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

Church Bulletins ^ | 11/25/04

[Mike Fieschko]

...it be made publically clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

This either is your position, or it is not, regardless of where you go to Mass.

IANACL, but it seems odd that such a requirement or obligation would be imposed on laity without it being made known to them. Are you a canon lawyer? If not, what has a canon lawyer (or, what have canon lawyers) told you about this?

As to you saying that 'this is your position', well, that's presumptious. Certainly, your saying it doesn't make it so.

[hobbes1]

Ummmmmm...that letter is specific about refrencing the 1984 letter, see footnote 9...

(9) Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter Quattuor abhinc annos. 3 Oct. 1984: AAS 76 (1984) pp. 1088-1089.

[latae sententiae]

it seems odd that such a requirement or obligation would be imposed on laity without it being made known to them.

Not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be either claiming ignorance of the very indult you are going to Mass under, or calling the very legitimacy of that same indult into question.

Are you a canon lawyer? If not, what has a canon lawyer (or, what have canon lawyers) told you about this?

See above remark.

As to you saying that 'this is your position', well, that's presumptious. Certainly, your saying it doesn't make it so.

I didn't say it was your position. I said either is , or it is not.

[csbyrnes84]

Well if you aren't going to tell me any news I may just have to come and visit you folks next Sunday at 9am.

[latae sententiae]

Well if you aren't going to tell me any news I may just have to come and visit you folks next Sunday at 9am.

Sure, come on over.

[Mike Fieschko]

it seems odd that such a requirement or obligation would be imposed on laity without it being made known to them.

Not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be either claiming ignorance of the very indult you are going to Mass under, or calling the very legitimacy of that same indult into question.

I didn't express myself clearly. I've never seen any letters of whatever from the bishop granting indults, so I am ignorant of what's in the letters. I haven't any reason to question their legitimacy

I was thinking out loud, wondering that if there is such a requirement (from the 1984 letter) imposed on the laity, how the bishop or Rome or someone can expect them to fulfill it when it's not made known.

I honestly have never heard anything like it brought up, at any time, since I've been attending indults.

As to you saying that 'this is your position', well, that's presumptious. Certainly, your saying it doesn't make it so.

I didn't say it was your position. I said either is , or it is not.

Oops, you're right. Thanks for the correction.

What do you think 'doctrinal exactitude' means?

[ELS]

How does Perricone plan to "fix"

Why don't you ask Fr. Perricone himself?

[latae sententiae]

Why don't you ask Fr. Perricone himself?

I did. He hasn't answered me. That's why I was wondering if he'd addressed this from the pulpit.

[ELS]

he [Fr. Perricone] considers every confession & marriage that took place at the chapel from 1984 until until his arrival last month to be invalid

1) How do you know what is in Fr. Perricone's mind? If you knew him that well, you would likely know the answer to your question.

2) The chapel was completed in 1996. Therefore, there were no sacraments at the chapel before 1996.

If there are any children left who are preparing for Confirmation

There are plenty of children at St. Anthony's. And some families that initially left are returning. There are options besides the two you have given. What about one of the auxiliary bishops confirming the children in the traditional rite?

[latae sententiae]

How do you know what is in Fr. Perricone's mind? If you knew him that well, you would likely know the answer to your question.

That is the position of the Archdiocese of which he is an agent and of the Archbishop to whom he is subject. All I'm trying to find out is whether or not he's had the cajones to tell all of you that your confessions & marriages prior to his arrival never happened. I am not holding my breath, however.

2) The chapel was completed in 1996. Therefore, there were no sacraments at the chapel before 1996.

The building in West Orange was completed in '96. The chapel existed as an entity from 1984, and there were sacraments & everything. You can look it up in the Constitution & By Laws of the chapel, which the Board of Directors is legally obligated to permit you to view.

What about one of the auxiliary bishops confirming the children in the traditional rite?

What about it? Y'think it'll happen? Why send one of the auxillaries if the Archbishop himself was such an admirer of Fr. Wickens, and so glad that you're all now part of the Catholic Church?

[ELS]

All I'm trying to find out is whether or not he's had the cajones to tell all of you that your confessions & marriages prior to his arrival never happened.

Do you mean like the bishop of Campos told all of the faithful of that diocese their marriages and confessions never happened? Oh wait, that didn't happen. Have you considered that a similar arrangement may occur with St. Anthony's?

The chapel existed as an entity from 1984

OK, I just wanted to make sure you weren't referring to the physical building in W. Orange as "the chapel."

[gbcdoj]

3. Of course the celebrants of the "Tridentine" Mass should not fail in their preaching and contacts with the faithful attending such Masses to emphasize their own adherence to the legislation of the universal Church and their acknowledgment of the doctrinal and juridical value of the liturgy as revised after the Second Vatican Council. Under such conditions, it would seem unnecessary, even unduly painful, to impose further restrictions upon those who wish to attend such celebrations. (Cardinal Mayer, Letter to the Bishops of the United States)

All of the conditions of the 1984 indult were revoked. All that's necessary is that the priest acknowledge "the doctrinal and juridical value of the liturgy as revised after the Second Vatican Council".

[Mike Fieschko]

Cardinal Mayer, Letter to the Bishops of the United States

Thanks. I thought there was something or other about this, but wasn't moved to do a search.

To me, if the diocesan papers either print weekly ads for the indult (as one did), or have announcements of times (as another one did), and I'm not subjected to any vetting, then the Mass is ok by the bishop.

Since I've never been asked my view of the 1969 Mass, there's been no requirement imposed on me. That's one reason I ask people what happened when they got asked that by the bishop or priest, because frankly, I've never met anyone who has been asked about these things.

Maybe I'm over-simplifying it, but so what? Frankly, I could spend months or years learning canon law and studying documents. I'd wind up with a poorly-informed idea and wind up proving myself an ignoramus.

[reaganaut]

IIRC, there was a link n(on a previous thread) to a blog with background on this situation. Anyone have a link?

[csbyrnes84]

I think you're referring to Traditio's web page which is kind of a blog. However you must remember that they are heavily biased against the handover to the Diocese.

Their web page is www.traditio.com

Go to commentaries from the mailbox and click on November.

[Rosary]

anyone who knew Fr. Wickens should know he did NOT agree with the INDULT Mass......you can not go six days a week to the New Ordo and oh yes, on Sunday the Bishop says we can all go to the Latin tridentine Mass, in the same Church.....(where the altar is desecrated, by the New Rite"....oh goody the old Latin Mass on Sundays thanks sooooooooo much ......get my point?
Most went with Fr. Murphy for the reason they TRUST NOT this new priest, his Ordinatin or his ways......there was a written WILL what happened to it and tell us the real truth! Fr. Wickens from heaven above help !

[latae sententiae]

Do you mean like the bishop of Campos told all of the faithful of that diocese their marriages and confessions never happened? Oh wait, that didn't happen.

Yes. Exactly like that.

Have you considered that a similar arrangement may occur with St. Anthony's?

I'm quite sure it will! Meyers, Perricone, et al. hold certain theological positions which they will not divulge based upon the question that's asked and the persons asking it. They won't step up & admit to you that they consider Fr. Wickens' sacraments not to have been valid (though, rest assured, that's exactly what they believe). Their silence shouldn't be interpreted as support, but rather cowardice. Leaders - cajones = Modernists.

[Bookem_Danno]

Just curious, can a Permanent Deacon serve as the Deacon at a Tridentine Mass?

[reaganaut]

Thanks. I was actually looking for it for some other research I am doing.

[ELS]

Leaders - cajones = Modernists.

Are you saying that Fr. Perricone is a Modernist?