Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => SSPX Resistance en Español => Topic started by: walterthesinner on May 23, 2024, 04:42:33 PM
-
I need to make a lifetime confession. Anyone point me in the direction of a solid Priest in Phoenix area I can contact? I recently had a FSSP Priest not respond to my plea. Please help.
Email me at waltermetrick@aol.com.
-
Fr. Paul Andrade is in Glendale, AZ but I don't know the name of the church he is at, solid traditional Priest!
-
I recently had a FSSP Priest not respond to my plea.
God was protecting you, as most FFSP "priests" are of dubious validity, with a few exceptions, usually those who had left SSPX.
-
God was protecting you, as most FFSP "priests" are of dubious validity, with a few exceptions, usually those who had left SSPX.
You know this because???
You have the authority to impose your conclusion on others on what basis?
You may be right, but what if you’re wrong?
Since you cannot possibly know the status of every FSSP priest, you cannot make a blanket statement for everyone.
Pope Ladislaus I? :confused::laugh2:
-
I need to make a lifetime confession. Anyone point me in the direction of a solid Priest in Phoenix area I can contact? I recently had a FSSP Priest not respond to my plea. Please help.
Email me at waltermetrick@aol.com.
-
Since you cannot possibly know the status of every FSSP priest, you cannot make a blanket statement for everyone.
What are you talking about? The FSSP openly admits to using the new rites of ordination, thus MOST of their priests are doubtful (with the exception of the small number who came from the sspx, if they are still alive).
This is Traditionalism 101 -- new rites are doubtful.
-
Our Lady of Sorrows is the SSPX parish in Phoenix. I would recommend going to a priest there. Fr.’s Pederson, McFarland, Hogan, and Fabula are some of my favorite confessors.
They are all certainly validly ordained (I really don’t know if you can say that for the CMRI priests that people are recommending here, and you definitely can’t say that for FSSP).
-
What are you talking about? The FSSP openly admits to using the new rites of ordination, thus MOST of their priests are doubtful (with the exception of the small number who came from the sspx, if they are still alive).
This is Traditionalism 101 -- new rites are doubtful.
There ARE FSSP priests who are conditionally ordained. I know of two. It’s not the majority, but if there are two, there are probably more. I’ve heard of a priest ordained by ICKSP who left and joined FSSP. I can’t absolutely confirm that.
Pax, your strongest opinion is no more “ex cathedra” than Lad’s.
-
There ARE FSSP priests who are conditionally ordained.
If they are conditionally ordained in the new rite, they are still doubtful.
If they are conditionally ordained in the OLD rite, by a bishop from the NEW rite, they are still doubtful.
Pax, your strongest opinion is no more “ex cathedra” than Lad’s.
It's not an opinion; it's based on facts. Every major Traditionalist group (not including the FSSP, which isn't traditional), says that the new rites of ordination/consecration are doubtful. Period.
The 'ex cathedra'/authority on what to do, in the face of doubtful sacraments, comes from Canon Law, not me, and not Ladislaus. Canon Law says it is a mortal sin to say, attend or support doubtful sacraments...except in danger of death.
Don't argue with me, argue with Canon Law.
-
If they are conditionally ordained in the new rite, they are still doubtful.
If they are conditionally ordained in the OLD rite, by a bishop from the NEW rite, they are still doubtful.
It's not an opinion; it's based on facts. Every major Traditionalist group (not including the FSSP, which isn't traditional), says that the new rites of ordination/consecration are doubtful. Period.
The 'ex cathedra'/authority on what to do, in the face of doubtful sacraments, comes from Canon Law, not me, and not Ladislaus. Canon Law says it is a mortal sin to say, attend or support doubtful sacraments...except in danger of death.
Don't argue with me, argue with Canon Law.
They’re neither. #1 Conditionally ordained by Bp. W. in late 2012. He left and returned to FSSP.
#2 the same, only he went independent and kind of disappeared.
By what authority can we be certain you correctly interpret and apply Canon Law?
If you claim it’s self-evident, it’s still based on you. Every Protestant says as much about the Scriptures.
-
It would be great to have a thread in the Library of a comparison of all positive doubts regarding the new rite sacraments. It doesn't prove they are invalid, but it proves they should be avoided.
-
They’re neither. #1 Conditionally ordained by Bp. W. in late 2012. He left and returned to FSSP.
Ok, so this priest may be the 1% exception of all FSSP priests. So what? You continually point out the exception, while downplaying the 99% of doubtful priests, which is the norm. The exceptions prove the rule, which is that 99% of FSSP priests are new rite, which means they are doubtful.
#2 the same, only he went independent and kind of disappeared.
Ok, so he's not even part of the FSSP anymore. Why did you mention him, in the context of the FSSP?
By what authority can we be certain you correctly interpret and apply Canon Law?
Oh, please. Canon Law has been around for centuries. Every major Traditionalist leader since the 70s (+ABL, Fr Wathen, Fr De Pauw, and many priests from France/Europe I can't spell...all of these holy men were the ones who rejected Vatican 2 and started the grassroots movement which we call Traditionalism.) ...and all of them agreed (because they all went to pre-V2 seminaries) that one cannot go to doubtful sacraments.
Open up any moral theology book and they'll all say the same thing. This is nothing new.
Let me remind you that this is a TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC forum; it is not an indult/FSSP/diocesan forum. Your continual support of the indult irks me, because you are muddying the waters for those newbies on this site. You can go to whatever chapel you like, but stop arguing against Traditionalism. If you want to push the "glories" of the indult mass, or the FSSP, go to another site.
-
Maybe Father Australia Robinson.
-
You know this because???
You have the authority to impose your conclusion on others on what basis?
You may be right, but what if you’re wrong?
Since you cannot possibly know the status of every FSSP priest, you cannot make a blanket statement for everyone.
Pope Ladislaus I? :confused::laugh2:
How exactly am I "imposing" anything on anyone? I obviously have no authority to do so. And how am I making a "blanket statement for everyone", where it's obvious that my name is on the post and that I'm speaking for myself (and perhaps others who believe the same thing). This constitutes detraction/calumny. I've objected to various Traditional priests who impose their views about matters that have not been settled by the Church, saying that if I considered the priests invalid, I would warn the faithful, but not withhold the Sacraments for their decision since I couldn't impose my conscience on them, say, like the SSPV do vis-a-avis the CMRI. But I'm every bit as entitled to opine on the matter and debate the subject as you are, Popessa. This remark sounds like it's coming from someone who avails herself of the services of FSSP priests. You're obviously entitled to do what you want, but I would risk my soul on receiving the Sacraments from FSSP priest (who weren't otherwise valid). In fact, I've repeatedly said that there are some (and named some names) who are valid even in FSSP, and in fact made it clear even in the post to which you object that I was speaking about "most" of them, with some exceptions.
-
There ARE FSSP priests who are conditionally ordained. I know of two. It’s not the majority, but if there are two, there are probably more. I’ve heard of a priest ordained by ICKSP who left and joined FSSP. I can’t absolutely confirm that.
Pax, your strongest opinion is no more “ex cathedra” than Lad’s.
What part of where I said "most" were you unable to read? I know about three of them myself, and I clearly said that most, with some exceptions. How exactly aren't you saying the same thing here when you say "it's not the majority"?
Here's my statement again:
God was protecting you, as most FFSP "priests" are of dubious validity, with a few exceptions, usually those who had left SSPX.
Not only did I say "most", and "with a few exceptions", but also that they are of "dubious" validity, i.e. not stating that we can know for certain without the intervention of Church authority (not counting the Conciliar Church).