It is currently Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:48 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 152 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 SSPV 
Author Message

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:13 pm
Posts: 37
New post SSPV
I know the SSPV holds that Archbishop Thuc and those who trace their lineage back to him are dubious, but this made me mad. I can't even listen to their sermons anymore because more than half of it is centered on their communion rules and why Archbishop Thuc was a schismatic ect. This is taken from a bulletin from St. Therese of The Child Jesus Church in Parma, Ohio.

Quote:
N O T I C E
In the name of holding fast to the
Traditional Catholic religion, some
unfortunate priests have received Holy
Orders, notably episcopal consecration,
from dubious and non-Catholic
sources. Among these
dubious sources is Archbishop Ngo
dinh-Thuc (+1984), who began in 1976
to bestow episcopal consecration on a
series of men, including false visionaries,
non-Catholics (even the leader of a
non-Catholic religion), a notorious
deviate, and schismatics tied to a
Satanist center in Paris. There are many
indications that Archbishop Thuc was
not in his right mind when he performed
these terrible sacrileges.
St. Therese of the Child Jesus
Church is served by priests of the
Society of Saint Pius V, who condemn
the schismatic sacrileges at the root of
the Thuc-line of bishops. The Society of
Saint Pius V has nothing whatsoever to
do with such groups, and does not recognize
such groups, their churches or
their clergyman as Roman Catholic.
Two clergymen in the Cincinnati
area and one in the Detroit area are part
of the Thuc-line of bishops: they are ,
respectively, Rev. Daniel Dolan at St.
Gertrude the Great in Sharonville, OH;
Rev. Louis Vezelis at St. Joseph's
Mission in Union, KY; and, Rev. Donald
J. Sanborn at Our Lady Queen of
Martyrs Church in Fraser, MI (near
Wa r ren). Thus, those who attend the
Masses or receive the sacraments fro m
them or in churches affiliated with
them, must not attempt to receive
sacraments at St. Therese of the Child
Jesus Church or any other churches
served by priests of the Society of Saint
Pius V.


Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:51 pm
Profile
New post SSPV
Dear Ben, Wow! What am I missing here? My family and I assist at Immaculate Conception, and I thought I was paying attention to the sermons. Also, I listen to WFTS radio as I fix and repair our house- so my question is which sermons, and by whom?


Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:01 pm

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:13 pm
Posts: 37
New post Re: SSPV
eliz carroll wrote:
Dear Ben, Wow! What am I missing here? My family and I assist at Immaculate Conception, and I thought I was paying attention to the sermons. Also, I listen to WFTS radio as I fix and repair our house- so my question is which sermons, and by whom?


Dear Eliz,
http://www.stpiusvchapel.org/mp3/sermon ... 072306.mp3
And many more on that page.

God Bless


Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:49 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi

It is sad to see a valid Bishop ( i.e. Bp Kelly) become so pragmatic. His book outlining why he thinks Bp Thuc's line is not valid, is all " words" no substance.

In Xto,
Vincent


Sat Aug 26, 2006 2:32 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 516
New post 
It seems to me that Fr. Santay might want to reflect on why he does not like to announce the rules for the reception of Holy Communion at his chapel.


Sat Aug 26, 2006 3:48 am
Profile
New post 
Dear All, I've just listened to Fr.'s sermon, and he is quite straightforward. I can see how feelings have been hurt in the split-off from the SSPV. It had to be wretched for all involved, similar to a divorce. Even my feelings are hurt because of any criticism of our priests (kind of like if someone says something unintentionally hurtful about my Dad) but then, there it is, pride and human respect! :oops:
My understanding of the history and the facts of this issue is very sketchy. I believe that Fr. Cekada and (then) Fr. Dolan originally held the the same view as SSPV before they left the SSPV. (about whether Abp. Thuc was in his right mind) The descriptions in the St. Therese Bulletin of the mistakes in judgement of character are food for thought. Are these descriptions untrue?

Has anyone viewed the video of the debate between Frs. Jenkins and Cekada on this subject?

I am begging for anyone who adds to this discussion to please be very careful about what you think you know, (myself incuded) and to be rigorous in the practice of charity and humility. Fifty years ago, there were all Traditional priests, and Traditional Catholics, sinners every single one. We were not holding our Priests and Bishops under the microscope; there was no Internet. I am praying for Catholics to love one another and for us to resist with all our heart the devil whispering to us , tricking any of us into further division and chaos.


Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:23 pm

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Griffin, GA
New post 
I'm listening to an interview with Bishop Joseph Macek and the late Rama Coomaraswamy. (from Catholiccounterpoint.com)
What is brought out is that once a Bishop is consecrated a Bishop, he retains his power to consecrate whether he goes "astray" or becomes contraversial. ArchBishop Thuc had orders from Pope Pius XI to go into Asia and consecrate new bishops.

