Schismatic act, St. Louis Polish parish brings in priest for Holy Week!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In Detroit, in 1990, the Polish parish of St. Albertus was closed by the Archdiocese. Shortly thereafter, a group of parishioners bought the church (actually, mortgaged it) from the Archdiocese, and continues to hold periodic Masses there to this day, with the blessing of the Archdiocese.

If they fail to keep up the payments, the Archdiocese repo’s the church. So far, that has not happened, but they are struggling financially just to keep the magnificent old building maintained.

This is a good example of mutual compromise between an Archdiocese and dedicated parishioners. Maybe there are lessons, and a possible alternative, for St. Louis here. Read all about it at:
stalbertus.org
 
You have to wade thru many documents but the notion of parish and the validity of priests to operate a parish can be read Canon 515-544. Lots of reading but it spells it out.
 
I don’t know much about St. Looie or this situation, but I’ve heard good things about Abp. Burke. I would tend to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

As for selling off diocesan property to pay for the perv. priests…This could be a blessing. We’ve seen what the stunning, comfortable affluence of the American Catholic Church has gotten us over the past 30 years. I think some money troubles might do some bishops, clergy and laity a lot of good. Nothing humbles quite like poverty. :yup:
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
They are very concerned that he wishes to close the parish, the last Polish parish in the archdiocese, and sell the property to pay sex abuse settlements.
Click to expand...
The continued statements from the Archbishop that he does not plan to close this parish nor sell the property means nothing I guess.

It has nothing to do with that. This is a smoke screen from the board. It all about power and obedience.
Dr. Bombay:
As for selling off diocesan property to pay for the perv. priests…This could be a blessing. We’ve seen what the stunning, comfortable affluence of the American Catholic Church has gotten us over the past 30 years. I think some money troubles might do some bishops, clergy and laity a lot of good. Nothing humbles quite like poverty. :yup:
Click to expand...
I have heard of this institution before, the American Catholic Church. I wonder what it has to do with this case as this case deals with the Latin (or Roman) Catholic Church headed by Archbishop Burke.
 
Oh, you know good and well what i mean. :o

And your link was prudently blocked by my isp. So nyaaaaahhhhhh. 😛
 
This is just a late vestigial remnant of Trusteeism, which is forbidden by Canon law. In the Roman Catholic church within the USA ownership of the property is the mechanism by which the bishop sustains his authority. If the parish doesn’t like the priest or withholds funds, the bishop has the option of turning off the lights and locking the doors.

If this parish is truly distrustful of their bishop, and willing to engage the services of vagabond priests, they might just as well ask the PNCC to accept them. That organization was founded upon this very issue and would be happy to accept them.

An attitude like that has no place in the RC church.
 
40.png
Hesychios:
If this parish is truly distrustful of their bishop, and willing to engage the services of vagabond priests, they might just as well ask the PNCC to accept them. That organization was founded upon this very issue and would be happy to accept them.
Click to expand...
Michael,

My brother and friend, Christ Is Risen,

I agree with most of what you’ve posted but I’m not so sure that a knock on the PNCC door would see a hand extended. The PNCC is quite content with its ongoing and fruitful dialogue with the USCCB (or whatever it’s called) and might not wish to get put in the middle of this brouhaha. There are both a schismatic PNCC offshoot and an American Old Catholic body with a Polish jurisdiction within it - either of those might be more inclined.

Many years,

Neil
 
Please read more about this on going problem in our archdiocese. It is not simply a disagreement of property rights. A rather small board of mostly men at St. Stan removed all pastoral control at the parish. Originally the parish was established with an agreement that a lay board of directors would oversee the funds, while following the St. Louis Archdiocese guidelines and adhering to the guidance from the priests assigned to the parish by the Bishop. More than a decade ago, the directors re-wrote their “contract” eliminating the priest’s role and the archdiocese’s role. This slowly led to many bad practices at the parish. Over the years, faithful parishioners wrote to the archbishop for help. Unfortunately, Archbishop Burke’s predecessors never followed up with anything more than letters and phone calls. When Burke arrived, he attempted to get all of our parishes in line–up to standards with the GIRM and financially stable. St. Stan was selling beer during their Sunday PSR classes-between Masses in the parish classroom! Burke removed the priest because the board was not allowing him to guide the parishioners. The board was also not showing the parishioners all of the Archbishop’s proposals, nor were they allowing them to vote on these like they claimed. Many faithful Polish Catholics now go to another parish for their Polish services. The dissenters are making the news, but they are small in number compared to those who are faithful.Mom
 
40.png
aenMom:
Please read more about this on going problem in our archdiocese. It is not simply a disagreement of property rights. A rather small board of mostly men at St. Stan removed all pastoral control at the parish. Originally the parish was established with an agreement that a lay board of directors would oversee the funds, while following the St. Louis Archdiocese guidelines and adhering to the guidance from the priests assigned to the parish by the Bishop. More than a decade ago, the directors re-wrote their “contract” eliminating the priest’s role and the archdiocese’s role. This slowly led to many bad practices at the parish. Over the years, faithful parishioners wrote to the archbishop for help. Unfortunately, Archbishop Burke’s predecessors never followed up with anything more than letters and phone calls. When Burke arrived, he attempted to get all of our parishes in line–up to standards with the GIRM and financially stable. St. Stan was selling beer during their Sunday PSR classes-between Masses in the parish classroom! Burke removed the priest because the board was not allowing him to guide the parishioners. The board was also not showing the parishioners all of the Archbishop’s proposals, nor were they allowing them to vote on these like they claimed. Many faithful Polish Catholics now go to another parish for their Polish services. The dissenters are making the news, but they are small in number compared to those who are faithful.Mom
Click to expand...
I will continue to pray for their reconciliation with Archbishop Burke and the Church, but it appears that they are at logger heads. The feeling I get from this is that the board does not want to give up their control, even if they have to take St. Stans out of communion with Rome to maintain it. Which I conclude that they want their Catholicism on their “own” terms, and not have to be in any way obedient to a bishop, or for that matter a Magisterium. Which is in essence a type of Protestantism.
 
Why is it schismatic? It was their money to begin with and who is the Bishop to decide to take it away from them and sell it off to pay for more abuse scanal victims. People here should be outraged at the Bishop for taking what is not his, and for that matter ALL church property was conceive through our generous donations and charity-I know of no Pope that owned a church-and if we dont like what is going on we should fight it.

As far as the Bishop coming to the rescue because of selling Beer-that is probably just some spin put out. I dont believe that at all and I have been following this story somewhat. Besides-show me one instance where a Bishop has come to the rescue? I have not seen or heard any improvements. When I go to mass , you can go from one church to the next and almost get two different masses. For that matter-at the same church, people actually now call ahead (Novus Ordo here we are talking about) to find out which priest is doing what mass because he is more “orthodox”. In the SAME church!

What is happening here in Boston and in NewYork is an outright shame with church after church closing as well as the schools.

Catholic29 said:
[webpages.charter.net/kasiapeter/Kmov_03_23_2005.html](http://webpages.charter.net/kasiapeter/Kmov_03_23_2005.html)

Parish at odds with archdiocese brings in priest for Holy Week

KMOV-TV 04:06 PM CST on Wednesday, March 23, 2005

By JIM SALTER, Associated Press Writer

ST. LOUIS (AP) – A Polish parish that lost its priests in a dispute with the St. Louis archdiocese is bringing in an anonymous priest to preside over Holy Week services, a spokesman for the parish board said Wednesday.

St. Stanislaus Church

The St. Stanislaus Kostka parish near downtown is at odds with Archbishop Raymond Burke over control of the parish and its assets. In addition to removing both priests in August, Burke in February issued an interdict denying Communion and other Roman Catholic sacraments to St. Stanislaus’ six-member board.

Sanctions aside, parishioners have continued to meet for regular services led by lay members. But for Easter, two parish members secretly used connections to bring in a priest, said Roger Krasnicki, spokesman for the parish board. He would not identify the priest out of concern that the priest could face sanctions for violating the will of the archdiocese, but said he is of Polish descent.

“All I know is he’s Father John,” Krasnicki said. “I have no idea where he’s from. It’s a very secretive process.”

Krasnicki said the priest will stay only through Easter Sunday. He is scheduled to preside Thursday night in a Mass of Eucharist Adoration, and also at Good Friday services, and Mass on Saturday and Easter Sunday. All services will be conducted in English and Polish.

“Easter is the most important Catholic holiday of the year,” Krasnicki said. “Polish people have especially been known to have strong traditions. We couldn’t have the Eucharist with just lay people.”

Archdiocese spokesman Jamie Allman would not say if the archdiocese would seek discipline of the priest.

“The archbishop is not going to be lured into a fight during (Holy Week), and he continues to pray for reconciliation,” Allman said.

The Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of the Catholic magazine America and a Vatican expert, said the priest is taking a risk.

“He’s in trouble” unless the archdiocese decides not to pursue action against him, Reese said.

Also of concern is the fact that, since his name is not known, parishioners can’t be sure of his legitimacy, Reese said.

“The additional questions are, is this guy a legitimate priest? Does he have faculties in any diocese to say Mass and do the sacraments?” Reese asked.

St. Stanislaus made a similar move in December, when an unnamed priest presided over Christmas Masses. The priest officiating at Easter services is not the same man, Krasnicki said.

St. Stanislaus was established by Polish immigrants. In 1891, an archbishop deeded the property to a civic corporation of parishioners. The way the property and assets are governed by the laity and not church leaders created the on-going dispute that began under previous Archbishop Justin Rigali.

The dispute has escalated under Burke, who took over last year after Rigali became the cardinal of Philadelphia.

St. Louis archdiocese: www.archstl.org

St. Stanislaus: http://www.saveststans.com/
Click to expand...
 
40.png
BulldogCath:
Why is it schismatic? It was their money to begin with and who is the Bishop to decide to take it away from them and sell it off to pay for more abuse scanal victims. People here should be outraged at the Bishop for taking what is not his, and for that matter ALL church property was conceive through our generous donations and charity-I know of no Pope that owned a church-and if we dont like what is going on we should fight it.

As far as the Bishop coming to the rescue because of selling Beer-that is probably just some spin put out. I dont believe that at all and I have been following this story somewhat. Besides-show me one instance where a Bishop has come to the rescue? I have not seen or heard any improvements. When I go to mass , you can go from one church to the next and almost get two different masses. For that matter-at the same church, people actually now call ahead (Novus Ordo here we are talking about) to find out which priest is doing what mass because he is more “orthodox”. In the SAME church!

What is happening here in Boston and in NewYork is an outright shame with church after church closing as well as the schools.
Click to expand...
It won’t take much to dismantle this ludicrous strawman diatribe, and I will start with a question. You say you know of no Pope who ever owned a Church, so has a lay board ever held the title to St. Peter’s in Rome???

The way this parish operates has never been the norm in the US Catholic Church or anywhere else in the world, aside from a few exceptions such as St. Stans. Though I am sure most SSPX and Indie TLM chapels operate in the way you describe, much as most Protestant churches are.

But I’m sure you will keep on being outraged, probably because Archbishop Burke is part of the (“puke” “puke”) Novus Ordo hierarchical structure. Whom by the way the Holy See in Rome has backed in all his decisions in regard to Stans, except of course you and I’m sure some other Rad Trads.

You may attempt to sew schism and discord all you want within the barqe of Peter, but your strawman arguments will hold no weight with me.

God Bless,

Catholic29
 
It is indeed not the norm for parishioners to control the property in the USA. Although it started out that way.

In Mexico and some other countries the state owns the parish property. In many parts of Europe and the Americas the parishes and monasteries were built and endowed by “benefactors” who were typically the local landlords or nobility. These properties were stripped from the control of the benefactors’ families sometimes as a result of revolutions, church reforms (usually under the civil authorities) or other methods. But they do not necessarily belong to the church.

In the United States there were no wealthy benefactors for the Catholics in the early part of the nations’ history (except possibly in Maryland). The congregations raised their own money under difficult circumstances, and a large portion of the original parishes in the American church were owned by the congregations. The result was similar to this St Stans situation, with rebellious parish trustees refusing to accept the full authority of the bishop, wanting to name their own priests and control the funds.

It has been the policy of the church not to tolerate a situation like that for over one hundred years. The bishop is Corporation sole, and he owns every parish in his diocese.

I suspect that this congregation was originally set up by Poles with their own money, and the bishop had to agree to allowing the situation to stand this way to prevent the parish from going into schism like so many other Polish parishes at the turn of the last century. It might be interesting to do a close reading of the parish history in the first couple of decades of it’s establishment, there might be hints of such a struggle.
 
If its a dispute of property between the people and the bishop you have to ask…

Are you a Catholic first or an American?

When it comes down to it a bishop has more spiritual authority than the authority of the law.

Ofcourse this doesn’t mean he can break the law…but if we’re talking about a church personally…im on the side of the bishop
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top