Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Traveler on November 12, 2023, 07:49:10 PM
-
Several sources have announced that two priests that were ordained for the SSPX will be consecrated bishops in the weeks to come.
You may remember Fr. Altamira got a lot of attention when he left the SSPX to join the resistance and took a large number of his priory with him in Colombia several years back.The story was covered enthusiastically by Non Possumus.
Fr. Pierre Roy had also left the SSPX to work with the resistance in Europe. Both priests later left the resistance and aligned themselves with sedevacantist groups. It seems that the resistance was only a transitional group for these priests which led them to the position of sede vacante. In the case of Fr. Roy, he may have made an impression on seminarians while in the resistance which led to his up and coming consecration actually. Interesting how that turns out.
The consecrating bishop will be Bishop Rodrigo da Silva, ordained himself by Bishop Williamson and consecrated by the late Bishop Dolan. Bishop da Silva has already consecrated Bishop Charles McGuire (who now leads Saint Gertrude the Great and its mission chapels) and Bishop da Silva was the co-consecrator for the Nigerian Bishop Nkamuke.
Seems like the resistance seminary in France is the gift that just keeps on giving.
The date and time of the consecration has not yet been announced but probably will be in Brazil although Mexico had been considered given the large number of growing Sedevacantist churches in Mexico.
-
In the case of Fr. Roy, he may have made an impression on seminarians while in the resistance which led to his up and coming consecration actually.
Seems like the resistance seminary in France is the gift that just keeps on giving.
I followed most of what you said -- that two independent sede priests will soon become bishops.
However, you lost me on these two lines.
Care to elaborate?
-
Several sources have announced that two priests that were ordained for the SSPX will be consecrated bishops in the weeks to come.
You may remember Fr. Altamira got a lot of attention when he left the SSPX to join the resistance and took a large number of his priory with him in Colombia several years back.The story was covered enthusiastically by Non Possumus.
Fr. Pierre Roy had also left the SSPX to work with the resistance in Europe. Both priests later left the resistance and aligned themselves with sedevacantist groups. It seems that the resistance was only a transitional group for these priests which led them to the position of sede vacante. In the case of Fr. Roy, he may have made an impression on seminarians while in the resistance which led to his up and coming consecration actually. Interesting how that turns out.
The consecrating bishop will be Bishop Rodrigo da Silva, ordained himself by Bishop Williamson and consecrated by the late Bishop Dolan. Bishop da Silva has already consecrated Bishop Charles McGuire (who now leads Saint Gertrude the Great and its mission chapels) and Bishop da Silva was the co-consecrator for the Nigerian Bishop Nkamuke.
Seems like the resistance seminary in France is the gift that just keeps on giving.
The date and time of the consecration has not yet been announced but probably will be in Brazil although Mexico had been considered given the large number of growing Sedevacantist churches in Mexico.
I hate to be "that guy" but, could you provide a source for what you are saying as regards to these two former SSPX Priests being ordained. I'd love to learn more about it.
-
I followed most of what you said -- that two independent sede priests will soon become bishops.
However, you lost me on these two lines.
Care to elaborate?
Bishop Da Silva supposedly met Fr. Roy while at the resistance seminary in France. This is where the seeds of sedevacantism took root in the European reistance and spread across the Atlantic. Some priests were excluded by Bishop Faure, but at least two of the seminarians remianed. One of those was Bishop da Silva, who will now be consecrating Fr. Roy.
Of course, I have no sources to prove if that is not just mere speculation.
-
There was a split between the "non una cuм" priests and the "una cuм" priests in France. Bishop Williamson, Bishop Faure, Bishop Thomas Aquinas and Bishop Zendejas refused to continue to collaborate with the "non una cuм" priests : Father Nicolas Pinaud (France), Father Pierre Roy (Canada) and Father Olivier Rioult (France). Therefore, these sedevacantists priests no longer work with the Resistance bishops.
-
I hate to be "that guy" but, could you provide a source for what you are saying as regards to these two former SSPX Priests being ordained. I'd love to learn more about it.
Actually, old news. Cath Info is among the last to know.
-
Actually, old news. Cath Info is among the last to know.
The news regarding Fr. Roy is what is new. I can confirm that it is happening through sources who confirmed it with Bishop da Silva.
-
The consecrations are set to take place in Sao Paolo, Brazil during the first week of January, 2024.
-
The official communique was released.
-
Kind of an interesting plot twist, Bishop McGuire refuses to approve/condone the consecrations and announces the end of SGG's working relationship with Bishop Da Silva.
https://twitter.com/liturgicalife/status/1726207662596264014?t=r5RH6dxltjAGXvoND8K9zw&s=19
-
Bishop Da Silva supposedly met Fr. Roy while at the resistance seminary in France. This is where the seeds of sedevacantism took root in the European reistance and spread across the Atlantic. Some priests were excluded by Bishop Faure, but at least two of the seminarians remianed. One of those was Bishop da Silva, who will now be consecrating Fr. Roy.
Seems like, for a cleric, becoming Sedevacantist is a recipe for promotion, a recipe for "greatness". Imagine being consecrated a bishop while still very young, around 30 years old. That totally wouldn't influence a person when choosing between sedevacantism and not-sedevacantism. ::)
-
Kind of an interesting plot twist, Bishop McGuire refuses to approve/condone the consecrations and announces the end of SGG's working relationship with Bishop Da Silva.
https://twitter.com/liturgicalife/status/1726207662596264014?t=r5RH6dxltjAGXvoND8K9zw&s=19
The priests of SGG, with the exception of Fr. McKenna, barely leave Ohio as I understand it. Not to mention they are linguistically inept to do so. If Bishop McGuire and his half a dozen priests cooped up in the house had visited Canada or Latin America within the last 5 years, maybe they would see the need more. Do they really expect one bishop from Brazil to take care of all of Latin America and Canada while they sip tea in West Chester?
-
The priests of SGG, with the exception of Fr. McKenna, barely leave Ohio as I understand it. Not to mention they are linguistically inept to do so. If Bishop McGuire and his half a dozen priests cooped up in the house had visited Canada or Latin America within the last 5 years, maybe they would see the need more. Do they really expect one bishop from Brazil to take care of all of Latin America and Canada while they sip tea in West Chester?
.
It seems that, instead of rushing out to say he doesn't approve because he doesn't know anything about the candidates, he might have learned something about the candidates and *then* issued an opinion.
.
-
.
It seems that, instead of rushing out to say he doesn't approve because he doesn't know anything about the candidates, he might have learned something about the candidates and *then* issued an opinion.
.
Yeah, like the fact that da Silva has practically no traditional seminary formation, and flunked out of the SAJM seminary after the first year of spirituality, and was sent back to Santa Cruz.
Not sure how/why +Williamson would ordain him after that, but he soon regretted it publicly.
-
Yeah, like the fact that da Silva has practically no traditional seminary formation, and flunked out of the SAJM seminary after the first year of spirituality, and was sent back to Santa Cruz.
Not sure how/why +Williamson would ordain him after that, but he soon regretted it publicly.
.
To be frank, I think this more likely the truth. Da Silva's consecration by +Dolan was viewed with significant skepticism for these very reasons.
.
"I don't know these men so I disapprove of these consecrations and dissociate with Da Silva" isn't a credible position. Ignorance of Altamira and Roy could be solved with a quick Google search (CI has plenty of info on both) or just picking up the phone. I don't believe that's the heart of the matter.
-
Bishop Da Silva didn’t flunk out of the SAJM seminary. He actually started in a conservative leaning Novus Ordo seminary where he discovered Tradition in his position as the librarian. He studied in Santa Cruz for many years before going to France to study. He also speaks 4 languages including French. Bishop Williamson hand picked Bishop Da Silva to go to France after noticing his qualities of leadership skill.
Flunking out of the seminary. He was there for more than a year and more than 5 years in Santa Cruz.
It’s easy to talk like you know when you actually don’t.
-
Bishop Da Silva didn’t flunk out of the SAJM seminary. He actually started in a conservative leaning Novus Ordo seminary where he discovered Tradition in his position as the librarian. He studied in Santa Cruz for many years before going to France to study. He also speaks 4 languages including French. Bishop Williamson hand picked Bishop Da Silva to go to France after noticing his qualities of leadership skill.
Flunking out of the seminary. He was there for more than a year and more than 5 years in Santa Cruz.
It’s easy to talk like you know when you actually don’t.
Actually, I know the whole story from both Fr. Trincado (i.e., seminary faculty) and +Zendejas.
-
.
It seems that, instead of rushing out to say he doesn't approve because he doesn't know anything about the candidates, he might have learned something about the candidates and *then* issued an opinion.
.
There’s no need to speculate. Speak with SGG yourself and they will more than likely tell you. Their principle concern is that Fr. Altamira and Fr. Roy are what they label suspected opinionists. That means that they did not want these priests consecrated because they would say they are sede vacantists, while saying that faithful could still go to SSPX masses. Opportunists on the other hand, will use this as a weak attempt to smear ex-resistance priests, but the fact is that SGG did not think these priests were dogmatic sedevacantists and that is what led to the division.
Too sedevacantist for Bishop Faure but not sedevacantist enough for Bishop McGuire. Can’t please anyone can you.
-
There’s no need to speculate. Speak with SGG yourself and they will more than likely tell you. Their principle concern is that Fr. Altamira and Fr. Roy are what they label suspected opinionists. That means that they did not want these priests consecrated because they would say they are sede vacantists, while saying that faithful could still go to SSPX masses. Opportunists on the other hand, will use this as a weak attempt to smear ex-resistance priests, but the fact is that SGG did not think these priests were dogmatic sedevacantists and that is what led to the division.
Too sedevacantist for Bishop Faure but not sedevacantist enough for Bishop McGuire. Can’t please anyone can you.
Yeah, who ever heard of a rector requiring that a candidate for the priesthood should at least be able to pass his 1st year seminary classes? Fortunately for da Silva, others are not so “unreasonable.”
-
Seems like, for a cleric, becoming Sedevacantist is a recipe for promotion, a recipe for "greatness". Imagine being consecrated a bishop while still very young, around 30 years old. That totally wouldn't influence a person when choosing between sedevacantism and not-sedevacantism. ::)
Since Fr. Pierre Roy was my parish priest for about 8 years (before and after his departure from the SSPX), I can tell you he did NOT come to his opinions as a "recipe for promotion". Earlier on, near the 2012 time frame, he hoped the SSPX would come to its senses, and perhaps for Bishop Tissier to help with the restoration. He was very alone when he left, without prospects for "promotion". The SSPX had changed, not he. I think folks on CathInfo would know what I am talking about.
I have been a Traditional Catholic for over 50 years, and met many dozens of priests, many of whom stayed at our home. Fr. Roy, now I believe in his mid-30's, always had the wisdom, prudence, and charity of a much older priest. (I've met many newly-minted priests, in their first years, and I always enjoyed their zest but their prudence was still a work in progress.) What Fr. Roy and we faithful endured together in Canada, with the C0v1d police etc, only confirmed my good opinion of Fr. Roy. I would say the same for other priests who took actual risks for people's souls during this time. If what we suffered be "greatness", then it is to be desired.
I do not feel qualified to recommend who should be made a bishop, and when and where, since I am just a layman. I leave that to God and His clergy. If there is anything that I can do to help them get together to sort things out, I am more than willing to help. They are, all of them, in my prayers.
-
Seems like, for a cleric, becoming Sedevacantist is a recipe for promotion, a recipe for "greatness". Imagine being consecrated a bishop while still very young, around 30 years old. That totally wouldn't influence a person when choosing between sedevacantism and not-sedevacantism. ::)
On the other hand, imagine being consecrated a Bishop when you’re an old man and are slow to do anything?
You have to wonder for what purpose those consecrations were made?
-
Does everyone understand clearly that trad bishops -- sede, R&R, and SSPX -- are not bishops in the strict sense (holding a juridical office whether as ordinary, suffragan, auxiliary, or curial) but only dispensers of sacraments requiring episcopal ministration?
-
Does everyone understand clearly that trad bishops -- sede, R&R, and SSPX -- are not bishops in the strict sense (holding a juridical office whether as ordinary, suffragan, auxiliary, or curial) but only dispensers of sacraments requiring episcopal ministration?
Dear ElwinRansom1970,
Yes. They have jurisdiction coming from their consecratory rites, but they do not possess the Papal Mandate, which would assign their territory. That is why it is important that no Catholic props up a usurper on Peter's Chair; whether by the novus ordo position, or sedeprivationism, or any other explanation permitting the enemy of Christ to be seen as a Pope. Eventually, that is how the Antichrist will be sitting on the Throne of Peter.
Stop thinking of material things. The Church is the perfect society. Our Lord did not die for the buildings in the Vatican or anywhere else. The faithful souls are what matters.
-
Does everyone understand clearly that trad bishops -- sede, R&R, and SSPX -- are not bishops in the strict sense (holding a juridical office whether as ordinary, suffragan, auxiliary, or curial) but only dispensers of sacraments requiring episcopal ministration?
You bring up an interesting question for me. Given that the sede, SSPX, and R&R bishops have supplied jurisdiction, do you know if that supplied jurisdiction includes a teaching office for the Faith? I mean, does supplied jurisdiction include teaching and preaching, or does it really just consist of supplying the sacraments? I've not ever thought about it before.
-
You bring up an interesting question for me. Given that the sede, SSPX, and R&R bishops have supplied jurisdiction, do you know if that supplied jurisdiction includes a teaching office for the Faith? I mean, does supplied jurisdiction include teaching and preaching, or does it really just consist of supplying the sacraments? I've not ever thought about it before.
No, ecclesia supplet has nothing to do with magisterial functions. It pertains only to the administration of sacraments and is not habitual, meaning that supplied jurisdiction is not something a trad bishops or priest continually possesses. They only have supplied jurisdiction as needed when administering sacraments for which they lack ordinary jurisdiction for their administration -- and only so long as a stare of emergency persists in the Church (apart from other situations where ecclesia supplet obtains such as danger of death or common error).
A great many incorrect ideas regarding supplied jurisdiction have circulated over the past 50 years. It only has to do with sacraments and in no way confers any kind of ecclesial office or mandate.
-
Does everyone understand clearly that trad bishops -- sede, R&R, and SSPX -- are not bishops in the strict sense (holding a juridical office whether as ordinary, suffragan, auxiliary, or curial) but only dispensers of sacraments requiring episcopal ministration?
Correct me if I am wrong, but according to the little research that I've made, a bishop who is not attached to a diocesis (real or "titular") has never occured in the Church's history. It can be said to be a "Traditionalist creation".
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but according to the little research that I've made, a bishop who is not attached to a diocesis (real or "titular") has never occured in the Church's history. It can be said to be a "Traditionalist creation".
Correct! This is why trad bishops are essentially sacrament dispensers and nothing more. It is an odd historical development because they do not even hold or claim to hold titular sees.
-
Correct! This is why trad bishops are essentially sacrament dispensers and nothing more. It is an odd historical development because they do not even hold or claim to hold titular sees.
Even the notion of a "Chor" or "Auxiliary" bishop took a bit to develop in the Church. They too had no jurisdiction, which is a bit tricky since the very term "episcopos" implies having authority over priests, but were merely consecrated to assist bishops as Sacrament dispensers (for the most part), the difference being that they were at least "attached" to a bishop. This is actually another argument against the validity of the New Rite of consecration. Even if you can untangle the linguistic mess that is the form, the reference is to having authority (vs. the Traditional Rite of having the summit of the priesthood), which rules out its use for creating auxliary or chor bishops without jurisdiction, and is consistent with Father Cekada's argument that the closest analogy in the Eastern Rites (as alleged by the defenders of the form) is with a rite for the installation of a Patriarch, not the consecration of a bishop.
-
And it's kind of strange when Traditionalist bishops sing mass from the throne, use the crozier or even the mitre, which are all symbols related to jurisdiction.
-
And it's kind of strange when Traditionalist bishops sing mass from the throne, use the crozier or even the mitre, which are all symbols related to jurisdiction.
I've never understood these practices either. They should use the faldstool and dispense with the crozier (not sure about the mitre).
-
I've never understood these practices either. They should use the faldstool and dispense with the crozier (not sure about the mitre).
The mitre is proper to all episcopal and abbatial liturgies, existing in its three forms: simplex, auriphrygiata, and pretiosa. There first two are used during Mass. The latter is used for processions, blessings, audiences, etc.
And, yes, all trad bishops should be using the faldstool for Mass since none are ordinaries in their own jurisdiction.
The SSPX bishops also have the strange practice of an pontifical Missa Cantata. Whilst such a ceremony exists for the Novus Ordo, episcopal Masses in the classical Roman Rite do not admit any such Mass. There is pontifical Low Mass, pontifical Mass at the Faldstool, and pontifical Mass at the Throne. But there is no pontifical Missa Cantata.