Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Incredulous on January 14, 2024, 03:32:31 AM
-
In 2012, during the struggle to preserve Catholic tradition during the Church's consiliar captivity, one decentralized, group of Bishops and loosely affiliated Priests known as the SSPX Resistance was born.
Including Bp. Williamson, I believe the Resistance now has six Bishops.
Of Bp. Williamson's more recent apostolic consecrations, two were performed secretly.
And then we recently learned though social media, that Bp. Williamson has secretly consecrated Archbishop Vigano.
In the following Q&A interview, at 22:19 Bp. Sanborn raises concerns about the propriety of secret consecrations.
Institute & Thesis Q & A (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QggVIwtvhPg)
And according to the 1917 Canon Law, Session XXIV (below) there are, "scrutinies, informations, attestations, and proofs required of the person to be promoted" and that the consecration be announced in the form of a public docuмent.
ON REFORMATION
DECREE
The same sacred and holy Synod, prosecuting the subject of Reformation, ordains that the things following be established in the present Session.
CHAPTER I.
The manner of proceeding to the creation of Bishops and Cardinals.
If, as regards all manner of degrees in the Church, a provident and enlightened care is to be taken, that in the house of the Lord there be nothing disorderly, nothing unseemly; much more ought we to strive that no error be committed in the election of him who is constituted above all those degrees. For the state and order of the whole household of the Lord will totter, if what is required in the body be not found in the head. For which cause, although the holy Synod has elsewhere usefully ordained certain things touching those who are to be promoted to cathedral and superior churches, yet doth it account this office to be of such a nature, as that were it to be pondered upon in proportion to its greatness, there would never seem to have been caution enough taken. Wherefore It ordains, that, as soon as a church shall become vacant, processions, and prayers shall be made in public and private; and such shall be enjoined, by the Chapter, throughout the city and diocese; that thereby both clergy and people may be enabled to obtain from God a good pastor.
And as regards all and each of those who have, in any way, any right from the Apostolic See, or who otherwise have a part, in the promotion of those to be set over the churches; the holy Synod,-without making any change herein, from a consideration of the circuмstances of the present time,-exhorts and admonishes them, that they above all things bear in mind that they cannot do anything more conducive to the glory of God, and the salvation of the people, than to study to promote good pastors, and such as are capable of governing a church; and that they sin mortally, becoming partakers in others' sins, unless they carefully endeavour that those be promoted whom they themselves judge the most worthy of, and useful to, the church, not guided by entreaties, or human affection, or the solicitations of pretenders, but by what the merits of the individuals require at their hands; and seeing that they be persons whom they know to have been born in lawful wedlock, and who, by their life, learning, and in all other qualifications, are such as are required by the sacred canons, and by the decrees of this Synod of Trent.
And forasmuch as, by reason of the diversity of nations, peoples, and customs, a uniform system cannot be followed everywhere, in receiving the grave and competent testimony of good and learned men on the subject of the aforesaid qualifications, the holy Synod ordains, that, in a provincial Synod, to be held by the metropolitan, there shall be prescribed for each place and province a proper form of examination, scrutiny, or information, such as shall seem to be most useful and suitable for the said places, which form is to be submitted to the approval of the most holy Roman Pontiff; yet so, however, that, after that this examination, or scrutiny, as regards the persons to be promoted, shall have been completed, it shall, after being reduced into the form of a public docuмent, be necessarily transmitted, as soon as possible, with all the attestations and with the profession of faith made by the individual to be promoted, to the most holy Roman Pontiff, in order that the said Sovereign Pontiff, having a full knowledge of the whole matter and of the persons, may, for the advantage of the Lord's flock, in a most useful manner provide those churches therewith, if they shall have been found, by the examination or scrutiny, suitable persons.
And all the scrutinies, informations, attestations, and proofs of whatsoever kind, and by whomsoever made, even though in the Roman court, touching the qualifications of the person to be promoted, shall be carefully examined by a cardinal-who shall report thereon to the consistory-aided therein by three other cardinals; and the said report shall be authenticated by the signature of the cardinal who drew up the report, and of the three other cardinals; and therein each of the four cardinals shall make affirmation that, after giving exact attention thereto, he has found the persons to be promoted, endowed with the qualifications required by law, and by this holy Synod, and that, at the peril of his eternal salvation, he doth certainly think them fit to be placed over the churches: in such wise that, after the report has been made in one consistory, the sentence shall be deferred until another consistory, in order that the said inquiry may be more maturely looked into in the mean time,-unless the most blessed Pontiff shall judge it expedient to act otherwise.
And the Synod ordains, that all and singular the particulars which have been elsewhere ordained, in the same Synod, touching the life, age, learning, and the other qualifications of those who are to be appointed bishops, the same are also to be required in the creation of cardinals-even though they be deacons -of the holy Roman Church; whom the most holy Roman Pontiff shall, as far as it can be conveniently done, select out of all the nations of Christendom, as he shall find persons suitable.
Finally, the same holy Synod, moved by the so many most grievous afflictions of the Church, cannot avoid recording, that nothing is more necessary for the Church of God than that the most blessed Roman Pontiff apply especially here that solicitude, which, by the duty of his office, he owes to the Universal Church,-that he take unto himself, to wit as cardinals, persons the most select only, and that he appoint over each church, above all things, good and fit pastors; and this the more, for that our Lord Jesus Christ will require at his hands the blood of those sheep of Christ which shall perish through the evil government of pastors who are negligent, and forgetful of their office.
-
So we can agree that Bp. Sanborn is in conflict with Bp. Williamson?
I guess that each of us Trads has to "choose" which bishop we think will better lead us during this Crisis, which bishop's ministrations will more likely lead us to heaven.
I choose Bp. Williamson. You can choose whoever you wish. And of course, we each will reap the consequences of our decision. We (alone) are responsible for the decisions we make, the trust we grant, and the opinions we give ear to. Even if we are misled through someone's malice, we are partly to blame because we chose to follow them, against the criticism and warnings of dissenting voices. And whichever priest or bishop you follow, there ARE dissenting voices.
Interestingly, I contacted *both* of them when I was looking to pursue a vocation to the priesthood. My independent priest gave me 3 options for "formal training" for a priestly vocation: SSPX seminary, Bp. Sanborn's seminary, and the traditional monks in Cullman, AL. And of course he would also be willing to train (and ordain) me himself.
I wasn't an "SSPXer", much less a "company man" since I never attended the SSPX. I had just read about +Lefebvre and fully supported his work. There was simply not an SSPX chapel near my hometown, while we had a great independent chapel, which I grew up in.
I remember receiving Bp. Sanborn's 3-ring binder with all the intellectual-sounding classes and descriptions. But I didn't do anything with it, because FIRST I received a voice message on my answering machine from Bp. Williamson, inviting me to visit his seminary.
I did visit it, I thought the atmosphere was peaceful and I could envision myself there. Bp. Williamson asked if I wanted to enter in the Fall (which was about 1 to 1.5 months away) and I accepted.
The binder showed up about a week later. I gave it to my priest, telling him I already decided to enter the SSPX seminary.
And in hindsight, I believe the way things turned out was God taking care of me.
By the way, during that "Who do the Sedes got?" thread, I recall +Thuc being put forth as a candidate. I think there was another bishop as well. But I don't think +Sanborn got any votes. He has none of the marks of Providence or sanctity that +ABL had. If you want to follow +Sanborn, be my guest. It's a free country. But don't blame me for making a better decision.
The only thing that stands out about +Sanborn (my first, and current, impression of the man) is his IQ or intellectualism. But if the primary criteria for "who to follow" is IQ, then we all better get our butts out of Tradition and Catholicism. I'm sure most high-IQ men of our day, and certainly the highest IQs of our day, are following the religion(s) of molecules-to-man Evolution and Science (of "Trust the Science!" fame).
So yeah, I look for other things that just a high IQ when deciding which bishop is the one to support and travel with during this Crisis.
-
"proprietry"? We're in a state of emergency in the Church, and the bishops being consecrated, just like the priests who are being ordained, are little more than emergency dispensers of the Sacraments. We're not talking about Ordinaries here. And who's going to "scrutinize" these bishops, we armchair theologians on CathInfo? Or one Trad group is going to "scrutinize" the bishops of a rival Trad group? Generally, the bishop determines and is in the best position to determine whether the candidate is suitable for being an emergency dispenser of Sacraments, the biggest question in that capacity being whether the one who's consecrated will start laying hands on any warm body for priestly ordination.
-
By the way, during that "Who do the Sedes got?" thread, I recall +Thuc being put forth as a candidate. I think there was another bishop as well. But I don't think +Sanborn got any votes. He has none of the marks of Providence or sanctity that +ABL had. If you want to follow +Sanborn, be my guest. It's a free country. But don't blame me for making a better decision.
Apart from what I believe to be a completely subjective criterion above, you'll find that the greatest critics of the "secret" consecrations are various SVs who are nearly all served by priests who descend from the +Thuc line. Who "scrutinized" or knew beforehand about the consecrations of +de Lauriers (form whom +Sanborn descends) and +Carmona / +Zamora? Answer: nobody. These consecrations took place with only Drs. Hiller and Heller in attendance, in +Thuc's little apartment, and were not pre-announced for "scrutiny". There's a lot of hypocrisy there. Similarly, Bishop Kelly impugns the validity of the +Thuc consecrations partly on the grounds of their "secrecy" ... and then goes of and gets himself secretly consecrated by +Mendez (keeping it under wraps for a couple years until +Mendez had died). It's just nonsensical politics from those who have an ax to grind against +Vigano and/or +Williamson.
Conditional Sacraments have always generally been performed in relative obscurity and without much fanfare.
-
I remember receiving Bp. Sanborn's 3-ring binder... But I didn't do anything with it, because FIRST I received a voice message on my answering machine...
A very rigorous and in-depth examination there...
-
Interestingly, Bishop Sanborn did not cast any aspersions on Bishop Williamson or Vigano when he responded to the email question (unless I missed it).
-
"proprietry"? We're in a state of emergency in the Church, and the bishops being consecrated, just like the priests who are being ordained, are little more than emergency dispensers of the Sacraments. We're not talking about Ordinaries here. And who's going to "scrutinize" these bishops, we armchair theologians on CathInfo? Or one Trad group is going to "scrutinize" the bishops of a rival Trad group? Generally, the bishop determines and is in the best position to determine whether the candidate is suitable for being an emergency dispenser of Sacraments, the biggest question in that capacity being whether the one who's consecrated will start laying hands on any warm body for priestly ordination.
That remains to be seen.
-
I came across an interesting case in The Casuist several years ago involving a secret ordination and consecration. The main point of the article was to show how careful Holy Mother Church protects the seal of confession, but it also indirectly points out how Holy Orders are still valid even though done in secret and without witnesses.
-
Apart from what I believe to be a completely subjective criterion above, you'll find that the greatest critics of the "secret" consecrations are various SVs who are nearly all served by priests who descend from the +Thuc line. Who "scrutinized" or knew beforehand about the consecrations of +de Lauriers (form whom +Sanborn descends) and +Carmona / +Zamora? Answer: nobody. These consecrations took place with only Drs. Hiller and Heller in attendance, in +Thuc's little apartment, and were not pre-announced for "scrutiny". There's a lot of hypocrisy there. Similarly, Bishop Kelly impugns the validity of the +Thuc consecrations partly on the grounds of their "secrecy" ... and then goes of and gets himself secretly consecrated by +Mendez (keeping it under wraps for a couple years until +Mendez had died). It's just nonsensical politics from those who have an ax to grind against +Vigano and/or +Williamson.
Conditional Sacraments have always generally been performed in relative obscurity and without much fanfare.
I do agree with you here. Basically SVs and Resistance are birds of a feather that likes slinging mud at one another :laugh1:
-
Interestingly, Bishop Sanborn did not cast any aspersions on Bishop Williamson or Vigano when he responded to the email question (unless I missed it).
Well, as I mentioned, conditional consecrations are in an entirely different category. +Vigano was already a "bishop", and had been one for many years, and so no particular "scrutiny" would be required just to regularize a doubtful Sacrament.
-
I do agree with you here. Basically SVs and Resistance are birds of a feather that likes slinging mud at one another :laugh1:
And the SSPX are exempt? They sling mud at SVs and the Resistance, e.g. attacking the Resistance for consecrating bishops while +Lefebvre had done the same thing and they're likely gearing up to do the same themselves.
-
And according to the 1917 Canon Law, Session XXIV (below) there are, "scrutinies, informations, attestations, and proofs required of the person to be promoted" and that the consecration be announced in the form of a public docuмent.
Just as a point of information, the text below the above sentence comes from the 24th Session of the Council of Trent, not the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
-
Again, these are standards in place for normal times and normal situations. Consecrations behind the Iron Curtain were ordered to be kept secret, and the candidates were chosen exclusively by the clandestine bishop(s) specifically given the mandate to do so ... such as the mandate Archbishop Thuc received.
-
A very rigorous and in-depth examination there...
I didn't phrase it very well.
By the time I received the binder, some time had already passed since I agreed to enter the SSPX seminary, quit my job, etc. I don't remember how much time had passed; now that I think about it, it was probably closer to 3-4 weeks.
So yeah, besides getting an overall vibe of the contents being very intellectual, ivory tower, proud, cold, etc. I didn't do much with it.
I didn't throw it in the trash or use it for toilet paper; I gave it to my priest/spiritual director, to do with as he pleased. Maybe he knew another young man wanting to enter a seminary? After all, my priest was Independent, so he wasn't with any "group" or "side", and in fact recommended BOTH +Sanborn's and +Williamson's seminary to a prospective vocation (me), as well as a Trad group of monks in Alabama. He was completely neutral, classic "Traditional Catholic", and doing his job. I commend him for that. May he rest in peace.
-
I didn't throw it in the trash or use it for toilet paper; I gave it to my priest/spiritual director, to do with as he pleased. Maybe he knew another young man wanting to enter a seminary? After all, my priest was Independent, so he wasn't with any "group" or "side", and in fact recommended BOTH +Sanborn's and +Williamson's seminary to a prospective vocation (me), as well as a Trad group of monks in Alabama. He was completely neutral, classic "Traditional Catholic", and doing his job. I commend him for that. May he rest in peace.
Interesting. Who was this Independent priest who was OK with either STAS or Bishop Sanborn's seminary?
I'm guessing you're talking about Abbot Leonard (Giardina) in Alabama. I spent a few days there myself, but just got a strange "off" vibe about it, where I didn't feel as though I would fit in there. I couldn't put a finger on it, but my "spidey senses" suggested that something was not right there. They eventually went Novus Ordo after Abbot Leonard died.
-
I think there is a significant difference between consecrations made in secret and kept secret after the consecration and consecrations made without public fanfare (i.e., very few witnesses) but not kept secret after the fact. The former is the case with Vigano and was the case with Kelly (kept secret until the consecrating bishop died) but was not the case with any of the bishop consecrated by Archbishop Thuc.
The difference isn't validity...the difference is whether the faithful have any reason to believe that a consecration ever took place so, should the new bishop take actions that only a bishop can take, why should the faithful accept those acts...especially if the purported bishop will not tell anyone who made him a bishop?
It's like accepting an independent priest who just shows up and says he's a priest but refuses to disclose anything about his past.
-
I think there is a significant difference between consecrations made in secret and kept secret after the consecration and consecrations made without public fanfare (i.e., very few witnesses) but not kept secret after the fact.
Exactly. Besides +Vigano, the 2 Bishops consecrated "secretly" were in Europe, during the Covid lockdowns. They were announced once the covid-scam was ending. The reasons for secrecy were obvious, wise and necessary.
-
And conditionals are also in a separate category, not typically announced with a great deal of fanfare ... if at all.
I don't even think it was all THAT secret, since Bishop Williamson has told those who asked him directly. Given who Bishop Williamson and +Vigano are, I don't think we have any reason to believe it did not take place.
-
I think there is a significant difference between consecrations made in secret and kept secret after the consecration and consecrations made without public fanfare (i.e., very few witnesses) but not kept secret after the fact. The former is the case with Vigano and was the case with Kelly (kept secret until the consecrating bishop died) but was not the case with any of the bishop consecrated by Archbishop Thuc.
The difference isn't validity...the difference is whether the faithful have any reason to believe that a consecration ever took place so, should the new bishop take actions that only a bishop can take, why should the faithful accept those acts...especially if the purported bishop will not tell anyone who made him a bishop?
It's like accepting an independent priest who just shows up and says he's a priest but refuses to disclose anything about his past.
Well said.
-
Interestingly, Bishop Sanborn did not cast any aspersions on Bishop Williamson or Vigano when he responded to the email question (unless I missed it).
Good observation. We’re not focusing on the politics of the competing trad orders, just trying to put their actions into the context of Catholic tradition.
If any Bishop can proceed, creatively on his own, like Bp. Joe “Santeria” Pfeiffer, then there are problems.
Of course, we all understand this is a Church crisis and we require emergency tactics to survive.
This point has been made many times to Bp. Williamson, pleading for him to ordain and put more priest into the field.
But the answer is always the same, that such things cannot be expedited. But when it comes to giving Vigano his trad certification… it’s “no problemo.”
With such secret priorities, one would not be surprised to find Opus Dei, crypto-trad Bishops running trad news media outlets.
-
I guess that each of us Trads has to "choose" which bishop we think will better lead us during this Crisis, which bishop's ministrations will more likely lead us to heaven.
I choose Bp. Williamson. You can choose whoever you wish.
Can you substantiate this in any way? Choosing a bishop to follow?
I can only find evidence against putting your trust in man. You can only follow the Vicar of Christ in matters of faith.
Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man (Jeremiah 17:5)
-
And conditionals are also in a separate category, not typically announced with a great deal of fanfare ... if at all.
I don't even think it was all THAT secret, since Bishop Williamson has told those who asked him directly. Given who Bishop Williamson and +Vigano are, I don't think we have any reason to believe it did not take place.
Has he? Who has he told and who has reported that he has told them directly? So far, all I've read is that Bishop Williamson has said that Vigano has done what must be done. You said that yourself in on topic and then you interpreted that to mean that he's been conditionally consecrated. That is hardly a direct statement.
-
Has he? Who has he told and who has reported that he has told them directly? So far, all I've read is that Bishop Williamson has said that Vigano has done what must be done. You said that yourself in on topic and then you interpreted that to mean that he's been conditionally consecrated. That is hardly a direct statement.
