Author Topic: Consecration of Dom Thomas Aquinas March 19th in Brazil (Read 13739 times)

stgobnait · « **Reply #45 on:** March 21, 2016, 10:33:26 AM »

Quote from: stgobnait

'cough' Nope' cough, they are already manning the battlements, it will be someone else, maybe in Europe.... and not soon....

my thoughts exactly!

Servus Pius · « **Reply #46 on:** March 21, 2016, 10:49:26 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: JPM
Quote from: Matthew
They need another bishop who is still young enough to travel, but old enough to be qualified, who is advanced in the spiritual life, prudent, wise, experienced, who knows English and Spanish, and who has significant ability as an organizer/administrator/builder-upper...

You spelled "Zendejas" wrong.

I thought the same and asked about this. I was told by a casual priest-observer that another bishop would seem excessive and that there wouldn't be another consecration for another 5 or 10 years unless there was a big influx from the SSPX.

Excessive?? I don't think so. If we are to use the number of Bishops ABL consecrated, then the magic number is 4. Assuming Bishop Williamson only intends to consecrate the same number of Bishops as ABL then my opinion is---It has to be in ASIA.

It must be noted that the impending Chastisement (World War 3....etc) has to be taken into consideration. Most probably, the Bishops can no longer travel freely when War breaks out. My opinion in this case would be, 4 is simply not enough. Distribution of Bishops in my opinion will go something like this: 1 North America, 1 South America, 2 already in Europe, 1 Asia, 1 Australia. 6 Bishops I think would be the bare minimum.

If we consider a scenario wherein a Bishop in North America gets killed, the one in South America would serve as a back-up and would have to consecrate a new Bishop. Same procedure in Europe and Asia.

Matthew · « **Reply #47 on:** March 21, 2016, 11:11:00 AM »

Quote from: wallflower

Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: JPM
Quote from: Matthew
They need another bishop who is still young enough to travel, but old enough to be qualified, who is advanced in the spiritual life, prudent, wise, experienced, who knows English and Spanish, and who has significant ability as an organizer/administrator/builder-upper...

You spelled "Zendejas" wrong.

I thought the same and asked about this. I was told by a casual priest-observer that another bishop would seem excessive and that there wouldn't be another consecration for another 5 or 10 years unless there was a big influx from the SSPX.

You were told this by someone who is in the know and was informing you, or you were told as in someone was stating their opinion?

Based on +Williamson's own past public statements, and the reality of the situation (entire continents still without a bishop and "all 3" Resistant bishops currently rather old and occupied, especially for their age)

I must say B).

Matthew · « **Reply #48 on:** March 21, 2016, 11:21:31 AM »

Remember, there are THREE Resistant bishops now.

Even if we assume they all want to be on the same page (not consecrating anyone without the agreement of the other two, just to make sure no one is "crazy" in their choice of candidate or timing), there are still 2 other voices that would tug on the "most conservative" one, to wake him up, give him a nudge, etc.

So if the reality is that the world needs another bishop, it's more likely to happen now.

Each bishop has the counsel of 2 other brother-bishops to consider now.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #49 on:** March 21, 2016, 12:04:20 PM »

The person who told me this is "in the know". However, 5 years is not 20 and we can see this unfold rather fast. There has to be a justification for more bishops, and 4 bishops to manage the faithful of about 40 priests is certainly excessive. That's about 1 bishop per 10 priests. The age thing could be factored in and would seem like a likely reason why this priest in the know said 5 or 10 years. It really depends on the need.

NatusAdMaiora · « **Reply #50 on:** March 21, 2016, 12:43:52 PM »

And here is another solemn scene from the Consecration

Matthew · « **Reply #51 on:** March 21, 2016, 01:01:57 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

The person who told me this is "in the know". However, 5 years is not 20 and we can see this unfold rather fast. There has to be a justification for more bishops, and 4 bishops to manage the faithful of about 40 priests is certainly excessive. That's about 1 bishop per 10 priests. The age thing could be factored in and would seem like a likely reason why this priest in the know said 5 or 10 years. It really depends on the need.

Well, there's a certain "minimum" based on pure geography.

Looking at the bishop:priest ratio is kind of silly, like looking at the number of exterior walls:inhabitants ratio in a house.

In my house, we have 4 exterior walls:8 members of the household.

But a man living alone has 4 exterior walls per person!

See what I'm getting at?

There's a certain minimum, like when you resize certain computer programs/games and they force you to not make the window smaller than a certain size. A minimum required to function, regardless of environment (# of parishioners, # of priests)

knish · « **Reply #52 on:** March 21, 2016, 01:42:32 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

I just want to say that this is the second Episcopal Consecration and priestly ordination that I have been in the same "makeshift Cathedral" as Bishop Williamson calls it, and everytime when the priest or bishop to be is in the prone position a light shines only on him from the sun. There is no where even for the sun to enter and shine since it is closed and there are no windows, but only doors and a open area above surrounded by bamboo trees. Further, the sun could not shine only on the priest or bishop laying in the prone position. I've never said anything before and nobody else has pointed it out, but if I go back to all the pictures, I can find the pictures from the other ordinations. This is one example of what I am referring to...

You can check out about a couple hundred more photos here...

http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2016/03/the-consecration-of-bishop-thomas.html

Hmm...very interesting.

Franciscan Solitary · « **Reply #53 on:** March 21, 2016, 02:02:01 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Remember, there are THREE Resistant bishops now.

Even if we assume they all want to be on the same page (not consecrating anyone without the agreement of the other two, just to make sure no one is "crazy" in their choice of candidate or timing), there are still 2 other voices that would tug on the "most conservative" one, to wake him up, give him a nudge, etc.

So if the reality is that the world needs another bishop, it's more likely to happen now.

Each bishop has the counsel of 2 other brother-bishops to consider now.

Surely the simplification expressed above is excessive, an over-simplification. Surely the relevant point would be to consider their fellow ROMAN CATHOLIC bishops in the episcopal college of Holy Mother Church. When was the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church granted to the "Resistant" bishops and not to the Roman Catholic bishops? By what sacramental authority is this strange restriction made?

The three Resistance bishops are in the spiritual lineage of our historic opportune Roman Catholic Jesuits. But that is not our entire historic heritage. There are some other additional strands to be found in our heritage. For example, we have the heritage of the principled Roman Catholic Jesuits. That lineage is represented among us by those bishops associated with the Company of Jesus and Mary led by the Argentine Catholic Bishop Andres Morello. More principled Jesuits are just as Roman Catholic as the more opportune Jesuits and one should note that the resemblances between the Resistance bishops and the bishops associated with Bishop Morello are considerable. They share the same Jesuit mind-set in common. They are all of them fine diplomats born and bred.

Then there are the Benedictine-style Roman Catholic bishops associated with the Canons Regular of Saint Augustine headquartered in London. They are Catholic gentlemen born and bred, without too much military backbone but with a fine talent for scholarship. As for a Zelanti Catholic bishop in the tradition of my own more fiery Franciscan Order, we have the decidedly militant Roman Catholic Bishop Markus Ramolla not too far away from us in Cincinnati, Ohio. And, yes, there are a few terribly elderly Catholic bishops on the outer edges of the Novus Ordo, although very very few of them still with us among the living. Alas... Great Catholic cardinals like Stickler, Siri and Oddi are sorely missed, or at least they ought to be. (As for the dogmatic sedevacantist bishops, presumably the less said about those scandalous characters the better.)

The three Resistance bishops are the most opportunist and diplomatic among the remnant of Catholic bishops still among the living and not yet destroyed by the omnipresent Marxist terror of the Great Apostasy. Still, we ought to maintain our normal Catholic sense and be aware that our holy sacraments empower every legitimately consecrated bishop of our one same Roman Catholic faith.

The time for childish quarrels about the legalities of the Neo-Liberal Marxist usurpers in the Vatican ought to have been left behind us by now. No doubt senility is strong among us, but we ought to at least try to resist the siren calls of our ghastly contemporary decadence. We should respect the sacraments of Our Lord Jesus Christ and at least have some consideration for the entire legitimate episcopal college of Holy Mother Church. We owe our allegiance to every remaining Roman Catholic bishop, not only to the most intensely Jesuit faction among them.

Our religion is Roman Catholicism, and not Ultra-Jesuitism only.

Servus Pius · « **Reply #54 on:** March 21, 2016, 02:08:57 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Centroamerica

The person who told me this is "in the know". However, 5 years is not 20 and we can see this unfold rather fast. There has to be a justification for more bishops, and 4 bishops to manage the faithful of about 40 priests is certainly excessive. That's about 1 bishop per 10 priests. The age thing could be factored in and would seem like a likely reason why this priest in the know said 5 or 10 years. It really depends on the need.

Well, there's a certain "minimum" based on pure geography.

Looking at the bishop:priest ratio is kind of silly, like looking at the number of exterior walls:inhabitants ratio in a house.

In my house, we have 4 exterior walls:8 members of the household.

But a man living alone has 4 exterior walls per person!

See what I'm getting at?

There's a certain minimum, like when you resize certain computer programs/games and they force you to not make the window smaller than a certain size. A minimum required to function, regardless of environment (# of parishioners, # of priests)

To wait 5 years may be too late. I personally believe that something would happen after or on the 100 years anniversary of Fatima. From what Fr.Paul Kramer said on one of his videos, the Chastisement is around the corner already. I would ardently pray that another consecration happen SOONER and not LATER. If for one reason or another they could not consecrate at the bare minimum 6 Bishops, then I pray hard that at least the 4th Bishop has to be in ASIA. I don't care who they will choose as 4th Bishop as long as it is in Asia...HOPEfully

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #55 on:** March 21, 2016, 03:21:00 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

There has to be a justification for more bishops, and 4 bishops to manage the faithful of about 40 priests is certainly excessive.

This isn't about 4 (or more or fewer) bishops "to manage 40 priests." This is entirely about providing real Catholic bishops so that the chain of apostolic succession doesn't die out, which would certainly be the case without any more traditional consecrations if in fact the new episcopal ordinations are invalid, which they well may be. We are talking about bishops for the Catholic Church, not bishops for "the Resistance."

Centroamerica · « **Reply #56 on:** March 21, 2016, 03:47:20 PM »

Quote from: MiserereMeiDeus

Quote from: Centroamerica

There has to be a justification for more bishops, and 4 bishops to manage the faithful of about 40 priests is certainly excessive.

This isn't about 4 (or more or fewer) bishops "to manage 40 priests." This is entirely about providing real Catholic bishops so that the chain of apostolic succession doesn't die out, which would certainly be the case without any more traditional consecrations if in fact the new episcopal ordinations are invalid, which they well may be. We are talking about bishops for the Catholic Church, not bishops for "the Resistance."

The resistance bishops will not conform to your opinion. The new rite of Episcopal Consecration is valid...

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf

Matthew · « **Reply #57 on:** March 21, 2016, 06:10:03 PM »

Centro,

It is irrelevant whether or not the majority of bishops are "valid bishops". What is more important is that they are

A) lousy with Modernism
B) lousy with ignorance and/or heresies, and can't be counted on to preserve the Faith
C) Can't be counted on to ordain more Traditional priests

And in much the same category are the 3 remaining SSPX bishops. Now it's true that these 3 bishops are valid bishops, and with 100% certainty. But they also can't be counted on. For all we know, sometime after the deal, maybe a few years later, Rome will send all 3 into some kind of retirement or exile.

At any rate, they have ALL explicitly (or implicitly, by silence) agreed to do NO MORE NOT-APPROVED-BY-ROME CONSECRATIONS. This has been the neo-SSPX position since +Faure was consecrated, and frankly if I hadn't already been part of the Resistance, that is the day I would have joined it!

They are about as useless to Tradition as as a permanently sterilized couple is useless to the propagation of the human race.

What good is a bishop that has been neutered and sterilized -- by an act of his own will?
What is the point of a Traditional bishop who has pledged to never again consecrate a bishop without Roman approval?

Nothing screams "we've changed from the old SSPX" like condemning an action that is practically identical with the Archbishop's 1988 Consecrations.

Anyone who is still sleeping after THAT little wake-up-call is obviously in a mental or spiritual coma, and there isn't much hope for them.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #58 on:** March 21, 2016, 07:17:09 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Centro,

It is irrelevant whether or not the majority of bishops are "valid bishops". What is more important is that they are

A) lousy with Modernism
B) lousy with ignorance and/or heresies, and can't be counted on to preserve the Faith
C) Can't be counted on to ordain more Traditional priests

And in much the same category are the 3 remaining SSPX bishops. Now it's true that these 3 bishops are valid bishops, and with 100% certainty. But they also can't be counted on. For all we know, sometime after the deal, maybe a few years later, Rome will send all 3 into some kind of retirement or exile.

At any rate, they have ALL explicitly (or implicitly, by silence) agreed to do NO MORE NOT-APPROVED-BY-ROME CONSECRATIONS. This has been the neo-SSPX position since +Faure was consecrated, and frankly if I hadn't already been part of the Resistance, that is the day I would have joined it!

They are about as useless to Tradition as as a permanently sterilized couple is useless to the propagation of the human race.

What good is a bishop that has been neutered and sterilized -- by an act of his own will?
What is the point of a Traditional bishop who has pledged to never again consecrate a bishop without Roman approval?

Nothing screams "we've changed from the old SSPX" like condemning an action that is practically identical with the Archbishop's 1988 Consecrations.

Anyone who is still sleeping after THAT little wake-up-call is obviously in a mental or spiritual coma, and there isn't much hope for them.

Frankly, I have no dog in this fight. If you want to argue about the necessities of more bishops send it to the three bishops. And when you do, tell them that I agree with you.

St Ignatius · « **Reply #59 on:** March 21, 2016, 07:35:19 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Centro,

It is irrelevant whether or not the majority of bishops are "valid bishops". What is more important is that they are

A) lousy with Modernism
B) lousy with ignorance and/or heresies, and can't be counted on to preserve the Faith
C) Can't be counted on to ordain more Traditional priests

And in much the same category are the 3 remaining SSPX bishops. Now it's true that these 3 bishops are valid bishops, and with 100% certainty. But they also can't be counted on. For all we know, sometime after the deal, maybe a few years later, Rome will send all 3 into some kind of retirement or exile.

At any rate, they have ALL explicitly (or implicitly, by silence) agreed to do NO MORE NOT-APPROVED-BY-ROME CONSECRATIONS. This has been the neo-SSPX position since +Faure was consecrated, and frankly if I hadn't already been part of the Resistance, that is the day I would have joined it!

They are about as useless to Tradition as as a permanently sterilized couple is useless to the propagation of the human race.

What good is a bishop that has been neutered and sterilized -- by an act of his own will?
What is the point of a Traditional bishop who has pledged to never again consecrate a bishop without Roman approval?

Nothing screams "we've changed from the old SSPX" like condemning an action that is practically identical with the Archbishop's 1988 Consecrations.

Anyone who is still sleeping after THAT little wake-up-call is obviously in a mental or spiritual coma, and there isn't much hope for them.

You seem to perhaps have some privy information. Maybe you aught to be a little lighter on those who may not have your inside knowledge.