Author Topic: Brazilian Resistance Seminary Now SAJM (Read 3809 times)

TomGubbinsKimmage · « **Reply #60 on:** **Today** at 02:56:40 AM »

Quote from: Horatius on Today at 02:33:34 AM

As it turns out, you don't understand. Titular bishops do not have jurisdiction. Canon 348. Maybe if more people realized this, then trad bishops would stop trying to act like they have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction doesn't come from the episcopal order. It comes from the Pope.

💯

Though whether it comes from the Pope as the ultimate source or from the Divine nature of the Church itself is a theological question is be interested to read about. I have certainly never heard of hierarchy in a state of emergency in any case

Centroamerica · « **Reply #61 on:** **Today** at 05:13:59 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on Yesterday at 09:02:54 PM

What a disgraceful slander.
We all have to render an account.

The focus of the Holy Cross Monastery has publicly been to prevent other resistance priests from attending their faithful. That is not their main objective in life, obviously. But it is a very public focus pf theirs.

Words have meaning. And their words are public.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #62 on:** **Today** at 05:47:24 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on Yesterday at 09:02:54 PM

What a disgraceful slander.
We all have to render an account.

Calling something “slander” does not make it so. Words have definitions.

According to Catholic moral theology (and St. Thomas), slander requires a false statement that unjustly harms another’s reputation. If what is said is true, or based on verifiable facts, it is not slander—though it may still be uncomfortable to hear.

So let’s be clear about what was actually said.

The situation in Brazil is not hypothetical—it is visible:

A large number of chapels spread across a vast country
Extremely limited priestly availability
Faithful in some locations receiving the sacraments only rarely
At the same time, other priests are restricted from assisting those same faithful

That is not an attack on a person’s character. It is a description of a pastoral situation.

The point being made is simple:
When the faithful are deprived of regular access to the sacraments, the priority should be supplying them, not restricting priests who could help meet that need.

If you believe any of those points are factually incorrect, then identify which one and correct it.
But simply labeling the observation as “slander” avoids the issue rather than addressing it.

We will all render an account, yes—but that applies equally to how we respond to real needs of the faithful, not just how we react to criticism.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #63 on:** **Today** at 06:39:54 AM »

Since the charge of “slander” has been raised, it would be better to deal with concrete facts rather than vague accusations.

Let’s take a specific case: Fr. Deivid Nass.

Fr. Nass is not an opportunist or outsider. He is a young priest who discovered Tradition after Summorum Pontificuм, sought formation seriously (including contact with the SSPX), and ultimately aligned with priests connected to Holy Cross Monastery. His path reflects what many have experienced in the post-conciliar crisis: a sincere discovery of Tradition followed by a desire to serve the faithful.

Now to the actual situation in Brazil.

There is a chapel—Our Lady of Alegria—located in his own family home. Despite this, Fr. Nass has been forbidden from offering Mass there, based on a claim of jurisdiction by Bishop Thomas Aquinas.

At the same time, we are dealing with a region where:

A major city of nearly 2 million people, overwhelmingly Catholic
The faithful are often lucky to have Mass even once a month
Priestly availability is extremely limited

So to be clear about what is being defended:

A priest is prevented from offering Mass in his own family chapel
The faithful already suffer from scarcity of the sacraments
And yet, instead of increasing access, additional priests are excluded

If someone believes this is justified, then that argument should be made directly.

But pointing it out is not slander—it is raising a serious and necessary question:

In a time of crisis, when Catholics may go weeks or months without Mass, is it reasonable to forbid a priest from offering the Holy Sacrifice—even in his own home—based on jurisdictional claims?

That is the issue. Calling it “slander” avoids addressing it.

Twice dyed · « **Reply #64 on:** **Today** at 10:32:32 AM »

What is this, from +Aquinas communique?;

..."We hope that his new superior, Dom Paul Morgan, can guide him in the best possible way. Dom Morgan,..."

__________
I haven't followed this thread exactly. What is going on? This link is about Fr. Nass and a new seminary...How is it possible if he is under + Morgan.

Can someone translate this doc? TIMESTAMP 4:43
on YTube

Don't shoot the messenger

Attached is a very poor iPhone translation...super poor, sorry,

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Brazilian Resistance Seminary Now SAJM (Read 3809 times)

TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: Brazilian Resistance Seminary Now SAJM

Centroamerica

Re: Brazilian Resistance Seminary Now SAJM

Centroamerica

Re: Brazilian Resistance Seminary Now SAJM

Centroamerica

Re: Brazilian Resistance Seminary Now SAJM

Twice dyed

Re: Brazilian Resistance Seminary Now SAJM