CathInfo.com

Wrong again because I have no bias whatsoever, you 're the one with the bias. You only have this bias because you believe a lie about the man, really, that's all there is to it. Nothing against you personally, but it's not too surprising. But if you stop to actually think exactly what it is you're bent on trying to convince everyone of, seems like you should see how ridiculous it really is. 

The real problem is that the accusers in question are not in a state of Grace. Calumny in full conscience is definitely a mortal sin. Who knows how many mortal sins they commit daily, spreading their heresies around and calumniating others ! 

Nobody wants to guess. Act like an adult and make an argument or write your point. 

Sorry, sacramental theology and canon law govern the sacraments not moral theology.  If the matter/form are valid, then the sacrament is valid.  No amount of heresy/schism makes a bishop no longer a bishop.  You’re grasping at straws with your off-topic posts, which show you are woefully uneducated on the topic. 

You already did guess and acted accordingly.

Laughing a little is not adult-like? I’m trying to help people in here not be so overly serious. People are so sensitive these days! Please, don’t be a cream puff.

Earlier you wanted proof he wasn’t a traditionalist did you not? I provided it to you. He was a liberal even at Vatican II. I didn’t see a reason to provide commentary because it was all there, and to me the point was obvious. Do you stop and think for awhile or just react to whatever is said to you in opposition, in this conversation?

It is important because traditionalism is the only way to excuse or explain doing these consecrations in private, or doing them at all. So, it contributes to us asking, what was he up to? Because every time he was caught, he treated the Novus Ordo as though it had a legitimate authority to excommunicate, and he repented every time. Of course, this in itself is not enough to prove invalidity, but should lead us to look into it further, and take it into account along with every other piece of evidence I have shared, in my long post. The burden of proof that these consecrations took place in a Catholic manner is on them who were there, and those who claim it.

I suppose St. Alphonsus Liguori in his own moral theology was stupid for having an entire section dedicated to discussing the sacraments? I suppose the Catholic Encyclopedia was wrong to address the validity of the sacraments using moral theology? This is what I mean about being absurd in your replies.

Approaching the sacraments is absolutely a moral issue, because we are forbidden from receiving them from clergy whose orders are questionable, and saying to oneself “it probably is” is not enough certitude to act in accordance with the law of God.

You should really read my original, long post, everything is there, again, I am only quoting other authorities, I give all the sources, it is not my opinion. Things would be clearer if you did this. Have you?  

You already did guess and acted accordingly.

Laughing a little is not adult-like? I’m trying to help people in here not be so overly serious. People are so sensitive these days! Please, don’t be a cream puff.

Earlier you wanted proof he wasn’t a traditionalist did you not? I provided it to you. He was a liberal even at Vatican II. I didn’t see a reason to provide commentary because it was all there, and to me the point was obvious. Do you stop and think for awhile or just react to whatever is said to you in opposition, in this conversation?

It is important because traditionalism is the only way to excuse or explain doing these consecrations in private, or doing them at all. So, it contributes to us asking, what was he up to? Because every time he was caught, he treated the Novus Ordo as though it had a legitimate authority to excommunicate, and he repented every time. Of course, this in itself is not enough to prove invalidity, but should lead us to look into it further, and take it into account along with every other piece of evidence I have shared, in my long post. The burden of proof that these consecrations took place in a Catholic manner is on them who were there, and those who claim it.

I suppose St. Alphonsus Liguori in his own moral theology was stupid for having an entire section dedicated to discussing the sacraments? I suppose the Catholic Encyclopedia was wrong to address the validity of the sacraments using moral theology? This is what I mean about being absurd in your replies.

Approaching the sacraments is absolutely a moral issue, because we are forbidden from receiving them from clergy whose orders are questionable, and saying to oneself “it probably is” is not enough certitude to act in accordance with the law of God.

You should really read my original, long post, everything is there, again, I am only quoting other authorities, I give all the sources, it is not my opinion. Things would be clearer if you did this. Have you? 

Since when do you care about the words of St Alphonsus Liguori?

You only quote him to justify your sick, perverse tendency to put yourself (a woman, whom by all rights is AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF NATURAL HIERARCHY, AT THE SAME LEVEL AS CHILDREN.), above a valid priest of the Church ! 

You dare pretend yourself the equal of Church doctors! 

Respect the hierarchy and learn your place. 

Never in the history of the Church, has a woman dared to teach others about theology, aside from the conciliary sect.

You are going against the natural order. Your sin is exactly the same as Satan's, who said "Non serviam !". 

Ask your priest if what I said is correct !!