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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12

Author Topic: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview  (Read 11424 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 12488
  • Reputation: +7936/-2450
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
« Reply #60 on: July 08, 2024, 11:26:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    It is my understanding that he was ordained before the changes.
    I hope that is the case and if so, I stand corrected.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
    « Reply #61 on: July 08, 2024, 11:42:43 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on July 08, 2024, 11:25:13 AM
    It's also my understanding that all of the well-known sedevacantist bishops make announcements regarding episcopal consecrations (and typically beforehand).

    Good to know that they do things properly. Glad to hear it.

    On a slightly different subject, I have to wonder, too, as why the need for a secret consecration? (Assuming for a moment that the conditional consecration took place).

    Were they afraid of offending someone, or a particular group? +Vigano does have a lot of conservative supporters whom he may not want to offend. Or, being conditionally consecrated by a "h0Ɩ0cαųst denier" might not go over well in certain quarters. +W is correct in his view of the fake h0Ɩ0cαųst, but some trads or conservative novus ordo types wouldn't agree.

    Or maybe there was another reason?

    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Gray2023

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 3069
    • Reputation: +1707/-956
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
    « Reply #62 on: July 08, 2024, 11:43:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 08, 2024, 11:26:41 AM
    I hope that is the case and if so, I stand corrected.
    +Vigano was ordained in Feb 1968, the new right of ordination came out in Jun of 1968.  If I remember correctly.
    Logged
    1 Corinthians: Chapter 13 "4 Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; 5 Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;"

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46935
    • Reputation: +27799/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
    « Reply #63 on: July 08, 2024, 11:50:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Gray2023 on July 08, 2024, 11:43:27 AM
    +Vigano was ordained in Feb 1968, the new right of ordination came out in Jun of 1968.  If I remember correctly.

    I think that's right, that it was promulgated in June 1968, but then not actually implemented til the Fall, and then made Mandatory after Easter in 1969.  But that's just from memory.  He was ordained, in any case, before the New Rite was even promulgated.
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12488
    • Reputation: +7936/-2450
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
    « Reply #64 on: July 08, 2024, 11:50:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    +Vigano was ordained in Feb 1968, the new right of ordination came out in Jun of 1968.  If I remember correctly.
    You are correct, but (like with the new mass), the new rites were not uniformly adopted at the same speed, in each country, or in each diocese.  So it's very possible that his ordination was using the old rite.  But it's not certain.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46935
    • Reputation: +27799/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
    « Reply #65 on: July 08, 2024, 11:59:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on July 07, 2024, 08:29:58 PM
    At least we have the good example provided to us by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. When he consecrated the four bishops on June 30, 1988, he did so in the proper public manner, which left no doubts at all as to what had occurred. Even though he knew he was going to be in big trouble with Rome for doing so. He wasn't afraid of them. He cared more about the Catholic Faith than what anyone thought of him.

    Conditionals were not publicly announced by +Lefebvre of the SSPX.  And the reason even these were so public announced is due to the political implications of the entire thing.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46935
    • Reputation: +27799/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
    « Reply #66 on: July 08, 2024, 12:00:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on July 08, 2024, 11:25:13 AM
    It's also my understanding that all of the well-known sedevacantist bishops make announcements regarding episcopal consecrations (and typically beforehand).

    How about Bishop Kelly's consecration by +Mendez?  They kept that under wraps until +Mendez had died.

    There can be prudential reasons where for one reason or another it's not necessary or desirable to go public with the information.  Now, if the SSPV had started sending priests out there who had been consecrated by +Kelly and the people were questioning who they were, then there's a compelling reason to go public with it.  Until that time, why would it have been needed?  Even then, I suspect that +Kelly may have played the card of ("I was consecrated in the Traditional Rite by a bishop who had himself been consecrated validly before Vatican II.") and asked everyone to trust him, and I imagine that most would have.  I would have ... even though I disagree with him about many things, I don't believe he'd lie about it.

    At the same time, the conditional of +Vigano is not in fact being hidden or kept under wraps like the +Mendez/+Kelly one, since when asked, Bishop Williamson did in fact affirm it to those who asked.

    During persecution behind the Iron Curtain, there were a couple of clandestine bishops that Pius XII sent out there who were secretly consecrated (without witnesses) and were ordered to NOT disclose the consecration or any subsequent consecrations that took place there.

    I think you're attempting to infer some provision of Canon Law or the equivalent ... where non exists.  It's obvious that prudential considerations can play into whether to make such public or HOW public to make them, especially for conditional consecrations.

    There's no compelling reason for you personally to know this ... other than curiosity.  You may think that you have right to know, but you really don't.  

    At the end of the day, this sounds like yet another excuse to attack +Vigano.  +Williamson had done another consecration that he didn't reveal until later, and +Kelly had his reasons ... and yet these other actions were not subject to the same degree of criticism.
    Logged

    Offline MiserereMei

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 211
    • Reputation: +125/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
    « Reply #67 on: July 08, 2024, 12:01:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on July 08, 2024, 11:42:43 AM
    Good to know that they do things properly. Glad to hear it.

    On a slightly different subject, I have to wonder, too, as why the need for a secret consecration? (Assuming for a moment that the conditional consecration took place).

    Were they afraid of offending someone, or a particular group? +Vigano does have a lot of conservative supporters whom he may not want to offend. Or, being conditionally consecrated by a "h0Ɩ0cαųst denier" might not go over well in certain quarters. +W is correct in his view of the fake h0Ɩ0cαųst, but some trads or conservative novus ordo types wouldn't agree.