_________________
"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."


Sat Aug 26, 2006 2:15 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Griffin, GA
New post 
The words that Rama Coomaraswamy used in the interview I just mentioned were these: " Once a bishop is consecrated a bishop, he can use or abuse his power (to consecrate bishops) but he cannot lose it.

_________________
"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."


Sat Aug 26, 2006 2:24 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 11
New post 
I looked for that conversation, but couldn't find it.

I assist at the Masses of Bishop Macek at Holy Family Chapel (Melbourne, FL), and he was also chosen by Dr. Coomaraswamy to celebrate his Requiem Mass. (please don't yell at me cuz I didn't use the correct language...I was NO for over 20 years and haven't caught on to my new traditional language yet...what is (are) the correct word(s)?) :oops:

It would be a shame if the Thuc line is invalid, illicit, whatever. Bishop Macek is a most holy priest (previously 13 yrs. NO), and so is Bishop Merrill Adamson, who visited us while Bishop Macek was out of town for Dr. Coomaraswamy's Requiem Mass.

I want to find that conversation.....


Sat Aug 26, 2006 2:46 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Griffin, GA
New post 
You are indeed fortunate to have Bishop Macek. Here is a good article defending Archbishop Thuc.
http://www.catholicrestoration.org/libr ... e_thuc.htm

_________________
"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."


Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:09 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 516
New post 
eliz wrote:
Dear All, I've just listened to Fr.'s sermon, and he is quite straightforward. I can see how feelings have been hurt in the split-off from the SSPV. It had to be wretched for all involved, similar to a divorce.



Dear Eliz,

I’ll admit that some may have had their feelings hurt when this split occurred. But I am one of those who was not around when "the split" occurred. While feelings may have been hurt for some of those intimately involved, for me and many others, it has nothing to do with hurt feelings.

My reference to Fr. Santay’s sermon was because it struck me odd for him to be apologetic in his addressing this issue. It seems to me that something bothers him about making this announcement. I believe Fr. Santay’s regret may be due to his Catholic Sense making him a bit uncomfortable in announcing the refusal of the Sacrament of Holy Communion to other Traditional Catholics.

I will neither think nor say anything negative about SSPV or any of their Priests and religious. However, I believe they are just flat wrong on this issue.

It appears that the facts do not support the position of SSPV in refusing communion to other Traditional Catholics. I believe that Fr. Cekada has shown this to be the case. If you disagree I think you must read the article then address those points you think may be in error. In my humble opinion, this is the only discussion on this topic that can be useful.

In Christ,

Robert


Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:03 pm
Profile
New post 
Dear Robert, Thanks for discussing, and for being your regular gentlmanly self! I am in no way competant to know or decide anything in this case, obviously. Maybe watching the debate will be instructive.
May God Bless everyone.


Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:24 pm

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi,

I would say this is a must read, before forming any view on this important topic.


The Validity of the Thuc Consecrations
Rev. Anthony Cekada

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=13

In Xto,


Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:46 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4115
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I will neither think nor say anything negative about SSPV or any of their Priests and religious. However, I believe they are just flat wrong on this issue.


Beautifully expressed. This is absolutely the spirit we must not only strive for, but actually possess always.

The men of the SSPV are doing their best too. Despite the fact that we think their position on this point is indefensible. I think many of us will receive a shock when we find out on Judgement Day how some of our own views were indefensible and the views of others which we thought were completely nuts were actually quite correct. :)

I am a long way from arguing that we can have no certitude. I am merely reminding myself that we may think we are certain when in truth we have no basis for that judgement.

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:54 pm
Posts: 5
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
New post 
Do the SSPV make clear what they believe about whether or not we have a pope on their website? It has been a while since I checked but I don't recall them ever using the term sedevacantist.

Do they have a position on what people should do when they can't attend one of their chapels? I ask this since I have noticed a tendecy for people to imply 'no salvation outside of my chapel'.


Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:15 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 162
New post 
Ah Robert!

Quote:
will neither think nor say anything negative about SSPV or any of their Priests and religious. However, I believe they are just flat wrong on this issue.


anything negative... they are flat wrong...

Come now!

Peace!


Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:03 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 516
New post 
csibf wrote:
Ah Robert!

Quote:
will neither think nor say anything negative about SSPV or any of their Priests and religious. However, I believe they are just flat wrong on this issue.


anything negative... they are flat wrong...

Come now!

Peace!


Dear csibf,

Saying someone is flat wrong, when it is true, is hardly something negative. If I retract the "flat" part of "flat wrong"...would that help? :)

See Mr. Daly's comments here: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/vi ... 5&start=15

John Daly wrote:
3. Interestingly, a friend of mine recently had the opportunity to discuss these issues with several SSPV clergy and the arguments they used were not those Dylan advances anyway. They admitted that the Thuc line and their supporters were not necessarily heretics or schismatics, so there was no question of what Dylan calls "communicatio in sacris" by which he presumably means "communicatio in sacris cum acatholicis". Nor did they make the preposterous claim that all those to whom they refuse the sacraments were publicly known to be in a state of mortal sin.

