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.
The quoted citation from Innocent X's Constitution "Cum occasione" is, by the way, a dogmatic definition.
Of course Christ died for all, but not one drop of His Prescious Blood was unnecessarily shed for those who would choose to damn themselves. By the way, what were the words of the of the Consecration of the Precious Blood in the Mass codified by the Council of Trent.
Why do you think the Catholic Church used to be so concerned that only those Catholics, who were in a state, of Grace, receive Holy Communion? Answer: Because that Precious Blood was not shed for all.
If It was shed for all, let's administer it to every heretic, Catholic or non-Catholic, who approaches the altar!
Declared and condemned as false, rash, scandalous, and understood in this sense, that Christ died for the salvation of the predestined, impious, blasphemous, contumelious, dishonoring to divine piety, and heretical. (Innocent X, "Cum occasione")
By the way, what were the words of the of the Consecration of the Precious Blood in the Mass codified by the Council of Trent.
Trent didn't codify a Mass.
LOL! Everyone (who is not insane) immediately recognized the Dean, Madame BlackElk, the Gypsy mind reader and resident FR wierdo.
BTW: Who is this Marcel? Nevermind. I don't care.
You just go on being CYBER-TOUGH, there buddy. Perhaps then, you can forget what a failure you are in the real world. Oops! Sorry. LOL!
Well, we all have priorities...
Citations of dogma are irrelevant when dealing with those to whom God spoke directly (such as Marcel)
If you claim otherwise, prove it without the usual intellectual contortions of the schism symps to essentially claim that the pope lacked authority somehow in doing so or that Marcel's internal disposition was other than it was. Marcel had plenty of opportunity to publicly proclaim his supposed mental reservations. To the extent that he did, he had zero, zip, nada credibility. The analysis of various Vatican minor domos or Canon lawyers does NOT trump the facts.
I would certainly be pleasantly surprised to find Marcel among the heavenly host if I am fortunate enough to be there myself. Likewise Rembert. I do despise the works and scandals of both. I have far worthier folks to pray for than either.
I never said that Protestants do not go to heaven. In fact, I believe that many do. Whatever God decides is certainly good enough for me.
BTW, your last paragraph says it all. You believe you should get your way even in defiance of legitimate Church authority. Buh-bye! Enjoy whatever Church you now belong to because it is not the Church of Rome.
You must be one who believes the NO Mass invalid given that last paragraph. Coincidentally, the SSPX schismatics have published that belief as their own as evidenced elsewhere on this thread.
"Pope John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei excommunicated Marcel and the Econe Four whom he illicitly consecrated AND declared SSPX a schism."
As has recently been discussed on the forum, if the SSPX priests were in schism along with those in Campos, why did not all the marriages, baptisms, confessions, etc not have to be conditionally done when Campos was "regularized"? Also, Lefebvre never stated he was forming a separate church. If he did, please site your reference, otherwise quit lying. You say you don't have to prove anything, but indeed you do. Facts speak a lot louder than groundless accusations and name-calling.
"I have far worthier folks to pray for than either."
If you truly believe Weakland was the villian he was by what he did, than there is no one better to pray for. Who else is in more need of prayer? Did Our Lord turn His back on the criminal hanging beside Him for others that were no doubt far worthier?
"I never said that Protestants do not go to heaven. In fact, I believe that many do. Whatever God decides is certainly good enough for me."
Oh, but you certainly did! You stated that there is a nice place in Hell for "schizzies" and bad clergy, so are heretics not exempt from similar punishment?
"You must be one who believes the NO Mass invalid given that last paragraph. Coincidentally, the SSPX schismatics have published that belief as their own as evidenced elsewhere on this thread."
No doubt many NO "Masses" are invalid or at least questionable as even Rome has admitted. When one sees cookies and grape juice being distributed, one doesn't have to guess the validity.
"Canon 1323 specifically excepted from punishment anyone who acted out of a state of necessity."
______________________
Is schism a 'necessity' in your book?
No, the crappy situation of the Church since Vatican II created the necessity. Hence, no schism. Live with it.
1. What matters as to whether Lefebvre and his fellow excommunicati (see Ecclesia Dei which is NO LIE) established a separate church is what they did and not the sneaky and disingenuous and dishonest things that Marcel said.
