:pray::pray::pray: He was always very kind to me. May his soul rest in peace.He was VERY kind to my family, as well.
https://novusordowatch.org/2022/04/bishop-daniel-dolan-rip/As I posted at NOW, today also happens to be the anniversary of the death of Father Joseph Collins.
https://twitter.com/dolan_bp/status/1518917015867695104?s=20&t=wjTdoelKaHVh2bXblczwJA
And he was supposed to be part of the ordination of several priests next week...
Did he get the vaxx? That's what I immediately think of when I hear about sudden deaths these days.Someone at Novus Ordo Watch asked the same question. Among the answers:
Someone at Novus Ordo Watch asked the same question. Among the answers:
He was staunchly against it.
He said that it was a mortal sin to take the vaxx.
It wasn't that long ago that Fr. Cekada died. Now BOTH Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada of "Dolan and Cekada" fame have passed away, within a very short time of each other.
No one has mentioned this yet but...
It wasn't that long ago that Fr. Cekada died. Now BOTH Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada of "Dolan and Cekada" fame have passed away, within a very short time of each other.
Most CI members weren't here back in 2009, but in that year CI was "All SGG, all the time".
Yes, I do wonder what'll become of SGG without any senior leadership around, just younger priests left.Good question. This is where the seminary moving within a 2 hr flight of SGG (Eastern Pennsylvania) is an unintentionally good move.
+ Requiescant in pace +
No one has mentioned this yet but...Yes, between Father Collins, Father Cekada, and Bishop Dolan, it's been a rough few years.
It wasn't that long ago that Fr. Cekada died. Now BOTH Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada of "Dolan and Cekada" fame have passed away, within a very short time of each other.
Yes, I do wonder what'll become of SGG without any senior leadership around, just younger priests left. With each passing generation of Traditional priest that didn't have to "fight the good fight" shortly after V2, we lose a little something. We see that happening in the SSPX as they turn over from the "old guard" to the "new".Same here. I wonder whether Bishop Pivarunas will play a part.
Yes, between Father Collins, Father Cekada, and Bishop Dolan, it's been a rough few years.
We've also had a few SSPX priests pass away ... Fr. Daniel Cooper, Fr. Dominique Bourmaud. Also, my younger brother passed away at the age of 48. I have this feeling that people are passing away due to what's coming to the world soon.That could be the case.
When I was at STAS in Minnesota, there was a cemetery for Dominicans down at the base of the hill, and we'd visit there from time to time to pray for the departed. I noticed one time on the grave stones that a LOT of them passed away in the 1960s, and what's more, many of them were relatively young ... in their 30s and 40s. I bet a lot of them passed away to spare them from the New Mass.
The second is propter absumptionem [On account of the removal] of the good and the just. Whenever God takes away the holy and the good, say that the scourge is near. This can be proved: when God wanted to send the Flood, He removed Noe and his family [Gen. 6]. Item, He rescued Lot from Sodom when He wanted to burn it [Gen. 19]. Consider how many men can be found nowadays whom you can call just and good, and so, say that the scourge is near and that the wrath and the sword of God has moved.
We see that happening in the SSPX as they turn over from the "old guard" to the "new".Indeed.
Indeed.
Recently my child was in a bad accident. We are an outpost for the SSPX, so they weren't around to administer extreme unction, nor willing to fly out.
Called the FSSP and they refused, sending me to the the local NO.
I hesitated, but thought, "in dire emergency..." so I called the local NO. We had NEVER been to that church. Within 2 hours a priest was here, no questions asked.
I have been disgusted with the sspx and fssp since.
I have this feeling that people are passing away due to what's coming to the world soon.
Why? Maybe you woke up late, but all the world is like it was all the time ever since Adam. The only difference now: The Lord will come really soon. The peg was removed, taken out of the way (Is 22:21-25, 2 Thess 2:7).
(https://i.imgur.com/NGmX07V.png)Thanks for posting the obseques Emile!
I ju st started listening to “What Catholics Believe” with Fr Jenkins. He referred to Bishop Dolan as “Father” Dolan and opened up the possibility that the Bishop’s heart attack may have been a vaxx reaction.Fr. Jenkins is of the opinion that the Thuc consecrations are invalid, hence why he doesn't refer to Bp. Dolan as a bishop.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-catholics-believe/id1458896526?i=1000558926972
I just started listening to “What Catholics Believe” with Fr Jenkins. He referred to Bishop Dolan as “Father” Dolan and opened up the possibility that the Bishop’s heart attack may have been a vaxx reaction.Yes, I listened to that as well. Fr Jenkins clearly was not aware of the Bishop's staunch anti-jab position. He should have checked on that and reported that before suggesting that he might have died from the jab.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-catholics-believe/id1458896526?i=1000558926972
I ju st started listening to “What Catholics Believe” with Fr Jenkins. He referred to Bishop Dolan as “Father” Dolan and opened up the possibility that the Bishop’s heart attack may have been a vaxx reaction.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-catholics-believe/id1458896526?i=1000558926972
Wouldn't you think there'd be a little class among the warring trad factions, to hold one's tongue, before we bury our Holy religious ? :facepalm:Yes, you would think. His comments angered me. I appreciate that here at CI people have held their tongues.
On this forum, we prayed a 54-Day Novena to Our Lady of Pompeii for an intention, Bishop Dolan had formulated:
"For the families of all nations, torn apart by the wounds of sin, to be spared from the communist covid revolution."
No trad talking head, no trad Bishop in the world, had the discernment to pen such a truthful invocation.
Wouldn't you think there'd be a little class among the warring trad factions, to hold one's tongue, before we bury our Holy religious ? :facepalm:And it worked. Recall that the covid nonsense started loosening significantly right after the novena ended and the omicron variant suddenly emerged to give most people natural immunity. I don't believe in coincidence.
On this forum, we prayed a 54-Day Novena to Our Lady of Pompeii for an intention, Bishop Dolan had formulated:
"For the families of all nations, torn apart by the wounds of sin, to be spared from the communist covid revolution."
No trad talking head, no trad Bishop in the world, had the discernment to pen such a truthful invocation.
Yes, I listened to that as well. Fr Jenkins clearly was not aware of the Bishop's staunch anti-jab position. He should have checked on that and reported that before suggesting that he might have died from the jab.
And PS....no one knows it was a heart attack.
He could have died from a heart attack, but i'd be shocked if he got the jab. That would make no sense whatsoever. +Dolan has been against covid since the get-go in 2020. Fr Jenkins' chapel is less than 30 minutes away from +Dolan's chapel...why would he make such a comment? The mystery of Trad cινιℓ ωαrs will never cease to amaze me...You have to feel bad for the Protestant converts... They leave one unstable place to end up in another.
He could have died from a heart attack, but i'd be shocked if he got the jab.
Fr Jenkins' chapel is less than 30 minutes away from +Dolan's chapel...why would he make such a comment? The mystery of Trad cινιℓ ωαrs will never cease to amaze me...
I don't think it was said with hostile intent.I hope not...but with him calling Bishop Dolan, "Father", one has to wonder.
Well, perhaps Father Jenkins does have some information that it was a heart attack. He's probably well connected with varous priests he would know. It certainly makes sense given how sudden it was and that Bishop Dolan was Tweeting on the day he passed away. So I wouldn't say that "no one" knows. I'm sure that some people do know.If he's got those connections then he'd also know how anti jab he was.....
As for their position on the CMRI and the Thuc line, that was the main reason I stopped associating with the SSPV many years back. While they're entitled to their opinion, I felt that they had crossed the line over into being uncharitable. I used to help with the production of "What Catholics Believe" (when it was on cable TV) ... and also answered phone calls from viewers during the show. But they had one episode in which they were very uncharitably ridiculing Bishop McKenna, making fun of some of the exorcisms he had performed, and that's when I decided I didn't really feel at home there. I also feel that they're crossing a line in terms of trying to impose their opinion of the +Thuc line and CMRI onto the consciences of others. They could warn people that they thought they were jeopardizing their souls by receiving Sacraments from the +Thuc line, and try to persuade them, but that's as far as they can go. They have no authority to bind consciences.
I'm surprised he even referred to him as "Father" Dolan, since the SSPV have long promoted the "One Hand Dan" nonsense, but I think that may have been more Bishop Kelly. Bishop Kelly would conditionally confirm people who had been confirmed by Bishop Williamson, who had been part of the same 1976 "one-handed" ordination class.
Apart from that, however, I have nothing but praise for Father Jenkins as a priest. He visited my dying brother to hear his Confession even though he had never attended his chapel there.
Well, he was 70 years old, and it's not unheard-of for 70-year-olds to have heart attacks. It's not like a 25-year-old top-tier athlete dropping dead of a sudden heart attack. I knew a guy in his mid-40s who had a heart attack ... who didn't appear to be in terrible shape. I think that the public speculation by Father Jenkins that it may be jab-related simply because it was (likely) a heart attack is rather irresponsible ... especiall given that the topic of that broadcast dealt with detraction and calumny.Agree 100%.
If he's got those connections then he'd also know how anti jab he was.....
You have to feel bad for the Protestant converts... They leave one unstable place to end up in another.
Yeah, how to explain the Novus ordo mass mania schism and the internecine trad wars to them :facepalm:As a convert from atheism followed by perennialism, I have my days where I wonder at just what I got myself into :laugh1:
Agree 100%.
Because he’s been “on-the-money” about covid. He also accelerated his ordination schedule, knowing the general genocide threat to the remnant faithful.
In other words, he was doing what trad Bishops should be doing:
Speaking-out, educating his flock and getting them a secure means for the Sacraments!
Right. I think we're nearing times when public Masses will not be available and we'll be in catacombs mode. For all we know, they'll round up all the known priests, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to have an underground network. We know that this is ultimately a Satanic plot and they desire more than anything the loss of souls, so I'm sure that depriving the faithful of Sacraments is toward the top of their agenda. They piloted that earlier in closing down all the churches, where many of the faithful missed Easter Sunday due to the restrictions.And also: the traditionalist groups have to consecrate more bishops. Some of them are waiting far too long.
If he's got those connections then he'd also know how anti jab he was.....Not trying to be cute or pedantic, but unless someone is vaporized instantly with a nuclear blast or some such, all deaths are heart attacks.
They are doing an autopsy. Unless those results have been communicated then no one knows for sure that he died of a heart attack.
