Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on July 12, 2021, 05:23:12 PM
-
https://fsspx.today/chapel/ca-arcadia/pastors-corner/ (https://fsspx.today/chapel/ca-arcadia/pastors-corner/)
Pastor’s Corner
Dear Faithful and Friends,
I pray that this little letter finds you well. I know the Summer is still a busy time for families and individuals. As many of you know we priests are often absent at different times during the summer because of vacations and extra apostolic duties. Watch for any changes in scheduling. Pray for the Fathers of the Our Lady of the Angels Priory. Remember we pray for you too!
I take this opportunity before the Girls Camp in Wisconsin to explain a concern, speak a warning and give my direction as Prior/Pastor of the SSPX apostolate in Southern California.
One of of our former priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, left the union of priests, argued against us as Resistance and has recently assumed to himself the Episcopacy. His ordaining bishop is of a highly doubtful, excommunicated, sedevacantist, illegitimate line of THUC bishops and has no certain power, and he was not in any condition or given authority to Consecrate. Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer has assumed to himself this episcopal consecration as “bishop” at the hands of a doubtful bishop and now has “ordained” men who are not prepared and who have no right to be parading as Catholic priests. A few of you have been asked to participate in the ceremonies of Masses of these “priests” and I have told you to not have anything to do with these misled and harmful men. They do no good for the Church in the way they proceed. To participate WITH THEM OR TO RECEIVE NORMALLY HOLY THINGS FROM FAKE MINISTERS is destructive to your faith, participation in another’s sin of irreverance toward the Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Mass, and at worst it is that of Sacrilege! I am sorry if anyone has given them positions, authority or place to act as priests. This is my warning and prohibition. Stay far away. Your neighbors from a local traditional Mass center may need help and reassurance. Make certain they are welcome at Our Lady of the Angels. We need solid, certain and objective life in the Church.
Be assured of my prayers,
Fr.Trevor Burfitt
-
As a supporter of the Resistance since day 1, I am in full agreement on this issue (Fr. Pfeiffer).
You can't just throw prudence, common sense, and virtue to the wind because "we need priests". You can't place your own will above God's will, as Fr. Pfeiffer has done. There is NO indication in the real world that it's God's will for him to head a seminary, OR become a bishop. That was 100% Fr. Pfeiffer's will.
On the contrary -- there was plenty of evidence to the contrary. There wasn't just a lack of POSITIVE evidence that it WAS God's will -- after all, most actions we have to guess what God's will is. God seldom speaks with a physical voice to us. No, in this case God's voice was loud and clear -- but Fr. P ignored it, because he didn't like the message.
-
As a supporter of the Resistance since day 1, I am in full agreement on this issue.
You missed some of the BS in that post which could easily be turned against the Resistance, denouncing the Thuc line as "excommunicated", "illegitimate" and not "given authority to Consecrate". That would apply as much to +Williamson's consecrations. Of course, even to those performed by +Lefebvre (but somehow the SSPX claim that those were different).
Next I'm waiting for them to cast aspersions even on the validity of the +Williamson consecrations, applying the Fr. (now bishop) Kelly smear that Bishop Williamson was not mentally competent to perform them (citing examples of his mental instability).
-
You missed some of the BS in that post which could easily be turned against the Resistance, denouncing the Thuc line as "excommunicated", "illegitimate" and not "given authority to Consecrate". That would apply as much to +Williamson's consecrations. Of course, even to those performed by +Lefebvre (but somehow the SSPX claim that those were different).
Yes, you're right. But I'm only in agreement with him on the ONE issue of Fr. Pfeiffer and his legitimacy. And yes, I even agree that going Thuc-line was a bad, dangerous move that should cause Catholics to steer clear.
Thuc-line consecrations *are* problematic, he's absolutely right about that.
This is not about consecration without a Papal mandate. It's about Thuc-line in particular. Huge difference.
-
Yes, you're right. But I'm only in agreement with him on the ONE issue of Fr. Pfeiffer and his legitimacy. And yes, I even agree that going Thuc-line was a bad, dangerous move that should cause Catholics to steer clear.
Thuc-line consecrations *are* problematic, he's absolutely right about that.
This is not about consecration without a Papal mandate. It's about Thuc-line in particular. Huge difference.
With the Thuc line, the only added dimensions are "sedevacantist" and "doubtful" ... although I reject the latter. That's from the Fr. Kelly propaganda regarding Bishop Thuc's mental state, which is completely unfounded and which would apply to Bishop Mendez more than Bishop Thuc.
