One of their stars said it well:

“It is through wonder that men now begin and originally began to philosophize; wondering in the first place at obvious perplexities, and then by gradual progression raising questions about the greater matters too…”   -Aristotle, Metaphysics 982b

I mean, without wondering, where are we?

December 13: Second Chancery Meeting, Fr. Treco:

At 8:30 AM, I met again with Bishop Lopes, Fr. Perkins, and Fr. Kramer. The fruit of my night in prayer was the conviction that my next step should be to offer a personal Profession of Faith so that the bishop would have a clearer sense of my mind. Bishop Lopes concurred.

As this brief meeting was winding down, Bishop Lopes made one or two comments which I thought were disparaging to those he referred to as traditionalists. I left this meeting thinking that we had just begun what I anticipated might be a very difficult and lengthy journey.

Yes. Hope took a hit that day.

As for disparaging traditionalists, no surprise here. He’s a “Francis bishop,” owing all to the incumbent Pope, who has the utmost disdain for “traddies,” as some call themselves.

Five days later Fr. T. sent his profession, most of it embodying clear-cut traditionalism, with a cover note apologizing for its “deficiencies,” and explaining that it was intended as the start of a process to achieve “greater understanding, which would . . . provide occasion for instruction and correction, as you deem appropriate and necessary.”

He deems it so, but Bishop L., who has depicted him as heretical from the start, is another story. Too bad Fr. T. talks that way, glossing over the hostility.

He then launched a fairly irrelevant description of how his father had dealt with him and his sister when they were children, including three rules — “respectful discussion,” even in arguments, keeping focus on what’s for “the good of the family,” and keeping in mind that the final decision rests with parents.

He was not presuming that these rules would apply in this case, he explained, but was aiming “to give you a sense of the operation of my mind and will as we continue forward,” he told the bishop. To what end?

He furthermore asked the bishop’s forgiveness for “any expressions that convey an unintended hubris,” although he would “make every effort to avoid such language.” But he suspected that the bishop would not “always find language devoid of the same.” It might still happen! The bishop had to be puzzled.

The bishop got back to him promptly, but in a “dismissive tone,” the bishop remonstrated. Fr. T. was expected to send a personal profession of faith but had instead sent the Apostles Creed and the Oath Against Modernism, plus only “three brief paragraphs” of his own composition,

The Oath had been promulgated in 1910 by Pope Pius X with the requirement that it be signed by “all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.”

It remained “in effect until 1967,” the bishop noted. Its place was taken by the Profession of Faith, which he said “does not diminish, nor does it abrogate the truth of the Oath,” which seems to mean the two are interchangeable. Not so, to go by what else the bishop said, about “the principle at work here,” in this exchange, which

is that the faith is one and the same [!] and that the current Profession of Faith both receives and interprets [?] the prior articulation, not vice versa.

Whoa. Prior articulation? Oh. Interprets? If it’s one and the same, why the need for interpretation? Rather, what does the interpreting do for one’s understanding? In short, what’s the difference? The bishop’s lips are moving, what’s happening?

“Therefore, the bishop continued, addressing his subject,

you get it precisely backwards when you state at the conclusion of the document that your earlier Profession of Faith (signed December 18, 2014) is best understood within the context of the fuller statement which you now submit (December 18, 2018).

This begs [raises] the question whether, by this, you intend to rescind the Profession of Faith you made in 2014 in favor of the Oath Against Modernism as a “fuller profession of faith.”

Why? If the faith is one and the same in each, where’s the intent to rescind one of them? Is this man competent to condemn another’s expression?

Raising the question — not begging, if you don’t mind — apart from the Oath’s obligatory nature, apparently honored in the breach over several decades, what was the matter with the Oath in 1967 that would make it unsuitable for a Profession?

What was there in the Oath, again apart its obligatory nature, that made it unsuitable for a preacher to use in his defense when accused of anything?

What did the Profession have that the Oath did not have? Or what was missing that the Oath did have? And how did Fr.  T. violate that, whatever it was? 

Fr. T. also objected to the bishop’s “needlessly swift” deadline for repairing his response. He got the letter on Christmas Eve, with response expected by January 6, 13 days later, during a busy time for priests who are “unavailable for spiritual guidance,” referring apparently to advice he would be seeking.

That wasn’t the half of it. More later on Fr. Treco’s objections to his bishop’s comments and something about the latter’s reasoning in the matter and his own history . . .

The bishop and the preacher seem unable to become friends.

Let us consider the Bishop Lopes-Fr. Treco exchanges beginning with the day after the first chancery meeting weeks before the closing down of his role as pastor and preacher.