Listen..outside of his Thuc position I have nothing but praise for Fr Jenkins. I have enjoyed his shows and I believe he's one of our best priests. However his comments regarding Bishop Dolan's death were ...less than stellar.
I doubt that Father Jenkins kept up with all of Bishop Dolan's various theological positions or statements. He's probaby too busy himself to keep up with everything every priest out there thinks or says about some subject ... unless somehow it impacts his own chapels.My point was if he knows he has a heart attack because he's "well connected" as you suggested earlier, then those connections should also know or could have easily found out what his position was on the jab.
The first thought that crossed my mind was that Bishop Dolan was murdered.It wasn't my first thought, but I admit the thought had crossed my mind too, and I don't typically go there.
Why?
Because he’s been “on-the-money” about covid. He also accelerated his ordination schedule, knowing the general genocide threat to the remnant faithful.
In other words, he was doing what trad Bishops should be doing:
Speaking-out, educating his flock and getting them a secure means for the Sacraments!
Why is it that most trad Bishops have become passive or are in the stealth mode?
This week, the Church honored it’s 3rd martyr Pope St. Cletus, who gave it all for his sheep.
More than ever, we need more selfless Bishops who are men of spiritual action.
My point was if he knows he has a heart attack because he's "well connected" as you suggested earlier, then those connections should also know or could have easily found out what his position was on the jab.
Sorry, I'm not buying the ignorance excuse. And if his death doesn't impact his own chapels somehow, he should have kept quiet until he had all the facts.
You have to feel bad for the Protestant converts... They leave one unstable place to end up in another.I've been thinking about this for two days. Perhaps our God has given us civil-warring traditionalists a shot across the bow. I think the civil-warring clergy have received a Divine warning that God is fed up with them. The whole world is falling apart and all our clergy do is fling paper airplanes at each other. It is impossible that Fr. Jenkins does not know about the absolute and uncategorical stance of BISHOP Dolan; for Bishop Dolan has been the one and only traditionalist clergyman to call the vaccine spade a filthy, dirty mortal sin. That was controversial, and Fr. Jenkins feeds on controversy. Furthermore Bp. Dolan was preaching against the vaccine for two straight years. It's impossible that Fr. Jenkins doesn't know this.
What Fr. Jenkins did in his broadcast is reprehensible. And normally I like him and enjoy his show. But it was truly below the belt Tuesday night. He owes Bp. Dolan (RIP) and SGG an apology.
I'll say one other thing. I literally winced when I heard what Fr. Jenkins said. My gut reaction was that Bp. Dolan's good name and reputation were being smeared. That man worked so hard to convince people not to believe the hoax and not to take the jab. In a sense, he placed his entire priesthood on the line, and therefore his own good name and reputation.
Fr. Jenkins has a duty in justice to repair; and I am going to confide in his well known integrity, that when this is brought to his attention, he will make a public correction, which is all we can ask from him.
I've been thinking about this for two days. Perhaps our God has given us civil-warring traditionalists a shot across the bow. I think the civil-warring clergy have received a Divine warning that God is fed up with them. The whole world is falling apart and all our clergy do is fling paper airplanes at each other. It is impossible that Fr. Jenkins does not know about the absolute and uncategorical stance of BISHOP Dolan; for Bishop Dolan has been the one and only traditionalist clergyman to call the vaccine spade a filthy, dirty mortal sin. That was controversial, and Fr. Jenkins feeds on controversy. Furthermore Bp. Dolan was preaching against the vaccine for two straight years. It's impossible that Fr. Jenkins doesn't know this.And....if I'm remembering correctly....Fr Jenkins, at least at one time, was not completely against the jab. Yeah, the more I think on this, the more angry I get.
What Fr. Jenkins did in his broadcast is reprehensible. And normally I like him and enjoy his show. But it was truly below the belt Tuesday night. He owes Bp. Dolan (RIP) and SGG an apology.
And....if I'm remembering correctly....Fr Jenkins, at least at one time, was not completely against the jab. Yeah, the more I think on this, the more angry I get.It was also mere hours after he died. There is speaking ill of the dead and then there's that.
I think many traditional priests are going to end up in hell. The world is falling into the abyss, and they won't cooperate to make the sacrament available to the faithful. This is especially true of the Neo-SSPX. Who are busy building monuments, totally oblivious to the situation?I won't go as far as to say the individual priests of the Neo-SSPX are wholly ignorant of the needs of the faithful, but it's clear that the mission has shifted to one of complacency with Rome. We've discussed it on here before, but they really should alter the structure of the Society to assign priests to specific areas, like a parish priest, rather than having them clustered in one central location and traveling all over. Really limiting their availability.
While they're entitled to their opinion, I felt that they had crossed the line over into being uncharitable. I used to help with the production of "What Catholics Believe" (when it was on cable TV) ... and also answered phone calls from viewers during the show. But they had one episode in which they were very uncharitably ridiculing Bishop McKenna, making fun of some of the exorcisms he had performed, and that's when I decided I didn't really feel at home there. I also feel that they're crossing a line in terms of trying to impose their opinion of the +Thuc line and CMRI onto the consciences of others. They could warn people that they thought they were jeopardizing their souls by receiving Sacraments from the +Thuc line, and try to persuade them, but that's as far as they can go. They have no authority to bind consciences.God Bless you Lad, I appreciate your consistency here. I heard one ep where Fr. Jenkins called +Sanborn "Father" and it left a bad taste. I'm not even going to bother listening to the latest ep, they've lost a listener until Father Jenkins walks this back (I think he will, as I believe he is a Catholic). I sincerely hope the stupid Thuc controversy will drop after +Kelly is dead (I am not wishing death on him or anything of the sort, I just sincerely hope this is old-man drama that will die with the 9 and everyone moves on afterward) because this, like dogmatic anti una-cuм, is diabolical and is not helping anyone. The SSPV people I talk to will pray with Thuc line friends, I don't think any of the laity want this old-man drama.
I'm surprised he even referred to him as "Father" Dolan, since the SSPV have long promoted the "One Hand Dan" nonsense, but I think that may have been more Bishop Kelly. Bishop Kelly would conditionally confirm people who had been confirmed by Bishop Williamson, who had been part of the same 1976 "one-handed" ordination class.
Apart from that, however, I have nothing but praise for Father Jenkins as a priest. He visited my dying brother to hear his Confession even though he had never attended his chapel there.
I won't go as far as to say the individual priests of the Neo-SSPX are wholly ignorant of the needs of the faithful, but it's clear that the mission has shifted to one of complacency with Rome. We've discussed it on here before, but they really should alter the structure of the Society to assign priests to specific areas, like a parish priest, rather than having them clustered in one central location and traveling all over. Really limiting their availability.During the COVID hoax this created a sacramental crisis as well: Priests unable to travel long distances and being cut-off from laity they serve. The window of opportunity for giving EU is so small. Getting a priest into a nursing home on minute's notice because one person will allow someone in the building etc, it's just not right and I imagine individual priests aren't a fan of this.
(https://i.imgur.com/NGmX07V.png)
Pontifical???It would be odd for there not to be pontifical rites for a deceased bishop. They are perhaps still determining which bishop will preside (or looking for one).
Who’s the bishop?
Odd he isn’t named.
It would be odd for there not to be pontifical rites for a deceased bishop. They are perhaps still determining which bishop will preside (or looking for one).In my humble opinion as a lay woman, I would think that either Bishop Pivarunas or Bishop Neville might be best. However, I also think that, especially after Fr Cekada's death, Bishop Dolan had someone in particular in mind and docuмented that.
One doubts that Bishops Clarence Kelly or Markus Ramolla would be candidates. One thinks of Bishop Mark Pivarunas, CMRI as he consecrated Bishop Dolan, and Bishop Donald Sanborn also comes to mind. Though they had their differences Bishops Dolan and Sanborn had their collaborations and Bishop Sanborn might see it as an opportunity to expand his "turf" so-to-speak. There is also Bishop Joseph Selway, for whom Bishop Dolan was a co-consecrator with Bishop Sanborn. For someone perhaps outside of some of the ecclesiastical politics there is Bishop Robert Neville.
Bishop Dolan was to ordain four seminarians in the very near future and a bishop will be needed for that. Going forward St. Gertrude the Great will need to be aligned with a bishop for confirmations and for their holy oils.
Someone told me the Brazilian bishop would be taking care of the upcoming ordinations.
I would imagine if he can't get here in time for the consecrations, Neville or Pivarunas would be the best bets. And probably Neville the better bet, since as far as I'm aware there weren't any unresolved controversies between SGG and him at the time of Dolan's death.
Bishop Neville is sedevacantist.If this was just a year ago, I think Bishop Sanborn would be the most likely candidate. Unfortunately, the two had, to put it mildly and without getting into it here, a falling out. It is very sad to me, and I do hope that before Bishop Dolan died they were able to smooth things out somewhat. Regardless I think that Bishop Sanborn would at least be present at the Mass.
Bishop Mckenna was sedevacantist.
I would hope that Bishop Sanborn and all of the clergy in the remnant church would come together to honor Bishop Dolan. This includes all of the churches across the country. Beyond that, I would be astonished if Bishop Neville took a higher position than Bishop Sanborn in any of this. He is very hesitant to do so in other matters.
Bishop Neville is sedevacantist.
Bishop Mckenna was sedevacantist.
Sedeprivationists were not allowed to receive Holy Communion at SGG.
+Pivarunas might be the celebrant, but Stephen Heiner has been waging war on the CMRI and to most people it appears like a proxy war on behalf of SGG
Sedeprivationists were not allowed to receive Holy Communion at SGG. As far as I'm aware, that's the status quo +Dolan left.
This is completely false.
This is completely false..
.
Is it? I had it on the authority of a good friend, an honest man (former contributor to a particular trad outlet, in fact) who had it from a family member it happened to.
.Sounds like it wasn't the most prudent thing to repeat here given we only have one anecdote and there is no proof of a formal policy. Has this policy ever been included in the bulletins or in any of the SGG clergy's announcements/sermons?
Is it? I had it on the authority of a good friend, an honest man (former contributor to a particular trad outlet, in fact) who had it from a family member it happened to.
The last thing I want to do is pass along a rumor, but I had taken it as fact considering my source.
This would be consistent with Bishop Dolan's having lableled it proximate to heresy.Maybe on paper, but not in the real world. Trad priests in general very rarely exclude people from the sacraments over a disagreement on issues related to the crisis in the Church. Sedevacantists are no exception to that rule. Bp. Sanborn has a public statement that he will not give the sacraments to people who attend an una cuм Mass in his bulletin, but that's about the only exception I can think of (again, excluding the SSPV from all of these general statements).
Wow. All the speculations here. Y’all are way out of the loop. Bishop Rodrigo da Silva, consecrated last feast of St. Michael will be the bishop performing the funeralThank you Clarinha. It sounds like the quarantining is no longer a concern. This makes the most sense in the end.
Rites. He began his travels today.
Wow. All the speculations here. Y’all are way out of the loop. Bishop Rodrigo da Silva, consecrated last feast of St. Michael will be the bishop performing the fueneral
Rites. He began his travels today.
Sounds like it wasn't the most prudent thing to repeat here given we only have one anecdote and there is no proof of a formal policy. Has this policy ever been included in the bulletins or in any of the SGG clergy's announcements/sermons?
+Pivarunas might be the celebrant, but Stephen Heiner has been waging war on the CMRI and to most people it appears like a proxy war on behalf of SGG, whose corporate opinion of the CMRI has always been... shaky, I'll say.
Please see also the directory of Mass centers operated by:(http://www.cmri.org/mass-directory.html)
- The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI) (http://www.cmri.org/mass-directory.html)
He’s a total joke.
Bishop Williamson made public repentance for ever having ordained him.
Conveniently became sede just after his ordination.
Wanted a coat of arms even as a simple priest.
Concerned for his own glory.
Bp. Sanborn has a public statement that he will not give the sacraments to people who attend an una cuм Mass in his bulletin...
Sedeprivationists were not allowed to receive Holy Communion at SGG.
I do know that Bp. Dolan gave people the sacraments who went to the una cuм Mass...
Absolutely not.Yes, even when most folks were trying their best not to do it in this thread. The genie is out of the bottle now.
It would seem that people are trying very hard to divide and diminish
I had been under the impression that the "proxy war", on whomever's behalf it was, it was not Bishop Dolan.Interestingly enough, Most Holy Trinity Seminary is also included.
In fact, to this day, if you check the "Recommended Mass Centers" on the SGG website, you'll see the following:
(http://www.cmri.org/mass-directory.html)
Hardly seems like Bishop Dolan's opinion of the CMRI has been all that shaky. Perhaps not the best of times, but why would SGG recommend CMRI Mass Centers if they were at "war"?
The idea of a sedevacantist chapel refuses the sacraments to people for holding a different theory on sedevacantism than they do is something unheard-of in America* since Vatican II, and it is highly unlikely that a place such as SGG, which is definitely on the easy-going side of things in the trad world, would be the first place for such a thing to happen.
He’s a total joke.
Bishop Williamson made public repentance for ever having ordained him.
Conveniently became sede just after his ordination.
Wanted a coat of arms even as a simple priest.
Concerned for his own glory.
Wow. All the speculations here. Y’all are way out of the loop. Bishop Rodrigo da Silva, consecrated last feast of St. Michael will be the bishop performing the fueneral
Rites. He began his travels today.
Well, the speculation speaks volumes about the state of political relations between the groups. Normally you'd expect one of the bishops who had known Bishop Dolan for years to offer the Requiem. And the speculation seemed correct. Several of us felt it would be the Brazilian IF he could get up here in time.I think we shouldn't say "SGG rejected" as if the clergy made the decision. I suspect that the Bishop himself made arrangements for the Brazilian bishop shortly after he consecrated him 7 months ago.
SGG likely rejected +Sanborn and likely +Neville on account of sedeprivationism. +Sanborn would have been the most appropriate candidate, since he has known Bishop Dolan from the early days and they very worked closely together for some time.
I think we shouldn't say "SGG rejected" as if the clergy made the decision. I suspect that the Bishop himself made arrangements for the Brazilian bishop shortly after he consecrated him 7 months ago.
I'd be surprised if Bishop Dolan himself made these arrangements, as I doubt he expected to pass away so soon thereafter.Maybe not, but it's not entirely out of the question given Father Cekada's death only a year earlier. At the very least, it may have been well known among the clergy there what his wishes were if not formally docuмented yet.
Maybe not, but it's not entirely out of the question given Father Cekada's death only a year earlier. At the very least, it may have been well known among the clergy there what his wishes were if not formally docuмented yet.
Suffice it to say, sgg.org/cult has turned away more than most may realize, and for indefensible reasons.Agree. I have family who live in the Cincy area and there are many, many stories (going back 10+ years) where "una cuм" Trads were not given Communion. For those who live in the area, it's fairly common knowledge.
He’s a total joke.
Bishop Williamson made public repentance for ever having ordained him.
Conveniently became sede just after his ordination.
Wanted a coat of arms even as a simple priest.
Concerned for his own glory.
Agree. I have family who live in the Cincy area and there are many, many stories (going back 10+ years) where "una cuм" Trads were not given Communion. For those who live in the area, it's fairly common knowledge.I personally know a family from central OH that had been attending SGG for many, many years. They were well known to both priests. But three years ago + D denied their two little girls making their First Holy Communions at SGG because mom and dad sometimes went to SSPX in KY where they have family.
Maybe on paper, but not in the real world. Trad priests in general very rarely exclude people from the sacraments over a disagreement on issues related to the crisis in the Church. Sedevacantists are no exception to that rule. Bp. Sanborn has a public statement that he will not give the sacraments to people who attend an una cuм Mass in his bulletin, but that's about the only exception I can think of (again, excluding the SSPV from all of these general statements).That has never been in a MHTS bulletin that I have ever seen. The only thing in the bulletin is their statement that Feeneyites are barred from receiving sacraments at MHTS.
I personally know a family from central OH that had been attending SGG for many, many years. They were well known to both priests. But three years ago + D denied their two little girls making their First Holy Communions at SGG because mom and dad sometimes went to SSPX in KY where they have family.
The only thing in the bulletin is their statement that Feeneyites are barred from receiving sacraments at MHTS.
:facepalm: of course they are ... the one great heresy of our times.Agreed. There is no difference in kind between the trad clergy and the VII ecclesiology, only degree.
Bishop Sanborn needs to rethink that whole thing. In a debate some time ago, Dr. Fastiggi took him to task over his statement that non-Catholics could be saved while claiming that V2 ecclesiology is heretical.
MAJOR: No Salvation Outside the Church.
MINOR: Non-Catholics can be saved.
CONCLUSION: Catholic Church includes non-Catholics. [=V2 ecclesiology which +Sanborn claims is heretical.]
:facepalm: of course they are ... the one great heresy of our times.I was merely making a factual correction. I have no intention of getting into a debate with Feeyeyites.
Bishop Sanborn needs to rethink that whole thing. In a debate some time ago, Dr. Fastiggi took him to task over his statement that non-Catholics could be saved while claiming that V2 ecclesiology is heretical.
MAJOR: No Salvation Outside the Church.
MINOR: Non-Catholics can be saved.
CONCLUSION: Catholic Church includes non-Catholics. [=V2 ecclesiology which +Sanborn claims is heretical.]
+Sanborn has stated on True Restoration radio that he will not give Holy Communion to those that he knows attend the SSPX Masses. I heard it from his own mouth.Could you reference the episode where he said that please. I am a member of True Restoration and would like to hear exactly what he said so I can have reference to the context in which it was said.
Here are the official Communion Rules for St Gertrude's:Not seeing anything about them vetting your opinion on the una cuм Mass or sedeprivationism :clown:
http://www.sgg.org/for-newcomers/communion-rules/
Not seeing anything about them vetting your opinion on the una cuм Mass or sedeprivationism :clown:
Not seeing anything about them vetting your opinion on the una cuм Mass or sedeprivationism :clown:Sounds as if they give out communion indiscriminately since traditionalists don't need to be reminded about no communion in the hand. But SSPX does the same thing, too.
I won't go as far as to say the individual priests of the Neo-SSPX are wholly ignorant of the needs of the faithful, but it's clear that the mission has shifted to one of complacency with Rome. We've discussed it on here before, but they really should alter the structure of the Society to assign priests to specific areas, like a parish priest, rather than having them clustered in one central location and traveling all over. Really limiting their availability.
Agree, but as you said in your post, that is not what they are doing. The SSPX is obsessed with building high-priced monuments, which cost a fortune and often take years to complete (if they are ever finished). I will give you an example of incompetency and wasted resources in Florida."Miami, Florida. You will never find a more wretched hive of scuм and villainy." -- Obi Wan.
There are two missions, one in Miramar Beach, which has a population of 8,3565.00. There is another mission in Brooksville, Florida(Bishop Sanborn’s stomping grounds). And it has a population of 8,200.00.
Miami-Dade County, which has a population of 2.8 million(and the most Catholics of any part of the state), does not have a mission and has zero priests. How does that make any sense? If this were a corporation, the person in charge would have been fired for gross incompetency.
Well, they probably wouldn't put that in a "newcomers" section in that they would have no idea what a "una cuм" Mass is. I feel that Pax's information is reliable, coming from family who live in the Cincy area.Oh come on. One can easily write it to say "masses in union with Francis" if they don't know what "una cuм" means.
"Miami, Florida. You will never find a more wretched hive of scuм and villainy." -- Obi Wan.LOL...yeah, like having one in the state of Vermont. :laugh1:
Perhaps there are an insufficient number of Catholics to support a mission chapel.
Oh come on. One can easily write it to say "masses in union with Francis" if they don't know what "una cuм" means.
Nonsense. Do you really believe that Novus Ordites would even know what the expression "Masses in union with Francis" would mean? You overestimate the catechesis of Novus Ordites by orders of magnitude.Regardless of what they would write specifically, the point is that they would write something for newcomers to make sure they understand and that they do not receive communion if they were coming on board una cuм Francis... IF that was SGG's blanket policy as is being pushed in this thread.
I trust Pax that they would refuse Communion to una cuм ... but that probably refers to the more pertinacious types, and not the casual Novus Ordite.
Presumably also they would write "no Communion in the Hand" and make mention of "please see the priest if you're coming from the New Mass" to make sure they even have valid Sacraments (Baptism, Confession, marriage, etc.) before approaching Holy Communion.
"Miami, Florida. You will never find a more wretched hive of scuм and villainy." -- Obi Wan.
Perhaps there are an insufficient number of Catholics to support a mission chapel.
LOL...yeah, like having one in the state of Vermont. :laugh1:
To clarify, I don't think the ban is a blanket one. It's not like people are turned away every week. I've heard of feeneyites being denied and also other random people who openly disagreed with SGG on this or that. I think the "una cuм" was used as a catch-all explanation from SGG clerics to the parishioners, to explain what happened after the fact. The point being, the SGG knew the Trads that they turned away.
The Cincy area has 3 different chapels (sspx, Fr Jenkins, +Dolan/Fr Cekada) being within 30-40 minutes of one another, all with very different Trad flavors. The controversy arises when the youngsters start dating from different chapels, because then the different clerics have to "lay down the law" on a) feenyism, b) sedevacantism, c) una cuм, d) pro-rome, e) not switching chapels, f) home school vs chapel school, g) etc etc.
SGG is definitely wrong in their "turf war" but so is the sspx and Fr Jenkins. All 3 groups have contributed to the nonsense, conflict and family turmoil. There are many, many stories where a couple got married at one of the chapels, and one of the spouses' families won't speak to them. The clerics condone and contribute to these tragedies. It's still going on.
Agree. I have family who live in the Cincy area and there are many, many stories (going back 10+ years) where "una cuм" Trads were not given Communion. For those who live in the area, it's fairly common knowledge.Huh.
And yes, there was an SSPX chapel in Miami. It was willed to the SSPX by an independent priest who died prematurely. The SSPX sold off the chapel late last year. The small chapel was packed every Sunday.Interesting. I guess they got quite a sum for the property.
Or sin city having a chapel. :laugh1:
https://fsspx.today/chapel/las-vegas/info/
Interesting. I guess they got quite a sum for the property.
So question for any who might know, who made Father Kelly a Bishop?Retired bishop Alfred Mendez of Arecibo, Puerto Rico, who was consecrated in 1960:
Interesting. I guess they got quite a sum for the property.More money for the corn field cathedral
And yes, there was an SSPX chapel in Miami. It was willed to the SSPX by an independent priest who died prematurely. The SSPX sold off the chapel late last year. The small chapel was packed every Sunday.
And yes, there was an SSPX chapel in Miami. It was willed to the SSPX by an independent priest who died prematurely. The SSPX sold off the chapel late last year. The small chapel was packed every Sunday.To be fair (as much as we all can criticize the new-sspx for being too concerned with $)...I visited that miami chapel in Jan 2006 when Fr Tim Hopkins was still alive. It was no bigger than a 3 car garage. It was a lovely chapel but it was SUPER small. And as others have said, it was packed...which means, it needed to be sold. The sspx made the right decision on this one.
What was the name of this chapel? I want to bring this to the attention of my local independent priest, Father Leo Carley. He's getting into his late 80s (pre-V2 ordained) but still remarkably taking care of the chapel. So I was on his Board of Trustees a few years ago. At one point Father decided, against my advice (I spoke up during the meetings) to will his chapel and school to SSPX (plus he owns a couple nice homes adjacent to it and a large amount of land next to a ritzy country club with expensive homes). Plus he has a lot of cash savings. I warned Father that given the proximity of St. Peregrine in Richfield, OH ... which the SSPX just built out to the tune of a couple million dollars, that it's inevitable that the SSPX would sell off his chapel (Immaculate Heart of Mary) to further bankroll the St. Peregrine build-out. He seemed reluctant because of what I said, but just said, "What other choice do I have to ensure the future of the chapel for the faithful?" So he asked the Trustees to sign, but I politely and respectfully resigned instead of signing.
I could go back to him with the example of this chapel and see if he might be interested in going more along the Resistance lines. I think he really does fit better with the Resistance, but he would need some assurances that his chapel would be taken care of. In his rhetoric, Father almost sounds sedevacantist and in some cases is even to the right of the Resistance (he's convinced that the New Mass is outright invalid and not just doubtful). He excoriated a hospital chaplain who tried to bring Communion to one of his chapel members for bringing his "idolatrous wafer". So he is NOT of a neo-SSPX mindset.
In any case, this case in Miami might give me more ammunition to persuade him to go in some other direction than SSPX.
Father has had a few run-ins with SSPX. About 3 years ago now, Father broke his hip and needed a replacement. SSPX called and said they might be able to get a late afternoon Mass in on Christmas Day. Father was very upset, and threatened to roll back the will. So, we were surprised to see Bishop Tissier walk out on Christmas morning for the usual 9AM Mass.
More recently, the SSPX tried to extort $500,000 from Father Carley, telling him that if he wanted to have the SSPX service his chapel, he would have to pay for half of the cost of the priory they were building at St. Peregrine. I would bet every dollar I had that the second Father Carley passes away, they'll take all the chapel assets, including the cash, sell all the real estate, just to bankroll that ill-conceived project at St. Peregrine. Also, about 13 years ago, when Fr. Libietis was at St. Peregrine, he raised hundreds of thousands for a new chapel project, and that money evaporated, undoubtedly funnelled to the new seminary project. So the people there at St. Peregrine who contributed all that money and worked hard at fundraisers were basically robbed. These are very grave things the SSPX has done, and yet they feel no quamls of conscience ripping off the assets of Catholic faithful. I find it downright disgusting.
To be fair (as much as we all can criticize the new-sspx for being too concerned with $)...I visited that miami chapel in Jan 2006 when Fr Tim Hopkins was still alive. It was no bigger than a 3 car garage. It was a lovely chapel but it was SUPER small. And as others have said, it was packed...which means, it needed to be sold. The sspx made the right decision on this one.
The chapel in Davie is the same size, Not counting the bigger cafeteria area. This has nothing to do with the size of the building; it's all about money.Even if the building was sold for $, it was still too small, long term. Objectively, it needed to be sold. The error is in replacing it with something the same size.
I am glad I go to CMRI chapels for Mass. No trad organization is 100% ideal but I keep quiet at the chapel and on the grounds and I do fine. If I really had to I would go to Eastern and have considered going to SSPX (I could go to Mass a few times a week extra if I did this so it is a serious consideration) but the collection plate bothered me. I know individual priests do not will these kinds of atrocious dealings. Should I just supply a priest with some consumables that the chapel would need (toilet paper/paper towels or something like that) in proportion to what I'd otherwise give or would that be inappropriate?
Even if the building was sold for $, it was still too small, long term. Objectively, it needed to be sold. The error is in replacing it with something the same size.
If you are going to sell a chapel that has been celebrating the Latin mass for more than 30 years. You first have to get on the pulpit, look the parishioners in the eye, and tell them so. Then you have to make accommodations for them to receive the sacraments. If it means moving to a temporary warehouse, so be it--moving to another county is not the answer.I agree with you, if that's how it went down. I know nothing of the details of the sale, or the lack of communication. And obviously, the replacement chapel is just as small. I'm just saying, objectively, the original site was small.
Well, you’re fortunate no CMRI down here. If there were, you better believe I would be attending.There's one CMRI chapel about two hours away from me, but also an SSPX 35 minutes away, so I go there instead. Otherwise I'd be going to the CMRI chapel.
I agree with you, if that's how it went down. I know nothing of the details of the sale, or the lack of communication. And obviously, the replacement chapel is just as small. I'm just saying, objectively, the original site was small.
There's one CMRI chapel about two hours away from me, but also an SSPX 35 minutes away, so I go there instead. Otherwise I'd be going to the CMRI chapel.
Well, they probably wouldn't put that in a "newcomers" section in that they would have no idea what a "una cuм" Mass is. I feel that Pax's information is reliable, coming from family who live in the Cincy area.
The Cincy area has 3 different chapels (sspx, Fr Jenkins, +Dolan/Fr Cekada) being within 30-40 minutes of one another, all with very different Trad flavors. The controversy arises when the youngsters start dating from different chapels, because then the different clerics have to "lay down the law" on a) feenyism, b) sedevacantism, c) una cuм, d) pro-rome, e) not switching chapels, f) home school vs chapel school, g) etc etc.
SGG is definitely wrong in their "turf war" but so is the sspx and Fr Jenkins. All 3 groups have contributed to the nonsense, conflict and family turmoil. There are many, many stories where a couple got married at one of the chapels, and one of the spouses' families won't speak to them. The clerics condone and contribute to these tragedies. It's still going on.
Just to clear some things up, since there is a lot of discussion— Bishop da Silva is coming to offer the funeral Mass. There are currently no concrete arrangements for the upcoming ordination of the four young deacons, but that is currently being worked out.Update: it was announced today that the seminarians will be ordained next week.
The next year or so will determine the future of SGG. Bishop da Silva is bad news.
Update: it was announced today that the seminarians will be ordained next week.Praise God
Could you reference the episode where he said that please. I am a member of True Restoration and would like to hear exactly what he said so I can have reference to the context in which it was said.I don't remember the episode. It may be on their Roman Catholic YouTube channel.
Also, mature Catholics who had doubts about one another's Orders would do the Catholic and charitable thing of simply conditionally consecrating one another and then conditionally ordaining all their priests. Problem solved, and they could start working with one another and spreading out instead of competing for the same turf in the same metropolitan regions. Why do we need 10 different chapels in NE Ohio and a bunch in Cincinnati when many parts of the country are lacking in access to Traditional Mass and Sacraments? There's a large hole in Columbus ... about halfway between Cleveland and Columbus, and a big shortage in Indiana ... just to name a few of many.There is something desperately wrong with motives and intentions in the trad tableau. It is clear as day, if one surveys the fruits, now fully ripened after 60 years.
There is something desperately wrong with motives and intentions in the trad tableau. It is clear as day, if one surveys the fruits, now fully ripened after 60 years."Wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together."
At some point in time, what began as an honest and militant counter-offensive, was kidnapped and murdered.
As we know vermin of all stripes feed on carcasses.
The current scene evokes for me an image of hyenas, maggots, and vultures (read:trad positions) vying with each other to feed on a corpse.
Unfortunately, we are that corpse.
The next year or so will determine the future of SGG. Bishop da Silva is bad news.
So up here in NE Ohio, my neck of the woods, we have, within about 30-40 minutes of each other:
1) SSPX chapel/school in Richfield, OH (developing into a priory I think).
2) SSPX mission chapel in Girard, OH
--I live about halfway between these 2
3) Independent SSPX-aligned chapel (Akron, OH)
4) SSPV chapel in Parma, OH
5) CMRI chapel in Akron, OH
6) two Motu Masses in Akron, OH (not to mention a few in Cleveland)
7) probably a dozen Eastern Rite churches
There is something desperately wrong with motives and intentions in the trad tableau. It is clear as day, if one surveys the fruits, now fully ripened after 60 years.
At some point in time, what began as an honest and militant counter-offensive, was kidnapped and murdered.
As we know vermin of all stripes feed on carcasses.
The current scene evokes for me an image of hyenas, maggots, and vultures (read:trad positions) vying with each other to feed on a corpse.
Unfortunately, we are that corpse.
Do you have any idea how enviable the situation in northern Ohio is?
You actually make an excellent case for one's relocating there. (I'm retired with independent income, and once my son turns 18 and there are no more custody issues, we can live anywhere we want to.)
Do you have any idea how enviable the situation in northern Ohio is?The only real drawback is...you live in Ohio!
You actually make an excellent case for one's relocating there. (I'm retired with independent income, and once my son turns 18 and there are no more custody issues, we can live anywhere we want to.)
It's the result of the flock being scattered due to the Shepherd having been struck.
If you are going to sell a chapel that has been celebrating the Latin mass for more than 30 years. You first have to get on the pulpit, look the parishioners in the eye, and tell them so. Then you have to make accommodations for them to receive the sacraments. If it means moving to a temporary warehouse, so be it--moving to another county is not the answer.
The bishop's body isn't even cold yet and the Dimonds have to do their victory lap :facepalm:
https://youtu.be/C61P5Exwccs
Yes, and I agree that there is a serious problem with rejection of EENS among traddies. I don't even disagree with the theological issues they bring up about +Dolan. But going as far as to say that we shouldn't pray for an undeclared "heretic" such as Bp. Dolan and saying without a doubt he is in hell is simply despicable.
From Father Hesse's explanation, the method of Baptism (Water, Desire & Blood) is not dogmatically defined.
But the rejection of the Extra Ecclasium Nulla Salus dogma is a problem... shared by many Traditionalist, especially the SSPX.
Yes, and I agree that there is a serious problem with rejection of EENS among traddies. I don't even disagree with the theological issues they bring up about +Dolan. But going as far as to say that we shouldn't pray for an undeclared "heretic" such as Bp. Dolan and saying without a doubt he is in hell is simply despicable.
The only real drawback is...you live in Ohio!
The only real drawback is...you live in Ohio!
Agreed. I call it "Dark sedevanctism".
You basically have the same training as a simple parish priest prior to Vatican II.
It's precisely what I was calling out with these Traditional priests and clergy themselves. They elevate their theological opinions to the level of dogma. Ironically, I agree with the Dimonds regarding most of their material conclusions, but imposing them on others under pain of heresy is crossing the line into schism. This refusal of communion by Trad clergy based on theological positions is also basically schismatic.Well said.
Note to Trad bishops, priests, and Dimond brothers. You have NO authority whatsoever. You are not theologians. You bishops are not part of the Ecclesia Docens. You priests are not "pastors" over the faithful who attend your chapels (not parishes). Nobody with authority in the Church put you in charge of anything. You basically have the same training as a simple parish priest prior to Vatican II. Even if you're smart and can spin some good syllogisms, you are NOT teachers (much less theologians) NOR pastors NOR anything. You cannot bind other people's consciences with your conclusions. When you get up in the pulpit to preach, you are merely OPINING and your opinion has no more authority than that of any laymen sitting there listening to you. You are not TEACHING as no one has appointed you to teach. YOUR SOLE FUNCTION is to be an emergency extraordinary dispenser of the Sacraments to the Catholic faithful. That's it. As such, the faithful have a right to receive the Sacraments, and you are obligated to make them available to them. Apart from obvious direct contradiction of Catholic dogma ("nah, I don't believe in the Holy Trinity" or "I don't believe in the Real Presence" or "I believe that abortion or sodomy are permissible." ... where there's direct open rejection of Church teaching) YOU CANNOT EXCOMMUNICATE ANYONE by refusing them the Sacraments because they don't agree with your theological take on the Crisis. If you do so, you violate gravely your sole purpose for having been ordained and/or consecrated. You are not better than the faithful nor have you deserved Holy Orders. No man does. Holy Orders are given not for your glory but for the good of the faithful. Even you bishops, you have no more authority than anyone else. You are like auxliaries whose sole purpose is to make available the Sacraments that cannot be had without episcopal consecration (Confirmation, Holy Orders). I've had enough of your petty, puerile, and arrogant nonsense. You harm the Church with this idiocy and bring shame upon Traditional Catholics as a whole. Your petty fighting and turf battles bring shame upon us all. You are of course entitled to your opinion on the Crisis, and you can try to persuade others of it, but that's as far as it goes. You can advise the faithful that you believe they risk their souls by going to +Thuc line clergy for Sacraments, but you may not refuse them the Sacraments for disagreeing with you. You can admonish the una cuм folks, but you may not refuse them the Sacraments. You may reject Feeneyism at the top of your lungs, but you may not refuse the Sacraments to Feeneyites. You can believe that many NO annulments are invalid, but you may not refuse the Sacraments to those who disagree and who believe their annulments are legitimate. You have NO AUTHORITY to bind ANYONE'S conscience regarding ANY of these matters that have not been authoritatively settled by the Church. You come across like a bunch of 4-year-olds "playing Church". Snap out of this and grow up. You were not made bishops and priests so that you can walk around relishing how the faithful tip their heads out of respect and call you "Father" or "Your Excellency". Many of you would be bagging groceries at Walmart had you not been undeservedly selected to receive Holy Orders for the good of the faithful. Your behavior is a scandal.
OPEN LETTER TO TRAD CLERGY,
Laszlo Szijarto
There are many stories on SSPX chapel takeovers and real-estate flipping. They have perfected the process.
It's precisely what I was calling out with these Traditional priests and clergy themselves. They elevate their theological opinions to the level of dogma. Ironically, I agree with the Dimonds regarding most of their material conclusions, but imposing them on others under pain of heresy is crossing the line into schism. This refusal of communion by Trad clergy based on theological positions is also basically schismatic.THIS IS THE SINGLE BEST POST I'VE EVER READ ON A FORUM SINCE BEGINNING IN 2008.
Note to Trad bishops, priests, and Dimond brothers. You have NO authority whatsoever. You are not theologians. You bishops are not part of the Ecclesia Docens. You priests are not "pastors" over the faithful who attend your chapels (not parishes). Nobody with authority in the Church put you in charge of anything. You basically have the same training as a simple parish priest prior to Vatican II. Even if you're smart and can spin some good syllogisms, you are NOT teachers (much less theologians) NOR pastors NOR anything. You cannot bind other people's consciences with your conclusions. When you get up in the pulpit to preach, you are merely OPINING and your opinion has no more authority than that of any laymen sitting there listening to you. You are not TEACHING as no one has appointed you to teach. YOUR SOLE FUNCTION is to be an emergency extraordinary dispenser of the Sacraments to the Catholic faithful. That's it. As such, the faithful have a right to receive the Sacraments, and you are obligated to make them available to them. Apart from obvious direct contradiction of Catholic dogma ("nah, I don't believe in the Holy Trinity" or "I don't believe in the Real Presence" or "I believe that abortion or sodomy are permissible." ... where there's direct open rejection of Church teaching) YOU CANNOT EXCOMMUNICATE ANYONE by refusing them the Sacraments because they don't agree with your theological take on the Crisis. If you do so, you violate gravely your sole purpose for having been ordained and/or consecrated. You are not better than the faithful nor have you deserved Holy Orders. No man does. Holy Orders are given not for your glory but for the good of the faithful. Even you bishops, you have no more authority than anyone else. You are like auxliaries whose sole purpose is to make available the Sacraments that cannot be had without episcopal consecration (Confirmation, Holy Orders). I've had enough of your petty, puerile, and arrogant nonsense. You harm the Church with this idiocy and bring shame upon Traditional Catholics as a whole. Your petty fighting and turf battles bring shame upon us all. You are of course entitled to your opinion on the Crisis, and you can try to persuade others of it, but that's as far as it goes. You can advise the faithful that you believe they risk their souls by going to +Thuc line clergy for Sacraments, but you may not refuse them the Sacraments for disagreeing with you. You can admonish the una cuм folks, but you may not refuse them the Sacraments. You may reject Feeneyism at the top of your lungs, but you may not refuse the Sacraments to Feeneyites. You can believe that many NO annulments are invalid, but you may not refuse the Sacraments to those who disagree and who believe their annulments are legitimate. You have NO AUTHORITY to bind ANYONE'S conscience regarding ANY of these matters that have not been authoritatively settled by the Church. You come across like a bunch of 4-year-olds "playing Church". Snap out of this and grow up. You were not made bishops and priests so that you can walk around relishing how the faithful tip their heads out of respect and call you "Father" or "Your Excellency". Many of you would be bagging groceries at Walmart had you not been undeservedly selected to receive Holy Orders for the good of the faithful. Your behavior is a scandal.
OPEN LETTER TO TRAD CLERGY,
Laszlo Szijarto
It's precisely what I was calling out with these Traditional priests and clergy themselves. They elevate their theological opinions to the level of dogma. Ironically, I agree with the Dimonds regarding most of their material conclusions, but imposing them on others under pain of heresy is crossing the line into schism. This refusal of communion by Trad clergy based on theological positions is also basically schismatic.I'm sorry but it may not be so simple. What about groups that purposely cause problems in a chapel, for example, sedevacantists or Feeneyites coming to a SSPX chapel placing their leaflets at the vestibule or distributing them outside the chapel before/after Mass? Similarly this applies too to "una cuм" folks going to a sedevacantist chapel. We know full well each group's theological positions and for the sake of harmony and discipline, I'm of the opinion that the priests have every right to deny the sacraments to troublemakers. If they remain courteous and comes just for the sacraments, then they ought not to be denied. If my many years of experience in Traddieland, I've come across many different people trying to push their opinions upon chapels and priests.
Note to Trad bishops, priests, and Dimond brothers. You have NO authority whatsoever. You are not theologians. You bishops are not part of the Ecclesia Docens. You priests are not "pastors" over the faithful who attend your chapels (not parishes). Nobody with authority in the Church put you in charge of anything. You basically have the same training as a simple parish priest prior to Vatican II. Even if you're smart and can spin some good syllogisms, you are NOT teachers (much less theologians) NOR pastors NOR anything. You cannot bind other people's consciences with your conclusions. When you get up in the pulpit to preach, you are merely OPINING and your opinion has no more authority than that of any laymen sitting there listening to you. You are not TEACHING as no one has appointed you to teach. YOUR SOLE FUNCTION is to be an emergency extraordinary dispenser of the Sacraments to the Catholic faithful. That's it. As such, the faithful have a right to receive the Sacraments, and you are obligated to make them available to them. Apart from obvious direct contradiction of Catholic dogma ("nah, I don't believe in the Holy Trinity" or "I don't believe in the Real Presence" or "I believe that abortion or sodomy are permissible." ... where there's direct open rejection of Church teaching) YOU CANNOT EXCOMMUNICATE ANYONE by refusing them the Sacraments because they don't agree with your theological take on the Crisis. If you do so, you violate gravely your sole purpose for having been ordained and/or consecrated. You are not better than the faithful nor have you deserved Holy Orders. No man does. Holy Orders are given not for your glory but for the good of the faithful. Even you bishops, you have no more authority than anyone else. You are like auxliaries whose sole purpose is to make available the Sacraments that cannot be had without episcopal consecration (Confirmation, Holy Orders). I've had enough of your petty, puerile, and arrogant nonsense. You harm the Church with this idiocy and bring shame upon Traditional Catholics as a whole. Your petty fighting and turf battles bring shame upon us all. You are of course entitled to your opinion on the Crisis, and you can try to persuade others of it, but that's as far as it goes. You can advise the faithful that you believe they risk their souls by going to +Thuc line clergy for Sacraments, but you may not refuse them the Sacraments for disagreeing with you. You can admonish the una cuм folks, but you may not refuse them the Sacraments. You may reject Feeneyism at the top of your lungs, but you may not refuse the Sacraments to Feeneyites. You can believe that many NO annulments are invalid, but you may not refuse the Sacraments to those who disagree and who believe their annulments are legitimate. You have NO AUTHORITY to bind ANYONE'S conscience regarding ANY of these matters that have not been authoritatively settled by the Church. You come across like a bunch of 4-year-olds "playing Church". Snap out of this and grow up. You were not made bishops and priests so that you can walk around relishing how the faithful tip their heads out of respect and call you "Father" or "Your Excellency". Many of you would be bagging groceries at Walmart had you not been undeservedly selected to receive Holy Orders for the good of the faithful. Your behavior is a scandal.
OPEN LETTER TO TRAD CLERGY,
Laszlo Szijarto
The bishop's body isn't even cold yet and the Dimonds have to do their victory lap :facepalm:I saw they posted something new today and had to click x less than a minute or so in. Disgusting video.
https://youtu.be/C61P5Exwccs
It's precisely what I was calling out with these Traditional priests and clergy themselves. They elevate their theological opinions to the level of dogma. Ironically, I agree with the Dimonds regarding most of their material conclusions, but imposing them on others under pain of heresy is crossing the line into schism. This refusal of communion by Trad clergy based on theological positions is also basically schismatic.This should be printed, mailed and translated in multiple languages. Brilliant.
Note to Trad bishops, priests, and Dimond brothers. You have NO authority whatsoever. You are not theologians. You bishops are not part of the Ecclesia Docens. You priests are not "pastors" over the faithful who attend your chapels (not parishes). Nobody with authority in the Church put you in charge of anything. You basically have the same training as a simple parish priest prior to Vatican II. Even if you're smart and can spin some good syllogisms, you are NOT teachers (much less theologians) NOR pastors NOR anything. You cannot bind other people's consciences with your conclusions. When you get up in the pulpit to preach, you are merely OPINING and your opinion has no more authority than that of any laymen sitting there listening to you. You are not TEACHING as no one has appointed you to teach. YOUR SOLE FUNCTION is to be an emergency extraordinary dispenser of the Sacraments to the Catholic faithful. That's it. As such, the faithful have a right to receive the Sacraments, and you are obligated to make them available to them. Apart from obvious direct contradiction of Catholic dogma ("nah, I don't believe in the Holy Trinity" or "I don't believe in the Real Presence" or "I believe that abortion or sodomy are permissible." ... where there's direct open rejection of Church teaching) YOU CANNOT EXCOMMUNICATE ANYONE by refusing them the Sacraments because they don't agree with your theological take on the Crisis. If you do so, you violate gravely your sole purpose for having been ordained and/or consecrated. You are not better than the faithful nor have you deserved Holy Orders. No man does. Holy Orders are given not for your glory but for the good of the faithful. Even you bishops, you have no more authority than anyone else. You are like auxliaries whose sole purpose is to make available the Sacraments that cannot be had without episcopal consecration (Confirmation, Holy Orders). I've had enough of your petty, puerile, and arrogant nonsense. You harm the Church with this idiocy and bring shame upon Traditional Catholics as a whole. Your petty fighting and turf battles bring shame upon us all. You are of course entitled to your opinion on the Crisis, and you can try to persuade others of it, but that's as far as it goes. You can advise the faithful that you believe they risk their souls by going to +Thuc line clergy for Sacraments, but you may not refuse them the Sacraments for disagreeing with you. You can admonish the una cuм folks, but you may not refuse them the Sacraments. You may reject Feeneyism at the top of your lungs, but you may not refuse the Sacraments to Feeneyites. You can believe that many NO annulments are invalid, but you may not refuse the Sacraments to those who disagree and who believe their annulments are legitimate. You have NO AUTHORITY to bind ANYONE'S conscience regarding ANY of these matters that have not been authoritatively settled by the Church. You come across like a bunch of 4-year-olds "playing Church". Snap out of this and grow up. You were not made bishops and priests so that you can walk around relishing how the faithful tip their heads out of respect and call you "Father" or "Your Excellency". Many of you would be bagging groceries at Walmart had you not been undeservedly selected to receive Holy Orders for the good of the faithful. Your behavior is a scandal.
OPEN LETTER TO TRAD CLERGY,
Laszlo Szijarto
It occurs to me that there is really no difference between the trad clergy and protestants, as 1) neither have actual ecclesiastical authority; 2) both make private judgment their primary principle of operation; and 3) both show forth in their fruits endless divisions into sects.You're not wrong. That's one of the biggest struggles I have with tradlandia, because their rejection of V2 and embrace of traditional Catholicism is correct, but their expression of such a position leads to division and personality cults while us poor laymen are left between a rock and a hard place trying to figure out just who is correct.
So, someone just asked me where I had heard about an autopsy. She said she actually contacted the county who said they were not taking his case. I can't recall where I saw it, but I could have sworn I saw something and took it as reliable. Did anyone else see/hear about it? Given we have not heard about a cause of death, I would think [hope?] that someone is in the process of figuring that out.Iirc, generally, they don't do autopsies on people over the age of 60(?) unless specifically requested or related to a crime.
I wonder if anyone has a list of all the chapels the SSPX has flipped that were willed to them by an independent priest. Where did the money go?
You're not wrong. That's one of the biggest struggles I have with tradlandia, because their rejection of V2 and embrace of traditional Catholicism is correct, but their expression of such a position leads to division and personality cults while us poor laymen are left between a rock and a hard place trying to figure out just who is correct.
It occurs to me that there is really no difference between the trad clergy and protestants, as 1) neither have actual ecclesiastical authority; 2) both make private judgment their primary principle of operation; and 3) both show forth in their fruits endless divisions into sects.Well said. Skimming this thread, what many posters are saying is what Fr. Wathen's put into words some 40 years ago.....
Here are the official Communion Rules for St Gertrude's:
http://www.sgg.org/for-newcomers/communion-rules/
I've heard The Nine say that at Econe in the 1970s there was a wide variety of opinions among the seminarians there, and that they were all tolerated, from those who were SVs to those who were hostile to SVism. And that's as it should be. These issues have not been defined by the Church.The ridiculous level of schism within tradlandia tells me that once a Holy Pope were to emerge, many of them would still reject them because of their pet theory on the Crisis. Hence why there is a necessity for God to have another global chastisement to "reset" things. Or, Christ is coming back really soon.
The ridiculous level of schism within tradlandia tells me that once a Holy Pope were to emerge, many of them would still reject them because of their pet theory on the Crisis. Hence why there is a necessity for God to have another global chastisement to "reset" things. Or, Christ is coming back really soon.
You're not wrong. That's one of the biggest struggles I have with tradlandia, because their rejection of V2 and embrace of traditional Catholicism is correct, but their expression of such a position leads to division and personality cults while us poor laymen are left between a rock and a hard place trying to figure out just who is correct.I've known something was wrong in the independent chapels since I started in 2000. If the novus ordo weren't so horrible, I would have left the tradmire twenty two years ago. As time has gone on, I've become more and more adept at articulating the problem; but nowhere ever have I seen the scalpel taken to the tumor the way Ladislaus did yesterday. And it does my heart good to see on this forum just how many souls understand the problem we face.
(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/jWQQhzb/giphy.webp)
The ridiculous level of schism within tradlandia tells me that once a Holy Pope were to emerge, many of them would still reject them because of their pet theory on the Crisis. Hence why there is a necessity for God to have another global chastisement to "reset" things. Or, Christ is coming back really soon.I've been thinking for a long time that when God finally intervenes, the boat will depart leaving the trad clergy on the dock.
I've been thinking for a long time that when God finally intervenes, the boat will depart leaving the trad clergy on the dock.Maybe that's already begun? God only knows
I've been thinking for a long time that when God finally intervenes, the boat will depart leaving the trad clergy on the dock.
Iirc, generally, they don't do autopsies on people over the age of 60(?) unless specifically requested or related to a crime.Thanks for responding DL. I still don't know where I got the idea that one was being done, but I am retracting it.
If you are going to sell a chapel that has been celebrating the Latin mass for more than 30 years. You first have to get on the pulpit, look the parishioners in the eye, and tell them so. Then you have to make accommodations for them to receive the sacraments. If it means moving to a temporary warehouse, so be it--moving to another county is not the answer.This is what the SSPX does though right? I listened a Bp Dolan interview from several years ago and he said SSPX would just toss priests to the wind if they didn't toe the party line or had any issues.
On the Feast of St. Athanasius, let’s consider the honorable aspects of the independent trad Catholic priest?The blame is also on the bishops for not doing proper vetting and ordaining people who have zero business being priests.
In our overwhelmingly judaized world, the trad priest is truly a sheep amongst wolves. There is very little support and many adversaries.
As long as they don’t mislead the remnant, they should be rewarded in Heaven.
But for trad priests who knowingly compromise the Faith, deceive the faithful and do little to save souls, their chastisement is coming.
This is what the SSPX does though right? I listened a Bp Dolan interview from several years ago and he said SSPX would just toss priests to the wind if they didn't toe the party line or had any issues.
Not only that, but they eliminate from the seminary any but the mindless +Fellayite yes-men. There's a problem when you have classes of 25-30 starting out and end up in 1-4 ordinations every year. And it isn't because 25 of them were poor quality to being with. In fact, the 1-4 ordained are usually the ones you didn't think would make it because they weren't too bright and barely passed any of their classes.A lot of ex-STAS people would've made fine priests. Truly. The traditional Roman Rite should've had an option for these ex-seminarians to be permanent deacons or subdeacons a la the Byzantines.
I recall that my brother, God rest his soul, got sent packing (after 4 years there and all the Minor Orders) ... because he dared to accuse one Father Carlos Urrutigoity of being a Modernist. And, for the record, this accusation was not made publicly but in spiritual direction ... which was then leaked out to the seminary staff. That was a horrific scandal that things mentioned in spiritual direction were leaked.
But from http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/07/31/what-to-do-if-you-have-no-mass/
Those are straightforward, non political Holy Communion rules!
But from http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/07/31/what-to-do-if-you-have-no-mass/
The Church would never have permitted such assistance in the past.
I don't believe that this is true. Even the highly-dogmatic Dimond Brothers have produced evidence that the Church has in fact permitted this.Yep. Their position on the "una cuм" issue is essentially the same as my own, there's no precedent in Church history to support the claim that is it ipso-facto a mortal sin to assist at these Masses.
To quote them: "Would you say that Padre Pio's Mass was sacrilegious?"
It is worth noting that in the Sarum rite, then in general use in England, the King is named in the Canon, so that St. Thomas More not only received the Holy Eucharist from a priest who had sworn the Oath, but assisted at Mass in which Henry was actually named in the Te igitur.https://bit.ly/39054li
And St. Vincent Ferrer offered Mass while naming an Antipope. Were his Masses also sacrilegeous?Precisely. St. Vincent during the Western Schism is another great example of the te igitur. Sure, the non una cuм dogmatist could say these antipopes were "orthodox", but their orthodoxy doesn't matter when they were not Popes to begin with. Therefore, by their logic, St. Vincent is still committing a sacrilege. Its ridiculous.
The list is extensive.Exactly why Fr. Schell, God rest his soul, never wanted the congregation to own a chapel.
Greenwood, Indiana
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/ankeiler_visual_2/public/media/usa-district/com-priory/in_-_greenwood_-_exterior_2.jpg?itok=shAXI4Aj)
With lawyers and a few pro SSPX members at his side,
Fr. Rostand, tells the Chapel's independent Board to give the SSPX the chapel
or they will open one down the street and put them out of business.
I don't believe that this is true. Even the highly-dogmatic Dimond Brothers have produced evidence that the Church has in fact permitted this.
And St. Vincent Ferrer offered Mass while naming an Antipope. Were his Masses also sacrilegeous?Yeah, he was a Saint who made an error backing an anti-Pope.
There's audio of a discussion between Br. Peter and someone discussing the te igitur, which is worth listening to. The basic premise is that this prayer is supposed to show unity with the chair of Peter, not the man occupying it, which is accidental.
Yeah, he was a Saint who made an error backing an anti-Pope.Thank you for pointing this out. People quote saints all the time, yet they made mistakes.
The point is that those who are saying Mass una cuм Francesco are doing so because he is the apparent Pope. Otherwise, if a priest is a sede, he certainly is going to skip that part of the te igitur altogether. Both are offering in union with the Holy See regardless, vacant or not.
Let me ask, in the Canon's unity with the Seat prayer, why does the celebrant have to say the name of the heretic?
He is in union with the Seat of Peter, not the pachamama worshiping anti-pope.
The list is extensive.
Greenwood, Indiana
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/ankeiler_visual_2/public/media/usa-district/com-priory/in_-_greenwood_-_exterior_2.jpg?itok=shAXI4Aj)
With lawyers and a few pro SSPX members at his side,
Fr. Rostand, tells the Chapel's independent Board to give the SSPX the chapel
or they will open one down the street and put them out of business.
As I was a parishioner at this chapel from 2009-early 2012 (the time period in which the transition from independent to SSPX commenced), I’m in a position to nuance these comments a bit:
The resident priest (Fr. O’Connor) was preparing to retire, and the board was quite naturally actively seeking his replacement/successor.
The SSPX was invited by the board to consider sending a priest, and through then-District Superior Fr. Rostand, at a public meeting to which all the faithful were invited to attend (and which I in fact did attend), Fr. Rostand made a presentation and fielded questions from the faithful.
During the Q/A session, I asked whether we would ever see Bishop Williamson back in active ministry again (ie., this was at the time when he had been sequestered to the Wimbledon attic), as a few of us were newly concerned about what this sequestration might imply for the future direction the SSPX might take.
At a certain point in the Q/A session, Fr. Rostand declared (paraphrasing from memory) something to the effect that, “If our help is not wanted, I can take my priests and go. There are plenty of other places looking for priests.” In other words, he did not give the impression of a corporate raider eager for a takeover of a rival.
Anyway, the standard practice was to agree to a one-year probationary period, for each side to get to know the other, before coming to a final board vote.
One if the conditions is that ownership of the property is transferred to the SSPX. Absolutely, with 20-20 hindsight, one could say that had the process commenced post-2012, some would not have supported the board approval (or perhaps even the board itself would not have approved), but the point here is that whatever may or may not have transpired with independent Chapels being turned over to the SSPX elsewhere, this one happened with the overwhelming support of most of the chapel, and so far as I am aware, most of them have been happy with the results.
Had this all happened in 2013, maybe they would have invited a Resistance priest instead (but even in that case, they would still have wanted ownership of the chapel as a condition for accepting, in order that the faithful not exercise an impertinent leverage over the priest). I am aware some independent priest who sympathize with the Resistance might not have that precondition, but they put themselves in a precarious position.
As for the assertion that Fr. Rostand threatened to set up shop down the road if ownership was not surrendered, I can’t disprove the veracity of that claim, but it would seem incongruous with the ready willingness to take his priests elsewhere which he exhibited at the Q/A session I attended.
Here we are in 2013, with the SSPX at independent chapel in downtown Santa Clara, CA
(This property is worth $2 million).
Thanks for the input Sean.
Were you aware of Fr. Rostand's use of lawyers in swaying the decision?
I got it from a reliable source that letters were very intimidating.
I will never buy the idea that Fr. Rostand was not salivating over the idea of nabbing a turn-key chapel worth $1million.
This was a truly independent chapel and the SSPX got it for free.
I will never buy the idea that Fr. Rostand was not salivating over the idea of nabbing a turn-key chapel worth $1million.
And St. Vincent Ferrer offered Mass while naming an Antipope. Were his Masses also sacrilegeous?Just playing devil's advocate here: Was St. Vincent Ferrer offering Mass while naming an apostate who worshipped pagan idols in his Church?
Just playing devil's advocate here: Was St. Vincent Ferrer offering Mass while naming an apostate who worshipped pagan idols in his Church?It doesn't matter because Benedict was not the Pope, it, by +Dolan and co.'s theory, would still constitute sacrilege.
While I do agree that the Bishop Dolan is wrong on the "una cuм" issue, I don't think this example is equivalent to the current situation.
Just playing devil's advocate here: Was St. Vincent Ferrer offering Mass while naming an apostate who worshipped pagan idols in his Church?
While I do agree that the Bishop Dolan is wrong on the "una cuм" issue, I don't think this example is equivalent to the current situation.
It doesn't matter because Benedict was not the Pope, it, by +Dolan and co.'s theory, would still constitute sacrilege.Neither was the man St. Vincent Ferrar said Mass "una cuм". I'm not intending here to refute or support Bishop Dolan's theory, just noting that the argument involving St. Vincent Ferrar saying Mass while mentioning someone who is not pope is not equivalent to a priest today saying Mass while mentioning Bergoglio's stage name.
The point is that those who are saying Mass una cuм Francesco are doing so because he is the apparent Pope. Otherwise, if a priest is a sede, he certainly is going to skip that part of the te igitur altogether. Both are offering in union with the Holy See regardless, vacant or not.The point of saying the pope's name is because catholic unity resides in the pope...who has a name. The whole idea that one is agreeing with JPII/Benedict/Francis when naming them is stupid and illogical.
The priest saying the Mass una cuм Francesco is the one accountable here for his error (again, presuming sedevacantism is true), but not those layfolk assisting whether they believe he is Pope or not. That's the issue here. SGG are trying to make it out that the laity are committing a grave sin in attending these Masses with the Society or Resistance, etc, who say the te igitur una cuм Francesco. Which is, I think, rightly said by Br. Peter, a schismatic attitude during this Crisis on the part of these priests and bishops as they have no authority to bind consciences.The "una cuм" issue is only a sin if you KNOW that the person you mention is an anti-pope. For example, if you were living in the days of Pope St Pius X and you went to a priest for mass who openly stated he was praying in union with some random "pope michael". This would be schism.
If things are unclear and the intent is to pray for the Holy Father then there is no schism. The intent of schism must be present for there to be sin. No Trad has/can prove sedevacantism 100% so the "una cuм" controversy is an uncharitable, divisive, colossal nothing burger.I often wonder if there was an implicit desire to funnel more sede-leaning trads to non una cuм chapels to bolster their coffers (knowing that trads are generally more generous with their tithes). I'm only speculating here, it most likely isn't the case.
I often wonder if there was an implicit desire to funnel more sede-leaning trads to non una cuм chapels to bolster their coffers (knowing that trads are generally more generous with their tithes). I'm only speculating here, it most likely isn't the case.It is definitely an attempt to make the theoretical into the practical and to make the faithful "choose". It is an attempt (to use a marketing term) to "differentiate" your "Trad Product" from the others. To try to build a "core customer". Once you have a core base, then you try to grow your market. This brings you many things - $, group size, support, popularity, etc.
You know they'd sell the property in a minute and send the proceeds to one of their ill-conceived building projects (St. Mary's or the seminary).
The point of saying the pope's name is because catholic unity resides in the pope...who has a name. The whole idea that one is agreeing with JPII/Benedict/Francis when naming them is stupid and illogical.
The "una cuм" issue is only a sin if you KNOW that the person you mention is an anti-pope. For example, if you were living in the days of Pope St Pius X and you went to a priest for mass who openly stated he was praying in union with some random "pope michael". This would be schism.
No priest who mentions JPII/Benedict/Francis is schismatic because the matter is not settled and no one can definitively say that these men aren't popes (even in the temporal/govt sense only). NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE. This is why St Vincent Ferrer wasn't wrong or any other saint who lived through a papal crisis in history (of which there have been many). They aren't wrong because IT'S UNCLEAR.
If things are unclear and the intent is to pray for the Holy Father then there is no schism. The intent of schism must be present for there to be sin. No Trad has/can prove sedevacantism 100% so the "una cuм" controversy is an uncharitable, divisive, colossal nothing burger.
Let me ask:If the celebrant doesn't believe Francis is the Pope, then he omits that portion of the te igitur. Which is exactly what sede priests do.
What if the celebrant substituted, “the true Pope” and “the true Bishop” instead. of uttering the names of the schism pope and his bishop?
Early on, one of the Board members actually asked Fr. Wegner straight to his face:
"Father, if we signed the property over to you this week, what would stop you from selling it next week?"
There was no response from Fr. Wegner.
What if the celebrant substituted, “the true Pope” and “the true Bishop” instead.Strictly speaking, a priest shouldn’t make any changes to the rubrics unless the bishop authorized him to. It’s a temptation from the devil (in my opinion) to “do your own thing”. It’s totally against the whole purpose of rubrics and church authority.Quoteof uttering the names of the schism pope and his bishop?
The list is extensive.
Greenwood, Indiana
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/ankeiler_visual_2/public/media/usa-district/com-priory/in_-_greenwood_-_exterior_2.jpg?itok=shAXI4Aj)
With lawyers and a few pro SSPX members at his side,
Fr. Rostand, tells the Chapel's independent Board to give the SSPX the chapel
or they will open one down the street and put them out of business.
This is what the SSPX does though right? I listened a Bp Dolan interview from several years ago and he said SSPX would just toss priests to the wind if they didn't toe the party line or had any issues.
I recommended to Father Carley to put a "no sale" clause into the chapel property handover contract. So he tried that, and (as I knew they would), rejected it. They refused to accept that condition. I asked Father to do that knowing SSPX would reject it to hopefully persuade Father that they're likely just to sell the property.
Why would the SSPX sell-off paid-off chapels in high-priced areas of the country--It makes absolutely no sense.
Fr. Jenkins doubles down on the late Bishop Dolan. Start at the 16:00 minute mark.:facepalm:
https://www.wcbohio.com/
Strictly speaking, a priest shouldn’t make any changes to the rubrics unless the bishop authorized him to. It’s a temptation from the devil (in my opinion) to “do your own thing”. It’s totally against the whole purpose of rubrics and church authority.
And, it’s also making a mountain out of a molehill because it’s a temptation to re-interpret the prayer to mean more than it actually does. That’s how I see it.
If I were a priest, I would say the una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro but leave out the name of Bergoglio. That signifies the formal intent to submit to the papacy while not polluting the Sacred Canon with the name of the heresiarch (if not apostate) Bergoglio. Pope is listed among the "guardians/custodians" of the faith. I couldn't put Bergoglio's name in that list with a straight face. I'd feel as if I were injecting a lie into the most sacred action of the Church.It is not our right to decide to change by omission any thing or any part of the Mass - that's precisely what the criminals did with the NO service.
Fr. Jenkins doubles down on the late Bishop Dolan. Start at the 16:00 minute mark."I did not know the position of Fr. Dolan on the vax .... why would I know that?"
https://www.wcbohio.com/
"The SSPV does not accept the legitimacy and accept the validity of the Thuc bishops"And Bp. Dolan published and presented himself publicly as BISHOP Dolan even though Fr. Jenkins doubts both his consecration as Bishop and doubts the validity of Novus Ordo consecrations. Yet, he chooses to refer to Vigano as "Archbishop", making the distinction that he is a Novus Ordo Archbishop, but does not offer Bishop Dolan the same respect because his anti-Thuc position makes him choose not to, even though he views both as doubtful or invalid in their titles. It's hypocritical.
"I refer to Abp. Vigano as Archbishop Vigano because that is his public persona...that is how he publishes."
Fr. Jenkins doubles down on the late Bishop Dolan. Start at the 16:00 minute mark.How pathetic.
https://www.wcbohio.com/
"I did not know the position of Fr. Dolan on the vax .... why would I know that?"And then he compares Bishop Dolan to an employee who was against the vaxx, but was forced to take the vaxx and died from it.
Then WHY WOULD YOU PUBLICLY SPECULATE THAT HE DIED FROM IT? :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
And then he compares Bishop Dolan to an employee who was against the vaxx, but was forced to take the vaxx and died from it.You could tell by his answer that he realized the error, but rather than humbly apologize on camera for the mistake he continued to speculate and dismiss it as personal ignorance. Shameful.
You could tell by his answer that he realized the error, but rather than humbly apologize on camera for the mistake he continued to speculate and dismiss it as personal ignorance. Shameful.Yes, his body language says all.
Yes, I would agree, but the parishioners will incur debt that will eventually have to be paid. They (SSPX) are more interested in building structures than saving souls. I took a look at the Church they are constructing in Kansas, and the amount of money spent is staggering.
"I did not know the position of Fr. Dolan on the vax .... why would I know that?"
Then WHY WOULD YOU PUBLICLY SPECULATE THAT HE DIED FROM IT? :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
And Bp. Dolan published and presented himself publicly as BISHOP Dolan even though Fr. Jenkins doubts both his consecration as Bishop and doubts the validity of Novus Ordo consecrations. Yet, he chooses to refer to Vigano as "Archbishop", making the distinction that he is a Novus Ordo Archbishop, but does not offer Bishop Dolan the same respect because his anti-Thuc position makes him choose not to, even though he views both as doubtful or invalid in their titles. It's hypocritical.
I'm very disappointed in Fr. Jenkins's response and how he's handling this.
This is completely different than speculating openly, say, whether some married man is committing adultery. And I believe that those who are outraged by Father Jenkins' speculation in their minds somehow lump taking the jab into this same category, of someone committing what is clearly and obviously a grave sin.I'm "outraged" because he was willfully ignorant about the matter of +Dolan's position on it and then decided to go on air and "openly speculate" about whether or not the jab was what did him in. All it would've taken is five minutes to go to SGG's website and find out +Dolan's position on the jab before opening his mouth and spreading rumors about his cause of death.
I'm "outraged" because he was willfully ignorant about the matter of +Dolan's position on it and then decided to go on air and "openly speculate" about whether or not the jab was what did him in. All it would've taken is five minutes to go to SGG's website and find out +Dolan's position on the jab before opening his mouth and spreading rumors about his cause of death.Exactly. No one needs to believe the jab is a mortal sin to be outraged by Fr Jenkins' actions.
And then, when confronted with an email correcting his error, he still doubles-down and insists on claiming ignorance when he could've remained quiet on the matter in the first place.
As for the jab being a grave sin, I'm on the fence. I don't personally trust it given the connections to abortion, the political push for it and the risk of adverse side effects. But I'm also still skeptical about it being some sort of tool to cull the population or sterilize people when I know numerous people, and several relatives, who have since conceived and have healthy pregnancies post-jab/booster or are perfectly healthy going on close to a year later.
Giacomo has been banned -- for everything.You mean... Mr. Giacomo
In particular, for being a fool. He is so blinded by his "side" that he must needs attack those outside his cult/clique/group.
He decided to conflate the fundamental lack of authority that ALL Trad bishops have, with the real fact of possessing Episcopal power and orders itself!
Yes, every Trad bishop who isn't in formal schism (who doesn't pretend to jurisdiction "in competition" with other Roman Catholic bishops) is only an "auxiliary" or basically a sacrament-dispenser, for the good of the Faithful and the Church in general. The Church needs priests. The Faithful need Confirmation. Holy Oils are needed.
But although Trad bishops are vested with no formal authority from the Pope, that doesn't mean they aren't bishops! Or that they shouldn't be referred to as such.
Giacomo blathers on about how intelligent his side is, but he's a complete moron about how Church authority and Holy Orders work.
And he's a complete tool for "his side".
I must respectfully disagree with Matthew. In my and my son's reading (he's a priest of the Society),
...
Nowhere did poor Giacomo say that traditional bishops, even if consecrated without a mandate, did not possess the sacramental powers of the order of the episcopate. He simply vindicated a former forum member's thesis that bishops consecrated outside the visible Church structure had no legal right to the vesture and style granted to prelates by the Popes.
I must respectfully disagree with Matthew. In my and my son's reading (he's a priest of the Society),Yet your son was ordained a priest forever by the hands of a bishop consecrated himself outside the visible Church structure, yes? All 3 of the current bishops of the Society were consecrated as such intentionally by +Lefebvre.
...
Nowhere did poor Giacomo say that traditional bishops, even if consecrated without a mandate, did not possess the sacramental powers of the order of the episcopate. He simply vindicated a former forum member's thesis that bishops consecrated outside the visible Church structure had no legal right to the vesture and style granted to prelates by the Popes.
I must respectfully disagree with Matthew. In my and my son's reading (he's a priest of the Society),You're confusing validity with liceity. Even if bishops are ILLICIT, they should be called "Bishop", not "Mr." because their orders are VALID.
...
Nowhere did poor Giacomo say that traditional bishops, even if consecrated without a mandate, did not possess the sacramental powers of the order of the episcopate. He simply vindicated a former forum member's thesis that bishops consecrated outside the visible Church structure had no legal right to the vesture and style granted to prelates by the Popes.
I must respectfully disagree with Matthew. In my and my son's reading (he's a priest of the Society),