Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on December 13, 2019, 01:06:10 PM
-
I can't deny evidence in the public record.
https://or.hernandoclerk.com/LandmarkWeb/search/index?theme=.blue§ion=searchCriteriaName&quickSearchSelection=# (https://or.hernandoclerk.com/LandmarkWeb/search/index?theme=.blue§ion=searchCriteriaName&quickSearchSelection=#)
-
It just goes to show you that you don't find magical bishops that everyone else somehow overlooked just hiding in a field like buried treasure. You listening, Fr. Pfeiffer?
There are only a handful of valid, trained traditional bishops in the entire world. They are all well known and accounted for. You could go on a journey to find other valid traditional bishops and spend decades and not find any additional gems that everyone overlooked. Every apparently traditional bishop that everyone seems to overlook is being overlooked for a reason. Validity questions, skeletons in the closet, and other problems. Every single time you "discover" a new traditional bishop, he will turn out to be a fraud con artist like Ambrose Moran, be married like Bishop Fulham, or have other equally serious baggage.
-
Bishop Fulham passed away 2 years ago. It sounds like he needs prayers worse than we thought.
-
Yeah, with the grave need worldwide for traditional priests and bishops over the past 50 years, the idea that you are going to get lucky and discover a new perfectly good one is naive at best. And priests are made at ordination ceremonies, not discovered. ;)
-
Well, unless this was something weird he did just as a civil thing ... for some unknown legal reason.
We need to reserve judgment unless we have all the facts.
-
There was (is?) a sedevacantist bishop (?) in the Indianapolis area who was/is apparently married....with children.
But he had the “true faith,” so people kept supporting him. :facepalm:
-
There was (is?) a sedevacantist bishop (?) in the Indianapolis area who was/is apparently married....with children.
But he had the “true faith,” so people kept supporting him. :facepalm:
That's not right, is it?
-
Well, unless this was something weird he did just as a civil thing ... for some unknown legal reason.
We need to reserve judgment unless we have all the facts.
Isn't that what some liberals on Fisheaters said a few years ago? It became public that the divorced owner and a divorced member of her forum got civilly married. Some said "oh, but we shouldn't assume they're sleeping together or living like married people." What about the scandal of two divorced people being civilly married to someone who is not their true spouse? That's scandalous enough.
A priest shouldn't be married to anyone. Civilly, inside or outside the True Church. Any level of marriage for a priest is an absolute scandal. That's what Martin Luther did, married a nun, remember? And this was in Florida. There is no obscure law or pragmatic reason why a priest would need to get married, on the books, technically, or otherwise.
Please suggest a law or circuмstance that would morally allow a priest in America to get married, even a sham or civil marriage, so I can verify if it might be true.
-
Ladislaus, you can hope it was a Josephite marriage all you want. Maybe it was. I hope it was. But it was still scandalous. A priest shouldn't be married to anyone, not even civilly. In America, there are no laws barring priests from inheriting or passing down property, no laws forbidding celibacy or the practice of Christianity, etc. I can't imagine what legitimate excuse an American priest would have for getting married.
-
Any chance it’s a different Terrence Fulham than Bp. Fulham?
-
Any chance it’s a different Terrence Fulham than Bp. Fulham?
Sadly, no. Here's the obituary:
https://www.merrittfuneral.com/notices/BishopTerence-Fulham
Same name, born the same day in the UK.
She was 12 years older than him, if that means anything. Possibly a marriage of convenience (and, let us hope, a Josephite one) for financial reasons --- tax, insurance, inheritance, next of kin, something like that?
Requiescat in pace.
-
Is his wife still around? What is / was her background? If she was retired from the military than her husband would be entitled to free healthcare and her pension until he died.
I had an aunt who cared for a kind widower / WWII Veteran. He said his deceased wife was his one and only true love. He had no desire to ever be with another woman after she died. My aunt ant he shared a house and all the bills. They had separate bedrooms and a strictly plutonic relationship. Not too long before he passed away he married her so that she could continue to receive his military pension and health benefits . She had cared for him for so long he wanted to make sure she was cared for before he died.
Maybe she was taking care of the Bishop?
-
Bishop Fulham if dead is most likely one of the skulls marking the road to hell for the recently departed.
-
I had an aunt who cared for a kind widower / WWII Veteran. He said his deceased wife was his one and only true love. He had no desire to ever be with another woman after she died. My aunt ant he shared a house and all the bills. They had separate bedrooms and a strictly plutonic relationship. Not too long before he passed away he married her so that she could continue to receive his military pension and health benefits . She had cared for him for so long he wanted to make sure she was cared for before he died.
