Author Topic: Calling Out Pete Vere: (Read 25668 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #30 on:** May 28, 2014, 08:45:53 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SeanJohnson
My (mis?)understanding was that there was a question as to the validity of Thuc orders, based on his mental state.

Your understanding (not misunderstanding) is correct.

It's a question, not a conclusion.

Basically, Rome's position is that it does not know whether or not the consecrations are valid, nor does it see any point in investigating the question. This is because Rome judges the consecrations to be of such an illicit nature as to prevent Rome from allowing those possessing these orders to exercise them should they reconcile with the Church.

What is also interesting, then, is that rather than "sanate" or consecrate/ordain conditionally, Rome chooses to laicize.

I wonder why Rome chooses the path of laicization, rather than sanation?

Is it just because they think these guys too far gone to really trust after such sanation/conditional consecration/ordinations?

Charlemagne · « **Reply #31 on:** May 28, 2014, 08:46:57 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Charlemagne

Oh, step off, Cantarella. If you honestly think those clowns who occupy the Vatican represent Eternal Rome, you're an absolute fool. I honestly don't give a damn what Bergoglio thinks. And it's quite appropriate that you use the "facepalm" icon, because you can't see what's right in front of you.

AND

Quote from: Righteousness

Most sede camps are severely undereducated! In fact CMRI consults "Novus Ordo" theologians on issues!

This is right. The above comment is a clear example of the type of response one usually gets from the vast majority of sedevacantists here when trying to deal with serious matters. Never a theological response to serious questions, but a repetition of biased -copied and pasted- propaganda combined with vulgar words and personal attacks.

What serious question? What personal attack? Oh, when you called my comment "juvenile?" To say that Bergoglio is an usurper and a clown requires no theological response. Let me make this as clear as I can for you: We sedes do not recognize Francis' supposed authority; therefore, we don't care what he or his minions think. You seem to spend a lot of time here. Do you ever cook or clean?

Ferdinand · « **Reply #32 on:** May 28, 2014, 09:16:46 PM »

Matthew, is it time to boot the Neo-Feeneyite Novus Ordoist trolls?

Pete Vere · « **Reply #33 on:** May 28, 2014, 09:36:24 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Is it just because they think these guys too far gone to really trust after such sanation/conditional consecration/ordinations?

It likely has to do with initial questions surrounding Archbishop Thuc's mental state during the Palmar de Troya consecrations. Reportedly he agreed to perform them after being convinced that Pope Paul VI had been taken prisoner in the Vatican and replaced with a fake Paul VI. The information was allegedly relayed to an intermediary through an apparition of the Blessed Mother.

A friend of mine who is a Vietnamese priest and a canon lawyer knew Archbishop Thuc, and helped bring about his eventual reconciliation with Rome. He claims that Archbishop Thuc was definitely showing signs of weakened mental state around the time of these consecrations, likely due to the combination of advanced years and the amount of human suffering and trauma he had suffered during the communist revolution in Vietnam.

In terms of the quality of ordinands, I would agree that the Palmar de Troya consecrations were absolutely scandalous. But at the other end of the spectrum, Mgr Guerard des Lauriers (who incidentally was the doctoral adviser of my former indult pastor and professor of theology) was of such a quality as to far surpass the four candidates consecrated by Mgr Lefebvre. So one sees both ends of the spectrum here.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #34 on:** May 28, 2014, 09:56:29 PM »

So what's your story Pete? It appears that you are a sworn enemy of the SSPX, or is it just simply the founder? What is your beef about seriously? Some little personal trivalty?

That was nice how you present a slanted version of Msr Guarard des Lauriers. He was a professor at Econe, we all know this. And he was expelled by Mons Lefebvre for causing confusion (kinda like you're doing). Namely, with a crock thesis that reeks of errors that the pope can only materially be the pope and this thesis has been proven false and modified by its supporters due to not being possible to extend to our own times.

Then of course, there are the reports that during the consecrstion if Mons de Lauriers, he had to keep telling Mons. Thuc that he could not say JP2s name, so again we have the presentation of a doubtful mental awareness.