Author Topic: Ex-OLMC seminarian ordained (Read 40658 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #65 on:** November 16, 2017, 01:51:33 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on November 16, 2017, 01:41:15 PM

.
One problem with this post is this: Fr. Francois Chazal is not going to "call in Moran to ordain his seminarians."
.
To the extent that your line of reasoning relies on that as a principle, it fails, because it's invalid, it's not going to happen.
.

Indeed. If Fr. Chazal ever lost his mind in that manner, any sane seminarians would have to leave.
The ones who stayed behind for a few months, or a few years, would always have lingering questions hanging over them, re: their good judgment.

Agreed -- the seminarians are not prisoners. There is a time for charity, humility, deference -- staying silent and putting up with OUTRAGEOUS situations (a man like Pablo being in charge of a seminary, approval of Ambrose Moran as a bishop, attacking good resistance priests) is not one of them!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #66 on:** November 16, 2017, 01:53:00 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on November 16, 2017, 01:38:35 PM

I guess not.
This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Flat Earth, however, and I'd appreciate you not starting a fight outside "the ghetto" on that topic.
Some people believe very strongly about that topic.

.
Understood. No problem.
.
However, I would cordially invite ANYONE who "strongly believes" as you say, to come and discuss their belief in "the ghetto" because not a single member has been willing to put their blind faith to the test in a simple, direct manner. Catholic faith is not blind, and does not require Catholics to deny the evidence observable by our senses and examined by our intellect. Only our free will gets us into trouble by choosing to ignore what our intellect provides.
.
Back to the topic at hand:
.
It might be nice for newcomers if you would explain exactly WHY Tradplorable was banned. I would presume it has to do with him persistently opposing you or testing the principles you have just explained here and in other threads for the umpteenth time. Am I wrong?
.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #67 on:** November 16, 2017, 02:08:26 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on November 16, 2017, 01:46:55 PM

A seminarian isn't a prisoner with no rights. If he doesn't trust that a bishop is valid, he can just leave the seminary or study house, or wherever he is. This assumes he's already asked for evidence of his own concerning the bishop, and has been refused or given little answer. If he blindly trusts his seminary director concerning a bishop, it makes me wonder about the common sense level and 'street smarts' of the seminarian.

Secondly, there's 2 issues here, which are being co-mingled. 1) the validity of the priest and 2) the validity of the bishop who consecrated the priest. It seems that in this case, there are doubts about both the priest and the bishop, therefore evidence and an explanation is doubly important.

.
It seems to me there is a third issue, one which applies to all "mainstream" ordinations.
.
I have seen sedevacantist priests questioning the validity of other priests solely on the basis of the date of their ordination when it was under the local diocese. If they were ordained after 1969 these sedes presume it was invalid because of the change in the form of priestly ordination in 1969.
.
Similarly, for episcopal consecrations they draw the line at 1968 because the form was changed in that year. Pope Francis is therefore subject to criticism on BOTH counts because he was ordained a priest after 1969 and consecrated a bishop after 1968. Consequently the CMRI (as well as others) clerics claim that he is not a pope because he is not a bishop nor is he even a priest.
.

JPaul · « **Reply #68 on:** November 16, 2017, 02:58:11 PM »

Quote from: happenby on November 16, 2017, 12:39:16 PM

Until anyone here has inquired answers of the new priest, most of what is said here remains speculation. While there is serious doubt about the bishop because he is a sedevacantist, there very will could be more to know before drawing conclusions.

An accurate observation but there is not doubt about a Bishop because he is sedvacantist, there would be doubt if his orders were supect of invalidity.

JPaul · « **Reply #69 on:** November 16, 2017, 04:04:30 PM »

This is one priest who is apparently going back to Africa to minister, What about all of the indult priests whose ordaining Bishops might be invalid? Many traditionalists find these men to be an interchangeable options with the SSPX for the sacraments. No one seems to be at all concerned about this.

Is it only those individuals who have had any relationship to Boston KY. who rate such demanding scrutiny?

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Ex-OLMC seminarian ordained (Read 40658 times)

Matthew

Re: Ex-OLMC seminarian ordained

Neil Obstat

Re: Ex-OLMC seminarian ordained

Neil Obstat

Re: Ex-OLMC seminarian ordained

JPaul

Re: Ex-OLMC seminarian ordained

JPaul

Re: Ex-OLMC seminarian ordained