Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Ladislaus on September 24, 2021, 04:44:19 PM

Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Ladislaus on September 24, 2021, 04:44:19 PM
What is this incredibly bombastic nonsense?  It gives me a headache to read this stuff, which was clearly written by someone who's trying to show off with a Thesaurus.

It can be summarized in one sentence: there's allegedly some video somewhere of a botched consecration in the +Thuc line by an unnamed consecrator.

Simply name the name and adduce the evidence.  No one should be forced to read several pages of fluff just to take that point away from it.
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on September 24, 2021, 04:50:06 PM
What is this incredibly bombastic nonsense?  It gives me a headache to read this stuff, which was clearly written by someone who's trying to show off with a Thesaurus.

It can be summarized in one sentence: there's allegedly some video somewhere of a botched consecration in the +Thuc line by an unnamed consecrator.

Simply name the name and adduce the evidence.  No one should be forced to read several pages of fluff just to take that point away from it.
I stopped reading after the first two sentences. 😆
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Stanley N on September 24, 2021, 05:20:43 PM
It can be summarized in one sentence: there's allegedly some video somewhere of a botched consecration in the +Thuc line by an unnamed consecrator.
Does this say what allegedly was wrong?

I'm imagining another "expert" saying its invalid due to something irrelevant, such as the Gospel book didn't touch the man's shoulders.
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: SimpleMan on September 24, 2021, 05:44:15 PM
This reads like one of those long-winded Wanderer articles on steroids, or possibly something (no disrespect intended) by l'Abbé de Nantes, I'm sure what he had to say was very good, but it's not written for American attention spans.  Latin American or German "serious" newspaper articles also come to mind, where the most important points may be found deeply buried somewhere in the text.  

I'm also vaguely reminded of LaRouche writings (about which I do not sense the need to make any caveats regarding respect), but with those, at least they're (for the most part) readable, you just find yourself falling deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole, not unlike the graphic associated with the film Vertigo.

(https://i.imgur.com/1bDJvKr.jpg)
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: DigitalLogos on September 24, 2021, 06:27:21 PM
No sense using 10-dollar words for what can be said in a 5-cent sentence.
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: bodeens on September 24, 2021, 06:54:39 PM
No need for the word salad, upload a DVD rip now. If you're an SSPV shill know that this is potentially schismatic unless you have real proof and you are tearing apart traditional Catholicism until you post evidence.
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Marcellinus on September 25, 2021, 06:32:39 PM
For goodness sakes, Mask, at least if you'd speak like a normal person more people might actually listen.  

Nemo mortalium omnibus horis sapit...

Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Ladislaus on September 25, 2021, 06:41:22 PM
Does this say what allegedly was wrong?

I'm imagining another "expert" saying its invalid due to something irrelevant, such as the Gospel book didn't touch the man's shoulders.

No mention of what was wrong.  No mention of which bishops were involved.  So absolutely pointless ... unless the intention is to sew FUD regarding the +Thuc line in general.

“I know of an invalid Thuc line but I won’t say which so you have to avoid them all to be safe.”
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: bodeens on September 25, 2021, 07:05:14 PM
No mention of what was wrong.  No mention of which bishops were involved.  So absolutely pointless ... unless the intention is to sew FUD regarding the +Thuc line in general.

“I know of an invalid Thuc line but I won’t say which so you have to avoid them all to be safe.”
Even if it is true it displays a complete lack of charity for all souls affected. Why would you slow roll this? No matter what this is a bad faith thread and OP should either post or be banned.
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: SimpleMan on September 25, 2021, 10:57:11 PM
No mention of what was wrong.  No mention of which bishops were involved.  So absolutely pointless ... unless the intention is to sew FUD regarding the +Thuc line in general.

“I know of an invalid Thuc line but I won’t say which so you have to avoid them all to be safe.”
I had to search online ("Google" is a website, not a verb) to find out what "FUD" means, but now that I know, I agree.

You can never know too much about the tactics of the propaganda masters.  You need to know Alinsky tactics when you see them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt

And I meant to say above, that the OPs read like a Wanderer article that was under the influence of steroids, not that it was a Wanderer article about steroids.  So far as I am aware, they've never written such an article.  The closest thing were those old ads for aloe vera (or something) with the picture of the Indian indigenous native autochthonous aboriginal First Nations American person :facepalm:
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: bodeens on October 05, 2021, 06:13:43 PM
Post a DVD rip.
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Ladislaus on October 05, 2021, 07:04:19 PM
:sleep::sleep::sleep:
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Marcellinus on October 10, 2021, 02:03:17 PM
If I am understanding the unnecessarily complicated use of the English language (an erudite writer will of course understand that he should write in clear and concise terms, in order that his audience may comprehend his points)..

We should assume the invalidity of any future Sacrament confected by a man who made a mistake during the administration of some past Sacrament.  

Great.  As humans are fallible and make mistakes, then no deacon, priest, or bishop could possibly confect a Sacrament as all humans make mistakes.  

What is the point of this diatribe?
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Marcellinus on October 10, 2021, 02:30:33 PM
Regarding “The Mask’s” usage of the phrase “constitutionally incapable.”..

Rather curious, as there is a rather famous writing that uses the same phrase…

“Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not give themselves to this simply program, usually men and women who are __constitutionally incapable__ of being honest with themselves..”. 

Of course, they are not at fault.. they seem to have been born that way!
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: crowbar on October 13, 2021, 11:53:19 AM
These types of threads are retarded and from Satan as a means to sow confusion and doubt. 
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: bodeens on October 13, 2021, 12:00:04 PM
Kelleyite drivel. Post a DVD rip.
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Marcellinus on October 13, 2021, 06:49:53 PM
Well I guess we have a Holy Office again… and it is “The Mask”

Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Ladislaus on October 13, 2021, 06:55:46 PM
I dispute Mask's assertion that before Vatican II all the clergy were well trained and knew their stuff and could be counted on by that alone to validly confect Sacraments.  I knew some pre-V2 clergy who barely knew Latin, and even among the bishops, why do you think they brought periti with them to the Council? ... because they couldn't understand the proceedings due to the Latin and also due to the theology.

Nevertheless, their Sacraments are presumed valid unless a positive doubt can be established about a particular case, and that had nothing to do with a presumptive quality of training.  This sounds more and more like a Kelly-ite lackey.  For all we know, the Mask is a reference to the fact that Bishop Kelly is wearing a mask here and disguising his identity.
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: clarkaim on October 18, 2021, 09:06:43 AM
What is this incredibly bombastic nonsense?  It gives me a headache to read this stuff, which was clearly written by someone who's trying to show off with a Thesaurus.

It can be summarized in one sentence: there's allegedly some video somewhere of a botched consecration in the +Thuc line by an unnamed consecrator.

Simply name the name and adduce the evidence.  No one should be forced to read several pages of fluff just to take that point away from it.


Thanks Ladislaus.  100% concur.  why did Julius Caesar despise Cicero?  because he took forever to GET TO THE POINT!
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Dingbat on October 20, 2021, 10:06:46 AM
Did the SSPV send him with a mask because he has COVID?
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Nadir on October 21, 2021, 05:32:45 PM
These types of threads are retarded and from Satan as a means to sow confusion and doubt.
Satan can't sow confusion through this drivel if you don't read it. Really, is there anyone here so insane that they would read it?
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: bodeens on October 21, 2021, 07:10:27 PM
:sleep:
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Ladislaus on October 21, 2021, 07:20:13 PM
:sleep:

(https://static.gearspace.com/board/imgext.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5w4MYfs.png&h=03327fab9159d9bdf026c49bcb3e105a)
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Giacomo on October 24, 2021, 11:02:28 AM
Hey Orifice of OBSCURITY!!!
 
You didn’t do a good enough job of hiding the identities of the THIRD MAN and his “two victims”. You can keep the kindergarden level readers around here in the dark. Not me. I can read at the college level. And I read you the Masked Manhole Cover loud and clear. It took some online detective work but I found the “Non-Exhaustive Map of Episcopal Consecrations deriving from Thuc Lineage” you used.
 
I jumped all over the map following the arrows that pointed to The THIRD MAN. He was Francis Slupski (from Thuc, Des Lauriers, McKenna). The guy in your video was Paul Petko (02/12/2011), and the next one down the red and green lines was Robert Dymek (12/07/2011). BTW you forgot to mention Slupski also ordained both those guys priests. Bet it was the same year. Bet those were botched too. You tried to hide that.
 
WHAT SAY YOU O BIG MOUTH?????????? THE CATS OUT OF THE BAG NOW. DID IT GET YOUR MARBLE TONGUE????? Next time tell the whole story. Names and dates. Upload the video and prove me wrong!!!!! You can’t protect sedes now. 

Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Marcellinus on October 24, 2021, 02:42:25 PM
What is the point of all of this? 

Is this for the salvation of souls or is there some sort of personal vendetta at play here?

One must be very careful, lest he wind up burning in Hell next to the very one he hates. 
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: bodeens on October 24, 2021, 03:21:17 PM
What is the point of all of this?

Is this for the salvation of souls or is there some sort of personal vendetta at play here?

One must be very careful, lest he wind up burning in Hell next to the very one he hates.
If this was about salvation he'd post a DVD rip for us to analyze. Multiple requests to do so and he can't reproduce it. 
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Cryptinox on October 24, 2021, 03:44:13 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/jZY6jGz.png)
Are you talking about a Thuc line bishop in Mexico? I remember seeing a video on youtube where the essential form isn't said or docuмented.
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Ladislaus on October 24, 2021, 03:58:57 PM
You tried to hide that.
...
You can’t protect sedes now.


He's not protecting any sedes.  Otherwise he simply wouldn't have written all this nonsense to begin with.

In fact, by refusing to explain who it was, he's basically trying to create FUD about the entire Thuc line.

He's playing some kind of game in the interests of his bloated ego.

If there's evidence of a botched consecration, then everyone wants to see it and have a right to see it.  Sedes themselves would want the situation rectified or else would advise people to stay away.
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Ladislaus on October 24, 2021, 04:00:39 PM
Are you talking about a Thuc line bishop in Mexico? I remember seeing a video on youtube where the essential form isn't said or docuмented.

Clearly not.  There's no video of that consecration.
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: bodeens on October 24, 2021, 08:57:39 PM
Are you talking about a Thuc line bishop in Mexico? I remember seeing a video on youtube where the essential form isn't said or docuмented.
Don't buy Kelleyite propaganda. IIRC there's a WCB video where Jenkins asserted this.
Title: Re: THE THIRD MAN: A cautionary narrative on the validity of orders
Post by: Dingbat on October 25, 2021, 10:28:05 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/jZY6jGz.png)
It Thuc you many posts to say you are SSPV.