Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: TomGubbinsKimmage on November 04, 2025, 04:55:21 AM
-
(https://i.imgur.com/xNHpf8i.jpeg)(https://i.imgur.com/ZLp1bCN.jpeg)
I'm just gonna leave these here and let people make their own minds up.
"But he was so holy!"
Behold the fruits of sedevacantism and the father of CMRI....
-
:facepalm: Even a heretic can administer valid ordinations. You are woefully uneducated.
-
:facepalm: Even a heretic can administer valid ordinations. You are woefully uneducated.
You guys claim he was sane and stable and holy.
These pics blow that out of the water.
-
It is kind of funny. You think you are fighting for Truth by convincing people to think as you do, but your delivery and attitude is probably making more people run from your thoughts and not listen to you at all.
-
It is kind of funny. You think you are fighting for Truth by convincing people to think as you do, but your delivery and attitude is probably making more people run from your thoughts and not listen to you at all.
Honey. I dont care. I dont even know you. This is an anonymous web forum.
People who are sincere will judge based on the Truth and what is reasonable. Not because they do or do not like my "delivery".
-
:facepalm: Even a heretic can administer valid ordinations. You are woefully uneducated.
Yes but totalist sedevacantists declare all catholic priests, bishops, popes who are public heretics lose office and are outside of the Church. Sedeprivationists are not like that. So it should be important to them (totalists, if they are consistent) when this happened, after or before some consecrations he did.
-
Hey Tom are these pics from Toulon?
-
Yes but totalist sedevacantists declare all catholic priests, bishops, popes who are public heretics lose office and are outside of the Church. Sedeprivationists are not like that. So it should be important to them (totalists, if they are consistent) when this happened, after or before some consecrations he did.
Losing an office does not mean losing sacramental power. The Church has actually dealt with this heresy in the past about heretics still having sacramental power because some insisted that they had no sacramental power because of their heresies.
So what pac said is very different from sedes saying they lose the Office.
-
:facepalm: Even a heretic can administer valid ordinations. You are woefully uneducated.
Wait....
you said a heretic is a non-member of the Catholic Church.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/poll-for-those-who-consider-themselves-part-of-the-resistance/msg1004981/#msg1004981
How can a non-member become a bishop and administer valid ordinations?
-
Wait....
you said a heretic is a non-member of the Catholic Church.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/poll-for-those-who-consider-themselves-part-of-the-resistance/msg1004981/#msg1004981
How can a non-member become a bishop and administer valid ordinations?
Once a priest always a priest. A defrocked apostate priest can confess and say a valid mass, why wouldn't a validly consecrated apostate bishop be able to ordain a priest? I don't personally know but I can't see why not.
-
Wait....
you said a heretic is a non-member of the Catholic Church.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/poll-for-those-who-consider-themselves-part-of-the-resistance/msg1004981/#msg1004981
How can a non-member become a bishop and administer valid ordinations?
:facepalm: You don't understand the difference between personal faith (i.e. membership) and sacramental validity (comes from the Church).
-
:facepalm: You don't understand the difference between personal faith (i.e. membership) and sacramental validity (comes from the Church).
Okay, I didn't know that, I stand corrected. So that was the reason why cardinal Lienart validly consecrated archbishop Lefevbre, even he was public heretic and most likely a freemason. If that was the case, then all this attack on archbishop Thuc is pointless. Same is with cardinal Siri, he also said the New mass, but he was still an archbishop and could ordain priests which he did. I believe he was under constant threats, surveillance and he was elected and accepted the election in 1958. before Roncalli.
But that is another topic....
-
Once a priest always a priest. A defrocked apostate priest can confess and say a valid mass, why wouldn't a validly consecrated apostate bishop be able to ordain a priest? I don't personally know but I can't see why not.
They CAN. That's my point to Pax.
-
:facepalm: You don't understand the difference between personal faith (i.e. membership) and sacramental validity (comes from the Church).
I do. You just like to try to cause confusion and complicate things. God is not complicated and neither is His Church.
Keep it simple.
