Priest Suspended - and to be Excommunicated - for Orthodoxy?
#51
(07-07-2019, 10:33 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: Father Treco, you are in my husband's and my prayers. You spoke the truth courageously and charitably and that lifts my heart so much. We are blessed by you. I add you to my list of  venerable heroes of the faith in our times - like Vigano, Burke, Schneider, who make my heart glad. You are in a "family" with St. Thomas More. [And your grandpa is St. Nick!]

I've let him know.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • HailGilbert, St.Eliza
Reply
#52
(07-05-2019, 03:09 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: Alrightie then.  As promised to Eliza and MM, here is a breakdown of the whole homily by Fr. Treco.  I used the Transcript found at Remant News which can be verified here:  https://archive.is/1X1dp  ...

GF – I refer all readers to just one of the many articles available to address this misuse of then Cardinal Ratzinger’s words at Pathos by Dave Armstrong: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstr...quote.html  

...God bless.  Ginnyfree.

Oh, okay, there is the transcript.  I skimmed the Armstrong article but not very intelligently. I at least know there is another way to look at these things and I may give it a closer at another time. Dave Armstrong's site was helpful to me when I was converting.

This morning I woke up realizing what I learned from this conversation with you. I had assumed that there is something unsavory/wrong/ill-intended about the Bishops Lopes' unjust reaction. Of course I can 't make a reasonable judgment about the bishop's actions because the whole conversation/trial is shrouded in secrecy.  [Though, that is an issue. I think our bishops' habit of keeping their important official actions secret, avoiding accountability, is a serious wrong, wounding our suffering Church.]  

While I can say that is wrong and unfair, I must also say that he, like you, might have a good motive. Just like you think there is something basically wrong with what looks to be a rad-trad outlook, and you see bad outcomes for that, Lopes might have sincere beliefs, like: questioning actions of past popes is very wrong. Or, questioning if Vatican II is wrong is harmful to the church. Then he would be acting within his conscience (even if that were ill-informed), and his intent would be honorable. 

That seems a more chaitible way to look at it, and you helped me see that with your well-explained dissenting opinion.
[-] The following 1 user Likes St.Eliza's post:
  • Ginnyfree2
Reply
#53
Please don’t forget everybody to help Father Treco financially as well as your prayers, if you can, both for his family and his ongoing legal expenses.

Jovan, perhaps you could update us via Father regarding this point please.
In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph.
[-] The following 2 users Like MyLady's post:
  • HailGilbert, St.Eliza
Reply
#54
(07-07-2019, 11:52 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: "I had assumed that there is something unsavory/wrong/ill-intended about the Bishops Lopes' unjust reaction. Of course I can't make a reasonable judgment about the bishop's actions because the whole conversation/trial is shrouded in secrecy.  [Though, that is an issue. I think our bishops' habit of keeping their important official actions secret, avoiding accountability, is a serious wrong, wounding our suffering Church....While I can say that is wrong and unfair, I must also say that he, like you, might have a good motive..... Lopes might have sincere beliefs, like: questioning actions of past popes is very wrong. Or, questioning if Vatican II is wrong is harmful to the church. Then he would be acting within his conscience (even if that were ill-informed), and his intent would be honorable......That seems a more charitible way to look at it, and you helped me see that with your well-explained dissenting opinion."
I've cut out some of your reply Eliza so I can focus on the things you've said.  The first sentence - 
The Bishop is always in persona Christi to us, that is he has received the fullness of the Sacrament of Ordination and so speaks not only for himself but for the Church and for it's Head, Jesus Christ in a capacity that no other can except his peers, his Brother Bishops, which includes the Pope, as I'm sure you know and understand.  Therefore the words he uses and his actions are to be held in the greatest esteem possible by the faithful.  To ascribe to him "something unsavory," or "ill-intended," is to ascribe those things to Christ as well, as the Scriptures state: "For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written: The reproaches of them that reproached thee, fell upon me."  Rom. 15:3 D/R. That is also what you've stated in conclusion about his actions being unjust in your eyes, even though you also admit to not knowing all the behind the scenes actions taken not only by him, but by Fr. Treco, here: "because the whole conversation/trial is shrouded in secrecy."  It is nowhere expected that the priests and Bishops of our Church should be expected to do everything they do in some sort of public manner, that can be constantly scrutinized by a laity who set themselves up as the judge over them to decide whether or not their actions are just and right, as we say in Mass.   This is not part of Catholic practices at all, nor was it ever meant to be.  It is a repudiation of the hierarchical structures of the Church set up by Christ Himself.  We are the governed not the governing body.   Many structures in Protestant circles allow for the congregation to have a hand in any and all decisions of their pastors.  They do frequently direct their pastors thru pastoral councils in which their congregations regularly participate and vote on items and issues concerning them.  In some places, no pastor can act without prior approval of them and his or her actions can be dismissed or even reversed by the actions of their lay governing body no matter what form it takes.  So, your words here: "I think our bishops' habit of keeping their important official actions secret, avoiding accountability, is a serious wrong" would be more in line with a Protestant way of direction in their places of worship.  
Now let's look at this most disturbing (to me at least) passage: "Lopes might have sincere beliefs...Then he would be acting within his conscience (even if that were ill-informed)."  He is a Bishop of the Catholic Church my dear and he has been very well formed and elevated by the Church to a position of Authority that comes from God Himself.  Your assumption is that he is not worthy of even respect and that because he opposed Fr. Treco and his hatred for among other things, the Second Vatican Council, he is in the wrong.  You are also judging his heart and mind in the most negative way possible as his conscience has been "ill-formed."  Christ resides in the fullness of the Sacrament of Ordination in that heart you judge.  Does that not bother you?  Your bold judgments against a Bishop of the Catholic Church?  Do you sincerely want to continue doing so?  But your own words here: "That seems a more charitable way to look at it," say to me, IF this is your charity, I can only imagine the ugliness of your words that aren't on the page here or elsewhere.  Condescension is hardly to be seen as a very charitable action.  But I suppose if it has been years since you've attended any of the rites of the Ordinary forms of worship among the rest of us, you kinda have a different way of looking at the actions taken by the rest of the Church you keep yourself separated from.  This has fostered an attitude in your way of digesting these things that keeps you at a safe distance from us, so you can determine whether or not we are behaving in ways that you would find appealing or acceptable.  I get that part.  You don't even consider returning to communion with us and are very vocal about your reasons for staying apart.  I thank you for your candor.  It helps me understand you and so can see your point of view.  So that leaves this last part of your responses that I've read so far: "you helped me see that with your well-explained dissenting opinion."  Yes, Eliza, there is only one position a Catholic woman like me can take from all you've said, that is to dissent from your side of things, if that is the correct way to state it.  
In another reply to me, you've said that you've never read the Documents of the Second Vatican Council for yourself, yet you are very certain they are faulted to the point of causing a rupture in the Church and also that you agree with all that Fr. Treco has said, that it is also directly responsible for many, many sins in the Church among the faithful and the corruption of the morals that you've assumed Bishop Lopes is subject to, though you've condescended to assume a more charitable attitude towards his words and actions against Fr. Treco because he adheres to and upholds V2, which in your opinion has caused him to be a bit "ill-formed," in his conscience.  I'm wondering if I've gotten you right about this.  Let me know if I haven't.  Yes, considering all this, there is no other position for someone like me to take.  I stand with the Bishop in the matter.  That to me is a no-brainer.  I'll pray for Fr. Treco, that he retrace his steps and review his positions, retract, recant and return to the Church before he falls much further.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#55
Wow, you made a lot of uncharitable judgments about me here, based on completely wrong assumptions about me and what I do or think, that seem to me to be like big leaps from what I wrote here. You certainly misunderstood me. Maybe you think I am just like someone else you know, someone I never met? I don't know. It's confusing and I will address it later when I have time to address it well and concisely.

I can't get to this right away though I need to address these assumptions and leaps about who I am and things like the ugly thoughts I must have when I am not writing here :( . meanwhile these accusations sit here. :(  Then when I do address it, I feel like I am taking up space on an important thread, that is not about me, to defend myself. Going to Mass now but maybe someone here who has been on this forum longer can advise me with a course of action. Move these posts to another thread? Is there a thread that this can be moved to that is a place for explaining yourself when someone falsely accuses you, and you need to defend yourself and you don't want the thread derailed?
Reply
#56
Eliza - Jovan and I have been here a long, long time.  There's no need to move to a different thread.  People express their ideas passionately and the rhetoric can get pretty in your face sometimes.  If it gets to be too much, it can be addressed, but right now, let's begin with the assumptions that Ginny made that aren't about you personally.  I can't respond to those since I'm not you.  :)

This one bugged me:
"The Bishop is always in persona Christi to us, that is he has received the fullness of the Sacrament of Ordination and so speaks not only for himself but for the Church and for it's Head, Jesus Christ in a capacity that no other can except his peers, his Brother Bishops, which includes the Pope, as I'm sure you know and understand.  Therefore the words he uses and his actions are to be held in the greatest esteem possible by the faithful.  To ascribe to him "something unsavory," or "ill-intended," is to ascribe those things to Christ as well"

The bishop is not always in persona Christi any more than a priest is outside of Mass or a pope speaks with his authority at all times.  The bishop is in a position of authority - and that authority requires our respect.  But he is still a man - separate from his vocation and position within the Church hierarchy.  Let's look at what Aquinas says in the Summa Theologica about bishops.  Now, this is just a short snippet, but it is revealing.

"I answer that, Three things may be considered in the episcopal office. One is principal and final, namely the bishop's work, whereby the good of our neighbor is intended, according to John 21:17, "Feed My sheep." Another thing is the height of degree, for a bishop is placed above others, according to Matthew 24:45, "A faithful and a wise servant, whom his lord hath appointed over his family." The third is something resulting from these, namely reverence, honor, and a sufficiency of temporalities, according to (1 Timothy 5:1)7, "Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor." Accordingly, to desire the episcopal office on account of these incidental goods is manifestly unlawful, and pertains to covetousness or ambition. Wherefore our Lord said against the Pharisees (Matthew 23:6-7): "They love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues, and salutations in the market-place, and to be called by men, Rabbi." As regards the second, namely the height of degree, it is presumptuous to desire the episcopal office. Hence our Lord reproved His disciples for seeking precedence, by saying to them (Matthew 20:25): "You knowthat the princes of the gentiles lord it over them." Here Chrysostom says (Hom. lxv in Matth.) that in these words "He points out that it is heathenish to seek precedence; and thus by comparing them to the gentiles He converted their impetuous soul.""

Notice here that Aquinas discusses negative aspects of a bishop's actions and motives for seeking office.  Why would Aquinas discuss anything but pure motives for individuals seeking the role of bishop if those motives did not exist?  A great saint certainly rebukes those who seek position within the church for wealth and power.  He uses particular words "covetousness" and echoes Chrysostom in saying it is "heathenish."  Those aren't soft words.  Aquinas had personal struggles with the bishop of Paris that were heated at times.  He is still a saint and I don't remember that bishop's name (if I ever learned it).  Hmm . . .  it can't be that bad to see something wrong and address it then.  Our bishops are not pure as driven snow and the recent scandals certainly point to some serious problems within the hierarchy.  In fact, the issues are so numerous that I need not even list them specifically here.  Everyone knows of what I speak without going into the salacious details.  While we should not second guess every action and assume the worst (to do so is uncharitable), we certainly should recognize that not all bishops are by default good men nor are they right in every instance.  Even good men sometimes make mistakes; they are not perfect.  

Even if we were to ignore the present improprieties within the Church, we can look back in history and see some rather unsavory characters who were priests, bishops, and even popes.  Catholic history is speckled with some fairly outrageous stories of these men and choices which were certainly not reflective of a life lived In persona Christi.

Now, let's move on to another problematic passage.  Ginny said,  "Now let's look at this most disturbing (to me at least) passage: "Lopes might have sincere beliefs...Then he would be acting within his conscience (even if that were ill-informed)."  He is a Bishop of the Catholic Church my dear and he has been very well formed and elevated by the Church to a position of Authority that comes from God Himself. "

Formation is so good that the laity need not be concerned?  What universe did you step out of Ginny?  Do we or do we not have bishops and cardinals accused of all manner of impropriety?  Scandal upon scandal rocks Christ's Church.  Horror stories abound.  Why on earth would we assume any man is above reproach?  

Ginny, you seem to be wearing some rather substantial blinders here.  You assume a great deal about trads in general and overlook a great deal within the Church itself.  I think you need to take a step back and reassess some of your positions; neither history nor the present circumstances of our Faith support them.
Adoption, Home School, and Catholic Family Life:  StolenPears.com
[-] The following 5 users Like Fontevrault's post:
  • antiquarian, Bonaventure, jovan66102, mpk1987, St.Eliza
Reply
#57
Now Church Militant is running the story...

Priest Excommunicated, Parish Closed After Criticism of Conciliar Popes
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bonaventure's post:
  • St.Eliza
Reply
#58
Ginny, 

You say, "I am wondering if I got you right about this." You haven't got me right. I wrote that a feeling I had was not entirely fair. It is not completely out of left field to wonder if a U.S. bishop, whom you know nothing about, is a person of good will.

