Breakaway "Catholic parish" spreads to new city

[mdgspencer]

The article linked below is about a “Catholic” group that began in Rochester and is spreading to Buffalo, New York. Their “masses” are given by laicized priests and a woman “ordained” by a non-Catholic woman “bishop.” They perform gay civil unions and give the eucharist to all who come, including those in invalid marriages, Protestants and agnostics.
The article about this group is at:

buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/539595.html
This is just to see what people have to say. Someone I know knew one of these priests when he was an assistant priest in her parish, who 40 years ago then got married and left his parish, but who has reappeared in this group

 

[I_thirst_4_YOU]

I don’t think they give the Eucharist…they give bread that they “pray” over.

 

[stuart12]

I don’t think they give the Eucharist…they give bread that they “pray” over.

very true

these people are in serious danger of throwing the gift of salvation away, if they are willfully persisting in error when they know the truth.

 

[Hislittlelady]

If they broke away and formed their own little congregation, disobeying the rules set down by the Magesterium of the Catholic church, then they simply are no longer Catholic.

This doesn’t surprise me one bit and I personally think it’s only the beginning. They’re twisting the laws of God to suit themselves and unfortunately, in time, they will no doubt have a large following.

So many Catholics are falling away because they don’t like the so-called ‘rules.’ I thank God for the rules because they do help to keep us on the straight and narrow and I will trust that the Holy Spirit has always guided the teachings of the church.

 

[catharina]

Just emailed the following named community of Sisters, promising prayers and asking one question: How is this possible? Added this quote from article in Buffalo News:

"Sister Jean Becker, a member of the Sisters of St. Francis of Penance & Christian Charity for 42 years, said she couldn’t in “good conscience” continue in a parish that excluded women, gay people and others from full participation.

“It was getting harder and harder for me to worship in a church where I felt injustice was inherent in the very service I was participating in,” she said.

Spiritus Christi is now her parish community.

Becker’s superiors know about her situation and so far have not objected, she said."

My own impression is that if/when religious communities learn that they are giving bad example to the laity, they might feel more empowered to act and to make corrections within their own ranks. At the least, I hope so.

 

[Beautiful]

The article linked below is about a “Catholic” group that began in Rochester and is spreading to Buffalo, New York.

It isn’t just this group that began in Rochester. For over two decades laypeople, particularly laywomen and women religious have been giving little talks during the time reserved for the homily. This too is seeping into nearby Buffalo diocese.

 

[Hislittlelady]

I just now read the article which I hadn’t done before my other post and must say I’m shocked. This is a direct disobedience to the authority of the Catholic church. You’re either a Catholic or you’re not. How can they participate in gay marriage, female priests, married priests, and who knows what else, when the church so clearly teaches that at this time these are forbidden practices.

They have disobeyed the entire authority of the Catholic church. I see here another breaking away just as it’s always happened. I imagine this is just the start of many more divisions to come. I often wonder how many Catholic churchs will still be in existence when the last days come.

As Catholics we must stand firm in the Holy church of Christ. The gospel we are taught is inspired by the Holy Spirit and this is our belief and our faith. I love my Catholic faith and pray that God protect us all.
:knight1:
Lord save me from the powers of darkness.

 

[Elizabeth502]

"Sister Jean Becker, a member of the Sisters of St. Francis of Penance & Christian Charity for 42 years, said she couldn’t in “good conscience” continue in a parish that excluded women, gay people and others from full participation.

I don’t know what the heck she means by “full participation.” Not sure what is “fuller” than reception of the sacraments, which bring union with God. Sorry, Sister, fuller than that (i.e., The Beatific Vision) is not given to most of until after death.

The priesthood is not “fuller” than union with God. Preaching is not fuller than union with God. While a thoroughly honest & sincere confession brings union with God (big-time), hearing confessions is not “fuller” than that.

Some paid lay ministers (including gays & women) in some parishes “participate” 40 hours a week, & perhaps more so if they have add’l roles, or if they volunteer in some parish groups on top of that. Our parish council is 90% lay. To my knowledge, not a single parish in my region has excluded a female or a gay person from performing ministries for reasons of either identity.

It sounds as if what Sister means by full participation is either full opposition (i.e., female priesthood) or full sin (physical relations within the same gender). Sister, if you feel this way, it’s time to leave the Roman Church cleanly.

 

[Lainey63]

Here in Florida it is called a non-denomational church…I know I spelled that wrong…

 

[pnewton]

Some interesting quotes:

“Sometimes I feel like I’m breaking rules,” said Rosey Nogle, who also attends St. Timothy’s Church in the Town of Tonawanda, “but as far as breaking from the Catholic Church, my entire life, I’ve seen the Vatican backing away from promises it made at Vatican II.”

I bet a dollar to a donut she never read a single VII document. Nothing at Vatican II promised any of the stuff here.

The Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965 ushered in some dramatic reforms, such as the celebration of Masses in vernacular languages. But many liberal Catholics have long maintained the true spirit of the council was never truly fulfilled.

Translation: The council didn’t go quite the way some people though it should so they invent this unholy “spirit” of Vatican II to stand for all the nuttiness they wanted, but was rejected.

Spiritus Christi Buffalo is made up of an eclectic mix of cradle Catholics, including some who continue to participate in traditional diocesan parishes

Aha! Traditionalists! I knew they had to figure in here.

Okay, I’m just kidding, catharina, et. al.

 

[Nordar]

All I can think to say here is God is watching us! he is not absent, he knows all that is happening! We will all have to face him someday, as much as I am a sinner like everyone else, I would not want to face him having turned my back on his Church and it’s teachings!

 

[Soutane]

very true

these people are in serious danger of throwing the gift of salvation away, if they are willfully persisting in error when they know the truth.

Sadly yes.Like Eve and Adam they are committing the father of all sin,Pride.

 

[Digitonomy]

I don’t think they give the Eucharist…they give bread that they “pray” over.

That would depend on the individual. Once a priest, always a priest. Any priest with valid Holy Orders can validly confect the Eucharist.

 

[flameburns623]

That would depend on the individual. Once a priest, always a priest. Any priest with valid Holy Orders can validly confect the Eucharist.

This might need clarification. My understanding is that a priest must be in communion with a bishop to be able to perform any sacraments. This was batted back-and-forth in the St. Stanislaus/St. Louis case, and I was left with the understanding that a fully-laicized and excommunicated priest loses even the ability to perform the sacraments. I attempted to get the CA “Ask A Priest” forum to give a clarification, several times, but without ever getting an answer.

The women ‘priests’, of course, were never validly ordained on several counts, including that as women they are not ‘correct matter’ for the sacrament of Holy Orders, but also because they were not ordained by a bishop having apostolic succession.

 

[stbruno]

If they broke away and formed their own little congregation, disobeying the rules set down by the Magesterium of the Catholic church, then they simply are no longer Catholic.

This doesn’t surprise me one bit and I personally think it’s only the beginning. They’re twisting the laws of God to suit themselves and unfortunately, in time, they will no doubt have a large following.

So many Catholics are falling away because they don’t like the so-called ‘rules.’ I thank God for the rules because they do help to keep us on the straight and narrow and I will trust that the Holy Spirit has always guided the teachings of the church.

Amen…no matter what they call themselves, they are not Catholic, it’s called Protestant in every way shape and form and those it leads astray they will have to answer for.

 

[Digitonomy]

This might need clarification. My understanding is that a priest must be in communion with a bishop to be able to perform any sacraments. This was batted back-and-forth in the St. Stanislaus/St. Louis case, and I was left with the understanding that a fully-laicized and excommunicated priest loses even the ability to perform the sacraments.

If this were the case, we would not consider valid the ordinations or Eucharist of schismatic groups such as SSPX. Only certain sacraments require valid faculties - penance, for instance - which can be yanked by the bishop. So while this parish probably has a valid Eucharist from time to time, it’s unlikely that the Sacrament of Penance is validly offered there.

 

[flameburns623]

If this were the case, we would not consider valid the ordinations or Eucharist of schismatic groups such as SSPX. Only certain sacraments require valid faculties - penance, for instance - which can be yanked by the bishop. So while this parish probably has a valid Eucharist from time to time, it’s unlikely that the Sacrament of Penance is validly offered there.

Hopefully, someone can weigh in who understands this issue better. I was originally under the impression as stated that one is “once a priest, forever a priest” and that a renegade priest still retains faculties, no matter how harsh the disciplinary measures taken against him. In the St. Stan’s case, whatever disciplinary measures were ultimately being taken against that priest were–if I understood the other posters in the case–effectively depriving him of even the ability to confect the Eucharist.

Apparently, this cannot be done in the case of Bishops who have the “full charism of priesthood” and/or some degree of autonomy which ordinary priests do not have. Only in the case of individual priests who are out-of-communion with their bishop, excommunicated by that bishop, and fully defrocked by whatever judicial means was used in the St. Stanislaus case.

Several posters who sounded rather well-informed about the legalities of the issue insisted that once everything was said and done in that case, the priest at that church would lack even the ability to confect the Eucharist. Unless he moved quickly to place himself under the jurisdiction of some renegade movement which had valid (but illicit) orders and a valid (but illicit) episcopacy.

Now that I’ve done my best to regurgitate an analysis of what I think I understood from the earlier, unrelated, thread–could someone weigh in and correct what must be multitudinous and egregious errors in my understanding of the matter? Not simply for the old St. Stan’s case but because it is pertinent to this case as well. Thanks!

 

[paul_c]

I happened to go this Rochester parish once while traveling, walking into what I thought was a normal Catholic Church listed on Masstime.org This was before the priest and his woman pastoral associate were fired. I was absolutely stunned that they so blatantly disregarded typical Catholic procedures. The woman in question, now called a priest, absolutely acted as a priest in the “mass”. While the actual priest consecrated the host, she did much of the rest, including giving the homily. I was very uncomfortable being part of it.

 

[mystified]

Haven’t gotten interested in eschatology, and keeping in mind that Jesús said only the Father knows the real end, but doesn’t the Bible, probably in the Apocalypse, indicate that in the final days there will be many who will leave the Church?