Priest Suspended - and to be Excommunicated - for Orthodoxy?
#31
(07-01-2019, 06:26 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote:  So, there ya have it folks the Bishop has some good cause for his actions and the priest in question needs to address all the Bishop has asked him to.  If he is innocent, then he has nothing to fear.
 
:laughing: :LOL: :laughing: HA HA HA! -- You win the internet award for laugh of the day!

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I'm actually looking forward to Jovan/Magister to jump in and say you're not qualified to apply Canon law, etc., etc.
Reply
#32
(07-01-2019, 07:55 PM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(07-01-2019, 06:26 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote:  So, there ya have it folks the Bishop has some good cause for his actions and the priest in question needs to address all the Bishop has asked him to.  If he is innocent, then he has nothing to fear.
 
:laughing: :LOL: :laughing: HA HA HA! -- You win the internet award for laugh of the day!

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I'm actually looking forward to Jovan/Magister to jump in and say you're not qualified to apply Canon law, etc., etc.
That's correct.  I am not a JCD nor schooled at all in canon law.  However, I am a member of the Catholic Church.  I can read and do know what the words in the canons themselves mean.  They are written so that all who try can understand their meaning as the Church has had her truths revealed to her by Christ and so cannot deceive nor be deceived.  That is 100% true and applies especially in the care the Church takes in writing the Codes of Canon Law in such clear and simple language as possible so that the faithful can understand it so as to abide by it. Your position would have it that no one who could read the Driver's Manual and understand it couldn't be able to pass the test to get their driver's license because they aren't a State Trooper.  Ridiculous.  Laws are written for man and if the man cannot understand the laws he must live by, they are written to deceive as a trap for the innocent.  The Church being the spotless Bride of the unblemished Lamb can do no such thing.  Ever.  Guess what?  She doesn't.   They can be understood even by silly lay women like me.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
PS I wish I could apply some of them to some of the wackos I've met in the Church in the years I've been a Catholic.  I also wish more Bishops would charge the dangerous and rebels in their dioceses more boldly and more often.
Reply
#33
Okay. I'll bite.

(07-01-2019, 08:06 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: That's correct.  I am not a JCD nor schooled at all in canon law.  However, I am a member of the Catholic Church.  I can read and do know what the words in the canons themselves mean.  They are written so that all who try can understand their meaning as the Church has had her truths revealed to her by Christ and so cannot deceive nor be deceived.  That is 100% true and applies especially in the care the Church takes in writing the Codes of Canon Law in such clear and simple language as possible so that the faithful can understand it so as to abide by it. Your position would have it that no one who could read the Driver's Manual and understand it couldn't be able to pass the test to get their driver's license because they aren't a State Trooper.  Ridiculous.  Laws are written for man and if the man cannot understand the laws he must live by, they are written to deceive as a trap for the innocent.  The Church being the spotless Bride of the unblemished Lamb can do no such thing.  Ever.  Guess what?  She doesn't.   They can be understood even by silly lay women like me.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
PS I wish I could apply some of them to some of the wackos I've met in the Church in the years I've been a Catholic.  I also wish more Bishops would charge the dangerous and rebels in their dioceses more boldly and more often.

Canon Law is not meant to be read and applied by people according to their own personal understanding or interpretation. It's the same as with civil laws. When one gets sued, it's pretty imprudent that he says "the laws are written in English, and I can understand English, so I'll represent myself."

Canon Law is a discipline, like civil law, medicine or theology. It has the law itself, but also many side subjects, case studies, particular laws, exemptions, privileges, and precedents attached to it. In fact before 1917, there was no single Code, so one had to search through hundreds of decisions and codicies to answer some basic questions. The Codes were meant to simplify the law, but not hand it over to the faithful to interpret or apply themselves.

Much of it can be read by laymen and understood, but there are JCDs for a reason, and there's a reason they study for so long to earn such a title. If it were all just about reading the clear language, then why even waste time studying Canon Law, let alone creating doctoral programs.

That said, I think Ginny has done a fine job of analyzing the legal case. I would just reject her underlying premise: that questioning or pointing out the obvious problems with Vatican II constitutes "inciting hatred" towards the Church.

The SSPX has been one of the greatest critics of Vatican II. Never have they be threatened with excommunication under Canon 1373 for inciting hatred against Vatican II, even though they clearly go far beyond Fr Treco.
[-] The following 4 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • antiquarian, Filiolus, jovan66102, St.Eliza
Reply
#34
(07-01-2019, 06:26 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: I listened to the homily in question and there are problems with some of the things he said.  No doubt about that.

