CathInfo.com

Well ... almost none of the modern-day clergy can speak Latin conversationally, even if some can read it fluently.  So that wouldn't even count really.

But they certainly COULD have found some bilingual or even triligual American priests.  I know some actually.

I find it noteworthy that no one from our generation of seminarians (classes of 81-90) were selected as consecrandi. These would be men formed by Bishop Sanborn followed by Bishop Williamson for STAS graduates. I forget who were the rectors in those days at Econe and Zaitzkofen. It is amazing what 40 years can do to one' memory. Well, Bishop Morello was rector at La Reja in the late 80s.

How does it make any sense that Fr. Goldade get chosen for that reason instead of, for example, the current prior or un-canonical pastor of St. Mary's themselves: Fr. Patrick Rutledge or Fr. Jonathan Loop respectively?

Uhm, because Father Goldade is a native St. Marysite, and neither of those other two are ... ?



So, first qualification, a sine qua non, is that each of the chosen had to be obsequious "company men", yes-men to the current regime, and liberally-inclined +Fellay-ites who believe that V2 is "95% Catholic".

After that you'd have the logistical considerations of ... which areas they could serve, which is where the languages come in.

Of course, you wouldn't pick someone who had only been a priest for 5 years either.  And you'd also want them not to be too old, to be in good health, energetic and vigorous, in order to be able to keep up with the demands of travelling for Confirmations.

Outside of those criteria, that's where the political considerations come in, and it's especially evident from the fact that Father Goldade fails the criterion above in terms of being fluent in at least two languages.  In the US, where you have many Spanish-speaking immigrants, and also the US bishop would likely serve Mexico as well, and then should be relatively fluent in French not only to communicate well with SSPX leadership in general (without requiring a a translator or go-between, as well as potentially to serve the French Canadians in Quebec ... they choice of Father Goldade makes absolutely no sense.  Now, with all due respect, outside of that I do not find him particularly, oh, charismatic, an outstanding homilist and speaker, etc.

Based on these considerations, the only compelling factor that remains would be that he hails from St. Mary's, is a "native son", a St. Mary's "cradle Trad" ... which insures not only his thorough indoctrination in SSPX-ism but also that he would energize the faithful at St. Mary's with the hope of limiting defections there as much as possible were Rome to excommunicate them, etc.

Uhm, because Father Goldade is a native St. Marysite, and neither of those other two are ... ?



So, first qualification, a sine qua non, is that each of the chosen had to be obsequious "company men", yes-men to the current regime, and liberally-inclined +Fellay-ites who believe that V2 is "95% Catholic".

After that you'd have the logistical considerations of ... which areas they could serve, which is where the languages come in.

Of course, you wouldn't pick someone who had only been a priest for 5 years either.  And you'd also want them not to be too old, to be in good health, energetic and vigorous, in order to be able to keep up with the demands of travelling for Confirmations.

Outside of those criteria, that's where the political considerations come in, and it's especially evident from the fact that Father Goldade fails the criterion above in terms of being fluent in at least two languages.  In the US, where you have many Spanish-speaking immigrants, and also the US bishop would likely serve Mexico as well, and then should be relatively fluent in French not only to communicate well with SSPX leadership in general (without requiring a a translator or go-between, as well as potentially to serve the French Canadians in Quebec ... they choice of Father Goldade makes absolutely no sense.  Now, with all due respect, outside of that I do not find him particularly, oh, charismatic, an outstanding homilist and speaker, etc.

Based on these considerations, the only compelling factor that remains would be that he hails from St. Mary's, is a "native son", a St. Mary's "cradle Trad" ... which insures not only his thorough indoctrination in SSPX-ism but also that he would energize the faithful at St. Mary's with the hope of limiting defections there as much as possible were Rome to excommunicate them, etc.

Absolute nonsense.

What makes you think people from St. Marys nowadays would care one way or the other that Fr. Goldade attended St. Mary's 30-40 years ago, when he hasn't been assigned there since? The people who were there when he was in school would likely have lived through the 1988 Consecration, so if they stayed then, what makes you think they would leave now? Or more to the point, what makes you think that having a St. Marys alum as one of the consecrandi would make people stay who otherwise would be inclined to leave? As I said in my first post (which none of your response refutes) if someone from St. Marys is truly convinced that the Consecration of these Bishops is wrong and a schismatic act, who in their right mind would say they are now okay with the schismatic act because someone who attended their church 30 years ago, and who they have never met or seen since, is the beneficiary of that schismatic act? 

If you think the choice of Fr. Goldade is supposed to assuage people at St. Marys who have moved there since Fr. Goldade graduated, what I asked in my initial post applies: why should those people care one way or another that someone is being consecrated who they have never seen assigned there, and if that's really why the leadership would choose someone, why would it not make more sense to select someone these people actually know from St. Marys like Fr. Rutledge or Fr. Loop? What proof can you offer that anybody would care more about an alum they've never met being consecrated, than they would about the Priest they saw in the pulpit last Sunday and who gave them Holy Communion this morning,  being consecrated? Your reasoning makes no sense at all.

Next, "company men"? "Yes men to the regime? Are you seriously suggesting the SSPX leadership choose candidates who are " 'no' men": Priests publicly opposed to the direction that very leadership decides to go in? Who anywhere would promote someone opposed to the direction the organization in question is going in? Do you fault Archbishop Lefebvre for not calling up the SSPV and offering to consecrate Fr. Kelly, Fr. Sanborn, or Fr. Jenkins in 1988?

I actually share your puzzlement at the choice of Fr. Goldade from the perspective of knowledge of languages. However, (as I said in my first post), he is the rector of the 2nd largest seminary in the second largest district of the SSPX. To say his current role plays no part in making him a plausible candidate is asinine.