Maybe she was taking care of the Bishop?
There are many kinds of valid marriages, good bad and in-between, including the Josephite variety and marriages of convenience like you describe above. However, a priest may enter into no type of marriage. Not even to save a life. Not even to save a thousand lives. You can never commit mortal sin to achieve some good. It's basic moral theology. I shudder to think what kind of advice this priest gave in the confessional.
-
Is his wife still around? What is / was her background?
She was a nun who worked with him. It would be funny if it weren't so sad and scandalous. And sacrilegious. Martin Luther married a nun. Every traditional priest knows that. How can you wake up one day and say "You know what? I think I'm going to marry a nun." How can a traditional Catholic, especially a priest, not know that's wrong?
-
Was Bp Fulham a US citizen? Maybe this was done just to stay in the US. Since the OP went to the trouble to dig this up, it would be nice if s/he could also ask the bishop's "wife" why she married a Catholic priest!
-
Was Bp Fulham a US citizen? Maybe this was done just to stay in the US. Since the OP went to the trouble to dig this up, it would be nice if s/he could also ask the bishop's "wife" why she married a Catholic priest!
That was one thought I had too. Some posters have spoken of a "Josephite" marriage, but it was really no marriage at all, since it was not valid. I'm guessing it was merely a civil arrangement for some legal purposes, such as maintaining his immigration status.
I agree that we cannot jump to any conclusions about any immoral activity taking place.
-
Bishop Fulham if dead is most likely one of the skulls marking the road to hell for the recently departed.
What a bunch of slanderous nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself. At least wait until you have all the facts before making such comments ... lest you too end up as one of these skulls.
-
There are many kinds of valid marriages, good bad and in-between, including the Josephite variety and marriages of convenience like you describe above. However, a priest may enter into no type of marriage. Not even to save a life. Not even to save a thousand lives. You can never commit mortal sin to achieve some good. It's basic moral theology. I shudder to think what kind of advice this priest gave in the confessional.
Stop it with the Josephite marriage nonsense. Clearly it was no marriage at all. Unless you have proof that it was more than merely a civil arrangement for some legal or financial benefit (to keep him in the country, get him health care, etc.) ... then you need to stop spouting. Their relationship could very well have been little more than a piece of paper.
-
Blatant mortal sin regardless of motive.
-
Blatant mortal sin regardless of motive.
Ridiculous.
-
Ridiculous.
You are either an ignorant idiot, or a Jew infiltrator.
-
Stop it with the Josephite marriage nonsense. Clearly it was no marriage at all. Unless you have proof that it was more than merely a civil arrangement for some legal or financial benefit (to keep him in the country, get him health care, etc.) ... then you need to stop spouting. Their relationship could very well have been little more than a piece of paper.
I agree: Proof of marriage is no proof of no marriage. You have lost your mind.
-
It just goes to show you that you don't find magical bishops that everyone else somehow overlooked just hiding in a field like buried treasure. You listening, Fr. Pfeiffer?
There are only a handful of valid, trained traditional bishops in the entire world. They are all well known and accounted for. You could go on a journey to find other valid traditional bishops and spend decades and not find any additional gems that everyone overlooked. Every apparently traditional bishop that everyone seems to overlook is being overlooked for a reason. Validity questions, skeletons in the closet, and other problems. Every single time you "discover" a new traditional bishop, he will turn out to be a fraud con artist like Ambrose Moran, be married like Bishop Fulham, or have other equally serious baggage.
That's about it.
I attended one mass with Fulham when I visited a relative in Jacksonville. My relative went to mass there, so I went with him. Fulham was just a priest then. Then later they told me he became a bishop. I had doubts whether he was a priest and you can forget about being a bishop. I never would have gone to mass with him, why gamble when I can go to an SSPX ordained priest?
-
That's about it.
I attended one mass with Fulham when I visited a relative in Jacksonville. My relative went to mass there, so I went with him. Fulham was just a priest then. Then later they told me he became a bishop. I had doubts whether he was a priest and you can forget about being a bishop. I never would have gone to mass with him, why gamble when I can go to an SSPX ordained priest?
That was me.
-
Stop it with the Josephite marriage nonsense. Clearly it was no marriage at all. Unless you have proof that it was more than merely a civil arrangement for some legal or financial benefit (to keep him in the country, get him health care, etc.) ... then you need to stop spouting. Their relationship could very well have been little more than a piece of paper.