What are the problems?

If there's no doubt, then you should be able to list them out for us, and explain why they are problematic.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, St.Eliza
Reply
#35
(07-01-2019, 10:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Okay. I'll bite.

(07-01-2019, 08:06 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: That's correct.  I am not a JCD nor schooled at all in canon law.  However, I am a member of the Catholic Church.  I can read and do know what the words in the canons themselves mean. .....They can be understood even by silly lay women like me.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
 Okie dokie,  I see you misread my words.  So, I'll break down my response in steps.  
MM - "Canon Law is not meant to be read and applied by people according to their own personal understanding or interpretation.....imprudent that he says "the laws are written in English, and I can understand English, so I'll represent myself."  I am not the one being prosecuted; Fr. Treco is.  I'm not attempting to represent anyone at all.  The laws need no defense.  They are very clear and most reasonable persons know to not interpret them at all.  
MM - "The Codes were meant to simplify the law, but not hand it over to the faithful to interpret or apply themselves."  The law is not simplified, just rendered more easily accessed and that access is meant to include laity.  You're being very elitist in your exclusion of the rest of the Church.  No lay person that I know of has tried to fraudulently pretend to act as a Canon Lawyer.  He or she would be prosecutable under both civil and ecclesial law.  It has been my experience though that many who are supportive of Rad Trads, SVs, and the SSPX itself DO make broad use of interpretive language regarding the Codes and regularly misrepresent them to laity willing to be lead astray by these elaborate structures of the Codes and cases involving the same.  
MM - "that questioning or pointing out the obvious problems with Vatican II constitutes "inciting hatred" towards the Church."  There is a bit of a difference between questioning the actions and documents of the Second Vatican Council and pointing to problems with intent.  Persons with honest questions do seek answers and they can read all about it from many sources not affiliated with the SSPX, their supporters, the Rad Trads, et al who deliberately cherry pick thru them for proofs of their positions against the Church, etc.  The laity should be encouraged to read them for themselves and prayerfully analyze them so as to not fall prey in another way to those who DO interpret them to others with intent.  
MM- "I think Ginny has done a fine job of analyzing the legal case."  Thanks for the compliment.  Your words here are pretty good too sometimes.  
MM - "The SSPX has been one of the greatest critics of Vatican II. Never have they be threatened with excommunication under Canon 1373 for inciting hatred against Vatican II, even though they clearly go far beyond Fr Treco."  This is a fine observation and truthfully understands some of the issues in this thread.  Knowing this myself is the real reason I added what I did in my "PS."  I sincerely hope more the Bishops in our country being the task of running these men and women from their local diocese and increase their supportive measures for those who legitimately and faithfully serve the Altar with the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite so the few seeking piety in these avenues will no longer fall prey to the dissenting parties of which stripe they wear.  I would love to see these men bringing the TLM out of the limited venues they are sometimes very reluctantly afforded.  
Thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful response.  
One other thought on the subject to add.  Everyone knows that not all those who break the law face prosecution for those breaches.  This is equally true of both civil and ecclesial laws.  But this does nothing to exonerate their crimes either against society or the Just Judge who looks down from Heaven upon all.  Those persons who break the laws of God and men are guilty, no matter whether or not they face active prosecution.  Fr. Treco is being offered both the Justice of God which is perfect and the Mercy of God which if embraced by him, will triumph over Justice as the Psalmist says.  Those who are seeking to be supportive of him if they are sincerely motivated, should suggest to him to not fight against the Church any longer, for extra Ecclesia nulla salus and for all practical purposes at this point is the only salvation Fr. Treco has recourse to.  Or he could take his chances against the Church.  Historically that has not played out very well, I'm sure you can agree with that.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#36
(07-01-2019, 10:33 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-01-2019, 06:26 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: I listened to the homily in question and there are problems with some of the things he said.  No doubt about that.

What are the problems?

If there's no doubt, then you should be able to list them out for us, and explain why they are problematic.

Well, that list will have to wait for later.  I am leaving for Mass in minutes and have some rather long visits with some doctors that will chew up the rest of my day.  Pray for me.  Perhaps this evening before Vespers.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#37
FYI, this came across my transom this morning...

http://www.friendsoffathertreco.org/
Reply
#38
(04-13-2019, 01:00 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote: A note from Fr. Treco:

Quote:Dear Friends & Supporters,

I am posting this note in order to express my gratitude for your kindness, compassion and support to date.

