Posted on 02/05/2007 8:34:06 AM PST by Cheverus
LAWRENCE - A controversial offshoot of the Catholic religion is planning to hold its worship services in the vacant Sacred Heart Church.
The Willing Shepherds of Jesus Christ, whose members adhere to pre-Vatican II teachings and rituals, has signed a 15-year lease for the church at 321 S. Broadway.
The order, which lists an address in Tewksbury on its Web site, celebrates Mass in Latin with the priest facing the altar instead of the congregation during services.
The order is renting the Gothic-style church and its adjacent rectory from ETC Development Corp. of Boston, which bought the two-acre property last May.
"I think it would be something good for our church if it reopens," said Irene Potvin, a longtime member of Sacred Heart. "God will be in our church again. It's better than having it empty."
But not everybody is happy about the Willing Shepherds establishing a presence in Lawrence.
"We're very concerned for the Catholic faithful up there," said Terrence Donilon, spokesman for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. "They are not a Catholic organization."
Rebecca Justin of North Andover, a member of the Lay Dominicans Fraternities of St. Dominic, also has issues with the Willing Shepherds.
"We're concerned because the priests are not properly ordained by the church," Justin said.
The Willing Shepherds, founded in Massachusetts in 1999, is not recognized or authorized by the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI or Cardinal Sean O'Malley of the Archdiocese of Boston.
Brother Antony Mary of the Willing Shepherds declined to comment on the group's relationship with the Roman Catholic Church when reached by telephone last night at the order's house in Tewksbury.
"Any questions regarding that will be answered on Wednesday," Brother Antony Mary said, referring to the Planning Board meeting to be held then.
The Willing Shepherds approached ETC Development Corp. several months ago about leasing the church.
"Initially, we were not really interested," said Paula Herrington, executive director of ETC, a nonprofit organization.
Neighbors and former parishioners were concerned about having offices as part of the $15 million project on the site of the former Sacred Heart property, which also includes two schools and a convent.
Herrington said the businesses were scrapped and the rental to the Willing Shepherds was added.
The church rental would be part of a redevelopment project at the former French Canadian parish and school.
The project includes space for a latchkey program to be run by a social service agency, 26 affordable apartments, a 74-space underground parking garage and a 14-space surface level parking area.
Michael Sweeney, the city's planning and community development director, said part of the deal with the Willing Shepherds includes a 15-year lease with ETC Development and an option to buy.
"There's a desire on the part of the community and the city that this is not a short-term deal," Herrington said. "The community does not want to invest money in an institution that may go away; they want to have some stability."
The city's Zoning Board of Appeals approved the lease by a 5-0 vote on Jan. 25. ETC and the Willing Shepherds will go before the Planning Board on Wednesday for final approval.
I couldn't find anything on how they claim Apostolic succession.
I am familiar with McKenna, he's the SSPV guy right? And the Priest you're talking about is Brian McMahon the convicted killer right? (only accused of forcing an abortion).
Is Sed-Impeditist, the belief that there is a Heretic occupying the Papacy or the one where the belief is that the Pope is a hostage of the College of Cardinals.
Either way I think this group feels that the Popes since Pius XII have not ascended to the chair of Peter because they are Heretics, though they don't seem to have commented on Benedict yet.
The reason I'm interested in Pax Christi is because it was always my impression that, although there's plenty of "usual suspects" --- and overlaps, both of membership and leadership, with clearly dissident groups --- Pax Christi itself, officially, has refrained from taking rebellious anti-papal stands or makign heetical statements.
But I haven't been keeping track of them, really, for years; maybe they've crossed the line. I keep hoping they're still actually Catholic. We really do need a Catholic peace organization --- really Catholic, along the lines of the peace initiatives of John Paul II and Benedict.
I have reason to suspect the 'Community of Hope' (COM), known for their Sacramental Apostolate in Massachusetts (greater Lowell area) is connected to the said 'Willing Shepherds of Jesus Christ' (WSJC) of Sacred Heart/Lawrence fame. I first encountered these wonderful young adults from COM at the annual Proud 2B Catholic Concerts on Salem Common and at St. Basil's Melkite Seminary in Methuen (2001-2003). I was very impressed by their zeal in promoting Catholic sacramentals and traditional devotions to a new generation of Catholics as a part of JP II's New Evangelization. Much of their focus has typically been among other young adults throughout the diocese.
