So in the meantime, who are some good bishops and priests to listen to, who help more with the formation of our personal souls as oppose of fighting the Crisis, which there is no current solution? I don't want the rhetoric of listen to me because I am right. I don't want to be told you're sinning if you go to this group's Mass. I think it is time for Catholics to fortify themselves.
There are many good bishops and priests out there, even if they disagree on some things.Please add the websites here for easy access.
Please add the websites here for easy access.Whatever website someone would post, there are going to be those who don't like it. I think everyone on here knows the different groups and the bishops associated with them.
I am just curious. We have been 32 years without +ABL. Who are the current Bishops and Priests we should be watching to see if they are able to STRENGTHEN AND UNIFY traditional Catholics?
Please add the websites here for easy access.
Please add the websites here for easy access.Here's a few:
So in the meantime, who are some good bishops and priests to listen to, who help more with the formation of our personal souls as oppose of fighting the Crisis, which there is no current solution? I don't want the rhetoric of listen to me because I am right. I don't want to be told you're sinning if you go to this group's Mass. I think it is time for Catholics to fortify themselves.It sounds to me like Boshop Pivarunas and the CMRI might be a good selection based on your description. They tend to take a middle course on controversial issues within traditionalism: not condemning the attendance of "una cuм Masses" or the use of the old Holy Week rites for instance, while still not offering either within their organization.
It sounds to me like Bishop Pivarunas and the CMRI might be a good selection based on your description. They tend to take a middle course on controversial issues within traditionalism: not condemning the attendance of "una cuм Masses" or the use of the old Holy Week rites for instance, while still not offering either within their organization.Good post. I didn't know about the required "oath". Where are you getting that?
Bishop Carmona has Bishop Pivarunas make an oath to promote Church unity before consecration him, and it seems to me evident in such policies. Refusing to bind the consciences of the faithful in matters which were not defined prior to Vatican 2 is a constant with them.
That said, for sound moral and spiritual doctrine, other groups are excellent as well. You may get more polemics from one group or another but we all learn to look past that.
Good post. I didn't know about the required "oath". Where are you getting that?Wow I need to spellcheck before posting lol. I learned about the oath concerning Church unity from a seminarian and have had it confirmed by multiple priests. I agree 100% about Bishop Sanborn and his sermons on morality, as long as you exclude the una cuм and Holy Week questions. Since it sounds as though OP is looking for a seminary and not simply a parish, I would argue in favor of Mater Dei/CMRI rather than MHT. MHT enforces their theological opinions very forcefully which can result in a certain cookie-cutter formation and division from the greater Church. Examples aside from those mentioned above are the banning of gothic vestments, the rule against any member of RCI being a Scotist, conditionally confirming those confirmed by a priest in the Eastern Rites (which has always been considered valid,) etc.
Although I disagree with certain of his views, I believe that Bishop Sanborn is second to none when it comes to sermons on matters of morality. He is my go-to when I am looking for counsel on a certain sin, etc.
PS. Yeti's link above is also very good. I have that bookmarked on my computer as well.
Examples aside from those mentioned above are the banning of gothic vestments, the rule against any member of RCI being a Scotist, conditionally confirming those confirmed by a priest in the Eastern Rites (which has always been considered valid,) etc..
Here's a few:Good, thanks Stubborn.
https://www.youtube.com/@promotorfidei1766
https://rumble.com/c/c-1723735
.PASTORAL DIRECTORY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC INSTITUTE
I never heard of these. Do you remember where you learned of this? Do you have a source for this?
.The quotes from the RCI website which another user posted above have the relevant portions concerning vestments and Confirmations highlighted. I dont have a source handy for the validity of Confirmations done by Eastern Rite priests but it is a tradition which likely goes all the way back to the apostles. Since Baptism, Holy Communion, and Chrismation (their term for Confirmation) are all conferred the same day upon infants and converts in the Eastern Rites, their priests have been habitually granted the faculties to perform Confirmation. Imagine how many bishops would be necessary otherwise!
I never heard of these. Do you remember where you learned of this? Do you have a source for this?
The quotes from the RCI website which another user posted above have the relevant portions concerning vestments and Confirmations highlighted. I dont have a source handy for the validity of Confirmations done by Eastern Rite priests but it is a tradition which likely goes all the way back to the apostles. Since Baptism, Holy Communion, and Chrismation (their term for Confirmation) are all conferred the same day upon infants and converts in the Eastern Rites, their priests have been habitually granted the faculties to perform Confirmation. Imagine how many bishops would be necessary otherwise!It would be gravely forbidden and sacrilegious to confirm or conditionally confirm an eastern rite Catholic who was already confirmed in their rite. There is no doubt about the validity here, so it cannot be lawfully done, and if done it would be a sacrilege.
Regarding the forbidding of Scotism, I have not been able to find a quote online. I am unsure whether their internal policies were ever listed online but I had this particular policy confirmed to me by a member who I dont wish to name.
It would be gravely forbidden and sacrilegious to confirm or conditionally confirm an eastern rite Catholic who was already confirmed in their rite. There is no doubt about the validity here, so it cannot be lawfully done, and if done it would be a sacrilege.I agree with you entirely, and I do not know how they attempt to justify this official practice. Perhaps there have been instances where the Chrism was obtained from novus ordo "bishops?" Or perhaps they doubt the delegated jurisdiction of the priests to confirm since their bishops lack ordinary jurisdiction? This one doesnt seem likely since they acknowledge the validity of byzantine confirmations when conferred by a bishop. I dont know.
What arguments does RCI use to do this?
I agree with you entirely, and I do not know how they attempt to justify this official practice. Perhaps there have been instances where the Chrism was obtained from novus ordo "bishops?" Or perhaps they doubt the delegated jurisdiction of the priests to confirm since their bishops lack ordinary jurisdiction? This one doesnt seem likely since they acknowledge the validity of byzantine confirmations when conferred by a bishop. I dont know.I think it has to do with doubts concerning jurisdiction
In defense of +Sanborn, I believe that all priests from MHT seminary do not have to become a part of the RCI. The rules are only for those who choose to. Please correct me if i am wrong.This is true in theory. In theory anyone who is "non-una-cuм" can attend the seminary and become eligible for ordination by any bishop with whom Bishop Sanborn works. In practice, all the bishops with whom bishop Sanborn works are RCI or IMBC and thus only those who hold to the cassiciacuм thesis can be ordained.
So in the meantime, who are some good bishops and priests to listen to, who help more with the formation of our personal souls as oppose of fighting the Crisis, which there is no current solution? I don't want the rhetoric of listen to me because I am right. I don't want to be told you're sinning if you go to this group's Mass. I think it is time for Catholics to fortify themselves.Amen to that!!!
I agree with you entirely, and I do not know how they attempt to justify this official practice. Perhaps there have been instances where the Chrism was obtained from novus ordo "bishops?" Or perhaps they doubt the delegated jurisdiction of the priests to confirm since their bishops lack ordinary jurisdiction? This one doesnt seem likely since they acknowledge the validity of byzantine confirmations when conferred by a bishop. I dont know.It doesn't make sense, if the validity is contingent on delegated jurisdiction, then who delegated RCI to confirm?
It doesn't make sense, if the validity is contingent on delegated jurisdiction, then who delegated RCI to confirm?You and others may find some of the posts in this thread to be of help, Bellato:
It doesn't make sense, if the validity is contingent on delegated jurisdiction, then who delegated RCI to confirm?The delegation is required for a priest to confirm validly. The bishop has the power from his consecration.
The delegation is required for a priest to confirm validly. The bishop has the power from his consecration.Thank you. Which diocesan Bishop delegated RCI bishops to confirm?
As Cryptonix alluded too above, the question lies in a Latin Rite Catholic being confirmed by an Eastern Rite priest. They have no question of validity with an Eastern Rite person confirmed by the Eastern Rite priest.If this is the case I dont see an issue with their position. The way their position is written however is as follows: "31. Confirmations done by Eastern rite uniates and by eastern schismatics must be conferred again sub conditione, unless they have been performed by a bishop." There is no mention of this only applying to Roman Rite confirmands. In fact is explicitly mentions applying the rule to eastern schismatics, which seems very hard to justify.
An Eastern Rite Bishop's Confirmation they would accept as well.
Although I disagree with certain of his views, I believe that Bishop Sanborn is second to none when it comes to sermons on matters of morality. He is my go-to when I am looking for counsel on a certain sin, etc.
I would argue in favor of Mater Dei/CMRI rather than MHT. MHT enforces their theological opinions very forcefully which can result in a certain cookie-cutter formation and division from the greater Church. Examples aside from those mentioned above are the banning of gothic vestments, the rule against any member of RCI being a Scotist, conditionally confirming those confirmed by a priest in the Eastern Rites (which has always been considered valid,) etc.
1. The clergy of the Institute shall not administer any sacraments to those who deny either the Baptism of Blood or the Baptism of Desire or to those who promote these ideas.
VIII. Sacraments to Be Conferred Again Absolutely or Sub Conditione
24. As a general rule, no sacrament should be repeated sub conditione except where there is a positive doubt concerning its validity.
...
31. Confirmations done by Eastern rite uniates and by eastern schismatics must be conferred again sub conditione, unless they have been performed by a bishop.
I wonder what should happen to a priest who preaches from the pulpit that non-Catholics can be saved, and thereby undermines his assertion that V2 ecclesiology is heretical.:laugh1:
If this is the case I dont see an issue with their position. The way their position is written however is as follows: "31. Confirmations done by Eastern rite uniates and by eastern schismatics must be conferred again sub conditione, unless they have been performed by a bishop." There is no mention of this only applying to Roman Rite confirmands. In fact is explicitly mentions applying the rule to eastern schismatics, which seems very hard to justify..
I know a gentleman for instance who converted from an eastern schismatic sect. He was baptized and confirmed by his schismatic priest. He is now a traditional Roman Catholic. On what grounds should his confirmation be subject to positive doubt?