The situation with the Ordinariate has worsened and has caused me to take canonical recourse to both the Bishop and Holy See. During this time, I am without financial support of any kind while I await a favorable adjudication from the Holy See and/or Ordinariate.

As a result, I humbly and sincerely request your kind consideration and generosity in any way to assist me in this serious personal endeavor to defend my right to a good reputation and serve Truth.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Fr. Vaughn Treco
This is shocking. I wonder what kind of financial support McCarrick is getting.
Reply
#39
(07-01-2019, 06:26 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: Alrightie then.  I listened to the homily in question and there are problems with some of the things he said.  No doubt about that.  I also found this in 1Ptr5: "At the end of Mass, Msgr. Steenson read a letter from our bishop, His Excellency Steven Lopes. The bishop explained that the November homily — the one that had gained so much attention for its unflinching evaluation of the crisis — was, in fact, the reason for his removal. Further, the bishop explained, the homily was contrary to the teaching of the Church — he did not explain how — and that, even after a personal meeting in Houston between himself and Father Treco, Father refused to recant what he had said. The bishop’s letter then announced that Fr. Treco has been removed as parochial administrator of the Church of St. Bede and that Msgr. Steenson had been assigned as parochial administrator pro tempore."  That explains what happened.  But my first impression of the homily and some of the incitements he attempts are a bit distressing.  I'd think Can. 1373 may apply - "Can. 1373 A  person who publicly, incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary, because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties."  http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P51.HTM

[/url][url=http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/S5.HTM]
And I also think that because he was warned and suspended and didn't retract things he was asked to, Can. 1371.2 also applies - "Can. 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty: .....1371.2 a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after  being warned persists in disobedience"  So, there ya have it folks the Bishop has some good cause for his actions and the priest in question needs to address all the Bishop has asked him to.  If he is innocent, then he has nothing to fear.  If however, it is true that his words are meant to incite bad actions against the Church and her leaders, then he needs to repent.  IMHO there are many folks who do provoke persons to hatred for the Holy See, V2, and a whole grocery list of other issues with the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite but here in this particular case Fr. Treco talks against V2, which the canon justly describes an ecclesial act with authority, etc. as well as constantly work to undermine the innocent faithful seeking piety trust in their priests who serve the Altar in the NO and their sacraments.  I'm with the Bishop on this one.  More folks need to see the same actions taken justly by the Bishop in their own lives.  I tire of trying to defend the Church and NO against all their hatred for the sacred ministers and their ministry itself.  To me, the Canons I just used apply to them as well.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

After reading this thread and some links therein I am struck by what a good man and good priest Fr. Treco is. I relate to him very much as a convert. There is a cost to converting, it was a big painful one for me and I see it with every other convert. It's worth it. So often it seem many of us find life gets harder, not easier, after conversion. I appreciate, Ginny, that you read a lot, and thought a lot, and came up with your own conclusions, and shared them here. It's good to see you introducing the idea that maybe Bishop Lopes is not as bad as he is sounding to be in this case. I truly hope so! However I need more evidence, something to logically give me reason to hope.

This stands out to me from a post on page 2:

[Image: 37945782_1561080654370887_r.jpeg]

I, also in this whole thread (and in the links posted in it) did not see a single informative explanation pertaining to those zeroes", above. If Bishop Lopes is in fact not being clear about the reasons for the excommunication, that is a problem.  He appears wordy yet evasive of the essential facts, which is what we see ALL the time from our baleful bishops. Evasiveness. Long flowery words meaning nothing.  I cannot think of a good reason for hiding the facts if they are good, honest and true.  Our Bishops show us repeatedly they do NOT favor openness and they clearly do not deserve all the privacy and secrecy and anonymity they claim for themselves. They use it very poorly. They seem to want free reign to do whatever they want and have no accountability to ANYONE (example, Dolan's "Mean to Sheen" debacle, to the tune of 1 million dollars of diocesan money, and also big payouts they unilaterally decide on, and constant cohort-cover ups - all of this ongoing stuff that clearly has NO VISIBLE END TO IT - enabled by their entitlement to self-police). So the fact is, here Bishop Lopes SEEMS to be doing the typical status-quo-thing for a typical everyday bishop of these times, and his wordy but evasive explanation of the situation is exactly what his fellow bishops would wholeheartedly applaud. 

In light of Rev. Treco being such a decent man with a heart for truth, and knowing how even the Pope treats good men like Cardinal Burke when they speak the truth, Bishop Lope's actions seem awful, but predictable route to take.  I very much hope Bishop Lopes had a GOOD REASON for such unjust actions, but I am not seeing it! I really want to see it!