They in fact fell back on the allegation that there was scandal involved, especially as to the ex-Schuckhardt group.

But of course this simply fails to address Fr Cekada's very fair case that they have to say into which category these people fall if they must be refused the sacraments. A priest may not publicly refuse the sacraments unless he is obliged by some law to do so. Effectively the SSPV response appears to be that they are refusing the sacraments in order to express a strong disapproval of what they disagree with.

But as Fr Cekada's texts show, this is simply not permissible.

It is doubly sinful: it refuses the greatest of all goods to those who have a strict right to them and it apparently defames them at the same time.

4. It is inevitable that during a vacancy of the Holy See there are going to be disagreements among Catholics. If these disagreements entail straightforward denial of a dogma, as in the case of Feeneyism, it is understandable that the question of eligibility of the miscreants for the sacraments be raised. Outside of that case, refusing the sacraments to those who fail to accept a list of propositions we think we have proved seems to be simply the first step to the creation of a schism. It is certainly as scandalous as anything the CMRI can reasonably be accused of.

Once again, I stress, that I make these observations as one who has no axe to grind: I happen to be eligible for SSPV sacraments, but not because I agree with SSPV principles.


In the Peace of Christ,

RB


Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:40 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 162
New post 
Thanks for the response and John Daly's comments.

I am still trying to wrap my brain around what you said. I think that saying something or someone is 'wrong", flat or not, IS saying something negative. It may be true but still negative. Like saying that Satan is evil is saying what is true but is also saying something negative.

But I am not going to sweat it so.... PEACE!


Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:26 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 73
New post 
fizmath wrote:
Do the SSPV make clear what they believe about whether or not we have a pope on their website? It has been a while since I checked but I don't recall them ever using the term sedevacantist.

Do they have a position on what people should do when they can't attend one of their chapels? I ask this since I have noticed a tendecy for people to imply 'no salvation outside of my chapel'.


Dear Fizmath

The SSPV tries not to elevate the sedevacantist position to the level of dogma. If you go the articles section of http://www.sspv.net and read "A statment of Principles" you will see that they are indeed sedevacantist. This was written just over two decades ago and it is still the basis of the SSPVs apostolate and positions concerning not only the modernist popes but also the New Mass, John XXIII rubrics, Anullmets etc. One of the things that I like about the SSPV is that they do not try to impose there own opinions on others. The SSPV has no "policy" concerning Mass said outside its own organization. However they do believe, as the Church always believed, that we must attend a Catholic Mass. For this reason they discourage people from attending the Thuc line Mass or indult Mass because it is arguable whether the men offering such services are Catholic (particularly the indult). However I have been advised by SSPV priests that it is fine to attend an SSPX Mass as the Church has not judged on the current "popes" and so we cannot apply the label of schismatic to Society priests if they simply err in judgment.

In the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts


Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:33 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Quote:
For this reason they discourage people from attending the Thuc line Mass or indult Mass because it is arguable whether the men offering such services are Catholic


Regarding the Thuc line, the large body of investigation has shown the Thuc line to be valid. And it appears the SSPV do a little more than " discourage" attendance, they refuse to give Holy Communion to those who attend Thuc Line chapels.

In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 73
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !

Quote:
For this reason they discourage people from attending the Thuc line Mass or indult Mass because it is arguable whether the men offering such services are Catholic


Regarding the Thuc line, the large body of investigation has shown the Thuc line to be valid. And it appears the SSPV do a little more than " discourage" attendance, they refuse to give Holy Communion to those who attend Thuc Line chapels.

In Xto,
Vincent


Dear Vince

I am not a member of the SSPV, I simply attend their chapels. I do not see any real reason to doubt the validity of the Thuc consecrations, atleast those he confered upon Bps. Carmona, Zamora and Guard des Lauries. However if you look at the Thuc line, and this includes the three men mentioned above, you will find many horrid and illicit sins staining this lineage. For example I believe it was Bp. Zamora who consecrated Lopez Gaston. There where two impediments to the reception of the episcopate in this case

i) Mr. Gaston had not attended a seminary.
ii) Mr. Gaston was married.

This makes Mr. Gaston canonically unfit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Also it is worth noticing that this Bp. went on to "ordain" Dr. Rama Coomorswamy who was also married and had not attended a seminary. This ordination happened with the approval and on the suggestion of Bp. Mckenna.