-
Okay, I didn't know that, I stand corrected. So that was the reason why cardinal Lienart validly consecrated archbishop Lefevbre, even he was public heretic and most likely a freemason. If that was the case, then all this attack on archbishop Thuc is pointless. Same is with cardinal Siri, he also said the New mass, but he was still an archbishop and could ordain priests which he did. I believe he was under constant threats, surveillance and he was elected and accepted the election in 1958. before Roncalli.
But that is another topic....
Lefebvre had two Bishops lay hands, so if one was not a true bishop then the other did the job. End of story.
-
Lefebvre had two Bishops lay hands, so if one was not a true bishop then the other did the job. End of story.
Tommy, +Leinart also ordained +Lefebvre to the priesthood
-
Tommy, +Leinart also ordained +Lefebvre to the priesthood
Yep, and the slandering retard has just disqualified himself from the discussion.
You could have had 50 bishops lay hands on +Lefebvre, but +Lienart alone performed his ordination.
But if "internal intention" (as warped by this baboon) is a thing ... then we've probably had Traditional Catholics receive hundreds of thousands of invalid Sacraments.
-
Tommy, +Leinart also ordained +Lefebvre to the priesthood
Becoming a Bishop covers for that.
-
Becoming a Bishop covers for that.
Debatable. Not theologically settled.
-
Debatable. Not theologically settled.
Actually, in the Roman Rite, it's almost morally certain that it's invalid ... due to the way the essential form is worded.
COMPLETE IN YOUR PRIEST the summit of your ministry.
"Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica
Bassically it assumes this is a priest (if he weren't the essential form would be incorrectly designating the matter), and it refers to COMPLETING something that's already there, and not merely granting it.
What was held AS A MINORITY OPINION was whether Episcopal Consecration can be validly conferred on someone who isn't a priest, in general, and there may be some Eastern Rites that are not worded as above, the the attempt to perform the Latin Rite consecration on a non-priest would certaily be invalid.
So, it's not really debatable ... except in general terms.
Nothing exposes someone more than when they're soundly refuted about something and so they come up with a backup reason, and that's the surest indication he's already made up his mind, out of spite, to continue slandering Archbishhop Thuc, but wants to make certain exception (+Lefebvre line) to the crap theology of "internal intention" he invented, where some occult Freemason could "wish away" the Church intention for the Sacrament.
+Lienart's having been a Freemason was proven, and not just speculation, and +Lefebvre admitted it on two different occasions. If one were to believe Scuмmage's fake made-up theology, there's an extraordinariliy high chance the +Lefebvre was never a valid priest, and therefore we've had millions of invalid Sacraments among Traditionalists. Except of course that this buffoon simply made it up.
-
Here's a guy who also shares Scuмmage's incorrect view of "internal intention", confounding the internal intention to do WHAT the Church does, i.e. to perform the Rite of the Church, and the internal intention to achieve the Sacramental effect.
But, unlike Scuмmage ... he carries this error to its logical conclusion ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter Cardinal Achille Liénart
-
Toward the end he quotes the theologians, but like Scuмmage here fails to notice that it has to be an internal to DO what the Church does, and not merely to perform the actions or the Rites. If it were merely the latter, someone goofing around or mocking the Church by saying the essential form while pouring water on someone's head would in fact confect the Sacrament. THAT LATTER SCENARIO is what's meant in the Catharinus condemnation. If there need be an intention to actually bring about the Sacramental effect, then an atheist could never validly baptize. Period. That of course contradicts Pope Leo XIII.
When +Lienart put on his vestments, went to a an Ordination Rite, he was intending to do what a minister of the Church does and seriously perform the Rite of the Church. This guy above leaves out the part from St. Thomas where he says that, if a minister internally intended to do the Rite ... the Church imposes upon that Rite the Church's intention to achieve the Sacramental effect. Those passages were cited when I was arguing with Sean Johnson about Catharinus.
-
Here's a guy who also shares Scuмmage's incorrect view of "internal intention", confounding the internal intention to do WHAT the Church does, i.e. to perform the Rite of the Church, and the internal intention to achieve the Sacramental effect.
