Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:32 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
Roman Catholic leaders in Austria called an emergency meeting today after officials discovered a vast cache of photos and videos allegedly depicting young priests having sex at a seminary.
About 40,000 photographs and an undisclosed number of films, including child pornography, were downloaded on computers at the seminary in St Poelten, about 50 miles west of Vienna, the respected news magazine Profil reported.
Officials with the local diocese declined to comment but were meeting privately on the scandal, Austrian state television reported.
It said the seminary’s director, the Rev Ulrich Kuechl, and his deputy, Wolfgang Rothe, had resigned.
The Austrian Bishops Conference issued a statement today pledging a full and swift investigation.
“Anything that has to do with homosexuality or pornography has no place at a seminary for priests,” it said.
Church officials discovered the material on a computer at the seminary, Profil said. It published several images purportedly showing young priests and their instructors kissing and fondling each other and engaging in orgies and sex games.
The child porn came mostly from web sites based in Poland, the magazine said.
Bishop Kurt Krenn, a conservative churchman who oversees the St Poelten Diocese, told Austrian television he had seen photos of seminary leaders in sexual situations with students. Krenn, however, dismissed the photos as “silly pranks” that “had nothing to do with homosexuality”.
A group of St. Poelten Diocese officials planned to ask the Vatican to remove Krenn as bishop, Austrian radio reported.
Vatican spokesman Ciro Benedettini told the Austria Press Agency that the Holy See had no comment.
Krenn, 68, issued a statement calling the accusations groundless while conceding that he “may have made some wrong personnel decisions” at the seminary.
No, I won't lie. I believe the SSPX is innocent. I believe the Pope was unjust. I also believe the Pope has inflicted great harm on the Church. I believe the Pope was properly disobeyed to prevent his doing even more. Wherever this puts me, I'm content with it, because it is the truth.
In this particular case it was more likely to have been an accident. A serious problem since Vatican II has been the fact that Latin is no longer the primary language of papal documents. Although the legal fiction persists that the Latin version is the authoritative version, it is often the last one translated. The usual process is that the pope writes in Polish, which is translated into Italian for comment and editing, and then back into Polish for his final revisions, and then back into Italian for publishing, and then translated to French as the definitive source and the other vernacular versions are translated from the French. Then at some point a Latin translation is created as a supposedly "official" version, even though it never was part of the process of promulgation.
In this particular case, the vernacular words of consecration were published, and when the Latin version of the document was created, a lazy translator didn't realize the doctrinal implications of translating "all" in the vernacular into "omnes" (all) in the Latin. To be consistent with the current situation in the New Mass, "all" in Italian or French has to be translated as "multis" (many) in Latin.
Yes, the mistake was noticed pretty quickly. Not that it was really a "mistake." The translation was correct, it is the words of consecration that are wrong.
That would mean that the liturgy that St. Ambrose used, which had simply "This is my Blood", was in fact invalid!
"Qui pridie quam pateretur, in sanctis manibus suis accepit panem, respexit in caelum ad te sancte pater omnipotens aeterne deus gratias agens benedixit fregit fractumque apostolis suis et discipulis suis tradidit dicens: Accipite et edite ex hoc omnes; hoc est enim corpus meum, quod pro multis confringetur. Similiter etiam calicem postquam cenatum est, pridie quam pateretur, accepit, respexit in caelum ad te sancte pater omnipotens aeterne deus gratias agens benedixit, apostolis suis et discipulis suis tradidit dicens: Accipite et bibite ex hoc omnes; hic est enim sanguis meus. Et sacerdos dicit: Ergo memores gloriosissimae eius passionis ...." etc. (text in P.L. XVI, cols. 462-464; in Kennedy, op. cit., pp. 18-19, and in Jungmann, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 52).
In fact, "We have in the De sacramentis a text that was certainly in use at Rome at the end of the fourth century" (V. L. Kennedy, The Saints of the Canon of the Mass (Pontificio Istituto di Archaeologia Cristiana: Vatican City, 1938), p. 53.)
As for the Florentine decree, it also said in this decree that:
Its matter is the object by whose handing over the order is conferred. So the priesthood is bestowed by the handing over of a chalice with wine and a paten with bread; the diaconate by the giving of the book of the gospels; the subdiaconate by the handing over of an empty chalice with an empty paten on it; and similarly for the other orders by allotting things connected with their ministry.
But Pius XII says in "Sacramentum Ordinis":
[T]here is no one who does not know that the Roman Church always considered valid the ordinations conferred in the Greek rite, without the handing over of the instruments ... it was not imposed on the Greeks that they change the rite of ordination, or that they insert in it the tradition of the instruments.
