Although the wonderful history of OLHC is informative, some of the spiritually elequent posts here might be beginning to, whether intentional or unintentional, distract and divert from one of the main reasons and purpose of this thread "OLHC laypersons attempting to take over the chapel CENSOR Fr. Starbuck's sermon" AND the fact that indeed the OLHC "School Board" composed of four (4) layman have indeed already accomplished that objection by disposing OVERNIGHT (Fr. Starbuck!) He who has worked side-by-side and has been THE associate to Fr. Perez for 15 years!!
I like St. Thomas say: Judging by the conscienceless, cruel, base, unjust, and what I believe evil behavior of "The School Board" and their un-Catholic, uncharitable treatment of Fr. Starbuck , I do not trust nor do I believe in some dubious "hand-written" note purportedly written by Father Perez! All of a sudden, we're supposed to believe that there is suddenly this magical "proof" letter that Father Perez turned his back and betrayed and "ghosted" Fr. Starbuck's 15 years presence and service at OLHC. I don't believe Fr. Perez would have done such an injustice to Father Starbuck.
SO, I SAY -- PROVE IT!!
1) By immediately publicly publishing the letter and fixing a hard copy to each OLHC bulletin for all the OLHC faithful to have in their possession!
2) By hiring an impartial, unbiased, legally notarized handwriting expert! He should be given access to this purportedly hand-written letter and compare it to other established past known hand written examples of Fr. Perez's handwriting!
So I say, llike St. Thomas - I DON'T BELIEVE IT! Judging by the conscienceless, cruel, base, unjust, and in my opinion evil behavior of "The School Board's" treatment of Fr. Starbuck so again I say- Why should I trust them? Additionally, I believe they have broken "trust" with the OLHC faithfull!
In the meantime, for those who have not been fully informed nor have read previous posts here, I feel it is worthwhile re-posting these crucial concerns and facts of this thread:
Following is the important history and events that has lead to the establishment of TLM now at St. Dominic's Chapel. Father Starbuck had been and was the faithful priest/associate who worked side by side for 15 years with Father Perez (pastor of Our Lady Help of Christians) providing all the sacraments, i.e., the Mass, confessions, Baptisms, funerals, etc.
Herein is the reason Father Starbuck was not present for any of the 2021 Christmas Masses at OLHC. This is the actual sermon he gave at the 7:30 and 10:00 a.m. Masses Sunday December 19th at OLHC.
Before revealing the following sermon which was preached by Father Starbuck at OLHC, here is some shocking history of what occurred that morning of December 19th after the 7:30 a.m. Mass.
The "man" who violently banged on the confession door after the 7:30 Mass while Father Starbuck was hearing confessions is no other than the usher from the 7:30 a.m. Mass "Joel Iddings." MR. IDDINGS IS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE OLHC SCHOOL BOARD! He yelled at Father "YOU ARE NOT TO GIVE THAT SERMON AT THE 10:00 MASS!" Father was freightened by this psychological "assault."* Father felt fearful by this individual's brutal aggression against him. Mr. Iddings then ripped the mike out of its stand on the pulpit podium before the 10:00 a.m. Mass so Father would not be able to be heard giving his sermon again. Bravely, Father gave it anyway without the mike.
Sources in the parish had informed me that this "man" then ordered Father Starbuck to not come on church property again(after December 19th) and to not attempt to say the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at all the coming Christmas week! In addition, Mr. Iddings then threatened Father Starbuck that if he were to come on the property of OLHC again, he would personally see to it that Father would be arrested for trespassing! The injustice and abusive brutality of this "man" who knows that Father Starbuck had faithfully served Our Lady Help of Christians Chapel for 15 years! This can only be characterized as the most cruel Un-Catholic like sacrilegious "Judas" act of betrayal to Father's faithful giving of himself to to Christ at OLHC for 15 years!
*Assault Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
"Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.
"The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action (like viciously banging on the door of the confessional while Father is hearing confessions) might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim. Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result."
This despicable "man" "Joel Iddings" sacrilegious act should be held accountable for his "psychological assault" he perpetrated against Father Starbuck!
What makes this "psychological assault" even more treacherous is that Father is a gentle, Christ-like, charitable, loving and giving priest!
Lastly, who was responsible for the live-stream 10:00 Mass being blacked out that day which has always been live-streamed on Sundays. It was not that day! Who was responsible for that?
Here is the actual sermon Fr. Starbuck gave 7:30 a.m. on that Sunday 19 December 2021:
"I had a sermon prepared for this morning. However,there are some matters of business that do not allow deferral. Therefore, I will present that sermon at a later time.
I have always tried to be truthful and to do the right thing. And sometimes I have paid a price for that. But please know this about me: I will always try to be honest with you and to fulfill my commitment to you as a public servant and as a priest. I want to begin by saying that these past five weeks of my life have been like no others. My vocation is not a job. It demands my every moment, and my every commitment, but this is especially so these past few weeks. And this on top of so much recent loss. I have given 15 years now of my life to this parish (a quarter of my life), and I was hoping to spend the remainder of my years here. I still hope that is possible. Over these years, I have rolled with the punches, & endured intricate/delicate, indeed,often complex situations. I have held my own. But when Fr. Perez died, there was only one person here who would rightfully have pastoral seniority to succeed him; and, like it or not, that is me!
But shortly after Fr. Perez’s death, a lay board rose up asserting its legal authority to appoint the next “pastor” of this parish. I want to be clear in stating that (w/o pointing a finger at them) this is Lutheranism pure and simple. Laypeople could never have the ecclesial power or jurisdiction to appoint or create a pastor. That they may have a legal right is not the same as having a divine right. And while there are fine people on this board who engender my complete respect, the cohesion and leadership of this lay incorporation has been problematic. Nor do I see it being able to work. I did make it clear that I will not serve under another “pastor.” At the same time, I have wanted to facilitate the transition that the church is undergoing at least through the end of the year. That has been my desire.
I do not take my marching orders from laypeople. And I cannot, as a priest, answer to competing voices on a lay board.
And moreover, as a priest, my credibility, leadership,and moral responsibility could be jeopardized if a situation not yet addressed in this parish is allowed to continue. My continuous requests for the vetting of priests serving in this parish have not & are not being met. We have had a couple of “priests” coming through here whose ordination I found questionable (based on information that later became available), and we have had at least one priest who had no business being here. Yes, mistakes were made (albeit, not on my part), and we should have learned from them.
Five years ago, I proposed to Fr. Perez the following specific requirements of any priest serving in this parish. And they are the following:
1. A criminal background check with ID, performed by a reputable third party, meeting state complacency. Also, the background check that I am requesting is not just a clearance check. It must consist of a positive trace of the person’s history."
________________________________________________________________
*SupportFrStarbuck following insert:
Re: California Law - legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes
ARTICLE 2. Commission on Teacher Credentialing [44210 - 44239] ( Heading of Article 2 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 1355, Sec. 2.5. )
44237. (a) Every person, firm, association, partnership, or corporation offering or conducting private school instruction on the elementary or high school level shall require each applicant for employment in a position requiring contact with minor pupils to submit two sets of fingerprints prepared for submittal by the employer to the Department of Justice for the purpose of obtaining criminal record summary information from the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
___________________________________________________________________________________
*Continuation of Father's sermon:
"2. References.
3. A chronological work history.
4. Proof of ordination. And I want to know the ordaining bishop, seminary, and formational contacts. And just for your information, as a Dominican I underwent thorough background checks and continuous vetting over a period of seven years. And I lived under a virtual microscope 24 hours a day during that time. Moreover, my background is not hidden. My formation and ordination can be found on the Internet. They are public.
Of note, a request that I made of Fr. Perez last summer got dragged out, & and was never completed. And if I do not say something now, this situation will never be addressed. Let me ask a question. If you hired someone to work on your house, would you not want references? Or if you sent your children to a day care center, would you not want references? This is the house of God. Can we be any less responsible?
So here is what I am asking: A priest is a public person. Let me repeat that: A priest is a public person. Therefore, with due respect to all parties involved & a presumption of good will on the part of all, I am asking that the vetting of Fr. Wiest be completed, and that the results of that vetting process, including proof of ordination be made public.
The problem is that there is no public life of any Fr.Michael Wiest (I know this in part, not just because it cannot be found on the internet, but because I actually had a professional investigator call me one day to inform me of this. He was completely puzzled.) there is no public life of any Fr. Michael Wiest who was born in Chicago, ordained in Italy, and who served in any parish or diocese during these past 30 or so years.
There is no public record of ministry. There is no record of pastoral assignments. In short, there is no
such public person. And the fact that there is no such public person does not just amount to an absence of information, it amounts to a fact that demands explanation. It is a problem. And for this reason many in this parish question his ordination. For his own benefit we need to answer this question. And we need to know the credentials of any priest serving in this parish. That is not asking too much.
Finally, while I do not acknowledge the ecclesial authority of a lay board, if one is to exist, it must be cohesive, charitable, and committed to the principles of the Catholic faith. And if the parishioners of this church are unhappy with this arrangement, perhaps they need to consider another option, perhaps the appointment of a new board which they feel represents them. But with all due respect, I just do not see this lay board being able to resolve effectively the problems this parish faces, or to find a clear path forward. And FYI, this lay board represents the interests of the school (PPA) and not of the church.
Additionally, I do know that the board is considering (interviewing) priests who celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. I want to say that it has been our position that this Missal is theologically inadequate (if not modernistic). Fr. Perez vehemently rejected the 1962 Roman Missal. Moreover, it is likely to be problematic to our public celebration of Mass in this church. May I remind you of some of the problems of this Missal (?):
Revised rite of Holy Week. The famous writer Evelyn Waugh considered the revision of Holy Week to be an extremely disappointing loss.
The introduction of red on Good Friday and Communion of the faithful were arbitrary and capricious, and miss the fundamental (essential) point of the liturgy (i.e., the Mass of the Pre-Sanctified). It omits Second Confiteor. It omits numerous octaves, and accordingly significant vigils.
It omits significant feasts, such as January 1: (the Feast of the Circuмcision). The theological
significance: Christ is the fulfillment of the law!
It introduces the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker (as a concession to the tenets of socialism) It omits Commemorations.
The Passion Narrative during Holy Week is considered to be the Gospel reading. A theological fiction. Feasts of important saints are haphazardly &arbitrarily moved, making it confusing even to a priest to follow this new ordo. Feasts of historically momentous saints are suppressed.
St. Joseph is introduced to the Canon. Notably: This is the only change to the Canon since the time of St. Gregory the Great. Why such an introduction? And if this is admitted, then any change can be made to the Canon of the Mass. And the theological significance: St. Joseph was not a martyr, an exception to the list of those saints who appear in the Canon.
It is inadequate to argue that there are no doctrinal problems with this Missal, as does the SSPX. It is a deviation from the lex orandi, it is theologically inadequate, & it is misguided in numerous respects.
And even if you believe that the 1962 Roman Missal is okay, how could we serve the needs of this parish in requiring people to attend daily Mass with two missals, perhaps not knowing which priest is celebrating that day, not to mention the cost to those with less money?
And finally, finding a priest who observes and understands tradition in the same way as Fr. Perez and myself is a virtually impossible task. You will likely either encounter a sedevacantist or a modernist (who says: “Yes I celebrate the traditional ‘extraordinary form of the Roman rite’ in Latin.”, as if there could be such thing). So I advise a great note of caution in introducing any priest to this parish.
These are my concerns. You may respond as you see fitting & appropriate. However we proceed going forward, I call for civility & charity, for listening and understanding, and for a prayerful and thoughtful approach from all parties involved.
Finally, while it is not my custom, I am willing to make a transcript of these words available in a PDF file for circulation, so that my words are clear for everyone’s understanding, for those who are absent, and for the public record. I do not have the time to send this out as a response to every email inquiry. But if someone could assist me in making it available, I am glad to provide a PDF file for circulation."
Father Cedrick Starbuck
Topic: OLHC laypersons attempting to take over chapel CENSOR Fr. Starbuck's sermon (Read 38668 times)