In fact, Holy Trinity's Holy Name Society invited them to our scapular investiture around at or around the feast of St. Simon Stock during the Summer of 2004. In the years following, many members of the COM have frequented the TLM at Holy Trinity.
I considered that Dracut/Tewksbury is a small geographic area in the Merrimac Valley in northeastern Massachusetts and was struck the close proximity of the COM and WSJC. Next looked at the content of the following 'side by side' web pages below and drew some initial conclusions. The similarity has triggered my attention and seemed too striking to be a coincidence.
I have since been informed by an acquaintance and former friend of some of the COM members that they "went down into a black hole of wacky conspiracy theories and faulty theology (gone sede)" and may be also associated with Bishop Robert McKenna,O.P. who as previously mentioned subscribes to a sedevacantist eccesiology. He has been associated with Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel in Monroe, CT. (http://www.rosarychapel.net/)
My source also stated, that it is equally distressing that that they (the COM) continue to give the appearances of being a faithful and orthodox group, doing confirmation retreats and other activities around the archdiocese. It's apparent to me that an operative (within) extreme right unchecked is as damaging to the Faithful as the usual extreme left. Where is our pastoral leadership?
Free Sacramental Apostolate:
http://www.communityofhopeinc.org/Sacramentals/Brown%20Scapular.html
http://www.willingshepherds.net/Free%20sacramentals.htm
http://www.willingshepherds.net/Free%20sacramentals.htm
http://www.communityofhopeinc.org/Free%20Sacramental%20Page.htm
http://www.willingshepherds.net/Sacramental%20Request.html
http://www.communityofhopeinc.org/Sacramentals/Sacramental%20Request%20Page.html
I have reason to suspect the 'Community of Hope' (COH), known for their Sacramental Apostolate in Massachusetts (greater Lowell area) is connected to the said 'Willing Shepherds of Jesus Christ' (WSJC) of Sacred Heart/Lawrence fame. I first encountered these wonderful young adults from COH at the annual Proud 2B Catholic Concerts on Salem Common and at St. Basil's Melkite Seminary in Methuen (2001-2003). I was very impressed by their zeal in promoting Catholic sacramentals and traditional devotions to a new generation of Catholics as a part of JP II's New Evangelization. Much of their focus has typically been among other young adults throughout the diocese.
In fact, Holy Trinity's Holy Name Society invited them to our scapular investiture around at or around the feast of St. Simon Stock during the Summer of 2004. In the years following, many members of the COH have frequented the TLM at Holy Trinity.
I considered that Dracut/Tewksbury is a small geographic area in the Merrimac Valley in northeastern Massachusetts and was struck the close proximity of the COH and WSJC. I next looked at the content of the following 'side by side' web pages below and drew some initial conclusions. The similarity has triggered my attention and seemed too striking to be a coincidence.
I have since been informed by an acquaintance and former friend of some of the COh members that they "went down into a black hole of wacky conspiracy theories and faulty theology (gone sede)" and may be also associated with Bishop Robert McKenna,O.P. who as previously mentioned subscribes to a sedevacantist eccesiology. He has been associated with Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel in Monroe, CT. (http://www.rosarychapel.net/)
My source also stated, that it is equally distressing that that they (the COH) continue to give the appearances of being a faithful and orthodox group, doing confirmation retreats and other activities around the archdiocese. It's apparent to me that an operative (within) extreme right unchecked is as damaging to the Faithful as the usual extreme left. Where is our pastoral leadership?
Free Sacramental Apostolate:
http://www.communityofhopeinc.org/Sacramentals/Brown%20Scapular.html
http://www.willingshepherds.net/Free%20sacramentals.htm
http://www.willingshepherds.net/Free%20sacramentals.htm
http://www.communityofhopeinc.org/Free%20Sacramental%20Page.htm
http://www.willingshepherds.net/Sacramental%20Request.html
http://www.communityofhopeinc.org/Sacramentals/Sacramental%20Request%20Page.html
No, he is regular issue Dominican, ordained a priest in 1958. His "trad orders" are as follows. He was consecrated a bishop @ 1986 by the Dominican Guerard Des Lauriers who drafted the Ottavianni Intervention against the New Order of Mass for the Cardinal. Des Lauriers was consecrated a bishop by Abp. Ngo Dinh Thuc in 1981.
