Cardinal Müller ordained a monk from Le Barroux as a priest in the traditional rite.
[katholisches] Two well-known cardinals have offered the priestly ordination in the Immemorial Mass of All Ages during these months. Cardinal George Pell consecrated two Benedictines from Nursia and Cardinal Gerhard Müller one Benedictine from Le Barroux. Both consecrations are a signal to want to defend the Rite and the communities associated with it against the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes. A new website also provides up-to-date information on the effects of Traditionis Custodes on the dioceses. An initial balance can be drawn.
Cardinal George Pell, innocent [?, not exactly], sprung from an Australian prison after thirteen months, ordained Dom Augustine Wilmeth of South Carolina and Dom Bernard Baca of Louisiana as priests in September. Both belong to the traditional Benedictine monastery of Nursia in Italy, which was founded in 2000.
Cardinal George Pell with the two monks of Nursia whom he ordained priests
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Bishop Emeritus of Regensburg and Prefect of the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was dismissed "in a minute" by Pope Francis in 2017, consecrated a monk of the ancient Benedictine abbey of Sainte-Madeleine du Barroux in Vaucluse, France, founded in 1978 by Dom Gérard Calvet. The abbey is currently headed by Dom Louis-Marie de Geyer d'Orth.
The consecration took place a few days before the publication of Traditionis Custodes. Cardinal Müller bluntly criticized the motu proprio three days after it appeared in a comment for the US publication The Catholic Thing:
“Without the slightest empathy, one ignores the religious feelings of the - often also young people - participants in the masses according to the Missal of John XXIII. (1962). Instead of taking in the smell of the sheep, the shepherd hits them vigorously with his staff. It also seems simply unjust to abolish the celebrations of the 'old' rite just because it attracts some problematic people: abusus non tollit usum. "
The cardinal went even further and contradicted the papal interpretation of the axiom lex orandi - lex credendi (rule of prayer - rule of faith) as the uniformity of the liturgical rite. With this axiom, the Church was concerned with the substance of the sacraments, but not with the liturgical rite, of which there were several in the time of the Church Fathers.
Above all, the behavior of Francis towards the "traditionalists", who in the missal of Paul VI. refuses to measure up to his determination to put an end to the innumerable “progressive” liturgical abuses, often blasphemous. The German cardinal explicitly mentioned the "paganization of the Catholic liturgy". A "mythologization of nature, the deification of the environment and the climate as well as the spectacle of the Pachamama" are probably "rather counterproductive for the restoration and renewal of a dignified and orthodox liturgy that reflects the fullness of the Catholic faith."
The ordinations by the two cardinals Pell and Müller in the Traditional Rite can be seen as a strong symbol in defense of the Immemorial Mass and the communities associated with it.
The balance sheet for the first three months since TraditionisCustodes came into force is nevertheless sobering. In the countries where the traditional Rite is most firmly anchored, the bishops have largely kept quiet. This is not the case everywhere. The traditional rite was banned in 25 dioceses and partially banned or restricted in a further 33 dioceses.
A specially set up website Traditioniscustodes.info publishes the respective decisions in the dioceses, as far as they exist, with reference to the source. So far there have been reports from 238 dioceses. Accordingly, Traditionis Custodes has made the situation worse in every fourth diocese.
A new website uses the traffic light system to show the consequences of Traditionis Custodes in the dioceses
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: InfoVaticana
Trans: Tancred vekeon99@hotmail.com
AMDG
The battle lines are drawn. Muller and Pell are traditional and believe in sin and preach the Gospel. The Argentinian and his boi band of brothers have breached the "walls of Jericho" without a trumpet in sight.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if HillaryWhite was there
ReplyDeleteIt does my heart good to see Cardinals defending the Faith.
ReplyDeleteIt’s quite simple: defend Sacred Tradition, at the cost of your life if need be.
And your fellow travelers are strengthened thereby to continue the journey with you.
“ … “a light to you in dark places, when all other lights go out“. (Lady Galadriel, giving the gift of a Phial of Starlight to Frodo Baggins on his journey in defense of Middle Earth).
This is something cataclysmic. Archbishop Marcel Levebvre was originally sanctioned in 1979 with "suspension exDivinis". The Archbishop was suspended by ordaining traditional priests. Now Cardinals are doing this.The creation of Econe is vindicated! The raison d'être is vinicated in principle! The ordinations were done without the permission of Rome AND IN SPITE OF ROME'S PROHIBITION, as per Berhoglio's moto propio.
ReplyDeleteWhile the rest of the article is great, I take serious exception to this passage:
ReplyDelete"Cardinal George Pell, innocent [?, not exactly], sprung from an Australian prison after thirteen months,..."
Anyone who is familiar with the facts in Cardinal Pell's case will see that it was impossible for Cardinal Pell to have committed the crimes he was accused of. He was, and remains, 100 percent innocent. Not merely acquitted because there was reasonable doubt, which is the technical legal basis for his release. He was *innocent*.
He was "sprung from an Australian prison" because the evidence against him was laughably weak, and he ought never to have been charged, let alone convicted.
To continue to perpetuate the lie that he is "not exactly" innocent is a grave disservice to him, to the Church, and to every other victim whose accusations are credible.
Well said. The premier of Victoria undermined the decision of the High Court when it was handed down - the Victorian Police, after all, look very bad. That people feel comfortable in making imputations that have been expressly rejected by the highest Court in Australia, after a personal vendetta against Cardinal Pell by the media and an avaricious ‘ victims’ rights’ industry, is appalling. Cardinal Pell has done important work for the Church. He has stood up for the victims and developed a compensation system 20 years before the Royal Commission grandstanded. He has scrutinised the corruption in the Vatican and faced off those people- and now is making a stand in defence of traditional vocations. He is a courageous and decent man and a wonderful person to have as a prince of the Church at this time when we seem to have deceitful men in high positions who are manipulating the truth to bring about their self-interested agendas. I would have thought that the author of this article would have given some credit and respect to the High Court and would have been grateful that, amongst the Marx, Schonborns, Beccius, Roches, in the Church, we actually have a decent and holy man as a Cardinal.
DeleteHe’s not exactly innocent and I think he’s as guilty as hell.
Deletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6759263/Sister-man-claims-sexually-assaulted-George-Pell-swimming-pool-fires-back.html
You can “think” whatever you want, but you’re simply wrong. The article you cite is rife with error and misrepresents the basis for the Cardinal’s acquittal. I suggest you read the actual decision: https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2020/HCA/12, starting at paragraph 118.
ReplyDeleteIf there were “issues with the evidence“, they were that the evidence of the complainants was not worthy of belief. It’s bad enough that the man was forced to endure clearing his name in an anti-Catholic society using courts that were disposed against him, but to see him pilloried again in the ostensibly Catholic media is intolerable.
You are perpetuating lies.
You’re a little bit too new to the Pell world to be accusing anyone of anything, or you’re a glow in the dark, which is a whole new level of scum.
DeleteWhether he’s been soft on aberrosexuals, letting them do their Soho “Masses”, letting Dom Alcuin Ried getting off scott free, protecting sexual predators, or “allegedly” getting kicked out of community pools for exposing himself to kids, or supporting evolution,
among other things, he cuts a very shallow and devious figure.
I know that Neocon fraud Weigel will put his undeserved good reputation on the line to defend him, but we know more here, evidently, than you.
Inform yourself....
You’re a little bit too new to the Pell world to be accusing anyone of anything, or you’re a glow in the dark, which is a whole new level of scum.
DeleteWhether he’s been soft on aberrosexuals, letting them do their Soho “Masses”, letting Dom Alcuin Ried getting off scott free, protecting sexual predators, or “allegedly” getting kicked out of community pools for exposing himself to kids, or supporting evolution,
among other things, he cuts a very shallow and devious figure.
I know that Neocon fraud Weigel will put his undeserved good reputation on the line to defend him, but we know more here, evidently, than you.
Inform yourself....
Pell is a low grade pervert and self-promoting exhibitionist.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about Cardinal Pell but I do know that Father Gordon McCrae has been imprisoned for 27 years on the same flimsy charges.
ReplyDeleteI've referred you to the Australian High Court's written decision.
ReplyDeleteYou've done nothing but make insinuations.
I suggest you follow your own advice.
That’s only one case.
DeletePell banned from Ballarat pool because he was caught fondling and exposing himself to children.
ReplyDeleteLes Tyack was very convincing.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/28/george-pell-exposed-himself-to-young-boys-at-surf-club-says-victorian-man
Contrary to the spin and disinformation generated by the disingenuous Pell supporters, the High Court of Australia did not exonerate him at all. The Court found that the Victorian County Court failed to take into account the principle of a 'reasonable doubt.'
ReplyDeleteThere is a string of pending cases against Pell. He would do well to see out his days in Rome.
The case I cited is the only one involving accusations against Cardinal Pell that have been scrutinized by judicial process. That process found, as you'll see at paragraphs 117 through 127, that the evidence was such that was impossible for the incidents to have occurred.
ReplyDeleteYou, on the other hand, don't cite any cases that have been judicially scrutinized. Instead, you rely on a news report that is over 6 years old, published during the heat of the Pell accusation in Australia.
You call Tyack "very convincing". Judging from your own article, both the Victoria police service and Australia's royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse clearly disagree with you. Tyack spoke to police twice, yet no charges were brought. The royal commission decided not to investigate further.
Your own article also indicates other accusations, none of which proved credible enough to warrant investigation.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Cardinal Pell was operating in a virulently anti-Catholic society, with police looking for any reason to lay charges against a Catholic cleric. The fact they chose not to do so speaks volumes.
Yet you continue to perpetuate these lies.
How are they lies?
DeleteThere are many questionable things Pell has done which haven’t been scrutinized by a juridical process, and yet the boys I’m convinced he abused at Ballarat pool have led difficult lives with one committing suicide.
Just because the police choose not to investigate the case, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It also doesn’t mean that the police are saying it didn’t happen, either,
Also, the ruling in Pell’s case doesn’t indicate that he was innocent, only that they couldn’t justify locking him up on the evidence given.
Is Pell even Catholic?
As if a jury and a judicial process couldn’t be wrong.
ReplyDelete😂
You're convinced after reading a 6-year-old report in The Guardian that shows neither the police, nor the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse considered these other allegations credible enough to investigate further.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, you dismiss the findings of a Court comprised of 7 judges that spent a full day in argument with two eminently qualified barristers scrutinizing the evidence from a 24-day trial that heard from actual complainants and dozens of other witnesses.
I'm sure you're right and they're wrong, though.
Ok, I get it, you’re pro-modernist Pell. It doesn’t matter that like Bergoglio, he shielded vicious pedos, he’s the darling of Neocons and beloved of Weigel.
DeleteLet the mounting evidence be damned.
Don’t mind the testimonies by victims and eyewitnesses. 😂
The jury never got to see Les Tyack’s testimony and the Australian constabulary has a long and tragic history of shielding sodomites and other predators in the Catholic Church (and elsewhere). There’s a similar situation in the US.
ReplyDeleteDid you attend Pell’s late evening Soho liturgies by any chance? (Interestingly, Gnostics and Satanist have their liturgies after sundown on Sundays.
A bunch of unsubstantiated allegations from six years ago that no one believed is not “mounting evidence”.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, Cardinal Pell was acquitted by the highest Court in Australia, which has long been virulently anti-Catholic.
Are you saying that the accusations against Risdale are unsubstantiated?
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that people abused by clergy often report their abuse long after they’ve been molested by perverts like Pell, no?
You must have been at Pell’s Soho liturgies and had a gay ole time, guv.
The clown with the faux Latin name is a professional Pell troller encouraged by Pell's incompetent protoges, in Sydney and Melbourne: 'Boy George the Great' and 'Boy George the Less.'
ReplyDeleteThe totally false claim is that the High Court of Australia acquitted Pell of the charges against him. No Court has ever acquitted Pell. Chances are that if he returns to Australia to face the myriad of pending civil litigation, he'll be begging with the ass out of his Cappa Magna. His bank rollers in the Knights of Whatever and the Legatus have lost big money on this showboat.
Many too understandably believe that Pell is amoral and without faith. If he has either, he's keeping them to himself.
I despised Pell in the 90s, and I like him even less that I know more.
ReplyDeleteYou guys truly are a piece of work.
ReplyDeleteRead the bloody case: https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2020/HCA/12
The Order literally says:
"Set aside order 2 of the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme
Court of Victoria made on 21 August 2019 and, in its place, order
that:
(a) the appeal be allowed; and
(b) the appellant's convictions be quashed and judgments of
acquittal be entered in their place"
Pell voluntarily went to Australia to face trial. He was in an Australian jail for 400 days while he was dealing with this. He only left Australia in September 2020.
If police didn't charge him in all that time, do you really think whatever allegations remain against him have any credibility at all, let alone enough credibility to warrant charges?
You guys do know about extradition laws, right?
At the very least, you’re defending a criminally negligent poof.
DeleteIt's funny how non - traditional cardinals are ordaining traditional priests. At least Lefebvre practiced what he preached. No wonder he was suspended, while these sodomite clowns and the trad priests they have ordained are full fledged members of novus ordo pantheon. Worship buddha one day and ordain trad priests the next. Wow!
ReplyDeleteThe Pell judgment was set aside on a technicality. Never at any point was the evidence of the young male victim/witness called into question by the Victorian County Court, the Victorian Appeals Court or by the High Court of Australia. Pell returned to Australia to defend himself. His lawyers were clearly so concerned that having him in the box would undermine their own defense that Pell was never exposed to cross examination. His entire stack of cards would have fallen.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, if the Pell bank rollers were so confident why did they not appeal to the courts for compensation for unlawful imprisonment and miscarriage of justice. The word of Pell and his character are on the nose in legal circles. His arrogant bullying, dismissive style might work for him in the pulpit but not in a court of law. He has a glass jaw.
If the phony Roman soldier has any memory, he will recall that on two occasions during the Royal Commission into Institutional Cases of Child Sexual Abuse, both the Special Counsel, Gail Furness and Justice McClellan told Pell to his face that the Commission held his evidence to be 'implausible.' That's polite legalese for 'you're a liar!'
A “technicality”. Are you being serious right now?
ReplyDeleteRead the case. I suppose if you consider the fact that the unconverted evidence of every other witnesses the trial heard from would make it impossible for the assaults to have occurred to be a “technicality”, then yeah, I guess it was a technicality.
I can tell you, though, as a trial lawyer with almost 25 years of experience arguing cases, that in my line of work, we refer to that sort of thing as “reasonable doubt”. As far as guilt or innocence goes, implausible allegations coupled with unconverted evidence that makes the allegations impossible is as close to a finding of innocence as you can get.
If Pell ever goes back to his native country, he will most probably have to face up to eight civil cases that could require him to appear in the witness box. He won't have the protection before which effectively protected him from being deconstructed piece by piece. He doesn't handle close examination well at all. That comes with being a domineering bully with the moral development of a twelve year old.
ReplyDeleteHe would also have to deal with the likelihood of being stretched to pay his legal bills and any awards given against him. He's used up his favors with Opus Dei and his American admirers: the Napa Institute, Dominoes Pizza and other uberKatholiks under the Legatus umbrella. They'll drop him like a hot brick now that he can no longer extend patronage.
Pell is clearly a pedo-protector and a bad actor. He should have been imprisoned on a monastery in Antarctica.
ReplyDeletePell is clearly a pedo-protector and a bad actor. He should have been imprisoned on a monastery in Antarctica.
ReplyDeleteEndeavour, once in awhile, to understand the things you write about.
ReplyDeleteNo lawyer worth his salt is going advise his client in a case like that to sit and wait, hoping and praying the good Cardinal returns to the scene of the [alleged] crime.
In cases like that, the main target isn't the bishop; it's the archdiocese. The bishop has no assets. The archdiocese does. To the extent that there is insurance that covers some of the claim, the policy isn't held by the bishop in his personal capacity; it's held by the archdiocese.
The archdiocese is still in Australia.
Even if it were essential to serve the bishop personally, the court can order service outside the jurisdiction.
There is zero reason not to sue - assuming the cases have any merit. And rest assured, if they did have merit, counsel would push those cases forward aggressively. Because they know that a sympathetic client with a believable sexual abuse story involving Catholic clergy as antagonists is a sure-fire winner in front of a jury.
Im not faulting his lawyers for gaming to represent their client, I’m faulting Pell for shielding a predator and lying about what he knew after the fact.
DeleteI have learnt that Big George was in Australia for a few months recently and stayed in a house not far from the Archdiocesan seminary.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a little problem with perception here.
Georgie has a net worth of between 1-5 million USD.
ReplyDeleteMust be the lawyers in those 8 civil suits with the oh-so-credible plaintiffs forgot to serve their clients' super-meritorious claims on Cardinal Pell during his recent stay in Australia.
ReplyDeleteThe estimate of his net worth is utter garbage. Cardinals are paid between €4000 and €5000 a month. Bishops less. Priests even less.
To have a net worth in that range, he'd have to save every penny of his salary from the date of his consecration. Without paying taxes.
And before you start prattling on about how churches don't pay taxes, that applies to the dioceses and religious societies; not to their individual members.
It's obvious that even if the figure isn't pure guesswork, it refers to the diocese; not him personally.
Whatever. I've given you some facts. Hoist them in, or don't. Up to you.
You don’t have to be a paid troll with an agenda to see that those interviews with Pell’s victims and an eyewitness were credible, you just have to be a reasonable adult person.
DeleteI’d be shocked if Pell’s net worth were so low. My great uncle who was a Monsignor was quite wealthy when he died.
Delete+++Meisner owned a chain of grocery stores. 😂
And you MUST be out of your mind.
ReplyDeleteThe average priest makes well above six figures when you thrown in the perks, the office, the secretary, free rent, health insurance. Diocesan priests in the US get about 20k a year, but are far from destitute. 😂
One priest I won’t mention managed to save the high school his parish holds by moving a couple million into their accounts to make them solvent. Plenty of good was done, but to say that clergy doesn’t have much personal capital is absurd and laughable, as are most of your shitty arguments.
LOL
ReplyDeleteYeah. I can tell how many priests earn the equivalent of "well above six figures" by the number of Audis, BMWs, and Mercedes-Benzes I see at all the diocesan retreats.
And also my friar friends' Armani robes, and the Jeanne Lanvin habits so popular among the consecrated religious nuns sisters in our diocese.
You don’t know the value of a dollar, do you?
Deleteoni Faber was living in a loft that cost 5,000 € a month, and he wears Armani, pretty guyÿeee.
Deleteoni Faber was living in a loft that cost 5,000 € a month, and he wears Armani, pretty guyÿeee.
Faerangi Cardinal Marx and some of his co-religionists in Germany have Mercedes, BMWs and Ferrari as personal cars.
Marx even had a fabulous 8million euro villa in Rome. A guy like you would love it!
DeleteFaerangi Cardinal Marx and some of his co-religionists in Germany have Mercedes, BMWs and Ferrari as personal cars.
Marx even had a fabulous 8million euro villa in Rome. A guy like you would love it!
Coccopalomero’s boyfriend was pretty enterprising.
ReplyDeletehttps://nypost.com/2017/07/05/vatican-cops-bust-drug-fueled-gay-orgy-at-cardinals-apartment/
Faber’s fabulous apartment in Vienna. 1000 square feet is quite large.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theeponymousflower.com/2014/05/austrian-bling-pastor-toni-faber.html?m=1
Not paid for with personal money.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyway, let’s stifle our giggles cling enough to reread you’re right, and every bishop is earning “well over six figures”.
It would raise a serious question why you and your sidekick’s “at least 8” unicorn meritorious lawsuits lead by oh-so-credible plaintiffs haven’t gone forward.
".....your sidekick’s “at least 8” unicorn meritorious lawsuits lead by oh-so-credible plaintiffs haven’t gone forward."
ReplyDeleteCenturion Echo is now given to parroting the same kind of dismissive throwaways as Pell himself who masks his personal insecurity with overacting and arrogance with shooting pantomime horses and burning strawmen.
The legionary is becoming rattled, I sense, and uneased at the possibility that the prosecutors have cases in reserve.
The 'White Martyrdom' and victimhood mantras no longer cut it except among Kamikaze Pell tragics.
Even lower clergy has a lot more disposable income and savings.
ReplyDeleteIt’s amazing how you can get by when your rent, food, travel, insurance, healthcare, clothing and legal expenses are paid for by the Diocese, especially when parishioners pony up with cash and free vacations. The average diocesan priest is receiving well over six figures when you throw in the stipend and 0 expenses.
Yeah, I'm really rattled.
ReplyDeleteYou boys cite one pastor who is probably misusing funds entrusted to him, and one cardinal whose apartment belonged to the Vatican and not himself personally.
I have not been able to find any evidence that Cardinal Marx regularly drives a Ferrari; let alone that he owns one.
The idea that priests live on the equivalent of a six-figure income or more is downright risible. Your doubling down on that assertion tells me you have exactly zero contact with actual clergy, apart from casting aspersions on these men from a comfortable distance.
Even if your ridiculous assertions were true, you still haven't answered the question of why, then, the 8 unicorn lawsuits and the phantom "cases in reserve" haven't gone forward against Cardinal Pell - which was the original point here.
Here's a hint: it's because he is, and always has been, innocent.
And this little side-show of yours is over.
No court has ever found Pell innocent but he has been found guilty of child sexual assault, convicted and jailed.
ReplyDeleteRead the history, Centurion, then go help Weigel sell some of the mountain of doggerel he has on fire sale.
I’m not the one who needs to read the history, bub.
ReplyDeleteRead the case. Clearly, you’ve never done that: https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2020/HCA/12
The allegations, apart from any other evidence, were implausible. Add the uncontroverted evidence of the other witnesses, and those allegations become not only implausible, but impossible.
The Court recognized that, and that’s why he was acquitted.
If you weren’t so blinded by hate for the man that you could bring yourself to read the decision, you’d see that. You won’t, though, because then your self-concept as some sort of earthly St. Michael, fighting the powers of evil using the glow of your monitor in the basement of your mother’s suburban bungalow, would be shattered.
So what? You’re just repeating yourself, unable to address all of the evidence against Pell, not to mention the man’s questionable orthodoxy and integrity.
Delete"questionable orthodoxy"? LOL
ReplyDeletePerhaps, if by "orthodoxy", you mean "Spirit of Vatican II".
And allegations are not evidence.
What sort of orthodoxy permits “masses” where Aberrosexuals meet and feel their deviance is acceptable?
ReplyDeleteAllegations, aka first person narratives, are evidence.
ReplyDeleteNot until they are presented in Court at a trial, under oath, which, of course, apart from the case where he was acquitted, has not happened.
ReplyDeleteBecause trials are expensive, and repeated acquittals look more like persecution than the pursuit of justice.
Is this how you make up definitions to suit your arguments when the you play barristers and solicitors at your mom’s?
ReplyDelete