What you wrote below, Ginny, still begs too many questions:

"...the bishop explained, the homily was contrary to the teaching of the Church — he did not explain how — and that, even after a personal meeting in Houston between himself and Father Treco, Father refused to recant what he had said.

"...[b]And I also think that because he was warned and suspended and didn't retract things he was asked to.."[/b]

That begs the question : WHAT did the bishop ask him to retract?? Because what if the bishop was insistent that the recant must include exactly ALL these exact wordy words, but, one small phrase Father Treco believes would be a LIE if he said it, so Father Treco said, "Yes, I will of course do what you ask, but I only need to leave out this once small phrase" but Lopes refuses - he wants ALL OR NOTHING, and Father Treo believes he would be perjuring himself before God and man? Technically, Lopes could report that Father Treco refuses to do what he asked. [But it's apparently a secret what he asked!]. 

So you see from just one "for instance" that there COULD be a just reason for Father Treco not retracting what he was asked to retract.  And we cannot judge if one of them is wrong or if one or both of them were truly acting in good faith unless we hear what was asked. Let it come out what each said, and let them explain themselves. 

But sadly, bishops these days don't explain themselves - and it sure doesn't make them look good.  I cannot imagine a single ethical reason to hide the facts here. And I have an excellent imagination! 

A bishop, like a pope, is not infallible. Paul questioned Peter's decisions, and told him when he thought he was wrong. Right now, to me, Bishop Lopes looks shamefully wrong - so much like the shameful behavior of bishops in these times! But maybe there was something honest, something true and good about what he asked Father Treco to do (that Father Treco felt he could not do even if the stakes were heavily painful for him). So, what was it? Why should it be a secret?  

I would like to know, and I have great hope of some bit of evidence that Bishop Lopes is not as unethical as he appears to be, to me, right now. 


_______________________________
P.S. I did supplement some of the reading in this thread by doing a net search. This paragraph from and interview with Father Treco in this link stands out to me: 

Q. And, finally, how do you feel about being able to offer the sacraments again, after so many years?
A. Laying down the priesthood in 1999 was perhaps the most disorienting experience of my life. Even though I was confident that the Lord had summoned me to do so, for months, I found myself asking myself over and over, “Who am I?” This question haunted me until Archbishop Lawrence Aloysius Burke, S.J. (deceased), then Archbishop of Nassau, asked me if my sense of call to priesthood had dissipated after I had entered the Catholic Church.
Being able to offer the sacraments again has been as exhilarating as the rush of oxygen into the lungs of a deep-sea diver who has been pushing to the surface of the water after having gone without air for far too long. I can breath again!
:( 

P. P.S. I think the most moving thing in this whole thread was what Jovan posted in post #5, page 1. Wow. I relate to the wandering pilgrim looking for a church-home in this sad situation our infiltrated Holy Mother Church has become in these times.  Most of us won't be able to get that and it SEEMS that so many bishops (seems to include Lopes) are working to ensure we can't. So we must be grateful for what we have. Like, we are not being driven out of our homes and towns for being Catholic at least!  :pray2:
Reply
#40
Ginny, I hope you come back because I have more thoughts and they are especially for you. In the witness in this thread of Father Treco, I see a man who loves truth, a man after God's own heart.  I see a man who had truly found his vocation and calling, and who is the very sort of priest/pastor that I longed and looked for when I converted, but was unable to find (because it is so rare). He is the kind of priest that we learn in  Goodbye, Good Men that did all they could to keep OUT of the priesthood. Father Treco must have got in through an unguarded back door. 

What I want to tell you about is at the end here, but first I have to talk about where I am coming from. I'll put me in green, so you can skip it if you want, to get to my point, below, about Father Treco, that I really want you to see.

__________________________________

One thing about converting when you are very happy and very much at home in your Protestant church is you have to give up what you love for the truth, and it hurts.  But you do it because you love truth more than what you loved before. And you MUST pick, and you pick truth. 

After I became Catholic it was for me like being suddenly stranded on a desert island because of the rejection of all the people I had and cherished in my life (one friend from church stayed a faithful friend and I treasure her). Also socially, I was always able to easily relate to any born-again Christians deeply and quickly it would be like we'd been friends all our lives. Now, after some joyful conversation they would say, "Oh, what church to you go to?" and I say, "St.__" and boy, does their face fall, and they would want to flee. The dissonance is too unpleasant for them. 

