CathInfo.com

What is the name of the trad bishop you were speaking with?

It is highly unlikely that a spouse will reveal an abusive tendency that is not already apparent. I wonder why you say that severe abuse is insanity. You can pretty safely say that severe abuse is grave sin, but not grounds for annulment.

Probably a "garage bishop". You know, any priest with the right connections COULD become a bishop. And the path from layman to priest CAN BE equally slick and quick, in this wild-west world of Tradition.

Why is a man's opinion or advise automatically worth more, just because he's been consecrated Bishop and he follows pre-Vatican II liturgy, morality, theology, and philosophy? It's not like he gets special graces of state to not err, to be a great theologian, or to have the best/most Catholic opinion on every matter. The Pope didn't choose him. He has no jurisdiction; any "Trad" bishops are just sacrament-dispensers, who operate under emergency supplied jurisdiction.

Just look at Fr. Pfeiffer. He got himself consecrated*, even though he has committed public sins against fellow priests, is working with a warlock, his "seminary" is a laughing-stock, etc. There is much to criticize on a moral level, even from older and sober priests like Fr. Voigt, who aren't going to raise a fuss about "nothing". They stick to real issues when they raise their voice.

Now this is not as much of a problem in larger or more well-organized groups (Resistance, SSPX, even the Indult groups like FSSP) because they require long training for the priesthood. But you have lots of vagus and wandering bishops and priests, and it's very small task, physically speaking, to ordain or consecrate someone. To consecrate/ordain a GOOD, SUITABLE candidate? That's a whole different matter.


*His public consecration video showed grave defects in the ceremony. This was solid evidence for defect of form. His later claim that it was "re-done" was inadequate, as no video was released for that.

Not to speak ill of the dead, but a certain priest was infamous for claiming that assisting at a Mass "Una cuм Papa nostro N..." was the same as being "one with his heresy(ies)". He taught that Catholics cannot attend a Mass offered "Una cuм". Which is RIDICULOUS to any well-educated Catholic. Before this priest came along, sedevacantists had no problems assisting at Tridentine Masses offered by valid priests. But this priest really divided the Traditional world -- for his own benefit. Power and $$$.

This self-serving teaching of his ("Oh darn! I guess my parishioners can't go to the other competing chapels in Cincinnati -- of which there are SEVERAL! I guess I will just have to enjoy more control over them now...") was novel to the extreme, and was quite cult-like in its inspiration. Rather like a cult leader saying he personally talks to God, and "today God told me that 14 year old Sally and 15 year old Mandy are to join my harem..."

This priest didn't do it for Pleasure, he did it for Power. But in both cases, the motives were base and self-serving.

Yes, not to speak ill of the dead.