news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051225/ap_on_re_us/polish_parish

Hundreds Attend 'Illicit' Mass in Mo. By CHERYL WITTENAUER, Associated Press Writer
Sun Dec 25,10:53 AM ET

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.

Burke said it would be a mortal sin for anyone to participate in a Mass celebrated by a priest who was excommunicated — the Catholic Church's most severe penalty. Burke, who couldn't stop the Mass, said it would be "valid" but "illicit."

Despite the warning, Catholics and non-Catholics from as far as Oregon and Washington, D.C., filled the church. An overflow crowd viewed the Mass by closed circuit TV in an adjoining parish center.

"I'm not worried about mortal sin," said worshipper Matt Morrison, 50. "I'll take a stand for what I believe is right."

Many wore large red buttons reading "Save St. Stanislaus," and said they wanted to offer solidarity to a parish they believe has been wronged.

When Bozek entered from the rear of the church, the congregation rose and greeted him with thunderous applause.

"It was magic," said JoAnne La Sala of St. Louis, a self-described lapsed Catholic. "You could feel the spirit of the people."

The penalty was the latest wrinkle in a long dispute over control of the parish's $9.5 million in assets.

The parish's property and finances have been managed by a lay board of directors for more than a century. Burke has sought to make the parish conform to the same legal structure as other parishes in the diocese. As a result, he removed both the parish's priests in 2004.

Bozek, a Pole who arrived in the U.S. five years ago, said he agonized about leaving his previous parish but wanted to help a church that had been deprived of the sacraments for 17 months.

To be Polish is to be Catholic, he said, and to be Catholic is to receive the sacraments.

"I will give them the sacrament of reconciliation, the Eucharist. I will visit the sick and bury the dead," he said. "I will laugh with those who are laughing and cry with those who are crying."

Bozek said he doesn't believe that receiving sacraments at St. Stanislaus, especially Holy Communion, puts a Catholic at risk of mortal sin, in which the soul could suffer eternal damnation.

The Rev. Charles Bouchard, moral theology professor and president of Aquinas Institute of Theology in St. Louis, said Burke was following canon law "to the letter" in excommunicating Bozek and the board.

But some argue that St. Stanislaus' more than century-old governing structure holds the same authority as church law and the bishop lacked merit for imposing excommunication, he said.

"Whether the parties should have reached this impasse in the first place," Bouchard said, "is another matter."

--------------------------------------------------------------




Now... what kind of idiot is going to excommunicate (in effect, cast judgment on someone and kick them out of the church against holy scripture) a priest for following what the priest believes to be God's will and holding church for a deprived congregation. Furthermore, what idiot is going to suggest that any person attending the service is committing a mortal sin?

Sorry guys... this is cult behavior. I don't care if it is the Catholic Church. These archbishops are putting themselves in the place of God.

I'd like Archdunce Burke to show me the scriptural basis upon which he thinks he draws such authority.

It's ALL about the CASH, the only thing that they truly worship anymore!

You have to turn this around, what kind of idiots would claim to be CATHOLIC and yet demand some super special ECONOMIC autonomy from their fellow Catholics and the diocese? What does this say about their sense of community if they demand to be allowed to skip out on diocesan financial needs?

Sure, it all comes down to money right? But who is the greedy ones and who are the heros? How tough is it to stick a finger in the eye of a religious authority who is far away while pulling for the 'home team'? nOT very heroic, this is the story of virtually EVERY SCHISM... happens all the time in protestant churches - some young dynamic pastor blows into town, shakes things up, charismatic and all...and starts making changes. there's a falling out, he is called to act humble and show some obedience and rebels.

Then chuzpah of chuzpah, while claiming to be OBEYING GOD (i.e. his own whim and pride) he accuses the religious authority to which he owes legitimate obedience is the one who is rebelling and is the one who is doing this 'for the money'.

Whenever the media comes out with such a puff piece in favor of a Catholic group or priest my CRAP detector goes off. Apparently though since it's the little guy rebelling against the big guy this automatically makes the archbishop an idiot.

But we're all men who go to the scriptures are we not? What would Paul or John do? They both dealt with local leaders wanting to do things their way as opposed to the way it was handed on to them.

The important part of the news article was that the archbishop EXCOMMUNICATED the priest over his rebellion.

Now, let's discuss the implications of excommunication.

To decry a man the rites of sacrament? In effect, Catholics believe that if you are excommunicated, you are essentially cut off from that which connects you to God.

Of course, we protect pedophiles, but excommunicate priests who minister unto a parish deprived of an ordained priest.

Up is down. Black is white. And it has already been foretold in Revelations.

Not so, excommunication is not the equivalent of damning someone. And stop the cheap shot at pedophiles, by their very crimes they excommunicated themselves (just as do all women who have abortions)...when someone does a heinous act willfully and with full knowledge against the communion of the church, they remove themselves from the community.

The Bishop's act of officially declaring someone 'excommunicated' - is not different from Paul telling the Corinthians to deal with the man who slept with his mom...treat him as a gentile (i.e. don't let him receive communion with the church as though all were hunky dory but don't hate or do him violence either...pray he repents and so returns to the communion in faith and thus to the Lord.