Even if he did tell people directly, the consecration is still secret to those who don't have direct access to those in the know. Not to mention Vigano hasn't made it public either. A perfect place for BW to make it public would have been his last Eleison Comment, no? These aren't normal times, so making conditional consecrations public would be necessary.
-
Has he? Who has he told and who has reported that he has told them directly?
Yes. So, do you think I'm lying? I know two people who are in direct contact with Bishop Williamson who asked him, and he told them. I won't reveal names, since they asked me to keep their identities under wraps. If I had Bishop Williamson's contact information, I wouldn't waste his time by asking him again, because these sources are credible enough for me.
-
Good observation. We’re not focusing on the politics of the competing trad orders, just trying to put their actions into the context of Catholic tradition.
If any Bishop can proceed, creatively on his own, like Bp. Joe “Santeria” Pfeiffer, then there are problems.
Of course, we all understand this is a Church crisis and we require emergency tactics to survive.
This point has been made many times to Bp. Williamson, pleading for him to ordain and put more priest into the field.
But the answer is always the same, that such things cannot be expedited. But when it comes to giving Vigano his trad certification… it’s “no problemo.”
With such secret priorities, one would not be surprised to find Opus Dei, crypto-trad Bishops running trad news media outlets.
Thanks, Incred. I think the idea is that the future priests are coming out of Vigano's new seminary.
-
Yes. So, do you think I'm lying? I know two people who are in direct contact with Bishop Williamson who asked him, and he told them. I won't reveal names, since they asked me to keep their identities under wraps. If I had Bishop Williamson's contact information, I wouldn't waste his time by asking him again, because these sources are credible enough for me.
No. I'm not saying I think you're lying. I'm saying this post is the first time I've read that anyone has directly said that Bishop Williamson actually told them that he conditionally consecrated Vigano. So now we have it third hand. I don't know these two individuals and, frankly, I still doubt that there has been a consecration. It's still a secret and no one really has a good reason to trust that Vigano is a valid bishop. Your two confidants may have also simply interpreted Bishop Williamson's declaration to mean something that it didn't really mean.
-
What does anyone have to gain by doubting that +Williamson consecrated +Vigano?
-
Interesting. Who was this Independent priest who was OK with either STAS or Bishop Sanborn's seminary?
I'm guessing you're talking about Abbot Leonard (Giardina) in Alabama. I spent a few days there myself, but just got a strange "off" vibe about it, where I didn't feel as though I would fit in there. I couldn't put a finger on it, but my "spidey senses" suggested that something was not right there. They eventually went Novus Ordo after Abbot Leonard died.
I visited Christ the King Abbey in Cullman twice in the early 2000s, for a few days each time, but due to health problems I had at the time, I couldn't have asked to stay at the monastery, so I got a simple room at a motor hotel in Cullman (Super 8 one time, and possibly both times, I honestly don't remember) and "commuted" out to the abbey during the day. I visited briefly with Abbot Leonard and he was very kind to me, made me feel totally welcome. I don't know if the abbey was sedevacantist or not, but Abbot Leonard, in our conversation, referred to JPII as "the Pope". Make of that what you will.
I didn't get any particular "vibe", but there was one thing, when I made my confession, the priest absolved me in English, using the traditional rite of absolution. I thought that was kind of strange, but I figured Abbot Leonard, for whatever reason, had given his priests permission to do so. So far as I am aware, his priests were ordained by Bishop McKenna.
-
What does anyone have to gain by doubting that +Williamson consecrated +Vigano?
RM,
In a nutshell, Vigano is a highly politicized prelate, the 8th highest ranked newChurch cleric under the Bergolio papacy.
We were told… that he had a conversion to the true Catholic Faith and went underground, with the help of a couple Opus Dei Luminaries, who published his dramatic story.
First Concern: In recent years, such international cover stories have been proven to be media deceptions.
Secondly, Vigano has had ties and knowledge of the clandestine Opus Dei who controls over 60 media outlets worldwide.
The disgraced Michael Voris ran one such operation known as “Church Miltant”.
Thirdly, in the past three years, Vigano has published hundreds of expose’s and opinions on Church scandals and many tangential political issues.
Several of his political opinions are questionable (i.e., Trump, Putin, Dugin) as are his repeated omissions of conspicuous, major factions, such as Zionism and Opus Dei.
But with his media leverage, his voice has become the equivalent of “Q-Anon” messaging the confused, conservative Catholic world.
The fourth point:
Last summer, Bp. Williamson, leader of the decentralized and stagnant SSPX Resistance, announced that Archbishop Vigano was, “The heir to the light of the truth”, meaning +ABL.
What does this imply… that he is taking over the traditional Catholic movement?
Then, during this past Advent we are told by Fr. Chazal of the Phillipines that +W and Bp. Faure secretly gave Vigano a conditional Apostolic consecration.
There was no announcement, photos or video nor has Archbishop Vigano acknowledged he now has pre-Vatican II Orders, which would indicate his commitment to tradition.
Now, we’re not talking about a simple Novus ordo Diocese priest becoming a trad.
We’re talking about a highly ranked Bishop, from the modernist camp, being put into a international leadership position of the entire Catholic remnant.
The essence of this topic debate is:
Instead of blindly following personality cults, we as Catholics have a duty to ask questions and to discern the background and agenda of this prelate.
-
RM,
In a nutshell, Vigano is a highly politicized prelate, the 8th highest ranked newChurch cleric under the Bergolio papacy.
We were told… that he had a conversion to the true Catholic Faith and went underground, with the help of a couple Opus Dei Luminaries, who published his dramatic story.
First Concern: In recent years, such international cover stories have been proven to be media deceptions.
Secondly, Vigano has had ties and knowledge of the clandestine Opus Dei who controls over 60 media outlets worldwide.
The disgraced Michael Voris ran one such operation known as “Church Miltant”.
Thirdly, in the past three years, Vigano has published hundreds of expose’s and opinions on Church scandals and many tangential political issues.
Several of his political opinions are questionable (i.e., Trump, Putin, Dugin) as are his repeated omissions of conspicuous, major factions, such as Zionism and Opus Dei.
But with his media leverage, his voice has become the equivalent of “Q-Anon” messaging the confused, conservative Catholic world.
The fourth point:
Last summer, Bp. Williamson, leader of the decentralized and stagnant SSPX Resistance, announced that Archbishop Vigano was, “The heir to the light of the truth”, meaning +ABL.
What does this imply… that he is taking over the traditional Catholic movement?
Then, during this past Advent we are told by Fr. Chazal of the Phillipines that +W and Bp. Faure secretly gave Vigano a conditional Apostolic consecration.
There was no announcement, photos or video nor has Archbishop Vigano acknowledged he now has pre-Vatican II Orders, which would indicate his commitment to tradition.
Now, we’re not talking about a simple Novus ordo Diocese priest becoming a trad.
We’re talking about a highly ranked Bishop, from the modernist camp, being put into a international leadership position of the entire Catholic remnant.
The essence of this topic debate is:
Instead of blindly following personality cults, we as Catholics have a duty to ask questions and to discern the background and agenda of this prelate.
Fair enough. Would you receive sacraments from him?
-
This point has been made many times to Bp. Williamson, pleading for him to ordain and put more priest into the field.
But the answer is always the same, that such things cannot be expedited. But when it comes to giving Vigano his trad certification… it’s “no problemo.”
It's because these things CAN'T be expedited. Are you insane? What trained, formed, qualified candidates exactly is +W turning away?
You just have to have patience -- and trust in God. When you take matters in your own hands, FAILING to trust in God, is precisely what causes things like Fr. Joseph "Santeria warlock for a right hand man" Pfeiffer.
Taking away the doubtful validity of Orders for an existing priest or bishop is a COMPLETELY different matter. That is all upside, no downside. He's already practicing as a priest/bishop -- it's best to rectify his Orders so there is no longer a doubt. But you're not MAKING a priest or bishop where there wasn't one. It's not like +Vigano was going to sell cars if +W refused to conditionally consecrate him.
Nor can a doubtfully ordained/consecrated priest or bishop just stop practicing as a priest for a while. He can't just exist in limbo, or the equivalent of "live as brother and sister until the marriage is rectified". How exactly is a cleric supposed to support himself, while his priestly ministry is "on hold", hmmm? Is he supposed to get a job at Starbucks? He HAS given his whole life for the Church thus far; he has no other marketable skills. And even if he was a software developer (or something) before he joined the Seminary, CANON LAW prohibits a Cleric from working jobs for money.
This is a major issue, since you seem to think he has to be tried in the court of Public Opinion and win people over en masse before he can "have his marriage rectified and live happily ever after" (to use a marriage analogy again). What is required by each person for "forgiveness" will vary widely -- for some, it will require his death (i.e., no forgiveness). Others have already forgiven/accepted him.
But you see, all the priest HAS to do is get conditionally ordained (or consecrated, for a bishop) and he's good to go. He doesn't have to convince YOU first -- or anyone else -- that he's truly converted, or is a good guy now. That's not how it works.
And we are required by Charity to assume the best about human beings. You're not allowed to presume the worst about a person by default, when there is no evidence one way or the other. That's something you should be confessing in the confessional. When someone converts, you must PRESUME it's genuine unless forced to conclude otherwise. I'm talking forced by EVIDENCE here, not just gut feelings or emotional baggage you're carrying from past scars.
