Author Topic: Consecration of Dom Thomas Aquinas March 19th in Brazil (Read 14939 times)

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.