So you're suggesting Bishop Fulham pulled a stunt like one of the "Squad" who married her brother and committed all kinds of immigration fraud? Nice. It's great to see Catholics, especially the clergy, put their light on a bushel for all to see their good example. How edifying. What do we tell the Mexican illegals? You don't have a God-given right to live in America. Same goes for men born in the UK. If he couldn't manage to stay here legally, why not go back to your home country? At any rate, it's scandalous for a priest to pretend a marriage.
-
Filing for an official civil marriage is basically announcing to the State that you are married. Talking Catholic doctrine here, the State has a right to know the marital status of each citizen. It's sinful to lie to the state about your marital status. Marriage touches on the basic unit of society, the family. It certainly extends into the jurisdiction of the State. There are some things that are none of the State's business, like schooling your children. But knowing your marital status is well within its bounds. In an ideal Catholic country, the State would be interested in giving certain tax breaks to married couples, as well as punishing any priest who attempts marriage. To tell knowingly false information to the State, which it has a right to know, is called fraud. Welfare deadbeats and other lowlifes commit welfare fraud every day. Criminals and scoundrels commit immigration fraud. Nice to see a Catholic bishop joining their ranks...
-
Unless you have proof that it was more than merely a civil arrangement for some legal or financial benefit (to keep him in the country, get him health care, etc.) ... then you need to stop spouting. Their relationship could very well have been little more than a piece of paper.
Then why don't we find more traditional priests and bishops getting "married", since it's hard for foreigners to stay in the country long-term when you're not part of an organization. And health care and insurance is uber expensive, often north of $1000 per month. Every other priest should be pretending to marry some old maid in his parish, so he can get free health insurance. And yet, somehow all the other independent priests avoid this tactic. Why? It would be so much easier to get health care if they'd just commit a bit of fraud. Maybe it's the sin of scandal, or the sin of lying to the state in an important matter?
-
Then why don't we find more traditional priests and bishops getting "married", since it's hard for foreigners to stay in the country long-term when you're not part of an organization.
Uhm, you answered your own question. MOST Traditional priests either operate in their country of birth/citizenship ... or else belong to some organization. Bishop Fulham was not a native U.S. citizen (was from the UK) AND he was not operating as part of an organization. As for whether he should have done this or not, that's open to debate of course ... but to suggest that the mere existence of this docuмent proves mortal sin of some kind, that's reaching beyond what this proves. There have been several priests I know who were forced out of the U.S. after they broke ties with their organization.
-
Filing for an official civil marriage is basically announcing to the State that you are married.
It doesn't matter what the state thinks; only the Catholic Church can determine whether any given Catholic is married or not. I could see a couple filing for divorce on paper to avoid various unjust financial penalties imposed on married couples (the so-called marriage tax). Also, even the new Trump tax code rewards the two-income no-kids type but hurts (or at best barely helps) married couples with a lot of children. At the end of the day, I don't really give a rip what this vile Masonic Juden-controlled state thinks ... only what God and the Church think.
-
I cannot understand how any moral person could justify a priest getting married under any circuмstances whether for immigration, financial or pragmatic reasons.
It is an outright fraud and a complete abuse and scandal.
-
It doesn't matter what the state thinks; only the Catholic Church can determine whether any given Catholic is married or not. I could see a couple filing for divorce on paper to avoid various unjust financial penalties imposed on married couples (the so-called marriage tax). Also, even the new Trump tax code rewards the two-income no-kids type but hurts (or at best barely helps) married couples with a lot of children. At the end of the day, I don't really give a rip what this vile Masonic Juden-controlled state thinks ... only what God and the Church think.
Yes they are Masonic controlled by Jews, but they are still the legitimate State authority, and even if they overstep their authority in some areas, that doesn't wipe out their legitimate rights in other areas. Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Please read Romans chapter 13, where St. Paul lays out the Catholic viewpoint of the State.
That Catholic viewpoint is not echoed in the post I quoted here.
-
I cannot understand how any moral person could justify a priest getting married under any circuмstances whether for immigration, financial or pragmatic reasons.
It is an outright fraud and a complete abuse and scandal.
We know that a Catholic's marriage status is determined by the Church and not by the state. So, for instance, the state considers as "married" lots of people who are in fact living in sin. Because we do not live in a Catholic state, there's a disconnect. And married couples are punished financially by this ungodly state as well.