-
Fair enough. Would you receive sacraments from him?
Not until he renounced Opus Dei.
-
If you don't mind me asking how is it that a laymen was given the authority to demanded anything form the clergy at all especially if it doesn't involve you in any capacity.
-
No. I'm not saying I think you're lying. I'm saying this post is the first time I've read that anyone has directly said that Bishop Williamson actually told them that he conditionally consecrated Vigano.
I posted that a very long time ago, even if you hadn't seen it.
-
RM,
In a nutshell, Vigano is a highly politicized prelate, the 8th highest ranked newChurch cleric under the Bergolio papacy.
We were told… that he had a conversion to the true Catholic Faith and went underground, with the help of a couple Opus Dei Luminaries, who published his dramatic story.
First Concern: In recent years, such international cover stories have been proven to be media deceptions.
Secondly, Vigano has had ties and knowledge of the clandestine Opus Dei who controls over 60 media outlets worldwide.
The disgraced Michael Voris ran one such operation known as “Church Miltant”.
Thirdly, in the past three years, Vigano has published hundreds of expose’s and opinions on Church scandals and many tangential political issues.
Several of his political opinions are questionable (i.e., Trump, Putin, Dugin) as are his repeated omissions of conspicuous, major factions, such as Zionism and Opus Dei.
But with his media leverage, his voice has become the equivalent of “Q-Anon” messaging the confused, conservative Catholic world.
The fourth point:
Last summer, Bp. Williamson, leader of the decentralized and stagnant SSPX Resistance, announced that Archbishop Vigano was, “The heir to the light of the truth”, meaning +ABL.
What does this imply… that he is taking over the traditional Catholic movement?
Then, during this past Advent we are told by Fr. Chazal of the Phillipines that +W and Bp. Faure secretly gave Vigano a conditional Apostolic consecration.
There was no announcement, photos or video nor has Archbishop Vigano acknowledged he now has pre-Vatican II Orders, which would indicate his commitment to tradition.
Now, we’re not talking about a simple Novus ordo Diocese priest becoming a trad.
We’re talking about a highly ranked Bishop, from the modernist camp, being put into a international leadership position of the entire Catholic remnant.
The essence of this topic debate is:
Instead of blindly following personality cults, we as Catholics have a duty to ask questions and to discern the background and agenda of this prelate.
100% nonsense.
-
If you don't mind me asking how is it that a laymen was given the authority to demanded anything form the clergy at all especially if it doesn't involve you in any capacity.
Because he's just a jackass who has an ax to grind against +Vigano.
-
Ok thanks I just was confused on where the authority came from that clears it all up for me once again thankyou.
-
Nor can a doubtfully ordained/consecrated priest or bishop just stop practicing as a priest for a while. He can't just exist in limbo, or the equivalent of "live as brother and sister until the marriage is rectified". How exactly is a cleric supposed to support himself, while his priestly ministry is "on hold", hmmm? Is he supposed to get a job at Starbucks? He HAS given his whole life for the Church thus far; he has no other marketable skills. And even if he was a software developer (or something) before he joined the Seminary, CANON LAW prohibits a Cleric from working jobs for money.
This is not the case. Nowhere does Canon Law prohibit a cleric for working a job for money. In fact, Canon 139 (1917 Code) lays out certain professions that clerics either cannot engage in at all (secular notaries, being one) or they need an indult for (surgery and medicine). Simply because the SSPX requires some oath against this before tonsure does not make it "canon law". That is just something the SSPX does.
There was also the worker priest movement in France in the 1950s, that had some problems, yes, but was eventually allowed to continue in a certain form. There are still Novus Ordo priests in France that belong to this original movement. Not to mention, a large amount of Eastern Catholic priests also work secular jobs.
There are priests that are also taxi drivers, bus drivers for disabled children, network engineers, high school teachers, antique dealers, college professors, etc. Some chapels are in between being too small to support a priest full time but at the same time have a large enough group of faithful to need a priest close by and have Mass regularly. Some of these "worker priests" are able to fulfill this role, and these priests take no money for their priestly ministry. In fact, many of them put quite a bit of their own money into these chapels.
-
If you don't mind me asking how is it that a laymen was given the authority to demanded anything form the clergy at all especially if it doesn't involve you in any capacity.
Just joined last night, eh? 🤔
-
This is not the case. Nowhere does Canon Law prohibit a cleric for working a job for money. In fact, Canon 139 (1917 Code) lays out certain professions that clerics either cannot engage in at all (secular notaries, being one) or they need an indult for (surgery and medicine). Simply because the SSPX requires some oath against this before tonsure does not make it "canon law". That is just something the SSPX does.
