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 ...
Also, Jimmy Swaggert, James Bakker and Vicki Gene Robinson are none of my Catholic business and nothing, absolutely nothing, in Roman Catholicism is any business of yours.
You are actually starting to get it. Swaggert et al are a disgrace and have been removed from fellowship by their churches. They are certainly welcomed back if they repent and confess their sins before their brothers and sisters. They will never be permitted in a leadership position again. Swaggert and Bakker did great damage to the Church and so does the the sexual morass that the RC church continues to let fester. Week after week seeing news stories about predatory priests and the bishops that protect them affects the entire Church not just the RC Church. Sorry you are too myopic to see that.
IThe liberal Gay priesthood thing, is abominable. Now that is not saying the Catholic church condones this because it doesn't as a whole, but you certainly have Priest and Bishops that do condone it! Are these the same ones from the lineage of the apostles who have been passed the authority to forgive sin?
Christ is perfect; man is fallible. The Catholic Church has always defended its position of not admitting active homosexuals to the priesthood. Unfortunately, certain bishops ignored those instructions. The Catholic Church has survived its adversaries in the past and is now witnessing a resurgence of vocations, thanks in great part to the staunch stance taken by Popes JPII and Benedict XVI against the admission of homosexuals to the priesthood.
what about the church of Jerusulem, or Rome, or Antioch, (the outreach) he could have looked at so many churches with problems and what to do about those problems, but he chose those Seven.
Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:
"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).
Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.
To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:
The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15).
To locate an Eastern Catholic Church in your community, follow the following link:
Eastern Catholic Churches in the U.S.
A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his of her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole. I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith at a Maronite Catholic Church. Like the Chaleans, the Maronites retain Aramaic for the Consecration. It is as close as one comes to being at the Last Supper.
"If we deny him, he will also deny us." (2 Timothy 2:12) "But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven." (St. Matthew 10:33) "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
John10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
This speaks only of the elect.
Your argument is very weak! This is NOT referring to the SAVED..
(St. Matthew 10:33) "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God?
And who are the unjust? Those that are NOT saved. Christ is the advocate, Christ is the JUST. Do you really want to make the claim that Christ promise is not true. That God would break his promise, and he can not kept his inherited children? That's what you're doing by presenting this bogus argument.
John10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
This speaks only of the elect.
It does not! Where do you get this from? This is about the SAVED. I could show you a multitude of verses which speak of ETERNAL security in Christ. You can't LOSE eternal life or it was really never ETERNAL to begin with. You're logic is really skewd on this and you're being deceived!
You're totally thinking about this in the wrong light, it is not WE that have Christ, it is Christ that has US. Once you have made the decision to make Christ Lord over your life he has promised to never let you go! There is no changing HIS mind.
The whole bible points to one thing: CHRIST THE LORD and his ultimate authority and sovereignty over all. When he PROMISES to you and I his eternity, he doesn't take it back even if you want him too...He does everything in his power to get people to believe in him short of forcing LIFE upon them. But, make no mistake about it, once he has you, you are his Doulos for eternity. And scripture is VERY CLEAR about this!
Think about this, with the argument you're making it makes his death meaningless.
"DSC--see post 106 This guy has problems which did NOT originate with Bishop Burke..."
Yes, he does.
"When people ask me that, I just say, I am a celibate and chaste priest, so it doesn't matter," Bozek said."
Which, of course, means that he suffers from SSAD, and shouldn't be a priest.
This is all very sad.
I seem to remember that the first thing I heard about this months ago was that the parish was on a preliminary list for closing -- and Burke is a notorious closer of parishes.
At that time, it appeared that Burke wanted to gain control of the finances so their money would come to him when he closed the parish.
However, it appears that I did not save those earlier articles to disk, so I can't rule out faulty memory.
Still, looking at the situation as it stands, several points stand out.
1. There was a parish that had been healthy for over a hundred years.
2. Burke arrived, and couldn't leave well enough alone.
3. Some people keep claiming that this dispute is about obedience; however, it is clearly about MONEY. People have been excommunicated over a bishop's determination to get control over this parish's assets.
4. No previous bishop was willing to go to the mattresses over this money, and see people excommunicated over control of the parish's assets.
