St. Anthony of Padua (West Orange, NJ) UPDATE!!!

Church Bulletins ^ | 11/25/04

[latae sententiae]

Of course I'm saying Perricone is a Modernist! He's an agent of an organization that has and continues to: shelter & protect homos & other perverts, invent & constantly push the envelope of liturgical stupidity, cram sex education and spiritually bankrupt catechisms down the necks of its own children. This is all without mentioning carrying on a 20 year campaign of hate against Fr. Wickens who was slandered, calumniated, and cruelly villified, who died without having collected a dime on his pension or medical benefits. Perricone is a cog in that machine (and now so are you! Congratulations!), regardless of his personal beliefs & his history. He remains happily clung to an Archdiocese whose level of immorality & corruption have sunk to diabolic levels. He's a willing agent of everything to which he pretends to be opposed. He spent the last 28 years saying the insipid Novus Ordo, and the last 28 days playing Traditional priest. Perricone a Modernist? Well, as Fr. Wickens used to say: "If it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck..."

[csbyrnes84]

That is why I am in favor of the creation of an official Tridentine Rite by the Pope. There are Eastern Rites which are much smaller in numbers than the people who go to the Latin Mass, so why can't be have our own Rite? We should have our own Bishops and should officialy separate from Novus Ordo. That would be the proper way to do it.

Until that happens though we are stuck with the present situation.

[sinkspur]

We should have our own Bishops and should officialy separate from Novus Ordo.

I agree. A Tridentine Rite would be the best possible solution. But, you know that the SSPX will not agree to that. The SSPX wants to suppress the Novus Ordo, so Fellay and Company will only agree to return to the Latin Rite.

[csbyrnes84]

Well I think the SSPX might be amenable to such a situation if they were put in charge of it. Say for example Bishop Fellay was made Patriarch of the Tridentine Rite, I don't believe that you would hear much complaining from him.

[hobbes1]

That will never happen. The problem is, the Tridentine, would quickly outdraw the N.O., and that would leave much Egg on Many Faces.

[hobbes1]

So much of that is incorrect, it is tough to know where to start.


So, I'll put it thus.

The great martyred Saints, all died horrible brutal deaths in order to cling to their faith. Now with the infiltration of the Modernist Heresy, you seem to be saying "Run Away....Run Away..." instead of trying to remain the Church Militant.


I.E. While Fr. Wickens was kindly disposed toward the SSPX, and lauded the good works they do, you will note, he never Joined them.

And as for attending the caravaning mass with Fr. Murphy (The Essex House, these days, yes..????) Fr.M is still a diocesan priest who also said the N.O. for a number of years, he is merely RETIRED. So your arguments vis-a-vis Fr. Perricone and Abp. Meyers hold just as true here. Though one has to give credit to Fr.Murphy for the yeomans work he did for the Pro Life cause back in the day.

[hobbes1]

So who will be coming to confirm the kids, provided there are any kids left around the appropriate age? That was my question. Please answer it.

Well now, that brings us logically back to the heart of your questions concerning validity.

Surely someone such as yourself knows that insofar as marriage, there is (and the term escapes me), a certain provision made for marriages that may be suspect as to form, provided that the bedrock of mutual consent remains valid. And it is applicable even without the celebrants knowledge. (and no I am not going to do your canonical research for you, you can look it up.)

Now, that having been said, surely there must be a canonical provision for those sacraments previously attained to be valid (one could make the argument that Fr.Wickens suspensio, violated Canon law by leaving him without means, and would thereby be void...Canon Law is very touchy about impoverishing one who has received Holy Orders...), or else, the Priests at Mass would be handing out Communion to Children THEY KNOW to be unable to receive, ministering to couples that they know to be living in sin, etc...And when you draw that line straight thru to confirmation, culpability would extend directly to the Abp.

[ELS]

You are sadly mistaken as to Fr. Wickens' opinion of Fr. Perricone. I know because I heard his praise and admiration of Fr. Perricone directly from his lips.

Not everyone in the Archdiocese participated nor condoned the "campaign of hate" against Fr. Wickens. You really shouldn't exaggerate the situation. Fr. Wickens remained in touch with many of the priests in the Archdiocese, including Fr. Perricone. He was also very sensitive to the fact that they would be made to suffer greatly if certain people in the chancery got wind of their association and he took great measures to protect them. Why would he do this if they were all "Modernists"? Because he didn't paint with the same broad brush you do. It doesn't comport with your point of view, but Fr. Wickens and Fr. Perricone were very good friends.

Your idea that Fr. Perricone is a Modernist is laughable. Have you ever heard of working from within the system? Fr. Wickens had a great deal of admiration for the way Fr. Perricone was working for tradition from within the system. Fr. Perricone organized two Tridentine Masses in St. Patrick's Cathedral in the 1990's, at least one of which Fr. Wickens participated in.

Guilt by association doesn't work when there is only one true Church. It's not like Fr. Perricone can get an assignment in a corruption-free, perfectly holy Church. There have been corrupt hierarchs throughout the history of the Church.

He remains happily clung to an Archdiocese whose level of immorality & corruption have sunk to diabolic levels. He's a willing agent of everything to which he pretends to be opposed.

Once again, I doubt you know what is in Fr. Perricone's mind. It may make your argument more colorful, but it is not very factual.

He spent the last 28 years saying the insipid Novus Ordo

And he also said the Tridentine Mass regularly in public during that time. Fr. Wickens said the Novus Ordo Mass for over 10 years in obedience to his bishop and the Church. Is he, too, now a Modernist using your logic? Here's a clue, being obedient does not make one a Modernist.

