Excommunication And Laicization Of Dale Fushek

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='17 February 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1266443712' post='2058492']
It would also depend on the form of baptism used.
[/quote]

Of course.

That and the matter.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Slappo' date='17 February 2010 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1266441744' post='2058478']
In the same manner you could say it is doubtful that there is a single protestant ecclesial community that intends to do what the Church does when baptizing.

The intentions don't have to be explicitly "I intend to baptize you as a Catholic," as none other than the Catholic Church's baptisms would be valid if this were the case.
[/quote]

You misinterpreted what I said. I did not say anything to the effect that someone had to intend to baptize a person "Catholic".

[quote name=Resurrexi]
If an excommunicated priest performs the rite correctly and seriously, it is assumed that he has the correct intention and that the baptism was valid.

"The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason [b]to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does.[/b] On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament." (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 33)

This post has been edited by Resurrexi: Today, 05:02 PM [/quote]

Which is exactly what I was referring to. The fact is that the baptism is not valid if the person does not intend to do what the Church does, but there is no reason to assume that that was not the intention if the person performs the baptism seriously and with proper form.

I don't think we are disagreeing on anything here

Edited February 17, 2010 by Totus Tuus

[Slappo]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' date='17 February 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1266441250' post='2058475']
Actually, Baptism is only valid if the baptizer intends to do what the Church does when he baptizes. [b]It is doubtful whether that would be an excommunicated person's intention, considering the fact he is excommunicated.[/b]
[/quote]


[quote name='Totus Tuus' date='17 February 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1266446767' post='2058519']
You misinterpreted what I said. I did not say anything to the effect that someone had to intend to baptize a person "Catholic".



Which is exactly what I was referring to. The fact is that the baptism is not valid if the person does not intend to do what the Church does, [b]but there is no reason to assume that that was not the intention if the person performs the baptism seriously and with proper form.[/b]

I don't think we are disagreeing on anything here
[/quote]

I don't understand the two bolded. It seems like you are saying one thing and then another. I agree with your second post, but not with your first. I don't think it is doubtful that someone is intending to do what the Church intends when baptizing just because they are excommunicated.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Slappo' date='17 February 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1266451596' post='2058549']
I don't understand the two bolded. It seems like you are saying one thing and then another. I agree with your second post, but not with your first. I don't think it is doubtful that someone is intending to do what the Church intends when baptizing just because they are excommunicated.
[/quote]

We just have a difference of opinion then. My point is not something to inflate; I simply think that since people are excommunicated for [i]not[/i] doing what the Church has told them to do, it is doubtful (TO ME) that such a person would have the intention to do what the Church does when they baptize. They were excommunicated for not doing what the Church does... so [i]without a change of heart[/i] they probably wouldn't have the intention to do what the Church does when they baptize Does that not make sense? Maybe I've clarified, or maybe we just don't agree, which is a-ok! And as I said, I don't think this is something to dwell on, it's just an opinion.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' date='17 February 2010 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1266453776' post='2058561']
We just have a difference of opinion then. My point is not something to inflate; I simply think that since people are excommunicated for [i]not[/i] doing what the Church has told them to do, it is doubtful (TO ME) that such a person would have the intention to do what the Church does when they baptize. They were excommunicated for not doing what the Church does... so [i]without a change of heart[/i] they probably wouldn't have the intention to do what the Church does when they baptize Does that not make sense? Maybe I've clarified, or maybe we just don't agree, which is a-ok! And as I said, I don't think this is something to dwell on, it's just an opinion.
[/quote]

As I said earlier, according to the Pope, as long as a person performs a baptism correctly (i.e, he says "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" while pouring water on the person's head) and seriously (i.e., he's obviously not just joking or acting the ceremony out for a play), we have to assume that he had the intention necessary for the sacrament's validity.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='17 February 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1266454003' post='2058562']
As I said earlier, according to the Pope, as long as a person performs a baptism correctly (i.e, he says "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" while pouring water on the person's head) and seriously (i.e., he's obviously not just joking or acting the ceremony out for a play), we have to assume that he had the intention necessary for the sacrament's validity.
[/quote]

It looks like I opened a can of worms that I was not intending to open. I am NOT arguing with what you are saying. I have actually already studied the document you quoted and am fully aware of the guidelines. My point was simply that in reality, a person is not baptized if the baptizer did not have the intention to do what the Church does. Again, my point was NOT to speculate that certain people are or are not baptized. I don't presume that anyone doesn't have the intention not to baptize. There is a difference between doubting that excommunicated people might not have the right intention, and presuming that someone baptized by an excommunicated person is not really baptized. The document's point is that we should always presume that someone is validly baptized. Whether you believe me or not, I was not arguing with that statement.

Pax!

[laetitia crucis]

So sad.



Prayers!

[add]

[quote name='Slappo' date='17 February 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1266426012' post='2058350']
Baptisms would still be recognized.


Aside from the above, this is a very sad story. He is a man who needs many prayers

[/quote]

a sad story indeed. HIS lifeteen PROGRAM is also a schismatic acts because of his transgressions and an "opposing ecclesial community" and by definition is sadly related.

as for this excommunicated priest Fushek participating in any blessings, he is also prohibited from celebrating the sacraments, [u][b]except [/b][/u]in the case of someone who is in danger of death.

[HisChild]

What bothers me about this new worship center that he operates is that he SAYS he's not trying to take anyone away from any one church, BUT the services are at the same time as one would go to Mass. So if it's not to 'detour' others away from their normal 10am Masses, I don't know what his motivation IS to have it at 10am. Why not at 2pm so that people can go to Mass, have their Sunday brunch and then go to his service?

You know, and I can only speculate here, I think in his rather super size ego, he knows what he's doing and doesn't feel that the 'rules' apply to him. I don't draw this conclusion flippantly, but rather from about 15 years of seeing this ex priest in action. I am only providing an example of who he is to share with you his charisma and just how completely people took a liking to him... and how easy it was to have those people walk away crying and in serious pain. Some, fortunately, went to other parishes when that happened. Some stopped going to church altogether, thinking he was the representation of what they'd find in the Catholic Church. And I provide these examples in my fervent hope that you'll keep those people in your prayers. I liken this to prayers needed for those involved in (can I say this without sounding blasphemous?) cult activity.

While there were many who adored him, there were just as many that he rather viciously alienated. Even today, I've spoken with people and have read blogs/comments from those who say they'll attend his new services and if that takes them away from Catholicism, so be it. It's creepy because it smacks of idolatry. I've also spoken to people over the past decade whose words are rather brutal regarding their own past experiences or run-ins with him. (And I'm not talking about disagreements over dogma... like someone getting upset because he tells them that living with their boyfriend is a sin.) This too saddens me because even now, they're still in pain over their experience with this ex priest.

The Masses that he performed... errrr...served always had the best music. Choir members included Matt Maher, Tom Booth, Tim Smith. His homilies were always enthusiastic. But it was more a concert than a Mass. I don't mean that only because of the drums and the guitars and the swaying in the aisles (and don't get me wrong, to this day I still have those songs on my ipod: I love christian rock, but it WAS a performance). I mean that because of his pacing back and forth on the altar, his volume going higher and higher until he was fairly screaming. (Think something you might see on TBS.) I mean that because of the clapping after his homilies, and the jaunt in his step as he'd return to the altar. During the Consecration, he'd close his eyes as he was bent over the Eucharist, then open one eye and look at the people looking back at him. It, was a performance. From beginning to end. Even my brother said he 'found' Catholicism again after going there, because it was 'cool'. Then when all this happened? When Fushek was removed from this parish? Now my brother goes nowhere because nothing is as 'today' as those Masses. (He actually said he's no longer Christian, so please please pray for him.) You may think that this (his style of mass) was fabulous because it brought many to Christ, but it was like those houses (faith) that were built on sand. The water came and look now. No more house (faith), because in those people's minds nothing can compare to the rousing performance they experienced when he was on stage/altar... well unless you go to a Baptist church or something. But faith should be about Christ, not about going to the most entertaining Masses with the coolest music. But I'm preaching to the choir, as the saying goes.

I know of two different cases where he turned Catholics away from Confession because they weren't officially registered at his parish. During one Mass when he was preaching about forgiveness a woman stood up, SOBBING. In broken words, between her breath catching on her sobs, she asked, 'what happens if you cannot forgive?' Clearly this woman had been through something VERY traumatic. COULD he have said 'you know, I'd love to hear more about your circumstance and help you. Could you please see me after Mass?' Sure he could have. What he DID say was 'how DARE you interrupt MY Mass??' His face was beat red and I thought he was going to stroke out right there. I know of several people who said they'd never come back after that weekend. I was one of them.

So again, this man needs serious prayers, not only for himself, but for those lives he 'touches/touched' and thus potentially turning them away from God because of his actions and/or alienation. And while we're at it, we really need to pray for ALL priests. They have to be priests in such times as this, when there are so many that have been adversely affected by another priest, where priests have a really bad reputation. Our Holy Father knew what he was doing with the Year of the Priest. Pray for them. Now more than ever.

[Jesus_lol]

nice to read of the Vatican putting the BanHammer to good use.

[add]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='18 February 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1266510663' post='2058778']
nice to read of the Vatican putting the BanHammer to good use.
[/quote]

agreed and long overdue

[laetitia crucis]

[quote name='apparently' date='18 February 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1266516902' post='2058831']
agreed and long overdue
[/quote]

Maybe one day they'll bring "anathema" back!

Definitely one of my favorite words.

[Theoketos]

May he repent for the sake of his soul and the souls he is leading away from the Church.

[Veridicus]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-5B54wXgI4[/media]

[add]

I guess we have to pray for this priest as well as those Catholics who follow him. Obviously, this has turned into a personality cult. By all means, we need to support the bishop in this.