You must have not followed what is going on with the U.S. Bishops and their abuse scandal, and you must have not listened to even one story of one of the boy victims, now grown men, whose lives today are still wounded and altered. Because then you would have noticed how consistently USCCB bishops rush to defend the peer-perpetrators, how they protect them, how they basically shove the victims out of the way (unless forced by civil law authorities to pay them off). Then it would seem justifiable to you that some Catholics are disenchanted with bishops who prefer to deal with things in private, and to "police themselves". Trust has to be earned. We can respect and reverence the office of the bishop while not being insane enough to offer open trust to every human man in that office. Some men in the office of the bishop have no supernatural faith. Or have let a demon take over their hearts. Or have hired an exorcist to get demons INTO, not out of, their diocese. 

The bottom line is: The kind of clericalism you recommend serves to keep such men perpetrating MORE evils in their office, not less.  That's the kind of clericalism we LAY people are responsible for not letting take root in our thoughts. Our Church needs reform.

There are different kinds of Traditional Catholics (and I would think you would consider yourself one, in some way - elsewise, why are you here?) and we hold different views on some things. I think it is important for Trads to find points of agreement with each other, and to be respectful (not inflammatory) about areas of disagreement. Also we need to be charitable to fellow lay persons as well as the clergy.

___________________________

P.S. Fontevrault did a great job of explaining your error about a bishop always being in persona Christi, using the example of the Great Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas. Our Church needs doctors!  Also, I thank Fontevrault for making the point that its pretty ridiculous to assume today's US bishops have all received good formation!
[-] The following 2 users Like St.Eliza's post:
  • antiquarian, jovan66102
Reply
#59
Thanks for the link to CM's article.  In it I found this from Fr. Treco: "Father Treco responded the next day, telling Bp. Lopes:
Quote:Please, be assured that I will recant anything that I have said which is contrary to Catholic Faith; however I am not aware that I have articulated anything against the Catholic Faith. As a matter of accuracy, and so that I may be able to respond to what you believe I have articulated against the Catholic Faith, I ask that you please identify what I said that is contrary to our Catholic Faith? I will recant anything that was wrong to state as I remain faithful to the Church and Magisterium."

Well, if you call three Popes losers, blame all the sins in the Church on V2, calling the Church and her prelates corrupt, and state that the Council itself demanded adherence to a new ethos, as well as a few other nasty comments against the Church, and expect to continue to get away with it, well, so what if the Bishop said no more.  He is articulating many things against the Catholic Faith.  It is an ecclesial crime to speak against the Council in ways that are false.  He lied about it.  That's as simple as it gets.  He lies about Church history and claims to be speaking the truth.  If it is true, he can put forth a solid apologetic on whatever controversies he sees and submit them to those who can respond.  Otherwise, he's just hot air with a mean streak.  As far as I'm concerned he's gotten a well-deserved sentence.  Claiming he'd recant IF the Bishop continued to play his game, not so smart.  If he is so holy and innocent, why isn't he begging for forgiveness?  Nope.  Instead, he's got a go fund me site and is MIA.  Sad.   I'm tired of all the hate aimed at my Church from those who think only TLM are valid and licit and speak all kinds of nasty things against those who attend the NO Masses.  It is endless.  I'm grateful one of their cheerleaders got a kick where it counts.  I sincerely hope that a few more of them gets the boot too.  No kidding folks.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Ginnyfree2's post:
  • St.Eliza
Reply
#60
(07-08-2019, 09:10 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: Well, if you call three Popes losers, blame all the sins in the Church on V2, calling the Church and her prelates corrupt, and state that the Council itself demanded adherence to a new ethos, as well as a few other nasty comments against the Church, and expect to continue to get away with it, well, so what if the Bishop said no more. 

Now who's... (what did you call it?... oh, yes)... grandstanding?  Talk about the use of hyperbole.

In other words, telling the truth about such things will now get you excommunicated.

(07-08-2019, 09:10 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: As far as I'm concerned he's gotten a well-deserved sentence. 

Excommunication, a 'well-deserved sentence?'  And this is based upon what precedent, exactly?    

In any event, what compassion you have.  I'd hate to see where you'd like me to go if I were to ever open up about how I really feel about certain things.
[-] The following 2 users Like Bonaventure's post:
  • Ginnyfree2, St.Eliza
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)