Canon Lawyer Fr. Mark Gurtner (Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in Indiana) says the jurisdiction of the case resides in the Indiana diocese.
Michael Voris
“It certainly seems to me that canonically Michael Voris would not be the one that this would be imposed on,” he said. “Even though he is the one that regularly appears on (the show) he, in a sense, is really just an employee of (RealCatholicTV.com). It seems like if the Archdiocese of Detroit is trying to go after (Voris), that’s the wrong person to address this with, that would have to be with the owner of the website or blog,” he added. “I suppose if this Marc Brammer is paying for and running, constructing his blog from our diocese in his home I suppose you could make the argument that we have jurisdiction canonically.”
Not only that, the Communications Director of the Archdiocese of Detroit (Ned McGrath) says that in the 20 years he’s been working there, he doesn’t remember anyone else ever being challenged for using the name “Catholic”:
Asked if the archdiocese has asked any other group or individual in the archdiocese not to use the name Catholic, McGrath said he couldn’t remember any other cases during his 20 years with the diocese. “I don’t know. I’ve been here 20 years I can’t say that we’ve never done that in the history of the Archdiocese,” he said. Pressed on the point, he said, “I wouldn’t want to say that definitively. But not any that I can recall recently, no.”
Here is Michael Voris’ short response to the kerfuffle:
Other also read:
Thanks, Colleen. I “stole” your post with commentary here:
http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2012/01/real-catholic-tv-responds-to.html
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
It’s a Free Country.. : A Catholic who rejects a defined dogma like outside the church no salvation is automatically excomunicated. He has no right to use the word ‘Catholic’.
Could it be that Bishops Allen Vigneron and Kevin Rhoades are under pressure too ? Could they come under leftist hate laws, which are Catholic-specific, if they do not disown Michael Vorris ?
I had been writing to many religious in the Diocese of Pennsylvania,Harrisburg where Bishop Rhoades was originally posted.This was during the controversy there. Bishop Rhoades could not say that Jews need to convert into the Church for salvation, is the teaching of the Church. Robert Sungenis called the bishop; his bishop, and also Catholics United for the Faith,Steubenville, ‘heretics’.They still did not affirm the faith and began a campaign against Robert to make him change his views.
Now Michael Vorris has affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and has produced some good videos on the Jews and the subject of the Catholic Church being the continuation of the Jewish religion.
Real Catholic TV.com’s financier however lives in the diocese of Bishop Rhoades and could be asked to remove the name ‘Catholic’ .
Robert Sungenis has changed the name of his website to the Bellarmine Report and continues th same apostolate.He still says that Jesus, the Catholic Church and the Bible teaches that Jews need to convert.
He disagrees with the ADL , telling Catholics what to believe, and says Catholics are the Chosen People of God now, the people of the New Covenant (Nostra Aetate,Vatican Council II). Also Vatican Council II,Nostra Aetate does not say that Jews or other non Catholics, do not have to convert into the Catholic Church. This is the propaganda posted on the website of the Boston Archdiocese.
It’s unlikely that Bishop Kevin Rhoades would affirm this same teaching in public. So when Wikipedia reports that Robert Sungenis has been corrected by ‘ecclesiastical authority’, so what ? The ecclesiastical authority, in this case, is the local bishop, who is not affirming a defined dogma.
A Catholic who rejects a defined dogma like outside the church no salvation is automatically excomunicated. He has no right to use the word ‘Catholic’.
According to Canon Law a bishop(juridical person) has to be a Catholic.
According to Canon Law a priest or bishop in public mortal sin is not to offer Mass unless he rectifies the scandal with a public clarification and has received absolution in the Confessional.
Could the Canon Lawyers comment on this ?
-Lionel Andrades
It’s a Free Country (Michael Vorris Real CatholicTV.com video )
http://youtu.be/9-0aCDYDbnA
Lionel writes, “Bishop Rhoades could not say that Jews need to convert into the Church for salvation, is the teaching of the Church. Robert Sungenis called the bishop; his bishop, and also Catholics United for the Faith,Steubenville, ‘heretics’.They still did not affirm the faith and began a campaign against Robert to make him change his views.”
Lionel, this is a lie and you need to stop spreading it. The only views anyone tried to stop Bob Sungenis from pushing were the ones you can read about here:
http://wquercus.com/sungenis/
http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/Section2.html
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/09/open-invitation-to-bob-sungenis.html
So slow down and read. Then you might consider going to Confession for spreading lies about a Successor to the Apostles. You have no justification or right to accuse Bishop Rhoades of heresy or to imply that he’s “automatically excommunicated.” It’s amazing that someone actually has to tell you that.
Here are some articles, with statements from Bishop Rhoades, showing plainly he’s orthodox on this issue. They also show what happened with Sungenis and that the conflict wasn’t about whether or not Jews are saved by Christ and the Church like everyone else.
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/09/bishop-rhoades-and-dual-covenant-theory.html
https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/03/by-sungenis-alone_29.html#thirteen
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Questions for the Canon Lawyers :Can Archbishop Allen Vigneron and Bishop Kevin Rhoades be considered Catholic if they refuse to affirm in public the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
The Detroit Archdiocese Canon Lawyer who is employed in the Archdiocese seminary must also acknowledge that Canon Law demands that a bishop ( a juridical person) must be a ‘a Catholic’. A bishop to be ‘a Catholic’ must be able to affirm all Church teaching ,especially those which must be ‘firmly beleived’(Dominus Iesus on Other Religions).
Neither is the bishop of Detroit or Fort Wayne-South Bend willing to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is at the heart of the Real CatholicTV.com issue i.e the subject of the Jews in particular and non Catholics in general and their need to enter the Church for salvation.Michael Vorris has produced some good videos on this issue.
The bishops of Detroit and Forth Wayne-South Bend are not willing to affirm the dogma or say that Jews need to convert for salvation and now they are targeting Michael Vorris and his financier Marc Brammar for defending Catholic teaching.
As Shepherds they needed to inform Vorris and Brammar what was the precise moral or faith issue violated.They have not done so.
The Canon Lawyer of Detroit must know that the Archbishop there has no right to call himself Catholic, according to Canon Law, since he denies a magisterial teaching in public.
A simple question for the bishop of Detroit, which I asked Bishop Kevin Rhoades and he did not answer during the Robert Sungenis controversy was: Does the Catholic Church teach that non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation? (Dominus Iesus 20, CDF, Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.J etc).
How can these bishops not affirm the dogma outside the church there is no salvation and canonically still offer Holy Mass and remain as bishops? They can commit sacrilege just because they have the political support of the ADL and the pro abortion rabbis linked to Israel?
Why would Vorris and Brammar want a recommendation from these bishops in dissent?
Michal Vorris has affirmed th dogma now the next step is to tell the bishops that we do not know anyone on earth saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.So they are not defacto exceptions to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible statement’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
This was one of the public errors of Bishop Kevin Rhoades when he put it in writing on a website against apologist Robrt Sungenis, approved by the Catholics United for the Faith,Steubenville ,when Bishop Rhoades was the bishop of Harrisburg,Penn.
Questions for the Canon Lawyers.
1.Can Archbishop Allen Vigneron and Bishop Kevin Rhoades be conidered Catholic if they refuse to affirm in public the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
2.Can they deny the dogma and still offer Holy Mass according to Canon Law?
3.If they assume that those cases saved in invincible ignorance (LG16) and with the baptism of desire (CCC) are explicitly known to us and so are an exception to the dogma then would this not be heresy and a denial of the dogma?
(Note Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. We accept this is as a posibility (de jure). No magisterial texts claim that we defacto know these cases and so they are an exception to the dogma or the ordinary means of salvation).
-Lionel Andrades
BISHOP KEVIN RHOADES CHAIRMAN OF OUR SUNDAY VISITOR
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Bishop%20Kevin%20Rhoades
Lionel writes, “Bishop Rhoades could not say that Jews need to convert into the Church for salvation, is the teaching of the Church. Robert Sungenis called the bishop; his bishop, and also Catholics United for the Faith,Steubenville, ‘heretics’.They still did not affirm the faith and began a campaign against Robert to make him change his views.”
Lionel, this is a lie and you need to stop spreading it. The only views anyone tried to stop Bob Sungenis from pushing were the ones you can read about here:
http://wquercus.com/sungenis/
http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/Section2.html
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/09/open-invitation-to-bob-sungenis.html
So slow down and read. Then you might consider going to Confession for spreading lies about a Successor to the Apostles. You have no justification or right to accuse Bishop Rhoades of heresy or to imply that he’s “automatically excommunicated.” It’s amazing that someone actually has to tell you that.
Here are some articles, with statements from Bishop Rhoades, showing plainly he’s orthodox on this issue. They also show what happened with Sungenis and that the conflict wasn’t about whether or not Jews are saved by Christ and the Church like everyone else.
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/09/bishop-rhoades-and-dual-covenant-theory.html
https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/03/by-sungenis-alone_29.html#thirteen
I find it a disappointment that Archbishop Vigneron is caught up in trying to shut Michael Voris up. As Oakland’s bishop, he let the Institute of Christ The King, Soverign Priest in that diocese, and pre-Summorum Pontificum at that. If Archbishop Vigneron is trying to back up the back guys, it’s no wonder, despite the fact that Cardinal Adam Maida(his successor) is ineligible to vote in a papal conclave, Archbishop Vigneron has not received his red hat!