...for sedevacantism:Do you know if that word "ordained" is correct? Was this priest ordained by a Resistance bishop?
Loose translation (see original at link below):
Father Rodrigo was ordained as a member of the Priestly Society of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary whose founder, Monsignor Jean Michel Faure, demands from his members the same position Archbishop Lefebvre demanded.
Do you know if that word "ordained" is correct? Was this priest ordained by a Resistance bishop?
You just publicly accused a priest of deceiving his superiors ( a grave moral culpability) for the serious matter of ordination. But you don't know everything or much of anything. This priest was making severe anti-sedevacantist videos just weeks ago where he would repeat the word for word position of the Resistance. You just took it upon yourself to assume that he had not changed positions so you could publicly accuse him and say he could've been ordained by a sede bishop. And this being given moderator power over the forum. It says a lot, actually. Public reparation would be a start.So, is Bp. Thomas Aquinas a liar?
1.) Fr. Ribeiro Da Silva was accused by Cath Info moderator of deceiving the faithful and his superiors for years in order to be ordained a priest.There's no need to add embellishment; everyone can read what I wrote.
You just publicly accused a priest of deceiving his superiors ( a grave moral culpability) for the serious matter of ordination. You just took it upon yourself to assume that he had not changed positions so you could publicly accuse him and say he could've been ordained by a sede bishop.
A priest writes to me:
"The SAJM has not expelled Fr. Ribeiro, but he has separated from the Resistance 2) There is possibly a canonical process of expulsion later on. Please, edit your post."
Note: The editing window has expired, but perhaps Matthew can contrive a more appropriate thread title? Not really sure what that would be though.
There has to be a term already coined out there in Traddieland for this pattern of deceiving your superiors until you receive ordination and then "coming out" with your true opinions on the Crisis.
Any priest who doesn't begin to worry about, consider, or study the Pope question until after Ordination isn't very impressive as a priest. On the contrary, I would say that such a priest is shirking his essential duties, and is probably doing more harm than good for souls by having himself ordained.
It’s like the more anti-sedevacantist the “Resistance” becomes, the more it feeds the sede vacante position.
Oh, it's not necessarily the case that he never considered the question during his time at the seminary. Perhaps something happened (or he encountered some reading material) that simply caused him to change his mind. That happens....and when this happens on a scale of days and weeks (rather than months and years) that is called being UNSTABLE. I covered that in my post.
A bishop has a serious responsibility to only ordain men whom he deems worthy of the priesthood. That bishop does not take his own positions lightly and only chooses to ordain those who share those positions.While I agree with you, in the main, it would seem that the Archbishop fell a bit short when choosing the men whom he not only ordained but also consecrated. This seems to be an effort to undo an ordination rather than to take the responsibility for a possible failure of judgment.
At least that's how sanity used to work. You'd pick where you live, THEN worry about your career or job. Nowadays though, I guess people have no roots, and will move anywhere they need to, depending on what career they choose. Sad. But look at how messed up the modern world is as a result! Few family ties, rarely any extended family closeness (among Whites at least), no roots, families spread out all over the country.The insanity is further exacerbated by priests of this sort who either state or imply the faithful who rely upon them remain "loyal" to them. When they change their stance on something major like this, the faithful find themselves in a bad position unless they change along with him or compromise their consciences. I've been in this situation, and, unwilling to compromise on what I consider a matter of keeping the faith, have found myself without priest, Mass, or Sacraments. An involuntary "home-aloner," I'm now ostracized for being a "home-aloner!"
I dare say MOST Americans are born into rootlessness, so why not move?I was born of a thief, henceforth, I am to be a thief?
I was born of a thief, henceforth, I am to be a thief?No, completely misunderstood. It is sinful to be a thief, whereas one who, through no fault of his own finds himself (or herself) alone in the world is a victim of circuмstsnces, not a person who chooses a life of sin. Stealing is objectively sinful. Being alone in the world by the failure of others is not sinful, just unfortunate.
Sean,
"Fr. Ribeiro Da Silva has publicly stated now that he is connected to Bishop Daniel Dolan"
Sean,It was in a post from Centroamerica on p. 1 of this thread, which apparently is no longer there.
Where are you taking this statement from?
St. Patrick
Oh, it's not necessarily the case that he never considered the question during his time at the seminary. Perhaps something happened (or he encountered some reading material) that simply caused him to change his mind. That happens.Even if he hadn't, I don't understand why 7 months is considered a sudden change in position...unless I am missing something about the timeline here.
Even if he hadn't, I don't understand why 7 months is considered a sudden change in position...unless I am missing something about the timeline here.Centroamerica said that a few weeks ago he was making severe anti-sede videos, but now has attached himself to Bishop Sanborn.
Centroamerica said that a few weeks ago he was making severe anti-sede videos, but now has attached himself to Bishop Sanborn.I tried googling for these videos...where are they?
I tried googling for these videos...where are they?I would pm Centroamerica
So, if a priest ordained by a sede bishop suddenly changed his position and became a member of the Resistance, the concern would be the same, right?:laugh1: :laugh2: :laugh1:
So, if a priest ordained by a sede bishop suddenly changed his position and became a member of the Resistance, the concern would be the same, right?
