Priest Suspended - and to be Excommunicated - for Orthodoxy?
#61
Ginny, why should Father recant if he hasn't said anything - anything at all - that is schismatic? Bishops these days have hissy fits over the orthodox priests and overlook, praise, and even promote those who espouse completely heretical theology.  Want gay marriage blessings?  Sure.  Just don't get it in the newspaper.  Want women at the altar?  Sure, but don't spread it around.  Want to overlook most of the Church's teachings in favor of sappy sermons?  That will win you a prize.  But expect Communion to be received kneeling and on the tongue . . .  well, now that's going too far - way too far.  Teach the Truth of the fruits of VII?  Nope.  We can't stand for that.  That's not OK.  

For the record: We are tired of crap sermons filled with feel good garbage that speaks nothing of sin, the Real Presence, or anything else of substance.  We don't want to go to Mass and see hand holding, silly women prancing toward the altar of Our Lord, listen to guitar music played by some aging hippy who thinks crooning into a microphone near or in front of the altar is a fun way to spend his Sundays, or sit behind girls dressed for a nightclub or the beach when they have an audience with the King of Kings.  Watching extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion hand out Our Lord's Body and Blood as if it were a cookie makes our skin crawl.  We are tired of watered down theology, minimal and almost criminal formation for our children, and the worship of being relevant and in touch with a world that is completely hostile to our faith.  Sorry.  But those are the facts of my experience of the Novus Ordo mass.  I'm not alone.  There's video evidence of the ridiculousness that passes for worship these days.  It's not OK.  It's not reverent.  It's not Catholic in any true sense of the word.  To be fair, I have seen beautiful and very reverent Novus Ordo Masses as well.  I like those just fine - when I can't get to my TLM.  

But if you don't like what Trads say and think, why are you here?  Is it just more fun to throw stones at stained glass windows inside the cathedral than to break them from your pseudo-Protestant churches?
Adoption, Home School, and Catholic Family Life:  StolenPears.com
[-] The following 4 users Like Fontevrault's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, antiquarian, jovan66102, St.Eliza
Reply
#62
As I said on my blog, Fr Treco has been 'excommunicated' for the 'crime' of Catholicism.
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:
  • Fontevrault, St.Eliza
Reply
#63
(07-08-2019, 09:10 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: ...  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.  ...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.....

Ginny, you exaggerate too much, and then it all becomes inaccurate.  It seems like you have a justifiable passionate anger about aspects of our current situation, but you err in projecting this anger in the wrong place.

Not a single person here has said or hinted at any nasty thing concerning those who attend NO Masses. Do you mean me? I have not done that, but if I had I would be inditing myself, since over 95% of the Masses I have attended were NO, and most of the ones I attend now are NO. So that would be pretty silly of me, wouldn't it? Father Treco serves NO (Anglican rite) Masses so you can't mean him. 

I sincerely hope Fr. is not "kicked".  And I hope no other normal, non-abuser priests are either. :(

____________________________
P.S. Question for anyone: Are there actually people on this site who promote the idea that only Latin Masses are valid? That's not traditional, that's Sedevacantism, right? Is that part of this forum?
[-] The following 1 user Likes St.Eliza's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
#64
No it is not part of this forum. Like you, I attend the NO. I'v been to ONE TLM since I returned from Canada 8 years ago. I wish I could go every week, but that's not going to happen.
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 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • St.Eliza
Reply
#65
(07-08-2019, 06:32 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: Now Church Militant is running the story...

Priest Excommunicated, Parish Closed After Criticism of Conciliar Popes

I read your link which is full of important details about Father Treco's case that I was completely unaware of. I didn't realize that Bishops Lopes has already acted on excommunication. It's shocking. And the idea that any Catholic can rejoice over that disgusts me. 

However, I'll take ignorance over duplicity any day.

I am shocked and sickened about the details of the investigation on Father Treco. Cleary, Bishop Steven Lopes(here)(here)(here) and his cronies Rev. Richard Kramer(here)(here) and Fr. Timothy Perkins (here) are either dim or deceptive. I do not believe they are stupid, so that leaves deceptive. 

These excuses for men personify what is wrong with the bishops in the church. Secrecy. Entitlement. Vagueness. Taking actions the exact OPPOSITE of shepherds and fathers. (Bishop Lopes even closed St. Bedes Church! An active congregation! :@ What kind of shepherd is this??). Flowery language saying NOTHING.  Devilishly shrewd in withholding CONTENT. 

