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.
My own preference is a crisply said (30 minutes or so) Tridentine Low Mass. My choices are a 90-minute Tridentine Mass (Mass without end with three, count 'em, three collects and all sorts of extra add-ons) requiring an hour's travel or a local 45-minute (and expanding due to ever lengthier sermons and announcements) Novus Ordo and I attend each of them. About half Tridentines and half NOs.
Queer, isn't it, that the first one to screech "lavender" is you?
Sensitive '90's guy, self-hatred...hmmmm! is the correct response.
Not according to the ICEL transaltion which is most commonly used. The use of the words "for all" instead of "for many" contradicts Sacred Scripture. Christ either said "for all" or "for many". It's a quotation, which is not subject to modification. If the Bible is correct then the Novus Ordo Mass is wrong and most likely invalid.
No, it's a statement of fact. You may choose to deny that the Redemption was sufficient 'for all,' which is anathema.
which is not subject to modification. If the Bible is correct then the Novus Ordo Mass is wrong and most likely invalid
Wrong again, twice.
The text of the Mass is canonized by the Pope, and may or may not be direct quotations from Scripture.
It is grotesque to set up the Bible against the Mass; it is also un-Catholic in the extreme.
I don't miss your silly friend either any more than I would miss you.
What is/are your other screenname(s)?
We have no "gay clown masses" in the Rockford Diocese. Nor will we. I could easily have lived without Vatican II and its notorious "spirit". Your "criticisms" are calls to disobedience and anarchy in the Church. I know the difference between "criticism" and attack and you are attacking. I have no obligation to allow you to falsely define yourself without refutation.
BTW, I am what you falsely claim to be: a non-schismatic traditional Catholic. You spend your time defending the schismatics. As Joe McCarthy said: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there is a fair likelihood that it is a duck. I will take that claim of being "through with me" as a promise and not a threat. Happy Day!!!! AND Good riddance, BS.
Your're correct about that, as everyone knows who has followed the debate here or has read anything elsewhere about the process of liturgical reform.
1. Services that were virtually indistinguishable from a New Mass were already being held in 1963 immediately after the first session of Vatican II, even before the official promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
2. By 1964 the American Bishops had already approved a New Mass which retained the traditional Offertory and Canon in Latin, but which changed all the other parts of the Mass to more or less what we see now.
3. The official New Mass was performed by the Consilium in front of the Synod of Bishops in 1967. The reaction was very negative, but approval was granted anyway.
4. The situation world-wide at this point was total chaos. That is one of the primary reasons that Pope Paul VI gave for the introduction of the New Mass in 1969 -- to control the unrestrained experimentation that was going on in every country of the world.
5. The New Mass was promulgated officially in 1969. The GIRM had to be rewritten in 1970 since the original description of the New Mass that it offered was clearly heretical.
You lie. It's a quotation from the Last Supper.
Oh the anger, falsehood and bloodpressure problems of a failed shyster, father, provider and husband. How sad. How pathetic. How transparent. It's good, I guess, for such people to have a cyberworld to hide in where they can feel like less of a failure.
"The pope owes you no answers. You owe him obedience."
Obviously with the amount of debate his Holiness does owe the faithful some answers. He is responsible to set the record straight and guide the Church Militant.
"The fact that neither you nor the other schismatics are in charge of the pope cannot be made too often. You don't like him. You despise him. You revile him. He excommunicated your heroes and adjudged SSPX a schism which it is. You don't like it? Tough!"
Again, you spread error like it were chicken feed. The pope has never judged those who attend a SSPX Mass as schismatic. Quit lying. UR is probably like most "Traditionalists" who hold more esteem for the papacy, rather than one particular pope. Love is a matter of the will - most "Traditionalists" pray more for the pope than the rest of the NO church combined. You call the SSPX'ers "haters" with unagreeable contempt. I am willing to bet the "schismatics" are more concerned with eternal Rome rather than worshiping the documents of a pastoral council.
So the Pope can falsely attribute a quotation to our Lord and Redeemer? You're nuts!
1. You are quite right. Made a typo when I signed up and just never took the time to try to figure out how to correct it. Not a real high priority; will get around to it someday.
2. I see it differently. I believe Gorbie had an epiphany and despised his role in the the oppression of the Soviet people and his government's thug mentality. I think he did whatever he thought necessary to attain the Presidency with the intent of cooperating with Western powers to dismantle the communist machine. (And don't bother chiding me for being simplistic. This is a short answer because I don't care to waste my time giving you some grand dissertation with which you will only disagree anyway.)