I respectfully suggest you read (or reread) Pascendi Dominici Gregis to get a better grasp on Modernism.

[latae sententiae]

Now with the infiltration of the Modernist Heresy, you seem to be saying "Run Away....Run Away..." instead of trying to remain the Church Militant.

Ah, the old Novus Ordo "fight from within" argument. It's been taken to pieces time and time again by many good priests and theologians over the years, Fr. Wickens not least among them, but..whatever helps you sleep at night.

While Fr. Wickens was kindly disposed toward the SSPX, and lauded the good works they do, you will note, he never Joined them.

Careful. What would Perricone say if he heard you describe the SSPX's work as "good?" Yes, Fr. Wickens did speak well of them, and often. Can you recall a time when he spoke well of the Newark Archdiocese?

And as for attending the caravaning mass with Fr. Murphy (The Essex House, these days, yes..????)

I won't be a party to your quest for something to print out & hand to the Board. Suffice it to say that you're obviously too far out of the loop to be coming to any conclusions. You have no idea what's going on with us, but we have a pretty clear picture of what's going on with you. You even made the diocesan rag. Congrats! That's just the sort of publicity that drives Traditional Catholics away and fills the pews with Novus Ordo dreck, all according to plan and right on schedule. I wish you luck. As for the Real Faith, seek and ye shall find.

[hobbes1]

You have no idea what's going on with us, but we have a pretty clear picture of what's going on with you

Ummmm...Which parts am I missing....The slandering of Fr.Murphy, over who controls the $$$, the ongoing dissension and intents to file suit, or the ongoing uncertainity over where you will be and for how long?

Out of the Loop????...lol It goes from the sources mouth to my ear...and not for nothing, I notice you dont seem to want to address the fact that you are, after all, attending mass with a retired diocesan pensioner....

[sinkspur]

The problem is, the Tridentine, would quickly outdraw the N.O., and that would leave much Egg on Many Faces.

Nonsense. The Tridentine Rite would gain a few new members, but the vast majority of Catholics would remain with their current Novus Ordo parishes.

A Tridentine Rite would look very much like the Eastern Rite, in terms of churches and membership.

[ELS]

Fr.M is still a diocesan priest who also said the N.O. for a number of years

Shhh! You're not helping their case when you point out their hypocrisy and inconsistency! Don't you know that priests they associate with can say the N.O. and not be a "Modernist", but those priests they don't like are "Modernists" for having ever said the N.O.?

[hobbes1]

Ah, the old Novus Ordo "fight from within" argument. It's been taken to pieces time and time again by many good priests and theologians over the years, Fr. Wickens not least among them

Thats kind off Odd, since you people are arguing CONSTANTLY (to make yourselves sleep better at night...I guess...lol), that Fr.Wickens was rebuffed by Abp. Meyers 3 times over the last several years.

So, either you are being intellectually dishonest in refusing to following that forward to its logical conclusion, or using it just to work up animosity.

I am sure Fr.Perriocone would agree that while the Society may be in error, they do do good works. The two are not mutually exclusive, and Fr.Wickens obviously saw it the same way...

[latae sententiae]

Well now, that brings us logically back to the heart of your questions concerning validity.

No it doesn't. You're so busy tapdancing around a couple of simple questions that you're mixing them up. I asked/wondered aloud: a) Who would confirm the kids at St. Anthony's, if there are any left of the appropriate age, and b) what Perricone's position was with respect to confessions and marriages conferred by Fr. Wickens. That's all. Two simple things.

(and no I am not going to do your canonical research for you, you can look it up.)

Read: I don't know, and I don't want to know. That aside, this isn't about my knowledge of Canon law, just (a) and (b) above.

Now, that having been said, surely there must be a canonical provision for those sacraments previously attained to be valid

Let Perricone say so publicly. You maintain he has no need to do so, I mantain he lacks the necessary appendages to do so, and so we arrive at a stalemate.

[hobbes1]

Sink, I know you attend a very enthusaistic N.O. parish, but
I am forced to disagree.....

[latae sententiae]

I notice you dont seem to want to address the fact that you are, after all, attending mass with a retired diocesan pensioner....

I don't address it except to point out that you don't have the facts, and you make it more and more clear.

[hobbes1]

No Stalemate at all. Occams razor applies.

First of all, lets just dispense with the confession argument.

It no longer applies to the faithful at St.Anthony's, since the retired diocesan priest, Fr. Murphy was there long enough to have administered confession and absolution to every one there.

As to Confirmation, obviously a Bishop will be provided for. Who that will be, requires a call to Miss Cleo.But maybe you could tell me why the WHO of it concerns you, rahter than the fact of it... ?

Read: I don't know, and I don't want to know.

Erroneous. I do know. that is the point.

RADICAL SANATION
Can. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects.
Can. A sanation can be granted validly even if either or both of the parties do not know of it

As I said He need not do so. His actions speak in that regard, it would be a grave offense to be handing out the sacrament to those that are not able to legally receive it.

[hobbes1]

Oh, that is a fact. You can lie, and deny it, but it remains the truth nevertheless....

[sinkspur]

You are forced to disagree based on your feelings and wishful thinking.

But, regardless, a Tridentine Rite would eliminate this constant warfare. Let each attend Mass where he/she wishes.

[hobbes1]

Feeling, and Wishful thinking, are all you can base your opposition on, as well, though I can also add in Observation.....

But it is of no consequence I agree with you, as to the rightfulness of ordering it unto itself.