2. As to Campos, I am well aware that the otherwise saintly and extremely elderly Bishop Castro de Meyer volunteered for excommunication by writing to the pope and confessing that he was present at the criminal consecrations at Econe. I am also aware that Castro de Meyer was rather unjustly removed from his See by Vatican termites while JP II recovered from the Mehmet Ali Agca assassination attempt years before and that Castro de Meyer eccentricly continued to function as if not removed. None of this invalidated the Masses said by or the sacraments confected by the priests who remained loyal to Castro de Meyer any more than the Masses or sacraments of SSPX are invalid. SSPX is illicit but even the fruit of the crimes at Econe (the utterly illicit consecration of four bishops leading to their excommunications and those of stiff-necked archschismatic Marcel and the otherwise saintly Castro de Meyer) were valid. If they were not valid, your schism would receive no more attention from the actual Catholic Church (the one with a pope, the one HQ'd in the Vatican) than would some storefront Union Band Church of Jesus Christ Fire Baptized and its guitar playing floor rollers.
3. Non-Catholics may baptize Catholics into Catholicism. What does baptism have to do with any of this?
4. The diocese of Campos was never irregularized. How could it be regularized? JP II did extend a special status to Castro de Meyer's excommunicated successors by receiving the surviving one and his clergy back into the Roman Catholic Church and establishing a special papal prelature of some sort for those who abandoned the schism and returned to the Church. You are OD'ing on schism propaganda.
5. You pray for Weakland. I'll pray for whomever I want to pray for (perhaps his victims physical and ecclesiastical) and you should pray for Lefebvre too while I pray for his victims ecclesiastical.
6. The Protestants are often born into error or poorly catechized Catholics led astray. Lefebvre bears the same responsbilities for the souls he has misled as did his predecessors in ecclesiastical revolution: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli. Unless you think Lefebvre was a victim of Alzheimer's or mental illness, it seems obvious that he was not invincibly ignorant but a practitioner of willful evil.
7. That is not to say that Protestants CANNOT or DO NOT go to hell. That some may enter heaven does not mean that all do. That some Catholics may enter heaven does not mean that all Catholics do.
8. GBCDOJ has posted from SSPX's own websites the SSPX claim that ALL NO Masses are invalid. That has NOTHING to do with the admittedly invalid matter of grape juice and cookies as matter for the Eucharist. Yours is not the only schism. There are others who also pretend to be within the Church. That there are other schismatics absolves neither Marcel nor his satraps from the fact that they are in schism or in numerous cases including ALL of their bishops EXCOMMUNICATED. And that's a fact whether you like it or not.
Careful - the claim is that they are all sacrilegious and sinful - but still valid. Msgr. Lefebvre also held that the new sacramental rites didn't give grace - it seems hard to distinguish such a position from the invalidity of the rites.
Have just returned from church. Tonight began a 7 day novena to our patroness, St. Ann. Since the turnout was quite small, Father and I were able to discuss your question after the service.
I began by quoting the words of Consecration from the 3 liturgies ...
1. 1962 Missal
"It will be shed for you and for many to atone for sins."
2. Novus Ordo
"It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven"
3. Maronite Rite (NB - the words of consecration are ALWAYS in Aramaic. All I have to work from is the English translation that appears in the Missalette).
"This is my Blood of the new covenant, which is shed and handed over for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
I asked Father, which is it - "all" or "many". Father picked up the missalette and went directly to the Aramaic. The key word is "sa-gee-yeh". His initial response was 'all'. Then he repeated the Aramaic word and said it means 'multiples - many multiples', at which point he went back to 'many'. He said he would look up the various translations as he feels that 'all' is one of them.
I then showed him your comments.
Black Elk
Once Jesus Christ made His sacrifice on the cross, is it not true that each person born thereafter had the opportunity to be saved which some accepted & others rejected by their sins?
If "many" means that some humans would reject Christ and reject the offered redemption, I would tend to agree with that understanding.
If "all" means that some are saved and some not because the latter rejected Christ and His sacrifice, I would agree with that.