THANKS! Nice to know that someone kept that part of it at least in the correct form.
Great post, Maximilian.
This "heresy (that) is embedded in the words of consecration of the vernacular New Mass" is one of the reasons many Modernists believe Hell is empty or could very well be empty, which is in full conflict with Christ's preachings.
It's not a question of private opinion. First of all, it's a simple question of objective reality -- "all" and "many" are 2 different words that mean 2 different things. Secondly, the Church has already spoken on the subject:
Catechism of the Council of Trent
"The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains NOT UNTO ALL, BUT TO MANY of the human race. When therefore (Our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from amoung the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles.With reason, therefore, were the words For All NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, AND TO THE ELECT ONLY DID HIS PASSION BRING THE FRUIT OF SALVATION. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of Our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou has given me, because they are thine.
"So a heresy is embedded in the words of consecration of the vernacular New Mass. That is the very sad and unfortunate fact."
Seems like that would be easy to correct, since it can be called a "translation problem."
"Oh, the Latin says 'multis?' Hey, no problem. I'll just line out 'all' here and write in 'many.' Stroke of the pen, heresy be gone. Kinda cool."
Pas a showg.
"Stroke of the pen, heresy be gone."
Ecclesia Dei
Stroke of the pen, traditional Catholicism be gone.
Not!
"Not!"
Not getting your point here.
What's wrong with correcting a translation?
Very true. At any time in the last 35 years, with a single stroke of a pen, the hesesy embedded in the vernacular New Mass could have been eliminated. And as you point out, there is even a good cover story to avoid embarrassment: "It was just a translation error." It would require much less effort than writing a book of poetry, or even hosting breakdancers at the Vatican.
So the fact that 35 years have gone by without correcting the most blatant and egregious of all the errors in the New Mass tells us something about the people that are running the hierarchy. They have no desire or intention to do so. They WANT there to be a heresy embedded in the very words of consecration. They are satisfied, even pleased, to know that the New Mass offered in the vernacular is of doubtful validity.
"What's wrong with correcting a translation?"
Nothing! My point is that it hasn't been corrected in 40 years, and it is still being defended, tooth and nail, as a "proper" translation.
Instead the "pen" was used to supposedly "excommunicate" the bishops of, and declare "schismatic", the only priestly society, at the time, who refused to offer a Holy Mass with such a defective translation, among many other reasons.
Well, many can also mean all men. St. Paul, after all, says:
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
In which he surely means the same as he says in that same chapter of the epistle: "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned".
And since this seems so, it doesn't seem impossible that the words should mean two different things at the same time, just as "the rock" means both St. Peter and his confession of faith.
Secondly, the Church has already spoken on the subject:
The Catechism is referring to the traditional rite. It is obvious to all that it is permitted to the Church to modify the words of consecration, so long as the form expresses the grace which the Sacrament effects and signifies: the variety of different rites makes this clear, especially the addition of the "mysterium fidei" to the Roman liturgy.
So I don't see any impediment to understanding that Rome has added the sufficiency of Christ's Passion as at least a secondary understanding of the words "pro multis" in the reformed rite, which can be proved from the Roman approval of the translation "for all".
Oh, okay.
Thought you were contending against my basic point.
I'm boggled by the defense of this lie. According to Sacred Scripture, Christ said "for many". It doesn't matter what you, or any other armchair theologian thinks He meant. IT'S WHAT HE SAID THAT MATTERS. Not you or the Pope can change what He said and to misquote Him is a lie.
And did Christ say "the mystery of faith" or "for you and for many" according to Scripture? The Roman Catechism quoted by Maximilian said that the CHURCH joined "for you" and "for many" together by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
to misquote Him is a lie
Apparently certain ancient liturgies which contain words not in Scripture or which even differ from Scripture are lying then. Here's the Ottaviani Intervention:
C. The Anamnesis. The Roman Missal added the words As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in memory of Me after the formula of Consecration.This formula referred not merely to remembering Christ or a past event, but to Christ acting in the here and now. It was an invitation to recall not merely His Person or the Last Supper, but to do what He did in the way that He did it.
In the Novus Ordo, the words of St. Paul, Do this in memory of Me, will now replace the old formula and be daily proclaimed in the vernacular everywhere. This will inevitably cause hearers to concentrate on the remembrance of Christ as the end of the Eucharistic action, rather than as its beginning. The idea of commemoration will thus soon replace the idea of the Mass as a sacramental action.
It protests against the change from the traditional Missal to the formula of St. Paul - because they differed!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.