Author Topic: Thoughts on the divisions among the nine (Read 29156 times)

Pete Vere · « **Reply #15 on:** May 30, 2014, 05:34:07 AM »

Quote from: SerpKerp

Sanborn went to ask Bishop Castro Mayer for ordinations of clergy that the SSPV would train, and Mayer suggested Bishop Des Lauriers.

Interesting. Someone needs to tag Sean Johnson here. I'm surprised Mgr dCM recognized the validity of Mgr des Lauriers' episcopal consecration, given that Mgr Lefebvre reportedly shared Rome's concerns about the state of Archbishop Thuc's mind at the time of the consecrations.

Quote

I have heard Fathers Jenkins and Cekada each tell thier own version of this story by the way.

I have heard different versions as well from sede friends and acquaintances who were there, but the version that sticks most vividly in my mind is that of Fr Cekada.

Having said that, Fr Cekada told me he was not so much doubting the validity of the SSPV consecrations as calling out Bishop Kelly and Fr Jenkins on the hypocrisy of attacking the validity of the Thuc ordinations/consecrations when the same arguments could be applied to those of Bishop Mendez.

Having said that, as an Indult trad I was eager to stay out of inter-nicene debates about sedes. That and I found the SSPV very rigid compared to the CMRI and the Cekada, Dolan, Sandborn affiliation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** May 30, 2014, 05:50:03 AM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: Ladislaus
I was directly interacting with Frs. Sanborn and Cekada at the very beginnings of the split, and the assertion that the Thuc thing came later is false; this notion that SSPV was too tightly controlled was intertwined with and taking place at the same time as the Thuc question. And, if you ask me, it was the Thuc question and Father Kelly's response to it that engendered the authority/control concerns.

I'm not so sure. I recall Fr Cekada, and I believe Fr Sandborn, initially being strongly opposed the Thuc consecrations.

Yes, at the very beginning. But after a time they began changing their minds, and it was when they changed their minds that the rift began.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** May 30, 2014, 05:52:03 AM »

Quote from: SerpKerp

Quote from: Pete Vere
What was explained to me by one of the nine (I think it was Fr Cekada) several decades ago when I was passing through Cincinnati:

1 - Fr Kelly wanted the SSPV to be a tightly-controlled group like the SSPX.

2 - Frs Cekada, Dolan and Sandborn, having felt the SSPX was too rigid, wanted more of a loose association among priests.

3 - Fr Jenkins sided with Fr Kelly.

4 - The two sides began drifting apart.

5 - The controversy over Thuc consecrations came later, as originally Frs Cekada, Dolan and Kelly shared the SSPV position rejecting the validity of the consecrations.

It didn't end there.

6. Kelly got secretly ordained by Bishop Méndez

7. SGG and company said that it was invalid

8. SSPV responded with evidence

9. SGG retracted and accepted that it was valid

SGG probably only said it was invalid because the same conditions applied to the Mendez consecrations that Bishop Kelly had raised about the Thuc consecrations.

Also, at some point SSPV began to dispute the validity of the ordinations of Father Dolan and also Father Williamson (the so-called "one hand" problem).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** May 30, 2014, 05:53:18 AM »

Quote from: SerpKerp

Quote from: Pete Vere
I'm not so sure. I recall Fr Cekada, and I believe Fr Sandborn, initially being strongly opposed the Thuc consecrations.

Sanborn went to ask Bishop Castro Mayer for ordinations of clergy that the SSPV would train, and Mayer suggested Bishop Des Lauriers.

I have heard Fathers Jenkins and Cekada each tell thier own version of this story by the way.

This is correct. That's what made them start investigating the validity of the Thuc line for real. They really hadn't looked into it much before then but just went with what Father Kelly was saying.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #19 on:** May 30, 2014, 05:54:55 AM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Having said that, Fr Cekada told me he was not so much doubting the validity of the SSPV consecrations as calling out Bishop Kelly and Fr Jenkins on the hypocrisy of attacking the validity of the Thuc ordinations/consecrations when the same arguments could be applied to those of Bishop Mendez.

I didn't see this until after my post on the same subject ... which corroborates what you're saying here.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #20 on:** May 30, 2014, 06:00:00 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Pete Vere
I'm not so sure. I recall Fr Cekada, and I believe Fr Sandborn, initially being strongly opposed the Thuc consecrations.

Yes, at the very beginning. But after a time they began changing their minds, and it was when they changed their minds that the rift began.

Okay, that's my understanding as well. I think we sorted this out.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #21 on:** May 30, 2014, 08:50:02 AM »

Quote from: SerpKerp

Elizabeth I have been attending Father Skierka's masses in Montana, and
I have seen anything remotely resembling a cult. In fact I just came back from the feast of the assumption. He has talked to me after every mass about theology and the crisis in the church(The first time for over 2 hours). In the conversations he was far more charitable to the SSPX and the other nine, then the other nine and the SSPX were towards the SSPV. Also everyone there has been very out spoken and friendly towards me (I usually am very shy). In fact they have a summer school program run by the nuns coming up at his main chapel outside of Great Falls, so he would be right in the center of the Cult brainwashing. After mass on Sunday he told me we could talk more about theology and the crisis in the church in depth, so if you could give me any questions which would revel his cult-hood I would be very happy to ask him then.

Hi Serp,

Yet they "excommunicated" the SV editor of the Four Marks, Kathleen Plum, for having attended a Thuc line Mass and her daughter as well. Kathleen wrote about it in her quarterly; I don't know if the particular piece is still online. Many other have been similarly dismissed. For a while, I also defended this practice. I was ignorant of many facts.

I do not reasonably expect Fr. Skierka to tell you that sspv is a cult. You are the one who asked questions about this group.

Of course they can be charitable toward the SSPX, having jumped the aged Archbishop Lefebvre while he was visiting the then unfinished US seminary, serving him with a court summons. They were fortunate to have been able to get a tarp over their own unfinished roof before being ordered off of their own property before winter set in.

The sspv had to pay out 1/2 million dollars for defaming a man in their long running lawsuit. They had been given a valuable religious painting for their convent and decided to sell it. They got miffed when someone resold it for lots more money, and lost. It was yet another example of their behavior, which was typical and a public scandal.

Listen to their railing against Archbishop Thuc and tell me it is not cult-like. Why was their ceremony with Bishop Mendez top secret? What about his mental state and the testimony of the Mendez family? Why so many secrets?

Elizabeth · « **Reply #22 on:** May 30, 2014, 08:54:08 AM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Having said that, Fr Cekada told me he was not so much doubting the validity of the SSPV consecrations as calling out Bishop Kelly and Fr Jenkins on the hypocrisy of attacking the validity of the Thuc ordinations/consecrations when the same arguments could be applied to those of Bishop Mendez.

They historically attack others for doing exactly what they themselves have done.

SerpKerp · « **Reply #23 on:** May 30, 2014, 08:55:07 AM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SerpKerp
Sanborn went to ask Bishop Castro Mayer for ordinations of clergy that the SSPV would train, and Mayer suggested Bishop Des Lauriers.

Interesting. Someone needs to tag Sean Johnson here. I'm surprised Mgr dCM recognized the validity of Mgr des Lauriers' episcopal consecration, given that Mgr Lefebvre reportedly shared Rome's concerns about the state of Archbishop Thuc's mind at the time of the consecrations.

Quote
I have heard Fathers Jenkins and Cekada each tell thier own version of this story by the way.

Father Jekins said that Bishop Castro Mayer didn't say that.

Father Cekada said that the Bishop said that then they reported that to Kelly and he said we can't say thier valid or people will go to them.

SerpKerp · « **Reply #24 on:** May 30, 2014, 09:00:14 AM »

I keep screwing up the quotes is there where you can point me to show me where it is right.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #25 on:** May 30, 2014, 09:07:36 AM »

Quote from: SerpKerp

Of the Nine kicked out from the SSPX, only 3 remain in the successor organization SSPV. There seems to be a lasting grudge between the SSPV and Bishops Dolan and Sanborn and the priests under them. I was wondering what others thoughts were on the intensity of the grudge, and how it relates to your opinion of the nine and SSPV in general?

That tells you something right there. A vicious Archbishop Lefebvre was the starting point for this splinter group. If I am mistaken, it is forbidden in Canon law to sue one's religious superior, but I could be wrong. Then they assumed authority to expel priests with no explanation, excommunicate laypeople for personal grudges, and conditionally Confirm souls previously Confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre.

SerpKerp · « **Reply #26 on:** May 30, 2014, 09:09:56 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SerpKerp
Quote from: Pete Vere
What was explained to me by one of the nine (I think it was Fr Cekada) several decades ago when I was passing through Cincinnati:

1 - Fr Kelly wanted the SSPV to be a tightly-controlled group like the SSPX.

2 - Frs Cekada, Dolan and Sandborn, having felt the SSPX was too rigid, wanted more of a loose association among priests.

3 - Fr Jenkins sided with Fr Kelly.

4 - The two sides began drifting apart.

5 - The controversy over Thuc consecrations came later, as originally Frs Cekada, Dolan and Kelly shared the SSPV position rejecting the validity of the consecrations.

It didn't end there.

6. Kelly got secretly ordained by Bishop Méndez

7. SGG and company said that it was invalid

8. SSPV responded with evidence

9. SGG retracted and accepted that it was valid

SGG probably only said it was invalid because the same conditions applied to the Mendez consecrations that Bishop Kelly had raised about the Thuc consecrations.

Also, at some point SSPV began to dispute the validity of the ordinations of Father Dolan and also Father Williamson (the so-called "one hand" problem).

I don't get this one hand probelm it seems crazy.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #27 on:** May 30, 2014, 09:12:21 AM »

Quote from: SerpKerp

Father Cekada said that the Bishop said that then they reported that to Kelly and he said we can't say thier valid or people will go to them.

Why did I sign a contract promising to have no sacraments with Thuc-line clergy or my children would be expelled from their school in order to apply?

Have you listened to their anti Thuc speeches?

SerpKerp · « **Reply #28 on:** May 30, 2014, 09:13:58 AM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Quote from: SerpKerp
Of the Nine kicked out from the SSPX, only 3 remain in the successor organization SSPV. There seems to be a lasting grudge between the SSPV and Bishops Dolan and Sanborn and the priests under them. I was wondering what others thoughts were on the intensity of the grudge, and how it relates to your opinion of the nine and SSPV in general?

That tells you something right there. A vicious Archbishop Lefebvre was the starting point for this splinter group. If I am mistaken, it is forbidden in Canon law to sue one's religious superior, but I could be wrong. Then they assumed authority to expel priests with no explanation, excommunicate laypeople for personal grudges, and conditionally Confirm souls previously Confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre.

I thought Archbishop Lefebvre told them to get out and then sued them when they didn't?

Why would't they trust the Archbishop's ability to give sacraments isn't that biting the hand that feeds?

Can you send me links on these?

Elizabeth · « **Reply #29 on:** May 30, 2014, 09:21:14 AM »

Quote from: SerpKerp

Quote from: Elizabeth
Quote from: SerpKerp
Of the Nine kicked out from the SSPX, only 3 remain in the successor organization SSPV. There seems to be a lasting grudge between the SSPV and Bishops Dolan and Sanborn and the priests under them. I was wondering what others thoughts were on the intensity of the grudge, and how it relates to your opinion of the nine and SSPV in general?

That tells you something right there. A vicious Archbishop Lefebvre was the starting point for this splinter group. If I am mistaken, it is forbidden in Canon law to sue one's religious superior, but I could be wrong. Then they assumed authority to expel priests with no explanation, excommunicate laypeople for personal grudges, and conditionally Confirm souls previously Confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre.

I thought Archbishop Lefebvre told them to get out and then sued them when they didn't?

Why would't they trust the Archbishop's ability to give sacraments isn't that biting the hand that feeds?

Can you send me links on these?

Please pardon my typo~

I meant a vicious lawsuit. I only found out about it later. I'll be glad to try and find something for you.