    Or maybe there was another reason?
    I was thinking the same thing. Widely opening up +Vigano contact with +W would drift the attention of the NO from the reasons why he accuses Bergolio to being a "h0l0 denier" even though he hasn't said anything about it.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
    « Reply #68 on: July 08, 2024, 12:07:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 08, 2024, 11:59:49 AM
    Conditionals were not publicly announced by +Lefebvre of the SSPX.  And the reason even these were so public announced is due to the political implications of the entire thing.

    I'm not referring at all to ordinations, but rather to episcopal consecrations. There's a difference. The saintly Archbishop never consecrated a bishop in secret.

    There's still no affirmation (other than second-hand sources) that +Vigano has been conditionally consecrated. While that's not a problem at all for the extreme +Vigano supporters such as yourself, it is a problem for some of us.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Texana

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +212/-58
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
    « Reply #69 on: July 08, 2024, 12:12:52 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • The perfect opportunity to announce the consecration sub conditione by Bishop Williamson:



    Bishop Williamson refers to him as Archbishop Vigano.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46935
    • Reputation: +27799/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
    « Reply #70 on: July 08, 2024, 12:14:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on July 08, 2024, 12:07:35 PM
    I'm not referring at all to ordinations, but rather episcopal consecrations. There's a difference. The saintly Archbishop never consecrated a bishop in secret.

    I was talking about conditionals in general.  We don't have (or know of) any examples of conditional consecrations that +Lefebvre did.  Stop it with the ridiculous puffing up of the "saintly" Archbishop's every decision.

    On top of that, I cited the instances of clandestine episcopal consecrations so that the bishop could then be sent behind the Iron Curtain to perform additional episcopal consecrations that were also clandestine, and ordered to be kept clandestine.

    If +Lefebvre did happen to announce some, that doesn't mean that it's always required given the circuмstances and the conditions.  +Williamson ALSO did SOME of the publicly, pre-announced, but then he's done a couple that weren't.

    Where's the requirement to publicly announce them, ESPECIALLY when there's no practical need to know, especially by those demanding an an answer here on CI?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46935
    • Reputation: +27799/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
    « Reply #71 on: July 08, 2024, 12:16:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Texana on July 08, 2024, 12:12:52 PM
    The perfect opportunity to announce the consecration sub conditione by Bishop Williamson:

    Again, who do you think you are to demand answers?  "Until Texana and 2Vermont and [add names] are satisfied, we are to treat +Vigano as of doubful validity".  For what purpose, for when I have no contact with anyone purportedly ordained by +Vigano or using his holy oils?  You have no compelling reason to know either.  Bishop Williamson and/or +Vigano might have their reasons for not publicly announcing it on the internet so that the likes of yourself might have your curiosity fulfilled.  You have absolutely no need to know, and whatever their reasons as trump any need to tickle your curiosity.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46935
    • Reputation: +27799/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
    « Reply #72 on: July 08, 2024, 12:19:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • We've established that there's no inherent canonical requirement to make consecrations public, and no one has established the least bit of "need to know".

    Please explain why you are within your rights to demand some public announcement?

    If you personally need to know, for some reason, and you contacted Bishop Williamson, I'm sure that he'll tell you ... as he has told numerous others who have asked him to this point.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
    « Reply #73 on: July 08, 2024, 12:21:37 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 08, 2024, 12:14:46 PM
    I was talking about conditionals in general.  We don't have (or know of) any examples of conditional consecrations that +Lefebvre did.  Stop it with the ridiculous puffing up of the "saintly" Archbishop's every decision.

    On top of that, I cited the instances of clandestine episcopal consecrations so that the bishop could then be sent behind the Iron Curtain to perform additional episcopal consecrations that were also clandestine, and ordered to be kept clandestine.

    If +Lefebvre did happen to announce some, that doesn't mean that it's always required given the circuмstances and the conditions.  +Williamson ALSO did SOME of the publicly, pre-announced, but then he's done a couple that weren't.

    Where's the requirement to publicly announce them, ESPECIALLY when there's no practical need to know, especially by those demanding an an answer here on CI?

    So no one has the right to say anything that isn't in support of +Vigano and his alleged conditional consecration? Only his staunch and unquestioning supporters, such as yourself, have a right to any opinion on the matter? Why do you get to have an opinion, when you also aren't directly affected by any consecration that may have taken place?

    This is an internet trad Catholic forum. We discuss and debate a lot of issues which we are not directly affected by. Why should this be any different?
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46935
    • Reputation: +27799/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bp? Vigano: Saul or Paul? Fr. McKenna Interview
    « Reply #74 on: July 08, 2024, 12:26:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on July 08, 2024, 12:21:37 PM
    So no one has the right to say anything that isn't in support of +Vigano and his alleged consecration? Only his supporters, such as yourself, have a right to any opinion on the matter? Why do you get to have an opinion, when you also aren't directly affected by any consecration that may have taken place?

    You can say whatever you want.  What I'm saying, obviously, is that they are not required to answer you.  You're carrying on as if they have some obligation to publicly announce these, an obligation that you have failed to demonstrate and for which I have given counter-examples.

    You explain why you have a right to demand answers and that they're required to give you answers.

    If you have a need to know (some priest ordained by +Vigano shows up at your chapel), I'm sure you can ask Bishop Williamson and he'll tell you.

    Your only reasons for demanding answers are a combination of ... 1) personal curiosity and 2) a reason to continue attacking +Vigano (especially for you, since you hate all things sedevacantist).  Of course, you are a follower of +Williamson here, so you're also attacking him.  This isn't the first time +Williamson has performed a consecration that he kept under wraps for some time, so why don't you write to him and take it up with him.

    I'm still waiting for your explanation on why you have some right to know one way or the other.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12
    « previous next »