Nevertheless, THIS particular Thuc line IS problematic due to a weak link in the sacerdotal lineage of Bishop(?) Webster.
Then of course there's the botched consecration attempt that Fr. did not cite.
-
Father Pfeiffer should be condemned for the alleged witchcraft of Pablo and his own rejection of the flat earth truth.
-
Yes, you're right. But I'm only in agreement with him on the ONE issue of Fr. Pfeiffer and his legitimacy. And yes, I even agree that going Thuc-line was a bad, dangerous move that should cause Catholics to steer clear.
Thuc-line consecrations *are* problematic, he's absolutely right about that.
This is not about consecration without a Papal mandate. It's about Thuc-line in particular. Huge difference.
The Carmona, Zamora, and Des Lauriers lines are unquestionably valid. Yes, Archbishop Thuc wasn’t perfect and neither was Bishop Mendez. Archbishop Lefebvre was certainly the best of all, but he wasn’t perfect either. He ordained some less than perfect individuals and I will leave it at that.
-
The Carmona, Zamora, and Des Lauriers lines are unquestionably valid. Yes, Archbishop Thuc wasn’t perfect and neither was Bishop Mendez.
Mmm...not so sure: It seems Rome doubted them enough to treat their priestly ordinations as invalid:
“Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance.”
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html)
-
Mmm...not so sure: It seems Rome doubted them enough to treat their priestly ordinations as invalid:
“Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance.”
:facepalm: And “Rome” says the Paul VI is a saint. Yeah, I really care what the heretics in “Rome” determine. :facepalm:
-
:facepalm: And “Rome” says the Paul VI is a saint. Yeah, I really care what the heretics in “Rome” determine. :facepalm:
Perhaps you will find additional causes for concern in this article (which notes Thuc not only consecrated and ordained for the sect of Palmar, but also for at least 5 schismatics, and that two weeks before consecrating des Lauriers et al, he had repented and sought absolution from Rome, continually invoked JPII during the consecration of des Lauriers et al, such that the latter had to continually interrupt Thuc, and that Thuc again repented afterwards and died in the conciliar church).
Many other strange accounts in this lengthy article which would make me avoid him and his progeny except in danger of death:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/benedictinos.blog/2020/10/15/the-ministry-and-validity-of-mons-thuc/amp/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/benedictinos.blog/2020/10/15/the-ministry-and-validity-of-mons-thuc/amp/)
You see, it ain’t just Bishop Kelly who has a problem with Thuc Consecrations.
Interesting to learn that des Lauriers did the same thing Pfeiffer did: Scoured the world to find a bishop to consecrate him, but only ended up in a doubtful state.
-
Just a couple of points as I see it. I think Father Burfit may be referring to Father Perez of Our Lady Help of Christians as one who has provided positions or places to act as priests. Pfeiffer and his boys were at Our Lady Help of Christians recently. I know that Father Perez does have an arrangement for his faithful to receive Confirmation at nearby SSPX chapels. With these recent events a line in the sand may have been drawn. Which side will Perez fall on? Full disclosure I don't attend any of these chapels in said area. It all can be found on good ol YouTube. Cheers.
-
Perhaps you will find additional causes for concern in this article (which notes Thuc not only consecrated and ordained for the sect of Palmar, but also for at least 5 schismatics, and that two weeks before consecrating des Lauriers et al, he had repented and sought absolution from Rome, continually invoked JPII during the consecration of des Lauriers et al, such that the latter had to continually interrupt Thuc, and that Thuc again repented afterwards and died in the conciliar church).
Many other strange accounts in this lengthy article which would make me avoid him and his progeny except in danger of death:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/benedictinos.blog/2020/10/15/the-ministry-and-validity-of-mons-thuc/amp/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/benedictinos.blog/2020/10/15/the-ministry-and-validity-of-mons-thuc/amp/)
You see, it ain’t just Bishop Kelly who has a problem with Thuc Consecrations.
Interesting to learn that des Lauriers did the same thing Pfeiffer did: Scoured the world to find a bishop to consecrate him, but only ended up in a doubtful state.
The Church teaches that when the proper matter and form are used, the intention is presumed. What you have put forward is a negative doubt, not a positive doubt which is demonstrated in the case of the NO orders that you defend as valid. Yes, there actually is a positive doubt with the NO orders because the form WAS changed.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Thuc line is just as valid as the Lefebvre line.
-
To be clear, I do not defend the validity of Father Pfeiffer’s “episcopal orders” as there is enough positive doubt to doubt his attempt at consecration.
-
The Church teaches that when the proper matter and form are used, the intention is presumed. What you have put forward is a negative doubt, not a positive doubt which is demonstrated in the case of the NO orders that you defend as valid. Yes, there actually is a positive doubt with the NO orders because the form WAS changed.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Thuc line is just as valid as the Lefebvre line.
If I thought there was any reasonable chance at your conversion, I would spend the time unwinding your errors.
But as it is, I have better things to do than go another 30 pages with an ill-disposed sede.
Have a great night!
-
If I thought there was any reasonable chance at your conversion, I would spend the time unwinding your errors.
But as it is, I have better things to do than go another 30 pages with an ill-disposed sede.
Have a great night!
No problem. I’ve noticed that when you are proven wrong, which is quite often, you either retreat or resort to ad hominem attacks.
-
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Thuc line is just as valid as the Lefebvre line.
There is a reason why "Thuc line" is not a stamp of quality.
There is no one "Thuc line" consecration to scrutinize -- that's the problem. There were so many, and some are shaded in mystery, especially towards the end of his life. And it's not just those HE consecrated that are the issue -- how many of them are deceased as of 2021? -- but his "line". The doubt and shadow concerning validity multiplied exponentially as you got further from Thuc himself.
Hence the reason "Thuc line" is a flashing yellow light -- if not a red light -- for most Trads.
-
No problem. I’ve noticed that when you are proven wrong, which is quite often, you either retreat or resort to ad hominem attacks.
This is the soma taken by all sedes (and Feeneyites) who prefer to win by stamina rather than argument.
-
A practical question! Does anyone have a list of the “priests” supposedly ordained by Fr. Pfeiffer? (I don’t believe for a minute that consecration was valid, so I won’t address him as a bishop.). I agree these men need to be avoided like the plague. If we don’t actually know them from the “seminary,” that’s very hard to do. There’s no knowing where or when they may show up. I wouldn’t like to accidentally attend mass or worse, receive sacraments from them.
-
This is the soma taken by all sedes (and Feeneyites) who prefer to win by stamina rather than argument.
Fortunately, not all R&R people act with pride and evasiveness.
-
The Carmona, Zamora, and Des Lauriers lines are unquestionably valid. Yes, Archbishop Thuc wasn’t perfect and neither was Bishop Mendez. Archbishop Lefebvre was certainly the best of all, but he wasn’t perfect either. He ordained some less than perfect individuals and I will leave it at that.
The constant anti-Thuc comments is annoying at best. I am especially annoyed with Fr Jenkins regarding it.
-
:facepalm: And “Rome” says the Paul VI is a saint. Yeah, I really care what the heretics in “Rome” determine. :facepalm:
:laugh1: Right?
-
There is a reason why "Thuc line" is not a stamp of quality.
There is no one "Thuc line" consecration to scrutinize -- that's the problem. There were so many, and some are shaded in mystery, especially towards the end of his life. And it's not just those HE consecrated that are the issue -- how many of them are deceased as of 2021? -- but his "line". The doubt and shadow concerning validity multiplied exponentially as you got further from Thuc himself.
Hence the reason "Thuc line" is a flashing yellow light -- if not a red light -- for most Trads.
There are a number of very dubious and shadowy +Thuc lines for sure, but they don't get any more "quality" than +Guerard des Lauriers' line. That man was the personal confessor to Pope Pius XII and helped draft the dogmatic declaration regarding the Assumption, co-authored the Ottaviani Intervention. Then Bishop McKenna was no slouch either, and from there you get +Sanborn. On the other side, +Carmona and +Zamora were also solid. There's no question about either of these lines ... except Bishop Kelly's nonsense about the mental state of +Thuc because he made some bad decisions on whom to ordain. In point of fact, however, imprudence is no indication that someone cannot validly confect the Sacraments. You'd have to be so far gone that you didn't know what you were doing. Witnesses testify that +Thuc, AFTER these consecrations, could sit at table with priests who spoke different languages and switch effortlessly between languages and keep track of separate conversations. His autobiography (also written later) is very articulate and moving. Basically, so long as he was aware that he was consecrating bishops, those were valid. Nor is there any canonical requirement for there to be a witness who knows the essential form and can attest to the fact that it was correct. If the Bishop was properly trained (and +Thuc certainly had been and had performed other consecrations prior to V2), the canonical presumption is one of validity. Between +Thuc (who had advanced theology degrees) and +des Laurier, it's laughable to suggest that they didn't know enough about the consecration to determine whether it was valid. Fr. Kelly made up requirements for validity out of thin air. Derksen's books exposes him as totally dishonest, taking quotes totally out of context and even using strategic ellipses to make the quote say something different than what it originally did.