Truly the smoke of Satan has entered the church.

They abuse their position with a prideful sense of entitlement to be cunningly vague in order to serve their own selves - not the people. Lopes, Kramer and Perkins epitomize why we have this abuse crisis in our Church. They are lockstep with the Homo Mafia, demonstrating their traits of narcissistic entitlement to use vagueness to hide their real motives and intents from those they are called to serve and to "father". For shame.

It's lack of clarity and transparency that is only just dawning on me to be a root cause in our bishop crisis today. And look - Steven Lopes is a poster boy for it. Isn't he clever?

And look at this. I just found it. While the notion of lack of transparency being at the core of the bishop clergy crisis is a new realization for me, apparently this is old news to others. There is even a website on the topic.  I just found this: https://churchtransparency.com/  You can look up where your own bishop stands on transparency.  Zoom in on Houston, TX for Bishop Lopes (hiding behind the green). 

This page, linked there, explains the categories: Terminology Explained.  

Where does Bishop Steven Lopes stand? Well, that's not transparent, of course! That's a ZERO to me, Bishop Lopes. ("Neutral" is basically: "I have said many words on this, but they all mean nothing, and that is all you are going to get from me." That's Lopes!) 

Look and see how transparent your bishop is. I hope you get good news. I am very relieved to see my Bishop in green, with a bonus plus for Vigano. I didn't know what to expect. He always sounds pretty flowery to me. I am particularly relieved since our last bishop, now enjoying his retirement, was an convicted active homosexual predator who preyed on seminarians, while shamelessly and actively giving official protection and promotion to his abuser cronies. So this one seems a significant improvement.
[-] The following 3 users Like St.Eliza's post:
  • antiquarian, Bonaventure, jovan66102
Reply
#66
Even parishioner supporters of F Treco who sent letter explicitly asking for details of the exact phrases that were schismatic and the churches correct statements on them so that they would know the truth and where they were being led astray was completely ignored. The interpretation on this is that bold priests are not wanted in that diocese.

And just to bring the point home and to provide an example to other priests he closes the parish! What a great help to the souls of the faithful that was.
In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MyLady's post:
  • St.Eliza
Reply
#67
(07-08-2019, 09:44 PM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(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.  

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.


Bonaventure, I am not a Sedevacantist, a Radical Traditionalist, a supporter of the SSPX nor do I support any of the other fringe groups that rely upon these three for their spiritual direction.  I have a love for the Mass and treasure my own personal piety.  I have attended FSSP Masses, done in the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite.  It was beautiful, but it has the exact same holiness in its rites as do all the other legitimate Rites of the Church, from the Byzantine to the Melkite to the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite.  I would love to visit the other Rites of the Church and attend their Masses as a "pilgrim."  My God is present there and that for me is reason enough. 

I do not believe as 90% of the persons here, the at Fisheaters.  I am very aware of that fact.  I am open to listening to how others view these things.  Honest, open dialog that defends the various positions interests me much.  I am hoping that we can talk civilly, that I can express my views of all things Catholic as an outsider, tolerated for the sake of a dialog.  But to be expected to adhere to whatever views are expressed is am I'm sure you know an exclusionary tactic which flies in the face of our Universality as a Church.  One, Holy, Catholic and Apostlic.  That's us!  I'd like to see it kept that way.

I would like to understand better why so many have a negative view of Bishop Lopes' actions against a priest who the Bishop feels is a troublemaker and who has taken actions against him.  To me and many like me, this is a day to rejoice over - the beginning of the cleansing of the Household of God of the malifactors in our midst who are disturbing the faith of many in a variety of ways.  To me the SSPX is just another variety of those ecclesial criminals that need to be dealt with by whatever means possible.  I understand why most here would see that in the negative.  However, if you have reaons for that, I'd love to hear them.  Defend you positions.  If they are innocent in the sight of God, show me how.  Tell the world.  Spread the "good news," as you see it.