Oh but its OK for Paul to excommunicate a man for a crime but somehow bad for a modern day bishop? Or it's OK for various Protestant groups to "shun" wayward members or take other disciplinary actions that affect whether a person is welcome or not or allowed to lead a group or not...but it's not OK for a Catholic bishop to do virtually the same thing albeit by different name?

Our Lord told us to settle grieviances between ourselves, but if a brother won't listen, bring a witness, if he doesn't listen to that, bring him to the church, if he doesn't listen EVEN TO THE CHURCH, treat him as a gentile.

i.e. he's been removed from (ex) the communion of faith and life of the church...not for death but for repentence and conversion and return.

But let's get back to the issue: a sole parish wants complete economic autonomy from the diocese.... while insisting on all the perks of Catholic life. When asked by legitimate authority to roll themselves into the diocese, they refuse. I.e. they refuse communion with the local Church.

Given 100 years of chances to change and submit, they refuse. But we're supposed to think these people are paragons of Christian virtue, wholly suitable for admission to the altar of the the Lord who came, not to do his own will, but the will of him who sent him.... see the contrast Ben?

Those who can't submit their will to the authorities their faith teaches is legitimate have removed themselves de facto from communion with that authority.... the bishop shows them de juris what this means and they have a cow.

The Press predictably quotes (favorably) the rebels, while not the 'bad guy' in the story, thus setting up the bishop as the stubborn idiot kill joy and the people as saints.

If the people care so much about the sacraments, ask them what they're willing to give up for them...are they willing to give up their financial automony? Obviously not! Are they willing to give up anything? Obviously not. Wow, paragons of Christian virtue all over the place.

And Jesus saith unto him,The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. Matthew 8:20

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. John 13:16

And, finally......

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:10

That's it in a nutshell.

Oh, and one final verse...

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:24

If the many 'vicars' of Christ had managed to contain themselves over the years...their church would be the more poorer and yet richer church than they have now.

Eric The(RavenousWolvesInSheeps'Clothing)Hun

Quoted:

Wow!  Very well put.  Who does this priest think he is that he can disobey the bishop he has promised obedience to and make himself the hero?  Talk about pride.

"It was magic," said JoAnne La Sala of St. Louis, a self-described lapsed Catholic. "You could feel the spirit of the people."

A disobedient, lasped Catholic thinking disobedience is a good thing?  Surprise, surprise.
By their fruits you shall know them...

BenDover,

The important part of the news article was that the archbishop EXCOMMUNICATED the priest over his rebellion.

Duh!  Should Archbishop Burke have just shook his finger at him and said "now, now.  Shame on you."????  

excommunicate priests who minister unto a parish deprived of an ordained priest.

And why were they deprived of a priest?  Due to their disobedience.  The parish could have avoided all of this.

'Follow the money.' ~ W. Mark Felt ('Deepthroat')

Eric The(Eternal)Hun

I must have missed the part in Corinthians and Ephesians where Paul instructed the local church to pay graft to the central authority in order to maintain a valid ministry.

In fact, I think I missed the org chart entirely where you have Jesus up top, and then all this heirarchy of various ranks, and then at last, on the bottom, the believer.

Tradition, tradition! Tradition!
Tradition, tradition! Tradition!

~ Tevye, Fiddler on the Roof

Eric The('IfIWereARichMan...')Hun

Yes, in fact I think you HAVE missed quite a few parts in scripture, especially the whole bit about Jesus' Church being ONE, not a archipelago of completely autonomous groups with zero responsibilities towards one another.

That Parish didn't get going all by its lonesome. It was established by the diocese which provided the lion's share of heavy lifting all these years. All that is requested in return is that they act like they're part of the communion.

You reduce it to money. Fine. Paul writes the Corinthians for help for the collection for the brothers in Judea. You'd think 2Cor 8:14 would settle this... the dioceses' sends all the manpower and money to establish a mission, then approves the mission and establishes a parish. But it's assumed that the parish will help their fellow parishes - after all, what would "communion" mean if one part got to get all the benefits and yet not share any burdens?

Ah but it's the big bad evil nasty Catholic Church you're projecting your glee on eh. Yet the same issue wouldn't be handled differently in business or in your churches.

After all, if the diocese pays the bills, etc. shouldn't basic human decency 101, fairness, suggest the parishoners chip in now and again?

If they don't want to, then they're in schism. Obviously nothing happened other than spiritual chastisement for breaking their word and good faith.  

As for the organizational chart...Paul lists it, and ACTS spells out how it works; not everyone was an apostle, not everyone a deacon, not all were 'elders'. Not everyone had all the gifts of the spirit either and Jesus does call Peter "shepherd" as in "feed my lambs, feed my sheep"; implying that some are shepherds while others, perhaps most are sheep.

Jesus needs no 'vicar.'

He, alone, is the Good Shepherd.

We need no other.

Eric The(Simple)Hun

The only relevant parts.

"I'm not worried about mortal sin," said worshipper Matt Morrison, 50.  

"It was magic," said JoAnne La Sala of St. Louis,


People being enchanted and not worrying about sin? Sounds like paganism to me.


I'd like Archdunce Burke to show me the scriptural basis upon which he thinks he draws such authority.
Right after you show us the scriptual basis for the belief that it has to be in the Bible.  No, really, especially since the Church actually had Bishops before it even created the Bible. And where again is it in the Bible that Christ commaned that the Church even create the Bible? Why are you using a document that has no biblical authorization for it's existence?