A priest who goes outside the Church for Holy Orders is not permitted to excercise his priestly functions, even if he later abjures his errors. (Think the CMRI). This has always been the practice of Holy Church. For example Rene Villatte, an ex-seminarian from around the time of 1850-1930 (sorry I forget the exact dates) had himself ordained a priest by an Old Catholic bishop in 1885. Not long after he was consecrated a bishop by schismatics in Sri Lanka. It is known that he ordained atleast several bishops and and un-known number of priests.
Just a few years before his death he repented his acts and abjured his errors infront of the Papal Nuncio to France. He was received back into the Church and then retired to a monastery. However even though his orders where valid he was forbidden to excercise them. His orders where stolen gold and he could not profit from them.
So was Arch. Thuc outside the Church? I think that there is sufficient evidence to assert the positive. At times he fully embraced Vatican II. He even publicly said the New Mass. He believed the modernists to be Popes and urged those he consecrated to accept Vatican II and John Paul II. I mean the poor old soul even signed his declaration of sede vacante with the title "Titular Bishop of Bulla Regae" a position granted to him by the men he was denouncing as anti-popes!
My point in making these comments though was to show that even if Thuc orders are valid there remains a positive doubt as to whether those deriving orders from this lineage can licitly administer the sacraments.

This is simply my opinion, I am not demanding that you agree and cut of all ties with CMRI or anything else. I am but a layman. I, Fr. Skierka, not even Bp.Kelly can demand this of you. We have no jurisdiction in these matters, the Church alone can bind the minds of people to the truth. However I personaly do not want to have the slightest thought of doubt in my mind when I am in the confessional or when I receive Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. For this reason I frequent only the SSPV and SSPX for the sacraments. But this is my personal choice, do as you will.


Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:01 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 154
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Frank wrote:
He believed the modernists to be Popes and urged those he consecrated to accept Vatican II and John Paul II.


Frank wrote:
For this reason I frequent the...SSPX for the sacraments.


Frank, I see a little bit of a contradiction here. :D

The objections you bring against Archp. Thuc have been answered elsewhere. As you say, no one can force anyone else to accept arguments.


Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:58 am
Profile
New post 
Speaking of contradictions, it seems a little bit contradictory to complain about the "Great Excommunuicater" on the one hand, and from the pulpit denounce the SSPX, or publish condemnations of assisting at SSPX.

I know that I am also walking the tightrope, and I'm here at my SSPV parish, by God's grace finally having my children taught by the most excellant Sisters. I know I'm on the tightrope and I could fall any time, I remember where I came from. Holy Guardian Angels, pray for us. Eliz.


Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:37 pm

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 154
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Quote:
Speaking of contradictions, it seems a little bit contradictory to complain about the "Great Excommunuicater" on the one hand, and from the pulpit denounce the SSPX, or publish condemnations of assisting at SSPX.



I would guess that based upon the writer's positions about the SSPV and the SSPX, that it would not be a contradiction based upon the acceptance of that reasoning to pursue both thoughts to their conclusion. Far be it from me to speak for anyone else though. :D


Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:29 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi

Mr. Frank stated;
Quote:
A priest who goes outside the Church for Holy Orders is not permitted to excercise his priestly functions, even if he later abjures his errors. (Think the CMRI).


Dear Frank,

Are you implying the CMRI are outside the Catholic Church? Upon further " reflection: I have a few more comments to make regarding your recent post.



Quote:
you will find many horrid and illicit sins staining this lineage



Melodrama of " linage" does not negate a bishops validity. Frankly ( and with my Irish a bit up) I respectfully suggest you stop mixing soap opera with validity of Sacraments and Episcopal consecrations.


Quote:
However I personaly do not want to have the slightest thought of doubt in my mind when I am in the confessional or when I receive Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.



Slightest doubt of what? Sacraments are either Valid or they are NOT. No slight doubts suffice.

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:55 pm
Profile
New post 
Dear Geoff, You are correct. I need to learn to use logic. I dread the infighting, because it discourages people from being sympathetic to the SV theory. And the lack of charity by highly respected clergy. with love, Eliz.


Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:55 pm

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 154
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Eliz wrote:
...I need to learn to use logic. I dread the infighting, because it discourages people from being sympathetic to the SV theory.


It's dreadfully tough going for everybody. The good news is that there are no bullets to contend with--at least not yet. :)

So we'll limp along and try to see our way to the end. In spite of the help that logic brings us, we eventually bump our noses against that "glass darkly" that the Apostle wrote of.


Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:19 pm
Profile
New post SSPV
Frank Gale: A quote of yours: "A priest who goes outside the Church for Holy Orders is not permitted to exercise his priestly functions, even if he later abjures his errors. (Think the CMRI)". What do you think Archbishop Lefebvre did when he ordained the priests of the SSPX and later consecrated the 4 SSPX bishops, when the Vatican considered him "outside the Church"? Both Archbishop Thuc and Archbishop Lefebvre were "excommunicated" by the N.O. Vatican. SSPX also recently ran a two-issue article stating that the new rite of consecration is valid. Then why did Archbishop Lefebvre ordain what he termed valid priests and consecrate valid bishops so that there would continue to be a valid Mass and valid sacraments? His statements are available on THE ANGELUS (SSPX) website from Canada. The SSPX acknowledge the post-conciliar popes as valid, which is evident by their negotiations with Benedict XVI. Why pick on CMRI?

Archbishop Thuc, as a validly consecrated bishop, kept all the powers that were imprinted upon him, which he received with his holy orders. If we pick away at each fault of a priest, then perhaps man would judge that St. Peter should not have been given his position as the first pope. Christ felt otherwise, and said: Upon this Rock, I will build my Church. You mention a stain on the Thuc lineage. That issue has been discussed over and over again. The "fault" or "stain" of one priest or bishop does not pass on to others of a line. Valid is valid, period. Who are the ones who continue to draw attention to faults and make vague implications? Sometimes that borders on or is calumny.

I am sure satan is delighted with all these divisions he creates in the hearts and minds of Traditionalists who make war upon each other. The CMRI priests that we have been fortunate enough to have celebrate Mass for us have been top-caliber priests, excellent confessors; and no doubts are in my mind that they are valid. We have been totally blessed with their presence in a mind-boggling spiritual wasteland in New England. If you go to Dr. Thomas Droleskey's website, christorchaos, you will see, within the last year, how he has come to believe the validity of Archbishop Thuc's consecrations (Des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora). Suppositions, guessing, and heresay are very dangerous and lead to untold confusion and error, and keep people away from valid sacraments, much to satan's delight.

Pat Beck, Maine


Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:51 am

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 73
New post 
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
Frank wrote:
He believed the modernists to be Popes and urged those he consecrated to accept Vatican II and John Paul II.


Frank wrote:
For this reason I frequent the...SSPX for the sacraments.


Frank, I see a little bit of a contradiction here. :D


Dear Mr. Tribbe

Arch. Lefebvre did not accept Vatican II, the New Mass or any other destructive reforms. Arch. Thuc did. I see no contradiction.


Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:23 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 73
New post 
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
Quote:
Speaking of contradictions, it seems a little bit contradictory to complain about the "Great Excommunuicater" on the one hand, and from the pulpit denounce the SSPX, or publish condemnations of assisting at SSPX.



I would guess that based upon the writer's positions about the SSPV and the SSPX, that it would not be a contradiction based upon the acceptance of that reasoning to pursue both thoughts to their conclusion. Far be it from me to speak for anyone else though. :D


No I am afraid I will have to agree with Eliz. Fr. Cekada writes a long article castigating Bp. Kelly and the SSPV, his main premisis for this is that they are acting as if they have authority. After writting this he then starts describing the SSPX as schismatic, says it is a mortal sin to receive their sacraments and wastes an entire sermon "bashing" another traditionalist group which has just made an error of judgment. Does any one else find this atleast slightly hypocritical?
He labels Bp. Kelly as the "Great Excommunicator" and then falls into the same attitude he accuses the SSPV of having by trying to enforce his own judgments about a particular group onto every one else. "The SSPX is schismatic. You don't agree with me! You attend their Mass! Your in mortal sin!" Face it, Fr. Cekada is being hypocritical.

By the way Bp.Kelly's arguments on refusing communion to those who attend Thuc Mass's are much sounder then Fr. Cekada's and Fr.Sanborns for avoiding the Una Cum Mass.


Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:33 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 73
New post Re: SSPV
Pat Beck wrote:
Frank Gale: A quote of yours: "A priest who goes outside the Church for Holy Orders is not permitted to exercise his priestly functions, even if he later abjures his errors. (Think the CMRI)". What do you think Archbishop Lefebvre did when he ordained the priests of the SSPX and later consecrated the 4 SSPX bishops, when the Vatican considered him "outside the Church"? Both Archbishop Thuc and Archbishop Lefebvre were "excommunicated" by the N.O. Vatican.

I do not regard the N.O or those in the Vatican as the Catholic Church so by my logic when His Excellency did the consecrations he was not going outside the Catholic Church but outside the modernist Church. It was he himself that said the Concilliar Church is not the Catholic Church. The cases are in no way similar. But just for fun lets see ey:
Thuc: Spur of the moment
Lefebvre: He had contemplated this for years
Thuc: Men he did not know
Lefebvre: Priests he had worked with and ordained. He could be sure that they met the qualifications neccesary for the episcopate.
Thuc: Men with no seminary training and even non catholics
Lefebvre: Men who had been through the greatest seminary in the world at that particular time. They had already dedicated years to serving the Catholic faith.

It is simply laughable that you would compare these two men. One a great defender of the faith who's work has provided literaly millions with the sacraments and one who ordained non-catholics, who espoused pet theories and failed to join the universal coalition of fathers defending tradition at the council.

Quote:
SSPX also recently ran a two-issue article stating that the new rite of consecration is valid. Then why did Archbishop Lefebvre ordain what he termed valid priests and consecrate valid bishops so that there would continue to be a valid Mass and valid sacraments? His statements are available on THE ANGELUS (SSPX) website from Canada. The SSPX acknowledge the post-conciliar popes as valid, which is evident by their negotiations with Benedict XVI.

I said I receive the sacraments from them not that I agree with everything that they write in their magazine. Why did Archbishop Lefebvre consecrate four bishops? Because at that time, as today, no Novus Ordo bishop would ordain for an organization that rejected Vatican II, condemned ecumenism and used the Tridentine Mass not out of nostalgia but because they believed the New Mass was defective.

Quote:
Why pick on CMRI?

I am not picking on CMRI. But unlike the SSPX I believe that the CMRI was outside the Church and has illicit orders because I believe that it is a debatable question as to whether Arch. Thuc was a catholic.
After reading this about him I cannot help but wonder if maybe he was a bit insane:

The ressurection of the Roman Catholic Church wrote:
If he could be said to have come to the Council with a pet theory of his own, it would have to have been diversity in worship and belief. Early on in the Council, he had complained quite vehemently that the leaders of many other religions hadn't been invited and ought to have been. He only calmed down when he was informed that they had been invited but had not bothered to come. He also seemed to feel that the Mass should reflect the culture of those who are celebrating the Mass, whether by sitting on their heels, on the ground eating off a banana leaf, or even using chopsticks (how would one have used chopsticks in a Mass?). At another point he is even known to have argued in favor of allowing there to be priestesses.


As to the rest of your post, I can only pray for you. I have made it clear that I am not attempting to bind the conscience of others.

In the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts.


Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:51 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4115
New post 
Frank Gale wrote:
Does any one else find this atleast slightly hypocritical?


Dear Frank,

I don't mind these issues being explored, but I ask that everybody please avoid inflammatory language. :)

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:33 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 154
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Frank wrote:
No I am afraid I will have to agree with Eliz. Fr. Cekada writes a long article castigating Bp. Kelly and the SSPV, his main premisis for this is that they are acting as if they have authority.


Frank, I'm sorry, but your statements lead me to believe that you have not read the article in question, or were not paying close attention. Fr. Cekada's "main premise" is not "that they are acting as if they have authority". In fact, I can find no place in the article that he makes this argument at all.

His "main premise" seems to me to be summed up in the following:

Quote:
Here we discover that a Catholic has a right to receive the Eucharist, the priest has an obligation to give Communion to a Catholic, and that the priest may refuse someone the Eucharist only if that person is forbidden by law to receive it.


Father also deals with some of the issues you seem to have with Archbsp. Thuc. Although the title is somewhat sly, I wouldn't characterize it as a "long article castigating" anyone, so much as an impassioned plea, backed up with citations. If you haven't read the article, I suggest you give it a try.


Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:12 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !


Dear Frank,

I would also ask that you concentrate on the doctrine and principles involved regarding validity of the " Thuc" line. So far all I have seen you do is post melodrama and innuendo. Here is a bit more;

Quote:
The ressurection of the Roman Catholic Church wrote:

If he could be said to have come to the Council with a pet theory of his own, it would have to have been diversity in worship and belief. Early on in the Council, he had complained quite vehemently that the leaders of many other religions hadn't been invited and ought to have been. He only calmed down when he was informed that they had been invited but had not bothered to come. He also seemed to feel that the Mass should reflect the culture of those who are celebrating the Mass, whether by sitting on their heels, on the ground eating off a banana leaf, or even using chopsticks (how would one have used chopsticks in a Mass?). At another point he is even known to have argued in favor of allowing there to be priestesses.


Author & Publisher please....not that it will change the ' content' classification any :)

In Xto,
Vincent


Last edited by Vince Sheridan on Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:12 pm
Profile
New post 
Dear All,
I would also like to mention for thosewho do not know, that our Bishop Kelly has been so ill for a long time that many times he cannot even say Mass. He has not exactly had the strength to defend himself against the claims of some clergy members. A few prayers for him wouldn't hurt. Thanks, Eliz.


Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:14 pm

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Quote:
A few prayers for him wouldn't hurt. Thanks, Eliz.


Indeed I will pray for his health, and also for him to see the error in his position.

Btw- has he consecrated any bishops?

