Graz Bishop Wages Total War on Behalf of Homosexuality

In the Diocese of Graz-Seckau every erroneous teaching is welcome. Actually, if a priest criticizes the moral and anti-Church homosexual ideology, the current hireling Bishop will become brutal and abusive.


(kreuz.net, Sankt Veit am Vogau) The Old Liberal Bishop Egon Kapellari (76) of Graz-Seckau ridicules the Catholic Faith.

At the same time he defends the immoral homosexual ideology as if it were a Dogma of the Church.

Recently, he threatened the pastor of Sankt Veit am Vogau, Fr. Karl Tropper (75) with "ecclesiastical consequences".

This happened according to reports from Ex-Reichsender [Nazi Radio in Vienna] Vienna (ORF) to Austrian journalistoids.

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/04/graz-bishop-wages-total-war-on-behalf.html

A modern-day bishop being a heretic?... Come on!
His vews can obviously be reconciled with traditional Church teaching but you just want to see the negatives.

Help me out here... Mike!... Anyone?.

columba wrote:A modern-day bishop being a heretic?... Come on!
His vews can obviously be reconciled with traditional Church teaching but you just want to see the negatives.

Help me out here... Mike!... Anyone?.

The only help for you is a return to the Catholic Church.

And of course, if reports from Nazi Radio in Vienna can be trusted, we have yet another example of an abusive Bishop afraid to speak the truth about the intrinsic disorder of homosexuality for fear of alienating the PC police and those who mock the Church's teachings anyway.

And your mocking caricature of the heavy political hand of a liberal Bishop for his alleged threat of sanctions against any priest who speaks the truth as being equivalent to the ordinary magisterial teachings of the Church only demonstrates how ignorant and desperate your really are; desperate to justify your schism from the Church.

Mryan wrote:
And your mocking caricature of the heavy political hand of a liberal Bishop for his alleged threat of sanctions against any priest who speaks the truth as being equivalent to the ordinary magisterial teachings of the Church only demonstrates how ignorant and desperate your really are; desperate to justify your schism from the Church.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

What is schism?
A. Refusal to obey the rightful authority of Divinely constituted hierarchy of the Church. A person who knowingly and obstinately disobeys the hierarchy is called a schismatic. Canon Law #751 says "Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him."


Mike, are you refusing communion with a bishop of the Catholic Church who has not received any censure from his pope?
If he is defending a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance then by whose authority does he remain bishop? Has he not ipso facto fallen from office and outside the Church. Will Benedict XVI declare him to be so for the good of the souls who may still believe him to be their shepherd? We shall see.

From the Douay Catholic Catechism of 1649 chapter XX, on the Four Sins that Cry Out to Heaven for Vengeance:

Q. 928. What is the second?

A. The sin of Sodom, or carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage, or lust with a different sex.

Q. 929. What is the scripture proof of this?

A. Out of Gen. xix. 13. where we read of the Sodomites, and their sin. “We will destroy this place because the cry of them hath increased before our Lord, who hath sent us to destroy them,” (and they were burnt with fire from heaven.)

No, a Liberal prelate destroying one of his conservative priests is no excuse to separate from the Church, but it certainly does muddy the waters.

How does one rationalize the idea of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic with hirlings like Wuerl, Schoenborn, Dolan, Zollitsch, Mahony and on and on and on?

I posted the following news article back in Dec 2010:

http://mumbailaity.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/birmingham-archbishop-attacks-faithful-catholics-protesting-london%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98gay-masses%E2%80%99/



LONDON, December 17, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A group of pro-life and pro-family British Catholics have reacted with dismay this month as the “conservative” archbishop of Birmingham, Bernard Longley, has accused them of being “judgmental” in their opposition to an officially approved “gay” Mass that is ongoing in the archdiocese of Westminster.

In an interview with the liberal Catholic magazine, The Tablet, Longley, widely regarded as a theological conservative among the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, said, “I assume” that the people praying and protesting outside the church where the Masses are held, are acting out of prejudice.

Asked by The Tablet whether “those protesting are making assumptions” about the “lifestyles” of the people attending the Masses, Longley replied, “I would assume that is the case, and so it isn’t for any of us to make those judgments which, in conscience, people make before God and also within the sacraments, particularly the sacrament of reconciliation assisted by the priests and other pastors within the Church.”

“The Church does not, as it were, have a moral means-testing of people before they come to receive the sacraments and it is very easy to jump to and come to the wrong conclusions about people when you don’t know them.

The people protesting and praying, however, have said that they have never been given a chance to express their concerns with the Catholic leadership and are shocked at being so casually dismissed as “judgmental”.

The so-called Soho Masses were instituted in Britain’s leading diocese in 2007, when Longely – at that time an auxiliary of Westminster – was asked by then Cardinal Murphy O’Connor to find a place for them in a local Catholic parish, Our Lady of the Assumption in Soho. The Masses are openly supportive of the “homosexual lifestyle,” with some of the organisers publishing materials on the internet in opposition to Catholic teaching on sexuality.

END

otremer6 wrote:
No, a Liberal prelate destroying one of his conservative priests is no excuse to separate from the Church, but it certainly does muddy the waters.

You can add to that sentence "an archbishop" who stiffles the work of those who make a stand against the progressive wave of sodomy while he consolidates the belief in those poor souls infected with its spirit that they are ok in their sin.

otremer6 wrote:
How does one rationalize the idea of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic with hirlings like Wuerl, Schoenborn, Dolan, Zollitsch, Mahony and on and on and on?

These guys don't make themselves bishops, they are appointed as such.

"The Archbishop was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI in October 2009 and was installed as the ninth Archbishop of Birmingham on Tuesday 8th December 2009."

"In 2010 Archbishop Longley was appointed by Pope Benedict as a member of the newly erected Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization."

"In 2011 Pope Benedict appointed the Archbishop as the co-Chairman of ARCIC, with oversight of the third phase of Anglican-Catholic dialogue."

I'm more angry about the Prelates and hirlings who betray their trust than I am about the people who let it destroy their faith.

They also don't anger me as much as people who downplay or cover for these Judas goats.

columba wrote:

Mryan wrote:
And your mocking caricature of the heavy political hand of a liberal Bishop for his alleged threat of sanctions against any priest who speaks the truth as being equivalent to the ordinary magisterial teachings of the Church only demonstrates how ignorant and desperate your really are; desperate to justify your schism from the Church.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

What is schism?
A. Refusal to obey the rightful authority of Divinely constituted hierarchy of the Church. A person who knowingly and obstinately disobeys the hierarchy is called a schismatic. Canon Law #751 says "Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him."


Mike, are you refusing communion with a bishop of the Catholic Church who has not received any censure from his pope?

You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about; though, I hope the irony of having someone who is in schism from the Roman Pontiff citing the definition of schism is not lost on you.

Since when does any criticism of a Bishop in the Diocese of Graz-Seckau in the Austrian state of Styria (even by someone who is actually subject to his jurisdictional authority) who allegedly “defends the immoral homosexual ideology” and “threatened the pastor of Sankt Veit am Vogau, Fr. Karl Tropper (75) with ‘ecclesiastical consequences’" for confirming Church teaching (as reported by “Nazi Radio in Vienna”) -- constitute “schism”?

Are you completely devoid of common sense? Do you just make up your own definition of schism as you do with your private interpretations of dogma, and then refuse communion with the Roman Pontiff for not sharing your private interpretation and for not “censoring” a Bishop in Brazil for alleged “heresy”, and now for not censoring this liberal Bishop in Austria for allegedly “defending a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance”?

columba wrote:If he is defending a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance then by whose authority does he remain bishop? Has he not ipso facto fallen from office and outside the Church. Will Benedict XVI declare him to be so for the good of the souls who may still believe him to be their shepherd? We shall see.

Please show me where this Bishop “is defending a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance”. And why do you ask “IF”, if he is already guilty of such crimes? You mean you don’t know, you just assume he is a low-life defender of the homosexual act and a public manifest heretic?

So “if” this Bishop “defends the immoral homosexual ideology” (according to “Nazi Radio in Vienna”), does that mean the he also defends the “sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance” (according to Columba)? It is quite simple, produce the actual evidence for his alleged crime of heresy.

What, who needs evidence when we have “Nazi Radio in Vienna” reporting the truth, and we can read between the lines to know that the Bishop supports immoral homosexual acts?

Really?

Does a Bishop of the Church deserve a fair hearing before he is thrown under the “heretic” bus and before he “ipso facto” severs himself from the Church? And does the Pope not deserve the same rights and courtesy to face his accusers and to either defend the rights of his Bishop or abjure from his own alleged heretical malfeasance before he is condemned for not paying attention to “Nazi Radio in Vienna”?

And here’s a news Bulletin for you, Columba: IF the liberal Bishop were an actual public obstinate heretic, those Catholics who live under his authority are still under his authority until the Church (the Pope) takes official disciplinary action against him. Are you ignorant enough to believe that the Bishop is demanding of anyone that they must follow him into sin or into “heresy”? And are you ignorant enough to believe that if someone does not follow him into sin, this constitutes “schism”?

I'm sorry, but has the Bishop formalized any of his alleged sinful liberal beliefs into official teachings and policies within his diocese?

At no time are Catholics “subject” to his publicly stated opinions; and neither do they have to “agree” with any actual ‘ecclesiastical consequences’ he enacts against any cleric who defends the truth of Church teaching. Priests often suffer injustice at the hands of their Bishops (liberal or not); and some things will never change.

You really are a piece of work.

Next, you’ll be saying that I am “defending” the liberal Bishop; or that I am saying his views “can obviously be reconciled with traditional Church teaching” when I have seen no evidence of what he is actually promoting; or, you will say I am one of those referred to by Otremer6 who “anger” him because I “downplay or cover for these Judas goats.”

And really, “How does one rationalize the idea of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic with hirlings like Wuerl, Schoenborn, Dolan, Zollitsch, Mahony and on and on and on?”

If you can’t answer that question, which one would hope is just a bit of rhetorical venting, it only demonstrates how mind-numbingly dumbed-down rad-trads have become.

You really are a piece of work.

Yes I know. It's a hard piece of work attempting to excuse that which ought to be condemned.

Next, you’ll be saying that I am “defending” the liberal Bishop; or that I am saying his views “can obviously be reconciled with traditional Church teaching” when I have seen no evidence of what he is actually promoting; or, you will say I am one of those referred to by Otremer6 who “anger” him because I “downplay or cover for these Judas goats.”

There are two positions to judge here. One, a priest speaks out against the sin of sodomy; Second, a bishop threatens the priest with disciplinary action for condemning what is his duty to condemn and what should be the bishops duty to condemn also.
As for my interpretation of what you are saying Mike, I don't really know what you are saying or trying not to say, though the overall impression from your comments is that yes, you are one of those referred to by Otremer6.

And really, “How does one rationalize the idea of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic with hirlings like Wuerl, Schoenborn, Dolan, Zollitsch, Mahony and on and on and on?” If you can’t answer that question, which one would hope is just a bit of rhetorical venting, it only demonstrates how mind-numbingly dumbed-down rad-trads have become.

I can rationalize it. The likes of Wuerl, Schoenborn, Dolan, Zollitsch, Mahony and on and on and on, are not Catholic and therefore are not part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and It's because "rad-trads" (or as I call them, "Catholics") are not so mind-numbingly dumbed-down that they can still discern lies from falsehood, right from wrong, justice from injustice, Catholicism from Modernism and a Catholic from a heretic.
And how do you answer the question?

is this "priest", who goes by the name "father Edward Beck", gay??? Take a look at this video of him defending homosexuals,,,

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=10388669

Our Blessed Mother said at Fatima:

More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason

George Brenner wrote: Our Blessed Mother said at Fatima:

More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason

Followed closely by calumny, detraction and schism.

columba wrote:

You really are a piece of work.

Yes I know. It's a hard piece of work attempting to excuse that which ought to be condemned.

And the fact that I have not “excused” heresy or immoral acts, let alone anyone in Episcopal authority who gives even the appearance of “excusing” such acts; but asked you to demonstrate where the Bishop excused or defended homosexual acts that would justify the accusation of formal heresy and or apostasy remains unanswered, because it really does not matter to you; perceptions matter. And that is enough for you to accuse me of “attempting to excuse that which ought to be condemned”.

I also said this is exactly what you would accuse me of; and you never disappoint.

columba wrote

MRyan wrote:
And really, “How does one rationalize the idea of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic with hirlings like Wuerl, Schoenborn, Dolan, Zollitsch, Mahony and on and on and on?” If you can’t answer that question, which one would hope is just a bit of rhetorical venting, it only demonstrates how mind-numbingly dumbed-down rad-trads have become.

I can rationalize it. The likes of Wuerl, Schoenborn, Dolan, Zollitsch, Mahony and on and on and on, are not Catholic and therefore are not part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and It's because "rad-trads" (or as I call them, "Catholics") are not so mind-numbingly dumbed-down that they can still discern lies from falsehood, right from wrong, justice from injustice, Catholicism from Modernism and a Catholic from a heretic.

So that’s the way it is.

And what about the Pope who promoted these Bishops to Cardinal and Archbishop, and/or who continues to support these “non-Catholics” who “are not part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” because of formal heresy or apostasy?

Tell us, when it comes to the Pope, can you "still discern lies from falsehood, right from wrong, justice from injustice, Catholicism from Modernism and a Catholic from a heretic"?

Ah, its fence-sitting time; for only “a future pope” can “infallibly” assure you whether the present Pope is actually the true Pope, and has not withered away into heresy and apostasy like the Cardinals and Archbishop he is responsible for; all of whom remain united to him in faith and communion.

But, strangely, you either have, or have no need of such “infallible” certainty about making judgments of formal heresy and/or apostasy against Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop Zollitsch and Cardinal Mahoney (Cardinal Archbishop Emeritus of LA), who remain in full communion with the Roman Pontiff (the only kind there is).

Your duplicity and hypocrisy positively reek (of heresy and schism); but no one ever accused you of being consistent.