Author Topic: Two questions regarding Resistance Confirmations (Read 13028 times)

LAMB · « **Reply #15 on:** June 24, 2015, 02:03:10 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Here are the pictures in question.

In "56" I think he's about to give him the slap -- he's not anointing him in that picture.

Another point -- maybe these still shots are capturing as he's finishing the anointing, and he lets his fingers go to a more natural position towards the end.

At any rate, has anyone on here actually taken the Theological course "de defectibus" ("on defects") which covers the various Sacraments and what is required for validity?

My gut feeling is that as long as those fingers are over the person's head at all, you're good.

The bishop doesn't have to be super nimble with his hands or double jointed to properly administer the Sacrament.

Moderator response:
No, I'm not a liberal, but you're a muck-raking nit picker. See, we can both call names.
You weren't there; you're only looking at still shots which are, frankly, ambiguous at best.
And I don't know where you got the "1 year". I was at the seminary for 3 years under Bishop Williamson, 1/2 a year under Fr. Le Roux.
Yes, the matter has to be there for the Sacrament, but are you really more certain than me about how much finger has to be on what part of the head? I seriously doubt it. You have studied "de defectibus" about as much as I have.

Are you a bit of a liberal Matthew? You sure seem to have a pretty loose idea of traditional rubrics, for someone who attended Winona for 1 year under Bp. Williamson and runs his own resistance chapel.... You, above anyone, should be aware that when it comes to the sacraments, there is absolutely NO room for doubt. And it's not very gentlemanly, to say the least, for you to insult Green Scapular by accusing him of whinging.... He was making a very valid point and it is perfectly clear from all of the photos that Bp. Faure is definitely NOT laying his right hand on the confirmands head WHILE annointing him/her with his thumb!

Matthew · « **Reply #16 on:** June 24, 2015, 02:03:13 PM »

Quote from: Green Scapular

Matthew,

You are derailing, but I will take the bait this once.

Did you ever go directly to Bishop Fellay with your concerns about him? Did you go see him with a few buddies?

Did you talk to Fr. de la Motte in private before posting this?
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/87-year-old-denied-communion-for-hosting-Bp-Williamson

Did you talk to the seminary rector in private before posting this?
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Changes-at-the-SSPX-seminary-in-Winona

And on and on...

Your brain can't think clearly.

The changes in Winona are simply what they are. There was no "fraternal correction" involved. Do you deny any of them?

I don't need to admonish Fr. de la Motte because it's obvious I wouldn't get anywhere. There's such a thing as not having to waste your time. Refusing an old lady Communion because she hosted Bishop Williamson shows such bad will, such cult mentality, that it's a waste of time to write to him first.

Are you saying that Bishop Faure is in the same category? He clearly did this maliciously?

Again, you need to learn how to think precisely and clearly, and maybe you'd come to the true position on the Crisis.

Matthew · « **Reply #17 on:** June 24, 2015, 02:10:36 PM »

Some more proof that Green Scapular's faculty of reason is somewhat impeded (emotion? cult loyalty? you be the judge):

He just made a snide comment about CathInfo's daily unique visitors. He was way off (actual unique visitors count, per AWstats, is 1000/day -- but I digress. That's my word against his, and beside the point.)

Ok, so for the sake of discussion, let's assume Green Scapular is correct: CathInfo is a rinky dink hole in the road. So let's apply our reason here:

Why does Green Scapular continue to haunt the place?

A) Does he enjoy the company/information here? Does he fit in?
Or
B) Does he hang out here despite himself, purely because it's so popular -- it's where all the Trads are?

It has to be one of those two -- or why is he here? Is he some kind of masochist or glutton for punishment?

Based on the fact he HATES the Resistance, I have a hard time believing it's A).
But if you take his statements at face value (i.e., that CathInfo has an insignificant reach) it really makes you wonder why he "wastes his time" here.

Green Scapular · « **Reply #18 on:** June 24, 2015, 02:13:57 PM »

Quote from: Don

Viewing angles can easily give the wrong impression as can the timing of a picture when theres some movement involved. in these pictures from Australian confirmations we can see from the other side of the head that the bishops hand is touching the head.

http://cor-mariae./thread/4120/photos-confirmation-ceremony-victoria

Glad to see that by now he has understood his earlier error and has corrected himself. This proves the entire point that a correction was necessary, as Bishop Faure himself demonstrates that he had to change his hand positioning.

So my first question is answered. He was wrong in how he did it at first, either through carelessness or ignorance, but now understands how to do a confirmation correctly and is doing so. Deo Gratias.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #19 on:** June 24, 2015, 02:14:12 PM »

I know that Bishop Williamson made a good decision in consecrating Bishop Faure when I see the people who ignore what the current leaders of the SSPX are doing and spend time over-analyzing everything that Bishop Faure does. It means he has hit a nerve with them, just by the fact that he is here to take control of this and keep faithful Catholics from having to be without a bishop to ordain priests. Pretty important since we already know that the current leadership of the SSPX has no plans to consecrate a bishop and has expressed this when they "denounced" Bishop Faure's consecration. With the Neo-SSPX refusing to maintain the number of 4 bishops, one would be justified in questioning if once the number of bishops are reduced to a precarious number like one or two, wouldn't they probably then just stop ordaining also. After all, the ordinations are "illicit", so there has to be a problem that Rome sees in their self-contradiction in "denouncing" episcopal consecrations but then continuing to ordain priests "illicitly". Only a naive person fails to see where this is going.