Is Sed-Impeditist, the belief that there is a Heretic occupying the Papacy...
You have the idea. "Sede impedita", the See is impeded, aka the Cassiaciacum Thesis, is another enterprise in fence-sitting, dreamed up by Des Lauriers while he was teaching at the SSPX seminary in Econe'. Essentially the V-2 'popes' are popes in name only because of their pre-existing heresy when elected, and are impeded from exercise the office other than to make appointments, until they publically renounce their heresies.
It makes no sense and it attempts to seperate form from matter - and it has no theological basis - as opposed to Sede Vacante, which most certainly does.
They either are, or they aren't.
Unfortunately everyone from the Des Lauriers branch of the Thuc lineage follow this ridiculous theory (which is also refered to by some as the See being in a state of privation.)
The branch of the Thuc lineage descended in 1981 from the two Mexican bishops, Carmona-Rivera & Zamora, hold that the See is vacant.
And the Priest you're talking about is Brian McMahon the convicted killer right? .
No, I was thinking of someone else without THAT baggage LOL! A couple years ago McMahon was servicing a chapel up there, but when the other item came up, serving time on a vehicular homicide charge, he wound up filling in elsewhere, until the news reached there as well, and after that his name has not popped up.
Well, the heavens rejoice when the single sinner returns versus the 99 that never strayed. I daresay that most of our American Bishops are not interested in treating the more traditional Catholics well, let alone those wavering in schism.
That Paulist Center is quite repulsive! The Holy Trinity Church invites one's mind and soul to ponder the beauty and glory that is God.
Thanks for the info. I searched him out on the web, but didn't realize the Episcopal lineage.
I have serious doubts about the validity of the Episcopal Concecrations of "Thuc Line" Bishops. He was completely nuts and excommunicated twice.
I know that the SSPV guys and CMRI guys are both also Thuc Line as well as loads of Lefties like the Palmyrians.
I would bet years from now we'll be talking about Lebevre Line and Milingo Line Bishops too.
Has the Church ever accepted a priest ordained by one of these Bishops with his orders? That would tell you what they think of them. For myself, I would expect a reordination sub conditione for anything associated with Thuc orders, as is done occasionally with people associated with some of the more far out Old Catholics.
The remaining SSPV itself has no connections to the Thuc line. The original 9 priests who formed the SSPV split from the SSPX in 1983, primarily over which rubrics of the traditional Mass were appropriate, but a sub issue was whether the First See was vacant or not. Some of these priests left the SSPV after 1990 for personality conflicts, others because they did not want to be saddled with the $1 million legal bills resulting from their property dispute with the SSPX after the 1983 split.
Two of the SSPV priests who left subsequently became bishops through the Thuc lineage, Dolan & Sanborn:
Thuc-Carmona-Rivera-Musey-Pivarunas-Dolan @ 1997 and Thuc-Des Lauriers-McKenna-Sanborn in 2002.
Bp. Kelly of the SSPV was clandestinely consecrated a bishop in 1993 by Bp. Mendez, the retired ordinary of Arecibo, Puerto Rico.
The CMRI, after they tossed out Shuckhardt in 1986, were regularized by Bp. McKenna and the late Bp. Musey and were all conditionally reordained. In 1991 Bp. Musey consecrated Fr. Pivarunas of the CMRI a bishop.
As for the Palmar de Troyas loons from 1975/1976 - I think everyone agrees they are a pathetic and disgraceful mess. More on this as follows.
I have serious doubts about the validity of the Episcopal Concecrations of "Thuc Line" Bishops. He was completely nuts and excommunicated twice.
OK, the sanity issue is the usual canard that is trotted out to knock the validity of the Orders he bestowed. Let me deal with each of the three reasons that are usually asserted.
Abp. Thuc was decidely sane. Too trusting that would lead to imprudence is another matter.
First are the ordination to the priesthood in December 1975 and the consecration as bishops in January 1976 of five members of the Spanish Palmar de Troyas group. The defense is he was basically set up for this one.
