CathInfo.com

Interesting theories, tradican.  Wrong, but interesting.


Posting data as I find it is charity towards others, which is what more Catholics need.  I have no opinion of him personally.


We must consider laicization of a priest by Rome as valid, whether it is old Rome or New Rome.  Laicization is serious.


Remember SSJ?  Do we not consider the laicization of Mr. Ensey as valid?  Or do we allow him to continue his perversion on our sons?  He is available, as I understand, if you can find him.  Perhaps you would like to invite him to your chapel and be around your children?  Probably not.  


Fr. Tetherow, a confessed and convicted pervert, has not been laicised.   Neither has Fr. Urutigoity.  This tells you how serious laicization is.


Not everything out of Rome is bad and we must consider some things they do as valid or we have complete and utter chaos with rogue priests doing what they will, no one to rein them in, and no recourse for bad apples.


Being traditional Catholic is difficult.  We must pick and choose our priests based on who did their ordination, was it done right, what has the priest been doing since, who are his "friends", has he any glaring problems, what is his doctrine, is he a priest, etc.  Any one of which can raise a red flag and we must stop association with him.  These are difficult times we live in.

Interesting theories, tradican.  Wrong, but interesting.


Posting data as I find it is charity towards others, which is what more Catholics need.  I have no opinion of him personally.


We must consider laicization of a priest by Rome as valid, whether it is old Rome or New Rome.  Laicization is serious.


Remember SSJ?  Do we not consider the laicization of Mr. Ensey as valid?  Or do we allow him to continue his perversion on our sons?  He is available, as I understand, if you can find him.  Perhaps you would like to invite him to your chapel and be around your children?  Probably not.  


Fr. Tetherow, a confessed and convicted pervert, has not been laicised.   Neither has Fr. Urutigoity.  This tells you how serious laicization is.


Not everything out of Rome is bad and we must consider some things they do as valid or we have complete and utter chaos with rogue priests doing what they will, no one to rein them in, and no recourse for bad apples.


Being traditional Catholic is difficult.  We must pick and choose our priests based on who did their ordination, was it done right, what has the priest been doing since, who are his "friends", has he any glaring problems, what is his doctrine, is he a priest, etc.  Any one of which can raise a red flag and we must stop association with him.  These are difficult times we live in.

Many words but no questions are answered. Is he ordained in the Old Rite by an old rite consecrated bishop?

Since when can a priest be laicized by a bishop?  You have shown no proof to support your claim.

Urutigoity has not been laicized precisely because he is a flaming ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, they'd have to laicize 50% of the priesthood in South America if they did that.

http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/notice/

Cordaro's 2012 & 2017 notice: "Forbidden to function as a priest,  no faculties whatsoever."