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