Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:32 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
Roman Catholic leaders in Austria called an emergency meeting today after officials discovered a vast cache of photos and videos allegedly depicting young priests having sex at a seminary.
About 40,000 photographs and an undisclosed number of films, including child pornography, were downloaded on computers at the seminary in St Poelten, about 50 miles west of Vienna, the respected news magazine Profil reported.
Officials with the local diocese declined to comment but were meeting privately on the scandal, Austrian state television reported.
It said the seminary’s director, the Rev Ulrich Kuechl, and his deputy, Wolfgang Rothe, had resigned.
The Austrian Bishops Conference issued a statement today pledging a full and swift investigation.
“Anything that has to do with homosexuality or pornography has no place at a seminary for priests,” it said.
Church officials discovered the material on a computer at the seminary, Profil said. It published several images purportedly showing young priests and their instructors kissing and fondling each other and engaging in orgies and sex games.
The child porn came mostly from web sites based in Poland, the magazine said.
Bishop Kurt Krenn, a conservative churchman who oversees the St Poelten Diocese, told Austrian television he had seen photos of seminary leaders in sexual situations with students. Krenn, however, dismissed the photos as “silly pranks” that “had nothing to do with homosexuality”.
A group of St. Poelten Diocese officials planned to ask the Vatican to remove Krenn as bishop, Austrian radio reported.
Vatican spokesman Ciro Benedettini told the Austria Press Agency that the Holy See had no comment.
Krenn, 68, issued a statement calling the accusations groundless while conceding that he “may have made some wrong personnel decisions” at the seminary.
I have always found the argument between "pro multis" and "pro omnes" to be semantical. I would certainly have no problem with "pro multis", which, as you correctly observe, are the words of Jesus Christ and therefore ought to be in rubrics of the Mass as Christ said those words.
One of my own pet peeves is the near universal opening of the NO creed: We believe when the original is Credo or I believe. What my pew neighbor may believe should be for my pew neighbor to declare for him/herself. Likewise "Et cum spiritu tuo" translated by NO missals as "And also with you" and not the correct "and with your spirit." I think Bishop Imesch and the ICEL have been doing this sort of thing to aggravate actual Catholics to distraction AND because the ICEL version of the faith is more than questionable.
If anyone who went to hell last century had said: Yes, Lord, I accept your sacrifice and lived accordingly, then the Blood would have been shed for him/her. I think the distinction lacks much difference. We are not Calvinists. Christ did not say: I shed My Blood for Mary Jones but not for that Bill Smith who is going to do all those awful things in Kansas and die in 1970. If I am wrong, I am wrong and welcome authoritative correction.
I share your preference and wish that Low Mass were more widely available. When only 1 Latin Mass is offered on a Sunday, then it is usually only High Mass. Each traditional parish needs to have a minimum of 2 Masses on Sunday, so devotees of both High Mass and Low Mass can each have their option.
One of the posts on this thread mentioned that you live in Rockford and the situation there with St. Mary's. So why should you need to travel 1 hour for Latin Mass?
I noticed.
The only thing this crowd does is attack traditionalists to deflect attention from the modernist heresy.
But to this crowd it is. It represents an entirely different Church and Faith than of the last forty years.
I have always thought John Paul II's Ecclesia Dei to be semantical. He never meant to use the word "schism" he actually meant "symbiosis".
As to the Jewish covenant, I seem to recall that Jesus Christ said: "I come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it." Dismas was not baptized and may not have been a Jew but he is certainly in heaven since Christ said so.
I would reject outright your claim that most Jews are atheists. Among Jews as among others, the high birthrates are not among the atheists but among the passionate believers. The very large Lubavitcher Chassidic group of Jews averages something like nine kids per family. We should be as "Catholic" in that respect as are they. Even if they were atheists, that is beside the point as to whether Jews may be saved without baptism of water. Unrepentant mortal sinners go to hell whether Catholic, Protestant, Jew, pagan, or whatever. The question is rather whether Jews may be saved without baptism. I do not know. Whatever God decides is fine by me because his decisions MUST be more just than mine or those of any other mortal. I would prefer that they convert but that is how I feel about the schism as well. No one will be spiritually harmed by submission to the Vicar of Christ on earth. We have that on the very Highest Authority.
May I also note that the apostles themselves continued to try to attend Jewish services at the Temple in Jerusalem until firmly rejected by the Temple Jews.
I also believe that those pagans who believed in one Supreme Being (as the Sioux, for example), had no exposure whatsoever to the Bible or to the Church (born , say, in Nebraska in the year 1000) and lived throughly righteous lives according to the Natural Law written on their hearts (for what other reason???) by the One True God, may well be in heaven. Otherwise, they were created in such times and circumstances as to send them inevitably to hell. I am not a Calvinist. Nor should anyone be a Calvinist.
As top the Jews again, if Christ did not come to abolish the Law (the Old Covenant), who did?
It is quite evident and quite just (and even more mercful than necessary) that JP II in Ecclesia Dei said what he meant and meant what he said. May he and his successors NEVER relent.
There is NOTHING traditional about schism and there never will be.
I live about 25 miles from Rockford and the Oratory. The drive each way is 25-30 minutes. Round trip: One hour.
Is the topic of this thread traditional? Are Hindu priests praying in the Blessed Mother's chapel at Fatima operating within the bounds of Catholic Tradition?
Rome approves of both. Do you agree with Rome or not?
But you don't take Christ for his WORD! How charitable.
There are whole books full of facts. Try the "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators." Try the article that started this thread. Even the seminaries have become virtual Sodom and Gomorrah.
"There are no facts to support this notion. [of a loss of grace]"
If the Mass is invalid, the graces of the sacrifice are not present. For example, one cannot receive graces from a "consecrated" piece of Wonder Bread or a cookie. Form, matter, and intention are required for the graces. It is strictly a matter of fact.
Pope John Paul II allowed a statue of Buddha to be placed on top of a consecrated altar to God at one of the Assisi debacles.
Do you agree or disagree?
Actually, the "for ALL" is the quotation, properly translated from the Aramaic.
Best take your meds and calm down.
I am no fan of the NO, and have lots of reservations, some quite serious, about it. I have even MORE about its implementation.
Having said that, the texts (and rubrics) of the Mass are reserved to the Holy See by Canon Law.
Whatever the Pope approves is final, period.
YOU claim, indirectly, that your knowledge of Aramaic is of sufficient credential to declare that the NO is void.
Good luck. Not even Max, or Ultima, will go that far on this board, although they may wish to.
Notice, I use the word authorized.
This is false propaganda which has been disproven in numerous scholarly articles. And even the original liturgical revolutionaries never made this claim. They said that Aramaic didn't have a word for "all," so when Jesus said "many," which everyone agrees is what He said, they claim that He really meant "all." But scholars have proven over and over again that Aramaic has perfectly good words meaning "all," and that Christ would have said "all" if He had meant "all." Instead He said "many."
No one has the power to "authorize" or "unauthorize" the Catholic Faith.
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.