But, unlike Scuмmage ... he carries this error to its logical conclusion ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter Cardinal Achille Liénart
So, just to be clear, so nobody makes a mistake in reading what you quoted, I read it as confusing the internal and external intention, and that the Church judges only by manifest external intention surrounding the particular instance of conferring a sacrament. So, it doesn't matter what being a Freemason or Satanist suggests about one's intentions, if they have the ability to confer a sacrament, and they do it without manifesting an intention not to confer a sacrament for that particular instance, it is judged valid by the Church.
Did I get that right?
-
Debatable. Not theologically settled.
You are correct.
The common opinion is that it does cover though.
-
Probably the greatest refutation of the mistaken notion of "internal intention" of an ordaining prelate affecting valid of Holy Orders (and by extension any proper minister confecting a sacrament) are the the ordinations of bishops and priests for the schismatic Constitutional Church of France by Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, one-time Bishop of Autun, who at time or these ordinations dismissed the Mass and sacraments as superstition and examples of religious extremism.
The Catholic Church treated and judged these ordinations to be valid, whilst Tallyrand himself was an free-thinker, a libertine, possibly a Mason, and a civil official of the revolutionary regime in France. He was laicised by Pope Pius VII in 1802 and only returned to the practice of the Faith in the last years of his life.
-
Probably the greatest refutation of the mistaken notion of "internal intention" of an ordaining prelate affecting valid of Holy Orders (and by extension any proper minister confecting a sacrament) are the the ordinations of bishops and priests by Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, one-time Bishop of Autun, for the schismatic Constitutional Church of France.
The Catholic Church treated and judged these ordinations to be valid, whilst Tallyrand himself was an free-thinker, a libertine, possibly a Mason, and a civil official of the revolutionary regime in France. He was laicised by Pope Pius VII in 1802 and only returned to the practice of the Faith in the last years of his life.
You have misunderstood the issue completely.
The issue is that he deliberately withheld intention.
The common opinion of the Church is very clear on this point.
I posted it in another thread on this issue. Did you miss that?
-
Here it is.
I understand cathinfo is overwhelming when you dont post and come on it very often like you.
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sacraments-internal-intention/
-
You have misunderstood the issue completely.
The issue is that he deliberately withheld intention.
The common opinion of the Church is very clear on this point.
I posted it in another thread on this issue. Did you miss that?
Elwin probably knows more about sacramental theology than everyone who has posted on your calumnious threads combined
You can provide no direct evidence whatsoever of Archbishop Thuc saying he withheld intention. Go back from whence you came
-
Elwin probably knows more about sacramental theology than everyone who has posted on your calumnious threads combined
You can provide no direct evidence whatsoever of Archbishop Thuc saying he withheld intention. Go back from whence you came
Elwin did not consult then with those who know better than him.
-
You can provide no direct evidence whatsoever of Archbishop Thuc saying he withheld intention. Go back from whence you came
gratuitous assertions that the article was connected to some other rumor just aren't going to cut it for reasonable, mentally stable people.
The Sacraments are deadly serious.
Souls are at stake.
-
Don't post that Lienart bullshit on this forum, unless it's an ABRIDGED very short version, FOLLOWED BY a clear and firm refutation of the nonsense.
-
+Lienart's having been a Freemason was proven, and not just speculation, and +Lefebvre admitted it on two different occasions. If one were to believe Scuмmage's fake made-up theology, there's an extraordinariliy high chance the +Lefebvre was never a valid priest, and therefore we've had millions of invalid Sacraments among Traditionalists. Except of course that this buffoon simply made it up.
I'm not a theologian, so I can't argue the point of "internal intention" one way or the other. I don't know if the Church supplies in such cases.
But I know this: God would never allow the Catholic Church to be reduced in number to 5 or 10 persons. And he wouldn't allow 80% of the lifeboats (SSPX and SSPX-line) to be destroyed, in a Crisis that was to last 55+ more years. God gives everyone a chance to save his soul. He would possibly, even LIKELY, require souls to put in more serious effort, some sacrifices (less frequent Masses, long drives) but He would NEVER make it morally impossible for the VAST MAJORITY of Catholics of good will, even the ones aware of the Crisis.
Remember, +Lefebvre isn't just the SSPX, but all the priests who left it over the years, the Resistance, SSPV, etc.
And when God raises up a saint, with the hand of Providence heavy upon him, such that anyone with the Faith can see the hand of God in his life and career, it is morally impossible for that man to be a fountainhead of hundreds of fake priests, hundreds of thousands of invalid sacraments, etc. Yes, I know the Novus Ordo has validity issues. But it's the Novus Ordo (looks Lutheran), not the Tridentine Mass. Souls of good will, those seeking God first, those with zero human respect CAN wake up to the reality and save themselves. There are things God just wouldn't allow. God is good. Even in temptations and trials, God *always* gives us an "out". He gives us a fighting chance. No one is going to convince me EVER that God would participate in a conspiracy of deceit, with no chance of seeing the problem, or no way out.
As Tom Nelson taught me, you don't have a man who loves his wife, pays his taxes, mows his lawn, takes care of his kids, goes to Church, but he's a hitman.
It seems near-blasphemous (minus the "near") to me, to suggest that God is less than competent. He could guide +Lefebvre to perfectly be trained, prepared, and positioned to play all these important roles in this age of the Church -- but OOPS! somehow we forgot to figure out a way to make him a real priest/bishop. May God forgive you for what you are implying about Him!
For every 10,000 Trads, about 8,000 of them have +Lefebvre to indirectly thank for their Mass. Just a rough estimate, but I'm not off by much.
Even many sede groups have +Lefebvre to thank somewhat, because the latter brought attention and media coverage to the existence of the Traditional Movement. Many who are sede "today" weren't warming the pews at a sede chapel originally.
(I'm excluding Motu/Indult groups here, because they are a different kettle of fish. "Latin Mass Catholics". They are not really Trad, in the classic sense. They don't believe in a Crisis in the Church, just that the Latin Mass is "healthier" than the McDonald's of the Novus Ordo. Also, they have no problem with the Conciliar Church/authority/Orders aside from the Novus Ordo Mass itself.)
-
+Leinart is only being brought up to prove a point to Tom here. If there is anyone who we could say would be internally "withholding intention" it would be a Freemason. They don't intend to do what the Church does, they want to destroy the Church. But, as +Leinart ordained +Lefebvre with the proper matter and form, the intention to do what the Church does is presumed.
-
The only one I know of in the Traditional Catholic Movement, who has a problem w/ Abp. Lefebvre (because of Leinart), is the Franciscan Group in Rochester, NY.
-
Once a priest always a priest. A defrocked apostate priest can confess and say a valid mass, why wouldn't a validly consecrated apostate bishop be able to ordain a priest? I don't personally know but I can't see why not.
We aren’t supposed to be anywhere near someone who fails to repent. We aren’t suppose to worship with others who aren’t in a state of grace. If they reject Jesus, we aren’t to allow them into our house.
-
+Leinart is only being brought up to prove a point to Tom here. If there is anyone who we could say would be internally "withholding intention" it would be a Freemason. They don't intend to do what the Church does, they want to destroy the Church. But, as +Leinart ordained +Lefebvre with the proper matter and form, the intention to do what the Church does is presumed.
Most theologians said becoming a Bishop covers for it.
It is not a given that Freemason clergy are trying to withhold intention. Many of them joined for ambition. They are not necessarily privy to the outright destructive intentions of Masonry in the direct way you describe. Bishop Williamson talks about this in his conferences on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. You should listen to them.
Compare that with the very credible reporting that Thuc withheld his intention deliberately.
Now there is some arguments that is not true, but the point is that we cant verify that because he is dead.
So in the meantime, we need to stay away, and conditionally ordain those who seek it.
-
Most theologians said becoming a Bishop covers for it.
I'm pretty sure it's the exact opposite. :fryingpan: That is the minority position. The form explicitly refers to the episcopal candidate as a priest, and speaks of the candidates priestly ministry being "completed" or brought to a "fullness".
It is not a given that Freemason clergy are trying to withhold intention. Many of them joined for ambition. They are not necessarily privy to the outright destructive intentions of Masonry in the direct way you describe. Bishop Williamson talks about this in his conferences on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. You should listen to them.
Yeah, a Catholic priest and then bishop and then cardinal wouldn't be aware of the popes pronouncements against Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and would become a 30-degree Freemason and attend black masses purely out of "ambition". Big cope
Compare that with the very credible reporting that Thuc withheld his intention deliberately.
The Angelus: "Erm, +Thuc said this and that. Source? What's a source?"
Tom: "This is very credible reporting, gentlemen!"
Massive cope
Now there is some arguments that is not true, but the point is that we cant verify that because he is dead.
And there you have it, the truth slipped out! Tom admits that what was said in The Angelus cannot be verified.
Do you know a word for an unverified story about someone that provides no evidence, Tom? A rumor. Hearsay. Gossip. None of these things can establish positive doubt regarding +Thuc's ordinations and consecrations. You shot yourself in the foot Tommy
So in the meantime, we need to stay away, and conditionally ordain those who seek it.
See above, Tom. You're cooked :laugh2:
-
Correct, WorldsAway.
It was only a minority opinion that considered episcopal consecration of a priest to be valid under any circuмstances, e.g. using an Eastern Rite form ... but there's zero chance the Latin Rite form would be valid on a non-priest. So, the essential form must unequivocally declare what you're doing and who you're doing it to. To "COMPLETE" Holy Orders "in this priest" is utterly nonsensical when being applied to a non-priest. Clearly invalid. But even if this guy could cling to one or two theologians to held that view, at best it's postiively doubtful, and you treat it as invalid for all intents and purposes with the sole exception of if you're in danger of death without any other options.
As for +Lienart, I guess that this clown's speculation that +Leinart may not have really meant it ... that's all I need now to remove all doubt of validity. Thanks for putting that one to rest. No, +Lienart was KNOWN to have been a Commie-sympathizer at the very least, and it wasn't just because he wanted to ride around in a tiny car with a silly hat, and drink beer at the corner lodge.
I have scoured the internet and sent some AI bots also in search of any verification of that allegation in The Angelus ... and there is none. You can, instead find statements from +Thuc expressing his regret for the Palmar consecrations and repudiating them, but not in terms of validity. What The Angelus did was conflate +Thuc's repudiation of the Palmar consecrtaions with Father Cekada's blunder in characterizing his response to the Novus Ordo Mass which he concelebrated as "simulating the Sacrament" and witholding intention. The Angelus conflated the two into their ridiculous false analysis.
To give you a window into their credibility, the published a personal correspondence of mine without requesting permission, made edits without my prermission, injected bad translations of some Latin quotes that I had been too lazy to translate (given who I wrote the thing to/for), and SPELLED MY NAME WRONG.
-
Lol, you guys are so unhinged.
No new arguments.
I will continue to blaspheme Saint Pierre Thuc, and if you don't like it... go to a sede web forum!
-
Lol, you guys are so unhinged.
No new arguments.
I will continue to blaspheme Saint Pierre Thuc, and if you don't like it... go to a sede web forum!
It's over Tom.
we cant verify that
You should consult a good traditional priest about these evil thoughts you're acting on
-
Lol, you guys are so unhinged.
No new arguments.
I will continue to blaspheme Saint Pierre Thuc, and if you don't like it... go to a sede web forum!
You are the product of not having a father, or a very weak father.
-
And there you have it, the truth slipped out! Tom admits that what was said in The Angelus cannot be verified.
Do you know a word for an unverified story about someone that provides no evidence, Tom? A rumor. Hearsay. Gossip. None of these things can establish positive doubt regarding +Thuc's ordinations and consecrations. You shot yourself in the foot Tommy
:facepalm: Oh, Tom. The truth comes out.
Be a man and accept it.
-
This is the only quote that I've found directly made by Archbishop Thuc about Palmar, and it says the exact opposite ...
“Ich bestätige hiermit, die Ordinationen von Palmar mit klarer Überlegung vorgenommen zu haben. Ich habe keine Beziehungen mehr zu Palmar …”
(“I hereby confirm that I performed the Palmar ordinations with clear deliberation. I no longer have any relations with Palmar …”)
-
After Clemente came out as Pope, +Thuc repdiated the group and said he no longer had any association with them, and then asked for the excommunication to be lifted by the Vatican, and the latter complied.
I have searched far and wide for allegation made The Angelus, and have found absolutely no independent confirmation (just people citing it), and not source for it ever cited.
-
It's over Tom.
You should consult a good traditional priest about these evil thoughts you're acting on
You're right!
It is over!
Lol, you have no new arguments. And you refuse to see that you are all just so blinded by your sedevacantism that you can't see reason on the Thuc question.
-
After Clemente came out as Pope, +Thuc repdiated the group and said he no longer had any association with them, and then asked for the excommunication to be lifted by the Vatican, and the latter complied.
I have searched far and wide for allegation made The Angelus, and have found absolutely no independent confirmation (just people citing it), and not source for it ever cited.
This is an invented criteria by Dogmatic sedes. That we have to see the original letter.
The credible publication of Angelus press gives us enough reason to cast doubt. Not to say for sure. Just doubt.
And so we must go ask the man himself.
But can't. He's dead.
Therefore conditional consecrations are needed.
-
You're right!
It is over!
Lol, you have no new arguments. And you refuse to see that you are all just so blinded by your sedevacantism that you can't see reason on the Thuc question.
Nope, it's the same reason I don't go around casting doubt on +Lefebvre and his line of bishops and priests..I'm not a cultist who demands all Catholics to join my little group and reject others.
I've never been to a mass said by a +Thuc line priest, have been to a sedevacantist mass once, and probably will not go to many in the future as most refuse the sacraments to "Feeneyites"
-
Remember, +Lefebvre isn't just the SSPX, but all the priests who left it over the years, the Resistance, SSPV, etc.
And when God raises up a saint, with the hand of Providence heavy upon him, such that anyone with the Faith can see the hand of God in his life and career, it is morally impossible for that man to be a fountainhead of hundreds of fake priests, hundreds of thousands of invalid sacraments, etc. Yes, I know the Novus Ordo has validity issues. But it's the Novus Ordo (looks Lutheran), not the Tridentine Mass. Souls of good will, those seeking God first, those with zero human respect CAN wake up to the reality and save themselves. There are things God just wouldn't allow. God is good. Even in temptations and trials, God *always* gives us an "out". He gives us a fighting chance. No one is going to convince me EVER that God would participate in a conspiracy of deceit, with no chance of seeing the problem, or no way out.
As Tom Nelson taught me, you don't have a man who loves his wife, pays his taxes, mows his lawn, takes care of his kids, goes to Church, but he's a hitman.
It seems near-blasphemous (minus the "near") to me, to suggest that God is less than competent. He could guide +Lefebvre to perfectly be trained, prepared, and positioned to play all these important roles in this age of the Church -- but OOPS! somehow we forgot to figure out a way to make him a real priest/bishop. May God forgive you for what you are implying about Him!
For every 10,000 Trads, about 8,000 of them have +Lefebvre to indirectly thank for their Mass. Just a rough estimate, but I'm not off by much.
Even many sede groups have +Lefebvre to thank somewhat, because the latter brought attention and media coverage to the existence of the Traditional Movement. Many who are sede "today" weren't warming the pews at a sede chapel originally.
Agreed!
And to give even stronger resonance to the above I quote from the Archbishop's famous and most inspiring 1988 Consecration. I have every reason to believe that the prelate that the Blessed Virgin Mary spoke of as referred to by the Archbishop in the passage below was indeed the Archbishop, himself.
"Just recently, the priest who takes care of the Society priory in Bogota, Colombia, brought me a book concerning the apparition of Our Lady of “Buen Suceso,”—of “Good Fortune,” to whom a large church in Quito, Ecuador, was dedicated. They were received by a nun shortly after the Council of Trent, so you see, quite a few centuries ago. This apparition is thoroughly recognized by Rome and the ecclesiastical authorities; a magnificent church was built for the Blessed Virgin Mary wherein the faithful of Ecuador venerate with great devotion a picture of Our Lady, whose face was made miraculously. The artist was in the process of painting it when he found the face of the Holy Virgin miraculously formed. And Our Lady prophesied for the 20th century, saying explicitly that during the 19th century and most of the 20th century, errors would become more and more widespread in Holy Church, placing the Church in a catastrophic situation. Morals would become corrupt and the Faith would disappear. It seems impossible not to see it happening today.
I excuse myself for continuing this account of the apparition, but she speaks of a prelate who will absolutely oppose this wave of apostasy and impiety—saving the priesthood by forming good priests. I do not say that prophecy refers to me. You may draw your own conclusions. I was stupefied when reading these lines but I cannot deny them, since they are recorded and deposited in the archives of this apparition." See https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-06-30.htm (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-06-30.htm) and https://sspx.org/en/1988-episcopal-consecrations-sermon-30926?utm_source=chatgpt.com (https://sspx.org/en/1988-episcopal-consecrations-sermon-30926?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
-
Nope, it's the same reason I don't go around casting doubt on +Lefebvre and his line of bishops and priests..I'm not a cultist who demands all Catholics to join my little group and reject others.
I've never been to a mass said by a +Thuc line priest, have been to a sedevacantist mass once, and probably will not go to many in the future as most refuse the sacraments to "Feeneyites"
There is a crises in the Church and the question a normal Catholic should ask themselves is "Where is the remnant? Where is the fullness of the Catholic Truth that I know by Faith will last until the end of time?".
Is it still with the Novus Ordo. Obviously not. Is it with the Thuc line? Obviously not.
-
There is a crises in the Church and the question a normal Catholic should ask themselves is "Where is the remnant? Where is the fullness of the Catholic Truth that I know by Faith will last until the end of time?".
Is it still with the Novus Ordo. Obviously not. Is it with the Thuc line? Obviously not.
And of course, with that lack of logical reasoning, you fall into the grave error of making the pope into nothing more than a figurehead and a “relic of the past”. Seeing this lack of logic I coined the term “the church of the superfluous pope”, several years ago.
I wonder, when we do get a true pope, if you R&R people will sift through his words and acts to make sure they are orthodox according to your subjective standards or will you unreservedly submit to his teachings and direction on matters of faith and morals?
-
And of course, with that lack of logical reasoning, you fall into the grave error of making the pope into nothing more than a figurehead and a “relic of the past”. Seeing this lack of logic I coined the term “the church of the superfluous pope”, several years ago.
I wonder, when we do get a true pope, if you R&R people will sift through his words and acts to make sure they are orthodox according to your subjective standards or will you unreservedly submit to his teachings and direction on matters of faith and morals?
stop making things more complicated than they need be.
If the Pope firmly rejects Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, then it's safe.
-
stop making things more complicated than they need be.
If the Pope firmly rejects Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, then it's safe.
So if he rejects VII and the NO, but allows unrepentant public sinners and people in bad marriages to receive Holy Communion, will that be acceptable to you?
-
There is a crises in the Church and the question a normal Catholic should ask themselves is "Where is the remnant? Where is the fullness of the Catholic Truth that I know by Faith will last until the end of time?".
Is it still with the Novus Ordo. Obviously not. Is it with the Thuc line? Obviously not.
I take what I can get where I can get it.
If I was to use your criteria to know where I can and cannot go to mass, who I can and cannot associate with as the "remnant"..using, for example, acceptance or rejection of the most important Dogma of the Faith: 'No Salvation Outside The Church' as the deciding factor...that would leave me with about three chapels at most in the US (not including MICM due to dubious holy orders)
You want to call yourself a Traditional Catholic, you reject V2, and the Novus Ordo? Great, we're on the same team. You label yourself as "the remnant", rejecting other trad groups, while at the the same time you don't even believe there is no salvation outside the Church? I don't take you seriously