In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:21 pm
Profile
New post 
Thanks, Vince.
Frank, The New York Times of April 8, 1983 article "Vietnamese Archbishop Excommunicated Again" states the Archbisop was excommunicated Sept. 17, 1976, "but soon gained the Vatican's pardon."
Trying to understand what the controversy about Archbisop Thuc has me spellbound, because his family history with the extreme political power in VietnamBrother first President, another brother was chief of secret police, Catholics ruling in a Buddist country.President assasinated a week before JFK. A very dramatic life Archbisop Thuc led, just extaordinary.


Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:07 pm

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Hello Eliz,

Here is Bishop Thuc's declaration:

http://www.cmri.org/thucletter.html

In Xto,
Vincent


Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:30 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 73
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Frank Gale wrote:
Does any one else find this atleast slightly hypocritical?


Dear Frank,

I don't mind these issues being explored, but I ask that everybody please avoid inflammatory language. :)


Ofcourse. Noted and will be more careful in the future. :)


Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:55 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 73
New post 
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
Frank wrote:
No I am afraid I will have to agree with Eliz. Fr. Cekada writes a long article castigating Bp. Kelly and the SSPV, his main premisis for this is that they are acting as if they have authority.


Frank, I'm sorry, but your statements lead me to believe that you have not read the article in question, or were not paying close attention. Fr. Cekada's "main premise" is not "that they are acting as if they have authority". In fact, I can find no place in the article that he makes this argument at all.

His "main premise" seems to me to be summed up in the following:

Quote:
Here we discover that a Catholic has a right to receive the Eucharist, the priest has an obligation to give Communion to a Catholic, and that the priest may refuse someone the Eucharist only if that person is forbidden by law to receive it.


Father also deals with some of the issues you seem to have with Archbsp. Thuc. Although the title is somewhat sly, I wouldn't characterize it as a "long article castigating" anyone, so much as an impassioned plea, backed up with citations. If you haven't read the article, I suggest you give it a try.


I have read the article various times and after speaking to SSPV priests about it I still disagree with Fr. Cekada. I should be more specific. This is not the only article in which Fr.Cekada "deals" with the SSPV. He makes reference to them in "A question of authority" and "Stones". The second of which deals with CMRI. Also I have listened to sermons where he describes them as "cult like. With a "No salvation outside of them" attitude". This is simply false. My point in saying this is that Fr. Cekada & Co. have long condemned the attitude where clergy would act as if they have jurisdiction. In Fr. Cekada's case this is most clear in his writtings and comments on the SSPV. However recently as our own forum administrator noticed Fr. Cekada has taken to labeling the SSPX "schismatic". Fr. Sanborn recently said that those who attend an SSPX Mass are in mortal sin.
Lets take a look at some things that Fr. Cekada and his associates have condemned the SSPV for doing and then compare them to Fr. Cekada & Co's own actions.

Fr Cekada & Co. condemn the SSPV for refusing communion to those who attend Thuc Mass's.
Then Frs. Sanborn, Cekada and Dolan say it is a mortal sin to assist at an Una Cum Mass.

Fr. Cekada condemns the SSPV for calling CMRI non catholic.
Fr. Cekada takes to describing the Society of St. Pius X as schismatic.

Fr. Cekada & Co. condemn the fighting between traditionalist groups and those priests who would "set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner"
Fr. Cekada preaches a strong sermon against the Society of St. Pius X and then proceeds to send emails to traditionalists alerting them to this sermon.

Concerning the last one I would like to say that it is not neccesarily wrong to preach against errors such as this but Fr.Cekada does it without any charity or understanding to the Society. May I bring up the example of Fr. Jenkins. Recently when preaching about St. Pius X he got onto the condemnation of modernism and how Benedict XVI is a modernist and thus enemy of the Church. However he simply spent two minutes explaining how it is illogical to recognize Benedict XVI as pope and then reject his authority to teach. He did this with such charity and clarity. In that two minutes of explanation he made a better impression and got his point across much better then Fr. Cekada who sent 20 minutes on the topic, singled out certain groups and threw around names like "un catholic" and "schismatic". My point is that for nearly everything Fr.Cekada has criticized the SSPV for he can be seen doing himself. May I also say that Bp. Kelly's arguments appeal to me much more. He can produce valid and good reasons for remaining away from CMRI and other Thuc priests.


Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:25 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 73
New post 
eliz carroll wrote:
Dear All,
I would also like to mention for thosewho do not know, that our Bishop Kelly has been so ill for a long time that many times he cannot even say Mass. He has not exactly had the strength to defend himself against the claims of some clergy members. A few prayers for him wouldn't hurt. Thanks, Eliz.


Yes ofcourse I shall pray for His Excellency. Please also pray for the two newly ordained priests Fr. Paul Skierka and Fr. James Curatalo. I recently had the pleasure of listening to Fr. Curatalo's first sermon. It was inspiring, for lack of a better word.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
Btw- has he consecrated any bishops?


