Author Topic: Phoenix sspx chapel update (Read 110780 times)

Mark 79 · « **Reply #60 on:** April 14, 2016, 06:11:57 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: Mark 79
I didn't hear anyone fall out of their pew with a loud noise when Fr. W's sermon admonished parishioners about "the justice" of paying interest on a loan from a Catholic pastor?
Fr. Wegner did not say the Catholic pastor is charging the Phoenix parish interest. That would indeed be usurious.

There are two loans: one from the Catholic pastor and another from a usurer to cover the rest of the costs of the church. Paying interest on the loan from the usurer* makes it easier to repay the Catholic pastor and support his school while at the same time paying off the Phoenix parish's debt. This is what Fr. Wegner meant by saying that almsgiving in this case is both an act of charity and an act of justice.

*(It is lawful to borrow from a usurer: dhspriory DOT org/thomas/summa/SS/SS078.html#SSQ78A4THEP1 )

Fr. W gave two sermons last Sunday. Perhaps he was clear in one and fumbled the other. Despite his accent and the awful sound system, I heard him say there was "justice" in paying interest to the Catholic pastor. As I said, I will allow that he may have fumbled his English....

Does that also excuse ignoring parental warnings about a pederast who also tried to "circuмcise" himself? Does that also excuse placing one of the malfeasant priests in yet another position of authority at a different parish that has both a grammar school and a high school?

Geremia · « **Reply #61 on:** April 14, 2016, 06:56:14 PM »

Quote from: Mark 79

the awful sound system

The sound system has been working well this week. I haven't heard any feedback.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #62 on:** April 14, 2016, 07:03:33 PM »

Feedback has been part of the problem, but I believe the greater problem is the poor quality of the electrostatic speaker in a building that reflects the sound, producing phase noise. Hopefully the people who never admit mistakes will consult a sound engineer before they do any expensive interventions.

TKGS · « **Reply #63 on:** April 15, 2016, 06:36:20 AM »

Quote from: Geremia

The county assessor says "SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X PHOENIX AZ INC" owns it.

But who owns the Society of Saint Pius X Pheonix AZ, Inc.? I just thought I'd ask.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #64 on:** April 15, 2016, 11:14:10 AM »

TKGS:

Quote

But who owns the Society of Saint Pius X Pheonix AZ, Inc.? I just thought I'd ask.

Or put another way: Who are the principals in the SSPX, Phoenix, AZ, Inc? That's what I was trying to get at. I think you can trace 'ownership' all the way back to Menzingen. At the very least one can trace it to Platte, MO and Fr. Rostand.

That's why, for those who are interested, going to the docuмents found at the Maricopa Recorder's Office might be more useful and informative than trying to get info from the Maricopa Assessor. The County Recorder provides photostat copies of most, if not all of the docuмents, pursuant to OLS, from around 2001 forward. But I don't have a dog in this fight, so it is of no real concern to me.

Geremia · « **Reply #65 on:** April 15, 2016, 11:41:21 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

TKGS:
Quote
But who owns the Society of Saint Pius X Pheonix AZ, Inc.? I just thought I'd ask.

Or put another way: Who are the principals in the SSPX, Phoenix, AZ, Inc? That's what I was trying to get at. I think you can trace 'ownership' all the way back to Menzingen. At the very least one can trace it to Platte, MO and Fr. Rostand.

That's why, for those who are interested, going to the docuмents found at the Maricopa Recorder's Office might be more useful and informative than trying to get info from the Maricopa Assessor. The County Recorder provides photostat copies of most, if not all of the docuмents, pursuant to OLS, from around 2001 forward. But I don't have a dog in this fight, so it is of no real concern to me.

Here's the deed:

Name(s)
KOVACS LASZLO
SOCIETY OF ST PIUS THE X

Recording Date/Time
8/7/2002 11:34:32 AM

Docuмent Code(s)
Q/CL DEED

Recording Number
20020805079

URL: recorder.maricopa.gov/recdocdata/getrecdatadetail.aspx?rec=20020805079&suf=

I've also attached a PDF scan of it taken from the above URL. The grantor field says:
"THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS THE X BY LASZLO KOVACS"

Laszlo Kovacs is the design architect.

Geremia · « **Reply #66 on:** April 15, 2016, 11:49:54 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

But who owns the Society of Saint Pius X Pheonix AZ, Inc.?

According to this: nonprofitfacts.com/AZ/Society-Of-Saint-Plus-X-Phoenix-Arizona-Inc-Our-Lady-Of-Sorrows-Church-Retre.html#affiliatedList_a

"Society Of Saint Plus X Phoenix Arizona Inc, Our Lady Of Sorrows Church & Retrea in Phoenix, Arizona (AZ)" is subordinate to the central organization "Society Of Saint Pius X South-West District Inc" (Platte City, MO).

Geremia · « **Reply #67 on:** April 15, 2016, 12:48:22 PM »

Quote from: Mark 79

I heard him say there was "justice" in paying interest to the Catholic pastor.

Also, a donation is not a mutuum loan, so usury isn't possible in this case anyways.

Even if it is a mutuum loan between the Phoenix parish and the lending Catholic pastor, Fr. W. requesting "interest" (really it'd be an "extrinsic title") is not usury. As Vix Pervenit says:

Quote from: Pope Benedict XIV

By these remarks, however, We do not deny that at times together with the loan contract certain other titles—which are not at all intrinsic to the contract—may run parallel with it. From these other titles, entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on the contract.

Franciscans were known to give to the poor, to help them get back on their feet. Sometimes the recipients of these donations would pay the Franciscans back more than they "lent" them. The Franciscans thus made some "interest" off their donations. Is that usury?

Mark 79 · « **Reply #68 on:** April 15, 2016, 06:55:10 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: Mark 79
I heard him say there was "justice" in paying interest to the Catholic pastor.
Also, a donation is not a mutuum loan, so usury isn't possible in this case anyways.

Even if it is a mutuum loan between the Phoenix parish and the lending Catholic pastor, Fr. W. requesting "interest" (really it'd be an "extrinsic title") is not usury. As Vix Pervenit says:
Quote from: Pope Benedict XIV
By these remarks, however, We do not deny that at times together with the loan contract certain other titles—which are not at all intrinsic to the contract—may run parallel with it. From these other titles, entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on the contract.
Franciscans were known to give to the poor, to help them get back on their feet. Sometimes the recipients of these donations would pay the Franciscans back more than they "lent" them. The Franciscans thus made some "interest" off their donations. Is that usury?

For the third time, I specifically heard him insist on the "justice" of paying "interest" on a "loan" (of money) from the Catholic pastor.

"Donation"? The parishioners donate. Fr. W, as others before him, explicitly characterized the "loan," not "donation," from the Catholic pastor. Why muddy the waters with your gratuitous mention that a donation involves no usury?

Among the possibilities.... maybe he flubbed his English at one or both of his sermons... or maybe you flubbed your hearing.

"Extrinsic title"? Sure, the apportioned cost of salaries to staff, the rent on space to store items at a mons pietas, the apportioned actual expense of making a loan, et al. are genuine "other titles." "Time value of money," "lost investment opportunities," and INTEREST are NOT legitimate "other titles" and the Council of Nicaea §17 explicitly condemned "contrivances" to take interest under another name.

Summa, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 78, Article 2, Pt. II-II, Reply Obj. 5: “He who lends money transfers the ownership of the money to the borrower. Hence the borrower holds the money at his own risk and is bound to pay it back: wherefore the lender must not exact more.”

Vix pervenit, “...(Sec 3), I. That species of sin which is called usury, and which has its proper seat and place in a contract of lending, consists in this: that someone, from the loan itself, which of its very nature demands that only as much be returned as was received, which is more to be returned to him than was received, and therefore contends that some profit beyond the principal, by reason of the lending, is due to him. Therefore, all profit of this sort, which surpasses the principal, is unlawful and is usurious.

PhxGroup · « **Reply #69 on:** April 17, 2016, 04:54:00 PM »

Another interesting Sunday at OLoS
We found out Fr. Mark Stafki is returning to OLoS as the new Prior
We found out the donut/coffee sales are down another 20%
We found out the drop in attendance is primarily due to the debt

Now how do we know these things ?
One of our members over heard the coffee count and the talking that went along with it after late Mass. This brings the grand total of the drop to around 60-70%

one of our members volunteers her time helping to clean the church. She overheard the office or individuals in the office complaining about the number of complaints coming in about the heavy handed debt collection
-And here we thought the parishioners were upset at going to Mass in a half built modernist spectacle ,turns out they are just as mad about having to pay for such a thing

mw2016 · « **Reply #70 on:** April 18, 2016, 04:31:17 PM »

I have been with OLOS for many years and can comment on several things mentioned here:

- There is one statue from the old Church (the Pieta, which was on the Epistle-side wall of the old Church) that is now in the vestibule of the new Church. I haven't seen the Our Lady of Sorrows statue, or the St. Joseph one, which are presumably stored somewhere.

- There is an overall change in tone of the way the priests are talking to the faithful on Sundays, from the pulpit, and it is not a good thing. I have never heard SSPX priests talk to parishioners this way. It is rather ugly. It all started the Sunday after the new Church was consecrated on Sep. 13th, when Fr. Riccomini chastised everyone with what apparent "slobs" we all are, in his words, "leaving trash" all over the Church. I don't think our people are slobs, but my impression was that perhaps +Fellay, or Wegner, or someone higher up had complained to Riccomini and told him to say these things. I could be wrong.

- Yes, the bulletins have recently contain several "nasty notes" about reporting your fellow parishioners to the priests, etc. Again, the tone is just unacceptable.

- Wegner has been around a lot. A lot. In fact, he recently gave an entire sermon about how some woman in another parish who had a child in the parish school expected him to solve a conflict between her child and another child. He said he had better things to do, bigger problems to solve. Pardon me, but I have better things to do on Sunday than listen to my priest complain about his job and/or his parishioners.

- Wegner took to the pulpit last Sunday (though he was NOT the one celebrating Mass) to chastise the parish for ten minutes that we were not giving enough money on our debt to the other priest, Fr. McMahon at La Sallette. He told us to think of the debt as our "rent" and that we only "rent this parish" for our sacraments, and that we needed to budget for our debt the way we set aside money for our rent.

- The "airy-fairy" sermons are real. Not one fighting priest amongst the many faces passing through this place. They are all neutered. Not one mentions the errors of the present Church. Which is ironic considering Bergoglio is doing or saying the craziest things virtually daily, and not a peep of protest from the priests. They MUST have been ordered by +Fellay, or God knows who, to NOT speak against what is happening in the Church. It is not a SOFTENING of the SSPX's opposition to modernism, it is the now total ABSENCE of the SSPX's opposition to modernism. +Abp. Lefebvre must be rolling in his grave.

- Fr. McDonald announced from the pulpit Sunday (and in the bulletin) that the community Rosary is now relegated to the (tiny, but lovely) Retreat Chapel. I have no idea why they would do such a thing. So, we paid a lot of money for this new Church, but can't use it for the Rosary? What on earth?

- There was a debacle with the St. Joseph's auction. They were tracking who was attending and who wasn't, who was donating and who wasn't. It was emailed out publicly, thereby shaming those on the "list". Why they are keeping track I cannot imagine, because it is wrong. It should be NOBODY'S business if you attend, or donate, or not. A lot of people must have complained, because they were forced to quickly issue an "apology" saying it was a "mistake" email. However, what was clear to all who read it is that them keeping track of who donated or not, is no mistake.

- Yes, Fr. Crane arrived here immediately after the arrest of Kevin Sloniker. He is the acting prior and in charge of finances. He rarely gives Sunday Mass. Hard to believe how no one has raised the issue of what his involvement in the Sloniker scandal was.

- In my opinion, there is something spiritually not right with this new Church since it opened. I know some feel it, others may not agree, but there is an overall "empty" feeling there, and a "coldness" there. Even though I know that God is present on the altar, it feels as though God has withdrawn His blessing on this place.

I miss the old OLOS because things have changed here, and not for the better.

I think many of these things are driving people away, hence, the drop in money donations, etc.

Incredulous · « **Reply #71 on:** April 19, 2016, 05:20:34 AM »

Nice post mw2016.

You just described the political morphology of a typical novus ordo takeover of a parish.

Your faithful have riled-up Father Wegner, and his superiors. Your parishioners don't trust them and they don't trust you, so now they are out to kick butt.

It will never be the same. Time to find an independent Tridentine Mass priest and get the Sacraments without the assistance of the xSPX.

They have shown you their colors and they are Novus ordo, in long cassocks.

jvk · « **Reply #72 on:** April 19, 2016, 06:14:59 AM »

Quote

- In my opinion, there is something spiritually not right with this new Church since it opened. I know some feel it, others may not agree, but there is an overall "empty" feeling there, and a "coldness" there. Even though I know that God is present on the altar, it feels as though God has withdrawn His blessing on this place.

Our family stopped in at the new chapel the SSPX built in Cincinnati shortly after it was consecrated, and we felt the same spiritual "coldness". It could have been a trick of the architecture and lack of stained glass windows, but nevertheless it felt empty, too.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #73 on:** April 19, 2016, 07:44:22 AM »

Quote from: mw2016

I have been with OLOS for many years and can comment on several things mentioned here:

- There is one statue from the old Church (the Pieta, which was on the Epistle-side wall of the old Church) that is now in the vestibule of the new Church. I haven't seen the Our Lady of Sorrows statue, or the St. Joseph one, which are presumably stored somewhere.

- There is an overall change in tone of the way the priests are talking to the faithful on Sundays, from the pulpit, and it is not a good thing. I have never heard SSPX priests talk to parishioners this way. It is rather ugly. It all started the Sunday after the new Church was consecrated on Sep. 13th, when Fr. Riccomini chastised everyone with what apparent "slobs" we all are, in his words, "leaving trash" all over the Church. I don't think our people are slobs, but my impression was that perhaps +Fellay, or Wegner, or someone higher up had complained to Riccomini and told him to say these things. I could be wrong.

- Yes, the bulletins have recently contain several "nasty notes" about reporting your fellow parishioners to the priests, etc. Again, the tone is just unacceptable.

- Wegner has been around a lot. A lot. In fact, he recently gave an entire sermon about how some woman in another parish who had a child in the parish school expected him to solve a conflict between her child and another child. He said he had better things to do, bigger problems to solve. Pardon me, but I have better things to do on Sunday than listen to my priest complain about his job and/or his parishioners.

- Wegner took to the pulpit last Sunday (though he was NOT the one celebrating Mass) to chastise the parish for ten minutes that we were not giving enough money on our debt to the other priest, Fr. McMahon at La Sallette. He told us to think of the debt as our "rent" and that we only "rent this parish" for our sacraments, and that we needed to budget for our debt the way we set aside money for our rent.

- The "airy-fairy" sermons are real. Not one fighting priest amongst the many faces passing through this place. They are all neutered. Not one mentions the errors of the present Church. Which is ironic considering Bergoglio is doing or saying the craziest things virtually daily, and not a peep of protest from the priests. They MUST have been ordered by +Fellay, or God knows who, to NOT speak against what is happening in the Church. It is not a SOFTENING of the SSPX's opposition to modernism, it is the now total ABSENCE of the SSPX's opposition to modernism. +Abp. Lefebvre must be rolling in his grave.

- Fr. McDonald announced from the pulpit Sunday (and in the bulletin) that the community Rosary is now relegated to the (tiny, but lovely) Retreat Chapel. I have no idea why they would do such a thing. So, we paid a lot of money for this new Church, but can't use it for the Rosary? What on earth?

- There was a debacle with the St. Joseph's auction. They were tracking who was attending and who wasn't, who was donating and who wasn't. It was emailed out publicly, thereby shaming those on the "list". Why they are keeping track I cannot imagine, because it is wrong. It should be NOBODY'S business if you attend, or donate, or not. A lot of people must have complained, because they were forced to quickly issue an "apology" saying it was a "mistake" email. However, what was clear to all who read it is that them keeping track of who donated or not, is no mistake.

- Yes, Fr. Crane arrived here immediately after the arrest of Kevin Sloniker. He is the acting prior and in charge of finances. He rarely gives Sunday Mass. Hard to believe how no one has raised the issue of what his involvement in the Sloniker scandal was.

- In my opinion, there is something spiritually not right with this new Church since it opened. I know some feel it, others may not agree, but there is an overall "empty" feeling there, and a "coldness" there. Even though I know that God is present on the altar, it feels as though God has withdrawn His blessing on this place.

I miss the old OLOS because things have changed here, and not for the better.

I think many of these things are driving people away, hence, the drop in money donations, etc.

I said before and I'll repeat it again, this is EXACTLY word for word what happened in the SSPX chapel I attend. It by no means is Catholic behavior, gone is charity towards all men, these are totalitarian communistic tactics. I've come to realize that it is what it is, and it is not going to change. The spirit and charity of Abp. Lefevbre is dead and gone, and the SSPX's new leaders modus operandi is what is described above in every detail.

Quote

He told us to think of the debt as our "rent" and that we only "rent this parish" for our sacraments,

I have serious doubts about the validity of the new ordination rites and the new consecration of bishops ceremony, therefore of course, VERY serous doubts about the sacraments. I now ONLY expect one thing from my SSPX chapel, valid sacraments, and I thank God for providing them to me. Everything else I have to provide for myself and those that God places in my path. We truly are now down to just "renting the sacraments".

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #74 on:** April 19, 2016, 08:29:56 AM »

Quote

Even though I know that God is present on the altar, it feels as though God has withdrawn His blessing on this place.

I believe that God withdrew His blessings upon the SSPX when they began to grant annulments. The SSPX had no authority to grant them, and the modern annulments (a euphemism for Catholic divorce) ARE what killed all grace to the conciliar bishops who allowed them.

God established the SSPX strictly as a haven for Catholics and nothing else. It is not a builder of monuments (building grand churches and $125,000,000 seminaries), they are not the pope (granting annulments).

Only ask God for valid sacraments, that is our only haven today, and God has not withdrawn that blessing from the SSPX priests ordained by Abp. Lefevbre and the other SSPX bishops.