So, for instance, if a married couple has $22,000 in itemized deductions, you can't itemize it due to the $24,000 standard deduction (unless you want to lose money). But, if you were to divorce on paper, the husband could itemize the $22,000 while the wife takes the $12,000 standard deduction, yielding $34,000 in deductions ... vs. $24,000 if they filed as a couple. Even if you do not file jointly, the tax code forbids one spouse from itemizing while the other takes the standard deduction.
We had a couple next door who had no children and who were renting. So they effectively got $0 in itemized deductions and only took the small standard deduction. Thanks to Trump, they suddenly got $24,000 in deductions (due to the standard). Meanwhile, I got like a $50 break on my taxes ... since they took away that tax deductions for children (although they increased the credit ... leading to it being a wash for me, while this DINC couple next door got an extra $12,000 or so in deductions). These scuм that run and control the government have been trying to destroy the family for generations now.
If you don't agree with +Fulham getting a paper marriage, that's fine, but to jump to the conclusion that he's in hell and that it's some horribly grave sin ... you absolutely cannot do that without knowing the facts. If he had been kicked out of the U.S., then his flock wold have been abandoned. After his death, they closed the church down, sold it, and gave many of the religious items to Bishop Sanborn's group. So that kind of spiritual need could justify the civil fiction. I have no problems with perpetrating a legal fiction to this ungodly Judaeo-Masonic state that is actively trying to destroy families and souls. In fact, all the fake marriages that are considered real by the state are also nothing more than legal fictions. So the state's approach to marriage is a fraud, and there's no requirement to be honest with a fraudulent system like that.
Is it possible that something really bad was going on here? Perhaps. But, even then, if there were some immoral relations taking place, why bother to get a civil marriage paper ... since you can fornicate just fine without that. In any case, if +Fulham did commit some sins, let us pity him and pray for his soul ... instead of spewing judgmental venom that serves no other purposes. As Our Lord said, we need to avoid being poisoned by the leaven of the Pharisees.
-
Yes they are Masonic controlled by Jews, but they are still the legitimate State authority, and even if they overstep their authority in some areas, that doesn't wipe out their legitimate rights in other areas. Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Please read Romans chapter 13, where St. Paul lays out the Catholic viewpoint of the State.
That Catholic viewpoint is not echoed in the post I quoted here.
They have no right to recognize sinful relationships as "marriage" ... and they regularly do that. Consequently, they have no real authority in the realm of marriage ... as their entire process has been delegitimized.
If that's ALL +Fulham was doing here, trying to make provision for his flock, then I don't see any grave sin here.
-
Uhm, you answered your own question. MOST Traditional priests either operate in their country of birth/citizenship ... or else belong to some organization. Bishop Fulham was not a native U.S. citizen (was from the UK) AND he was not operating as part of an organization. As for whether he should have done this or not, that's open to debate of course ... but to suggest that the mere existence of this docuмent proves mortal sin of some kind, that's reaching beyond what this proves. There have been several priests I know who were forced out of the U.S. after they broke ties with their organization.
You haven't answered this question. How many other foreign priests have done this for the sake of immigration? How many other independent priests have done this for the sake of health care? If Bishop Fulham is the first or only, then why? Probably because it's scandalous, fraud, and therefore immoral. Because let's face it, we're focused on the morality of a priest getting a civil marriage for pragmatic reasons, but a lot of people are still going to wonder if he was enjoying other benefits of marriage as well. It's a legitimate concern, when it comes to light that a priest is married. That's precisely why priests shouldn't pretend to get married to any extent, on paper or in reality.
-
How many other foreign priests have done this for the sake of immigration?
Oh, of about the 2 or 3 I know of in that situation, none that I know of. My point is that the sample size is too small. And whether or not they have actually done this is not relevant to the discussion about the principles related.
-
Isn't that what some liberals on Fisheaters said a few years ago? It became public that the divorced owner and a divorced member of her forum got civilly married. Some said "oh, but we shouldn't assume they're sleeping together or living like married people." What about the scandal of two divorced people being civilly married to someone who is not their true spouse? That's scandalous enough.
A priest shouldn't be married to anyone. Civilly, inside or outside the True Church. Any level of marriage for a priest is an absolute scandal. That's what Martin Luther did, married a nun, remember? And this was in Florida. There is no obscure law or pragmatic reason why a priest would need to get married, on the books, technically, or otherwise.
