 years of scholarship, you should try to master spelling and grammar.

Ah, since I own a creative spelling dictionary, I suggest you try defending the current churches practices before throwing out prudish, and prickish red herrings...

[gbcdoj]

Canon Law was first promulgated in 1917

Incorrect: Canon Law.

You are probably thinking of the first codification of Canon Law, which was completed in 1917 and promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI. This was revised and re-issued by John Paul II in 1983. But canon law itself dates back to the fourth century or even earlier.

if the property was turned over to the diocese it would legally become personal property at the disposal of the bishop alone

This is completely false, and you've been corrected on this before. Have you no concern for the truth?

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

[gbcdoj]

promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI.

Benedict XV, of course, not XVI!

[gbcdoj]

I can't find anywhere in the context of scripture where God gives man AUTHOIRITY to forgive sin, or have him to go thru a preist to confess such

Look harder:

And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (St. Matthew 16:18-19)

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. (St. Matthew 18:17-19)

He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (St. John 20:21-23)

And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (2 Corinthians 2:10)

But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins; and he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation. For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us. For Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to God. (2 Corinthians 5:18-20)

[gbcdoj]

Their new priest, Bozek, is actually a leftist. For instance, take a look at this:

http://www.saintagnescathedral.org/homilies/20050731.htm

The Eucharist is an inclusive reality – all races, all languages, all lifestyles. “All ate and all were satisfied”. This is showing us a beautiful image of God’s love, a table for everyone. It is especially important for those who are suffering hunger and thirst, who need food and drink. Last year a small but very vocal group of bishops made statements regarding which candidates running for public offices could and which could not receive the Holy Communion. It caused a situation where neither of the presidential candidates was invited to communicate in a catholic church - one was a Methodist and the other not Catholic enough. I ask myself how does this relate to the word all we are talking about today? It is clear that nobody really deserves to welcome Lord Jesus into his or her heart. Yet we need to remember that during each Eucharist, right before the Holy Communion rite we all proclaim: “Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say a word and I shall be healed”. The truth is that none of us is holy or good enough. None of us here present can say “I am good and I have a right to join communion line.” At the Last Supper there were at least twelve Apostles plus Jesus. Twelve, including Judas who was about to betray his Master. Jesus knew that, he knew also that Judas was stealing money. Jesus could have asked Judas to leave the table for he was not worthy to participate in the first Eucharist ever, he could have sent Judas to confession at least. Yet, the Gospels say Jesus gave Judas the Bread himself. What an amazing gesture! A mouth that will shortly betray Jesus by kissing his cheek is now consuming the bread and wine that we will consume today. Yes, none of us is worthy enough or deserving enough to be here. But we are called without reservation and without conditions, no matter what state of life we are in – or who we voted for. All are welcome.

The second reading was from the letter of St. Paul to the Romans. He speaks of all these realities that cannot separate us from the love of God – no powers or authorities, no riches or nakedness, not even angels. St. Paul meant what he said and he deeply believed that there is nothing strong enough to separate us from the love of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Not guilt, sinfulness or mistakes. Nothing.

When John Paul II was with us some accused him of tolerating so called “cafeteria Catholics”. These, supposedly are Catholics who chose to remain in the Church, but they pick and choose what parts of the faith work for them and which don’t. When Cardinal Ratzinger was elected the new pope T-shirts appeared that read “Ratzinger is Pope Now – Cafeteria Closed”. Benedict XVI of course did not sponsor this, he is too wise to propagate such a vision of the Church. Let’s think for a moment though about this “cafeteria” image. In our school days if the cafeteria was closed we would go somewhere else to eat – or we would go hungry. Do we want that kind of a Church? One that would leave us hungry? Isaiah invited all come and eat and drink at the God’s table. And today we do come here to St. Agnes. We come thirsty and hungry. We come with our broken and imperfect human nature. And we here today this wonderful Good Message that nothing can indeed separate us from the love of God.

The word all links the readings together today but it also appears at the most holy moment of the Eucharistic liturgy. At the consecration narrative the priest says “This is my Body which will be given up for you and for all. This is my Blood – shed for you and for all”.

The Body and Blood of Christ is for all. There is only one question we need to ask ourselves – am I hungry enough, am I thirsty enough? If you are, welcome to God’s feast!

So much for St. Paul, right? "But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." (1 Cor. 11:28-29)

[starfish923]

Isn't obedience one of the priestly vows?
He should be removed by Rome.

[starfish923]

Sounds to me like Bishop Burke did the right thing.

[I Believe It's Not Butter]

There was no Code of Canon Law prior to 1917. It's nice of you that you try every trick to defend Burke. But, prior to 1917 there was no Code of Canon Law for the Roman Catholic Church. The local "Institutiones", manuals, and the "Decretals" brought up in your link to the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia did not constitute the Code of Canon Law for the entire Church. These were local canonical laws.

[NYer]

I can't find anywhere in the context of scripture where God gives man AUTHOIRITY to forgive sin, or have him to go thru a preist to confess such.

John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors to forgive sins.

John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.

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.

The hiearchy of the Catholic church is unscriptural in their current establish(ment)

On the contrary, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was created by Jesus Christ, the author of Scripture.

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.

Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people's names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.

2 Sam. 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron.17:12,14 - God promises to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth.

Matt. 1:1 - Matthew clearly establishes this tie of David to Jesus. Jesus is the new King of the new House of David, and the King will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the King is in heaven.

Luke 1:32 - the archangel Gabriel announces to Mary that her Son would be given "the throne of His father David." In using the term "keys," Jesus was referencing Isaiah 22 (which is the only place in the Bible where keys are used in the context of a kingdom).

Isaiah 22:22 - in the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. This representative has decision-making authority over the people - when he shuts, no one opens. See also Job 12:14.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom Matt. 16:19 - Jesus gives Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven."

[gbcdoj]

You didn't say that there was no Code before 1917. You said that there was no canon law. Yes, there was. Nor was it only local law as you wrongly claim.

You are clearly incompetent in this matter. Archbishop Burke, on the other hand, is a Doctor of Canon Law, and his interpretation of the 1983CIC has also been officially upheld by the Holy See (which you continue to ignore). Why should we believe your inaccurate and false rantings against one of our shepherds? It's becoming increasingly obvious that you have very little, if any, respect for our holy mother the Church and for her pastors. Are you even Catholic?

[I Believe It's Not Butter]

***Are you even Catholic?***

Yes, I am. And it hurts when a bishop excommunicates himself from his flock.

[NYer]

If he doesn't wanna be a bishop to these people, then he doesn't have to. It's a free country.

Living in a 'free country' does not even factor into this situation. Religious living in communist countries follow the same vows of obedience. Bishop Burke exercised his responsibility as bishop; the priest and Parish Trustees refused to obey. The bishop spent 2 years attempting to resolve this matter, even bringing a Polish bishop to the parish to explain matters in their native tongue. The Parish Trustees remained defiant.

Issuing an edict of Excommunication is a very painful thing for any bishop to do. It was done with a 'heavy heart'. Are you a member of this parish?

[sirchtruth]

And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (2 Corinthians 2:10)

First of all you must know the CONTEXT of which all this scripture you've mentioned is written, and if you read it closely it extensively jives with what I wrote. In the context of those Siants exclusively given the powers to do things, not any others have the power to do. Who pardons sin? Not Peter, but Christ! This is the point he makes. These were the apostles of Jesus himself, not some man appointed earthly priest. But really that's besides the point. Are you trying to defend the only way for catholics to be pardoned from sin is by going to a priest?

Look, the catholic church is really no different than the Jewish hierarchy of the priest in Jesus day...although before Jesus' sacrifice, this was the way to have a relationship with God..Thru the priest. The priest were the only one's allow in the Holy of Holys. After Jesus' sacrifice the "veil" was torn in two meaning everyone could go into the Holy of Holys and commune with God, without a priest. The priest was no longer needed because himself was made the advocate. And I don't mean to say there should not be priest to teach the people of God's word, but certainly not to confess to for forgiveness of sin, or some kind of supreme potentate that is supposed to be closer to God than anyone else.

To set up this structure where people put a reliance on priest and adoration on the Pope, is just scripturally impoper. (IMO, has no sciptual basis)

But my point is, (as I just used the Catholic church as an example) there is much deception going on IN THE CHURCH in general, knowingly or not, no matter what denomination, and Revelation clearly points this out. We need to get back to the central theme of God, and stop putting emphasis on earhtly ways and things. We have to stop allowing an inflitration of deviant debasements to God's will for the church...and never forget our first love.

[ninenot]

There are extensive discussions of this available on FR.

The priest is an impostor and, from reports, seems to be a clone of Rembert Weakland philosophically.

Still want to defend this?

[ninenot]

More:

the appropriate Scripture passage is from St. Paul:

Christus factus est pro nobis, OBEDIENS usque ad mortem.

This responds to the Prots' FAQ "WWJD"

[sirchtruth]

John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins.

These are Jesus' own apostles, not just any man. No man has the authority to forgive sins over Jesus... 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. To not go directly to him yourself, has to be quite an insult. Think about this.

[Lilllabettt]

If he doesn't wanna be a bishop to these people, then he doesn't have to. It's a free country.

Your interpretation of freedom is fundamentally Protestant. True freedom is the freedom to do what is right, not the freedom to do whatever you please. That's the Catholic understanding anyway. The Archbishop, by the way, doesn't have a choice as to which flock he leads. Let us put aside the fact that he is legally obliged to obey the Pope in such matters. Spiritually speaking, it is God Himself who appoints shepherds to tend His sheep.

Let's say the Archbishop is a money and power-hungry glob, and you don't agree with his interpretation of the canons. So what. The Archbishop's authority comes from the Apostles. Tell me, by what authority do you sit in judgment of the law?

This is the essence of Catholicism. I find that too many American Catholics fall prey to contemporary social sensibilities concerning freedom of conscience, judgment, authority, etc.