0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I don't understand. If it is a usurpation of authority to say that someone has to agree with your opinion in order to be Catholic, how is Fr. Jenkins not doing exactly the same thing when he says that dogmatic sedevacantists are not Catholic because of what they believe? How is he not usurping authority in deciding who is traditional Catholic and who isn't?
You'll note that he didn't say the dogmatic sedes weren't Catholic, just that they weren't Traditional Catholics. We'd have to ask him what he meant by that and what his definition of Traditional Catholic is. Traditional Catholics is a bit of a slippery term which can mean different things to different people.And, no obviously, I don't agree with his position on the Thuc bishops. That's just because I don't agree with his conclusion that they are doubtful. But let's say you did agree. If, for instance, you had some faithful who received the Sacraments from someone ordained by, say, one "Bishop" Ambrose Moran, wouldn't you tell the faithful that they needed to re-confess sins that had been confessed to that man? Problem is that the +Thuc lines through +des Lauriers and +Carmona are unquestionably valid.
Quote from: Struthio on June 24, 2020, 08:18:02 PMI don't understand. If it is a usurpation of authority to say that someone has to agree with your opinion in order to be Catholic, how is Fr. Jenkins not doing exactly the same thing when he says that dogmatic sedevacantists are not Catholic because of what they believe? How is he not usurping authority in deciding who is traditional Catholic and who isn't?Uhm, he did not say they are not Catholic, but that they are not TRADTIONAL Catholic. To my knowledge, he does not refuse the Sacraments to people from dogmatic sedevacantist chapels ... unless there's also a question of the +Thuc line, but that's for a different reason (that I don't agree with). One would have to ask him precisely what he meant by that, since the term Traditional Catholics has about as many definitions as you have Traditional Catholics.
Lad, what other Catholic would be truly Catholic?
Uhm, he did not say they are not Catholic, but that they are not TRADTIONAL Catholic. To my knowledge, he does not refuse the Sacraments to people from dogmatic sedevacantist chapels ... unless there's also a question of the +Thuc line, but that's for a different reason (that I don't agree with). One would have to ask him precisely what he meant by that, since the term Traditional Catholics has about as many definitions as you have Traditional Catholics.The author of the quote you're commenting on is not Struthio, but Yeti, see Reply #3.
Where is Fr. Jenkins assigned?
This video was from over 6 years ago. He may have changed his thinking somewhat since then.I think it was last year that Fr. Cekada wrote an article saying that he sees evidence that once Bp. Kelly dies, the St. Piux V Society is likely to be not as harsh against the Thuc-line.
I've seen more recent statement where Fr. Jenkins articulates a similar position re: sedevacantism. I agree that Bishop Kelly has been the strongest impetus against the Thuc line.
This past Sunday I assisted at an Oyster Bay Mass. The priest included in his announcements, for the sake of anyone new, that nobody attending the Novus Ordo in English or Latin can go to Communion. There was no hint of forbidding those who attended Thuc-line Sacraments. This appears to be easing up.
I do not believe this is the case at Round Top, NY. Of course, that is where Bishop Kelly resides.
It very well may be the case now for their whole organization.