The story as told by the late Fr. Noel Barbara who was present, and related by the Abbe' des Nantes, is as follows. The five loons show up at the noon meal at the SSPX seminary in Econe' claiming they are receiving apparitions from the Blessed Mother and claiming she wants certain individuals to be named later (the five loons) ordained as priests and consecrated bishops. The rector of the SSPX seminary, Canon Revaz, is in on it. They attempt to prevail on Abp. Lefebvre who instead of telling them to get lost says, "I cannot do it but why don't you go see Abp. Thuc?."
So Revaz and the five drive to Abp. Thuc's very humble apartment, his residence-in-exile, tell him the tale, he thinks that Abp. Lefebvre already investigated it, vetted it, and more importantly wants him to do it, and he goes off with them and the rest is unfortunately history. The novus ordo vatican then declares that he has incurred a latae sententiae excommunication on the same canon law they would later use against Abp. Lefebvre - incorrectly in both instances as neither attempted to set up the consecrated bishops in a diocese in opposition to the novus ordo church.
In early 1976 Abp. Thuc then realizes his lack of prudence in consecrating these individuals as bishops and repudiates and washes his hands the Palmar group, but they go on just fine on their own, which was their original intention, unfortunately getting even nuttier, elect their own pope, and go on to clerically 'reproduce' like cockroaches. This their subsequent antics after Abp. Thuc's month long involvement with them is then laid at his feet.
Besides the misapplication to Abp. Thuc of the canon law mentioned above, what was also never considered was his special mission and permission to consecrate bishops without express approval of the Vatican given to him by Pope Pius XI in 1938 and reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII. He was given the same faculties to operate in the East as Pope Pius XI gave to the Jesuit Fr. Herbingy [spelling] secretly consecrated a bishop in 1926 and sent behind the iron curtain in Russia to rebuild the Church that had been decimated by the Communist revolution. (Unfortunately in Bp. Herbigny's case, it was leaked, they followed him for a couple years, and rolled up his entire network...).
The special faculties given to Abp. Thuc were never revoked. Also if Abp. Lefebvre can cite necessity and epikeia for consecrating bishops in 1988, then Abp. Thuc can certainly do so for consecrating the three GOOD bishops in 1981, Des Lauriers, Carmona-Rivera & Zamora-Hernandez.
Of course sedevacantists would state that neither epikeia or Abp. Thuc's special faculties are needed as justification in the least for consecrating bishops without approval of the heretical novus ordo apparatus.
The second reason is similar to the above. The lack of prudence in other alledged consecrations. I emphasize alledged decidedly.
Besides the five Palmar loons in January 1976 and the three wise consecrations in 1981, a number of other individuals claim they were consecated bishops by Abp. Thuc. Most of these individuals came forward with this claim only AFTER ABp. Thuc's death in 1984.
The most complete reference is the episicopal lineage web site for Abp. Thuc and other independent bishops run by Terry Boyle - who attends the indult and is not a sedevacantist or Thuc symapthizer. An example of these individuals claiming epsicopal order from Abp. Thuc is as follows:
07/10/1976 P. E. M. Labat d'Arnoux (b. in 19xx; still living) - This is but a reported consecration by Msgr. Thuc. It may never have occurred.
03/19/1977 Claude Nanta de Torrini (b. in 19xx; still living). - This is but a reported consecration by Magr. Thuc. It may never have occurred.
10/19/1978 Michel Fernandez (b. in 19xx; still living). - This is but a reported consecration by Magr. Thuc. It may never have occurred.
04/18/1982 Luigi Boni (b. in 19xx; d. in 1993). - This is but a reported consecration by Msgr. Thuc. It may never have occurred.
04/18/1982 Jean Gérard de la Passion Antoine Laurent Charles Roux (b. in 1951; still living). The truth of Bp Roux's ordination(s) and consecration(s) is hard to ascertain: Other sources allege differently, saying that:
04/23/1994 Michael French (b. in 19xx; still living). There is an essay critical of the validity of his consecration.
Et cetera. While he could have imprudently consecrated a couple of these, most of them most likely as stated never occured. If any mistakes were made, they lie at the lack of prudence, not lack of sanity.