5. Burke deprived these people of the sacraments over control of their assets; "If you won't turn your assets over to me, I'll jerk your priests." That seems to me a petty, spiteful, and vengeful act.
6. Burke's proposed remedies as represented in this thread are totally inadequate to safeguard the parish's assets.
7. Burke seems quite unconcerned with the immortal souls of the people of this parish. What if they die while excommunicated? What if they die with mortal sin on their souls because they relied on an invalid absolution? Burke seems to regard gaining control of their assets as far more important than these questions.
Why is it so important to Burke that he gain control of these assets? Why is this issue so pressing that he's willing to risk sending people who want to be Catholic to the eternal torments of Hell? Why is he willing that people should die on the barricades in a struggle over this MONEY?
Most terribly, of course, this parish has made the mistake of engaging a priest who suffers from SSAD. One can only wonder how many teenage boys he will defile, how many lives he will ruin, before he flees or is driven out.
1. There was a parish that had been healthy for over a hundred years.
2. Burke arrived, and couldn't leave well enough alone. "
A lack of detail unfairly paints Archbishop Raymond Burke in a bad light.
Here is a brief summary for St Stanislaus Kostka Parish posted in Jan 2005.
"A lack of detail unfairly paints Archbishop Raymond Burke in a bad light."
I don't want to be unfair, but surely we need *all* the details.
"Through these illegal changes of the original by-laws"
I wish someone would correct me if I'm remembering this incorrectly, but my recollection is that the changes to the by-laws were a *reaction* to Burke's intention to close the parish and seize their assets.
So, Burke has a legal right to do this?
Lex mala, lex nulla.
"On August 11, 2004, Archbishop Burke stated, "With respect to the assets of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, Church law safeguards and protects all such funds, buildings and grounds. I state yet again that neither I, nor my successors as Archbishop of St. Louis, will, or, for that matter, can, access or redirect the funds on deposit in the Archdiocesan Trust of any of our parishes."
So, he's willing to see people excommunicated over a pettifogging legality when he's not going to seek control over the money? Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test.
As I read Burke's proposal, all he has to do is get a few ringers onto the parish council, and bada bing! Or rather, cha-ching.
You don't actually suppose that any well-catechized Catholic is going to be affected in the slightest by the "Scriptural" errors that are the very definition of the deformed versions of "Christianity", do you? If you want to follow Jesus Christ, belong to and obey HIS Church (for those of you in Rio Linda, that would be the Roman Catholic Church as it is for everyone). If not, not. He gave free will to everyone. You may use free will in His service or abuse it as you do.
You cannot speak for the Rev. Mr. Swaggert or the Rev. Mr. Bakker or soi disant "Bishop" Vicki Gene either since you claim not to belong to their respective churches either or any church, for that matter, other than the church of you.
In the last analysis, you belong to the "church" of self-worshipping folks like you who think that a purported bible (however pathetic the "translation" as in the New, New, Absolutely New Interplanetary and Totally Dumbed Down Version, carefully "translated" by twisting language to fit into deformation niches) and a few reading lessons makes them theological experts. What on earth makes you think that any Catholic who has any business calling him/herself Catholic would waste a moment's time making believe that your personal opinions dressed up as "Scripture" for Halloween are remotely related to Christianity?
St. Thomas Aquinas vs. gscc? St. Thomas Aquinas! St. Charles Borromeo vs. gscc? St. Charles Borromeo! St. Ignatius Loyola vs. gscc? St. Ignatius Loyola! Etc.
The Roman Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself vs. the tens of thousands of sects and multiple individuals too idiosyncratic to submit to any of them constituting collectively the church founded by Martin Luther nearly 1500 years after the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross. Ummmm, I am going with the Roman Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself. Call me eccentric. Just the kind of elk I am.