For those on this thread who are rabid, anti-sede (and they know who they are), we all know it would not. The response would be "Thank God, Father has seen the light!"
...and when this happens on a scale of days and weeks (rather than months and years) that is called being UNSTABLE.
If a sede priest ordained 7 months ago was publishing severe anti-resistance videos three weeks ago, and then suddenly separated from some sede group and announced his attachment to a resistance bishop, yes, this would give pause for thought.Ok..maybe just a "pause".
I would pm CentroamericaWhy PM Centro? The Resistance folks are using these videos as proof that something is wrong with the priest's change in position. Why can't one of them provide the videos? Why aren't they in the public domain if his anti Sede position was so vociferous?
Maybe. Or perhaps something happened that opened his eyes to something. We don't really know what happened.And there is the point, there is too much pontification going on about subjects that folks have no real facts about.
And there is the point, there is too much pontification going on about subjects that folks have no real facts about.Another thing. If this priest just used the Resistance to get ordained, then why did he wait 7 months to jump ship? Why not do it in January or February?
Another thing. If this priest just used the Resistance to get ordained, then why did he wait 7 months to jump ship? Why not do it in January or February?
There is something "off" about this whole thread.
And there is the point, there is too much pontification going on about subjects that folks have no real facts about.
I said weeks, but this video was actually from before his ordination.OK, so you said "weeks" and Sean translated that to mean just a "few weeks ago" (you probably shouldn't have said "weeks"). And then a bunch of people just assumed that this priest changed his views overnight just a few weeks ago and questioned his ability to be a good priest.
https://youtu.be/yCTV_kR4NhM (https://youtu.be/yCTV_kR4NhM)
Here’s Fr. Rodrigo’s Facebook profile where he claims to now be connected to Bishop Daniel Dolan. There are tons of sedevacantist Catholics in Brazil with no priest. It’s not even a matter of taking resistance chapels with him. He can end up having larger chapels and groups than the Brazilian resistance when it’s all said and done and it’s not really visible to the casual observer. There’s more than meets the eye even the Brazilian resistance priests are probably not aware of the full situation.
He is also working together with a group of Franciscans in São Paolo. I think he doesn’t need to take chapels from te resistance.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100017358491544 (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100017358491544)
Why might he try to take Resistance chapels with him? Hopefully he wouldn't want to do that. Are there that many in the Resistance in Brazil who are really sedevacantist, and will follow Fr. Rodrigo's lead?Bishop Faure hasn’t even spoken on this matter.
It seems to me that perhaps one of the reasons for Bp. Faure's communication in the OP is to let everyone in the Resistance know that Father is no longer associated with the Resistance. That would necessarily include the Brazilian Resistance.
You had a question about the anti-resistance videos Centroamerica mentioned in his post,I never mentioned any anti-resistance videos. I don’t know what half the people on this thread are talking about. Seems like they’re just making up stuff and rolling with it.
Bishop Faure hasn’t even spoken on this matter.
I never mentioned any anti-resistance videos. I don’t know what half the people on this thread are talking about. Seems like they’re just making up stuff and rolling with it.
agosto 2018
(https://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_custom_svg)WordPress.com (http://wordpress.com/themes/). Privacidade e cookies: Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao continuar a usar este site, você concorda com seu uso. Para saber mais, inclusive sobre como controlar os cookies, consulte aqui: Política de cookies (https://automattic.com/cookies) |
I leave a link to the video where Father Rodrigo Da Silva explains his situation. It is in Portuguese only.
During his formation, he spoke with important priests of the so-called "resistance", especially those of sedevacatory position. This led him to speak with Dom Tomas about how he could not in conscience pray for a formal heretic like Bergoglio (he cites Dom Guéranger as a source and the classic explanations of the vacant See). Given that explanation, he claims not to get an answer from Dom Tomás. Days later appears the famous statement about his separation from the SAJM.
I wonder: What do the bishops hide?
The 'spirit of pride' of our age, also affects many priests/bishops of tradition, as this situation proves. Let us pray for ALL the traditional priests/bishops, because they will have a LOT to answer for on judgement day. Traditionalism could have peace but for their lust for power and control.
The bishops have not given an exhaustive explanation of the situation, only a small statement. Why did Dom Tomás not respond to Father Rodrigo? It's just something I ask myself. Now we have the version of Father Da Silva, missing the response of the bishops.
The Rosary, however…saved Brazil from Communism just in the 60s. But that was before the destruction of the Catholic Church. It is to Brazil that I am turning for another bishop to take care of our faithful in Mexico and South America, as well as to help assure the apostolic succession in these so uncertain times. God willing, I will consecrate Fr. Rodrigo da Silva a bishop here on the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, September 29. He has to pass a long quarantine in Mexico City in order to enter the United States. (Others, however, are daily flown or driven in, thanks to Uncle Sam.) Please pray that all goes well for this Consecration. Afterwards, the new bishop returns to Brazil and the St. Joseph Seminary he heads.Bishop Daniel Dolan, http://www.sgg.org/2021/08/28/pentecost-xiv-12/ (http://www.sgg.org/2021/08/28/pentecost-xiv-12/)
... Monsignor Jean Michel Faure ... demands from his members the same position Archbishop Lefebvre demanded.