No not yet but I would not be surprised if he has consecrated atleast one of his priests in a private ceremony, like he was. If Bp. Kelly did die then the SSPV would be un-able to provide the Church with any more priests. Bp.Kelly was consecrated in a private ceremony so it's not to hard to imagine that one of the SSPV priests is already a bishop. But don't quote me on this. This is just one thought I have had, I am probably wrong. If Bp.Kelly does die (later rather then sooner) without a succesor then I am sure God will provide.


Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:00 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 516
New post 
John Daly wrote:
3. Interestingly, a friend of mine recently had the opportunity to discuss these issues with several SSPV clergy and the arguments they used were not those Dylan advances anyway. They admitted that the Thuc line and their supporters were not necessarily heretics or schismatics, so there was no question of what Dylan calls "communicatio in sacris" by which he presumably means "communicatio in sacris cum acatholicis". Nor did they make the preposterous claim that all those to whom they refuse the sacraments were publicly known to be in a state of mortal sin.

They in fact fell back on the allegation that there was scandal involved, especially as to the ex-Schuckhardt group.

But of course this simply fails to address Fr Cekada's very fair case that they have to say into which category these people fall if they must be refused the sacraments. A priest may not publicly refuse the sacraments unless he is obliged by some law to do so. Effectively the SSPV response appears to be that they are refusing the sacraments in order to express a strong disapproval of what they disagree with.

But as Fr Cekada's texts show, this is simply not permissible.

It is doubly sinful: it refuses the greatest of all goods to those who have a strict right to them and it apparently defames them at the same time.

4. It is inevitable that during a vacancy of the Holy See there are going to be disagreements among Catholics. If these disagreements entail straightforward denial of a dogma, as in the case of Feeneyism, it is understandable that the question of eligibility of the miscreants for the sacraments be raised. Outside of that case, refusing the sacraments to those who fail to accept a list of propositions we think we have proved seems to be simply the first step to the creation of a schism. It is certainly as scandalous as anything the CMRI can reasonably be accused of.

Once again, I stress, that I make these observations as one who has no axe to grind: I happen to be eligible for SSPV sacraments, but not because I agree with SSPV principles.


Dear Eliz and Frank,

Quote:
A priest may not publicly refuse the sacraments unless he is obliged by some law to do so.


Either this is true or it is not. If it is, then the SSPV position of refusal of the sacraments is in error because they have not shown what law obliges them to refuse.

I have heard several arguments now...1. hypocrisy and 2. references to some other issue where you think Fr. Cekada is wrong (the Schiavo debacle for example).

These are not serious arguments. Even if true, they simply do not matter...they are irrelevant. You must address the issue at hand...which is simply this:

A priest may not publicly refuse the sacraments unless he is obliged by some law to do so.

Yours,
RB


Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:23 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 154
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Frank wrote:
...does it without any charity or understanding to the Society


Frank wrote:
Bp. Kelly's arguments appeal to me much more. He can produce valid and good reasons for remaining away from CMRI and other Thuc priests.


I think you make my point better than I could, that is: Everybody extends charity, or produces anathemas based upon reasons that seem valid to them. No one decides before the fact that they are going to maintain noblesse oblige toward everything and everybody unless they are a dissembling modernist or a snake oil salesman, although we do sometimes protesteth that here, methinks sometimes, a little too much.

Now you could go back and argue whether any particular reason for reacting with charity or the opposite is valid, or that the decision was made on a regular basis by a particular person indicatiing wide-spread ill will as a character fault, or malevolent philosphical, or un-Christian moral orientation, but you can't just operate in a universe where anyone who disagrees with you or yours is guilty of a lack a charity, but on your side of the ledger, anytime you have a disagreement with someone it is based upon obviously well thought-out principles.

A foolish consistency as well as a foolish inconsistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds. The devils and the angels are in the details.


Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:05 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi

Dear Frank - am still awaiting an answer to my last question directed to you. Thanks for answering this one:

Quote:
No not yet but I would not be surprised if he has consecrated at least one of his priests in a private ceremony, like he was. If Bp. Kelly did die then the SSPV would be un-able to provide the Church with any more priests.


Without rancor, in my view this sounds rather ' cultish' ........secret Bishop within a " religious congregation", and please don't posit Pope Pius XIIth keeping the names of Bishops and Cardinal secret during communist persecutions in China and the Iron Curtain.

Frank- with your postings and other SSPV attendee's that I have conversed with, I will not step foot in a SSPV chapel. This has nothing to do with the fact, I am sure the priests and Nuns live holy lives. The policy emanating from Bp. Kelly is one that in my humble view is better to stay clear of.

In Xto,
Vincent


Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:13 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 154
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
I'm thinking of suggesting this thread be renamed: Oxen 'R' