I just read an article on line stating that there is a lot of new interest in SSPX because of concern over Pope Francis's liberalness. Hopefully, this will help the new chapel. Francis may be the best friend SSPX ever had.

And a note to bishops, when you lose the conservative Catholics, you will lose about 90% of your income with us, liberal Catholics are the ones who put the $1 bills in the collection plate.

I will tell you this right now, as a person with some experience in RCIA, people do not join the RCC because they want to be protestants. many converts are very disappointed in what they are experiencing.

Quote from: jhfromsf68

I was wondering if anyone as heard about this. A chapel that was being serviced by the Institute of Christ the King has switched over to the SSPX. Apparently the board of directors of this chapel were having a problem with the institute. I'm not sure what the disagreement was over.

Here is a letter from the Bishop of San Jose warning Catholics to no longer attend this chapel
http://www.institute-christ-king.org/uploads/sanjose/bishop-letter-2013-12-11.pdf

The Letter is also signed by the Chancellor, Linda Tully. A woman Chancellor of a Diocese. This is one reason why the Novus Ordo is in the straits that it is in, there are no men in charge. Women, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, and henpecked milquetoast "men" is all that is left to run the diocese and churches. One big reason why men don't go to the Novus Ordo.

For years now a liberal nun has been the vocational director of Los Angeles and has been accused of disqualifying any candidate for the priesthood if they state they are against female ordination on the questionnaire.

This is most interesting in respect to Bp. Fellay's willingness to allow Father Emily to "engage" the Bishop San Jose.

The San Jose Diocese is reputed to be the most ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ friendly diocese in America.  

The Bishop has gone into public heresy in 2004, when he wrote and article in the San Jose Mercury News stating the Holy Scriptures were only "theological meditations".

As a reference to where Bp. McGrath's head and heart are at, check the story below.  




Catholic Prelate at the installation of Episcopal woman 'bishop'




Above right, in his purple vestments one can distinguish Bishop Patrick McGrath of San Jose at a religious ceremony. What was the ceremony? It was the installation of "bishop" Mary Gray Reeves as Episcopalian leader of San Jose, above center, on January 11, 2008.

 The Catholic Prelate's attendance at this Protestant installation is yet another ecuмenical act that adds to the countless others made by the Conciliar Popes and Bishops. Notwithstanding, according to traditional Catholic doctrine, to participate in religious ceremony with heretics (communicatio in sacris) makes a person suspect of heresy.

 Further, by attending that particular ceremony, the Catholic Bishop of San Jose took a clear stance supporting the faction inside the Anglican sect - Episcopalians are the Anglicans in the U.S. - that favors consecrating women and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ as bishops.

It is known that many of those Anglicans who disagree with these consecrations are asking to be received in the Catholic Church. Therefore, by supporting this liberal wing, Bishop Patrick McGrath, following the Vatican orientation, is favoring woman and gαy bishops and disregarding those who want to embrace the true Catholic Faith.

Below first row, another photo of McGrath's participation in the heretical ceremony. Second row, Reeves' consecration as "bishop" on November 10, 2007. Reeves is at left; at right is Katherine Jefferts Schori, the first woman bishop of the Anglican sect, made "bishop" on June 12, 2006.

I was wondering if anyone as heard about this. A chapel that was being serviced by the Institute of Christ the King has switched over to the SSPX. Apparently the board of directors of this chapel were having a problem with the institute. I'm not sure what the disagreement was over.

Here is a letter from the Bishop of San Jose warning Catholics to no longer attend this chapel
http://www.institute-christ-king.org/uploads/sanjose/bishop-letter-2013-12-11.pdf

The fact that that chapel with a board of directors who were capable of initiating a change from the Institute of Christ the King to SSPX shows that they were not in compliance with the minimum requirements under canon law.  

Really? A priest is listed as vocations director and I don't see any nuns listed here. http://www.la-archdiocese.org/org/vocations/Pages/contact.aspx

Quote from: crossbro

For years now a liberal nun has been the vocational director of Los Angeles and has been accused of disqualifying any candidate for the priesthood if they state they are against female ordination on the questionnaire.

I can't vouch for the woman vocations director thing, but it sounds very plausible.  

15 years ago I knew a young seminarian who was expelled from St. John's seminary in Camarillo (near Oxnard CA -- still LA Archdiocese), and he told me how expulsions were going on there.  You won't find this on their website, and if you go to St. John's and ask about it, they'll deny it ever happened.  

He said that there were exactly THREE REASONS that seminarians get expelled at St. John's, and those are as follows:  

1)  They are discovered praying the Rosary;

2)  They are observed studying Latin;

3)  They are found to be involved in studying the Traditional Latin Mass.


He told me he knew another student who was studying the Latin Mass IN HIS CLOSET so as not to be observed, and someone found out about it anyway, so he was expelled for an unrelated reason.


He said that when any one of these things happened, they would be expelled but the reason officially recorded on the paperwork will have nothing to do with these 3 reasons.  It will say something like he was tardy or absent too often, or he was disrespectful of authority, or he wore improper clothing, or he stayed up too late at night or he broke some of the rules of the seminary for whatever it was.  

And don't let me forget, they actually put down that a seminarian was being expelled because he was not "pastorally sensitive to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs."  

For you can become a seminarian to this day there, if you are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, or if you don't have any problem being around fαɢs, queers, and cross-dressers.  But if you have any PROBLEM with it, you will NOT be admitted, on the grounds that you are not "pastorally sensitive."  And they are willing to ADMIT this one, unlike the other 3, above.  

Pastoral sensitivity is a game changer at St. John's Seminary in Camarillo.  You could almost say it's tantamount to what holiness or virtue or "being in the world but not of the world" used to be.



So this new wrinkle of being opposed to women's ordination is just a drop in the bucket-come-lately.  

The larger issue is as I described above.  The approval of women's ordination is no more consequential or horrific than the Great Principle of pastoral sensitivity, because women's ordination is a pastoral sensitivity issue!  Fag priests and women priests is the same topic, basically.



.