Author Topic: In 21st Century, laymen should own the churches (Read 1416 times)

Änσnymσus · « **on:** October 23, 2016, 01:44:13 PM »

For the duration of the post Vatican II crisis, it is ideal for laymen to set up and hold ownership of the places where Mass is said. It is the safest and most sure way to ensure that local families are not left out in the cold.

Good priests can fall ill and even die, and even the best of groups can fail from the top down, especially after many years. One only has to look at the recent fall of the SSPX. One must also consider that priests weren't personally meant to own church buildings any more than laymen were. In normal times, the Diocese would own them. So we must keep in mind the extraordinary nature of the times we live in.

Last but not least, priests will always have a big picture view, focusing on the greater good. They have to love all their spiritual children equally. They try to be completely rational about it: if there is a conflict, Milwaukee, WI with 80 faithful should be abandoned for Kansas City, MO with 120 faithful. Which is more valuable: 80 souls or 120 souls? But when a layman lives in Milwaukee, WI, he is going to care mostly about that place, because that's where he and his family live. He makes no pretense to being unbiased. He is more invested in the long term spiritual good of Milwaukeeans specifically than even the good priests who say Mass there.

I believe my ideas are consonant with His Excellency Bishop Williamson's latest Eleison Comments. Strange as it sounds, I actually penned these lines before I read the latest EC.

This is just one more way in which we must abandon the old SSPX paradigm. The SSPX owned 100% of their Mass locations. That should naturally change in the Resistance. If I am wrong about this, I invite anyone to demonstrate how I'm wrong.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #1 on:** October 23, 2016, 02:59:40 PM »

Owning physical property, a building, and equipment is all that distinguishes 20 or 30 different groups of laymen nationwide, each of which would like a priest to say Mass for their small group. It's in each local group's best interests to keep the chapel property(ies) in their name.

For the sake of your soul, and the souls of your family members, wouldn't you want to have every advantage when it comes to competing for the few remaining faithful priests? We're talking about Mass and the sacraments, not worldly position or gain.

Even in its glory days, the SSPX was faulty in this respect. They thought they were The Catholic Church, full stop. They insisted on ownership of every building in which one of their priests said Mass. And the proof is in the pudding: just look at what became of them. They got real estate fever, and are currently chasing numbers with doctrine and the fight for tradition taking a distant second place.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 23, 2016, 03:37:43 PM »

Having a burgeoning portfolio of real estate is an added temptation to Pride and Avarice for our traditional priests. An added temptation they don't need. Let them focus on the work of saving souls.

But let the laymen also remember their place, and never try to lord it over the priests. If a lay group tries to strong arm a given priest, the priest can always take his Mass elsewhere. Ultimately, the priests have the power.

Geremia · « **Reply #3 on:** October 23, 2016, 04:11:10 PM »

Quote from: 22nd Session of the Council of Trent

DECREE CONCERNING REFORM
Chapter XI

USURPERS OF THE PROPERTY OF ANY CHURCH OR PIOUS PLACES ARE PUNISHED

If any cleric or laic, of whatever rank, even imperial or royal, should be so possessed by avarice, the root of all evil,[Cf. 1 Tim. 6:10] as to presume to convert to his own use and to usurp per se vel alios, by force or fear, or even by means of supposititious persons, whether clerical or lay, or by any fraud or colored pretext whatsoever, the prerogatives, properties, rents and rights, even those held in fee or under lease, revenues, profits, or any incomes whatsoever, belonging to any church or benefices, secular or regular, eleemosynary institutions or any other pious places, which ought to be used for the needs of the ministers and the poor, or to hinder them from being received by those to whom they by right belong, he shall be anathematized till he shall have restored integrally to the church and to its administrator or beneficiary the prerogatives, properties, effects, rights, fruits and revenues which he has seized or in whatever way they have come to him, even by way of gift from a supposititious person, and furthermore, till he shall have obtained absolution from the Roman pontiff. If he be a patron of that church, he shall, in addition to the aforesaid penalties, be eo ipso deprived of the right of patronage. The cleric who instigates or consents to an execrable fraud and usurpation of this kind, shall be subject to the same penalties, and he shall be deprived of all benefices and be rendered unqualified to hold others; and even after complete satisfaction and absolution, he shall be suspended, at the discretion of his ordinary, from the exercise of his orders.

