Author Topic: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview (Read 11422 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #30 on:** July 07, 2024, 11:58:38 AM »

Quote from: Meg on July 07, 2024, 11:56:21 AM

It doesn't bother me in the least if the two men with the same last name may related. I don't think I inferred that at all.

I don't know what you were saying here, or what you thought I was saying, but my only point was that it's a very strange coincidence to have two Fr. McKennas, not even from the same family, in the tiny world of sedevacantism.

Matthew · « **Reply #31 on:** July 07, 2024, 12:03:40 PM »

Quote

Sorry....I should have said previously that Fr. McKenna said that it was a news agency who sent an email to +Vigano, to ask about the consecrations. Perhaps +Vigano didn't want to discuss the matter with a news agency.

Incidentally, the Wiki page for +Vigano says that it has been conjectured that +Vigano was conditionally ordained by +W. Meaning that it is an opinion, or there's incomplete information about the matter.

Oh, so it wasn't even personal correspondence. +Vigano wasn't completely accommodating and trusting of the (((Media))). I like him even more now. Sounds completely based.

You don't get to fill in the "meaning". It also says he didn't deny it. And it's not an "opinion" at any rate. Anyone can google search "was bishop vigano conditionally consecrated" and little CathInfo comes up. Several men in direct contact with +Williamson confirmed the fact.

The truth isn't as elusive as some people act like it is. The quest to discover and seize the Truth is not complete hopeless chaos. Chin up.

Meg · « **Reply #32 on:** July 07, 2024, 12:12:51 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on July 07, 2024, 12:03:40 PM

Oh, so it wasn't even personal correspondence. +Vigano wasn't completely accommodating and trusting of the (((Media))). I like him even more now. Sounds completely based.

You don't get to fill in the "meaning". It also says he didn't deny it. And it's not an "opinion" at any rate. Anyone can google search "was bishop vigano conditionally consecrated" and little CathInfo comes up. Several men in direct contact with +Williamson confirmed the fact.

The truth isn't as elusive as some people act like it is. The quest to discover and seize the Truth is not complete hopeless chaos. Chin up.

Okay, but....is that how episcopal consecrations are supposed to work? We are required to accept that the consecration took place, not based on what the consecrator or the consecrated have said, but on second-hand sources?

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #33 on:** July 07, 2024, 02:19:32 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 07, 2024, 11:24:26 AM

I think most of Fr McKenna's criticisms are not very substantial but superficial.
1) 60 years is nothing to God. Bishop Lazo of Brazil converted quite late in life.
2) There's no Trad organization on the planet who isn't pleading for donations.
3) Getting a conditional consecration is a good thing. How is it bad?
4) +Vigano has mentioned many times his horrible thinking and look-the-other-way attitude towards corruption. Then he finally did something. I'm a poor sinner and God does not require me to go around and tell everyone about it, constantly. Even St Augustine took time to write a book about his sinful life (which isn't required). Actions speak louder than words...if +Vigano is working to do good, that means he's contrite for the bad.

The only thing I can't defend is the secrecy of conditional sacraments, especially ordination/consecration. The Church is a visible society and the sacraments are public acts (aside from confession). All the 6 sacraments are done in public, with witnesses, etc. I find it VERY hypocritical that +W wants to "spread the word" on countless "miracles" but he wants to keep quiet a conditional consecration/ordination. Especially when we are in the middle of a HUGE doctrinal debate over V2 sacraments...this is the CRUX of the crisis we live in today...keeping quiet about such is unfathomable.

Sorry, +Vigano, a conditional consecration is not a "personal" matter, but a matter for the whole, visible, global Church. Especially if you want to come out, guns blazing, and attack the pope and reject V2. That's a lot of fortitude. But you don't have the gumption to admit that your episcopacy was in doubt for decades? I find this disappointing.

But I'm more disappointed with +W, who should have required that this event be published. Maybe not immediately, for prudence's sake. But it's been a while now. Too long.

Very good post!

Matthew · « **Reply #34 on:** July 07, 2024, 05:19:04 PM »

Let me ask you this:

Are consecrations required to be public? For the sake of argument, let's assume "Yes".

But next question -- in what does "public" consist? Does it require starting a website? Taking out an ad in a newspaper? For how long? Which newspaper(s)? Which websites? How many $$$ has to be spent on advertising the fact? How many person(s) must be informed? Must the consecrand voluntarily bring it up in conversation to every service worker (airport, restaurant, etc.)? Again, for how long? Does he have to attend the next available local City Council meeting and read his consecration into the official Minutes of the meeting? How many non-Catholics (infidels, perfidious J--s, heretics, schismatics) should be informed about his consecration? How many k!k3d media outlets must be informed? The New York Post? CNN? Fox News? Where do you draw the line for "slimy Ta|mud!c controlled media" that doesn't deserve any response or communication?

"Public" can mean many things to many people.

I've mentioned this before with regards to public consecrations. The SSPX had trumpets at the consecration of the 4 bishops in 1988. Recent Resistance consecrations failed to have this. Does that make them less legit and/or less public? Maybe the turnout of the lay Faithful was smaller as well. What's the lower cutoff, in terms of crowd, for "public"?

I'm sorry, but it's a FACT that the Church completely refrains from spelling out the specific requirements for "public" like we're 5.

You can argue that "the Church SHOULD be more specific" but here we are. It is what it is.

Matthew · « **Reply #35 on:** July 07, 2024, 05:30:53 PM »

Here's my point. The bishop did make it public, by telling the owner of the largest Trad Catholic forum.

Now some might say, "CathInfo is small", "Not enough"

But THINK ABOUT IT. WHY is it too small, not enough? Is it because there is a baseline minimum for audience, readership? Is it because you can't take my word for it, but you can take the Editor of CNN or Fox News' word for it? If we can't trust any media, then does the consecrating bishop (and/or conditionally consecrated bishop) have the obligation to PERSONALLY reach out to the faithful, via paid advertising? That's why I was listing various advertising means in my last post. See, I wasn't just being ridiculous. I was making a serious point.

Very important questions come up: How much effort, what budget, how many people, what kind of people, etc. We could argue these fine details all day.

Again: THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #36 on:** July 07, 2024, 05:45:11 PM »

Bishop Williamson has done a few Episcopal consecrations lately under the radar.
In this particular Church climate, we must respect that this was done for good reason.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #37 on:** July 07, 2024, 05:47:05 PM »

Quote

Here's my point. The bishop did make it public, by telling the owner of the largest Trad Catholic forum.

No, it's not enough. At the very minimum, any sacrament should follow the same requirements as weddings/baptisms.

1) Date, time
2) Place
3) Those being married/baptized. And family info.
4) witnesses (i.e. Godparents / bestman-maid-of-honor).

Similar to an ordination. Time, date, who's getting ordained, and who's ordaining.

Even if all of this is posted AFTER-the-fact, such info is (in my opinion) the bare-minimum.

I've yet to even hear of a date, time for this conditional act, much less a place or witnesses.

2Vermont · « **Reply #38 on:** July 07, 2024, 05:53:25 PM »

Quote from: Meg on July 07, 2024, 12:12:51 PM

Okay, but....is that how episcopal consecrations are supposed to work? We are required to accept that the consecration took place, not based on what the consecrator or the consecrated have said, but on second-hand sources?

Yes, it seems that is what is expected of us. However, I will call him "Bishop" Vigano when he and Bishop Williamson make his true consecration public to the world (whether as an Eleison Comment, videos, tweets, entries at the ExsurgeDomine site, etc) and only then.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #39 on:** July 07, 2024, 05:55:27 PM »

Everybody (rightly) chastised Fr Pfeiffer's botched consecration, but at least he taped it and made it public. Now, he again, did NOT make public the "conditional" consecration, hiding behind a bogus interpretation that "conditional" sacraments don't need to follow the same standards. Fr Pfeiffer's consecration was simply botched. He needed an entire re-do, not a conditional one.

But I think in the case of +Vigano, his "first" consecration was doubtful (at best) and more likely invalid. Either the new rite is ok or it's not. You can't say it's legit and then get a "conditional" later...not 30 years later. No, in this day and age, if you're getting a conditional rite done, YEARS later, then you have to admit the first one was botched. That's the current situation.

If you can't admit the new rites are a problem, then all the huffing-and-puffing over V2 and the new mass just loses a lot of luster. Your logic and integrity are called into question. Either admit that the WHOLE V2 SYSTEM is wrong, or accept it. No picking and choosing.

Matthew · « **Reply #40 on:** July 07, 2024, 06:15:37 PM »

Well, at least we're getting somewhere. I'm glad I posted what I did, because now everyone is being clear on the DETAILS of what they expect, what their demands are, and for what specific reasons they have decided to attack the bishops involved.

Americans, amirite?

What would a typical Saint find fault with in America today? Let me count the ways: Americanism, American exceptionalism, "City on a Hill" mentality, vestigial Puritanism, rugged individualism, egalitarianism, anti-clericalism, democracy/the "will of the people" being the will of God, and liberty/license at all costs.

You all are human beings with Free Will, and you can take it up with Bishop Williamson.
In the meantime we'll have to agree to disagree.

God bless Bishop Williamson and Bishop Vigano. May they continue to serve God without compromise, and help as many souls get to heaven as possible. So that when they appear before the Just Judge, they will bear with them the fruits of their many labors and sufferings in the Episcopate, and they might receive a heavenly reward.

Bishop Williamson is going to get extra brownie points in heaven because he dealt with Americans for what, over 2 decades? That's enough to make a man a saint.

Thorn · « **Reply #41 on:** July 07, 2024, 07:22:48 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on July 07, 2024, 12:03:40 PM

Oh, so it wasn't even personal correspondence. +Vigano wasn't completely accommodating and trusting of the (((Media))). I like him even more now. Sounds completely based.

You don't get to fill in the "meaning". It also says he didn't deny it. And it's not an "opinion" at any rate. Anyone can google search "was bishop vigano conditionally consecrated" and little CathInfo comes up. Several men in direct contact with +Williamson confirmed the fact.

The truth isn't as elusive as some people act like it is. The quest to discover and seize the Truth is not complete hopeless chaos. Chin up.

What does 'completely based' mean? Makes no sense. Did you mean completely biased?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #42 on:** July 07, 2024, 07:30:00 PM »

Quote

Well, at least we're getting somewhere. I'm glad I posted what I did, because now everyone is being clear on the DETAILS of what they expect, what their demands are, and for what specific reasons they have decided to attack the bishops involved.

1) These are not our expections, but REQUIREMENTS by the Church, in canon law.

2) We are only demanding what the Church requires...i.e. public info about sacraments.
3) The simpliest reason is: for a cleric to follow canon law.
4) No one is attacking anyone. We are simply asking for canon law to be fulfilled...or...if there's a reason not to, then say so.
5) Silence isn't an answer. Unless we should take silence to mean, "I don't care about the law". But I don't think anyone involved is ill-intentioned.

Quote

Americans, amirite?

Boomers, maybe? I'll make the rules and if anyone crosses me, i'll ignore them.

Quote

What would a typical Saint find fault with in America today? Let me count the ways: Americanism, American exceptionalism, "City on a Hill" mentality, vestigial Puritanism, rugged individualism, egalitarianism, anti-clericalism, democracy/the "will of the people" being the will of God, and liberty/license at all costs.

Blah, blah, blah. Canon Law has clear requirements. +Williamson (and everyone else in Trad-land) must follow the law.

Matthew · « **Reply #43 on:** July 07, 2024, 07:44:21 PM »

Quote from: Thorn on July 07, 2024, 07:22:48 PM

What does 'completely based' mean? Makes no sense. Did you mean completely biased?

Based is a recent slang term that means "red-pilled" or aware of the truth about how the world works, awake, aware of the guys pulling the strings, anti-Woke, Traditional, anti-Liberal, inoculated against common errors, a good man, confident/manly, etc.

it's a very good compliment in the current age. And there is no better word that carries all those meanings.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #44 on:** July 07, 2024, 07:57:56 PM »

TITLE VI.

ORDERS (Cann. 1008 - 1054)

Can. 1008ⁿ By divine institution, some of the Christian faithful are marked with an indelible character and constituted as sacred ministers by the sacrament of holy orders. They are thus consecrated and deputed so that, each according to his own grade, they may serve the People of God by a new and specific title.
Can. 1009 §1. The orders are the episcopate, the presbyterate, and the diaconate.
§2. They are conferred by the imposition of hands and the consecratory prayer which the liturgical books prescribe for the individual grades.
§3.ⁿ Those who are constituted in the order of the episcopate or the presbyterate receive the mission and capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head, whereas deacons are empowered to serve the People of God in the ministries of the liturgy, the word and charity

CHAPTER I.
THE CELEBRATION AND MINISTER OF ORDINATION

Can. 1010 Ordination is to be celebrated within the solemnities of the Mass on a Sunday or holy day of obligation.
For pastoral reasons it can take place also on other days, even weekdays.

Can. 1011 §1. Ordination generally is to be celebrated in the cathedral church; for pastoral reasons, however, it can be celebrated in another church or oratory.
§2. Clerics and other members of the Christian faithful must be invited to the ordination so that as large an assembly as possible is present at the celebration.

Author Topic: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview (Read 11422 times)

Matthew

Re: Bp Vigano: It's Paul. Fr. McKenna Interview

Matthew

Re: Bp Vigano: It's Paul. Fr. McKenna Interview

Meg

Re: Bp Vigano: It's Paul. Fr. McKenna Interview

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview

Matthew

Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview

Matthew

Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview

josefamenendez

Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview

Pax Vobis

Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview

2Vermont

Re: Bp Vigano: It's Paul. Fr. McKenna Interview

Pax Vobis

Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview

Matthew

Re: Bp Vigano: It's Paul. Fr. McKenna Interview

Thorn

Re: Bp Vigano: It's Paul. Fr. McKenna Interview

Pax Vobis

Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview

Matthew

Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview

Pax Vobis

Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview