Incred, I didn't mean you as what you said is true.
No, you were obviously referring to the possibility of only 3 other posters, including me. Hi there (waving). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a lady, Cera, had posted a sermon here to a *publicly readable forum board*, and therefore airing the chapel's dirty laundry in public, if you will. So it is no surprise that there will be comments made to such a board. But it seems she is a member of that chapel and very upset at things. And rightfully so.
****Did the lady have permission to publicly post this sermon? Hmmm...perhaps in prudence the Priest was planning to repeat the same sermon at a later Mass, but did not want it made public, and that's a possible explanation for why his later Mass was not live-streamed. Did you consider that possibility? I am guessing you did not.****
Why did she post? Was it to gain empathy? Was she trying to merely share information? Problem solve? It seems to me it is a combination of all of those things, but should she have posted the sermon in the first place? Only she can answer that question. You cannot.
You don't know who goes to Mass there and who doesn't (I am quite certain it would have visitors at times), and perhaps I may know some of those visitors? Or not? It makes no difference. I am pretty sure that I could find acquaintances that have been there. Have I been to that chapel? How would you know one way or the other? You won't. Perhaps I have been considering travel?
I indicated that I mixed up two of my replies to two different posters, and combined them into one reply. It was too late to modify them. However, NO, I want nothing to do with any sketchy situations that remotely involve Father J. Pfeiffer from Kentucky and his own little world there. Creepy...
I don't have to attend OLHC TO SIDE WITH THE PRIEST! I don't need to hear any soothing words from you or rude accusations telling me it's "Pride" to have common sense to come up with this, when anyone with a few functioning neurons and a basic understanding of authority could say the same thing about siding with the Priest.
If OLHC has people that do not respect the authority of the current Priest? Then buh-bye, off they go now. They don't deserve to have a chapel if THEY are setting themselves above the Priest, alone or on any Governing Board. That's how I see it. Go ahead and throw all the rocks you want at me. CA is a rich state, and it's expensive to live there. Real estate is a prime target to acquire. Whoever owns the land and/or has the deeds/titles, is in charge, for better or for worse. There is a reason why it used to be common for chapels and churches, etc. would not be consecrated until the mortgage was paid and the title or deed secured, or to that effect.
If docuмents were signed by the Priest that died when he was sick, were they signed "under duress?" A lawyer would quickly dismiss things like this if there was any doubt he was not competent to sign in his condition. So I am guessing there will be lots of legal fun for that chapel coming up.
There is an easy solution to the problem that hasn't been mentioned yet, but I am waiting for someone else to figure it out. The current Priest needs to call in all keys/codes/access cards for the property, and reset/re-key everything.
And in case you haven't figure it out yet? I am on the side of the Priest. He needs to carry the authority. If he is not in charge of that chapel, then it is not me you need to be talking to about pride!
Cera, I am sorry that your chapel is in distress, and that you and others are, too. Cheers, Anne.
Topic: OLHC laypersons attempting to take over chapel CENSOR Fr. Starbuck's sermon (Read 38705 times)