VivaChristoRey
The Council of Trent, the Council of Florence, St. Thomas' Summa are most clear that although our Lord incarnated, suffered and died for the salvation of "all", not all would avail themselves of the fruit of His passion, hence the correct translation is "for you and for many". Anything else is heretical and significantly changes the words, invalidating the sacrament.
Father explained that Christ suffered, died and was resurrected for ALL. He likened the event to rain pouring from the sky. Christ shed His grace on ALL. If someone chooses not to accept this gift, they open an umbrella or erect a tent to protect themselves from the rain (i.e. - from Christ's outpouring of grace). He further explained that God gave us free will and with that we choose what we accept and what we reject. He said both forms - "all" and "many" are correct. Christ died for all but not all will accept. Thus 'many' are saved.
As to VivaChristoRey's 'translation' - "anything else is heretical and significantly changes the words, invalidating the sacrament", he called him a literalist and then pointed out that Christ was NOT a literalist. Substituting 'all' for 'many' does NOT invalidate the sacrament.
Father also believes quite strongly in 'Divine justice', likening it to the way in which some protestants accept some of Christ's words while rejecting others. He then went on to describe a family that asks for God's compassion on their child who has rejected what he has been taught. Father believes that 'justice' will be meted out according to our actions and not our feelings.
Again let me point out Father's background:
38. Born in a suburb of Beirut, Lebanon. Graduated from St. John's Seminary in Boston and received a Master's Degree in Biblical Liturgy from Boston College and a Master's Degree in Theology from The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. Ordained on Jan. 14, 2001 at the Maronite Cathedral of Saint George in Beirut.
Father is fluent in 6 languages, has a working knowledge of 3 others and reads Ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic.
Actually, it's not.
OK. Actually, it's both.
"1. What matters as to whether Lefebvre and his fellow excommunicati (see Ecclesia Dei which is NO LIE) established a separate church is what they did and not the sneaky and disingenuous and dishonest things that Marcel said."
I never claimed Ecclesia Dei was a lie, rather it is the content which has been under debate. You did not answer my question as to when Archbishop Lefebvre said or wrote or even implied he wanted to create a separate church, one distinct from Rome. Speaking of disingenuous and dishonest, calling the Archbishop a criminal when he was never tried for a crime is slander, but I am getting used to your filthy blabbering.
"...some storefront Union Band Church of Jesus Christ Fire Baptized and its guitar playing floor rollers."
Are you talking about the NO "church"? Oh, that's right, the NO also has drums, liturgical dancers, topless women, clowns, and parade down major US cities celebrating their homosexuality. How silly of me to confuse the two!
"Lefebvre bears the same responsbilities for the souls he has misled as did his predecessors in ecclesiastical revolution: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli."
Lefebvre never created anything "new" in respect to Church doctrine or practice. To the contrary, it would be most apt to describe the NO clergy as "ecclesiastical revolutionaries" starting with the new "Lutheran" worship service. Try going to a Lutheran service and you won't be able to tell the difference between it and your local NO church. The Lutheran service may not have as many guitars and dancers, however. Lefevre never stated the Old Covenant is still valid and it is now "theologically impossible" to convert the Jews - your bishop does. Who is misleading the faithful? Is is misleading to practice as the Church has always practiced? Or should I give in to the revolution and parade down the street with my NO church's float, holding hands with fags, and celebrating the queer agenda?
"Yours is not the only schism. There are others who also pretend to be within the Church."
I think I am starting to get it now - those not in the "BE church" are HERETICS, SCHISMATICS, and/or EXCOMMUNICATED. Who else has the words of everlasting life besides BE? You may have been able to convince me why I should attend a NO "Mass" but you are so bent on railing against a dead man and creating lies you have only solidified my position of never setting foot in a heretical/schismatic NO church again.
If BEchurch is pressed to it's absurd limit, it'll conclude in this:
All are capable of salvation, except Catholics loyal to doctrine and tradition, and their proper practice. These, yea, shall enter into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels...
If you mean to tell me that ICEL was a bunch of weasel-wording demi-heretical termites with an agenda not necessarily comporting with the agenda of the Roman Catholic Church, I will agree and defend to the death your statement.
Given that, the translation "all" is theologically defensible (perfectly so) and is acceptable, if not primary. So "all" it is, until Rome speaks differently.
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.