Please suggest a law or circuмstance that would morally allow a priest in America to get married, even a sham or civil marriage, so I can verify if it might be true.
Eastern rite priests are allowed to be married, if they are married before their ordination.
Not commenting on the case in the OP
-
Eastern rite priests are allowed to be married, if they are married before their ordination.
Not commenting on the case in the OP
In the East, though, it's not permitted for bishops still, I think.
-
In the East, though, it's not permitted for bishops still, I think.
That's correct.I was'nt trying to really defend this situation. Just responding to what somebody said
-
She was a nun who worked with him. It would be funny if it weren't so sad and scandalous. And sacrilegious. Martin Luther married a nun. Every traditional priest knows that. How can you wake up one day and say "You know what? I think I'm going to marry a nun." How can a traditional Catholic, especially a priest, not know that's wrong?
He was married to the CMRI Sister from Mount Saint Michael's????? She's the one that left with him when he went to Florida.
-
He was married to the CMRI Sister from Mount Saint Michael's????? She's the one that left with him when he went to Florida.
I have to say, this doesn't sound good. However, as others have noted here, this may have been an exceptional case where they entered into a legal marriage for temporal benefits, and did not live as husband and wife. I would certainly hope not. However, one thing that is getting lost in all this --- did +Bishop Fulham ever tell anyone about this? Did he or the sister make any effort to keep it hidden?
We will all probably do well to give them the benefit of the doubt, think the best of both of them, and be done with the matter. I never knew +Bishop Fulham and never visited that particular chapel --- I did visit SMA in Jacksonville when, IIRC, Fr Roberts served there, I took a road trip to Florida one long weekend --- but I have no reason to think badly of him.
-
I have to say, this doesn't sound good. However, as others have noted here, this may have been an exceptional case where they entered into a legal marriage for temporal benefits, and did not live as husband and wife. I would certainly hope not. However, one thing that is getting lost in all this --- did +Bishop Fulham ever tell anyone about this? Did he or the sister make any effort to keep it hidden?
We will all probably do well to give them the benefit of the doubt, think the best of both of them, and be done with the matter. I never knew +Bishop Fulham and never visited that particular chapel --- I did visit SMA in Jacksonville when, IIRC, Fr Roberts served there, I took a road trip to Florida one long weekend --- but I have no reason to think badly of him.
I was the one who posted this. I have no need to be anonymous. DARN this "post with your username" check box!!!
-
I can't believe people are trying to defend him but it has solidified my decision to avoid resistence chapels
-
I can't believe people are trying to defend him but it has solidified my decision to avoid resistence chapels
Are you high? Bishop Fulham wasn't connected with the resistance at all. He was ordained by a South American bishop, probably sedevacantist and or thuc line. He was an independent priest. Resistance priests were all formed at a professional seminary and ordained by a Lefebvre line bishop. Completely different.
Yes, the resistance is a small group. But they're not really in the same category as the typical independent priest. We know the background of every last one of the resistance priests. They are not mystery meat.
-
Are you high? Bishop Fulham wasn't connected with the resistance at all. He was ordained by a South American bishop, probably sedevacantist and or thuc line. He was an independent priest. Resistance priests were all formed at a professional seminary and ordained by a Lefebvre line bishop. Completely different.
Yes, the resistance is a small group. But they're not really in the same category as the typical independent priest. We know the background of every last one of the resistance priests. They are not mystery meat.
Well, Bishop Fulham did get part of his training at SSPX seminary and part at CMRI. So, he was professionally trained. But you are correct that there's some fog around his Orders ... I thought that there was some Duarte Costa connection. But, no, not even close to being Resistance.
I was at SSPX seminary at the same time he was, and his departure from this life reminds me of my own mortality and impending judgment.
-
If that's ALL +Fulham was doing here, trying to make provision for his flock, then I don't see any grave sin here.
I hate to bring up Fr. Pfeiffer again, but Fr. Pfeiffer has done many bad things under the guise of following his own interpretation of God's will. But God's law trumps one's opinion of God's will. If Bishop Fulham can't tend to his Floridian flock without resorting to getting "married", if all his other immigration options have run out, don't you suppose that's God trying to tell him he's wanted back in his home country? What do you suppose any of the saints would have done? Even the mischievous ones like Fr. Miguel Pro? I couldn't picture Fr. Pro getting married on paper, not even for some religious reason. Too scandalous.
Aren't countless evils done because one is convinced that God needs them personally and they insist that their opinion is God's positive will?