So is the real issue you have - that you disapprove of his "Conclavism" (as you pointed on page 1 already)...

Or +Da Silva and +Roy are both "imprudent" in your estimation?

Or the spiritual offspring of +Da Silva are "tainted" with his own personal problems?

Or are you suggesting there are moral problems?

Not really sure how to read your post...

"Or the spiritual offspring of +Da Silva are "tainted" with his own personal problems?" Yes.

"Or are you suggesting there are moral problems?" Yes.

We have to be careful to not misrepresent the positions of others. Bishop Roy has been very clear, despite what Ladislaus is saying, that he wishes that non-sedevacantist clergy would join the council. He says it 1:08:00 in his interview with Stephen Kokx. I think he agrees that there can be confused non-sedevacantists who are still Catholics.

Despite the difficulties, he thinks that the remaining clergy must do what they can to remedy the situation. That does not mean that he wants to elect a pope without him being able to achieve universal recognition or that he is ''conclavist''.

He thinks sometimes God intervenes after men have done what they could. He made the comparaison with the Battle of Lepanto in his sermon : Christendom prayed and went to battle despite the great number of enemies. Do you think there is anything wrong with this? It is hard seeing what if you are a sedevacantist who believes there is an almost 70-year old vacancy.

The accusations of Giovanni Berto against Bishop Da Silva also seem gratuitous. I would be very surprised if he were a conclavist.

He is not a Conclavist, as far as I am aware, but there are very serious problems with his priests.

One gives collective absolution if the confession line still has people waiting and it is time for mass. Another one has sinned seriously against the sixth commandment (sodomy). Another one was a member of a sect and became a Traditionalist priest without an abjuration.

His apostolate is nothing short of scandalous, I am sorry to say. It would be great if we had a serious Sedevacantist bishop in Brazil, but, unfortunately, this is not the case here.

We have to be careful to not misrepresent the positions of others. Bishop Roy has been very clear, despite what Ladislaus is saying, that he wishes that non-sedevacantist clergy would join the council.

He can wish this all he wants ... that's not the problem.  Realistically, no non-sedevacantist clergy are going to join an Imperfect Council, and +Roy tactictly admitted that it was open to anyone who thinks the Holy See MIGHT be vacant.

And you misinterpreted what I was saying.  What I was saying is that unless you hold that non-SV clergy are NOT CATHOLIC, then there's simply no way that you can hold any kind of "Imperfect Council" that enjoys anything CLOSE to being "universal".  Bishop Roy can wish until he's blue in the fact that, say, SSPX would attend ... but unless something changes, such a wish is, practically speaking, utterly preposterous.  Then you also have 17 million Eastern Rite Catholics and perhaps as many as 50-100 million Conciliar Catholics who still have the correct formal motive of faith but are in material error about the nature of the Crisis.

Imperfect Council can only work if it clearly consists of a nearly universal representation of Catholics, and there's simply no way that 30K SVs (if they ALL were behind it, which I doubt) could ever pull off any kind of acceptance as being Universal.

So despite what YOU say (and you misinterpreted what I said), it has nothing to do with what Bishop Roy wants ... but about what's possible.

IMPERFECT COUNCIL IS SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE IN THIS CURRENT STATE OF THE CHURCH.

Something would have to change dramatically.  So I wish people would just leave this sleeping dog lie, as it were, as best you can hope for is some slightly "difference of degree", but not "difference in kind" from the Bawden conclave.

He needs to just stop.  Unfrotunately, since he's a relative newcomer to SVism, he hasn't learned this lesson, something which the grizzled veterans have long understood.

+Roy also implicitly undercuts SVism by casting doubts about how long a vacancy could last ... lending fuel to the R&R arguments against it.

This whole thing was disastrous, and someone should have talked him down before he did this.

He can wish this all he wants ... that's not the problem.  Realistically, no non-sedevacantist clergy are going to join an Imperfect Council, and +Roy tactictly admitted that it was open to anyone who thinks the Holy See MIGHT be vacant.

And you misinterpreted what I was saying.  What I was saying is that unless you hold that non-SV clergy are NOT CATHOLIC, then there's simply no way that you can hold any kind of "Imperfect Council" that enjoys anything CLOSE to being "universal".  Bishop Roy can wish until he's blue in the fact that, say, SSPX would attend ... but unless something changes, such a wish is, practically speaking, utterly preposterous.  Then you also have 17 million Eastern Rite Catholics and perhaps as many as 50-100 million Conciliar Catholics who still have the correct formal motive of faith but are in material error about the nature of the Crisis.

Imperfect Council can only work if it clearly consists of a nearly universal representation of Catholics, and there's simply no way that 30K SVs (if they ALL were behind it, which I doubt) could ever pull off any kind of acceptance as being Universal.

So despite what YOU say (and you misinterpreted what I said), it has nothing to do with what Bishop Roy wants ... but about what's possible.

IMPERFECT COUNCIL IS SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE IN THIS CURRENT STATE OF THE CHURCH.

Something would have to change dramatically.  So I wish people would just leave this sleeping dog lie, as it were, as best you can hope for is some slightly "difference of degree", but not "difference in kind" from the Bawden conclave.

He needs to just stop.  Unfrotunately, since he's a relative newcomer to SVism, he hasn't learned this lesson, something which the grizzled veterans have long understood.

+Roy also implicitly undercuts SVism by casting doubts about how long a vacancy could last ... lending fuel to the R&R arguments against it.

This whole thing was disastrous, and someone should have talked him down before he did this.

Sorry if I misunderstood your point, it read like this because you said Bishop Roy’s idea comes from an inability to make the difference between those in formal and material error. You said this was a common problem among totalists. I was pointing out the fact that he actually is able to make this distinction. Even if this is not what you meant I think it is worth pointing out.

There is a difference between something being practically impossible (or difficult) and something being impossible in theory. Bishop Roy is putting light on what he believes to be a theoretical solution to the Crisis. Even if it is impossible to put in practice right now, I don’t think there is anything wrong in bringing attention to this eventual solution if you are sedevacantist. Bishop Roy is not organizing a council as we speak.

Do you think it is impossible God will intervene once everything could be done humanly thinking?

Well, this one I have little to no problem with.  Other two are of course terrible.  Given the nature of this Crisis, if it's the only way to allow people to receive the Sacraments, I don't think this would be elicit.  Any such absolutions only apply if the individuals are truly contrite and they are still obligated to confess their grave sins at the next reasonably-available opportunity.  Probably a better way to handle it would be to resume Confessions after Mass, and then offer Holy Communion against at the end, although there might be pastoral reasons not to do it that way  ... i.e. where the people who go to Confession and then Holy Communion after Mass would effectively be forced to identify themselves as having been in a state of mortal sin.

As far as I know, this kind of absolution can only be given on extreme circuмstances, which is not the case here. I have never heard of any other Traditionalist priest doing this.

IMO one should take the private commentary of any single individual with a grain of salt - this is NOT to imply what is being said isn't true, but one man's word against another, is only as good as either man's word. All 4 videos you posted as "evidence" were commentary from this 1 guy:



I grant the whole "abjuration" thing is weird and doesn't make sense - why not just have him abjure? Maybe +De Silva as a baby bishop overlooked it...

He does throw off a bit of a "vibe", something in the eyes, but that could just be me...Either way, I won't be going to him for Sacraments.

As for covering for sodomites/sex perverts this never looks good - he shares company with the leadership of the SSPX, Novus Ordo, and many other individuals - even in the traditional sphere.

I don't think there is a non-relative priest between the ages of 23 and 103 of any background, that most people would trust alone with their wife or kids nowadays.


Since he, "became a bishop"?

Or,

Since he, "did all that stuff that the guy on YouTube says"?


Do you really think thinkers like John of St. Thomas or Cajetan “looked bad” for debating the idea of an imperfect council? Was Pope Paul IV being “absurd” in cuм Ex when he wrote “even if all the Cardinals accept his election…”?

Just because a proposal seems impractical or unwise to me or to a particular group doesn’t mean it couldn’t help resolve a crisis. Church history shows that solutions often come from unexpected places. Things are most likely going to continue to get worse, if so, more Catholics from different corners of tradition may start forming bonds, and working together and I see no harm in an already existing body of trad bishops that just want to discuss this topic in more detail. If you are really against it then I would say the best people to dissuade from any continued conversation would be the bishop you use for Sacraments.

The guy looks eccentric, but he does show his sources. There's nothing on the evidence that he shows that looks far-fetched. These are not merely his ideas or commentaries.

Bp. da Silva looked suspicious to me long before I saw these videos. His whole story is off. Right from the beginning.

Traditionalist bishops are not on the same league as he Theologians of old. This much is clear. I don't really care. We have a lot of fake Popes these days. One more won't make much of a difference, if that is what Bp. Roy wants. To me, it sounds more plausible for the one in the Vatican to convert and become a real Pope than for Bp. Roy and all his friends from Traddieland to elect a real Pope.

 It is a pity that there are people that call themselves Catholic that are opposed to Bishop Roy for his proposal and work toward an imperfect council. Have they been so Protestantized that they think that their priests do not need to be duly authorized? 
 
 "The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, that is to say, the Church founded by our Lord, the external, visible, hierarchical society, in which the supreme authority belongs to the Pope and the Bishops in communion with the Pope...This doctrine helps us to understand the role of the visible hierarchy of the Church, the Pope and the Bishops, in the life of the Mystical Body, and how our attitude towards that visible hierarchy affects our intimate relations with Christ...Hesitation in obedience and discussion of the right of intervention of the representatives of Christ are a sign that people are no longer living their faith in Christ..." (pp. 143-145) "The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World" by Rev. Denis Fahey

  Fr. Fahey says that the attitude of the people is a sign whether they are living their faith or not. When Christ raises up four bishops, that are from four different countries, that are ready to work on producing a visible authority, a true Pope, how we respond and what our attitude is, is a sign of our faith in Christ.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. General absolution can only be given to soldiers who are about to march into battle ...

False.  Many of you SVs keept pretending that Canon Law remains entirely intact ... of course, while "epikeiea"-ing out of existence those provisions you don't like.

Canon Law was written for to govern the NORMAL functioning of the Church in normal times.  Bishops shouldn't be consecrating bishops without Pontifical mandate.  Priests shouldn't be setting up chapels without being under a bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiciton.  And so on, and so forth.  IF it's ever permitted, period, then it's permissible IN PRINCPLE, so then it becomes a prudential judgment regarding what circuмstances suffice to justify the practice, and those prudential judgments can be quite different now in this extreme crisis than they would have been during normal times in the Church.  If a priest is literally flying in once a month for 60 minutes, and that's all he has, and it's the only access the faithful have to the Sacraments, I see no problem with this whatsoever.

Just because certain specific scenarios are specified, doesn't mean they're the only possible applications of a principle.

SVs are famous for being rigorists where it comes to Canon Law ... except where they don't like it.