And then there is the fruitless hunt for a "church home" among the local Catholics. It's a different world. I must say folks in charge RARELY seemed very Christian-like. I wanted to match the richness of Christian fellowship in my old church but it could not seem to happen. To make it more jarring, the local Catholic parishes (I tried so many! But it was like when I lived for a time in West Texas and would go driving on my free time - in the days before googlemaps - to look for the woods (forest). There had to be woods, somewhere! Nope! There are no woods in West Texas! The closest thing was an old cemetary...) were so stupidly and strangely trying to be Protestant! Catholics are really BAD at it. 

Catholics put on a silly EMPTY imitation of Protestant. It's like Bible Protestant WITHOUT the vibrant love of Jesus - except Jesus was actually there in the Eucharist! But, the odd thing is they (practically) IGNORED Him there, where they really had Him! And they talk about VIBRANCY - and that is the obvious thing they truly LACK. The word is a poor substitute for the real thing!  They (local parishes) were flip-flop-opposite of what I used to have - the vibrant love of Jesus in the worship (where no one EVER ONCE used the word "VIBRANT", ever!) but no Real Presence.  Jesus WAS there, but the Christian fellowship community was not. 

But there was the beautiful pious Novus Ordo worship, with the one very pious priest who made this happen (for a piety-punishment, the bishop put him in an old small church, -with very little room to fellowship - in the sketchy downtown business district). This church was packed with pilgrims from every direction, and the people imitated his piety. It was lovely to worship knowing everyone else in the room also knew where jesus really and truly was!  Also this lovely reality was at the Latin Mass, too, but it was far and I did not understand it.

However I did find people to relate to at Daily Mass when I could get to it. Also at special devotion-related Catholic events I could Catholics who love Jesus. It was a comfort to know they existed, even if there were no venue for building relationships. But but God sustained me with Sacramental graces and other special helps that I wouldn't trade these times for. Actually I was seeking was a church like Father Treco's, but it did not exist there.
_______________________________________________ 

So that's my story, but Ginny, this is the part I don't want you to miss. [Please also notice in the story in #5 that Father's motto and solution to everything was "Be holy". Yes, that is the solution to everything.] 

After I read this thread and typed that response, my husband and I watched the Marcus Grodi's Journey Home with Vaughn Treco. Wow, before becoming Anglican as an adult, he grew up in a solid Christian home in the Plymouth Brethren Church. That was one of my churches as an adult. My heart gets warm at the thought of the love for truth that shone out of the hearts of those Plymouth Brethren Christians. 

Powers-that-be that took Treco on as a priest certainly saw a simple, humble man, and they likely never saw inside, the depth of the deep roots of love for truth that reach way down inside the man. That strong core blossomed in his vocation, and he may well have become far more than anyone bargained for. This man would not have been an "Okay, whatever you say, boss" man when asked to make a truthful statement. It would have to be all truly true for him to make it. 

If two men, both of good will, and both sincerely devoted to the truth, cannot come to an agreement on a matter like this, something is amiss. We know about a LOT about Father Treco. So it just doesn't look good at all for the private and secretive bishop, who talks much and says little, that he wants THIS HOMILY to be the reason to take down a good and pius priest.

Surely you see how horrible if is to have his vocation taken away in a secret private trail, a closed session? Father Treco deserves a fair and hearing, an open, not secret trial.  And a Catholic Bishop is detracting him, and denying him, and taking away his vocation and livelihood - for what? Her won't tell! It is so wrong.

His testimony in this program was moving. But what stopped me short was at the very end. Marcus likes to ask: What is ONE THING you would tell people. Yes, father Trreco, what is most important? Father Treco tells what really matters to him. It is less than one minute. 

It starts just after the 54:00 minute mark. It ends 54:50. Please listen to this 50 second testimony of what really matters to Father Treco. How prophetic.

..................................................................Here is the link: 

Every man deserves a fair trial. And it is not something a Catholic Bishop should be excused from providing. 


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




...........................................................................................................[Image: st-benedict-two-tone-resin-cross-10-inch-2006008.jpg]


     "When I was a boy, my dad said what I am about to say, in many, many ways. He would say, 
'Vaughn, when you are asking questions about the truth, never ask the price you are going to
 have to pay for it. Just ask the question of the truth. And be willing to pay whatever price you 
may to embrace it and to keep it.
       He said, 'If you ever ask the question about the price, you will never latch onto the truth.'"
- Father Vaughn Treco

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[-] The following 3 users Like St.Eliza's post:
  • antiquarian, Ginnyfree2, jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)