-
Mmm...not so sure: It seems Rome doubted them enough to treat their priestly ordinations as invalid:
“Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance.”
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html)
Did you even read this quote, Sean? Sometimes I think you need a grammar refresher. They were prescinding in this statement from judging the validity and simply declaring them illicit and not recognized "as regards all juridical effects".
-
Did you even read this quote, Sean? Sometimes I think you need a grammar refresher. They were prescinding in this statement from judging the validity and simply declaring them illicit and not recognized "as regards all juridical effects".
Lad-
Logic much?
If they prescinded, but declare they will not recognize their orders, it necessarily means those ordinations are not certainly valid (ie., they are at least doubtful), since they could not refuse to acknowledge certainly valid orders (eg., Orthodox).
-
There are a number of very dubious and shadowy +Thuc lines for sure, but they don't get any more "quality" than +Guerard des Lauriers' line. That man was the personal confessor to Pope Pius XII and helped draft the dogmatic declaration regarding the Assumption, co-authored the Ottaviani Intervention. Then Bishop McKenna was no slouch either, and from there you get +Sanborn. On the other side, +Carmona and +Zamora were also solid. There's no question about either of these lines ... except Bishop Kelly's nonsense about the mental state of +Thuc because he made some bad decisions on whom to ordain. In point of fact, however, imprudence is no indication that someone cannot validly confect the Sacraments. You'd have to be so far gone that you didn't know what you were doing. Witnesses testify that +Thuc, AFTER these consecrations, could sit at table with priests who spoke different languages and switch effortlessly between languages and keep track of separate conversations. His autobiography (also written later) is very articulate and moving. Basically, so long as he was aware that he was consecrating bishops, those were valid. Nor is there any canonical requirement for there to be a witness who knows the essential form and can attest to the fact that it was correct. If the Bishop was properly trained (and +Thuc certainly had been and had performed other consecrations prior to V2), the canonical presumption is one of validity. Between +Thuc (who had advanced theology degrees) and +des Laurier, it's laughable to suggest that they didn't know enough about the consecration to determine whether it was valid. Fr. Kelly made up requirements for validity out of thin air. Derksen's books exposes him as totally dishonest, taking quotes totally out of context and even using strategic ellipses to make the quote say something different than what it originally did.
You need to read the article I supplied and explain how Thuc’s bizarre behavior does not call into question his “consecration” of des Lauriers et al.
At a bare minimum, he was extremely unstable and unsure of what he was doing, consecrating everyone who asked, them repeatedly running back to Rome to beg forgiveness of JPII.
-
More on Thuc’s exploits:
http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Thuc_Consecrations.html (http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Thuc_Consecrations.html)
“Msgr. Ngo's lineage includes the broadest conceivable spectrum of theologies likely ever to be held by men all claiming to possess valid "Catholic" priestly and episcopal orders that are derived from a single prelate alive in their lifetimes. The spectrum ranges from the head of a French Satanist sect all the way to the strictest of Traditional Roman Catholics.
Needless to say, there are critics of both the liceity and validity of the various "Thuc lineage" episcopal consecrations. Click here for a web site comprising arguments favoring and opposing the validity of the Thuc consecrations (http://www.homestead.com/pmthuc/index.html) and another web site posting a recent essay denying validity. (http://members.spree.com/sip1/sanctuar/thuc.htm) Also of interest is "Docuмent sur la mort de Mgr Thuc" (http://www.geocities.com/Paris/8919/mort_thuc.htm)
-
Mmm...not so sure: It seems Rome doubted them enough to treat their priestly ordinations as invalid:
The Vatican issued at least two clear notices about Thuc.
Do those decrees establish at least a positive doubt about Thuc's consecrations and derivative ordinations?
-
You need to read the article I supplied and explain how Thuc’s bizarre behavior does not call into question his “consecration” of des Lauriers et al.
I've already explained it. But, as per usual, you ignore everything that doesn't fit with your agenda. To validly confect a consecration, you merely have to be aware that you're performing a consecration (and of course have the requisite matter and form). There's zero evidence that +Thuc was not competent to perform the consecration.
-
Lad-
Logic much?
