Author Topic: SSPX transfers 2015 (Read 42803 times)

wallflower · « **Reply #20 on:** June 17, 2015, 07:27:21 AM »

Haha, how is anyone going to know if anything has changed by going to Ordinations? Did he mean you'd see if the ceremony has changed, the grounds? Would things have to get that bad that they were doing NO ceremonies before he took stock? Otherwise I don't know what he would be getting at. You really don't get an inside view at all at Ordinations. You go, you attend the ceremony, you mill around the grounds with a few hundred people and you go home.

saintalice · « **Reply #21 on:** June 17, 2015, 08:37:22 AM »

Quote from: Marlelar

Quote from: Matthew
Fr. Leo Haynos (ordained about 2 years ago) to become Prior of St.Louis, MO

Fr. Patrick Rutledge to become head of (boys?) High School in St. Mary's KS

Fr. Jordan Fahnestock (ordained about 2-3 years ago) to become Prior of Armada, MI.

The theme is YOUNG BLOOD TAKES THE REINS OF POWER.

Hmmm... sounds like no experience is required (or desired) for being a Prior. I think that a young priest should be on a short leash and under the close supervision of an experienced priest.

I personally have heard some rather odd "counsel" from young priests in the confessional so I admit I am biased.

I have learned that the canons of the Church (first millennium) state that no man under the age of 30 can be ordained to the priesthood. This is still the case with the Eastern Orthodox. I think it is wise and should be applied in the West as well.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #22 on:** June 17, 2015, 10:06:25 AM »

Centro: Why didn't anybody take the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012 and a copy of the (CNS) interview to him?

Let me reprint the two major excerpts from the May, 2012 CNS interview:

“Many people have an understanding of the Council which is a wrong understanding. And we have authorities in Rome who say it. We may say in the discussions (SSPX/Rome discussions) we see many things which we would have condemned, as being from the Council, are, in fact, not from the Council, but the common understanding of it.”

“Religious liberty is used in so many ways, and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council said about it. The Council was presenting a religious liberty which was in fact was (sic) a very very limited one- very limited. In our talks with Rome they clearly said that to mean that there would be a right to error or right to choose each one its religion, is false.(sic)”

Let these ludicrous comments sink in. Because you know what, the SG was not merely referring to "many people" who have a wrong understanding. In a very underhanded, yet obvious and specific way, he was saying that the Archbishop himself had a wrong understanding of the Council. The Archbishop condemned many things in the Council, which had he only known better, he would not have done. and he pointed to "authorities in Rome" who would corroborate what he, Bp. Fellay, was telling them then. That's what this fallen leader of the fallen sspx was telling the press in May of 2012.

Furthermore, Fellay was then declaring that the Archbishop was way over the top by condemning religious liberty as he did. Bernie was saying in essence that ABL's view of religious liberty, as it was treated in the Council, was totally overblown and exaggerated. Abp. Lefebvre was quite outspoken about the extreme importance and gravity of the religious liberty issue. But Bernie was poo-pooing all of that. Truth be told, he was telling these reporters that his boss had had his underwear in a bunch over an issue that played a "very limited," i.e. minor part in V2.

Bp. Fellay was deliberately undermining practically everything the Archbishop stood for. But Fr. Kurtz and the other young, wet nosed "priors" would never be able to understand that.

JPaul · « **Reply #23 on:** June 17, 2015, 10:52:56 AM »

Quote from: wallflower

Haha, how is anyone going to know if anything has changed by going to Ordinations? Did he mean you'd see if the ceremony has changed, the grounds? Would things have to get that bad that they were doing NO ceremonies before he took stock? Otherwise I don't know what he would be getting at. You really don't get an inside view at all at Ordinations. You go, you attend the ceremony, you mill around the grounds with a few hundred people and you go home.

That would seem to be the point of such a deceptive comment. The ordination ritual is probable the same as always. Go through the seminary training and examine the curriculum and monitor how it is taught. Then you will see what has changed.

JPaul · « **Reply #24 on:** June 17, 2015, 10:58:46 AM »

hollingsworth,

Quote

Bp. Fellay was deliberately undermining practically everything the Archbishop stood for. But Fr. Kurtz and the other young, wet nosed "priors" would never be able to understand that.

As to Bishop Fellay's subversion, it is a fact. As to the new priests, no they would not, see my prior comment.