I can tell you that whatever damage Swaggert and Bakker may have done, they did no damage whatsoever to the Roman Catholic Church to which neither has ever belonged. Likewise, whatever damage may have been done by all too many leftist, pro-homosexual AmChurch bishops and priests was done to the Roman Catholic Church and not to those who are quite certainly outside it such as you. The ecclesiastical remedy for the Bishop Protection Artists who coddled Fr. Faggot times a thousand or more lies excusively within the Roman Catholic Church as to the religious aspects. There is utterly nothing that you, as a committed heretic and non-member of the Roman Catholic Church can do or ought to be able to do. This is just as it is with Vicki Gene who is strictly Episcopalian/Anglican business and Swaggert and Bakker who are strictly Assembly of God business. No Catholic has anything relevant to say about any of the three of them. They are simply none of the business of Roman Catholics.
To the extent that you may be tempted to say that child molesting is a crime and is your business as a member of society, you would be right. Throw the Fr. Geoghans and the NAMBLA priest (Slattery????) in the slam for life at least as Mr. Geoghan and Mr. Slattery and whomever else. That is your business. If you can cause the jailing of Roger Cardinal Mahoney as Mr. Mahoney, you will find Catholic enthusiasm in support of your effort. It will probably also save us his pension expectations. List of additional "Mahoneys", "Geoghans" and "Slatterys" available on request.
The ecclesiastical side is the sole business of the Roman Catholic Church. Neither you nor any other non-Catholic has any standing whatsoever. We often don't listen to us. Why should we listen to you????? In fact, the First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees exactly that. Worry about your own problems and take that beam out of your eye.
There are plenty of archdiocesan priests available to hear the confessions of the rebels in the pews. The archbishop is available for the ringleaders who probably can be fporgiven only through him or through the pope. What part of OBEDIENCE do these malicious malcontents fail to understand????
As has been posted repeatedly here, this is NOT about money or about Polishness or any of the other flimsy excuses. This is very analogous in disobedience to other schisms and excommunicati such as those of SSPX or of PN"C"C. Justin Cardinal Rigali initiated action against these malcontents. Archbishop Burke has continued his efforts. Nothing unusual here. What is very encouraging is the willingness of two consecutive St. Louis archbishops to crack the whip and refuse the Kumbaya approach to the rebellious. AmChurch tendencies to spaghetti-spinedness may never recover.
Oh, and those rebels in the pews want to be self-worshipers. They do NOT want to be Catholic. For the most part, they can be Catholic by giving up their sinful pride and doing as required in matters moral by Archbishop Burke. If not, the results are on them.
It's pretty obvious that +Paul is talking about Christians:
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation, which is in Christ Jesus, with heavenly glory. A faithful saying: for if we be dead with him, we shall live also with him. If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us. If we believe not, he continueth faithful, he can not deny himself. Of these things put them in mind, charging them before the Lord.
But then, why bother with context when you're an infallible Protestant?
And who are the unjust? Those that are NOT saved
A nice assertion, but not backed up by Scripture. The unjust are those who do unjust things, such as the sins which he then proceeds to list. He's clearly warning the Corinthians not to backslide into the sins that they were doing before.
Do you really want to make the claim that Christ promise is not true.
Christ's promise is perfectly true: "To him, that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God." (Apocalypse of St. John 2:7)
That God would break his promise, and he can not kept his inherited children?
"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. ... whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Rom. 8:9, 14)
You can't LOSE eternal life or it was really never ETERNAL to begin with.
Eternal life is eternal because it is God's own life given to us (see 2 Peter 1:4: "made partakers of the divine nature"). As regards us, some are elected only to grace, not to glory. That is why we read that we are "heirs, according to hope, of everlasting life." (Titus 3:7) Hope has something certain, namely God's promise to give eternal life to all dying in the state of grace ("If we believe not, he continueth faithful, he can not deny himself" 2 Tim. 2:13), and also something uncertain, our conduct ("If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us" 2 Tim. 2:12).
I live in ArchStL and I've never heard this. Not saying it didn't happen, but I would like to see a source for this assertion, because I've followed this story fairly closely over the months (and years) and have never heard this.
my recollection is that the changes to the by-laws were a *reaction* to Burke's intention to close the parish and seize their assets.
Your recollection is incorrect. First, there was never any such intention. Second, the bylaws were changed in 2001 before Burke became the Archbishop (Cardinal Rigali was then the local Ordinary). They were against changed in 2004 to entirely lock the parish priest out from the governance of the Church.