3. As I said before. I have read the history of HH and feel no need to seek out yet another perspective. I would only say that Karol Wojtyla did more for religious freedom prior to 1978 than he did as Pope John Paul II in the 12 years that followed. HH and Gorbachev met just 3 days before the death throws of the Soviet Union. HH pressed for religious freedom and Gorbachev acknowledged that all believers, "have a right to satisfy their spiritual needs" and that his country had made the "mistake" of treating religion in a "simplistic manner." The man came prepared to make that statement and I think HH knew it in advance by virtue of the fact that Gorbachev was the very first Soviet leader to EVER meet with a Pope. The New York Times observed, "At an earlier time, Stalin had scornfully asked how many divisions the pope had. Now, A SUCCESSOR INTENT ON UNDOING STALIN'S LEGACY has crossed St. Peter's Square in open recognition that he must reckon with the Vatican as a moral and political force," (emphasis added to make my point). As you so rightly pointed out, there were a great many essential players in this great drama - Thatcher being one. But, I would not assert that she, or Reagan, or Gorbachev, or John Paul II "single-handely" brought down communism, as the original poster said.
The last word on this debate is yours, my brother. I'm done.
Here we had UR, the SSPX jihadist here, tsk, tsking Monsignor Perl for violating in some fashion the "teaching magisterium" of the excommunicated and/or schismatic cult of Marcel.
The answer to your final question is, of course, no.
I may have inartfully stated that to which you object. The Masses said by the schismatic priests of SSPX or their excommunicated bishops are quite valid. The sacraments they confect are true sacraments. Their delusions, deceptions and dishonesties are delusions, deceptions and dishonesties. I attend half the time Tridentine Masses authorized by our diocesan bishop who has given permission to every priest of this diocese to say the Tridentine Mass and more than a few have. Those priests and our bishop are in communion with the Holy See. The SSPX schismatics are not. They ought not to be granted any legitimacy as a group. Attending their Masses should be a last resort in the absence of any other valid Mass. They ought not to be encouraged by the Faithful.
This is a non-sequitur reply to the issue of rites. The Roman Rite and the New Mass are different rites. That is the issue that was being discussed. Of course there are different rites that can be valid, but that does not make them the same rite. And we of the Roman Church have a right to the Roman Rite, the most ancient rite, the most apostolic rite, the one which was guaranteed to us for all perpetuity.
As far as the question of validity goes, I'd have to say that most New Masses are not valid, owing to defects in 1 or more of matter, form and intention. We know that great numbers of New Masses are invalid simply for using invalid matter. My sister-in-law says that she didn't realize until later that every single Mass she ever attended while a student at Notre Dame was invalid due to invalid matter. Then there is the question of form as it relates to the defective vernacular translations of the form of consecration. Most likely these are not valid, while a New Mass using the Latin consecration formula could be. Lastly there is the intention of the priest. Normally this is not a problem if the priest intends to do what the Church intends to do, even if his understanding is lacking. But so many priests today have no intention whatsoever of offering the holy sacrifice of the Mass. They intend to "celebrate eucharist" by recognizing that God is present in the assembly.
So it is more than a question of "rubrics." It is a question of the loss of grace which is so clearly evident in all who adhere to the New Mass.
I'm sure that is what we all wish for. So in that case, do you believe that Jews need to convert to Christ in order to be saved, or do you believe (along with Rome and the pope) that they have their own covenant which is salvific for them? Since you tell us that there is no conflict between the "actual Catholic faith" and "communion with Rome," then you are happy to accept the doctrine that Jews can be saved through the Old Covenant? In fact, to follow the logic of Rome, they can be saved with no covenant at all, either old or new, since most Jews are atheists but Rome says that they are just fine the way they are. I hope you can explain why you see no contradiction here between Rome and the Faith.
Thanks for the concise summary, Max. Now with the training priests are receiving like at seminaries like the one this thread originally was talking about, one wonders just how many (if any) NO "Masses" are valid according to form, matter, and intention.
I'm sure that is what we all wish for. So in that case, do you believe that Jews need to convert to Christ in order to be saved, or do you believe (along with Rome and the pope) that they have their own covenant which is salvific for them? Since you tell us that there is no conflict between the "actual Catholic faith" and "communion with Rome," then you are happy to accept the doctrine that Jews can be saved through the Old Covenant? In fact, to follow the logic of Rome, they can be saved with no covenant at all, either old or new, since most Jews are atheists but Rome says that they are just fine the way they are. I hope you can explain why you see no contradiction here between Rome and the Faith.
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.