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

Author Topic: SSPX Fake Priests  (Read 116592 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #40 on: July 31, 2025, 12:00:31 PM »
Is Bishop Tissier not an authority?  Bishop Dolan?  Fr Cekada?  You may not like these clerics, but they put in the time to research the issues.

No one can deny that the new rites are changed.  Not even you.  So what does this change mean?  It means that validity is doubtful.  You can't argue it.

Canon Law (which is an authority) has rules on how to treat doubtful sacraments.  You can either choose to follow canon law or not.  This isn't a new issue.
I said YOU do not have the authority to say this, I never said +Tissier didn't. Stay the course man! Did +Tissier create a website, name it "Fake Priests" with a picture of a demon priest as the headliner? Does it even sound like something he would do? Of course not and neither should you! 

Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #41 on: July 31, 2025, 12:25:35 PM »
Is Bishop Tissier not an authority?  Bishop Dolan?  Fr Cekada?  You may not like these clerics, but they put in the time to research the issues.

No one can deny that the new rites are changed.  Not even you.  So what does this change mean?  It means that validity is doubtful.  You can't argue it.

Canon Law (which is an authority) has rules on how to treat doubtful sacraments.  You can either choose to follow canon law or not.  This isn't a new issue.

Can you explain how traditionalist clerics have authority? Who gave them authority? Who are their superiors?

They have nothing more than a relative moral authority. And, even them, none of them had formal studies on anything related to Theology. Even the seminaries that they went to were not real seminaries.


Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #42 on: July 31, 2025, 12:25:46 PM »
If +Tissier says the new rites are doubtful, I’m not allowed to say the same thing?  :confused:  :confused: :confused:

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #43 on: July 31, 2025, 12:29:10 PM »
I said YOU do not have the authority to say this, I never said +Tissier didn't. Stay the course man! Did +Tissier create a website, name it "Fake Priests" with a picture of a demon priest as the headliner? Does it even sound like something he would do? Of course not and neither should you!
Actually, the priest pictured on the website is not a "demon."  His name is Sergio Guiterrez Benitez and he is now 80 years old.  He was a wrestler but used wrestling to support an orphanage in Mexico that he founded.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fray_Tormenta

Just FYI.  

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #44 on: July 31, 2025, 12:34:21 PM »
Can you explain how traditionalist clerics have authority? Who gave them authority? Who are their superiors?

They have nothing more than a relative moral authority. And, even them, none of them had formal studies on anything related to Theology. Even the seminaries that they went to were not real seminaries.
There’s various types of authority.  We’re not talking about jurisdiction.  

We’re actually talking about the logical principle of “authority of consensus”.  Every major Trad group (R&R, Sede, independent) has said there’s problems with V2.  That’s why Traditionalism exists to begin with.  Even clerics who were PART of Rome (in the 60s), said there are theological/doctrinal issues.  

The consensus on the new rite is “they are not 100% valid”.  Even the sspx does some type of “investigation”.  You don’t investigate something which is 100% certain.  Ergo, there is a doubt.

The doubts around the new rites is THE REASON that Traditinalism exists.  If you have 0 doubts on the new rites, then you have ZERO REASON to be a Trad.  If you believe the new rites are ok, you are being disobedient to Rome, by attending a Trad chapel.

Don’t let the sspx gaslight you.  The doubts on the new rites have been there from the beginning, since the 60s.  This is not some new debate.