Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Centroamerica on December 17, 2023, 05:58:48 PM
-
For the time being, this should be treated as a rumor. It would be very easy to confirm if it were true.
-
For the time being, this should be treated as a rumor. It would be very easy to confirm if it were true.
It is true and has been confirmed ... though not publicly announced.
-
It is true and has been confirmed ... though not publicly announced.
Wow!
-
Wow!
You may have missed this thread where it is being discussed, it contains the video link being referred to: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-chazal-conference-in-the-uk-november-2023/
-
I just spent a little time to go through and read the threads on Vigano. Very interesting. I was hoping for something like this. His rejection of the papacy of Francis and his doubtful Wojtylan consecration while working with Bishop Williamson really give a great element to his consecration sub conditione. I see this as great news for Tradition. I can’t wait to see the news as it unfolds. He’s basically Sedevacantist declared openly. Where will this lead? To a new Sedevacantist seminary with a Williamson lineage?
-
I just spent a little time to go through and read the threads on Vigano. Very interesting. I was hoping for something like this. His rejection of the papacy of Francis and his doubtful Wojtylan consecration while working with Bishop Williamson really give a great element to his consecration sub conditione. I see this as great news for Tradition. I can’t wait to see the news as it unfolds. He’s basically Sedevacantist declared openly. Where will this lead? To a new Sedevacantist seminary with a Williamson lineage?
Archbishop Vigano is not a Sedevacantist. He admitted that himself.
-
Archbishop Vigano is not a Sedevacantist. He admitted that himself.
It's just semantics ... like when the Bennyvacantists say they're not sedevacantists. It's technically true because +Vigano is clearly more of a privationist/impoundist than straight sedevacantist, and it also depends upon the semantics of whether the term requires someone to hold that all the pre-V2 papal claimants were illegitimate. At the end of the day, +Vigano holds that Bergoglio occupies the See but does not exercise papal authority, that we can be morally certain he's not the pope but cannot officially declare it. All things point to a variant on privationism/impoundism.
Similarly, people still try to classify Father Chazal as R&R, but he's really not. Classic R&R holds that (in this present case) Bergoglio does have papal authority and that we're required to obey him unless in a specific case obeying him violates our conscience. Father Chazal does not hold this, but that Bergoglio categorically lacks all authority and is to be "ignored" and is impounded, where the only thing lacking is a formal removal from office by the rightful authorities.
-
Similarly, people still try to classify Father Chazal as R&R, but he's really not. Classic R&R holds that (in this present case) Bergoglio does have papal authority and that we're required to obey him unless in a specific case obeying him violates our conscience. Father Chazal does not hold this, but that Bergoglio categorically lacks all authority and is to be "ignored" and is impounded, where the only thing lacking is a formal removal from office by the rightful authorities.
My understanding of Fr. Chazal's position is that he accepts Jorge Bergoglio as a valid pope with all the papal powers. However, the exercise of those powers is illicit. His validity as pope will cease only once he is removed by the competent Church authorities.
-
My understanding of Fr. Chazal's position is that he accepts Jorge Bergoglio as a valid pope with all the papal powers. However, the exercise of those powers is illicit. His validity as pope will cease only once he is removed by the competent Church authorities.
See Fr. Chazal's explanation of his position to Dr. Chojnowski at the following link:
https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/resistance-is-best-name-fr-chazal.html (https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/resistance-is-best-name-fr-chazal.html)
(https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/resistance-is-best-name-fr-chazal.html)
"This is because the jurisdiction of a heretic; while it instantly disappears quoad liceitatem; only disappears quoad validitatem after a sentence. Before then, there is a valid but illicit jurisdiction, of which none of those who are aware of the heresy of the holder of office, can make use of."
-
Just more word-slicing in an attempt to differentiate himself from the sedeprivationists, but the notion of an illicit jurisdiction which no one may make use of ... UNLESS they're unaware of his heresies ... is a rather strange bird that resulted from his game of Twister in an attempt to distinguish his position from sedeprivationism. So the jurisdiction is licit quoad nos if we don't think he's a manfest heretic? Since when has jurisdiction been a function of whether what we believe or think to be the case.
Father also ends up mis-applying the distinction between validity and liceity, as if we're speaking of the Sacraments here. There's no such distinction where it comes to authority or jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, the core of his thesis is that Bergoglio categorically has no authority due to his manifest heresy and is to be completely ignored. As I said, this is different from classic R&R, which holds that he does have authority but we may disobey it when we believe that it contradicts our faith. In summary, the difference is between a categorical loss of authority vs. a case-by-case disobedience to his authority.
This answer to Dr. Chojnowski looks like a very desperate attempt to distinguish himself from the "sede", and it results in some strange gymnastics. He retorts again by playing a strawman about the "5 Opinions" where he falsely attributes a dogmatic adherence to the Bellarmine opinion to sedeprivationists. Like Father Chazal himself, the sedeprivationists hold a position that's somewhat of a hybrid between the Bellarmine vs. the Cajetan/John of St. Thomas positions. He does NOT hold the Cajetan position. I personally hold that the principles of sedeprivationism are already quite clearly there in Bellarmine, but that's a separate issue.
-
I just wish that Father Chazal, the Resistance, and the sedeprivationists would sit down and talk instead of remaining entrenched in these artificial dividing lines. They'd realize that they hold more in common than they disagree, and that their disagreement amounts to little more than a few details or nuances that should not be show-stoppers from realizing that they're basically "on the same team," as it were.
-
I just wish that Father Chazal, the Resistance, and the sedeprivationists would sit down and talk instead of remaining entrenched in these artificial dividing lines. They'd realize that they hold more in common than they disagree, and that their disagreement amounts to little more than a few details or nuances that should not be show-stoppers from realizing that they're basically "on the same team," as it were.
I agree. Way too many divisions among Traditional Catholics. To some extent, I believe the petty bickering and arrogant divisions prolong the crisis in the Church. Wanting to be right and having a sort of messianic group that is going to save the Church has really done nothing good at all for the Faith. All the valid Latin Rite Catholic bishops of Tradition should be holding annual meetings to resolve differences if they really sincerely cared about the state of the Church. Maybe all wouldn’t attend at first but eventually most would. Somewhere schism is defined as a refusal of communion with other Catholics, and so Traditional Catholicism risks becoming a hundred little sects with frequent schisms within which lead to more sects.
Despite this, the Vigano news is good news. Maybe the resistance groups will become more willing to work with the non-dogmatic Sedevacantist groups in the future. There’s so many groups of Traditional Catholics at this time, it’s hard to keep up with them all. New bishops for new groups are being consecrated every year. Hopefully, unity between the groups will become more of a focus in years to come.
-
Hopefully, unity between the groups will become more of a focus in years to come.
Instead of 'the Great Apostasy begins at the top' we need 'the great Restoration begins at the top'. Once we have a pope instead of an apostate, I think we'll be moving in that direction.
-
I just wish that Father Chazal, the Resistance, and the sedeprivationists would sit down and talk instead of remaining entrenched in these artificial dividing lines. They'd realize that they hold more in common than they disagree, and that their disagreement amounts to little more than a few details or nuances that should not be show-stoppers from realizing that they're basically "on the same team," as it were.
Fr. Chazal is fine if one holds the private opinion that Jorge Bergoglio is not pope.
-
Fr. Chazal is fine if one holds the private opinion that Jorge Bergoglio is not pope.
What does a "private opinion" mean vs. a "public opinion"? That distinction is meaningless. Obviously everyone understands that we can't authoritatively depose a pope. Does it mean you're allowed to think it but not say it? This makes no sense.
-
Umm… does anyone know if the Conditionally ordained Bp. Vigano is publicly backing Trump for 2024?
:popcorn:
-
Umm… does anyone know if the Conditionally ordained Bp. Vigano is publicly backing Trump for 2024?
:popcorn:
Ha ha, good on you Incredulous! You're not going to let him live that down are you? I think it is understandable the position he took, I was taken in for a time too. Should we not be thankful that +Vigano is courageously condemning errors both in Church and world? Remember where he came from and where he is now. His conversion was not exactly Damascus style but it was close. For those who are against +Vigano I would say this: Do you pray for the conversion of the Pope (with or without inverted commas), the bishops and the priests? What do you expect the answer to your prayer to look like? What would you say if tomorrow every prelate in the Conciliar Church was talking like +Vigano? Would you not praise God? Would you not thank Him for answering your prayer?
-
What does a "private opinion" mean vs. a "public opinion"? That distinction is meaningless. Obviously everyone understands that we can't authoritatively depose a pope. Does it mean you're allowed to think it but not say it? This makes no sense.
I took it as meaning that you can have that opinion, and even express it publicly, but don't force it down anybody's throat as if you have the authority to enforce it.
-
It would be very easy to confirm if it were true.
It seems based off this comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEpqo4JomNk
-
It is true and has been confirmed ... though not publicly announced.
If not publicly announced...how has it been confirmed?
-
If not publicly announced...how has it been confirmed?
.
I second this question, and also, may I add, why has it not been publicly announced, assuming it has taken place?