If they prescinded, but declare they will not recognize their orders, it necessarily means those ordinations are not certainly valid (ie., they are at least doubtful), since they could not refuse to acknowledge certainly valid orders (eg., Orthodox).
:facepalm: ... all the quote is saying is that the Vatican holds that, regardless of whether they were valid or not, they have no juridical effect. This simply means that they were prescinding from doing any investigation. More than anything it's probably a question of "I don't want to spend the time and effort to investigate the matter because we don't recognize them as having any juridical effect anyway." It would be in the event of a "reconciliation" where one of the consecrands were readmitted into the Church that they might investigate the question of validity.
-
You need to read the article I supplied and explain how Thuc’s bizarre behavior does not call into question his “consecration” of des Lauriers et al.
At a bare minimum, he was extremely unstable and unsure of what he was doing, consecrating everyone who asked, them repeatedly running back to Rome to beg forgiveness of JPII.
I know of a certain Archbishop who changed his mind several times, but I don’t have the indecency to condemn his actions since I give him the benefit of the doubt. I realize that he was confused by the times as was Archbishop Thuc.
You make an awful lot of judgements, Sean. Funny you can’t seem to make a judgement on a heretic who claims to be pope even though nearly every theologian disagrees with you. :facepalm:
-
I know of a certain Archbishop who changed his mind several times, but I don’t have the indecency to condemn his actions since I give him the benefit of the doubt. I realize that he was confused by the times as was Archbishop Thuc.
Yes, but the judgment of the bulk of trads -- the NUMBERS -- are clearly with +ABL.
And I know what you're going to say -- the numbers are always wrong. But no, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (absence of Je**sh propaganda, slavery to passions, cօռspιʀαcʏ to promote errors) the majority is usually CORRECT.
When you're talking about Catholics who are BOTH A) well-informed AND B) holy, serving God first at all costs -- I'll go with the majority every time.
I'm talking about 100 wise, intelligent, and holy Catholics. When 90 of them go direction A, I'll certainly be following them.
What are the chances they are wrong? How could the vast majority be wrong? Again, I'm not talking about following raw numbers. The majority can be misled by any number of ways. I'm talking about those who HAVE THE FAITH, and have committed to giving up anything to follow God and practice that Faith. If 90 out of 100 decided that the SSPX was the safest path, who am I to disagree?
The Resistance is the minority now. But almost ALL current SSPX attendees are stopping up their ears to the truth -- to the changes and contradictions -- of what's going on. They are not well-informed. AND they are not willing to give up their conveniently located weekly Mass. They can't/won't homeschool, because they don't want to give up their free time spent watching TV. They have inordinate attachments. They want the world to NOT call them "extremist", "radical", "cօռspιʀαcʏ theorist" or "crazy". See how they are compromised, and their "vote" doesn't count?
But when CathInfo gives someone 12+ downvotes and almost no upvotes, the person is *always* a problem. Why is that?
-
I've already explained it. But, as per usual, you ignore everything that doesn't fit with your agenda. To validly confect a consecration, you merely have to be aware that you're performing a consecration (and of course have the requisite matter and form). There's zero evidence that +Thuc was not competent to perform the consecration.
Eh, no, you lied and said the whole basis for doubting the mental capacity of Thuc was from Kelly.
I haven't even cited Kelly yet (and some of his reasoning is excellent as well).
Thuc was erratic, as any non-sede will readily admit.
The only ones who have a problem admitting that are sedes ans sede sympathizers (who have an agenda: since ALL sede bishops are doubtfully consecrated, they HAVE to declare -not prove- at least one o fthem is certainly valid.
Except none of them can.
So as usual, you are simply projecting (i.e., declaring your adversary has an agenda, when in fact, the agenda is all yours).
-
:facepalm: ... all the quote is saying is that the Vatican holds that, regardless of whether they were valid or not, they have no juridical effect. This simply means that they were prescinding from doing any investigation. More than anything it's probably a question of "I don't want to spend the time and effort to investigate the matter because we don't recognize them as having any juridical effect anyway." It would be in the event of a "reconciliation" where one of the consecrands were readmitted into the Church that they might investigate the question of validity.
Eh, no.
What it says is two things:
1) Whatever the case of the validity of orders is (i.e., it is uncertain), they will not recognize them;
2) And then secondly, an additional declaration: We declare them of no juridical effect.
1 & 2 are not the same thing:
As regards the Orthodox, Rome recognizes 1 but not 2.
