Noting this curiosity of several priests helping out at a schismatic church with an excommunicated priest as the 'hired' pastor, Bozek was asked if these would be Roman Catholic priests from the archdiocese with the necessary faculties to hear confessions and grant absolution. Certainly, no archdiocesan priest would be so foolish as to venture into the territory of a schismatic group without the permission of the local ordinary?
First, it's important to understand how some at St Stanislaus feel about the laws of the Church. From the FAQ page, we read:
What is Canon law?"Constantly changing, open to interpretation, and full of conflicting interpretations" (does this imply misinterpretation?)...and let's not forget, "man-made" law - apparently meaning, it can be dismissed as irrelevant and non-binding by the one who is subject to it. If this is possible with the laws of the Church as the leaders of St Stanislaus maintain, doesn't this also apply with the "man-made" laws of the country? After all, those laws are also "constantly changing, open to interpretation, and full of conflicting interpretations". And, of course, these laws are not doctrine.
This is a set of constantly changing laws that govern the operation of Roman Catholic Church; however they are broad, open to interpretation and full of conflicting interpretations. The laws were created by clergy, written by clergy, interpreted by clergy and are changed by clergy. It is very difficult to understand how the 1891 transfer to the Parish civil corporation is a violation of the church law in the historical perspective. The first codification of Church law, Code of Canon law, was issued in 1917. Subsequently, the canons were revised on 2 separate occasions in 1943, and again in 1983. Canon Law is not doctrine and as indicated above can be changed in the future.
Despite his not having been granted faculties by the bishop, Marek Bozek maintains, erroneously, that he can hear confessions and grant absolution because, in his view, the sacrament of holy orders is not based on the faculties [granted] but on the sacramental character of ordination. Likewise, despite the absence of faculties, he claims to be able to celebrate Mass, because he "does it everyday." The question of liceity nevers appears to enter the picture.
Even more outrageous and disquieting is the fact that "priests" scheduled to hear confessions apparently have no faculties to do so. In fact, it may even be worse than this since "some of the priest[s] present for the Penance Service will be men who were validly ordained in the Roman Catholic Church but do not possess any longer regular faculties granted by the Archbishop."
Perhaps, it's a language issue, but the statement that "some of the priests...will be men who were validly ordained in the Roman Catholic Church..." is rather alarming - or at least, should be - to anyone who considers himself a faithful Catholic.
Does this mean that some of the "priests" are not men? Or that some were not validly ordained as Catholic priests? Or some have rejected the faith after being ordained? This is unknown...
Given this mindset, it would be entirely proper to be treated by a person who claims to be a medical doctor, even if he has no license to practice medicine, or to board an aircraft to be flown by a person, who does not have the necessary certification and licensing to fly. But in the present case, one's immortal soul is at risk.
Without a doubt, none of these "priests" will be able to grant absolution - and this is a terrible injustice to the people and a gravely serious sin for those who are complicit in this charade.
Experience has demonstrated that there are some at St Stanislaus with little regard for the lawful directives of the Archbishop or the Holy See, and that the current (or previous) Code of Canon Law is "man-made" law which can be ignored at will, Bozek was sent an excerpt from the 16th century Roman Catechism - the Catechism of the Council of Trent. This excerpt poignantly dismisses claims that one does not need faculties or approval from the Church and that without faculties, no priest or bishop (except in danger of death) can be a valid minister of the Sacrament; hence, if there is no valid minister, there is no absolution:
===================Unfortunately, sacrileges and sins continue to be piled upon sacrileges and sins with no end in sight - and, sadly, it is heard that the numbers who are joining St Stanislaus are increasing. Bozek makes the claim that the Holy Spirit is behind this growth - nothing could be farther from the truth! The Holy Spirit does not lead souls down a path of sinfulness and schism, away from Christ, His Church, and the sacraments. There may very well be a "spirit" which is leading souls to this congregation of rebellion and sacrilege...whatever it is, it certainly isn't "holy"...
The Minister of the Sacrament of Penance
The Usual Minister
We now come to treat of the minister of this Sacrament. That the minister of the Sacrament of Penance must be a priest possessing ordinary or delegated jurisdiction the laws of the Church sufficiently declare. Whoever discharges this sacred function must be invested not only with the power of orders, but also with that of jurisdiction. Of this ministry we have an illustrious proof in these words of our Lord, recorded by St. John: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained, words addressed not to all, but to the Apostles only, to whom, in this function of the ministry, priests succeed. (my emphasis)
This is also most fitting, for as all the grace imparted by this Sacrament is communicated from Christ the Head to His members, they who alone have power to consecrate His true body should alone have power to administer this Sacrament to His mystical body, the faithful, particularly as these are qualified and disposed by means of the Sacrament of Penance to receive the Holy Eucharist.
The scrupulous care which in the primitive ages of the Church guarded the right of the ordinary priest is easily seen from the ancient decrees of the Fathers, which provided that no Bishop or priest, except in case of great necessity, presume to exercise any function in the parish of another without the authority of him who governed there. This law derives its sanction from the Apostle when he commanded Titus to ordain priests in every city, to administer to the faithful the heavenly food of doctrine and of the Sacraments. (my emphasis)
=======================
And finally, all should recall the admonition given by Archbishop Burke in December 2005:
The ordained priest who goes into schism, in addition to being bound by the above-listed prohibitions, is also rendered irregular for the exercise of Holy Orders (cf. can. 1044, §1, 2ยบ). In other words, he may not exercise the Sacrament of Holy Orders which he has received. Any Mass celebrated by a suspended and excommunicated priest is valid, but illicit. To knowingly and willingly celebrate the Holy Mass, when one is legitimately prohibited from doing so, is a most grave sin. A priest under the penalty of excommunication does not give valid sacramental absolution (cf. can. 966, §1). Neither can he validly officiate at a wedding (cf. can. 1108, §1).O God, all hearts are in Your hands; You can bend as You will the most stubborn, and soften the most obdurate. Do that honor this day to the precious blood, the merits, the sacred wounds, the holy name, and loving Heart of Your beloved Son, of bestowing your grace and light upon all of us whose pride blinds us and keeps us separated from You.
The celebration of the Sacrament of Confirmation by a schismatic priest is invalid because he no longer has any faculty to do so, either by universal Church law or the granting of the faculty by the diocesan bishop (cf. can. 882). Baptism and the Anointing of the Sick are conferred validly but not licitly (cf. cann. 862; and 1003, §§1-2).
The faithful who approach a schismatic priest for the reception of the sacraments, except in the case of danger of death, commit a mortal sin...
(all emphasis above is mine)
No comments:
Post a Comment