-
.
I second this question, and also, may I add, why has it not been publicly announced, assuming it has taken place?
(https://i.imgur.com/IYPeOAy.png)
-
.
I second this question, and also, may I add, why has it not been publicly announced, assuming it has taken place?
Apparently, Bp. Williamson is following the SSPX custom, which dictates that conditional ordinations are kept secret. Conditional consecrations must be even more secret.
-
It seems based off this comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEpqo4JomNk
.
That's what I was afraid of. Someone asked Fr. Chazal point blank, and Fr. Chazal declined to answer the question, instead saying that "the necessary has been done", when we have no idea whether he would consider a conditional consecration necessary for someone consecrated in the new rite. In fact, the resistance does not consider the new rite of holy orders to have a doubtful form, as has already been shown in this thread.
Is there any other confirmation besides that video?
-
.
That's what I was afraid of. Someone asked Fr. Chazal point blank, and Fr. Chazal declined to answer the question, instead saying that "the necessary has been done", when we have no idea whether he would consider a conditional consecration necessary for someone consecrated in the new rite. In fact, the resistance does not consider the new rite of holy orders to have a doubtful form, as has already been shown in this thread.
Is there any other confirmation besides that video?
So... As far as I can tell, what was "necessary" was the founding of a new seminary.
I've seen no evidence at all that there's been a consecration, conditional or not.
-
In fact, the resistance does not consider the new rite of holy orders to have a doubtful form, as has already been shown in this thread.
Yeti, Archbishop Lefebvre never really addressed the issue of the new rite of episcopal consecration, but you will find that almost all in the Resistance hold to the opinion of Fr Calderon that there is doubt over this new rite 'which cannot be tolerated at the very root of the sacraments' and must therefore be repeated sub conditione. This is the opinion clearly expressed by Bishop Williamson in his ECs, and the reason why there was such an outcry over Bishop Huonder celebrating the Chrismal Mass on Holy Thursday this year. I get the impression that even the Dominicans seem unconvinced of the earlier conclusion of validity by Fr Piere Marie and in practice seem to lean towards conditional repetition of the consecration, though this may be more over concerns that the new rite does not guarantee the intention as did the old.
-
Yeti, Archbishop Lefebvre never really addressed the issue of the new rite of episcopal consecration, but you will find that almost all in the Resistance hold to the opinion of Fr Calderon that there is doubt over this new rite 'which cannot be tolerated at the very root of the sacraments' and must therefore be repeated sub conditione.
.
Thank you for explaining this, and, while I understand that the resistance is not a unified body and can't be expected to have principles that are universally agreed upon, I have trouble with your claim here inasmuch as the only statement I have ever read by any resistance priest or bishop is the one by Bp. Thomas Aquinas, in which he said the new holy orders could be valid, and were in fact valid in the case of the novus ordo-ordained Fr. Jahir, and also the fact that none of the resistance priests or, especially, bishops ever made a public objection to Bp. Aquinas's claims if they had an objection to it, and in the absence of such a public rejection of his words I must conclude that they agree with them.
Another reason I have trouble believing that the resistance almost universally reject the new holy orders as always doubtful is Bp. Williamson's claim that the Holy Eucharist can be validly confected in the Novus Ordo mass, which brings us to the next point:
This is the opinion clearly expressed by Bishop Williamson in his ECs, and the reason why there was such an outcry over Bishop Huonder celebrating the Chrismal Mass on Holy Thursday this year.
I never noticed this, but if Bp. Williamson believes the new mass can be valid, then why would he have doubts as to the validity of the holy oils consecrated by Bp. Huonder?
-
Thank you for explaining this, and, while I understand that the resistance is not a unified body and can't be expected to have principles that are universally agreed upon, I have trouble with your claim here inasmuch as the only statement I have ever read by any resistance priest or bishop is the one by Bp. Thomas Aquinas, in which he said the new holy orders could be valid, and were in fact valid in the case of the novus ordo-ordained Fr. Jahir, and also the fact that none of the resistance priests or, especially, bishops ever made a public objection to Bp. Aquinas's claims if they had an objection to it, and in the absence of such a public rejection of his words I must conclude that they agree with them.
Another reason I have trouble believing that the resistance almost universally reject the new holy orders as always doubtful is Bp. Williamson's claim that the Holy Eucharist can be validly confected in the Novus Ordo mass, which brings us to the next point:
I never noticed this, but if Bp. Williamson believes the new mass can be valid, then why would he have doubts as to the validity of the holy oils consecrated by Bp. Huonder?
We are distinguishing here between the new rite of episcopal consecration (Fr Calderon says there is doubt regarding the form as contained in the new rite itself, and most in the Resistance agree) and the new rite of priestly ordination which Archbishop Lefebvre, and the SSPX following him, including Bishop Williamson, declared certainly valid (that is, the essential form in the new rite). The issue with the new priestly ordinations for ABL, the old SSPX, and the Resistance, is the intention (not being guaranteed by the prayers surrounding the form in the new rite), the minister (whether or not it was a doubtful new-rite bishop ordaining), and potentially the form and matter due to the spirit of innovation/improvisation/adaptation, not following official formulae etc...
-
We are distinguishing here between the new rite of episcopal consecration (Fr Calderon says there is doubt regarding the form as contained in the new rite itself, and most in the Resistance agree) and the new rite of priestly ordination which Archbishop Lefebvre, and the SSPX following him, including Bishop Williamson, declared certainly valid (that is, the essential form in the new rite). The issue with the new priestly ordinations for ABL, the old SSPX, and the Resistance, is the intention (not being guaranteed by the prayers surrounding the form in the new rite), the minister (whether or not it was a doubtful new-rite bishop ordaining), and potentially the form and matter due to the spirit of innovation/improvisation/adaptation, not following official formulae etc...
.
Are you sure about this? I've never heard of any distinction between Novus Ordo priests who were ordained in the Novus Ordo rite by a traditionally-consecrated bishop, and priests who were ordained by a Montini-rite-consecrated bishop. If there is any public statement from an SSPX or resistance priest or bishop explaining this distinction and the reasons for it, I'd love to see it.
In any case, since the great majority of Novus Ordo priests today were not ordained by a bishop consecrated in the old rite, I'm not sure how far this gets us.
Certainly Fr. Jahir was ordained by a bishop "consecrated" in the new rite, no?
-
Certainly Fr. Jahir was ordained by a bishop "consecrated" in the new rite, no?
Bishop Thomas Aquinas refuses to reveal who the ordaining bishop was, where or when he was ordained. All the faithful know is he has a Novus Ordo ordination. That is it. You are not allowed to question it any further as far as I know. The video from their official youtube channel confirms this.
-
Bishop Thomas Aquinas refuses to reveal who the ordaining bishop was, where or when he was ordained. All the faithful know is he has a Novus Ordo ordination. That is it. You are not allowed to question it any further as far as I know. The video from their official youtube channel confirms this.
Someone should tell the bishop that sacraments, especially Holy Orders, are public business.
This is Catholicism, not Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. :fryingpan:
-
Someone should tell the bishop that sacraments, especially Holy Orders, are public business.
This is Catholicism, not Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. :fryingpan:
Good point!
-
Someone should tell the bishop that sacraments, especially Holy Orders, are public business.
This is Catholicism, not Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. :fryingpan:
Tell that to Bishop Williamson, and to the various secret Thuc/Mendez consecrations/ordinations.
-
Tell that to Bishop Williamson, and to the various secret Thuc/Mendez consecrations/ordinations.
I've never heard of any secret Thuc consecrations. I would reject any traditional bishop who claims to have been secretly consecrated by Archbishop Thuc.
-
Are you sure about this?
Oh yes, 100%.
You can read Archbishop Lefebvre's treatment of the new rite of ordination in Open Letter to confused Catholics:
http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-7.htm
This is Fr Calderon's conclusion to his study (I hope to post the entire study soon):
Now, in a matter of the utmost importance for the life of the Church, such as the validity of the episcopate, it is necessary to have absolute certainty. Therefore, in order to be able to accept this rite with peace of conscience, it would be necessary to count not only on the judgement of theologians, but also on the infallible judgement of the Magisterium.
As for the practical attitude to be taken with regard to the new episcopal consecrations, the one that the Fraternity has maintained up to now seems to us to be justified:
1. The very probable validity of the rite seems to us to make it morally acceptable to occasionally attend Mass (traditional rite) celebrated by a priest or a bishop ordained or consecrated in the new rite, and even to receive communion therein; it seems to us acceptable, in case of necessity, to receive absolution from them; to treat them as priests and bishops and not as laymen in costume; it seems to us acceptable to allow them to celebrate in our own homes. For the shadows that hover over the validity of their priesthood are but shadows and in all these activities our responsibility is not engaged concerning the priesthood exercised. And the remote risk that a communion or an absolution may be invalid is not so serious.
2. But the positive and objective defects from which this rite suffers, which prevent us from being certain of its validity, it seems to us -until there is a Roman judgement, for which many things would have to change– justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests ordained by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional reconsecration of these bishops. Such doubts cannot be tolerated at the very root of the sacraments (33).
Footnote 33 says "The moralists speak much about the necessity for certainty in the validity of the sacraments".
And here is Bishop Williamson on the same:
https://stmarcelinitiative.org/bishops-valid-ii/
https://stmarcelinitiative.org/bishops-valid-iii/
-
Bishop Thomas Aquinas refuses to reveal who the ordaining bishop was, where or when he was ordained. All the faithful know is he has a Novus Ordo ordination. That is it. You are not allowed to question it any further as far as I know. The video from their official youtube channel confirms this.
Could you post this video you are referring to please CA and alert us to the relevant time mark?
-
Could you post this video you are referring to please CA and alert us to the relevant time mark?
The entire 2 minute video is only a defense of the Novus Ordo ordination of Fr. Jahir. This was a response to many faithful feeling uneasy about receiving sacraments from a priest with a Novus Ordo ordination. They are accused publicly of being prideful for doing so by Bishop Thomas Aquinas in the video. He refuses to inform about who the bishop was that ordained the priest and even where he went to the seminary or when he was ordained. He only instead reveals that Fr. Jahir chose a novus ordo bishop with a “traditional spirit”. Nothing more will be told. I was told that Fr. Jahir will not accept conditional ordination and the Brazilian resistance does not require it, in fact, they seem to avoid it as was the case with Fr. Gilberto and others who broke with the resistance and sought to be conditionally ordained by Bishop Rodrigo Da Silva. This is just one of many problems with the Brazilian resistance led by Bishop Thomas Aquinas.
Here is the video in Portuguese of two minutes length.
https://youtu.be/PzApOv6C2ZQ?si=DZvFTvWDQAxEc7J9
-
The entire 2 minute video is only a defense of the Novus Ordo ordination of Fr. Jahir. This was a response to many faithful feeling uneasy about receiving sacraments from a priest with a Novus Ordo ordination. They are accused publicly of being prideful for doing so by Bishop Thomas Aquinas in the video. He refuses to inform about who the bishop was that ordained the priest and even where he went to the seminary or when he was ordained. He only instead reveals that Fr. Jahir chose a novus ordo bishop with a “traditional spirit”. Nothing more will be told. I was told that Fr. Jahir will not accept conditional ordination and the Brazilian resistance does not require it, in fact, they seem to avoid it as was the case with Fr. Gilberto and others who broke with the resistance and sought to be conditionally ordained by Bishop Rodrigo Da Silva. This is just one of many problems with the Brazilian resistance led by Bishop Thomas Aquinas.
Here is the video in Portuguese of two minutes length.
https://youtu.be/PzApOv6C2ZQ?si=DZvFTvWDQAxEc7J9
If that is true, Bishop Thomas Aquinas needs to be rejected. Again, “The Nine” have been vindicated.
-
Oh yes, 100%.
You can read Archbishop Lefebvre's treatment of the new rite of ordination in Open Letter to confused Catholics:
http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-7.htm
This is Fr Calderon's conclusion to his study (I hope to post the entire study soon):
Now, in a matter of the utmost importance for the life of the Church, such as the validity of the episcopate, it is necessary to have absolute certainty. Therefore, in order to be able to accept this rite with peace of conscience, it would be necessary to count not only on the judgement of theologians, but also on the infallible judgement of the Magisterium.
As for the practical attitude to be taken with regard to the new episcopal consecrations, the one that the Fraternity has maintained up to now seems to us to be justified:
1. The very probable validity of the rite seems to us to make it morally acceptable to occasionally attend Mass (traditional rite) celebrated by a priest or a bishop ordained or consecrated in the new rite, and even to receive communion therein; it seems to us acceptable, in case of necessity, to receive absolution from them; to treat them as priests and bishops and not as laymen in costume; it seems to us acceptable to allow them to celebrate in our own homes. For the shadows that hover over the validity of their priesthood are but shadows and in all these activities our responsibility is not engaged concerning the priesthood exercised. And the remote risk that a communion or an absolution may be invalid is not so serious.
2. But the positive and objective defects from which this rite suffers, which prevent us from being certain of its validity, it seems to us -until there is a Roman judgement, for which many things would have to change– justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests ordained by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional reconsecration of these bishops. Such doubts cannot be tolerated at the very root of the sacraments (33).
Footnote 33 says "The moralists speak much about the necessity for certainty in the validity of the sacraments".
And here is Bishop Williamson on the same:
https://stmarcelinitiative.org/bishops-valid-ii/
https://stmarcelinitiative.org/bishops-valid-iii/
All of the above reduces to the following:
Major: The Church has always required that Holy Orders be certainly valid.
Minor: The sacramental "forms" used in the New Rites of Holy Orders are not certainly valid.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is necessary to conditionally ordain New Rite "priests" in the traditional Rite and to conditionally consecrate New Rite "bishops" in the traditional Rite to ensure that their Holy Orders are certainly valid.
-
The entire 2 minute video is only a defense of the Novus Ordo ordination of Fr. Jahir. This was a response to many faithful feeling uneasy about receiving sacraments from a priest with a Novus Ordo ordination. They are accused publicly of being prideful for doing so by Bishop Thomas Aquinas in the video. He refuses to inform about who the bishop was that ordained the priest and even where he went to the seminary or when he was ordained. He only instead reveals that Fr. Jahir chose a novus ordo bishop with a “traditional spirit”. Nothing more will be told. I was told that Fr. Jahir will not accept conditional ordination and the Brazilian resistance does not require it, in fact, they seem to avoid it as was the case with Fr. Gilberto and others who broke with the resistance and sought to be conditionally ordained by Bishop Rodrigo Da Silva. This is just one of many problems with the Brazilian resistance led by Bishop Thomas Aquinas.
Here is the video in Portuguese of two minutes length.
https://youtu.be/PzApOv6C2ZQ?si=DZvFTvWDQAxEc7J9
Thanks for posting this, C.
It seems that the Bishop's defense conflates doubts about the validity of Fr. Jahir's ordination as being an attack upon his person. Surely the good Bishop is capable of making the distinction.
-
Umm… does anyone know if the Conditionally ordained Bp. Vigano is publicly backing Trump for 2024?
:popcorn:
Get the popcorn ready Incredulous! At this point, do we even know if Bp. Vigano can vote in an American election? Why would he endorse any candidate in this dogfight? One could vote for Trump, Kennedy, Vivek, or deSantis at this point. Although I am not sure where Kennedy stands on abortion.
Unless Bp. Vigano plans to ordain or consecrate men, why does it matter? Now, when he consecrates ten bishops, kaboom, at that point he has a moral obligation to make known to the priests and laity that he is conditionally consecrated, because the laity and priests have a right to know that they are receiving valid sacraments.
-
Get the popcorn ready Incredulous! At this point, do we even know if Bp. Vigano can vote in an American election? Why would he endorse any candidate in this dogfight? One could vote for Trump, Kennedy, Vivek, or deSantis at this point. Although I am not sure where Kennedy stands on abortion.
Unless Bp. Vigano plans to ordain or consecrate men, why does it matter? Now, when he consecrates ten bishops, kaboom, at that point he has a moral obligation to make known to the priests and laity that he is conditionally consecrated, because the laity and priests have a right to know that they are receiving valid sacraments.
He's starting a new seminary. Who is going to do the ordaining?
-
Traditionalist bishops (and priests) should not present themselves and behave in any manner that implies that they have any canonical mission or jurisdiction. They exist as emergency providers of sacraments in these crisis times, nothing more. The laity are very much at liberty to question them regarding all manner of ecclesiastical matters.
-
Traditionalist bishops (and priests) should not present themselves and behave in any manner that implies that they have any canonical mission or jurisdiction. They exist as emergency providers of sacraments in these crisis times, nothing more. The laity are very much at liberty to question them regarding all manner of ecclesiastical matters.
Very nicely put!
-
There is a text that was posted in the official website of Bp. Thomas Aquinas' monastery about this issue.
The text has almost exactly the same content of the video that Centroamerica briefed us on.
Here is a Google Translator version of the text: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&hl=en-US&u=https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/em-defesa-do-pe-jahir-e-de-seu-sacerd%25C3%25B3cio&client=webapp (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&hl=en-US&u=https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/em-defesa-do-pe-jahir-e-de-seu-sacerdócio&client=webapp)
Quote
In defense of Father Jahir and his priesthood
We want to record here our vehement disapproval of those who, among the sedevacantists, attack the Rev. Father Jahir Britto and deny his priesthood.
It is frivolity, an act of pride, to cast doubt on the priesthood of those who within the Tradition have always done excellent work, like Father Jahir, who founded a religious congregation that served and continues to serve countless souls, and whose priesthood was received from a traditional-minded bishop.
Dom Lefebvre did not doubt the ordinations in the new rite. The only thing he said could be doubted was the bishop's intention, and there is no reason to doubt the intention of the bishop who ordained Father Jahir, as he was a bishop trained in the old way, a bishop whom Father Jahir chose. for its more traditional spirit. So, to question the priesthood of the Reverend. Father is to disturb the faithful in an unworthy and irresponsible way.
We rise, therefore, vehemently to defend Father Jahir's priestly honor and remember all the good he did for souls in Bahia and outside Bahia, as well as the good done by his community and in particular by Father Joaquim, which was formed by Father Jahir and which has given assistance to souls in numerous states in Brazil. For the honor of Father Jahir, his monastery and his faithful, we make this protest, and more than a protest, a condemnation of those who disturb souls by questioning the priesthood of Father Jahir Britto.
May Our Lady bless us and protect us from every error and every unfounded disturbance. So be it.
+ Thomas Aquinas, OSB
:facepalm:
-
There is a text that was posted in the official website of Bp. Thomas Aquinas' monastery about this issue.
The text has almost exactly the same content of the video that Centroamerica briefed us on.
Here is a Google Translator version of the text: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&hl=en-US&u=https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/em-defesa-do-pe-jahir-e-de-seu-sacerd%25C3%25B3cio&client=webapp (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&hl=en-US&u=https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/em-defesa-do-pe-jahir-e-de-seu-sacerdócio&client=webapp)
Quote
:facepalm:
Very unsettling. First, he seems to suggest that only sedevacantists might have issues with the New Rites of Priestly Ordination and/or Episcopal Consecration. Secondly, he calls it "an act of pride" to have such questions, and seems to think that the questions regarding validity are unacceptable if the priest has done "excellent work" and "serve[d] countless souls". This is such a theological disaster that it makes me question whether he should have been consecrated a bishop in the first place.
Stream of conscioussness: sedevacantists, +Lefebvre, excellent work ... as if this even begins to touch the theological problems people might have. He's doing nothing but emoting here.
-
Someone should tell the bishop that sacraments, especially Holy Orders, are public business.
This is Catholicism, not Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. :fryingpan:
Good post, GB!
It's funny how this keeps coming up. Traditional Catholicism is a relatively small group to begin with, but if it weren't for doubts about the new rites I would be surprised if it were even a 1/3 the size that it is. Why do some of the leaders find this so hard to grasp?
-
Good post, GB!
It's funny how this keeps coming up. Traditional Catholicism is a relatively small group to begin with, but if it weren't for doubts about the new rites I would be surprised if it were even a 1/3 the size that it is. Why do some of the leaders find this so hard to grasp?
I think that they are afraid to take positions that Sedevacantists are known for.
If they conditionally ordain everybody from the Novus Ordo, they might be accused of "practicing Sedevacantism", as some humorous posters put it.
It has lot to do with pride. These fellows seem to be very proud to be anti-Sedevacantists, even if they have to harm innumerous souls to show how tough they are.
Look how they proudly accuse everybody who questions the Novus Ordo ordinations of being Sedevacantists.
You cannot deny the truth just because you don't like the person who is saying it.
It is humiliating for the faithful when a bishop, of all people, act like an unbalanced and passionate woman, mixing emotion and faulty logic on a serious matter such as doubtful sacraments.
-
I was hoping someone else would take to the task of translating the video. I could have done it and put it in a big separate post about why the Holy Cross monastery now posing as a seminary is a bad thing for Tradition but that’s not really my motive, even though it should have been done. Bishop Thomas Aquinas performed my wedding. I was very close to him and the Brazilian resistance. I got a lot of criticism and what amounts to excommunication for supporting Bishop Rodrigo da Silva despite the Brazilian resistance, but I have very strong reasons for doing so.
I would just go on to say that there was definitely a need for a Brazilian bishop, so Bishop Williamson acted in good faith by consecrating and giving Brazil a bishop. There is a lot of story regarding Holy Cross monastery I would rather not get into, but it seems to be undermining the growth of Tradition in Brazil. Luckily, Bishop Williamson did recognize a stand up leader with a true missionary spirit at the Holy Cross monastery. Brother Miguel definitely stood out among the rest. For that reason he was sent to study in Avrille and later ordained by Bishop Williamson as Fr. Rodrigo da Silva. As fate would have it, he would cross paths in a South American airport with Bishop Dolan, who also immediately recognized this charisma and made him a bishop. Since then, Tradition in Brazil has been sustained.
-
Once the Resistance competition is eliminated, Sedevacantism can then prevail, and thus Tradition will prevail in Brazil. Would that be correct?
-
There is a text that was posted in the official website of Bp. Thomas Aquinas' monastery about this issue.
The text has almost exactly the same content of the video that Centroamerica briefed us on.
Here is a Google Translator version of the text: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&hl=en-US&u=https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/em-defesa-do-pe-jahir-e-de-seu-sacerd%25C3%25B3cio&client=webapp (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&hl=en-US&u=https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/em-defesa-do-pe-jahir-e-de-seu-sacerdócio&client=webapp)
Quote
:facepalm:
Thank you for the translation!
-
Once the Resistance competition is eliminated, Sedevacantism can then prevail, and thus Tradition will prevail in Brazil. Would that be correct?
Who's eliminating what? No one has the manpower (outside of perhaps the SSPX) to successfully make such a maneuver. It sounds more like the Resistance are eliminating themselves because some of the faithful, who might otherwise be inclined toward a Resistance position and yet have (legitimate) concerns about the validity of NO Orders, are gravitating toward the sedevacantists.
-
I think that they are afraid to take positions that Sedevacantists are known for.
Look how they proudly accuse everybody who questions the Novus Ordo ordinations of being Sedevacantists.
You cannot deny the truth just because you don't like the person who is saying it.
Good post!
-
Once the Resistance competition is eliminated, Sedevacantism can then prevail, and thus Tradition will prevail in Brazil. Would that be correct?
Tradition prevails nowhere. It is always a minority.
Apparently, Bp. Thomas Aquinas attitude is favoring Sedevacantism, even though that is obviously not his intention.
In my opinion, it is more imporant that valid sacraments and solid preaching prevail. I won't bother to check the priest's affiliation.
-
Who's eliminating what? No one has the manpower (outside of perhaps the SSPX) to successfully make such a maneuver. It sounds more like the Resistance are eliminating themselves because some of the faithful, who might otherwise be inclined toward a Resistance position and yet have (legitimate) concerns about the validity of NO Orders, are gravitating toward the sedevacantists.
Right, the Resistance is eliminating itself. Well, that certainly is true for this forum, too. Those who support the Resistance are quite few here.
-
Who's eliminating what? No one has the manpower (outside of perhaps the SSPX) to successfully make such a maneuver. It sounds more like the Resistance are eliminating themselves because some of the faithful, who might otherwise be inclined toward a Resistance position and yet have (legitimate) concerns about the validity of NO Orders, are gravitating toward the sedevacantists.
Seems like Brazil is ahead of the curve.
-
Once the Resistance competition is eliminated, Sedevacantism can then prevail, and thus Tradition will prevail in Brazil. Would that be correct?
The entire forum knows that you Meg loathe and absolutely hate sedevacantism with every fiber of your being. It has become your raison d’etre for using this forum. I wonder at times if every cardinal and bishop in the world deckared a sede vacante if you wouldn’t jump off a bridge or just join another religion or whatever. But this, Meg, is not about being right. It’s not about my team wins and your team loses. If that’s what you need in your life watch the NFL or join a sports club. Or better yet, take on womanly activities and set aside your post-3rd wave feminist mindset. But don’t get on here talking trash about sedevacantism to people who you don’t even know what chapel they frequent. It’s nauseous and arrogant.
-
I think that they are afraid to take positions that Sedevacantists are known for.
If they conditionally ordain everybody from the Novus Ordo, they might be accused of "practicing Sedevacantism", as some humorous posters put it.
It has lot to do with pride. These fellows seem to be very proud to be anti-Sedevacantists, even if they have to harm innumerous souls to show how tough they are.
Look how they proudly accuse everybody who questions the Novus Ordo ordinations of being Sedevacantists.
You cannot deny the truth just because you don't like the person who is saying it.
It is humiliating for the faithful when a bishop, of all people, act like an unbalanced and passionate woman, mixing emotion and faulty logic on a serious matter such as doubtful sacraments.
Well said! :incense: :pray:
-
The entire forum knows that you Meg loathe and absolutely hate sedevacantism with every fiber of your being. It has become your raison d’etre for using this forum. I wonder at times if every cardinal and bishop in the world deckared a sede vacante if you wouldn’t jump off a bridge or just join another religion or whatever. But this, Meg, is not about being right. It’s not about my team wins and your team loses. If that’s what you need in your life watch the NFL or join a sports club. Or better yet, take on womanly activities and set aside your post-3rd wave feminist mindset. But don’t get on here talking trash about sedevacantism to people who you don’t even know what chapel they frequent. It’s nauseous and arrogant.
Actually, I don't hate it. I hate how SV's believe that they are better than anyone else. They act like the Elite Jews, who want world control. Well, go ahead and take over tradition. Good luck to you. Since the Resistance is allowed to die a slow death here, I'm going to give up on it too. You win.
-
I was hoping someone else would take to the task of translating the video. I could have done it and put it in a big separate post about why the Holy Cross monastery now posing as a seminary is a bad thing for Tradition but that’s not really my motive, even though it should have been done. Bishop Thomas Aquinas performed my wedding. I was very close to him and the Brazilian resistance. I got a lot of criticism and what amounts to excommunication for supporting Bishop Rodrigo da Silva despite the Brazilian resistance, but I have very strong reasons for doing so.
I would just go on to say that there was definitely a need for a Brazilian bishop, so Bishop Williamson acted in good faith by consecrating and giving Brazil a bishop. There is a lot of story regarding Holy Cross monastery I would rather not get into, but it seems to be undermining the growth of Tradition in Brazil. Luckily, Bishop Williamson did recognize a stand up leader with a true missionary spirit at the Holy Cross monastery. Brother Miguel definitely stood out among the rest. For that reason he was sent to study in Avrille and later ordained by Bishop Williamson as Fr. Rodrigo da Silva. As fate would have it, he would cross paths in a South American airport with Bishop Dolan, who also immediately recognized this charisma and made him a bishop. Since then, Tradition in Brazil has been sustained.
God Bless Bp. Dolan RIP, he did so much good! Glad to hear that due to Bp. Rodrigo da Silva, tradition in Brazil has been sustained! Keep up the good fight Centroamerica! Prayers are with you :pray:
-
I was hoping someone else would take to the task of translating the video. I could have done it and put it in a big separate post about why the Holy Cross monastery now posing as a seminary is a bad thing for Tradition but that’s not really my motive, even though it should have been done. Bishop Thomas Aquinas performed my wedding. I was very close to him and the Brazilian resistance. I got a lot of criticism and what amounts to excommunication for supporting Bishop Rodrigo da Silva despite the Brazilian resistance, but I have very strong reasons for doing so.
I would just go on to say that there was definitely a need for a Brazilian bishop, so Bishop Williamson acted in good faith by consecrating and giving Brazil a bishop. There is a lot of story regarding Holy Cross monastery I would rather not get into, but it seems to be undermining the growth of Tradition in Brazil. Luckily, Bishop Williamson did recognize a stand up leader with a true missionary spirit at the Holy Cross monastery. Brother Miguel definitely stood out among the rest. For that reason he was sent to study in Avrille and later ordained by Bishop Williamson as Fr. Rodrigo da Silva. As fate would have it, he would cross paths in a South American airport with Bishop Dolan, who also immediately recognized this charisma and made him a bishop. Since then, Tradition in Brazil has been sustained.
While we are at it, I considered traveling some distance to know Bp. da Silva and his entourage, but he seems to be the kind that is mean to non-dogmatic Sedevacantits.
I mean, he seems to be more like Bp. Sanborn-Fr. Cekada than like the CMRI people. Am I right?
I don't know anybody from these groups, my ideas here are based mostly on what I read on these forums.
-
God Bless Bp. Dolan RIP, he did so much good! Glad to hear that due to Bp. Rodrigo da Silva, tradition in Brazil has been sustained! Keep up the good fight Centroamerica! Prayers are with you :pray:
If I'm not mistaken this was the bishop consecrated by Bishop Dolan just before he died, correct?
-
If I'm not mistaken this was the bishop consecrated by Bishop Dolan just before he died, correct?
.
Yes. I didn't know he met Bp. Dolan in an airport in South America. Is that really true?
-
.
Yes. I didn't know he met Bp. Dolan in an airport in South America. Is that really true?
I don't know, but I found this that might shed some light (I haven't listened to it)?
ETA: Just listened to the beginning and it doesn't sound true. They first contacted each other via email.
St. Gertrude the Great » Archive » The Story of Bishop Da Silva (sgg.org) (https://www.sgg.org/2021/10/22/the-story-of-bishop-da-silva/)
-
Actually, I don't hate it. I hate how SV's believe that they are better than anyone else. They act like the Elite Jews, who want world control.
Uh... I think you're describing yourself here, not the sedevacantists.
-
The entire 2 minute video is only a defense of the Novus Ordo ordination of Fr. Jahir. This was a response to many faithful feeling uneasy about receiving sacraments from a priest with a Novus Ordo ordination. They are accused publicly of being prideful for doing so by Bishop Thomas Aquinas in the video. He refuses to inform about who the bishop was that ordained the priest and even where he went to the seminary or when he was ordained. He only instead reveals that Fr. Jahir chose a novus ordo bishop with a “traditional spirit”. Nothing more will be told. I was told that Fr. Jahir will not accept conditional ordination and the Brazilian resistance does not require it, in fact, they seem to avoid it as was the case with Fr. Gilberto and others who broke with the resistance and sought to be conditionally ordained by Bishop Rodrigo Da Silva. This is just one of many problems with the Brazilian resistance led by Bishop Thomas Aquinas.
Here is the video in Portuguese of two minutes length.
https://youtu.be/PzApOv6C2ZQ?si=DZvFTvWDQAxEc7J9
Thank you CA.
I think it is very uncharitable the manner in which Bishop Tomas has been judged in this thread.
All this drama was stirred up by Fr Da Silva who trained with the Resistance and then "suddenly" after ordination to the priesthood became sedevacantist and put a cat amongst the pigeons with those beliefs that typically attach to sedevacantists, causing unnecessary disturbance among the faithful.
Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX and the Resistance have never held that the new rite of priestly ordination is invalid in itself, but that the circuмstances of the ordination must be judged on a case by case basis, and no one was better qualified than Archbishop Lefebvre to do this, as happened in the case of Fr Jahir.
Imagine if I studied in one of the sede seminaries, such as the CMRI seminary or Bp Sanborn's seminary, got ordained, and then started spreading theories about the invalidity of Thuc-line bishops.
What do you think they would do to me? Exactly what I deserved - they would drop kick me out of there as hard and fast as they could and tell me what a scoundrel and trouble maker I am.
It is not Bishop Tomas who is the villain in this drama.
Tradition has long been sustained in Brazil and certain newcomers have done nothing but cause trouble and division instead of fortifying the already existing efforts.
-
Thank you CA.
I think it is very uncharitable the manner in which Bishop Tomas has been judged in this thread.
All this drama was stirred up by Fr Da Silva who trained with the Resistance and then "suddenly" after ordination to the priesthood became sedevacantist and put a cat amongst the pigeons with those beliefs that typically attach to sedevacantists, causing unnecessary disturbance among the faithful.
Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX and the Resistance have never held that the new rite of priestly ordination is invalid in itself, but that the circuмstances of the ordination must be judged on a case by case basis, and no one was better qualified than Archbishop Lefebvre to do this, as happened in the case of Fr Jahir.
Imagine if I studied in one of the sede seminaries, such as the CMRI seminary or Bp Sanborn's seminary, got ordained, and then started spreading theories about the invalidity of Thuc-line bishops.
What do you think they would do to me? Exactly what I deserved - they would drop kick me out of there as hard and fast as they could and tell me what a scoundrel and trouble maker I am.
It is not Bishop Tomas who is the villain in this drama.
Tradition has long been sustained in Brazil and certain newcomers have done nothing but cause trouble and division instead of fortifying the already existing efforts.
How can any Traditionalist priest or bishop expect blind obedience, when the basis of Traditionalism is questioning the Pope?
If we question the Pope for the bad things that he does and teach, how can we be expected to simply accept anything that people below the Pope do and teach? It simply makes no sense.
Any bishop or priest who minister the sacraments to the faithful of Tradition is obliged to show his credentials. I see no way around it.
If they are legitimate, they have no reason at all not to give you the dates, rites and names of the bishops who ordained or consecrated them. If they resist on doing this, there is some sinister reason behind it.
In the case being discussed, it seems that the reason is that the bishop does not want to give in to the demanding faithful because he knows that this pressure is due to something that a Sedevacantist told them. In other words, he doesn't want to give in to "Sedevacantist demands", even if is it for the benefit of the faithful. And this is a sinister reason.
Holy Orders are public business. Always.
The only exception are in the context of persecution. Bishop Williamson did some secret consecrations lately, but now they are public. As far as I know, none of these new bishops were ordaining or confirming before their consecrations were made public.
-
Holy Orders are public business. Always.
The only exception are in the context of persecution. Bishop Williamson did some secret consecrations lately, but now they are public. As far as I know, none of these new bishops were ordaining or confirming before their consecrations were made public.
I consider both these and the Thuc consecrations to be secret because they were not publicly announced beforehand beyond a few select witnesses. With regards to claims of persecution, it is quite notable that the post-Thuc era SV groups announce their consecrations publicly months in advance.
-
How can any Traditionalist priest or bishop expect blind obedience, when the basis of Traditionalism is questioning the Pope?
If we question the Pope for the bad things that he does and teach, how can we be expected to simply accept anything that people below the Pope do and teach? It simply makes no sense.
Any bishop or priest who minister the sacraments to the faithful of Tradition is obliged to show his credentials. I see no way around it.
If they are legitimate, they have no reason at all not to give you the dates, rites and names of the bishops who ordained or consecrated them. If they resist on doing this, there is some sinister reason behind it.
In the case being discussed, it seems that the reason is that the bishop does not want to give in to the demanding faithful because he knows that this pressure is due to something that a Sedevacantist told them. In other words, he doesn't want to give in to "Sedevacantist demands", even if is it for the benefit of the faithful. And this is a sinister reason.
Holy Orders are public business. Always.
The only exception are in the context of persecution. Bishop Williamson did some secret consecrations lately, but now they are public. As far as I know, none of these new bishops were ordaining or confirming before their consecrations were made public.
Well said. :incense:
-
The only exception are in the context of persecution. Bishop Williamson did some secret consecrations lately, but now they are public. As far as I know, none of these new bishops were ordaining or confirming before their consecrations were made public.
Yes, it took almost 2 years before Bishop Paul Morgan's consecration was made public. How long will the alleged Vigano consecration be kept hush hush? Why is there any amount of time lag?
And, as I said elsewhere, why would Vigano push his new seminary before that public announcement and say that it is the first and only traditional Catholic seminary in Italy, when it is not?
-
I consider both these and the Thuc consecrations to be secret because they were not publicly announced beforehand beyond a few select witnesses. With regards to claims of persecution, it is quite notable that the post-Thuc era SV groups announce their consecrations publicly months in advance.
I don't enough about the specifics of the Thuc consecrations, but if they were in fact done in private, did Archbishop Thuc make them public soon afterwards?
As for the current (well known) sedevacantist groups, yes, they are always publicly announced in advance.
-
Actually, I don't hate it. I hate how SV's believe that they are better than anyone else. They act like the Elite Jews, who want world control. Well, go ahead and take over tradition. Good luck to you. Since the Resistance is allowed to die a slow death here, I'm going to give up on it too. You win.
Of course they think they’re right. That’s why they hold their position. And you obviously think you’re right and therefore “better than” the sedevacantists, whom you always disparage as if they were scuм of the earth.
-
I would highly recommend visiting the missions of Bishop Rodrigo Da Silva if you have the opportunity. I knew him since he was a Benedictine monk as Bro. Miguel. The story of Bishop Rodrigo meeting Bishop Dolan by chance in an airport in Argentina or somewhere like that is how I remember he told it to me. I got to know him very well over the years. He was at my wedding, presided over by Dom Thomas de Aquinas. He has stayed at my US residence and I stayed for a short while in his seminary in the old location. I would not say he is of the extremost Sedevacantist type though he is an absolutist, he worked closely with Fr. Hector Romero who is sedeprivationist. Fr. Hector Romero assisted him in his seminary when it was still connected with the Franciscans in Brazil.
I also got to know Dom Thomas from Holy Cross monastery and stayed many time for a short while in the Holy Cross monastery. I have nothing against them and no reason to hold any grudge whatsoever. There were simply some issues like other people here pointed out. As prior of his monastery, he has no authority outside of his monastery. His flavor of Traditional Catholicism crosses over into cult-like behavior when things like men must never in their lives where blue jeans for example or they are not really Traditionalist. Denim is said to be a modernist material and would make one a modernist wearing it. God forbid you question the ordination of a Novus Ordo priest working with them. And lets point out that the priests of Bahia say the Asperges Mei and Leonine prayers at nearly every Mass to the extent that you leave not knowing if you attended a High Mass or Low Mass. Speaking of formation. And that’s not even mentioning how they ask for donations internationally for things like their school which has maybe 2 lay teachers and a dozen students if that. So the sedevacantists have definitely grown substantially in Brazil at the cost of the resistance, but it’s only the fault of the Holy Cross monastery. But just don’t ask who ordained their priests or you’ll likely be excommunicated. Especially if they see a pic online of you in your work clothes wearing denin.
-
And notice that they refuse to call Bishop Rodrigo da Silva a bishop. They arrogantly refer to him as Father Rodrigo, yet want us to accept their novus ordo “priests”. This is a problem that I would love to see Bishop Williamson set straight.
-
I would highly recommend visiting the missions of Bishop Rodrigo Da Silva if you have the opportunity. I knew him since he was a Benedictine monk as Bro. Miguel. The story of Bishop Rodrigo meeting Bishop Dolan by chance in an airport in Argentina or somewhere like that is how I remember he told it to me. I got to know him very well over the years. He was at my wedding, presided over by Dom Thomas de Aquinas. He has stayed at my US residence and I stayed for a short while in his seminary in the old location. I would not say he is of the extremost Sedevacantist type though he is an absolutist, he worked closely with Fr. Hector Romero who is sedeprivationist. Fr. Hector Romero assisted him in his seminary when it was still connected with the Franciscans in Brazil.
I also got to know Dom Thomas from Holy Cross monastery and stayed many time for a short while in the Holy Cross monastery. I have nothing against them and no reason to hold any grudge whatsoever. There were simply some issues like other people here pointed out. As prior of his monastery, he has no authority outside of his monastery. His flavor of Traditional Catholicism crosses over into cult-like behavior when things like men must never in their lives where blue jeans for example or they are not really Traditionalist. Denim is said to be a modernist material and would make one a modernist wearing it. God forbid you question the ordination of a Novus Ordo priest working with them. And lets point out that the priests of Bahia say the Asperges Mei and Leonine prayers at nearly every Mass to the extent that you leave not knowing if you attended a High Mass or Low Mass. Speaking of formation. And that’s not even mentioning how they ask for donations internationally for things like their school which has maybe 2 lay teachers and a dozen students if that. So the sedevacantists have definitely grown substantially in Brazil at the cost of the resistance, but it’s only the fault of the Holy Cross monastery. But just don’t ask who ordained their priests or you’ll likely be excommunicated. Especially if they see a pic online of you in your work clothes wearing denin.
Thank you very much for this information. You are very kind.
I also enjoyed the "modernist material". You learn something new everyday. I had never imagined that a fabric could be modernist.
-
You’re welcome Giovanni Berto. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you want to be put directly in contact with the priests in Brazil.
-
This thread brought me out of my slumber....
I think it's a very interesting situation, but like others, I'm not entirely convinced about the conditional consecration. It appears he was ordained in 1968, but was it the old rite or the new rite...does anyone know?
Also, has there been any real confirmation about the conditional consecration yet?
-
men must never in their lives where blue jeans for example or they are not really Traditionalist. Denim is said to be a modernist material and would make one a modernist wearing it.
.
:confused:
Are you sure there isn't some mistake here? This sounds like a story that would result from something like, his parishioners are modernists so they wear jeans to Mass on Sunday, which is a modernist practice, and he tried to explain this to them, and they maliciously distorted his words to mean that wearing jeans anywhere, any time is modernist, and that's what got repeated to you.
Did you actually hear him say this with your own ears, and in those terms? It's pretty hard for me to imagine any traditional priest saying exactly what you described.
-
.
:confused:
Are you sure there isn't some mistake here? This sounds like a story that would result from something like, his parishioners are modernists so they wear jeans to Mass on Sunday, which is a modernist practice, and he tried to explain this to them, and they maliciously distorted his words to mean that wearing jeans anywhere, any time is modernist, and that's what got repeated to you.
Did you actually hear him say this with your own ears, and in those terms? It's pretty hard for me to imagine any traditional priest saying exactly what you described.
I mean, you are asking for specifics so here we go. Two nuns from the south of the country published a book addressing modesty. I did not read the book. The issue was brought to me at the chapel I attended (resistance) when I lived here in Brazil where I am currently spending Christmas. The chapel coordinators informed me that men, in their day to day lives, are never to wear blue jeans. I was told it came as an approved teaching of Dom Thomas Aquinas. Upon going to the monastery for an event, I managed to get Bishop Thomas Aquinas for a moment when the nuns happened to be nearby. One of the nuns literally interjected herself into the conversation, interrupted Bishop Thomas Aquinas several times. When he was finally able to speak he looked directly at me and said in plain Portuguese in response to my very specific question if it was ok to wear blue jeans to the grocery store with my wife on a weekday after work. He said exactly “a man who wears blue jeans is not so Traditionalist”. Let me add that I was raised in the SSPX and have never worn blue jeans to Mass. I was very specific in my question because of how it was presented to me.
-
I will add to that that I did follow up in an email with Fr. Ernesto Cardozo about the blue jean mess just to see if that was universal among all the priests in Brazil. Fr. Cardozo more or less said it was nonsense and that if denin makes you a modernist because it is a modernist material than what do they think polyester blends are!
-
I will add to that that I did follow up in an email with Fr. Ernesto Cardozo about the blue jean mess just to see if that was universal among all the priests in Brazil. Fr. Cardozo more or less said it was nonsense and that if denin makes you a modernist because it is a modernist material than what do they think polyester blends are!
You have to love Fr. Cardozo. I don't know him personally, but I like his sermons a lot.
I thought that the fashion patrol was a job exclusive to ladies with too much free time. It is good to know that some of the clergy are engaging in this amusing activity too.
-
It seems based off this comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEpqo4JomNk
.
You know, the more I think about it, the more this video seems to me to imply the opposite of what is being claimed here.
