Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Poll

What do you think of his proposal?

Fully Support
6 (28.6%)
Support with Conditions
3 (14.3%)
Neutral
2 (9.5%)
Sounds Fishy
3 (14.3%)
Totally Against
7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Author Topic: Bishop Roy's Imperfect Council  (Read 517 times)

4 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: Bishop Roy's Imperfect Council
« Reply #10 on: Today at 01:41:21 PM »
Tell me you haven't watched any of the videos of His Excellency talking about this without telling me you haven't watched any of the videos. Catholic Family Podcast would be a great place to start.
+Roy answers numerous objections to this idea, even asking for rebuttals as to why this may not even be a possibility. Verbatim, +Roy says all he wants to result from this is for him to go back to tending to his faithful, his garden and chickens.

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: Bishop Roy's Imperfect Council
« Reply #11 on: Today at 03:09:32 PM »
Bishop Roy was ordained by the SSPX in the early days of the Resistance, and immediately left and became sedevacantist (or vice-versa).
Then very shortly thereafter, he was consecrated bishop.

His priestly career is on a high trajectory, like a rocket. His name is basically "Peter King" Pierre = Peter, Roy = Roi = King.

How much time did he spend serving as a simple priest? He doesn't seem to be very satisfied, content, or happy with "the little things" or anything approaching a simple, humble life. He thinks big -- too big, in my opinion.

He is taking that "Peter" a bit too seriously, he's angling to become Pope (or at least an anti-Pope).  Maybe not CONSCIOUSLY, but at least deep down. He has to know where this will lead.

Nominative determinism is real, boys and girls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism
Well, I'll point out that he served as a simple priest longer than Bishop Williamson did. +Williamson was ordained in 1976 and consecrated in 1988, so he was a priest for 12 years before consecration. +Roy was ordained in 2011 and consecrated in 2024, essentially being a priest for 13 years before consecration, I think that's time enough as a simple priest.


Re: Bishop Roy's Imperfect Council
« Reply #12 on: Today at 04:57:15 PM »
Bishop Roy was ordained by the SSPX in the early days of the Resistance, and immediately left and became sedevacantist (or vice-versa).
Then very shortly thereafter, he was consecrated bishop.

His priestly career is on a high trajectory, like a rocket. His name is basically "Peter King" Pierre = Peter, Roy = Roi = King.

How much time did he spend serving as a simple priest? He doesn't seem to be very satisfied, content, or happy with "the little things" or anything approaching a simple, humble life. He thinks big -- too big, in my opinion.

He is taking that "Peter" a bit too seriously, he's angling to become Pope (or at least an anti-Pope).  Maybe not CONSCIOUSLY, but at least deep down. He has to know where this will lead.

Nominative determinism is real, boys and girls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism

His name is certainly interesting, given what he's on about. 

If we look at it more objectively, we have to admit that a vast swath of traditional Catholicism is just plain sick of the divisions. This was bound to happen sooner or later. I wish it had begun sooner, but, as a priest I always liked used to say, "There's a time for every grace." 

As for nominative determinism, on the natural plane it may offer a powerful subconscious influence on the one so named. I've seen it happen with a criminal who had a rap sheet longer than an unwound large size roll of TP. His last name was Honesty!!! LOL!!!! The charges on his record were mostly crimes of moral turpitude like theft, false statement, bad checks, forgery, etc. I found it hilariously funny at the time. 

On the supernatural plane, it may very well be a name God hath chosen for a person; a name which signifies that person's call in life. From the beginning I have believed that Bp. Roy is doing God's bidding, and certainly not because of Roy, per se. It is because the very same idea has been in my mind for decades. I have not been able to shake it. 

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: Bishop Roy's Imperfect Council
« Reply #13 on: Today at 05:09:58 PM »
I'm hoping at least a union amongst faithful Catholic heirarchy will come from a meeting.   The divisions are a true cross that should sadden anyone who loves the Church.  Maybe an agreement by the CMRI bishops to be conditionally consecrated by the SSPV bishops will be a solution for the doubt whether their orders are valid?  That seems to be a big reason for their divide. I don't the solution, but something needs to happen.  

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Bishop Roy's Imperfect Council
« Reply #14 on: Today at 05:13:40 PM »
I'll log in here, despite it being Anon, but this idea is utterly ridiculous, for many reasons.

And, this picture here certainly reinforces Matthew's characterization of him.  I'm not a fan of his personally ... but the idea of a "Conclave" (yes, we all know the term is being loosely despite their burning much wasted effort on arguing semantics) is so utterly idiotic, the fact that so many Totalists appear to be getting on board, it should be an embarrassment to sedevacantism in general.