Quote from: 25th Session

DECREE CONCERNING REFORM
Chapter I

CARDINALS AND ALL PRELATES OF THE CHURCHES SHALL HAVE PLAIN FURNITURE AND TABLE. THEY SHALL NOT ENRICH THEIR RELATIONS AND DOMESTICS FROM THE PROPERTY OF THE CHURCH

It is to be desired that those who assume the episcopal office know what are their duties, and understand that they have been called not for their own convenience, not for riches or luxury, but to labors and cares for the glory of God. For it is not to be doubted that the rest of the faithful will be more easily roused to religion and innocence, if they see those who are placed over them concentrate their thoughts not on the things of this world but on the salvation of souls and on their heavenly country. Since the holy council considers these things to be of the greatest importance in the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline, it admonishes all bishops that they reflect often on these things and also by the actions and behavior of their life, which is a sort of perpetual sermon, give evidence that their deportment is consistent with their office; but above all that they so regulate their whole conduct that others may derive therefrom examples of moderation, modesty, continency, and of that holy humility which recommends us so to God.[Cf. Psalms 101:18; Ecclus. 3:20; 35:21; Matt. 18:3f.] Wherefore, after the example of our Fathers in the Council of Carthage,[C.7, D.XLI] it commands not only that bishops be content with modest furniture and a frugal table, but also that they take heed that in the rest of their manner of living and in their whole house, nothing appears that is at variance with this holy ordinance, or that does not manifest simplicity, zeal for God and a contempt for vanities. But above all does it forbid them to attempt to enrich their relations or domestics from the revenues of the Church,[C.23, C.XII, q.1; c.19, C.XII, q.2] since the canons of the Apostles also forbid that ecclesiastical goods, which belong to God, be given to relations;[Cf. Apost. can. 39] but if they are poor, let them distribute to them as poor, but they shall not alienate or waste these goods for their sake. Indeed, the holy council admonishes them to the utmost of its ability that they lay aside completely all this human affection of the flesh toward brothers, nephews, and relations, which is the nursery of many evils in the Church. And what has been said of bishops is to be observed not only by all who hold ecclesiastical benefices, whether secular or regular, according to the nature of the rank of each, but it decrees that it applies also to the cardinals of the holy Roman Church, for since the administration of the universal Church is supported by their advice to the most holy Roman pontiff, it can appear wicked if they do not shine in the splendor of the virtues and in discipline of life, which should justly draw upon them the eyes of all.

(source)

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #4 on:** October 24, 2016, 01:09:46 PM »

I say let there be pots for each cause: the priest's support, the group the priest represents, and the local chapel building. Let the Faithful donate their hard earned money to whatever cause(s) are important to them.

If there is no pot dedicated to the long-term spiritual good of the local community, then that is a shame and someone should set up such a fund soliciting donations.

The commandment of the Church says Contribute to the support of the Church. It is no more specific than that. And during these emergency times, we can't pretend we're living in the 1950's.

poche · « **Reply #5 on:** October 25, 2016, 12:01:51 AM »

Prior to the Code of 1917 there was the existence of patronage. This is where an individual with money would be responsible for a particular church. There were certain rights and privileges and certain responsibilities.
One privilege was that the patron decided who the priest would be.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 25, 2016, 04:04:53 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: 22nd Session of the Council of Trent
DECREE CONCERNING REFORM
Chapter XI

USURPERS OF THE PROPERTY OF ANY CHURCH OR PIOUS PLACES ARE PUNISHED

If any cleric or laic, of whatever rank, even imperial or royal, should be so possessed by avarice, the root of all evil,[Cf. 1 Tim. 6:10] as to presume to convert to his own use and to usurp per se vel alios, by force or fear, or even by means of supposititious persons, whether clerical or lay, or by any fraud or colored pretext whatsoever, the prerogatives, properties, rents and rights, even those held in fee or under lease, revenues, profits, or any incomes whatsoever, belonging to any church or benefices, secular or regular, eleemosynary institutions or any other pious places, which ought to be used for the needs of the ministers and the poor, or to hinder them from being received by those to whom they by right belong, he shall be anathematized till he shall have restored integrally to the church and to its administrator or beneficiary the prerogatives, properties, effects, rights, fruits and revenues which he has seized or in whatever way they have come to him, even by way of gift from a supposititious person, and furthermore, till he shall have obtained absolution from the Roman pontiff. If he be a patron of that church, he shall, in addition to the aforesaid penalties, be eo ipso deprived of the right of patronage. The cleric who instigates or consents to an execrable fraud and usurpation of this kind, shall be subject to the same penalties, and he shall be deprived of all benefices and be rendered unqualified to hold others; and even after complete satisfaction and absolution, he shall be suspended, at the discretion of his ordinary, from the exercise of his orders.
Quote from: 25th Session
DECREE CONCERNING REFORM
Chapter I

