Author Topic: Crisis in the Church (Read 1396 times)

songbird · « **on:** April 24, 2016, 10:29:39 PM »

Who ordained Dr. Thomas Droleskey and talk is, that he is a Bishop? If so who consecrated him? Anyone?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #1 on:** April 24, 2016, 10:58:54 PM »

Maybe a "wan na be" but he is married with a daughter. How so!

songbird · « **Reply #2 on:** April 24, 2016, 11:07:21 PM »

Dr. Droleskey was mentioned before in this forum as being ordained a priest. I can not recall who that was. And now the talk is, the Dr. Droleskey is a Bishop. Don't know?

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** April 25, 2016, 10:45:11 AM »

I was told that by a traditional priest that he was indeed ordained by a traditional bishop who was willing to ordain married men. The men are ordained on the condition that they provide the sacraments solely to their immediate families. I have good reason to believe the priest who gave me this information and I believe him. The bishop was convinced that the end days are so near that if married men were not ordained, there would be absolutely no access to the sacraments. Clearly, he was wrong-headed.

This is the first time I've ever seen a suggestion that he has now been consecrated a bishop.

Alexandria · « **Reply #4 on:** April 25, 2016, 11:48:21 AM »

I'm not certain about the bishop part, but that he is a priest is sworn to by many.

I think that's very sad, and I feel sorry for his daughter more than anyone.

Prayerful · « **Reply #5 on:** April 25, 2016, 01:12:55 PM »

The only problems I saw is he seems to think Pope Francis a Jansenist because of that blasphemous leprous Christ Novus Ordo crucifix that JP2 so liked. A Jansenist could think himself so sinful that he refused Last Rites, supposedly. PF is the opposite of a Jansenist. A Jansenist exaggerated God's Justice and shrunk His Mercy. Perhaps that crucifix is nudge, nudge way of saying PF is an anti-Jansenist who has abolished sin.

His about this site has no reference to any blasphemous ordination.

TKGS · « **Reply #6 on:** April 25, 2016, 05:07:07 PM »

Quote from: Prayerful

His about this site has no reference to any blasphemous ordination.

That is because his ordination was on condition that he not act, in any way, publicly as a priest. His ordination can allow him to provide the sacraments for his family (and, I presume, for anyone who is truly in immediate danger of death). He is not going to publicize it. Not sure why you would say it is blasphemous. It is clearly illicit, but it is completely valid and not blasphemous.

Prayerful · « **Reply #7 on:** April 25, 2016, 05:49:36 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Prayerful
His about this site has no reference to any blasphemous ordination.

That is because his ordination was on condition that he not act, in any way, publicly as a priest. His ordination can allow him to provide the sacraments for his family (and, I presume, for anyone who is truly in immediate danger of death). He is not going to publicize it. Not sure why you would say it is blasphemous. It is clearly illicit, but it is completely valid and not blasphemous.

Yes, wrong there, wrong word, illicit would be better, hmm, interesting thing to hear of.