Fr. Chazal is asked if Vigano was re-concsecrated, and he says "the necessary has been done". Well, what does the resistance think is necessary in every case of modernist holy orders? They think an investigation is necessary; they do NOT think re-ordination/consecration is always necessary. This was stated emphatically by Bp. Thomas Aquinas, as quoted earlier in this thread. So it makes more sense to take Fr. Chazal's words to mean, "The necessary has been done, [which is to investigate the validity of Vigano's holy orders, which has been done]"
Furthermore, the refusal to answer implies that Vigano was NOT re-consecrated. Think about it. Vigano is a diplomat, and as such he doesn't want to offend trads. Being consecrated sub-conditione wouldn't offend anyone. The sedevacantists would think this was necessary anyway, and the non-sedevacantists could just be told, "We figured his validity was a bit shaky, so we did it again just in case," as has been done with numerous priests in the SSPX who came in from the Novus Ordo. No one would have any objection that I can think of. Even the conservative Novus Ordos wouldn't care all that much either; they know and care very little about things like repetition of sacraments that imprint a character, or the validity of holy orders.
Not one person would object to Vigano receiving condition consecration.
On the other hand, sedevacantists would have a major problem if Vigano had declined to receive conditional consecration, and that seems to be the position Vigano has been wooing recently. So it seems Vigano is trying not to get on that group's bad side by saying he won't be re-consecrated.
What other possible reason could there be keep the re-consecration secret? To avoid putting a target on Vigano's back? Vigano has been putting targets on his own back for the past five years. He obviously isn't worried about that.
The only explanation of this that makes any sense to me is that there was no re-consecration.
-
.
You know, the more I think about it, the more this video seems to me to imply the opposite of what is being claimed here.
Fr. Chazal is asked if Vigano was re-concsecrated, and he says "the necessary has been done". Well, what does the resistance think is necessary in every case of modernist holy orders? They think an investigation is necessary; they do NOT think re-ordination/consecration is always necessary. This was stated emphatically by Bp. Thomas Aquinas, as quoted earlier in this thread. So it makes more sense to take Fr. Chazal's words to mean, "The necessary has been done, [which is to investigate the validity of Vigano's holy orders, which has been done]"
Furthermore, the refusal to answer implies that Vigano was NOT re-consecrated. Think about it. Vigano is a diplomat, and as such he doesn't want to offend trads. Being consecrated sub-conditione wouldn't offend anyone. The sedevacantists would think this was necessary anyway, and the non-sedevacantists could just be told, "We figured his validity was a bit shaky, so we did it again just in case," as has been done with numerous priests in the SSPX who came in from the Novus Ordo. No one would have any objection that I can think of. Even the conservative Novus Ordos wouldn't care all that much either; they know and care very little about things like repetition of sacraments that imprint a character, or the validity of holy orders.
Not one person would object to Vigano receiving condition consecration.
On the other hand, sedevacantists would have a major problem if Vigano had declined to receive conditional consecration, and that seems to be the position Vigano has been wooing recently. So it seems Vigano is trying not to get on that group's bad side by saying he won't be re-consecrated.
What other possible reason could there be keep the re-consecration secret? To avoid putting a target on Vigano's back? Vigano has been putting targets on his own back for the past five years. He obviously isn't worried about that.
The only explanation of this that makes any sense to me is that there was no re-consecration.
Could it affect his new seminary somehow? Because I keep going back to...why did he go public with that first?
-
.
You know, the more I think about it, the more this video seems to me to imply the opposite of what is being claimed here.
Fr. Chazal is asked if Vigano was re-concsecrated, and he says "the necessary has been done". Well, what does the resistance think is necessary in every case of modernist holy orders? They think an investigation is necessary; they do NOT think re-ordination/consecration is always necessary. This was stated emphatically by Bp. Thomas Aquinas, as quoted earlier in this thread. So it makes more sense to take Fr. Chazal's words to mean, "The necessary has been done, [which is to investigate the validity of Vigano's holy orders, which has been done]"
Furthermore, the refusal to answer implies that Vigano was NOT re-consecrated. Think about it. Vigano is a diplomat, and as such he doesn't want to offend trads. Being consecrated sub-conditione wouldn't offend anyone. The sedevacantists would think this was necessary anyway, and the non-sedevacantists could just be told, "We figured his validity was a bit shaky, so we did it again just in case," as has been done with numerous priests in the SSPX who came in from the Novus Ordo. No one would have any objection that I can think of. Even the conservative Novus Ordos wouldn't care all that much either; they know and care very little about things like repetition of sacraments that imprint a character, or the validity of holy orders.
Not one person would object to Vigano receiving condition consecration.
On the other hand, sedevacantists would have a major problem if Vigano had declined to receive conditional consecration, and that seems to be the position Vigano has been wooing recently. So it seems Vigano is trying not to get on that group's bad side by saying he won't be re-consecrated.
What other possible reason could there be keep the re-consecration secret? To avoid putting a target on Vigano's back? Vigano has been putting targets on his own back for the past five years. He obviously isn't worried about that.
The only explanation of this that makes any sense to me is that there was no re-consecration.
I agree with you that we should not presume that Vigano has traditionally-valid Orders. As the Moral Theology manuals say, we must have "moral certainty" with regard to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I will not support him financially until both he and his consecrators confirm publicly.
That said, I think the reason that Vigano doesn't want to make it public could be the "scandal" it would cause to non-Trads, including New Rite priests that might want to join him at his seminary. He may think it is too much for those people to digest at the moment. I am not defending that take on things. But I can see that as a valid concern if he is trying to attract people brainwashed by the Novus Ordo, which I think is his main target audience.
-
Could it affect his new seminary somehow? Because I keep going back to...why did he go public with that first?
.
I don't know. I certainly wonder who will ordain his seminarians. But being re-consecrated in the old rite wouldn't really affect his seminary anyway, since it couldn't possibly take away his episcopal character if he got re-consecrated in the old rite, so it wouldn't cause anyone to doubt his ability to ordain them if they wanted to join.
If anything, announcing his conditional consecration in the traditional rite would increase interest in his seminary, not decrease it, because then the people who don't accept the Montini rite of consecration would be able to join.
-
I agree with you that we should not presume that Vigano has traditionally-valid Orders. As the Moral Theology manuals say, we must have "moral certainty" with regard to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I will not support him financially until both he and his consecrators confirm publicly.
.
I strongly agree with every word of this.
That said, I think the reason that Vigano doesn't want to make it public could be the "scandal" it would cause to non-Trads, including New Rite priests that might want to join him at his seminary. He may think it is too much for those people to digest at the moment. I am not defending that take on things. But I can see that as a valid concern if he is trying to attract people brainwashed by the Novus Ordo, which I think is his main target audience.
I just don't see it. Why would those people care that much if he got consecrated again, if they didn't think it was necessary? Worst case scenario, they would say he received a sacrament that was unnecessary or invalid, and that it was sacrilegious (though I doubt most conservative Novus Ordos have any concept of such things). But as far as discouraging new-rite priests from joining ... why would it? It certainly wouldn't take away his power to ordain priests, even if it was unnecessary. Whatever sin might be involved in an invalid conditional consecration would be only on his conscience in the worst case scenario. At most they might think it was a bit scrupulous. None of this amounts to an adequate reason for keeping the conditional consecration secret, if it did happen.
-
.
I strongly agree with every word of this.
I just don't see it. Why would those people care that much if he got consecrated again, if they didn't think it was necessary? Worst case scenario, they would say he received a sacrament that was unnecessary or invalid, and that it was sacrilegious (though I doubt most conservative Novus Ordos have any concept of such things). But as far as discouraging new-rite priests from joining ... why would it? It certainly wouldn't take away his power to ordain priests, even if it was unnecessary. Whatever sin might be involved in an invalid conditional consecration would be only on his conscience in the worst case scenario. At most they might think it was a bit scrupulous. None of this amounts to an adequate reason for keeping the conditional consecration secret, if it did happen.
What about his "Brother Bishops"?
-
What about his "Brother Bishops"?
.
Does he have any? I've never seen any Novus Ordo bishops say anything positive about him. The only bishops interested in him are independent trad bishops.
(Yet one more reason not to think there are any Novus Ordo "bishops" who have the Catholic Faith, by the way.)
-
What about his "Brother Bishops"?
Yeah, that part gave me pause too.
-
.
I strongly agree with every word of this.
I just don't see it. Why would those people care that much if he got consecrated again, if they didn't think it was necessary? Worst case scenario, they would say he received a sacrament that was unnecessary or invalid, and that it was sacrilegious (though I doubt most conservative Novus Ordos have any concept of such things). But as far as discouraging new-rite priests from joining ... why would it? It certainly wouldn't take away his power to ordain priests, even if it was unnecessary. Whatever sin might be involved in an invalid conditional consecration would be only on his conscience in the worst case scenario. At most they might think it was a bit scrupulous. None of this amounts to an adequate reason for keeping the conditional consecration secret, if it did happen.
Because those New Order priests will just decide that Vigano is too extreme. They will agree with Vigano on his criticism of Bergoglio and the New Mass (maybe). But they will avoid Vigano because he will be seen as going too far by doubting the New Holy Orders.
The SSPX (and the Resistance) takes the same "care" with their official position on New Holy Orders. They talk about "the minister's intention" (subjective) instead of the obvious change to "the form" (objective) of the Sacraments. They don't want to scare people off. They want to be "respectable," "thoughtful" trads, unlike those "Protestant Sedevacantists." They want to use big words and obfuscation to avoid saying directly what was always taught in every Moral Theology manual and by St. Thomas Aquinas: that those with doubtful Holy Orders must be avoided unless they are conditionally ordained in the traditional Rite.
-
This thread brought me out of my slumber....
I think it's a very interesting situation, but like others, I'm not entirely convinced about the conditional consecration. It appears he was ordained in 1968, but was it the old rite or the new rite...does anyone know?
Also, has there been any real confirmation about the conditional consecration yet?
… early in 1968, before the New Rite was promulgated/published. And then it was a while before the books were printed. And then there was a reprieve where it didn’t become mandatory until Easter 1970.
-
Conditional consecration has been confirmed. Not sure why they’re playing games, with Fr. Chazal trying to be cryptic and no public announcement.
I’m inclined to reveal the sources if they don’t stop playing games. This is bordering on childish.
-
A Vigano consecration has huge consequences for Tradition in my opinion. It’s not much different than if a Cardinal came to the SSPX seeking conditional ordination and consecration. Vigano was, afterall, Apostolic Nuncio for the US. No small matter. And this far into the crisis gives another element to it as well. Considering he would consider most of his “brother bishops” dubious at best. It could lead to the conditional consecration for others. Especially with the constant news regarding bishops speaking up against Bergoglio’s constant scandals. The man who claims to be pope (not sure he really claims that title), has proven and gained notoriety of being anti-Catholic, anti-Tradition and a manifest heretic by many outside of Traditional Catholic circles.
I would have expected some declarations or statements but it feels as though none are forthcoming. Which then leads me to believe, given the Resistance attitude towards the validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments (new order priests, Valid Novus Ordo Masses and sacraments, defense of New Rite consecrations), I have serious doubts whether or not Vigano has had conditional consecration.
I fear the games are being played and are not substantiated by fact.
-
Because those New Order priests will just decide that Vigano is too extreme. They will agree with Vigano on his criticism of Bergoglio and the New Mass (maybe). But they will avoid Vigano because he will be seen as going too far by doubting the New Holy Orders.
I think this is what is going on as well (but I would include his brother Novus Ordo bishops along with the Novus Ordo priests). These priests and other conservative-leaning Novus Ordo men will more likely look into his "only orthodox" seminary (rather than that sedeprivationist, too extreme seminary that's been around in Italy for decades).
Having said that, I can see why others are questioning whether it ever happened given all we have are other posters saying it has been confirmed. Even if names of sources are given, it's not the sources themselves.
Meanwhile those "in the know" are playing coy with the conditional consecration. Games indeed.
When they do decide it's "safe" to reveal it to the world, I sure hope they have evidence that it happened given how important this particular conditional consecration is supposed to be and how some very well-known, past Traditional consecrations are viewed.
-
Conditional consecration has been confirmed. Not sure why they’re playing games, with Fr. Chazal trying to be cryptic and no public announcement.
I’m inclined to reveal the sources if they don’t stop playing games. This is bordering on childish.
I'm sorry. This is a gratuitous statement. The only confirmation I've seen anywhere is from posters on CathInfo. That's hardly "confirmation".
-
Abp. Vigano HAS been conditionally consecrated by a valid, Traditional bishop.
The veracity of that story has been confirmed by me personally and you're going to have to accept it, or at least "agree to disagree".
Let's put it this way: you can believe whatever you want, but you're not allowed to post heresy OR error on CathInfo. And according to me, the moderator, "Abp. Vigano being conditionally consecrated" is an undisputed fact, no longer open for debate.
You can be upset at "whoever" for not publishing a proper press release, fine -- but you can't post anything contrary to the fact (as stated above) without accusing ME of lying (attacking moderator = bannable offense) or violating CathInfo rules (also a bannable offense).
-
Abp. Vigano HAS been conditionally consecrated by a valid, Traditional bishop.
The veracity of that story has been confirmed by me personally and you're going to have to accept it, or at least "agree to disagree".
Let's put it this way: you can believe whatever you want, but you're not allowed to post heresy OR error on CathInfo. And according to me, the moderator, "Abp. Vigano being conditionally consecrated" is an undisputed fact, no longer open for debate.
You can be upset at "whoever" for not publishing a proper press release, fine -- but you can't post anything contrary to the fact (as stated above) without accusing ME of lying (attacking moderator = bannable offense) or violating CathInfo rules (also a bannable offense).
Given most people will not see this, perhaps a pinned "CathInfo Rules" would make it clear to all.
-
It's incredibly easy to verify. I haven't because I trust Ladislaus word on it. Matthew is throwing his weight behind it now too. It would be practical for Bishop Williamson to speak on it in Kyrie Eleison eventually. Be nice to hear from +Vigano about it.
-
There might not be an official annoucement, because it could make some damage to the idea that "not all Novus Ordo consecrations and ordinations are doubtful".
We have discussed recently how Bp. Thomas Aquinas fiercely defends a particular Novus Ordo ordination. If Bp. Williamson makes Vigano's conditional consecration public, it will be even harder for Bp. Thomas Aquinas to sustain his defence.
Let's wait and see. :popcorn:
-
There might not be an official annoucement, because it could make some damage to the idea that "not all Novus Ordo consecrations and ordinations are doubtful".
We have discussed recently how Bp. Thomas Aquinas fiercely defends a particular Novus Ordo ordination. If Bp. Williamson makes Vigano's conditional consecration public, it will be even harder for Bp. Thomas Aquinas to sustain his defence.
Let's wait and see. :popcorn:
Well then if Vigano is afraid to make a statement to everyone, then I believe that would be called sin of omission.
-
I must say I find the conditional consecration of +Vigano to be quite humorous, since +Vigano was "consecrated" by none other than "St. John Paul II Wojtyla the Great" ... a shot to the gut of Trad, Inc. It calls into question not only the new rite of episcopal consecration, but also casts aspersions on the great saint of conservative Novus Ordites.
:laugh1:
-
Well then if Vigano is afraid to make a statement to everyone, then I believe that would be called sin of omission.
There have been reports here showing that the SSPX has always considered conditional ordinations almost secrets. As far as I know, there has never been an official annoucement of any conditional ordination. The Resistance clergy simply follows this custom.
Vigano has never said that he considers his Novus Ordo consecration to be doubtful. This being the case, I don't see how he is obliged to come public with his conditional consecration.
-
There have been reports here showing that the SSPX has always considered conditional ordinations almost secrets. As far as I know, there has never been an official annoucement of any conditional ordination. The Resistance clergy simply follows this custom.
Vigano has never said that he considers his Novus Ordo consecration to be doubtful. This being the case, I don't see how he is obliged to come public with his conditional consecration.
Do you remember what Bishop Tissier said in 2013 about the new "ordinations"
https://fsspx.uk/en/news-events/news/ordination-sermon-bishop-tissier-de-mallerais-16842
-
Do you remember what Bishop Tissier said in 2013 about the new "ordinations"
https://fsspx.uk/en/news-events/news/ordination-sermon-bishop-tissier-de-mallerais-16842
correction it was 2016
-
correction it was 2016
-
Do you remember what Bishop Tissier said in 2013 about the new "ordinations"
https://fsspx.uk/en/news-events/news/ordination-sermon-bishop-tissier-de-mallerais-16842
Bp. Tissier de Mallerais has said many beautiful things, but the most important is what he has done.
Does he denounce his mates when they accept Novus Ordo priests into the SSPX?
Has he sided with "The Nine" when they complained with Abp. Lefebvre about Fr. Stark, a Novus Ordo priest that was incorporated into the SSPX clergy without conditional ordination?
Saying is important, but you have to act accordingly.
-
I am shocked! This man, who claims to be pope, says a heretical mass/mess counterfeit and you think that he has jurisdiction, authority?! He has done this!! New order, of this man, can send himself to hell! How can anyone go to him expecting jurisdiction!!
It does not take a tribunal to say he has excommunicated himself. Christ's own words to His apostles, "You will know them by their fruits". You will know them like a tree that gives no fruits, as well. What we see, gives the heart away.
-
Bp. Tissier de Mallerais has said many beautiful things, but the most important is what he has done.
Does he denounce his mates when they accept Novus Ordo priests into the SSPX?
Has he sided with "The Nine" when they complained with Abp. Lefebvre about Fr. Stark, a Novus Ordo priest that was incorporated into the SSPX clergy without conditional ordination?
Saying is important, but you have to act accordingly.
I don't know if he has denounced that, but it's interesting that they didn't correct him. SSPX has a lot of issues though, the big one is "bod"