Talk:Louis Vezelis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 19 April 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete; default to keep.

Contents

[edit] Note

I am personally acquainted with Bishop Louis Vezelis, OFM and have studied his life and his work extensively. As such I answered the below questions. I assume that there is no longer any problem and so I am removing the tag, today, April 18th 2008. - Bay17832

This article is not neutral.

[edit] Franciscan Order

Historically there have been many divisions of the Franciscan Order with various rules, some strict and others mitigated. Which rule does Bishop Vezelis follow?

Also, there are other Franciscan orders existing that claim to follow traditional Catholicism, so this means the claim of Bp. Vezelis that he is THE Franciscan Order is false. Franciscan Orders don't need to include priests to be an Order. And Bp. Vezelis cannot claim someone else is not strictly speaking "Catholic" unless top authority declares it to be so after the subject does not obey the correction. This is what St. Thomas Aquinas teaches.


Bishop Louis Vezelis, OFM does not now nor has ever claimed to be "THE Franciscan Order."

Bishop Louis Vezelis, OFM IS the top authority, the shepherd of his flock. As such he can judge those in his territory which also included (de facto) that of the now-late Bishop George Musey after his automatic suspension/excommunication around 1985 upon illicit/invalid ordinations and consecrations until the consecration of Bishop Giles Butler, OFM

Bishop Louis Vezelis, OFM has never declared anyone non-Catholic or excommunicated. If he observes that they are or warns the faithful about them in the SERAPH or any other mean of communication, it is only because of their automatic excommunication due to heresy/schism. - April 2008

[edit] Ordinary Jurisdiction

Bp. Vezelis claims to have ordinary jurisdiction directly by being consecrated a bishop. However, according to history, and Rome's approval, this is false. Here is a quote from an Ecclesiastical Law book from 1887 which was sent to Rome for correction, but which retained the true teaching that bishops do not automatically have ordinary jurisdiction (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, Rev. S.B. Smith, D.D, Benziger Brothers, printers to the Holy Apostolic See):

some of the ancient chorepiscopi, though true bishops, were not possessed of any jurisdictio ordinaria. Finally honorary bishops were formerly created to whom no diocese was assigned. It is evident, therefore, that a person may have the potestas ordinis episcopalis without having any jurisdictio.

Damian, who lives next door, can hopefully give this quote to Bp. Vezelis, and relay his response here. --Diligens 12:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Bishop Louis declined to comment on this questionable Article quoting that he does not want to be involved with this discussion.

The Bishop did decline but has since discussed this privately with parishioners, especially during sermons in the past year. I assume this is no longer an issue. - April 2008

[edit] Lacking information

There is something lacking in this biography... Where was this man born ??? What does "Lithuanian-American" refer to ? Rell Canis 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This was clarified last year. - April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bay17832 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This article is not neutral, and reads as though it were written by one of his followers. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Which part? - Bay17832

First off, could you not edit this page in bold? It's very distracting. Anyway, here's bits that I found a bit too NNPOV. A lot of it frankly seems like a puff-piece written from the sedevacantist point of view, and the criticism section feels watered down. In all cases bold emphasis is mine:

I use bold to distinguish my own words. Apologies for any inconvenience. To clarify the bold in the quotes are yours. The replies are mine. - Bay17832

  • "A faithful missionary with a special affection for the Korean people whose language he learned very well, but dismayed by the liturgical and doctrinal revolution in the Church..."

Bishop Louis Vezelis, OFM was given the obedience to help establish the Franciscan Order in Korea by the Most Rev. Augustine Sepinski, OFM then-Minister General of the Friars Minor. He then spent himself for over 18 years in the Missions not only having a fruitful ministry for the Koreans but as an unofficial chaplain for the GI's. Why do you dispute the faithful description? Ask any one who was with the Bishop in Korea. I know at least one personally. There was certainly a revolution in the liturgy and doctrine. All spectrums admit this. - Bay17832

  • The section title "Faithful to Tradition" should DEFINITELY be renamed, because that would certainly be strongly disputed by many people, including me.

Why? Are you an authority on matters Catholic, and if so what/who has made you an authority? - Bay17832

  • "In reality, he felt that in light of accepting the revolutionary liturgical and doctrinal reforms of the Second Vatican Council, the other friars and superiors had left the true Catholic Faith. The same year he became involved with the traditional Catholic movement and offered Mass for the faithful including those following Marcel Lefebvre." (emphasis mine)

Vatican Two was revolutionary - all sides from the left to right and anywhere in between will admit this. Again how is this not neutral? - Bay17832

  • The section title "Franciscan Restoration" should be changed.
  • "Taking heed of St. Paul's admonition (see 1 Timothy 5:22) and his mission as a Catholic bishop very seriously, Bishop Vezelis has consecrated only two other bishops." Clearly POV. If the explanation is really necessary find a quote from him and use it.
  • The order he founded should not be referred to as "the Franciscans" because they are not; it implies that the wider order of Franciscans is on his side which is not true. Rather, it should be referred to by a less ambiguous name.
  • In addition I removed the bit about celebrating his Silver Jubilee--it isn't important.

TallNapoleon (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's certainly a milestone in the Bishop's life. Bishop Louis Vezelis, OFM did NOT found an order, he merely continued it. Prove they're not Franciscans! Prove he started a new one! - Bay17832

Why don't we just get rid of this page, along with Bishop Giles Butler, OFM's? I know Their Excellencies both don't like "being" on Wikipedia. After all while I didn't create the Bishop Louis Vezelis article (I did create Bishop Giles Butler's), I have been responsible for compiling and maintaining them. I also support the deletion proposal. - Bay17832

[edit] Holocaust Denial?

So doing a Google Search it would appear that this fellow is a Holocaust-denier: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p34_Vezelis.html

What does that have to do with having a Wikipedia article? While the Bishop has indeed writen against the Holocaust and been outspoken in his criticism of the state of Israel (as well as Communists and Freemasons - this is no secret) how/why does this affect a Wikipedia article? - Bay17832

Because it's clearly relevant to his views--even if it doesn't make him look good. If we decide that this fellow is notable, and the page doesn't get deleted, then this should be mentioned, along with whatever other significant views he espouses. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please no edit war

I've reverted back to the changes I've made, since you provided no reason for getting rid of them. If you have any specific issues with my edits, please post them here and we and others can attempt to reach consensus. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)