It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:36 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
 Bp. Louis Vezelis OFM 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 73
New post Bp. Louis Vezelis OFM
Can someone tell me about Bp. Vezelis? I understand he claims jurisdiction.
From what I see at his priory in New York he has one student studying for the priesthood, a brother, two priests and another bishop. He is also apparently associated with a bishop from Mexico who has several men in his seminary.

Does anyone know what he bases his claims on?
He also rejects the validity of Arch. Lefebvre so I'm inclined to be rather skeptical of him.


Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:47 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Bp. Louis Vezelis OFM
Frank Gale wrote:
Can someone tell me about Bp. Vezelis? I understand he claims jurisdiction.
From what I see at his priory in New York he has one student studying for the priesthood, a brother, two priests and another bishop. He is also apparently associated with a bishop from Mexico who has several men in his seminary.

Does anyone know what he bases his claims on?
He also rejects the validity of Arch. Lefebvre so I'm inclined to be rather skeptical of him.


He regards Abp. Lefebvre's orders and consecration as invalid due to Lienart's membership in the Masonic Order.

He (or his Franciscan group) publishes both a newsletter entitled The Roman Catholic Church, Her Doctrines & Morals, and longer booklet The Seraph, which we have received and read for many years. The first is sort of a parish bulletin which contains his most recent sermons. All of those which I have read seemed completely orthodox.

His Korean name is Park Song Wee. He apparently was given this name when he worked in Korea for 18 years. He is Lithuanian, and apparently speaks fluent Korean. He is also, apparently, a sedevacantist and has been one since about 1982 at least. He was consecrated by "Bishop" George Musey, a Thuc line bishop from Texas.

I cannot remember all the details, but as I understand it, he not only claims jurisdiction, but SOLE, legal jurisdiction in the enire U.S. and Canada, at least since Musey's death. I.e., that he is the ONLY true, and truly Catholic, Bishop in North America with legal, complete jurisdiction, and every true Catholic in North America must accept him as their sole and only legal representative of the Church, or else they are excommunicated.

Archbishop Thuc lived with him for several months at one time, and Vezelis regards Abp. Thuc as a martyr. I know he views Bishop McKenna, who submitted to him while he was yet a simple priest, as invalid, or, at least, highly suspect, which seems strange to me, since, as far as I know Vezelis received his consecration from the same line that McKenna did.

I have alway felt that Vezelis was a bit extreme in his views. Among others, that he is the only real Catholic Bishop in North America. I know he will not accept as valid the consecrations of anyone who was consecrated after 1982 unless they had first received his opinion or approval, such as Bishop McKenna. He, apparently, regards himself as the primate of North America.

I know that he has consecrated two (and only two) bishops: Bishop Madrigal for Mexico, and Bishop Giles Butler as his successor. He has been unusually careful about consecrating bishops.

Perhap others here have more, and more accurate, information.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:35 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 73
New post Re: Bp. Louis Vezelis OFM
Actually I believe that Bp. Giles is Bp. Musey's successor, as of March last year.

Strange. From what I read he seems to think that episcopal consecration in itself bestows jurisdiction, instead of an appointment to a particular diocese or position of authority.
By his logic, would not all Thuc bishops thus have a share of jurisdiction?


Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:32 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Bp. Louis Vezelis OFM
Frank Gale wrote:
Actually I believe that Bp. Giles is Bp. Musey's successor, as of March last year.


That makes sense. When Bishop Musey consecrated Bishop Vezelis, he then divided North America into two parts, giving himself the "Western" half, but including Florida, and Vezelis the Eastern half. I suppose that since his death, Vezelis thought that there should be two bishops as before. Nonetheless, Vezelis chose and consecrated Butler.

Quote:
Strange. From what I read he seems to think that episcopal consecration in itself bestows jurisdiction, instead of an appointment to a particular diocese or position of authority.


Yes.

Quote:
By his logic, would not all Thuc bishops thus have a share of jurisdiction?


Well, I am certainly no expert in these matters, but, yes, it sure seems logical to me.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:35 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:24 am
Posts: 31
Location: Port Harcourt, Nigeria
New post Re: Bp. Louis Vezelis OFM
Just curious ...

Why the apostrophes: "Bishop" George Musey?

I imagine this is usually done when the title is doubtful. Is that the case here?

_________________
Omnia ad Jesum per Mariam!


Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:36 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 359
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Bp. Louis Vezelis OFM
KenGordon wrote:
He regards Abp. Lefebvre's orders and consecration as invalid due to Lienart's membership in the Masonic Order.


Can someone enlighten me about this? I have heard that it is rumored (perhaps even certain) that one of the co-consecrators of Archbishop Lefebvre was a Mason. Why would this matter? Is this not why there are co-consecrators? Is there rumor that ALL of the bishops that consecrated the archbishop were Masons?

Would there not be a valid consecration if just one bishop were a true Catholic bishop?


Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:02 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Bp. Louis Vezelis OFM
austinmarie wrote:
Just curious ...

Why the apostrophes: "Bishop" George Musey?

I imagine this is usually done when the title is doubtful. Is that the case here?


I, most certainly, am not certain of his validity. Others here may be, and they may possibly have more and better information than I.

To me, his early history is certainly strange. I knew a very good priest who was fairly familiar with him and his history, and from what that priest, who later became a Thuc-line bishop, told me I came to the conclusion that "Bishop" Musey's activities were questionable as far as his validity was concerned.

But, I was only "peripherally" involved with him, so don't take what I say as any sort of proof. More investigation is in order.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:51 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Bp. Louis Vezelis OFM
TKGS wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
He regards Abp. Lefebvre's orders and consecration as invalid due to Lienart's membership in the Masonic Order.


Can someone enlighten me about this?


I can try.

Quote:
I have heard that it is rumored (perhaps even certain) that one of the co-consecrators of Archbishop Lefebvre was a Mason.


Yes. Leinhart. I am pretty certain about this. Others are less so.

Quote:
Why would this matter?


It doesn't. If the long discussion that I, John and Vince had on this forum a while back has any validity to it, and I think it does, it wouldn't matter at all.

Quote:
Is this not why there are co-consecrators?


Yes.

Quote:
Is there rumor that ALL of the bishops that consecrated the archbishop were Masons?


I have never, ever, heard such a rumor, and I wouldn't believe it if there were such.

Quote:
Would there not be a valid consecration if just one bishop were a true Catholic bishop?


Yes. However, it isn't Lefebvre's consecration as bishop that is the important issue here: it is his ORDINATION, since that was performed by Lienhart, alone, and there were no "co-ordinators". If Lefebvre wasn't a priest, then his consecration would have been invalid.

However, our longish discussion here put that issue to rest. It is no longer a viable question.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:53 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5
New post Re: Bp. Louis Vezelis OFM
Can you explain more on this - either in a private message or in this thread?

Thanks.

KenGordon wrote:
austinmarie wrote:
Just curious ...

To me, his early history is certainly strange. I knew a very good priest who was fairly familiar with him and his history, and from what that priest, who later became a Thuc-line bishop, told me I came to the conclusion that "Bishop" Musey's activities were questionable as far as his validity was concerned.

_________________
Ave Maria!


Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:57 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 105
New post Re: Bp. Louis Vezelis OFM
Correct me if I am wrong, but let us suppose for the sake of argument that Msgr. Lefebvre's ordination's are invalid (which in the first place is ridiculous, because unless you have prove that the sacrament is invalid, you assume its valid). If he got validly ordained as a Bishop, even if lets say he was a layman, a Bishop gets the fullness of the priesthood so even his defective "ordination" so to speak would be covered by his valid ordination to the priesthood. To me it is just sad that it is possible to anyone to doubt such consecrations, if you look at the history of the Church after the French Revolution and all the Bishop's that went with the New Church in France. I mean it is horrid to have all of this "Bishop's" pontificate as doctrinal requirements their sad understanding of Sacramental Theology, really its sad. They were re-admitted (that is the French Bishops who joined the Schism, and were ordained Bishops by the Freemasons with a valid rite) without even conditional re-ordination even if they were Mason's so to speak. This whole doubting of ordinations to such an extreme, might I say, and please forgive the offensiveness on this a modern phenomena of sedevacantism. It lacks a precedent in Church history, I could understand people doubting maybe the new Rite's, as doubtfully valid etc... But traditional ordinations, that is baffling!? Where you can't even trust your own shadow, in any way shape or form. This is spiritual blindness to its worse extent, that Bishop without a doubt the one in New York, is a schismatic because he is setting up a parallel Church. Unlike some other Thuc line Bishops see themselves more as Operation Survival until some future Pontiff might regulate things, I could understand that a bit more. No one, should in conscience attend chapel's like those, they are a mockery of what tradition is.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:15 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 46
New post Re: Bp. Louis Vezelis OFM
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
If he got validly ordained as a Bishop, even if lets say he was a layman, a Bishop gets the fullness of the priesthood so even his defective "ordination" so to speak would be covered by his valid ordination to the priesthood.


Well, this is at least disputed. Let´s see what St. Thomas says on this:

Quote:
Article 5. Whether the episcopate is an Order?

Objection 1. It would seem that the episcopate is an Order. First of all, because Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) assigns these three orders to the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the bishop, the priest, and the minister. In the text also (Sent. iv, D, 24) it is stated that the episcopal Order is fourfold.

Objection 2. Further, Order is nothing else but a degree of power in the dispensing of spiritual things. Now bishops can dispense certain sacraments which priests cannot dispense, namely Confirmation and Order. Therefore the episcopate is an Order.

Objection 3. Further, in the Church there is no spiritual power other than of Order or jurisdiction. But things pertaining to the episcopal power are not matters of jurisdiction, else they might be committed to one who is not a bishop, which is false. Therefore they belong to the power of Order. Therefore the bishop has an Order which a simple priest has not; and thus the episcopate is an Order.

On the contrary, One Order does not depend on a preceding order as regards the validity of the sacrament. But the episcopal power depends on the priestly power, since no one can receive the episcopal power unless he have previously the priestly power. Therefore the episcopate is not an Order.

Further, the greater Orders are not conferred except on Saturdays [The four Ember Saturdays]. But the episcopal power is bestowed on Sundays [Dist. lxxv, can. Ordinationes]. Therefore it is not an Order.

I answer that, Order may be understood in two ways. In one way as a sacrament, and thus, as already stated (37, 2,4), every Order is directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Wherefore since the bishop has not a higher power than the priest, in this respect the episcopate is not an Order. In another way Order may be considered as an office in relation to certain sacred actions: and thus since in hierarchical actions a bishop has in relation to the mystical body a higher power than the priest, the episcopate is an Order. It is in this sense that the authorities quoted speak.

Hence the Reply to the First Objection is clear.

Reply to Objection 2. Order considered as a sacrament which imprints a character is specially directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which Christ Himself is contained, because by a character we are made like to Christ Himself [Cf. III, 63, 3]. Hence although at his promotion a bishop receives a spiritual power in respect of certain sacraments, this power nevertheless has not the nature of a character. For this reason the episcopate is not an Order, in the sense in which an Order is a sacrament.

Reply to Objection 3. The episcopal power is one not only of jurisdiction but also of Order, as stated above, taking Order in the sense in which it is generally understood.


Sun Nov 06, 2011 7:25 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 105
New post Re: Bp. Louis Vezelis OFM
Does anyone know if the Sedevacantist Chapel in Lubbock, Texas is under Bishop Vezelis? Who is it under, the reason why I wonder is because a friend of mine told me that its under some Franciscan Bishop which seems to me to be Vezelis. Please let me know as I will be studying in the University this coming semester. Thanks, and God Bless for any answers you attempt to get for me I appreciate it very much. As their is no Traditional Mass anywhere close, I just come to wonder if I will ever go to mass again while I am staying there. Its a scary thought for me, because everywhere I have been since I started my faith in tradition, I have had a mass available without exception. Its going to feel odd for me just standing there in my little dorm, saying my prayers :(. I don't even know how it feel's, I am a little scrupulous about it at the moment. Please pray for me :cry: I need it very much at this time.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:29 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:35 pm
Posts: 32
Location: U.S.A.
New post Re: Bp. Louis Vezelis OFM
Hi Jorge - The chapel in Lubbock is under Bp. Vezelis. I went to TTU for grad school and attended the chapel there, becoming good friends with the family who, many years ago, started the mission (so to speak). There is a permanent priest there now who also has his own Catholic radio show which is broadcast from Lubbock. It is true that Bp. V claims what other posters said about jurisdiction and such, but I was unaware of such things when I attended Mass there. It was never brought up actually. I liked the chapel, Fr. Bernard (and Fr. Joseph), and the small parish. I am thankful to have had it while I was at grad school! God bless, Larie


Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:29 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.