God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#68
Ginny, I think we are all happy to dialogue with you but you also need to understand: this is a space for trads.  Many Catholic forums see us as the tinfoil hat brigade - a little nuts and certainly outside the "normal" church.  Vox has kindly created this as our space - to talk, to grow, to question, and to debate.  We try to keep those things civil whenever possible.  We sometimes get heated but we also try to communicate and debate ideas - and not make ad hominem attacks (this can be hard from time to time).  We aren't here to be judged by you or anyone else and insulted.  That's not OK.  

Now, for the record, I attend both the NO and the TLM.  The NO is not my preference but I do go and recognize it as a valid Mass that can be reverent if done properly.  I can think of one parish in particular near me where the NO is beautiful and prayerful.  Sadly, I can name 4 other parishes I would avoid if at all humanly possible.  

I am deeply troubled by your characterization of the SSPX as "just another variety of those ecclesial criminals that need to be dealt with by whatever means possible."   The SSPX has its issues (cohesion and Williamson being the most obvious two) but it is still a Catholic group desirous of reverence in the Mass of the Ages and proper catechesis.  These are hardly criminal actions.  What makes your NO Mass better than the TLM?  Why is it OK to characterize fellow Catholics as criminals for wanting to worship as we Catholics have done for thousands of years?  What makes it ok to use "whatever means possible" to eradicate those of us who prefer the TLM?

I would call you on these issues and challenge you to defend such a radical and divisive stance.  If we are the universal Church and all rites are OK in your book, isn't your position here incongruous with your own statements?

I add one more thing: The fruits of VII are evident all around us.  Vocations to the priesthood and the religious life are down - seriously down.  Mass attendance is down in the West.  Belief in the Real Presence is at near rock bottom levels.  Like the mainstream Protestant sects in America, Catholicism has watered itself down and is reaping the whirlwind of indifference and lukewarm faith that comes of it.  And yet, TLM parishes are thriving.  Their vocations are booming.  Why is that?  Could it be that there is a difference in the way the faith is communicated in the two rites?  Could it be that the NO and the "reforms" of VII were not in the best interests of the Church as a whole?  

I look forward to your responses Ginny. 
Adoption, Home School, and Catholic Family Life:  StolenPears.com
[-] The following 3 users Like Fontevrault's post:
  • antiquarian, Ginnyfree2, St.Eliza
Reply
#69
(07-09-2019, 06:56 AM)MyLady Wrote: Even parishioner supporters of F Treco who sent letter explicitly asking for details of the exact phrases that were schismatic and the churches correct statements on them so that they would know the truth and where they were being led astray was completely ignored. The interpretation on this is that bold priests are not wanted in that diocese.

And just to bring the point home and to provide an example to other priests he closes the parish! What a great help to the souls of the faithful that was.

Yes. Bishop Steven Lopes is a SCANDAL. Shame on him!
Reply
#70
(07-09-2019, 12:15 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: Ginny, I think we are all happy to dialogue with you...I am deeply troubled by your characterization of the SSPX as "just another variety of those ecclesial criminals that need to be dealt with by whatever means possible."   The SSPX has its issues (cohesion and Williamson being the most obvious two) but it is still a Catholic group desirous of reverence in the Mass of the Ages and proper catechesis.  These are hardly criminal actions.

Fontevrault, you asked a good question and the answer surprises most as they do not think in terms of ecclesial crimes.  Canon Law is Law with the Authority of God Himself behind it.  What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, etc., and that includes all laws approved for the governing of our Church.  When those laws are broken, there is a sin as well as a crime committed, although some are much more egregious than others.  For example, if you smacked the Pope across the kisser, it would be both an ecclesial crime and a sin.  You might go to Confession for the sin of sacrilege but if you are charged by the Church with the crime, you also have other things to do.  In that regard, you may be barred from making use of the Sacraments as part of the consequences of your crimes against the Church.  There are many penalties for ecclesial crimes and you can easily find some of them in the current Code, i.e. interdict, censure, excommunication, etc.  Are you with me so far?  I hope so.  

Now the specifics.  The Econe consecrations were an ecclesial crime with many consequences.  That made those men ecclesial criminals subject to appropriate punishments declared by the Church in her governing body.  A decree was issued by then Prefect Cardinal Bernardin Gantin in which it was declared that an ecclesial crime was indeed committed, that of consecrating Bishops against the expressed commands of the Pope and so there were consequences, such that they incurred automatic excommunications and this was being made known to the world in a very public manner.  These men became notorious public sinners subject to the ecclesial courts of the Church and their crimes were made known for just reasons.  There have been many such persons thru the years beginning with Ananias and Sapphira of the 5th Chapter of Acts.  St. Peter himself carried out the sentencing though it was a very short trial and they both died on the spot.  The years wound down to the present and there have been many other crimes against God and His Church committed by these men and others along with them.  The Church has the duty to warn others of their crimes for many reasons, primarily in my eyes to keep others away from such persons lest the too incur just penalties by associations with them.  Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.]

Now the next - "What makes your NO Mass better than the TLM?"  
I've never said this and do not appreciate having words put in my mouth that aren't true.  In fact, if you recall, I said that all legitimate rites of the Church are holy and that my God is present there, whether or not it is a Melkite, Byzantine, Ordinary or Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite, etc.
  
Next sentence: "Why is it OK to characterize fellow Catholics as criminals for wanting to worship as we Catholics have done for thousands of years?"
Only those persons who associate with Sedevacantists and the SSPX become criminals along with them and this is true whether or not they are formally charged with the crimes these groups create among themselves or not.  Those persons who desire to attend legitimate TLMs, whether with the FSSP or other groups who offer Mass in this way aren't criminal if they are doing so with hearts on fire for love of the Mass and not as an act of defiance against the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite.  There are those who harbor hatred in their hearts for the NO while attending it and if they could go to an SSPX "chapel" or some other place similar they would.  Some are attending an NO Mass in order to deceive and when the SSPX priest makes it to their town, they gladly go to wherever he is serving his illicit Mass and join in.  These too are ecclesial criminals, though they are seldom found out.  It is a sad thing, but over the years I've met a few and their talk soon gives them away.  
 
Next sentence: "What makes it ok to use "whatever means possible" to eradicate those of us who prefer the TLM?"  
You're once again, putting words in my mouth that aren't there.  Recall I said I enjoyed attending a TLM with the FSSP.  I'd go more often if it were possible.  I really liked it.  However, it is a legitimate place to worship.  It would suit me just fine if there was much, much more help for this struggling Order, the FSSP, to bring to fulfillment all that God has called them for, that is, being a steward of a way of worship that needs both protection and preservation.  The SSPX and those who support them in all varieties detract in a very damaging way from their abilities (the FSSP) to carry out all God has called them to. I have no desire to eradicate legitimate places that offer the TLM, or as I prefer to call it, the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite nor those who go to great pains to help preserve this form of worship among us.  Those who put their energies into attacking the OF, that is the NO, could be peacefully worshiping with these fine men.  The FSSP would grow quicker which is an answer to a prayer of mine that I've carried with me for a long time.  I think you'd agree that anyone who works against our beloved Church should be shown the door if they cannot or will not repent.  Yes, the SSPX is a big problem and with over a million persons now joining in their ecclesial crimes, more effort needs to be put forth to eradicate them and their schism.  Why? Because souls are being lost.  It pains the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  That's why.

Next - "If we are the universal Church and all rites are OK in your book, isn't your position here incongruous with your own statements?"
ONLY Rites approved of and provided for by the Church herself hold my interest.  The SSPX is a schismatic group, and that is the most divisive action any group can take.  They work against Unity in all matters.  My own observations of their actions thru the years has left me with the impression that they do not desire to return to the Church nor care a fig about unity among her members.  The more persons they can seduce the better for them.  They are fat and happy in their crimes and sins, unrepentant and too willing to destroy the faith of others who put their trust in them. 

Then comes this most unfortunate paragraph of yours: "The fruits of VII are evident all around us....." and follows a long list of woes attributed falsely to a Council of the Church.  The Council is not at fault.  People are.  Two different things. I would ask you for direct quotations from the Documents themselves to prove that the Council Fathers commanded that Catholics water down their faith or that vocations should rebel and depart for God knows where or that we all stop believing the Real Presence. That discussion could happen on another day in another thread.  It should.  For all the accusations of V2 being directly responsible for so many sins, you'd think the exact locations of the poor spiritual directions and errors in the documents themselves would practically be memorized by those who hurl this accusation every day of the week at persons such as myself and others.  Please show me from the documents themselves and then the accusation can be made in truth.  Until then it remains a false accusation and this is what galled the Bishop to act.  I'm glad he did.  

I hope this has pretty much cleared up any misunderstanding you may have regarding my positions in these issues.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)