December 13, Second Chancery Meeting, Fr. T.:

I met again with Bishop Lopes, Fr. Perkins, and Fr. Kramer. The fruit of my night in prayer was the conviction that my next step should be to offer a personal Profession of Faith so that the bishop would have a clearer sense of my mind. Bishop Lopes concurred.

As this brief meeting was winding down, Bishop Lopes made one or two comments which I thought were disparaging to those he referred to as traditionalists.

Almost certainly this was the case, as regards the disparaging part. . . .

Tales of the excommunicated preacher continued . . .

In most cases, no, this writer says. However:

Fauci draws more than his share of ire because he has been the most visible face of the “official” response to the epidemic. He stands or sits there with a sanctimonious expression on his face and this mild, reasonable tone of voice, and spews an endless stew of misstatements and lies.

The lifelong bureaucrat in action — never really accomplished anything — survives by being politically adept. If such bureaucrats don’t start out as incompetent in their field, they quickly get the knack of it. In government it isn’t what you know, it is who you know and how much cow manure you can spread while blaming everyone else for the odor.

Precisely. Indeed, I noted his survival in the Beast many months ago in many ways. Oh, and yes, I looked out the window and saw it was raining and I told someone it was raining, I’m soooo smart.

Came by to say hello.

A visiting member of another parish showed up on the fateful day.

This man, a local attorney, and his wife had been attending St. Bede the Venerable for a year and a half. It was “a very small parish” without its own building and having to rent space from another parish. 

He’d “been trying to get his Episcopalian friends to attend there in the hope that they [would] eventually convert.” He was drawn particularly by the pastor, Fr. Vaughn Treco, who he said “speaks plainly and to the point; much better than most other priests [he’d] heard or met.”

On the evening in question, he and his wife showed up for mass, but Fr. Treco was nowhere to be seen.  Instead, another priest [see below] was presiding. 

At the end of the mass, the priest made an announcement, indicating that as of yesterday, Fr. Treco had been relieved of his duties as pastor of St. Bede’s, with [this other] priest being appointed interim pastor. 

We were told that Fr. Treco had been removed because of the sermon he gave on The Feast of Christ the King . . . November 25 of last year.  This sermon was published by The Remnant Video on YouTube, which can be found here: VATICAN REVOLUTION: Diocesan Priest’s Had Enough

We were told that Fr. Treco was visited by Bishop Stephen Lopes, who essentially provided Fr Treco with the option of renouncing what he had said in the sermon (Fr. Treco declined) or be removed as pastor, when he would have to take… wait for it…. further education classes so that he could better understand the post-[Vatican 2] church.

We were also told, though, that Fr. Treco is free to continue as priest for St. Bede, even presiding over mass, just as long as he (a) does not deliver sermons or (b) has his sermons reviewed and signed off by [this] priest prior to any such delivery.

From a regular:

As I was vesting and preparing to serve at the altar of God on January 20, 2019, I noted that Fr. Treco was absent. In his place was Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson, ordinary emeritus of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, who has served as a substitute on a number of occasions when Fr. Treco needed to be absent.

Despite our familiarity with Msgr. Steenson, something about his being there felt off. I looked at our weekly bulletin and saw that Fr. Treco’s email and phone number were no longer there and that there was a notice that read that “daily Masses are cancelled until further notice.”

At the end of Mass, Msgr. Steenson read a letter from our bishop, His Excellency Steven Lopes. The bishop explained that the November homily — the one that had gained so much attention for its unflinching evaluation of the crisis [inflicting the church] — was, in fact, the reason for his removal.

Further, the bishop explained, the homily was contrary to the teaching of the Church — he did not explain how — and that, even after a personal meeting in Houston between himself and Father Treco, Father refused to recant what he had said. The bishop’s letter then announced that Fr. Treco has been removed as parochial administrator of the Church of St. Bede and that Msgr. Steenson had been assigned as parochial administrator pro tempore.

End of sad day at church.

More to come of ins and outs and surrounding realities of this pastor-removal process in the American church and where it fits into a strange sequence of which this episode is a salient example.

The not yet excommunicated Fr. Vaughn Treco was ordered on December 11 to come to Houston for what turned out to be an unfriendly discussion with his bishop and two of his assistants that was to uncover a few violations of homiletic protocol but no heresy. A sparring match with no decision.

Here is Fr. Treco’s account  of the meeting of Wednesday, December 12th, 2018, edited for conciseness and clarification, with scattered commentary,.

Led into a conference room with a long table, he found himself standing before three men, seated, none of whom stood to greet him or shake his hand. One pointed to a seat opposite them.

They were the bishop, Steven J. Lopes, and Fathers Timothy Perkins, vicar general, and Richard Kramer, moderator of the curia and director of vocations and clergy formation for the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, the organization of Anglicans who come over to Roman Catholicism.

The bishop led them in prayer, then said how the meeting would go. Fathers Perkins and Kramer would address the suspect-defendant, followed by the bishop. Each would “demonstrate the heretical character” of the November 25 homily. A forlorn hope, as matters developed.

Fr. Perkins began with a critique of the passage from Ezekiel as used throughout the homily — “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge” — noting (“correctly,” said Fr. Treco),  that it was intended to dispel the belief that children are held guilty for the sins of their fathers.

Fr. Treco, however, said his questioner was ignoring “the poetic manner” in which he had used the text, describing how “the Fathers of the Church” — popes and bishops — had failed “to be diligent in their duty to guard the Faith” and how this failure had “a deleterious effect” on “the children of Holy Mother Church.”

Fr. Perkins asked what translation “was authorized for liturgical use” by priests of the Ordinariate, as it were building a case. Fr. Treco named the translation, Fr. Perkins asked, “Why did you choose not to use this translation when you quoted from the sacred texts?”

To provide “a more poetically satisfying” rendering of the texts he was using, Fr. Treco explained.

Fr. Perkins continued: Why had Fr. Treco used the “collect” prayer as established by Pope Pius XI rather than the currently approved one?

Perhaps chafing at the pace of interrogation,  the second examiner, Fr. Kramer, interrupted and began his own “presentation” before Fr. Treco could reply.

Taking another tack, he observed that Fr. Treco had “a robust Internet presence,” referring to the posting of his homily on a major traditionalist site. “Did you know that?” he asked.

He was “not aware of this,” Fr. Treco replied. “I simply post things to the web” but “do not follow discussions [of] the post.”

Fr. Kramer continued. “Did you know that more than 20,000 (33,000 at a later date) people have viewed your homily?”

Fr. Treco said he did not.

Fr. Kramer said several hundred viewers had left comments. He quoted one of them: “Finally, a priest who gets it.”

“Do you get it?” Fr. Kramer asked.

“I am not sure I know what the writer meant by ‘it’,” Fr. Treco said.

Later came the heretical nub of the matter, when Fr. Treco was asked by one of the three — he did not recall whom — if he thought the popes since Pius XII were legitimate popes.

“Quite honestly,” he wrote in this account, “I was taken completely off-guard by the question,” which “seemed quite unrelated to anything that had been said in the meeting thus far” and was “completely unrelated to the substance of my homily.”

In any case, he “affirmed without hesitation” that he believed that those popes “were each validly elected successors of Saint Peter.”

He might additionally have noted his implicit acknowledgement of this belief within his homily in his fanciful presentation of several of them as “Peter” in a litany of condemnations of things they did without ever raising the specter of illegitimacy. Nor did he in any way urge his listeners to adopt this belief.

“Feeling somewhat disoriented by the tangential character” of the questioning, he did not recall much of what the bishop said, only to notice “random, disconnected comments,” including his saying “early in the meeting, perhaps even at the very beginning, that he was surprised that Fr. Treco had not come to this meeting with his letter of resignation. 

What on earth? He was to knuckle under at the very hint of accusation, just shut up and fade away?

What’s missing here is any attempt to verify the heresy charge. Fr. Treco denied it, as we saw. In any case, as the meeting drew to  close, he it might be good for him to spend the evening in prayer.

Bishop Lopes had Fr. Perkins give him a copy of the Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity which he had signed before his ordination. He said he’d be praying for him and would offer his morning Mass for him. He closed the session in prayer. When he stood, the accused “knelt, kissed his ring, and embraced” him. pickup

End of session.

Leaving the meeting, he left the building and engaged in a “mindless search” for gifts for his grandchildren, before returning to his hotel to pray.

More to come in this tale for our time in handling heresy and excommunication matters . . .

As Dr. Johnson tells us in A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland (1775):

“I love anecdotes. I fancy mankind may come, in time, to write all aphoristically, except in narrative; grow weary of preparation, and connection, and illustration, and all those arts by which a big book is made. If a man is to wait till he weaves anecdotes into a system, we may be long in getting them, and get but a few, in comparison of what we might get.”

Weary indeed, my friends, and more convinced by the day that the big book is for the young writer. Young reader too, perhaps.