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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32]

Author Topic: "Fr" Isaac Relyea in Post Falls this week  (Read 4563 times)

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: "Fr" Isaac Relyea in Post Falls this week
« Reply #155 on: Today at 11:18:45 AM »
Quote from: OABrownson1876 on Today at 10:00:11 AM
And Bp. Williamson told us one day, "Even if the N.O. ordination is valid, for the sake of the conscience of the faithful, the priest should accept conditional ordination from a valid bishop."
Yes, this.

Why not?

A) Because they want to be part of the conciliar church
B) Because they believe the NO Rite is valid when done by the book.

I fail to see how "B" is possible.

From 1991, Fr. Hesse, who should know, explains why it is valid, I think this should start at the right spot, might be off by a few seconds, but he goes over it in about 5 minutes or so.....

https://youtu.be/3QXDzzMo6WA?t=2949

Logged

Offline MiracleOfTheSun

Re: "Fr" Isaac Relyea in Post Falls this week
« Reply #156 on: Today at 12:45:01 PM »
Aside from what is sort of a technical issue - simply performing the act of a conditional - what about the theology they are bringing with them from the Nervous Ordo? Do they go back to the seminary and study the encyclicals for five years or are they being sent out to parishes after 'seeing the light'?
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: "Fr" Isaac Relyea in Post Falls this week
« Reply #157 on: Today at 12:45:07 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 11:03:54 AM
In the 70s and 80s, only a very, very few NO priests defected at all. Of those, if the priest was ordained pre-68 they did not conditionally ordain. If the priest was ordained post-68, he was investigated and conditionally ordained; a) if the priest asked for it and b) they found positive doubt in the ceremony, which essentially meant the bishop did not do it "by the book" or c) the priest, mainly due to poor formation, admitted that he not have proper intention. d) that much I remember clearly.
This thread has multiple seminarians who have told you what the policy was, and that conditional ordinations were the norm.  Why do you pretend to have insider information?  You don't.

Just like you talked to some random guy from Angelus Press and you think you know what the sspx leadership does?  Is this a joke?  Are you delusional?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32]
« previous next »