CARDINALS AND ALL PRELATES OF THE CHURCHES SHALL HAVE PLAIN FURNITURE AND TABLE. THEY SHALL NOT ENRICH THEIR RELATIONS AND DOMESTICS FROM THE PROPERTY OF THE CHURCH

It is to be desired that those who assume the episcopal office know what are their duties, and understand that they have been called not for their own convenience, not for riches or luxury, but to labors and cares for the glory of God. For it is not to be doubted that the rest of the faithful will be more easily roused to religion and innocence, if they see those who are placed over them concentrate their thoughts not on the things of this world but on the salvation of souls and on their heavenly country. Since the holy council considers these things to be of the greatest importance in the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline, it admonishes all bishops that they reflect often on these things and also by the actions and behavior of their life, which is a sort of perpetual sermon, give evidence that their deportment is consistent with their office; but above all that they so regulate their whole conduct that others may derive therefrom examples of moderation, modesty, continency, and of that holy humility which recommends us so to God.[Cf. Psalms 101:18; Ecclus. 3:20; 35:21; Matt. 18:3f.] Wherefore, after the example of our Fathers in the Council of Carthage,[C.7, D.XLI] it commands not only that bishops be content with modest furniture and a frugal table, but also that they take heed that in the rest of their manner of living and in their whole house, nothing appears that is at variance with this holy ordinance, or that does not manifest simplicity, zeal for God and a contempt for vanities. But above all does it forbid them to attempt to enrich their relations or domestics from the revenues of the Church,[C.23, C.XII, q.1; c.19, C.XII, q.2] since the canons of the Apostles also forbid that ecclesiastical goods, which belong to God, be given to relations;[Cf. Apost. can. 39] but if they are poor, let them distribute to them as poor, but they shall not alienate or waste these goods for their sake. Indeed, the holy council admonishes them to the utmost of its ability that they lay aside completely all this human affection of the flesh toward brothers, nephews, and relations, which is the nursery of many evils in the Church. And what has been said of bishops is to be observed not only by all who hold ecclesiastical benefices, whether secular or regular, according to the nature of the rank of each, but it decrees that it applies also to the cardinals of the holy Roman Church, for since the administration of the universal Church is supported by their advice to the most holy Roman pontiff, it can appear wicked if they do not shine in the splendor of the virtues and in discipline of life, which should justly draw upon them the eyes of all.
(source)

No talk of usurping in the OP. And we are living in post-Vatican II conditions. Cardinals, with the blessings of a sitting pope, are openly declaring that the divorced and civilly remarried (in pre-Vatican II times this was called adultery or fornication) may receive Communion. And one cardinal (Kaspar) added a verbal period to his declaration.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #7 on:** October 25, 2016, 06:26:35 PM »

Couldn't agree more.

There are no shortage of scandals that could have been avoided, or at least mitigated, by lay owned property.

Considering that the properties used to perform sacred rites and liturgies are extra-canonical in the first place, added to the fact that the priests are irregular, there's no usurpation nor illegality involved.

poche · « **Reply #8 on:** October 25, 2016, 11:55:29 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Couldn't agree more.

There are no shortage of scandals that could have been avoided, or at least mitigated, by lay owned property.

Considering that the properties used to perform sacred rites and liturgies are extra-canonical in the first place, added to the fact that the priests are irregular, there's no usurpation nor illegality involved.

Lay administration of a parish would not get rid of the scandals that we find in the Church. It would only change the dynamics. For example, during the 18th century there was a financial scandal at the parish of St Louis (now cathedral of St Louis)

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #9 on:** October 26, 2016, 12:40:12 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Couldn't agree more.

There are no shortage of scandals that could have been avoided, or at least mitigated, by lay owned property.

Considering that the properties used to perform sacred rites and liturgies are extra-canonical in the first place, added to the fact that the priests are irregular, there's no usurpation nor illegality involved.

Lay administration of a parish would not get rid of the scandals that we find in the Church. It would only change the dynamics. For example, during the 18th century there was a financial scandal at the parish of St Louis (now cathedral of St Louis)

Great point, that never occurred to me. Totally changed my mind.

Author Topic: In 21st Century, laymen should own the churches (Read 1416 times)

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus