|Bishop Livieres: "I am the victim of ideological persecution"|
(Asuncion / Rome) Bishop Rogelio Livieres Plano of Ciudad del Este in Paraguay, dismissed yesterday from his office by Pope Francis, sees himself as a victim of an intrigue, which he describes as "ideological persecution." In an open letter to the Prefect of the Roman Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the bishop wrote that Pope Francis will have to answer for his decision before God.
At the same time Bishop Livieres announced that he has as yet no knowledge of the contents of the investigation report of the Papal Visitor, Cardinal Santos Abril. As a "son of the Church," he added, he will abide by the arrangement of the Pope. The letter to Cardinal Ouellet was published by the Paraguayan daily ABC yesterday.
The Vatican justified the resignation for "pastoral reasons" and the "unity of the bishops." Specific allegations against the bishop dismissed were not disclosed. The Bishop sees himself as a victim of an intrigue of the Paraguayan Bishops. Pope Francis arranged for an Apostolic Visitation in Livieres' diocese after he publicly accused the Archbishop of Asuncion of homosexuality and demanded his removal from office.
The leading group of the Paraguayan Bishops makes no secret of their satisfaction with the dismissal of Bishop Livieres. Livieres was considered a militant defender of the orthodoxy. In almost every parish of his diocese the Holy Mass was celebrated in the Old Rite. His seminary altogether has many more seminarians than any other of the Paraguayan dioceses and about seven times as many seminarians as the much larger Archdiocese of Buenos Aires.
With the statement that he is "a victim of ideological persecution," Bishop Livieres gave an indication of the reasons behind the sensational impeachment.
Bishop Livieres like Pope Francis is from Argentina.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Trans: Tancred firstname.lastname@example.org
Link to Katholisches...
Link to Katholisches...
As I have said before in an earlier post: the faggots are in control of the machinery of the Church. The Pope's favorable treatment of Ricca and other pro-homosexual marriages and civil unions as contrasted with the removal of Bishop Livieres after his accusing the Archbishop of Asuncionof homosexuality ought to be factored into this equation.
The future laid out for Bishop Fellay!
Bishop Fellay would be an imbecile to proceed with any more talks with the Vatican of Pope Francis. Perhaps the SSPX should sack Bishop Fellay, for he seems much to accommodating to the Vatican!!!
God bless Bishop Livieres(his name looks more French than Spanish). However, being a "son of the Church" does not mean to bow to evil. And Pope Francis and his associates are evil. Had good men not bowed before evil and looked the other way in history, there would have been no Nazi Party, no Hitler, no Holocaust, no Mao Tze Tung, no Pol Pot, etc.
Good Cardinals and Bishops who are True Catholics (like the five Cardinals who opposed Cardinal Kasper in a book now causing Pope Francis the Heretic hissy fits in the Vatican, and those good men removed like Cardinal Piacenza, Burke, and Bishop Livieres MUST stand up and speak out against Pope Francis and his associates and his agenda. Otherwise, they are allowing for evil to destroy the Church. And they will be as guilty as Francis.
Obedience to a Pope who is evil just because of his office is a violation of valid judgement.
I think he should create another Campos.
Apparently this Pope is sick again. He cancelled some audiences on THursday. Boo hoo hoo!
Pope Francis would more likely want to suppress Campos, rather than establish another one. But after all....his agenda is entirely in keeping with that of the radical liberal Jesuits...which he is.
What did we think we were going to get when the cardinals elected a Jesuit? A traditional minded Pope? A Catholic? Don't make me laugh!!!!
Wow. That is so insightful. You really should contact His Lordship. Bp. Fellay on that, Anonymous.
You pompous moron.
I'm pretty sure he meant that Bishop Livieres should establish another Campos
People probably said St. Francis was an imbecile to talk to the Muslims too, but he did.
The headline of this news story (which I know is not Tancred's) is somewhat misleading, because it chops off the bishop's quote.
“As an obedient son of the church I accept, nevertheless, this decision, even though I consider it unfounded and arbitrary, and one for which the pope will have to account before God, though not to me,” the bishop wrote.
Which puts a more humble gloss on the bishop's position.
One other thing: confusion reigns now about just exactly *why* Livieres Plano was sacked. Phil Lawler over at Catholic Culture felt compelled to walk back from his satisfaction over the sacking:
Yesterday, buoyed by the latest news from the Vatican, I concluded a happy comment by observing that with the removal of a Paraguayan bishop:
"The message from Rome is loud and clear: It doesn’t matter what else you do; if you don’t protect children from abuse, you’re out."
Today the Vatican press office released a statement that loudly, clearly said something quite different. Bishop Rogelio Livieres Plano was removed, we are told, because of his “difficult” relations with other prelates in Paraguay.
Really? Can a bishop be yanked out of office because he doesn’t get along with his colleagues? (St. Athanasius wouldn’t have survived under that sort of policy.) Are we to believe, then, that a failure to be cordial is a more serious offense than the promotion of a priest who had been declared dangerous to children?
Traditionalists can be forgiven for thinking now that Livieres is gone because the rest of the (very liberal) Paraguayan bishops' conference wanted him gone, and that he's probably been in Bergoglio's crosshairs for years, too.
And yet, by bringing in Urrutigoity and promoting him and protecting him, Livieres unwittingly gave his enemies the weapon they needed to finish him off. Whatever Fr. Lombardi says, most will associate him with this toxic priest and assume that's why he was gone, and feel little sympathy for him. Without this scandal, it would have been more difficult to remove him.
Again, the lesson is clear: traditional-leaning bishops and orders have no margin for error on this stuff. We must be extra vigilant. It's a double standard, it's unfair, but it's what it is. But adversity is, at least, forcing us to be more moral. There's no room Urrutigoity's in our ranks.
Unfortunately, Bishop Fellay has caused immense damage to The Society through his mistaken insistence on a policy that will lead nowhere. if he had followed the Archbishop's advice he would have spent the last few years focusing on developing and strengthening Society unity and vocations as well as expanding the work of what was entrusted to him. In stead he has embarked on a fool's errand, creating doubts about his intentions and further destabilising The Confraternity. You cannot dialogue with liberal modernists - this is the great lesson to be learned since 1965. They are the new dictators who use illicit means to assume power and then exploit the legal process against those whose liberty has been guaranteed by right.
I stated clearly the last time when he decided to "negotiate" with Rome it would end in disaster for The SSPX. In fact, it was worse than a disaster as events illustrated. Who would sensibly want to walk into a hornets' nest imagining they can pacify the nature of the beast walking away unhurt. Archbishop lefbevre clearly did not trust Ratzinger with every justification - Fellay had to test that one out and realise the worst. yet, he still has not taken the hard lesson to heart.
Our Blessed Lord sent his Apostles out advising them to be shrewd as serpents and harmless as doves. Harmless Fellay isn't and shrewd, absolutely not. When will he listen and learn?
There is no justice in liberal modernist Rome because it is the enemy within whose object is pantheist ecumenism and the end to tradition.
No wonder he is sick - the every faith that would restore his health, he rejects for a very sorry and puerile popularity.
The hard lesson to learn is if you are in "full communion" with liberal modernist Rome you will be protected no matter what you do. If you are traditional then every stumbling block will placed in your path.
On the contrary Athelstane. It does not change the story. We can assume such a bishop would accept the spirit of the decision, unlike some of the lib-mods who railed publicly against any vaguely orthodox move by the previous papacy (including books in UK).
Underneath we can see it for what it is - a characteristic piece of neo-conciliar humbug. Little to nothing is being done about abusive clergy: one or two scapegoats but business as usual though more carefully proceeding. This is a particularly nasty papacy behind the scenes of which the haste to destroy any vestige of the pre-conciliar paradigm has accelerated. Livieres was unwise to have given a weapon in their hands to oust him but frankly I have a long list of those who have effectively escaped including some important names hurried into The Vatican to avoid any repercussions with the secular authorities.
Not only that but the hypocrites want to CONanise the destroyer Montini of Milan ignoring his more than doubtful sexual morality. How much more flagrantly disgusting and immoral can you get?
The other lesson is if you celebrate the Mass of All Time, be prepared to be sent packing. If you have heretical views and are leading souls to hell, then prepared to be promoted.
Probably seems redundant, but we don't have room for Msgr Riccas or Cardinal Mahoneys, yet one pervert was promoted by Francis himself, while the other criminal gets to live out the rest of his years with a posh retirement for himself.
Pope Benedict had a hand in the placement of the Priest, but the blame goes to someone else.
For our Spanish readers, Father Benedict Groeschel gave the Priest a big thumbs up to the Bishop. Why would the Bishop not believe him?
Another thought, were any of the accusations against the former vicar general proven? Rumor has it, he was squeaky clean in Paraguay…The fact that the Bishop allowed him to stay because nothing had been proven, hmmm, makes me think he was far too conservative for the rest of the Bishops.
Perhaps the removal of traditional clergy is Gods way of separating the wheat from the chaff ,as it says in the Book of the Apocalypse .And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
The chaff is Pope Francis, his associates, and all the liberal garbage from Vatican II.
The wheat is this holy bishop, and Cardinals like Burke, Piacenza, etc.
Pope Benedict XVI should be hanging his head in shame....for if he had not resigned like a coward, we would not have this Pope Francis and his agenda today.
unlike some of the lib-mods who railed publicly against any vaguely orthodox move by the previous papacy (including books in UK).
Like Bishop Morris of Toowoomba in Australia?
Yes, he received his dismissal with a good deal less grace.
Little to nothing is being done about abusive clergy: one or two scapegoats but business as usual though more carefully proceeding.
I think that a fair deal is being, has been, done about the *clergy* in the U.S., at least; what has NOT been done is to make more bishops accept responsibility for their role in enabling it.
And given the high honors still bestowed on some of the usual suspects, like Cardinal Danneels, it seems that any expectation that this Pope would be even harder on it than Benedict XVI are proving to be in vain, so far.
I'm as dismayed as anyone over the prospect of the beatification of Paul VI - the betrayer of Cardinal Mindzsenty, and a great deal else besides.
Remember: many of those Cardinals who evidently voted for this sham of a Pope were elevated by Pope Benedict. He has far more blame in this destruction of the Church than what is being admitted. It wasn't just his resignation; he had appointed the majority of the Cardinals who sat in the Conckave that elected Bergoglio
" A fair deal in the US"? Law, Maloney, Weakland, Dolan, Finn...there are plenty more. Face the facts, this papacy has no intention of giving a "fair deal" at all. Read the next article on this affair. Characteristic neo-conciliar papal humbug. Considering the number of high level bishops who have got away with child abuse anfd financial improprieties, there is no such thing as justice from a liberal modernist church. It's do what we say (no matter what that is or how dissipated) not do as we do.
This "smoke and mirrors" papacy with its ambiguous symbolical gestures will never undermine the support base that has put him in. There will be one or two scapegoats but the rest will get away with it. Try speaking with parents of children abused by priests....feet drag and procrastination delays, almost as though it is hoped with time people will back off and even forget.
There is the fair papal action being taken according to victims...no one is responsible.
You mean, someone who manipulates victims and claims to speak on their behalf?
The church has done plenty of that themselves in the guise of representing Christ's church on earth; propagating The Faith and Truth. This pope is abusing his position on the matter feigning action when what it means is window-dressing.
I'm just saying that SNAP is hardly credible.
yeah! The "faggots" of the Traditionalist "Society of St. John" eh? Homosexual child rapist doesn't trust your emotional affiliation with the EF form of the Mass? As long as it's "Ad Orientem" and using the Missal prior to......1960? It's okay what these gay-rapists do eh?
so SICK of you idiot Protestants calling yourselves Catholic and naming yourselves TRADITIONALISTS!
love laughing at you Protestants masquerading as solid Catholics and calling selves "Traditionalist"! You are Prots! Get out of the Catholic Church and go join Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and those other clowns!
see above, prot.
how old are you? review all the information from Jeff Bond at the college of St. Justin Martyr. He has well documented everything. Why do you want to protect child rapists?
Hey, it looks like a homo activist (I can tell by the hissy fits) has attached itself to this blog, calling everyody "Protestants".
Dear homo anon, will you now make the claim that you are straight and married? I've seen your kind do that many times before. Hahahaaaaaa! You homos are a riot! :)
Have another hissy fit for my entertainment, okay?
see above, sad little homo anon
Okay, thanks for the cite, homo anon. However, at least at the moment, the site at www.saintjustinmartyr.org is not working.
However, there is some info at http://www.newengelpublishing.com/exploiting-traditionalist-orders-the-society-of-st-john/
There are two questions here:
1) were Irrigoity et al guilty? probably yes
2) should Livieres have known that? probably no
Anyway, it's not why Liveres was dismissed.
There is a (long) defense of Bp. Livieres here, Joe:
I have beem reading a bit in various places.There seems to be no criminal conviction of Urrutigoity anywhere. There was a criminal investigation in PA (USA), but the accuser came forward too late and so the statute of limitations had expired and so the criminal process ended.
That's difficult, because it is horrible for a true victim to be unbelieved. But then a person should not be considered guilty only because they have been accuses, and that is especially true when large amounts of money are involved as well as high emotions.
Anyway there was a civil lawsit which was settled out of court, of which a small percentage was paid by Urrutigoity himself.
Of note: the activity involved took place by SSJ (Urrutigoity and Ensey) but it took place at the school run by FSSP (who were also a defendant in the civil case). It's all jumbled together.
SNAP is more credible than liberal modernist Rome.
Hey, Genius: IF Francis had removed + Livieres for his having Urrutigotey as his VG, I'd have said nothing. But that's not WHY he was removed. Why don't you read before you write?
You're SICK -- with that I'll agree.
We must all be willing to carry our Crosses and die if need be in these times of Apostasy. The Freemasons are in control of the Church and they are very dangerous, see JP1. Francis is their Pope, the Great Destroyer prophesied by St. Francis of Assissi himself. Bishops and Priests must speak out and accept their crosses as the great Bishop in Paraguay did.
Bishop Fellay has done no damage to the S.S.P.X, he was asked to Rome and he went and was respectful,but he made no compromises,he left and let Rome know he was respectful, but will stand firm, as Bishop Lefebvre would also. God bless bishop Fellay.
Post a Comment