The Remnant once again demonstrates its lack of integrity

THE REMNANT ONCE AGAIN DEMONSTRATES ITS LACK OF INTEGRITY
Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D.

In the August 31^st issue of this supposedly Catholic paper an attack on a traditional Bishop was promulgated under the pens of a Dr. Drolesky and a Mr. Perez who claimed to be a priest. The following letter was sent to the Remnant which contains several corrections of fact – facts that are within the public domain. The Remnant saw fit to ignore this. Others wrote somewhat similar letters in defense of the truth.[1] Their failure to correct errors of fact makes it clear that The Remnant is guilty of the sin of calumny, to say nothing of intellectual dishonesty which is a sin against the Holy Ghost.[2]

THE LETTER SENT ON SEPT. 1, 2004

I have recently read Prof. Droleskey’s piece in the Remnant of August 31, instant. As I know Bishop Fama and consider him to be a good and holy priest, I felt obliged to make a few facts clear. Now Prof. Droleskey clearly believes the present “pontiff” is a valid “pope,” and he clearly objects to the fact that Bishop Fama tends to the sede vacantiat position. Hence by the very nature of things it follows that he would be much against Father Fama’s stand.

It is considerable pertinence that Father Fama was “ordained” by JP-II. He however, after considerable study, entertained doubts about the validity of his ordination and spoke with Malachi Martin who in turn strongly urged him to get conditionally ordained by a traditional bishop. He also informed Fr. Fama that Bishop Taylor, whose orders he investigated in Rome, where he had access to such information, had valid orders and was a true bishop, and hence had the power to ordain and consecrate. Enclosed is from a letter of Father Martin regarding Bishop Taylor’s status.

“I know that Bishop Taylor is VALIDLY ordained and VALIDLY consecrated… I also know that Roman authorities possess the documentary proof of the above….”

It is pertinent that in the Apostolic line of Bishop Taylor, there is a certain Bishop Newman who consecrated Bishop Luther who Prof. Droleskey mentions. Now Bishop Newman’s orders were examined by a Roman Catholic panel of scholars headed by Yves Congar in 1954. They declared, that he was “of orthodox in faith and possessed an effective power of orders.” It is true that the original line involved the Brazilian Schismatic Church (which included among its members no less a person than Cardinal Rampolla – incidentally they were not Old Catholics), but they reconciled with Rome during the time of Pius XII and the reconciliation was accepted. The reason that Bishop Taylor accepted conditional consecration from Bishop Adamson is explained on my web site and was not a reflection of any doubt on his part about the validity of his own consecration. (“I’m the Only One Ordained” – Coomaraswamy-catholic-writings.com)

Of course, I know that Prof. Droleskey will not accept Malachi Martin as an authority. But who is he suggesting is the source of sure and definitive knowledge about Bishop Taylor’s status – perhaps the Society of Pius X, or the Remnant, or himself. Be that as it may, those of us who trust Bishop Malachi have no reason to doubt his statement.

At the same time Father Perez, who was ordained by Cardinal Stickler with traditional rites has been highly critical of Father Fama, and assuming to himself magisterial authority, has warned the faithful not to attend Father Fama’s Sacraments because he is schismatic and excommunicated! But there is a problem with Cardinal Stickler who was himself, as “Father” Perez notes, consecrated by the new post-Conciliar rites of consecration, the form of which has a single word in common with the form specified by Pius XII in his Sacramentum Ordinis which most traditionally minded theologians consider to be de fide. That word is “et.”[3] Hence Cardinal Stickler almost certainly lacks the Apostolic Succession and the power to ordain! Now we know that one cannot accept dubious sacraments and hence I would raise serious doubts about Fr. Perez’s priesthood and the Sacraments he administers. As I understand it, many in California for this reason refuse to attend his Mass. Again, with seeming magisterial authority, Fr. Perez considers the Thuc ordinations “spurious and probably invalid.” The less said about this the better.

Now what I don’t understand about those who criticize sede vacantist priests and bishops is why they at the same time proclaim JP II to be a valid pope and yet only obey him in things they approve of. I don’t know why Fr. Perez says the Tridentine Mass (I assume this without personal knowledge, though perhaps he says the so-called “indult”) when he knows full well that the local bishop – Mahoney, no less – is against it. Nor do I understand the accusation of schism against those who practice the same faith that existed for some 2000 years, when it is those who reject this faith – as JP II does, and as the Society of Pius X does -- claim that they and only they are true Catholics.

After all, if the new mass is so valid and wonderful, and is approved as the “normative” Mass by JP II, why do they not say and preach it? For myself, as a believing Catholic, if I believed JP-II was a true Pope, was truly “one hierarchical person with our Lord,” I would as a Catholic obey him in all things that fall within his province – and that includes the Mass and the other Sacraments. I would also accept everything in Vatican II which the post-Conciliar “popes” have declared to be “the supreme form of the Ordinary Magisterium.”

And so it is that I thank God for those traditional priests and bishops who in clear cut disobedience to the current hierarchy, but in obedience to Christ our Lord, continue to provide us with valid Sacraments. I would suggest that those who hope to receive Extreme Unction on their death beds, do the same.

Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D., F.A.C.S. +

At the same time the Remnant did see fit to publish a letter stating that I was illicitly ordained a priest. Again, as a point of fact, there was nothing “illicit” about my ordination except perhaps that it was done with the traditional rites of the Church by individuals possessing true orders and the Apostolic Succession – illicit of course in the eyes of those who see no need for the Apostolic Succession or the traditional rites of the Church and who wish to be “una cum” with John Paul II. It is perhaps also pertinent that The Remnant saw fit to include an article in the September 30^th issue attacking what the editor characterizes as “the dark side of the internet,” thus presumably voiding the pertinence of my comments. It is clear then that The Remnant is nothing but a conservative – and not very conservative – Novus Ordo journal and completely complicit with the machinations of the post-Conciliar Church. It seems to be proclaiming the dictum that what is happening to our beloved Church is terrible, but we must nevertheless obey!

It is clear that those who wish to practice the true Catholic Faith should look elsewhere then The Remnant for guidance.

ã Copyright Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D., F.A.C.S., +

[2] It is remotely possible that the Remnant did not receive the letter in question. However somehow the letter fell into the public domain and was published on the Internet by others without my knowledge. If such should be the case, The remnant should proceed to publish it promptly and accept my apologies.

[3] On the invalidity of the post-Conciliar rite for consecrating bishops, see the article on Orders on this web page. [Coomaraswamy-catholic-writings.com] This article was initially written some 30 years ago and has been translated into a variety of languages. It has never to my knowledge been criticized nor its contents proven false.