Author Topic: Should the group own all chapel properties? (Read 5845 times)

Matthew · « **on:** June 04, 2015, 03:55:03 PM »

I'd like to start a thread on this topic, after reading this post:

Quote

Quote from: J.Paul
The SSPX, and most especially under Bishop Fellay, have a proven history of aquiring chapel properties from private hands. Not a few of which, were then soon sold off, leaving the original chapel founders and their families without the sacraments unless they were willing to travel to other places to get them.

I have seen this happen several times even with a property donated by one family.

Quote from: J.Paul
They will generally not service a chapel without some agreement or transfer of the chapel to them. As has been evidenced since 2012, it has become all about assets and control in Menzingen.

A couple in our group tried to talk to the SSPX (12-13 yrs. ago) about coming to say Mass on Sundays and taking the collection. The priest said that they could not do it unless we turned over any property to the SSPX.

Yes, the SSPX, specially under +Fellay, has never been about the good of the Church but their own aggrandizement .

I was familiar with the fact that the SSPX wanted to own any chapel before it agreed to serve said chapel with a priest. I was used to this fact, and accepted all the arguments why it was OK.

But really -- it's not OK. Insisting that ALL chapels be owned by the group, as a matter of course, is mercenary.

Having dealt with several independent priests in the last few years, my perspective is a bit different -- a bit more complete -- now.

If a priest is given support (i.e., a collection) there should be no need for the priest to own the building in which Mass is said. Let's put it this way -- the priest should be hungry for souls and hungry for God -- not hungry for real estate!

The priest receiving adequate financial support (enough to live decently on) should be the only issue.

Traditionally, clerics didn't own anything. The Church owned church property, but the SSPX is not the Church. Strictly speaking, what you have today in the SSPX (for example), is an oligarchy of clerics controlling millions of dollars worth of assets. This is dangerous, for money and power corrupt.

Traditionally, the only clerics allowed to own money/property were SECULAR PRIESTS, who obviously were part of the Catholic Church (which held the title to the various buildings, churches, rectories, schools, etc.) and had plenty of superiors, etc. All religious orders, on the other hand, involved a vow of poverty in addition to chastity and obedience.

I'm restricting this discussion to the world of Tradition, as it exists today.

I understand the danger of lay interference -- but doesn't a priest have ultimate power anyhow? If he knows his congregation, and has contact information for his flock, wouldn't he have the most power and influence? After all, he's the priest. A traditional Catholic group is nothing without a priest. If the building owner/committee/coordinator wanted to play "hardball", he'd lose. The priest would just leave and start a new chapel with his flock elsewhere.

Furthermore, any parishioners of good will would follow the priest and help him rebuild.

So wouldn't that be sufficient protection for the priest and the Faithful?

A lot to discuss.

This is a timeless debate -- how to best deal with chapel ownership? Lay owners can be corrupted, but then again so can the priests and the groups they represent. It's like the debate on "which is better: monarchy or democracy?"

The Resistance is only 3 years old, and already the pioneer of the movement (Fr. Pfeiffer) insists that ALL resistance chapels and congregations in the USA, as well as any past/present/future priests of the Resistance, are under the jurisdiction of Fr. Pfeiffer -- and he fully intends to defend that "jurisdiction" with an iron hand. He doesn't approve of any "schismatic" priests or groups that reject the authority and Primacy of his group in Boston, KY -- which apparently should be called New Rome.

JPaul · « **Reply #1 on:** June 04, 2015, 05:02:48 PM »

Matthew,

Quote

If a priest is given support (i.e., a collection) there should be no need for the priest to own the building in which Mass is said. Let's put it this way -- the priest should be hungry for souls and hungry for God -- not hungry for real estate!

That about sums up what Catholicism is all about.
It goes without saying that the chapel owners should be committed to the same thing, as most are. The only requirement of the priests and supporting organization, should be that a stable and adequate place should be provided, so that such priests can adapt themselves to a solid reliable place in which they can go about saving these souls and providing those things that the Church has called and expects them to do. They of course need continuity in which they can allot their time to each facility as best as can be done.

Let us face it, this discussion is really about the mercenary fervor which has sprung up in the smells and bells communities within today's "Tradition".

Groups such as these have become strong on control and imposing it, when it comes to the worldly side of things and a lot more lukewarm on Doctrine and true zeal.

Aquiring properties, besting Bishop Fellay, mitigating the conciliar popes, pounding the sedevacantists, and globetrotting, are entirely unimportant when compared to the sacred and solemn duty to save any soul that would be saved.

Those who say that they must do these other activities to save souls are misguided or dishonest. It would seem that independent priests like Father Zendejas have a much closer approximation of what priests should be doing in such grave times as this, to save souls.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2015, 05:33:32 PM »

I guess you might say, some priests need to go "back to basics" a bit, as far as what it means to be a Traditional priest -- and to be a priest in general.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2015, 05:51:59 PM »

Here in Brazil, the way around this has been for the chapels to actually be part of someone's home. The mission is so small for the SSPX, but there are huge potentials, so they had to get over it and offer Mass in chapels which form part of people's homes, without the property being theirs. After the crisis in the SSPX beginning in 2012 almost all of these chapels went over to the resistance. One notable exception is in the city center Campos, where it has been reported that that owner has told the SSPX priest something to the effect of: "if the Society makes a deal, you can make you suitcase."

In the small town of 35,000 where, thanks to Bishop de Castro Mayer, there is a church of the defected Campos priests worthy of being called a metropolitan cathedral, the Society gained a priory last year. (That's right, a town of 35,000 in the middle of nowhere has a SSPX priory and several churches of the Campos priests one of which worthy of being called a cathedral.) Needless to say, despite the significantly small size of the town, a privately owned chapel would not have been very efficient as far as gathering crowds of thousands on any given Sunday for Mass.

TKGS · « **Reply #4 on:** June 04, 2015, 09:31:01 PM »

I know a little from personal experience.

When the independent chapel in Greenwood, Indiana began to look for a priest, the majority of the lay board seemed to think that the only option was the SSPX. They did not look for any other option and contacted the SSPX. The SSPX was willing to serve the chapel for one year, which would give the parish a period of time to experience what being an SSPX parish was like. After one year, the parish and the SSPX could part ways or, if the parish chose to stay with the SSPX, the property, the chapel, and all of the contents had to be turned over to the Society. The chapel board dragged it's feet when it came time to turn over the property until the SSPX gave an ultimatum: sign the legal docuмents by a particular date or the priest would cease coming to the chapel. The board members signed the legal docuмents.

I was told that all "special collections" (there are four each year) went to the SSPX for the stated purpose of the collection. The weekly collection goes to the parish board. The parish board has to pay all of the expenses of the parish (which includes payment to the priory for sending the priest, travel expenses, travel expenses for other priests when the usual priest is unable to travel, the costs of all chapel renovations the priest has determined are needed, etc.).

The reason that the SSPX required legal ownership of the property was never explained but I got the impression it was because the so-called "Nine" priests who left the SSPX several years ago refused to give up the properties they had established which, legally, was their right. In a radio interview, Fr. Cekada had noted that, originally, the SSPX did not want to own any properties for the chapels as their mission was not to build an empire but to provide the sacraments during the emergency circuмstances in the Church.

What I know about the CMRI is that the CMRI owns some of the properties they serve and some properties are owned by other parties. I've not heard anyone say that the CMRI asks for legal ownership of properties for any reason and certainly not as a condition to provide the sacraments. The CMRI does, of course, require a chapel to provide for the priests who serve the chapel since living and travelling to multiple chapels is not cost-free.

I have often wondered why the SSPX demands ownership of all properties they serve. I don't know what the market value of the property is in Greenwood, but I would not doubt that the property could be valued near a half million dollars, plus or minus a little. So, essentially, the parishioners paid the SSPX a lump sum of a half-million dollars for the sacraments plus all current expenses. And, of course, if the SSPX ever decides to stop supporting the chapel in the future, they can sell the property that cost them absolutely nothing to acquire.

The CMRI still does say Mass in a few odd-ball places. Does the SSPX still do so--in the United States, anyway?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #5 on:** June 04, 2015, 10:40:33 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

I know a little from personal experience.

When the independent chapel in Greenwood, Indiana began to look for a priest, the majority of the lay board seemed to think that the only option was the SSPX. They did not look for any other option and contacted the SSPX. The SSPX was willing to serve the chapel for one year, which would give the parish a period of time to experience what being an SSPX parish was like. After one year, the parish and the SSPX could part ways or, if the parish chose to stay with the SSPX, the property, the chapel, and all of the contents had to be turned over to the Society. The chapel board dragged it's feet when it came time to turn over the property until the SSPX gave an ultimatum: sign the legal docuмents by a particular date or the priest would cease coming to the chapel. The board members signed the legal docuмents.

I was told that all "special collections" (there are four each year) went to the SSPX for the stated purpose of the collection. The weekly collection goes to the parish board. The parish board has to pay all of the expenses of the parish (which includes payment to the priory for sending the priest, travel expenses, travel expenses for other priests when the usual priest is unable to travel, the costs of all chapel renovations the priest has determined are needed, etc.).