So, he's willing to see people excommunicated over a pettifogging legality when he's not going to seek control over the money?
He wants control over the Church, not over the money or the property ... it is totally un-Catholic to have a lay board dictating to the parish priest, as the Congregation for the Clergy notes in rejecting the appeal of the Parish Board. What do you suppose Sts. Augustine or John Chrysostom would do?
Why not blame the board, who chose schism and excommunication rather than agree to the "pettifogging legality"?
As I read Burke's proposal, all he has to do is get a few ringers onto the parish council, and bada bing
You mean the Board of Directors for the residuary corporation? But the setup is the same as the current St. Stanislaus Parish Corporation. He could just as easily get "ringers" onto that.
Nevermind that Catholics aren't supposed to worry about their bishop sending "ringers" to take control of their Churches...LOL.
" if they die excommunicated it will not be because Archbishop Burke prevented their salvation but because they abused their God-given free will to revolt against a successor of the apostles. Many souls are in hell."
The floor of Hell is paved with what?
"but I would like to see a source for this assertion,"
I'll try to find something.
"Nevermind that Catholics aren't supposed to worry about their bishop sending "ringers" to take control of their Churches...LOL."
They're not supposed to worry about a lot of things, but things happen. NLAA.
You are a fine witness for your faith!!!!!
Point-by-point, sort of:
1) It is not logical to think that "parish closings" are inimical to the health of the Church, per se. In the City of Milwaukee there are a dozen or so parishes which simply have NO MEMBERS to speak of--I am very familiar with one which attracts a total of 200 people to its Sunday Masses.
While economics cannot be the 'driver' of Church operations, it is senseless to insist that the Church bleed herself to death by keeping these tombstones heated and lit.
2) Your insistence that Burke's interest lies solely in "the money" is, at best, cynical. It is within a hair's breadth of being outright slander. "Burke" does not need money.
Further, this is a canonical question which neither you nor I (frankly) have the capability to resolve. It is sufficient to say that Burke's desire was to 'regularize' the canonical status of the parish. Besides, Burke had made concessions regarding the cash assets which would please any NORMAL human being.
3) The fact that Burke took on this battle is not particularly significant. His predecessor took on St. Louis University's Med School question (IIRC). There are likely other problems in StL which Burke may or may not attempt to resolve. So what?
4) Excommunication is a SELF-IMPOSED status. The paperwork merely follows up. The "parishioners" in this place told Burke to stick it--not a particularly respectful nor intelligent move--and in so doing, they excommunicated THEMSELVES.
In the Milwaukee Archdiocese, similar parish-closing events occurred under Bert the Weak. The vast majority of Conservatives viewed those moves as somewhat opportunistic, but not irrational. Yes, we were unhappy to learn that Bertie absorbed around $5-10 million in cash assets (not to mention the sale-of-property proceeds.) But only a few people actually had the temerity (or wierd viewpoint) that THEY were the rightful "owners" of the cash or the buildings. Are you in the camp which believes that you can take back what you freely gave to God?
5) While I do not know precisely what factors impelled Burke to regularize the Parish' status within the accepted Church structure for the US, I do not find 'regularization' to be unacceptable in the least.
You do--and it is YOUR opinion which deserves more critical examination.
You betcha Leibrecht knew he was kicked out of seminaries for homosexual activity, even though Bozek denies that he was kicked out but rather left of his own accord. Yeah, sure!
Bozek is not the only priest ordained in the last seven years in the Springfield Cape-Girardeau diocese who has sexual problems. The other stories have remained out of the press. Leibrecht is so busy trying to get men who don't accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church but rather reflect his own beliefs that he has put the diocese at risk spiritually and temporally. How much longer are we to suffer this man?
To all who keep poisting that Burke excommunicated Bozek and the board: he did NOT. They excommunicated themselves. That is what laetae sententiae means: automatic. Burke only declared, made public for the good of souls, that these people had excommunicated themselves and gave the relevant quotes from the relevant canons. Even if he had wanted to, Burke could not have un-excommunicated these people, nor can he in the future unless they bring themselves into compliance with Church law. As for now, St. Stanislaus is now a protestant church with a protestant pastor. Until they quit protesting against the Church, they will remain protestant.
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.