But Rome is powerless to know the orders are certainly valid, yet declare they will not recognize their validity:
1) whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination,
and 2) as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously,
2 is not a continuation of 1, but a separate/additional declaration.
-
You make an awful lot of judgements, Sean. Funny you can’t seem to make a judgement on a heretic who claims to be pope even though nearly every theologian disagrees with you. :facepalm:
Only a sede would have the pride to depose a pope.
PS: Want to bet I can cite many more weighty theologians to side with me, than will side with you (i.e., your erroneous reading of Bellarmine)?
-
Yes, but the judgment of the bulk of trads -- the NUMBERS -- are clearly with +ABL.
And I know what you're going to say -- the numbers are always wrong. But no, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (absence of Je**sh propaganda, slavery to passions, cօռspιʀαcʏ to promote errors) the majority is usually CORRECT.
When you're talking about Catholics who are BOTH A) well-informed AND B) holy, serving God first at all costs -- I'll go with the majority every time.
I'm talking about 100 wise, intelligent, and holy Catholics. When 90 of them go direction A, I'll certainly be following them.
What are the chances they are wrong? How could the vast majority be wrong? Again, I'm not talking about following raw numbers. The majority can be misled by any number of ways. I'm talking about those who HAVE THE FAITH, and have committed to giving up anything to follow God and practice that Faith. If 90 out of 100 decided that the SSPX was the safest path, who am I to disagree?
The Resistance is the minority now. But almost ALL current SSPX attendees are stopping up their ears to the truth -- to the changes and contradictions -- of what's going on. They are not well-informed. AND they are not willing to give up their conveniently located weekly Mass. They can't/won't homeschool, because they don't want to give up their free time spent watching TV. They have inordinate attachments. They want the world to NOT call them "extremist", "radical", "cօռspιʀαcʏ theorist" or "crazy". See how they are compromised, and their "vote" doesn't count?
But when CathInfo gives someone 12+ downvotes and almost no upvotes, the person is *always* a problem. Why is that?
Matthew, you know as well as I do that numbers don’t necessarily mean anything. In my post above, I stated that I thought that Archbishop Lefebvre was certainly the best of the three, but he was not perfect. Obviously I don’t believe that the numbers are always wrong. Actually, by your criteria, compared to the Resistance the sedevacantist numbers blow them out of the water.
More importantly though, it certainly seems to me that we’re in midst of the Great Apostasy. Our Lord says that when he returns will he find faith: “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” Also: “ And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened.” So much for the numbers....
So for me, the safest course of action is not what the majority of those who profess the true faith believe, no, I go by what the Church has taught before John XXIII. I use the popes, the doctors, and the approved theologians to guide me. I don’t completely trust myself nor do I completely trust the opinions of my follow man in these perilous times.
-
So for me, the safest course of action is not what the majority of those who profess the true faith believe, no, I go by what the Church has taught before John XXIII. I use the popes, the doctors, and the approved theologians to guide me.
Pope Michael claims the same. Actually, since every sede is a pope, there really is no need to ever have "another" pope again:
Each sede is his own rule of faith.
-
Only a sede would have the pride to depose a pope.
PS: Want to bet I can cite many more weighty theologians to side with me, than will side with you (i.e., your erroneous reading of Bellarmine)?
:laugh2: Pathetic just pathetic. Why don’t you read Saint Robert Bellarmine for yourself instead of having some pseudo theologian interpret for you? Want some chips with your Salza?
Yep, I’ll take the bet!
-
:laugh2: Pathetic just pathetic. Why don’t you read Saint Robert Bellarmine for yourself instead of having some pseudo theologian interpret for you? Want some chips with your Salza?
Yep, I’ll take the bet!
LMAO.
Please upload your Latin Bellarmine books, showing your English handwritten translations above each line, poser.
All you know of Bellarmine is what others have translated for you (i.e., Ryan Grant, and some unverified internet translations).
As regards the bet: I accept!
-
PS: I see you and the Waling Woman are busy down-thumbing all posts again.
OK, hang on, I need to reciprocate...
OK, back now.
Please proceed.
-
I know that you're not actually interested in the truth of the matter, Sean, but I include this link for those who are:
Summary:
http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_SUMMARY.pdf
Full Open Letter:
http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf
-
:laugh1:
-
Pope Michael claims the same. Actually, since every sede is a pope, there really is no need to ever have "another" pope again:
Each sede is his own rule of faith.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: Seriously, are you all there? YOU are the one who sifts through what YOUR “pope” teaches. I FOLLOW, as best I can, whatever any true pope has decreed. I don’t question a true pope’s teachings, I FOLLOW the popes, I FOLLOW the doctors, I FOLLOW the approved theologians.