The reason that the SSPX required legal ownership of the property was never explained but I got the impression it was because the so-called "Nine" priests who left the SSPX several years ago refused to give up the properties they had established which, legally, was their right. In a radio interview, Fr. Cekada had noted that, originally, the SSPX did not want to own any properties for the chapels as their mission was not to build an empire but to provide the sacraments during the emergency circuмstances in the Church.

What I know about the CMRI is that the CMRI owns some of the properties they serve and some properties are owned by other parties. I've not heard anyone say that the CMRI asks for legal ownership of properties for any reason and certainly not as a condition to provide the sacraments. The CMRI does, of course, require a chapel to provide for the priests who serve the chapel since living and travelling to multiple chapels is not cost-free.

I have often wondered why the SSPX demands ownership of all properties they serve. I don't know what the market value of the property is in Greenwood, but I would not doubt that the property could be valued near a half million dollars, plus or minus a little. So, essentially, the parishioners paid the SSPX a lump sum of a half-million dollars for the sacraments plus all current expenses. And, of course, if the SSPX ever decides to stop supporting the chapel in the future, they can sell the property that cost them absolutely nothing to acquire.

The CMRI still does say Mass in a few odd-ball places. Does the SSPX still do so--in the United States, anyway?

They still say Masses in hotels in Corpus Christi, TX. I don't suppose there is much of an option.

poche · « **Reply #6 on:** June 04, 2015, 10:58:14 PM »

This is a question with respect to the question of patronage. Priior to the Code of 1917, the Church allowed a situation of patronage that is individuals or corporate bodies to operate individual churches and chapels. They were responsable for the upkeep of the properties and they also had the right to determine who the priest would be. They started to do away with this in the 1917 code and they completely did away with this in the 1983 Code.

Wessex · « **Reply #7 on:** June 05, 2015, 03:18:44 AM »

The problem was not in providing the old Mass but doing it the SSPX way. This provides so many opportunities for exploitation and priests and their superiors will take full advantage of the needs of the laity. They in turn will become very wary of clerical motives once they have been let down. I became disillusioned in the 80s upon hearing of distasteful legal cases involving unhappy benefactors and greedy clergy. This seemed to put this faux organisation (indeed a Swiss corporation) in the right perspective. I am sure one day Bp. Fellay will be floating shares on the stock exchange!

Does this have a bearing on the legitimacy of the Society's apostolate? I would say, yes, more so in its irregular postion in the Church. It has to be seen to be whiter than white, otherwise what is the point? Have we reached a stage where it is now a case of finding the least corrupt of trad organisation out there to pursue our duty to God and the Church?

Tridentine MT · « **Reply #8 on:** June 05, 2015, 04:44:24 AM »

In Malta we have a sad situation. There are so many chapels that are closed all the time or abandoned.

The derelict Siculo-Norman chapel of St. Cecilia, at the end of the village of Ghajnsielem on the way to Rabat.

Appeal to save Chapels - 1

Appeal to save Chapels - 2

In recent years there had been attempts by the SSPX to establish a foothold in Malta. Perhaps this article, albeit short, gives an insight on what might have blocked efforts.

Allegedly even Bishop Williamson was coming to Malta, although from reliable sources he never came.

Aside from lamentations, and without derailing this informative thread, would anyone know if the Resistance, or even the SSPV and CMRI would be interested in establishing a presence in Malta?

Traditional Catholics here are fed up without having the Mass of All times!!

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #9 on:** June 05, 2015, 05:28:43 AM »

Quote from: poche

This is a question with respect to the question of patronage. Priior to the Code of 1917, the Church allowed a situation of patronage that is individuals or corporate bodies to operate individual churches and chapels. They were responsable for the upkeep of the properties and they also had the right to determine who the priest would be. They started to do away with this in the 1917 code and they completely did away with this in the 1983 Code.

This is the case in Eastern Rite Catholic Churches in the USA even now. More common in the Ukrainian and Byzantine. The faithful own the property and have a board of directors which works with the diocese in obtaining a priest. The board decides on the priest. If it doesn't work out, they ask for another. Some priests they bring directly from E.U.

TKGS · « **Reply #10 on:** June 05, 2015, 05:42:56 AM »

Quote from: poche

This is a question with respect to the question of patronage. Priior to the Code of 1917, the Church allowed a situation of patronage that is individuals or corporate bodies to operate individual churches and chapels. They were responsable for the upkeep of the properties and they also had the right to determine who the priest would be. They started to do away with this in the 1917 code and they completely did away with this in the 1983 Code.

Could you cite the relevant canons?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** June 05, 2015, 12:07:44 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

I was familiar with the fact that the SSPX wanted to own any chapel before it agreed to serve said chapel with a priest. I was used to this fact, and accepted all the arguments why it was OK.

I was never OK with this. In fact, I resigned from the "Board of Trustees" at an Independent chapel because the priest wanted to leave the chapel entirely to the SSPX upon his death without any strings (because SSPX refused to accept strings). I wouldn't sign the docuмent and I resigned. I told the priest that the SSPX could very easily sell the property and force everyone to go to the SSPX chapel about 30 miles away, and so his intent to preserve the work he had done for 25 years there would be completely undermined. This priest had accuмulated a significant amount of property (and funds) over this time period that the SSPX could essentially steal from those who donated it in the first place and divert to the new seminary project. And then they'd be lucky to see an SSPX priest there twice a month at 6PM on Sunday even if they kept just the chapel building proper intact.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** June 05, 2015, 12:13:46 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Matthew
I was familiar with the fact that the SSPX wanted to own any chapel before it agreed to serve said chapel with a priest. I was used to this fact, and accepted all the arguments why it was OK.

I was never OK with this. In fact, I resigned from the "Board of Trustees" at an Independent chapel because the priest wanted to leave the chapel entirely to the SSPX upon his death without any strings (because SSPX refused to accept strings). I wouldn't sign the docuмent and I resigned. I told the priest that the SSPX could very easily sell the property and force everyone to go to the SSPX chapel about 30 miles away, and so his intent to preserve the work he had done for 25 years there would be completely undermined. This priest had accuмulated a significant amount of property (and funds) over this time period that the SSPX could essentially steal from those who donated it in the first place and divert to the new seminary project. And then they'd be lucky to see an SSPX priest there twice a month at 6PM on Sunday even if they kept just the chapel building proper intact.

As a forerunner of things to come, we had about 10 kids preparing all year for confirmation when, at the last minute, the SSPX bishop refused to come because there weren't "enough candidates" to justify the trip. These numbers were known at the beginning of the year when they committed to come. Not only that, but they provided no alternative (such as travelling to another chapel) to receive teh Sacrament.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #13 on:** June 05, 2015, 12:18:47 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Matthew
I was familiar with the fact that the SSPX wanted to own any chapel before it agreed to serve said chapel with a priest. I was used to this fact, and accepted all the arguments why it was OK.

I was never OK with this. In fact, I resigned from the "Board of Trustees" at an Independent chapel because the priest wanted to leave the chapel entirely to the SSPX upon his death without any strings (because SSPX refused to accept strings). I wouldn't sign the docuмent and I resigned. I told the priest that the SSPX could very easily sell the property and force everyone to go to the SSPX chapel about 30 miles away, and so his intent to preserve the work he had done for 25 years there would be completely undermined. This priest had accuмulated a significant amount of property (and funds) over this time period that the SSPX could essentially steal from those who donated it in the first place and divert to the new seminary project. And then they'd be lucky to see an SSPX priest there twice a month at 6PM on Sunday even if they kept just the chapel building proper intact.

As a forerunner of things to come, we had about 10 kids preparing all year for confirmation when, at the last minute, the SSPX bishop refused to come because there weren't "enough candidates" to justify the trip. These numbers were known at the beginning of the year when they committed to come. Not only that, but they provided no alternative (such as travelling to another chapel) to receive teh Sacrament.

I actually didn't get confirmed until much later due to a similar incident.

I think that chapel still has never had a visit from a bishop, and much simpler smaller chapels have had several visits from bishops here in Brazil.

In my case, the alternative was offered to go to a Kentucky chapel, but it was much too far.

Matthew · « **Reply #14 on:** June 05, 2015, 12:51:14 PM »

Very interesting contribution, TKGS.

One of the issues, it would seem, is:

Given a property worth X, in a given location Y -- the investment of MANY YEARS of work and sacrifices from the Faithful -- who should hold the title to the property?

Here is the point --

Who is more invested in the future of location Y? A religious order Z, or the Catholics in location Y? Who is more likely to fail, or fall away?

Isn't it logical that the MOST SURE entity should hold title to the building? For the sake of stability and continuity?

To use specific names:

Take a random SSPX chapel, say the SSPX chapel in San Antonio, TX. Who is more likely to betray/run away/fail? A group of Catholics that LIVE in San Antonio, or a far-flung group headquartered in Menzingen, Switzerland?

I'm talking about over a time period of DECADES. A lot can happen to a group, to a priest, etc. But who can you count on the most to look out for the best interests of a local group? The Catholics who have roots in that area. The Catholics who are totally dependent on that chapel. The Catholics who have jobs and who are heavily invested in the area (who collectively own X homes worth MILLIONS of dollars total). Catholics whose relatives are buried in the area; whose families and entire LIVES are in that area. These Catholics aren't going anywhere, at least 98% of them.

An interesting argument, I think.