In viewing Terry's reference site, the Palmar lineage due to their episcopal reproduction takes up 2/3rds of the page, then four alledged Old Catholics, then the three good Sedes, then the remaining claimants.
The third and unfortunately most common reason that causes everyone, who even if they know nothing about Abp. Thuc, to repeat the false claim of his lack of sanity is the unfortunate calumny by one priest, and the repetition of it by others, especially one very jealous and envious priest.
The story of the lack of sanity, lucidity or whatever of Abp. Thuc, originated solely with a Vietnamese priest named Fr. Khoat who celebrated Mass for awhile at an independent traditional chapel in Houston, St. Jude's. There is no record at all of Khoat and Thuc haveing any association or if Khoat had served in Thuc's archdiocese of Hue' before the JFK ordered assaisnation of Abp. Ngo Dinh Thuc's brother President Ngo Dinh Diem on All Souls Day of 1963 and Thuc's forced exile afterwards.
I shall cite one example regarding Fr. Khoat's own sanity and trustworthiness - or rather complete lack of either.
The lay management at St. Jude's chapel had latched onto the myth that the late Cardinal Siri of Genoa had been secretely elected pope in the 1958 conclave but illegally and invalidly forced to resign after accepting the papacy.
Fr. Khoat was thus dispatched to Italy to seek out Siri and ask him if this was true. Khoat hooked up with another priest and the two of them were finally able to speak to Siri in private. When Khoat returned he was debriefed by three individuals, one layman and two tradtional Roman Catholic priests. According to the testimony of one of the priests present, Monsignor Raymond Ruscitto, Khoat stated to them that Siri had denied REPEATEDLY ever being elected pope.
One year later, AFTER Siri had died, as well as after the death of the priest who had accompanied Khoat in his audience with Siri, Khoat now had a different story altogether. Khoat took out a quarter-page advertisement in the Houston Chronicle seeking out all those who like himself had been made a 'secret cardinal' [sic] by Siri and calling for the Camerlegno to call a conclave to elect a new pope to succeed Siri.
Thus the 'sanity' and 'veracity' of the one individual who started the entire calumny against Abp. Ngo Dinh Thuc.
The priest all too eager to run with this falsehood was then then Fr. now Bp. Kelly of the SSPV - although others who should know better, cleric and lay, are to blame for spreading this as well.
Let me post this and I'll try to touch briefly on the sacramental issues for validity of Holy Orders.
Years ago someone asked me to look into the two excommunications and while my memory is not 100% here, I am pretty sure that the current day vatican recognized at least one of the two groups as validly consecrated bishops. I'll see if I can turn up my photocopies from back them to make sure.
For myself, I would expect a reordination sub conditione for anything associated with Thuc orders, as is done occasionally with people associated with some of the more far out Old Catholics.
I don't know how good of a guage this is, but if we really want to talk fringe here, for an individual and group that is in no way associated with the Thuc line, here is an example.
'Bp.' Thom Sebastian (claiming orders from the Duarte-Costa line) and his group the SSCR? from California, rejoined the novus ordo a couple years ago and while he is not permitted to function as a bishop, it is my impression they recongize his own doubtful priestly and episcopal orders as valid because those he ordained are recongized rightly or wrongly as valid priests by the 'vatican'.
A valid sacrament must have the necessary form, matter and intent, as well as having the sacrament administered by a valid minister for that sacrament.
In "Sacramentum Ordiniis" in 1947, Pope Pius XII defined that the necessary form for the sacrament of Holy Orders were certain specific sentences in the Preface for the rite for each of the three degrees, the matter was the laying on of hands.
The necessary intent for any sacrament is usually defined as "Doing as the Church does", i.e if the rite of the sacrament is followed, the proper intent is present.
A good example is the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism of a new-born infant in the case of danger of death by a non-Christian doctor or nurse on behalf of the mother. The non-Christian certainly does not believe in the Divinity of Christ nor believes in the Sacrament but in his doing as the Church does, the proper intent is present.
I have already dealt with the charge of lack of sanity against Abp. Thuc but let us examine it again in light of sacramental intent.
Using the above criteria would you say that he was capable of the proper intent to adminster the Sacrament of Baptism?
If so how about the proper intent to validly consecrate the Sacred Species in Holy Mass?
