Influential Priest-Canonist is Abuser

Adoremus Bulletin ^ | September, 2002 | Helen Hull Hitchcock

[Polycarp]

I meant "neo-Catholic," sorry.

As in The Justice of the Term Neo-Catholic by Ferrara.

[Polycarp]

Oh well, when I'm obviously confusing "neoconservative" with "neocatholic" its time for sleep. Sorry for the knee jerk reaction, Max.

God Bless, both of you.

[Polycarp]

How can you be on FreeRepublic and "detest the phrase conservative"? These are useful labels and there's nothing perjorative about them.

I do not find political labels useful in the Catholic realm, as Sursum Corda pointed out recently. See the remarks here: Catholic Caucus: Discussion topic: What is an "orthodox Catholic"??? immediately at the top, re "conservative" and "Papal trads"

[american colleen]

I don't know.

He went toe to toe with Cardinal Bernardin over the "Call to Action" plan Bernardin had and he is perceived by the media as one of the more "conservative" Cardinals, loyal to the Pope. OTOH, the Archdiocese has been a mess for years, the so-called Catholic colleges here are teaching heterodoxy and we have more liberal priests and nuns running around teaching 'new age' type stuff and I just read that the number of marriage annulments granted here are far outnumber any other diocese in the US. I haven't even mentioned our "Catholic" polititians.

He's a great example of why this crisis is not cut and dried.

[Maximilian]

I read the discussion on the thread you linked, and it contains quite a bit of good material. However, it's also clear that there's not a consensus.

I especially appreciate your point about the potential confusion caused by using the term "conservative" for both political and religious purposes. On the other hand, the word has entered general usage with that meaning. I kind of tend towards the position that the meaning of words is determined by the usage.

We need to figure out what words to use before we can even have an argument!

As for me, I'm happy being called a traditionalist. Go ahead and slap a label on me. I'd say that Latin Mass Magazine represents my point of view better than anything else out there.

[Polycarp]

As for me, I'm happy being called a traditionalist. Go ahead and slap a label on me. I'd say that Latin Mass Magazine represents my point of view better than anything else out there.

I'll happily wear the "traditionalist" label too.

Latin Mass has taken a new editorial direction lately, and though I'm a subscriber, I do not always agree with this development.

Generally, Fr. Fessio's comments here represent my point of view: Fr. Fessio: THE MASS OF VATICAN II [ And...What the Council Didn’t Say!]

However, I do not agree with his concluding paragraphs, i.e., where he says attachment to the Tridentine Mass is an extreme. Its not. Its normal.

[Theosis]

"FWIW, there are some folks who have been dogging Pete ever since he broke with the SSPX many years ago."

Well part of the problem is that after he left he hung around a hard-core Feeneyites like Vin Lewis and Charles Coulombe. In his subsequent handling of the SSPX, he scrapped like Vinny and showboated like Coulombe. As entertaining as I found it, I don't think it endeared him any to his former friends in the SSPX.

"Pete is a big boy and can more than take care of his detractors in a fair and open argument."

Agreed. However, since his subsequent ideological shift toward Le Barroux and the traditional French Benedictines, getting him into a fair and open argument is difficult. He still occasionally comments on the traditionalist front, and he still speaks candidly when doing so, but for the most part he simply ignores anything having to do with the traditionalist movement outside of France or his canon law buddies. Therefore, I doubt you will see him responding here or anywhere else.

Which reminds me, any news on whether he's still translating material from Le Barroux? The last time we spoke he was waiting for Dom Basile to publish the shorter version of his thesis on Vatican II and Religious Liberty.

[Theosis]

"And Pete is certainly not an idiot. Like myself, he may just be (relatively) young and naive."

I would suspect the answer is neither. As a friend of his since his SSPX days, I often wondered about his relationship with Huels. From our past conversations, I drew two conclusions:

1) There is a legitimate close friendship between Vere and Huels, which supercedes any ideological differences between the two.

2) There is also a strategic political alliance that extends beyond Vere to include most canonists of a traditionalist persuasion. Basically, Huels has always extended his broad view of the liturgy to include traditionalists as well.

Recall that after Lefebvre went into schism, Huels was the first reputable canonist to call for a broad application of the Ecclesia Dei indult. Most canonists, including Fr. Woestman who was the leading conservative at the time, maintained that the former rigid requirement still applied to the indult.

Huels also was one of the few reputable canonists to defend EWTN's celebration of the Mass facing the altar when their local ordinary tried to coerce them into celebrating the Mass pro populum.

There are numerous other examples within the canon law world where Huels has lent his credibility to traditionalist canonists who would otherwise simply be ignored by their liberal and conservative counterparts.
The end result is that Huels maintains a support base on the right, while traditionalists maintain a credible voice in canonical debate.

This could be why most traditionalist canonists, and not just Vere, while not condoning Huels' actions are rallying behind him right now. On the other hand, this could be the break needed by canonical conservatives in order to galvanize the right and reimpose liturgical uniformity.

[Catholicguy]

An Ecumenical Council is not susceptible to that sort of "dialetical" approach; unless you think the Holy Spirit coaxed conmmunism in the Council.." <>

CG I don't want to start up that whole debate on the infallibility of Vat II again, but you must agree that the "dialectical" approach has been exploited mercilessly during the Post-Conciliar period, with respect to the interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Council's documents.

<> I do agree that in the West, especially in America, that voices opposed to the authentic teachings of the Council have drowned out the competent authorities.The opposition comes from the McBrien left and the Lefevbre right. They are fraternal twins opposed to their Father in Rome.<>

I have often heard liberals boasting about the divisions among conservative and traditional Catholics, as being one of the main reasons for their success. John Allen of the NCR is a recent case that comes to mind.

<> Yeah, I think that empty boast is true. They really haven't had success; but I get his point.<>

Lets face it - if you were the devil and you wanted to destroy the Church, where would you attack?

<> I'd attack Unity. That is what Satan has done, and done very well. Right in the text of the NT we see instances of schisms, very early on. Satan knows he can't destroy the Mass or the Catholic Church. He does know he can peel folks away through schisms and heresies. Satan sets before the intellect of those susceptible to Pride the thought "I am the one that will "save" the Church from thus and such.."

From Cerinthus, to Montanus,to Luther, to Lefebvre, there have always been folks willing to "save" the Church from her "errors."

. Satan has an excellent success rate in this area; and, there appear to be an ever-growing number of folks willing to enlist on his side to "save" the Church. "If I don't do it, all is lost," is both Pride and Pleasure; falsehood and flattery; what an intoxicating cocktail..."<>

-the priesthood? -the Mass? -inflaming conflict between those who love the Mass (of whatever rite)? I still say Unity. That is what Jesus prayed for. He knows how susceptible we are to flattery and the frippery of "faithful to eternal Rome" festooning the intellectual fatuousness of the fraternal fanatics of extremism we hear from incessantly.<>

Gnostics, Protestants, Modernists - they have always sought to destroy the Mass first - and the priesthood along with it. It is a certain sign of who they truly serve and they take great delight when the believers fight amongst one another!

<> I think it the case they attacked Unity prior to the Mass. Coached and coaxed by Satan, (He knew the quickest way to sow enmity and confusion was to appeal to our Pride) they, with all good intentions, tried to "save" the Catholic Church from herself by "defending truth."<>

[Catholicguy]

As usual, CG, you swallow the fish without looking for the bones first. The Council documents WERE somewhat ambiguous--and you ought to read THe Rhine Flows Into the Tiber if you can't believe Max.

<> I prefer the Popes of the Council and the texts of the Council. My prejudice in favor of the Divinely-Constituted Authorities is unwavering.<>

THe ambiguities were exploited by Mgr. Bugnini (and you can read HIS book for verification) to produce, NOT a liturgy which was an organic growth, but a liturgy which was a break with tradition, which was manufactured and fabricated, and which has been further perverted by, (surprise) perverts-in-charge at the Liturgy Wonk meetings.

<> I will stick with how Pope Paul VI characterised the Roman Missal. Whatever Bugnini desired is, relatively, immaterial. The Catholic Church ALWAYS triumphs over any malign machinations. The Catholic Church promulgated a Real Mass and the Mass is the Mass is the Mass; and, has been the same since Holy Thursday.<>

Knowing history can be quite valuable--and reading more than Jungmann's foo foo dust can also be helpful.

<> LOL I am starting to sense he is not your favorite author.I read Klaus Gamber, Dom Cabrol, Early Church Fathers, Dom Gueranger, and others also. Do they count?<>

[Polycarp]

Thank you, sincerely, for these comments regarding Pete. I have exchanged emails with him a number of times and chatted with him online, but I do not know him personally. I highly respect him, and I think this attempt at undermining his views by making this association, and hinting that Pete might have similar problems, simply to negate his message, is sinister at best.

This is a perfect example of the politics of personal destruction engaged in by the far right...insinuate that because Pete is a friend of Huels that Pete too might be gay, or that such association completely negates his considerable academic and intellectual skills.

[Theosis]

"This is a perfect example of the politics of personal destruction engaged in by the far right...insinuate that because Pete is a friend of Huels that Pete too might be gay"

Having met his wife and daughter when he worked for the FSSP, I couldn't help but chuckle at these insinuations as well...

[ninenot]

"Extra ecclesiam, nulla sallus

>..just so we know: how do you define 'extra ecclesiam?' By what precise standard is one 'in ecclesia' versus 'extra ecclesiam?"

[ninenot]

I prefer the Popes of the Council and the texts of the Council.

Non-answers don't count. The Council documents were ambiguous.

Better yet, CG, explain me this riddle. When the Document on the Liturgy orders that the revision of the Roman Rite should grow organically from the existing (Tridentine) Rite, and preserve the Latin language, also requiring that the Faithful should sing and say the responses in Latin (those are quotes from the Document)-------------

then howizzit that Paul VI can approve all-English, non-organic, fabricated "novus Ordo???"

Oh, he has the authority, alright. No one denies that (except a certain poster on this thread.)

But it either IS or IS NOT Latin.

It is impossible for you to defend the actions of Paul VI if you state that the Council's mandates should prevail.

You can only defend it on the same grounds that others defend their Bishop's orders NOT to kneel after Communion.

It was an exercise in raw judicial power, I believe--without malice, of course.

[Theosis]

Polycarp: I've never seen proof of the assertion, just the assertion itself (seems to me HDMZ has made this claim too, but I don't take at face value anything from a sede)

HDMZ: That rabid, vicious, little piece of filth, Vere, whom you so admire, was an admitted "former" satanist - read STILL IS ONE!!!

Actually Polycarp, HDMZ is correct in stating that Vere is an admitted former teenage satanist. This is often overlooked in his conversion story since he doesn't like to dwell on it. In fact, I was a little dissapointed that he barely gave more than a paragraph to it in his conversion story which was just published.

As for HDMZ's assertion Vere still is one, the operative words in the above are "former" and "teenage". Unless one makes the argument that the SSPX is functional satanism (after all Satan is the father of the "non serviam"), it has probably been over a fourteen years since Vere last practiced. Coincidentally, that's right around the time Lefebvre was excommunicated for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate.

[Catholicguy]

Non-answers don't count. The Council documents were ambiguous.

<>Your objection doesn't count. They are not.<>

Better yet, CG, explain me this riddle. When the Document on the Liturgy orders that the revision of the Roman Rite should grow organically from the existing (Tridentine) Rite, and preserve the Latin language, also requiring that the Faithful should sing and say the responses in Latin (those are quotes from the Document)-------------

then howizzit that Paul VI can approve all-English, non-organic, fabricated "novus Ordo???"

<> I don't have that document in front of me but it both calls for a revision of the rite and it allows for the vernacular. That realy does make sense, to me. Local Oridnaries are presumed to both know the needs of their local folks and how best to provide for them.

Pope Paul described the Liturgy as a revision. His teaching on the matter is authoritative, to me.<>

Oh, he has the authority, alright. No one denies that (except a certain poster on this thread.)

But it either IS or IS NOT Latin.

Mebbe, mebbe not. The Document allows for Latin and the vernacular ( I am just going from memory. I will reread it when I get home)

That, btw, is not ambiguity. It is stated for all to see in the Document.<>

It is impossible for you to defend the actions of Paul VI if you state that the Council's mandates should prevail.

<> It is not only possible, it is sensible.<>

You can only defend it on the same grounds that others defend their Bishop's orders NOT to kneel after Communion. It was an exercise in raw judicial power, I believe--without malice, of course

[dsc]

"the politics of personal destruction engaged in by the far right"

The politics of personal destruction is practiced exclusively by the left. Period.

What you are referring to are legitimate concerns as to the man's objectivity and character.

After all, what kind of a person chooses scumbags for friends?

[Theosis]

"After all, what kind of a person chooses scumbags for friends?"

Let me think for a second... prostitutes, lepers, tax collectors, sinners, over-zealous Roman on his way to Damascus in order to muderer more Christians... could it be Jesus of Nazareth?

[dsc]

I was really hoping you wouldn't embarrass yourself with that cheap shot.

Our Lord associated with such people to show them the way; he did not flock together with them as a bird of a feather.