Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Dawn on November 03, 2007, 07:25:44 AM
-
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=195457
I watched Life on the Rock this week and did not see Fr. Francis I just assumed he had the week to rest. I really liked this priest. When I watched the Mass on EWTN a few years back he gave good sermons as do all of the EWTN regular priests. This is the second time this happened there. The first was priest named Father John Klospar (sp). He I had even spoken to once on the phone when my second child was premature and kept in Neonatal. He gave me good advice and prayers. I really am in tears over this. May Holy Mary guide him.
-
Did you consider him a Catholic? Do you realize there are many other priests you have met who helped you who you now, maybe without realizing it, aren't Catholics. Ask yourself, did you think they were illuminated by the Holy Ghost? And if so how could that be if they adhered to heresy and blasphemy. It's easy to point at a Pope, but we have to remember that almost all Catholics who are traditional, let alone sedevacantists, have had some contact with a good priest who was not a sedevacantist and it's clear they have the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
I feel horrible too and yes we should pray for him.
-
I'm shocked EWTN would announce the priest's private issues on air. What a scandal. Let us hope when the post states he became "involved with" a widow, it means a mere emotional attraction and nothing more. There is nothing greater than the priesthood. It is hard to fathom why any man would consider abandoning it. Hopefully this priest will once again value his vocation.
-
This is the worst scandal of a priest. Unfortunately, I've known a lot NO priests who had this kind of scandal. It's DISHEARTENING but we must never lose hope. :cry:
We must continue praying for them. :pray:
-
Is it a mortal sin for a priest to leave the priesthood?
If the answer is "yes", then my second question is: If is is a mortal sin for a priest to leave Holy Orders, then why does the Church abet in the priest's sin by granting laicization?
-
I don't think so.... BUT it must first be prudently studied by the Catholic Church before granting dispensation. Am I right?
-
Someone needs to tell him he is going to hell for this, he has betrayed God, committed adultery against his spouse, the Catholic Church, and there is very little possibility of a true repentance as that would require him to give up his ilicit affair with this servant whore of the evil one who is seeking to damn his soul to hell.
-
-
I think differently, priests receive much more grace and are expected to set a higher standard, "to those whom much is given much is expected"
The lowest levels of hell are kept for priests who betray God and some one needs to tell him, to not do so is to stand aside and usher him down the path to eternal damnation.
Sadly I don't think any of the folks at EWTN will tell him this, they wouldn't want to be seen to be harsh as it does not match their idea of what a good christian should be.
-
"If the answer is "yes", then my second question is: If it is a mortal sin for a priest to leave Holy Orders, then why does the Church abet in the priest's sin by granting laicization?"
I'm wondering why the Church would allow a priest to abandon the priesthood also. Can someone answer the above question? Why doesn't the Church force priests to overcome whatever temptation is luring them from their vocation? Also, can someone explain the process that occurs when a priest asks to return to the lay state? I assume he is required to explain why he can no longer function as a priest.
-
Is it a mortal sin for a priest to leave the priesthood?
If the answer is "yes", then my second question is: If is is a mortal sin for a priest to leave Holy Orders, then why does the Church abet in the priest's sin by granting laicization?
It's actually a form of apostasy, so it's a wee bit different than mortal sin.
-
It's easy to point at a Pope, but we have to remember that almost all Catholics who are traditional, let alone sedevacantists, have had some contact with a good priest who was not a sedevacantist and it's clear they have the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
Good advice, etc., is not a sure sign of the gifts of the Holy Ghost. If you do not have the Faith, you CANNOT have charity. If you do not have these supernatural virtues, you CANNOT possess the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
There are many explanations that admit of merely natural causes.
A priest who takes time off to "discern his priestly vocation" is a SCANDAL. This shows, yet again, that the Novus "Presidership" really is a JOKE.
-
Let us hope when the post states he became "involved with" a widow, it means a mere emotional attraction and nothing more.
Let us be realistic.
-
If the answer is "yes", then my second question is: If is is a mortal sin for a priest to leave Holy Orders, then why does the Church abet in the priest's sin by granting laicization?
Holy Church does no such thing. The Novus, however, is a different ball of wax.
In Catholic practice, even if a man stopped performing his pristly duties - for whatever reason - he is still bound to pray the Office and MUST REMAIN CELIBATE.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a priest to marry - EVER. The fact that the Novus 'lets' this occur should tell you something.
-
Also, can someone explain the process that occurs when a priest asks to return to the lay state?
He is told "Tu es sacerdos IN AETERNUM secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Good day"
-
It's easy to point at a Pope, but we have to remember that almost all Catholics who are traditional, let alone sedevacantists, have had some contact with a good priest who was not a sedevacantist and it's clear they have the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
Good advice, etc., is not a sure sign of the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
Never said it necessarily was, but the life one leads that is supernatural in charity shows God working in individuals. Are you going to tell me that some of the wonderful Franciscan orders today are not a proof of this supernatural graces that one can only live without the grace of God? Or are you not familiar with some of the primitive observance type orders that exist?
-
The reference to 'wonderful' Franciscans is far too vague for me to reply in any real way. Are you thinking of that apostate Groeschel, and his boys? Who?
-
The reference to 'wonderful' Franciscans is far too vague for me to reply in any real way. Are you thinking of that apostate Groeschel, and his boys? Who?
No Apostate Gladius, I'm talking about the orders of the Franciscans of the Primative Observance, and the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
-
Are you now usurping authority, calling me an apostate (with a capital 'A' no less)?
Just let the slime and bitterness keep rolling, Michael. Men like you have actually proved to be a great help in getting people to listen to the case against the V2 Popes and religion. Thank you.
-
Michael,
It is prim-i-tive. Your spelling is almost as bad as your thinking, which is almost as bad as your tactics, which are almost as bad as your manners. Keep up the good work. :cheers:
-
Btw, thank you for at least getting specific as to which Franciscans you meant. I suppose my 'apostasy' has made it much more difficult for me to read men's minds.
-
Is it a mortal sin for a priest to leave the priesthood?
If the answer is "yes", then my second question is: If is is a mortal sin for a priest to leave Holy Orders, then why does the Church abet in the priest's sin by granting laicization?
It's actually a form of apostasy, so it's a wee bit different than mortal sin.
Why would it be a form of apostasy? Apostasy means the formal abandonment or renunciation of one's religion. A priest who leaves the priesthood is not necessarily abandoning the Catholic faith. Some leave the priesthood because they have lost the faith, I admit. But some priests want to be released from their vows because, for instance, they have gotten involved with a woman and want the freedom to pursue a relationship with her and marry her. But that does not mean that because they committed the sin of gettig emotionally involved with a woman and now want to marry her, that they no longer believe in the truths of the Catholic faith.
-
Michael,
It is prim-i-tive. Your spelling is almost as bad as your thinking, which is almost as bad as your tactics, which are almost as bad as your manners. Keep up the good work. :cheers:
One word... that's funny... I guess you are that desperate.
-
Is it a mortal sin for a priest to leave the priesthood?
If the answer is "yes", then my second question is: If is is a mortal sin for a priest to leave Holy Orders, then why does the Church abet in the priest's sin by granting laicization?
It's actually a form of apostasy, so it's a wee bit different than mortal sin.
Why would it be a form of apostasy? Apostasy means the formal abandonment or renunciation of one's religion. A priest who leaves the priesthood is not necessarily abandoning the Catholic faith. Some leave the priesthood because they have lost the faith, I admit. But some priests want to be released from their vows because, for instance, they have gotten involved with a woman and want the freedom to pursue a relationship with her and marry her. But that does not mean that because they committed the sin of gettig emotionally involved with a woman and now want to marry her, that they no longer believe in the truths of the Catholic faith.
Here's the easy answer:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm
APOSTASY AB ORDINE
This, according to the present discipline of the Church, is the abandonment of the clerical dress and state by clerics who have received major orders. Such, at least, is the definition given of it by most authorities. The ancient discipline of the Church, though it did not forbid the marriage of clerics, did not allow them to abandon the ecclesiastical state of their own will, even if they had only received minor orders. The Council of Chalcedon threatens with excommunication all deserting clerics without distinction (Hardouin II, 603). This discipline, often infringed indeed, endured throughout a great part of the Middle Ages. Pope Leo IX decreed, at the Council of Reims (1049): "Ne quis monachus vel clericus a suo gradu apostataret", all monks and clerks are forbidden to abandon their state (Hardouin VI, 1007). The Decretals of Gregory IX, published in 1234, preserve traces of the older discipline under the title De apostatis, which forbids all clerks, without distinction, to abandon their state [V, title 9, i, iii (Friedberg, II, 790-791) ]. Innocent III had however, at an earlier date, given permission to clerks in minor orders to quit the ecclesiastical state of their own will (Decretals of Gregory IX, III, title 3, vii; see also x, Friedberg, II, 458-460). The Council of Trent did not restore the ancient discipline of the Church, but deemed it sufficient to command the bishops to exercise great prudence in bestowing the tonsure, and only laid the obligations involved in the clerical state on clerks who have received major orders and on those who enjoy an ecclesiastical benefice (Session XXIII, De Reformatione, iv, vi). Whence it follows that all other clerks can quit their state, but, by the very fact of doing so, lose all the privileges of the clergy. Even the clerk in minor orders who enjoys an ecclesiastical benefice, should he wish to be laicized, loses his benefice by the very fact of his laicization, a loss which is to be regarded not as the penalty, but as the consequence, of his having abandoned the ecclesiastical state. These considerations suffice, it would seem, to refute the opinion maintained by some writers [Hinschius, System des Katholischen Kirchenrechts (Berlin, 1895), V, 905], who think that a clerk in minor orders can, even at the present day, be an apostate ab ordine. This opinion is rejected, among others, by Scherer, [Handbuch des Kirchenrechtes (Gratz, 1886), I, 313; Wernz, II, 338, note 24; Hollweck, 299].
Today, after three ineffectual notices, the apostate clerk loses, ipso facto, the privileges of clergy [Decretals of Gregory IX, V, title 9, i; title 39, xxiii, xxv (Friedberg, II, 790 and 897)]. By the very fact of apostasy he incurs infamy, which, however is only an infamy of fact, not one of law imposed by canonical legislation. Infamy involves irregularity, and is an offense punishable by the loss of ecclesiastical benefices. Finally, should the apostate persist in his apostasy, the bishop may excommunicate him [Constit. of Benedict XIII, Apostolicæ ecclesiæ regimine, 2 May, 1725, in Bullarum amplissima collectio (Rome, 1736), XI, ii, 400].
-
Are you now usurping authority, calling me an apostate (with a capital 'A' no less)?
Just let the slime and bitterness keep rolling, Michael. Men like you have actually proved to be a great help in getting people to listen to the case against the V2 Popes and religion. Thank you.
I was joking, and secondly you don't show good manners so why do you find my statement so worthy of contempt?
At least when you do it to me I don't sound like a grumpy old woman like yourself. If you want to do the calling name bit take it like a man or stop pretending that you are.
-
APOSTASY AB ORDINE
This, according to the present discipline of the Church, is the abandonment of the clerical dress and state by clerics who have received major orders. Such, at least, is the definition given of it by most authorities. The ancient discipline of the Church, though it did not forbid the marriage of clerics, did not allow them to abandon the ecclesiastical state of their own will, even if they had only received minor orders. The Council of Chalcedon threatens with excommunication all deserting clerics without distinction (Hardouin II, 603). This discipline, often infringed indeed, endured throughout a great part of the Middle Ages. Pope Leo IX decreed, at the Council of Reims (1049): "Ne quis monachus vel clericus a suo gradu apostataret", all monks and clerks are forbidden to abandon their state (Hardouin VI, 1007). The Decretals of Gregory IX, published in 1234, preserve traces of the older discipline under the title De apostatis, which forbids all clerks, without distinction, to abandon their state [V, title 9, i, iii (Friedberg, II, 790-791) ]. Innocent III had however, at an earlier date, given permission to clerks in minor orders to quit the ecclesiastical state of their own will (Decretals of Gregory IX, III, title 3, vii; see also x, Friedberg, II, 458-460). The Council of Trent did not restore the ancient discipline of the Church, but deemed it sufficient to command the bishops to exercise great prudence in bestowing the tonsure, and only laid the obligations involved in the clerical state on clerks who have received major orders and on those who enjoy an ecclesiastical benefice (Session XXIII, De Reformatione, iv, vi). Whence it follows that all other clerks can quit their state, but, by the very fact of doing so, lose all the privileges of the clergy. Even the clerk in minor orders who enjoys an ecclesiastical benefice, should he wish to be laicized, loses his benefice by the very fact of his laicization, a loss which is to be regarded not as the penalty, but as the consequence, of his having abandoned the ecclesiastical state. These considerations suffice, it would seem, to refute the opinion maintained by some writers [Hinschius, System des Katholischen Kirchenrechts (Berlin, 1895), V, 905], who think that a clerk in minor orders can, even at the present day, be an apostate ab ordine. This opinion is rejected, among others, by Scherer, [Handbuch des Kirchenrechtes (Gratz, 1886), I, 313; Wernz, II, 338, note 24; Hollweck, 299].
Today, after three ineffectual notices, the apostate clerk loses, ipso facto, the privileges of clergy [Decretals of Gregory IX, V, title 9, i; title 39, xxiii, xxv (Friedberg, II, 790 and 897)]. By the very fact of apostasy he incurs infamy, which, however is only an infamy of fact, not one of law imposed by canonical legislation. Infamy involves irregularity, and is an offense punishable by the loss of ecclesiastical benefices. Finally, should the apostate persist in his apostasy, the bishop may excommunicate him [Constit. of Benedict XIII, Apostolicæ ecclesiæ regimine, 2 May, 1725, in Bullarum amplissima collectio (Rome, 1736), XI, ii, 400].
I don't understand. Does that mean that the Church allows laicization but then penalizes the priest with excommunication if he persists in his lay state?
-
I would think what is meant, Magdalene, is if a priest just suddenly left the duties of the priesthood on his own without consulting his superiors.
-
I would think what is meant, Magdalene, is if a priest just suddenly left the duties of the priesthood on his own without consulting his superiors.
Kepha, as usual, is correct.
-
:laugh1: Well, someone else could have figured it out though I suppose.
It is sad to hear when a priest leaves the priesthood indeed, and I had a professor who was I think a laicized priest. In his case though, I think he got in trouble with his order. He did have a tendency for the left wing, i.e. liberalism/Marxism, but I am not sure what his stance is exactly now. He was not too partial to Bl. Pius IX though, I tell you.
-