There was also the worker priest movement in France in the 1950s, that had some problems, yes, but was eventually allowed to continue in a certain form. There are still Novus Ordo priests in France that belong to this original movement. Not to mention, a large amount of Eastern Catholic priests also work secular jobs.
There are priests that are also taxi drivers, bus drivers for disabled children, network engineers, high school teachers, antique dealers, college professors, etc. Some chapels are in between being too small to support a priest full time but at the same time have a large enough group of faithful to need a priest close by and have Mass regularly. Some of these "worker priests" are able to fulfill this role, and these priests take no money for their priestly ministry. In fact, many of them put quite a bit of their own money into these chapels.
You're a priest, correct?
-
Just joined last night, eh? 🤔
Is there anything wrong with disagreeing with someones point of view when it sounds like a personal problem.
-
You're a priest, correct?
I am.
-
This is not the case. Nowhere does Canon Law prohibit a cleric for working a job for money. In fact, Canon 139 (1917 Code) lays out certain professions that clerics either cannot engage in at all (secular notaries, being one) or they need an indult for (surgery and medicine). Simply because the SSPX requires some oath against this before tonsure does not make it "canon law". That is just something the SSPX does.
There was also the worker priest movement in France in the 1950s, that had some problems, yes, but was eventually allowed to continue in a certain form. There are still Novus Ordo priests in France that belong to this original movement. Not to mention, a large amount of Eastern Catholic priests also work secular jobs.
There are priests that are also taxi drivers, bus drivers for disabled children, network engineers, high school teachers, antique dealers, college professors, etc. Some chapels are in between being too small to support a priest full time but at the same time have a large enough group of faithful to need a priest close by and have Mass regularly. Some of these "worker priests" are able to fulfill this role, and these priests take no money for their priestly ministry. In fact, many of them put quite a bit of their own money into these chapels.
I questioned this also in my mind when it was posted. I can especially see with Traditional priests that they may work at a chapel that's too small to support them and where they might have to take on some work to pay the bills, get health insurance, etc.
-
It's because these things CAN'T be expedited. Are you insane? What trained, formed, qualified candidates exactly is +W turning away?
You just have to have patience -- and trust in God. When you take matters in your own hands, FAILING to trust in God, is precisely what causes things like Fr. Joseph "Santeria warlock for a right hand man" Pfeiffer.
Taking away the doubtful validity of Orders for an existing priest or bishop is a COMPLETELY different matter. That is all upside, no downside. He's already practicing as a priest/bishop -- it's best to rectify his Orders so there is no longer a doubt. But you're not MAKING a priest or bishop where there wasn't one. It's not like +Vigano was going to sell cars if +W refused to conditionally consecrate him.
Nor can a doubtfully ordained/consecrated priest or bishop just stop practicing as a priest for a while. He can't just exist in limbo, or the equivalent of "live as brother and sister until the marriage is rectified". How exactly is a cleric supposed to support himself, while his priestly ministry is "on hold", hmmm? Is he supposed to get a job at Starbucks? He HAS given his whole life for the Church thus far; he has no other marketable skills. And even if he was a software developer (or something) before he joined the Seminary, CANON LAW prohibits a Cleric from working jobs for money.
This is a major issue, since you seem to think he has to be tried in the court of Public Opinion and win people over en masse before he can "have his marriage rectified and live happily ever after" (to use a marriage analogy again). What is required by each person for "forgiveness" will vary widely -- for some, it will require his death (i.e., no forgiveness). Others have already forgiven/accepted him.
But you see, all the priest HAS to do is get conditionally ordained (or consecrated, for a bishop) and he's good to go. He doesn't have to convince YOU first -- or anyone else -- that he's truly converted, or is a good guy now. That's not how it works.
And we are required by Charity to assume the best about human beings. You're not allowed to presume the worst about a person by default, when there is no evidence one way or the other. That's something you should be confessing in the confessional. When someone converts, you must PRESUME it's genuine unless forced to conclude otherwise. I'm talking forced by EVIDENCE here, not just gut feelings or emotional baggage you're carrying from past scars.
Well, there are problematic characters that +W refused to ordain but somehow got ordained by bishops consecrated by +W. How's that for pushing the responsibility to others? :popcorn:
-
Because he's just a jackass who has an ax to grind against +Vigano.
Lads wants to believe in Vigano because like the sheep who followed Q-Anon, he’s a clerical “Hope porno” addict.
-
Ok thanks I just was confused on where the authority came from that clears it all up for me once again thankyou.
Let me ask HEdD,
As a practicing traditional Catholic, do you you need some clerical “authority” to discern the actions of Jorge Bergolio?
:popcorn: