Author Topic: Episcopal Consecration - A Striking Contrast (Read 5592 times)

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #15 on:** March 23, 2015, 06:47:17 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

If you have ever intended to get married in an SSPX chapel, probably on the rare occasion, the priest may say that you can attempt to ask the diocesan bishop for permission that the SSPX priest perform your marriage, but this never happens. You sign a paper that you understand that the marriage is extraordinary due to the mileau in the dioceses even if a Tridentine Mass was available.

How is it the Fr. Laisney forgets this and does not see the direct correlation between the SSPX sacrament of matrimony and the consecration of a bishop, both sacraments received without seeking the proper approval from the authorities, is beyond me! In fact, the SSPX regularly confers sacraments on a daily basis without seeking permission from Church authorities. How about this June when it's time for SSPX ordinations? Will they first ask permission from Rome? What hyprocrisy!!!!

No to mention all their annulments.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #16 on:** March 23, 2015, 07:06:01 PM »

Don't forget the sacrament of Confirmation.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #17 on:** March 23, 2015, 07:27:15 PM »

The wicked wicked novus ordo bishops and cardinals won't even use the FSSP to save our Churches and school. Instead, shrines and Catholic Churches are being sold to enemies of Jesus Christ.

The SSPX should be treated like the Maronites who have their own bishops and are in a diocese.

But we have God and the Truth. We are to love God and His Church. We are to fight for Jesus Christ. Our goal is Heaven.

JPaul · « **Reply #18 on:** March 23, 2015, 08:06:39 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: J.Paul

Wave goodbye to your chapels. Once they are under conciliar control, it is most likely that your sacraments will be conditioned upon you accepting what Fellay and Co. will have already accepted.

I'm ahead of you here, and I got this covered :)

I've been working on building up an independent chapel 40 minutes from the current SSPX San Antonio chapel. I keep calling it that (rather than a Resistance chapel) for various reasons. I wish to focus on keeping the Faith, keeping access to the Mass and Sacraments, but avoiding politics as much as possible. I am certainly a "Resistance" supporter but I don't want to get stuck in a pegged hole (e.g., the Pfeiffer branch of the Resistance). The point of the Resistance is to continue the pure fight for Tradition -- many priests would fit this description even if they aren't a card-carrying "Resistance" member. Fr. Trinh, for example.

if someone from the Indult wants to attend a TLM at my chapel with Fr. Voigt (etc.) I'm not going to stop them.

Besides, in 20 years after the SSPX becomes a synonym for the FSSP, what will the Resistance mean anyhow? They'll just be "Traditional Catholic".

The Resistance is merely the continuation of the SSPX mission, the continuation of the non-sedevacantist Traditional movement.

I consider the SSPX to be (humanly speaking) a lost cause. I do pray that God's will be done, and that the maximum number of souls be saved during all this mess.

But whatever my feelings about the SSPX, whatever my hopes, my sense of duty and prudence dictates that I must help provide for my family (and other families in this area) the single most important resource for a human being: the Sacrifice of the Mass and the life-giving Sacraments.

It does take some time and resources, but what else would I be doing? Buying a few more "things" (and/or working a little less hard)? Spending a few more hours a month arguing with Catholics on Trad fora? Pursuing a degree in Armchair Theology? It's not much of a contest.

I agree with you 100%. Fortunately, for your family, and yourself, you are a clear thinking Catholic man blessed with the vision and good motivation, to do what must be done. Seeing the needs and actions that the future will require, avoiding the hinderance of the partisan or sectarian stumbling blocks.
God Bless you.

Wessex · « **Reply #19 on:** March 24, 2015, 07:49:02 AM »

Matthew's independent chapel may become the norm in years to come. With a reluctance to form institutions that eventually fail or get taken over, the one priest
chapel may be the formula that best retains and passes on the old religion. Dispassionate historians will of course say they are merely adding to the plethora of own-initiate apostolates that make up much of Christian worship. But this could be the only choice outside politically driven institutions that exploit the herd instinct.

JPaul · « **Reply #20 on:** March 24, 2015, 07:27:12 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

Matthew's independent chapel may become the norm in years to come. With a reluctance to form institutions that eventually fail or get taken over, the one priest
chapel may be the formula that best retains and passes on the old religion. Dispassionate historians will of course say they are merely adding to the plethora of own-initiate apostolates that make up much of Christian worship. But this could be the only choice outside politically driven institutions that exploit the herd instinct.

Quite so. And what will stand to unite these folks into a single entity will in the end, be the unity of the Faith, which is the foundation and indispensable element of the Christian Religion.
This is the most striking point of departure of the Christian and the Conciliarist.
We can never be united with them in any meaningful way without it. Whosoever thinks that they can be united to them is living a reality of self delusion.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #21 on:** July 19, 2018, 11:20:16 PM »

Quote

what will stand to unite these folks into a single entity will in the end, be the unity of the Faith, which is the foundation and indispensable element of the Christian Religion.

.
What guarantee do we have that there will be any principle of unity in the future, when all ready we see such divisions and contentions setting in, such as SSPV, CMRI, FSSP, SSPX, and so on, each daring to point fingers of accusation towards the other and accusing them of improper understanding of Church doctrine?
.
It starts with small things, and eventually grows into larger things. The CMRI, for example, claims that BoD and BoB are "defined dogmas of the Faith," but can't manage to prove their case (they rely on such screeds as those of Fr. Martin Stepanich in The Remnant for their so-called evidence).
.
Many heresies in the history of the Church have grown from small matters like this. They grow like a bad weed, getting larger and more powerful, until eventually they take over large portions of territory. That's how the Arian heresy spread, and the heresy of Photius. Gallicanism and Jansenism in France, no less, began small and progressively increased their influence. Modernism was but a speck on the radar in the early 19th century but swelled to consume the world in our own time, even after the condemnation by Pope St. Pius X that many thought was sufficient to extinguish it. But it's baaaaack!

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #22 on:** July 20, 2018, 08:32:49 AM »

Quote

What guarantee do we have that there will be any principle of unity in the future

We will eventually get a saintly pope back in rome and the few catholics left will follow him and unity will return.

Author Topic: Episcopal Consecration - A Striking Contrast (Read 5592 times)

Maria Auxiliadora

Episcopal Consecration - A Striking Contrast

Viva Cristo Rey

Episcopal Consecration - A Striking Contrast

Viva Cristo Rey

Episcopal Consecration - A Striking Contrast

JPaul

Episcopal Consecration - A Striking Contrast

Wessex

Episcopal Consecration - A Striking Contrast

JPaul

Episcopal Consecration - A Striking Contrast

Neil Obstat

Re: Episcopal Consecration - A Striking Contrast

Pax Vobis

Re: Episcopal Consecration - A Striking Contrast