Let me ask you Sean, when we do get a true pope, will you follow him blindly, as I will, or will you continue to sift all his works?
-
PS: I see you and the Waling Woman are busy down-thumbing all posts again.
OK, hang on, I need to reciprocate...
OK, back now.
Please proceed.
I really feel very sorry for you Sean. I never gave you a single downvote, but you just admitted that you just gave me a bunch. I forgive you and I will pray for you.
-
I know that you're not actually interested in the truth of the matter, Sean, but I include this link for those who are:
Summary:
http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_SUMMARY.pdf
Full Open Letter:
http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf
I know you don't care about this Lad, but for those that do: https://benedictinos.blog/2020/10/15/the-ministry-and-validity-of-mons-thuc/
5. SOUNDNESS OF MIND?
The soundness of Bishop Thuc’s mind is a frequently recurring issue, and it is so for good reason. Much has been said elsewhere about Bishop Thuc enabling the Palmarians in founding their new Church by ordaining and consecrating clergy for them. His gullibility in this instance is truly astonishing, as he recorded in his own autobiography:“Then a priest came to me, one I had met before in Ecône, Switzerland. He told me outright: ‘Excellency, the Holy Virgin sends me in order for me to send you to central Spain immediately to render her a service. My car is ready for you at the parsonage’s door and we will immediately depart in order to be there for Christmas.’”
“Stunned by this invitation, I said to him: ‘If it is a service that the Holy Virgin required, I am ready to follow you to the end of the world, but I must inform the priest because of the Christmas Mass and must pack my bag.”
Soundness of mind, what others have observed:• “A newsletter which supports Mgr. Ngo describes him as a ‘timid Asiatic who was easily influenced,’ and continues: ‘Once again, realize the fact that Mgr. Ngo, physically and psychologically worn out, … only wants peace and quiet … It should be noted that this prelate has acquired some complexes, and that age doesn’t help things.’”8• “Mgr. Thuc said he ‘had the mind of a child,’ meaning that ‘he was guileless and somewhat naïve in dealing with others, a fact which explains why he did certain consecrations which he later regretted.’”9• “According to one priest at the time who met him, Mgr. Thuc ‘went in and out of lucidity.’”10• “Conciliar Bishop Gilles Barthe, with whom Mgr. Thuc publicly concelebrated the New “Mass” and in whose diocese he finally settled, told in the French monthly La Docuмentation Catholique (February 21, 1982) of his concerns surrounding the elderly prelate’s activities. ‘I voice the most express reservations about the value [validity] of these ordinations,’ he stated, then going on to question Mgr. Thuc’s lucidity during the rites: ‘It is even less [clear] for the ordinations done in his house at Toulon. It is permitted to ask oneself up to what point he was well aware of the acts which he did and to what point his liberty went…’”11
One author summarized Bishop Thuc’s activities quite well:“He [Bishop Thuc] seemed to do and say what those around him wanted him to do and say. He acted as if he did not have a mind of his own. When he was under the influence of the Novus Ordo clergy, he did and said what they wanted. When the Old Catholics came to him for episcopal consecration, he did what they wanted. When under the influence of Hiller and Heller, he accommodated them. Then, when he was back under the influence of the Novus Ordo, he did what they wanted and repudiated what he had done and said under the influence of Hiller and Heller.”12We hope and pray that Bishop Thuc did in fact have a mental deficiency, because in considering all of the evil that has emanated from his reckless ordinations and consecrations, this successor of the Apostles, who possessed three doctorates and other degrees of learning, would have been horribly culpable before the judgment seat of God, unless he did indeed “have the mind of a child.”
-
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: Seriously, are you all there? YOU are the one who sifts through what YOUR “pope” teaches. I FOLLOW, as best I can, whatever any true pope has decreed. I don’t question a true pope’s teachings, I FOLLOW the popes, I FOLLOW the doctors, I FOLLOW the approved theologians.
Let me ask you Sean, when we do get a true pope, will you follow him blindly, as I will, or will you continue to sift all his works?
Sorry, but YOU (not the rest of the world) will never have a true pope, because you believe you carry within yourself the only power to affirm or deny his legitimacy.
Therefore, you are really just a protestant masquerading as a faithful Catholic.
:facepalm: :facepalm:
-
I really feel very sorry for you Sean. I never gave you a single downvote, but you just admitted that you just gave me a bunch. I forgive you and I will pray for you.
You do that.
God is very interested in whether and how you get thumbs-up or down on Cathinfo.
Do you think I should go to confession? :facepalm: :jester: :laugh2: :laugh1:
Let me know if you receive any allocutions in response to those prayers.
:popcorn:
-
Sorry, but YOU (not the rest of the world) will never have a true pope, because you believe you carry within yourself the only power to affirm or deny his legitimacy.
Therefore, you are really just a protestant masquerading as a faithful Catholic.
:facepalm: :facepalm:
I just pray you aren’t like this in real life: Vindictive, mean spirited, and proud. You just claimed that I’m not a Catholic while I’m bending over backwards to give you the benefit of the doubt. :facepalm: :'(
-
I just pray you aren’t like this in real life: Vindictive, mean spirited, and proud. You just claimed that I’m not a Catholic while I’m bending over backwards to give you the benefit of the doubt. :facepalm: :'(
"The sedevacantist cries in pain as he strikes you!"
:facepalm: :facepalm: :jester:
-
You do that.
God is very interested in whether and how you get thumbs-up or down on Cathinfo.
Do you think I should go to confession? :facepalm: :jester: :laugh2: :laugh1:
Let me know if you receive any allocutions in response to those prayers.
:popcorn:
Yep, I will. Thanks for the opportunity! 🙂
-
Yep, I will. Thanks for the opportunity! 🙂
You're welcome.
-
I know you don't care about this Lad, but for those that do: https://benedictinos.blog/2020/10/15/the-ministry-and-validity-of-mons-thuc/
5. SOUNDNESS OF MIND?
Great, Sean; he was timid and easily influenced. I know people like that. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he was capable of confecting the Sacraments.
-
Great, Sean; he was timid and easily influenced. I know people like that. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he was capable of confecting the Sacraments.
Do you know many like that who consecrate leaders of Satanic sects? Or who believe the Virgin Mary sent a driver to pick them up to embark upon a special mission from heaven? Or who, despite holding triple doctorates, believe that if they consecrate bishops for the Old Catholic schismatics, it makes them Catholic again?
-
According to this thread, Thuc conditionally consecrated some guy who doubted the validity of the bishop who originally consecrated him. That Bishop was Archbishop Thuc!
Yes, apparently Thuc doubted the validity of his first consecration.
The theory is that after Thuc’s brother was αssαssιnαtҽd, it hurt his sanity.
It also mentions that Lefebvre conditionally confirmed all those who had been confirmed by Thuc bishops, because he considered them doubtfully consecrated.
https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=80825 (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=80825)
-
Sean, the more you post, the more you embarrass yourself. You come across like an immature baby.
-
Sean, the more you post, the more you embarrass yourself. You come across like an immature baby.
Judging by your emotional outbursts, I’m more inclined to believe the truth of the matter is, the more I post, the more I embarrass you.
I do understand that my posts make it harder to whitewash Thuc, and that exposing your nonsense about Kelly being the only one doubting the validity of Thuc consecrations is probably frustrating for you.
-
Word has it Thuc was found hiding in a Dallas book depository on November 22, 1963.
Also, now this is just alleged, but he was the mastermind behind both the Brinks heists of 1950 AND 1981! :facepalm:
-
Judging by your emotional outbursts, I’m more inclined to believe the truth of the matter is, the more I post, the more I embarrass you.
I do understand that my posts make it harder to whitewash Thuc, and that exposing your nonsense about Kelly being the only one doubting the validity of Thuc consecrations is probably frustrating for you.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/TL2Yr3ioe78tO/200.gif)
-
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/TL2Yr3ioe78tO/200.gif)
I understand your pain, and appreciate you sending me your pic.
-
Word has it Thuc was found hiding in a Dallas book depository on November 22, 1963.
:facepalm:
False:
He was hiding in a basement in Palmar de Troya.
-
.... while Fr. Perez, CA, allows a questionable "cleric" to distribute Holy Communion:
https://youtu.be/uMNWWjjby5w
Daniel Croisette, one of Pfeiffer's "deacons" (at the time) is introduced at minute 17:38, and distributes at minute 55.
Fr. Perez said, "I don't know," when queried "Do you believe the consecretion of Fr. Pfeiffer to be legitimate?"
Wonder when/if we will see Fr. Perez allow "Fr." Croisette or "Fr" Noah Cooke (both "ordained" by Pfeiffer in June 2021) to say mass at his chapels.