That's ridiculous. Circuмstances and facts change. Nobody knows what Archbishop Lefebvre would have concluded in the case of Bergoglio. He could have gone Bennyvacantist or full-blown sedevacantist. He famously stated that he had come very close to coming out as a sedevacantist after Assisi. What would he have thought about Bergoglio's approval/sanctioning of adultery, sodomy, or of the Pachamama worship, and suppression of the Tridentine Mass? We have long-standing Novus Ordites flirting with sedevacantism or at least Bennyvacantism because of Bergoglio.
It's absurd to impose an opinion held 30 years ago as somehow etched in stone for all time.
We have the case of Fr. Ringrose, conditionally ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, who had staunchly opposed sedevacantism ... now a sedevacantist thanks to Bergoglio. We even have the likes of Taylor Marshall asking the question of whether Bergoglio is the true pope.
That's ridiculous. Circuмstances and facts change. Nobody knows what Archbishop Lefebvre would have concluded in the case of Bergoglio. He could have gone Bennyvacantist or full-blown sedevacantist. He famously stated that he had come very close to coming out as a sedevacantist after Assisi. What would he have thought about Bergoglio's approval/sanctioning of adultery, sodomy, or of the Pachamama worship, and suppression of the Tridentine Mass? We have long-standing Novus Ordites flirting with sedevacantism or at least Bennyvacantism because of Bergoglio.That’s exactly right. Prideful arrogance assumes what deceased archbishops would do and say today. Then dogmatize it.
It's absurd to impose an opinion held 30 years ago as somehow etched in stone for all time.
We have the case of Fr. Ringrose, conditionally ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, who had staunchly opposed sedevacantism ... now a sedevacantist thanks to Bergoglio. We even have the likes of Taylor Marshall asking the question of whether Bergoglio is the true pope.
What "canonical process of explusion"? There's no canonically established group known as SAJM in the first place.Indeed I have to agree with Ladislaus. SAJM or SSPX-MC were never canonically founded in the first place.
Yes... Assisi was an unprecedented, dramatic assault on the First Commandment.On the other hand, Assisi happened in 1986 and +Lefebvre pondered for almost 2 years before finally performing the episcopal consecrations in 1988.
:facepalm:
And JPII did it in his Barnum & Bailey” show-circus style.
.Easy answer. just got to keep things simple Francis I Bergoglio happened/is happening don't need more mental gymnastics than that.
It seems that the two opposing sides of this discussion would have two very different explanations for what is going on.
.
What happened in the life of Fr. Da Silva to make him go from praying for the Pope in his Masses to not praying for the Pope because he thinks Francis is not a pope?
.
Did he read something, if so, what?
Did he speak with someone and accept their counsel, if so, whom?
Did he have a private revelation from God? If so, he would have to have said that he did.
.
Nobody goes to bed one day and wakes up the next sedevacantist. It doesn't work that way. Something made this happen.
Easy answer. just got to keep things simple Francis I Bergoglio happened/is happening don't need more mental gymnastics than that.
And yet, Abp. Lefebvre IS etched in stone for all time. He can't change anymore. His earthly life -- opportunity to change, merit, or demerit -- ended on March 25, 1991.
It's absurd to impose an opinion held 30 years ago as somehow etched in stone for all time.
Uh.... Pope Francis was elected in 2013. Not exactly a new development.Again, When "francis " was elected machs nichts. there are consequences to accepting Sede vacantism as it were. many people don't come to such a conclusion without a sense of trepidation. The reality is, for all practical purposes, sans the indult groups, ALL trads are more or less practical sedevacantists. SSPX'ers want to try to convince themselves they are not, calling the Pope the pope while continuing to disregard him at EVERY turn? I'd rather some lefevbrist explain to me how that is NOT practical sedevacantlsm. Oh I know all the canards and cliche's. bottom line the cavalier statements such as Father Fullerton's reply that" the new M.P. doesn't apply to us" belies this reality or the not so secret fact thus that an accord must be in place.
Neither is his uber-liberal behavior new. The world has known what a bad/liberal pope Francis was since maybe 2-3 years after his ɛƖɛctıon.
The question stands.
So it's absurd for Sedevacantists to try to "own" or "acquire" the saintly man, when it's a fact that said saintly man never embraced the sedevacantist position.
No sedevacantist is trying to "own" him"Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
The idea that +ABL would now be a sedevacantist is ludicrous.
B) He is unstable to a troubling degree. (What next? He'll join a conclavist group? Get consecrated bishop or elected Pope? Go back to the Novus Ordo or maybe join the FSSP?)Aged like wine.
Aged like wine.
I’ve known people to become sedevacantist after reading one book. I doubt he faked his way to ordination. There was never any shortage of Thuc bishops to ordain him. The Nine were accused of this because they had no other option. But now there are many options ... Thuc lines and Mendez line.Well, I heard once that the Resistance bishops knew he was going sede and ordained him. But that's a rumor, can't confirm it.