Bishop Sanborn discusses starting at about the 12:30 timestamp for a few a minutes the Fatima Prayer and says should not be prayed in the Rosary, save for an approval of a version given by a Spanish bishop in a particular diocese.

Comments?

  This is an example of "straining a gnat and swallowing a camel."  Add this to the list of unimportant things that Sede Bishops have changed/questioned.  This just causes too much confusion among the Faithful.  Just stop.

The house (of the Church) is on fire, and Sede Bishops are worried about their toothbrush. 

Well said.  

There's nothing scandalous about it -- that's rather a hyperbole and shows very little understanding of the term scandal -- but just the typical excessively legalist view of the law.  In Eastern Europe, it's LONG been the custom to add an interjection in between the "fruit of thy womb, Jesus" ... and the "Holy Mary, Mother of God", briefly calling to mind something about the mystery, i.e. "... blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus ... Who rose from the dead on the third day ... Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners ..."

Certainly if you add something to the Rosary that SUBSTANTIALLY changes it into something other than the Rosary, then the indulgences for the Rosary would not apply (e.g. like some people who use it to offer some other type of "chaplet" prayer), but adding such interjections does not substantially change the Rosary from being the Rosary.

Too much legalism.  It was the same nonsense Fr. Cekada tried to apply when eliminating the Prayers after Low Mass ... though he was wrong even from the legal standpoint.

If adding something to the Rosary eliminates the indulgence, without adding the distinction that it must substantially alter the Rosary, then if you stutter and add an extra word at any point, or repeat a word, of even accidentally skip a single word, then you haven't prayed the Rosary?  That's just nonsense.  And talk about this causing massive angst among the scrupulous, who now might be seen restarting the Rosary the second they accidentally add or omit something.  At that point, you're just better off forgetting about the indulgences and just praying the Rosary out of love for God, Our Lord, and Our Lady -- with the alternative being the development of mental problems and neuroses.  Pray the Rosary because Our Lady asked us to and gave us her own personal "indulgence" by talking about how she'll endow it with great power to solve any problem and turn it into a weapon against evil.  This smacks of Pharisaism here and extraordinary scrupulosity.

Almost everything either in the Magisterium entails the qualifier of "substantially".  When the Popes have taught that there can be and has never been error in the Magisterium, they mean SUBSTANTIALLY and not absolutely.  When Sacred Scripture says that all have sinned except Our Lord, they mean generally but not absolutely (to the exclusion of Our Lady as the Prots would have it).  Similarly, any wording around indulgences undoubtedly means that if you add something that SUBSTANTIALLY alters the Rosary into no longer being the Rosary, then obviously the indulgences for the Rosary would not apply, since it's no longer the Rosary ... not some nonsense where if you take it with his meaning, the accidental addition of a single word would cancel the indulgence.  When you announce the next mystery between decades, moreover, is there a "standard"/"approved" verbiage for those where if you add a single word, that too cancels the indulgence.  So if the typical mystery is "the Assumption of Our Lady" and you say "the Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven", does that cancel the indulgence because you added "into Heaven"?

Trad bishops have no authority to make any such statements. They can offer an OPINION; they can offer a SUGGESTION. Yet they have no juridical authority to declare anything. And appealing to "supplied jurisdiction" in this kind of matter would betray a complete canonical ignorance of supplied jurisdiction, which is always occasional, never habitual, and has no relationship to juridical authority but only to sacramental administration.

All trad clergy are properly sacramental vending machines, nothing else. This is both positive -- they supply valid sacraments in an era of crisis. This is also negative -- they are not pastors and cannot provide the same curam animarum as would a lawful pastor in normal times.

Were I a trad bishop, I would keep the wearing of episcopal regalia to a minimum for daily attire and only use full pontificalia for liturgical functions.

THIS ^^^

I myself would not use a crozier nor the episcopal throne, but rather the faldstool.

Bishop Sanborn discusses starting at about the 12:30 timestamp for a few a minutes the Fatima Prayer and says should not be prayed in the Rosary, save for an approval of a version given by a Spanish bishop in a particular diocese.

Comments?

This is the same prelate who claims it's sinful for Catholics to attend Una cuм masses and prefers one should watch masses online before ever going to an Una cuм mass. He is being interviewed by "Pope" Heiner who said in an interview that Catholics "only need the faith" and don't need the Mass or the Sacraments save baptism. He claimed that it doesn't say anywhere in any Catechism that we need to go to Mass or that we need to receive any sacraments other than baptism. If this were true, then Catholic practices would only be unnecessary obstacles to salvation rather than tools for salvation. "Pope" Heiner  also prefers never going to any Una cuм masses. The fact that these two Sedes have a large following baffles me.

Trad bishops have no authority to make any such statements. They can offer an OPINION; they can offer a SUGGESTION. Yet they have no juridical authority to declare anything. And appealing to "supplied jurisdiction" in this kind of matter would betray a complete canonical ignorance of supplied jurisdiction, which is always occasional, never habitual, and has no relationship to juridical authority but only to sacramental administration.

All trad clergy are properly sacramental vending machines, nothing else. This is both positive -- they supply valid sacraments in an era of crisis. This is also negative -- they are not pastors and cannot provide the same curam animarum as would a lawful pastor in normal times.

Were I a trad bishop, I would keep the wearing of episcopal regalia to a minimum for daily attire and only use full pontificalia for liturgical functions.

I remember Bishop Williamson saying something to the effect that bishops are ordained so they may attain the fullness of the priesthood—in other words, as priests who can confer all the sacraments, rather than as some who act as these great figures of authority.

Trad bishops have no authority to make any such statements. They can offer an OPINION; they can offer a SUGGESTION. Yet they have no juridical authority to declare anything. And appealing to "supplied jurisdiction" in this kind of matter would betray a complete canonical ignorance of supplied jurisdiction, which is always occasional, never habitual, and has no relationship to juridical authority but only to sacramental administration.

All trad clergy are properly sacramental vending machines, nothing else. This is both positive -- they supply valid sacraments in an era of crisis. This is also negative -- they are not pastors and cannot provide the same curam animarum as would a lawful pastor in normal times.

Were I a trad bishop, I would keep the wearing of episcopal regalia to a minimum for daily attire and only use full pontificalia for liturgical functions.

Does it mean that trad clergy cannot deny Communion to public unrepentant sinners?

I personally pray the entire Rosary daily without Fatima prayer. It indeed comes from apparitions not approved by the Church.

Same for me. I'm not 100 % on board with Fatima but keep my opinions to myself unless somene asks. If I'm with someone that adds the Fatima prayer at the end of every decade I'll say it but not when I'm alone or with family.