If so again, how would Holy Orders be any different?
In the absence of grounds for positive doubt, i.e. evidence, then sacraments are always viewed as valid, e.g. marriages are always held as valid and must be proved to be invalid.
As for the worthiness of the minister, St. Augstine states that the baptism adminstered by Judas is just as valid as the baptism by Peter, because the Sacramental Grace is from Christ.
As for Abp. Thuc's own capacity to validly consecrate a Roman Catholic priest a bishop, let me introduce his handwritten Certificate of the Consecration of Bp. Moises Carmona-Rivera, written by Abp. Thuc IN LATIN, on the day after the consecration was performed. If he could do that, then he had the requisite sanity for the sacrament and his production of the document proves he had the proper intent.
As for whether the proper form was followed, the priests who were consecrated bishops by him would certainly know if any deviation had been made. As an example, when the breakaways from the SSPV approached the Brazilian Bp. Castro Mayer (co-consecrator of the four SSPX bishops) to seek the consecration of Dolan as a bishop, Bp. Castro Mayer abstained but sugggested they seek a Thuc lineage bishop. When Fr. Cekada was hesitant, Castro Mayer rejoined, "If the consecration was valid for Guerard (des Lauriers) it is valid for me."
Also Bp. WIlliamson of the SSPX regards the Abp. Thuc consecrations of des Lauriers, Carmona-Rivera and Zamora-Hernandez as valid as well. Here is a photocopy and transcript of a 1993 letter of Bp. Williamson in reply to that question. Curiously he cites them as valid but rejects their consecration on the grounds of necessity, the same reason cited by the SSPX bishops for their own consecration.
Here is a speech given by Bp. Dolan in which he asserts that the 'vatican recongized the validity of the Thuc consecration. Among other examples he cites are these:
"The Vatican clearly concedes the validity of the consecrations in the very document of excommunication. In stating that it will not give the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Thuc the legal status of bishops, adds "quidquid est de ordinum validitate," which properly translated means, "however valid the orders may be." The phrase concedes the validity, since the indicative mood is used in Latin, which always indicates a statement of fact, and not of doubt.
This recognition of validity is further attested to by the fact that two Apostolic Delegates, one in Mexico in 1983 and one in the United States in 1988, called the consecrations of Archbishop Thuc "valid but illicit." They would never have said such a thing if the Vatican did not have that position.
Finally, the best compendium on the question is a recent book citing the pros and cons with documentation for the validity of the Thuc consecrations, entitled "The Answers" by Rev. Kevin Vaillancourt.
1982 Declaration of Abp. Ngo Dinh Thuc written in the year after consecrating the three Sede bishops.
Bp. Carmona-Rivera's Defense of His Consecration by Abp. Thuc
I think the biggest strike against the alleged episcopal consecrations by Archbishop Thuc, as with the alleged consecration of Fr. Kelly, is the lack of co-consecrators and the private nature of the ceremony. Those two features are sufficient in my mind to cause doubt and necessitate reordination sub conditione.
The only groups regularly recognized without trouble by the Vatican are the Chinese Patriotic Association, the SSPX + Campos, and the Old Catholics who are part of a recognized organized ecclesiastical body (like the Polish National Catholic Church, or the various European Old Catholic Churches).
The ordinations and consecrations by the sedevacantics lines from Thuc, as with some of the wilder Old Catholic lines may very well be valid. But they clearly do not have actual Apostolic Sucession, which includes not merely valid orders, but also a shared faith and a valid or quasi-valid mission (i.e. the Old Catholics descend from the See of Utrecht, the Chinese from the various Sees of China, and the SSPX from an implied permission to Lefebvre to consecrate in the agreement he signed with the Vatican).
Its impossible to see a valid mission in most of the petite schisms descending from Thuc, Sanchez, or Costa. That is why those Bishops will never be recognized and allowed to function as such by Catholics and the Catholic Church.
be grateful there is not a webcam in their bed chambers.
While co-consecrators would be traditional, they were not to be had, and of course they are not necessary at all for the validity of the sacrament. In fact during the 20th century, Catholic episcopal consecrations done undercover in Communist nations, by necessity had no such co-consecrators as well.
The links I provided to the photocopy of the Certificate of Episcopal Consecration issued by Abp. Thuc had the signatures of two witnesses present at the three sede consecrations, Doctor Hiller and Doctor Heller, affirming the ceremony in fact occured. This is again not necessary at all for the validity of the sacrament.
What was an absolute necessity in 1981 was to consecrate apostolic successors who actually held the Roman Catholic Faith - who would perpetuate the true Roman Catholic Church - as opposed to the apostate modern day vatican 2 usurpers whose own rite of episcopal consecration is as invalid as their blasphenous new order of mass.
Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae in 1893 declared Anglican Orders to be absolutely null and void - and the form of their rite was much closer to the valid rite of ordination than that of the 'church of vatican 2'.
The only groups regularly recognized without trouble by the Vatican are the Chinese Patriotic Association...
That statement is as damning as it comes. They recognize Chinese Communists sacramentally and now spiritually as well, seeking reunification with them. For your information, the Latae Sententiae excommunciation written into canon law by Pope Pius XII in 1951 and 1955 was to automatically excommunicate the Chicoms who were consecrating bishops AND INSTALLING THEM IN COMPETING DIOCESES. The latter part is crtiical for the excommunications to be applied. Hence they had no basis in law for either Abp. THuc or Abp. Lefebvre.
And more importantly no basis in fact as the 'church of vatican 2' is not the real Roman Catholic Church in the least, but a completely fabricated man-made religion, which worships man not God.
The lack of co-consecrators and the secrecy of the ceremony, along with the lack of a Papal mandate creates at least a dubium in terms of validity.
two witnesses present at the three sede consecrations, Doctor Hiller and Doctor Heller, affirming the ceremony in fact occured.
Were Drs. Holler and Haller and Huller unavaiable to also assist?
Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae in 1893 declared Anglican Orders to be absolutely null and void - and the form of their rite was much closer to the valid rite of ordination than that of the 'church of vatican 2'.
Considering that the old and current Roman Rites both use the same form that has been used at least since the time of Pope St. Leo the Great, and defined as the form by Pope Pius XII, while the Anglican Church has never used the proper form, I don't see how you say this at all.
automatically excommunicate the Chicoms who were consecrating bishops AND INSTALLING THEM IN COMPETING DIOCESES. The latter part is crtiical for the excommunications to be applied.
I fail to see any limitation of the law to the Chinese situation. Was this part written in invisible ink?
Also, the Chinese are not consecrating Bishops for "competing dioceses". They took over the actual diocesean structures.
And more importantly no basis in fact as the 'church of vatican 2' is not the real Roman Catholic Church in the least, but a completely fabricated man-made religion, which worships man not God.
Of course! Worshipping the man, "Christ Jesus", and not the God, "Personal Judgement of the Pope". For shame! (/sarcasm)
Maybe you can explain next how Canon 188.4 applies to someone who continues to obstinately hold and function in an office, and Canon 2314 does not.
lol, yes there is. I have not been catholic since I was 12. He does live in the Vatican, don't remember his name off hand.
"I saw also the relationship between two popes ... I saw how baleful would be the consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size; heretics of every kind came into the city of Rome. The local clergy grew lukewarm, and I saw a great darkness...
"I had another vision of the great tribulation. It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted. I saw many older priests, especially one, who wept bitterly. A few younger ones were also weeping. But others, and the lukewarm among them, readily did what was demanded. It was as if people were splitting into two camps.
"I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church ... But God had other designs. "
"I saw again the strange big church that was being built there in Rome. There was nothing holy in it. I saw this just as I saw a movement led by Ecclesiastics to which contributed angels, saints, and other Christians. But there in the strange big church all the work was being done mechanically according to set rules and formulae. Everything was being done according to human reason ...I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed very successful. I di not see a single Angel nor a single saint helping in the work. But far away in the background, I saw the seat of the cruel people armed with spears, and I saw a laughing figure which said: " Do build it as solid as you can; we will pull it to the ground."
"I saw again the new and odd-looking church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it ... People were kneading bread in the crypt below ... but it would not rise, nor did they receive the body of our Lord, but only bread. Those who were in error, through no fault of their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the Body of Jesus were spiritually consoled, but not by their communion. Then my Guide (Jesus) said: "This is Babel."
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.
