Further correspondence from the Secretary of the Congregation of Our Lady of Refuge

Email sent May 2, 2014
Mike,

Please find attached the consecration documents of Bishop Ralph Napierski. The court ruling already submitted to you along with the consecration documents is ample proof that Bishop Ralph is not a fraud, so please delete all lies and defamatory statements and comments from your website/blog. If you have any further queries, please contact Bishop Ralph at bishopralph@corpusdei.org .

In response to your statement, ‘You made it a condition of my publishing that I change nothing. How can I amend the blog if there is reason to without breaching the conditions of your posting here?
We asked you to post our letter in full which you did. That by no means hinders you from deleting derogatory and defamatory comments and statements from the rest of your blog.

You seem to completely misunderstand the structure of the Catholic Church. There are several rites within the Catholic Church, not just the Roman rite. Many of these rites, which are in full union with the Pope, allow for married priests. As priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, there is room for diversity on the issue, depending on the customs of the various rites. As some of the men to be made priests were married, this could not be done validly by a Roman Catholic Bishop due to Canon Law, but by a Catholic Bishop in Union with the Roman Catholic Church.

We have already declared that we have absolutely no connection with William Kamm or the Order of St. Charbel so please delete this nonsense from your website/blog.

If you refuse to acknowledge the truth, there is no point in calling out to us. Until you retract all lies and defamatory statements about Bishop Ralph Napierski and Michael Caulfield from your website/blog, you are not welcome here.

Michael Caulfield

Sehr Geehrter Priester Caulfield,
Thank you for your overdue reply. I am sorry you did not have the common courtesy of replying in good time to confirm or cancel the arrangements for today.

Mike,
Please find attached the consecration documents of Bishop Ralph Napierski.

I am familiar with these documents which you have sent to me.

succession-bishop-napierski (2)

napierski-documents (2)

I had already noted that one of the bishops in Napierski line was the bishop that is part of Pious X group which are not in communion with Rome. Of a more serious nature is his connection to the Palmarians which believes itself to the true Catholic Church and that the Roman Catholic Church is in error. Hardly an inspiring source of authority and communion with Rome. Also just study the sexual life of one of these so called Palmarian Popes. Get real.

Here is a section showing a totally heretical and schismatic story:
“Ordained a priest on 01/01/1976 by Archbishop Ngô-dinh-Thuc Consecrated a bishop, sub conditione, on 04/08/1995 at Chaillac, France, by Jean Gérard de la Passion Antoine Laurent Charles Roux, a bishop in the Fraternité de
Archéveque Ngô-dinh-Thuc. He had already been consecrated a bishop on 11/01/1978 at Palmar de Troya, Spain, by Clemente Dominguez Gómez, a bishop of the Holy Palmarian Church, assisted by Manuel Isidoro Maria Alonso Corral, a bishop of the Holy Palmarian Church, and by Bishop Leander, a bishop of the Holy Palmarian Church.”
https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/category/christian/palmarian-church/
No one has disputed that he has managed to get himself ordained but the fundamental point you have failed to understand is that he is not in union with the Pope, or is he in union with the Bishops of the German Catholic Church. He is a fake in that he pretends to be in communion with the Pope when all you have given us is a rambling document of apostolic succession without coherence and without reference to the focus of unity namely the Pope.

The court ruling already submitted to you along with the consecration documents is ample proof that Bishop Ralph is not a fraud, so please delete all lies and defamatory statements and comments from your website/blog.

You use the term web site/ blog. I have explained to you we have nothing concerning you on our web site.
I clarified that the court document you sent was an injunction. To say he is not a bishop was incorrect, but to say that he is in union with the Catholic Church and in communion with the Pope is not incorrect and he is a fraud to claim to be. If he is in union with the Catholic Church send us the relevant documentation. We will publish the documents you sent, but they do not answer this point at all.
This is what he has on his blog:
http://thecorpusdei.wordpress.com/about-us/

Corpus Dei is a catholic Order.
Corpus Dei was founded by the catholic Bishop Ralph Napierski.
Bishop Ralph Napierski is a Catholic Bishop under the primacy of Pope Benedict XVI and he is in union with the Roman Catholic Church.
You note he claims to have founded a Catholic Order, not a Rite. We will return to this issue later. Also what happened to the new Pope? Has he not had time to update his blog?

If you have any further queries, please contact Bishop Ralph at bishopralph@corpusdei.org.

I have already indicated I have no interest in contacting him. What we are looking for is a record from the Congregation in Rome establishing Corpus Dei and your outfit. Ralph claims to have been in the relevant Congregation in March 2013. all you need to do is publish the documentation.

In response to your statement, ‘You made it a condition of my publishing that I change nothing. How can I amend the blog if there is reason to without breaching the conditions of your posting here?
We asked you to post our letter in full which you did. That by no means hinders you from deleting derogatory and defamatory comments and statements from the rest of your blog.

I did that already and if you go to the blog you will see that was done nearly a week ago.

You seem to completely misunderstand the structure of the Catholic Church.

I would suggest you might like to read this article by following this link:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1Y.HTM
NORMS COMMON TO ALL INSTITUTES OF CONSECRATED LIFE (Cann. 573 – 606)
The relevant canon as far as Corpus Dei is concerned is the following:
Can. 579 Diocesan bishops, each in his own territory, can erect institutes of consecrated life by formal decree, provided that the Apostolic See has been consulted.
Note the mix up of a Bishop in an Order and his lack of a Diocese. Who does not understand the Catholic Church?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_order
See further what an order is and the canons above.

There are several rites within the Catholic Church, not just the Roman rite.

So now my question to you is which Rite does Ralph belong to? I asked that direct question to you on one of your hour long telephone calls and you kept avoiding it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_rites_and_churches
This article might assist you to find out, or more likely you will have to find another exit strategy.

Many of these rites, which are in full union with the Pope, allow for married priests.

Again you have added 2+2 and got 5.
You are a married person and are now acting as if you were a single person. You have entered into the sacrament of marriage. Did you seek you wife’s permission to be ordained? Are you seeking to annul your marriage? Which Rite are you a part of which allows you to be married and ordained?

As priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, there is room for diversity on the issue, depending on the customs of the various rites.

Yes that is correct but in the Western Church the discipline is absolute.

You will need to tell us which Rite you are part of for you to exercise this right!

As some of the men to be made priests were married, this could not be done validly by a Roman Catholic Bishop due to Canon Law, but by a Catholic Bishop in Union with the Roman Catholic Church.

 

That is your problem in that though Ralph has a dodgey lineage, he is not a Diocesan Bishop, nor is his Order registered or accepted by Rome, hence he is not part of a Rite or in communion with Rome. The German Church has confirmed this period.

We have already declared that we have absolutely no connection with William Kamm or the Order of St. Charbel so please delete this nonsense from your website/blog.

We know that but we have evidence you have travelled to Australia and support his claims. The condition I raised in my last piece was that before we would amend our site was that you would renounce his work and then we would consider it.

If you refuse to acknowledge the truth, there is no point in calling out to us.

When we first discussed things you had nothing to hide, blah blah, now you are running scared. If we agreed on all these issues there would be no reason to meet. I wanted to meet your associate who by definition is actually writing all this stuff as you are incapable of opening an email as you told me yourself. Is she running the show or are you?

Until you retract all lies and defamatory statements about Bishop Ralph Napierski and Michael Caulfield from your website/blog, you are not welcome here.

Note your pretty weak line of not meeting till we agree. I have amended the DI blog as agreed. It is time to be less timid and not brow beat me on the public footpath in Drumcondra. What have you to hide?

Mike Garde

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: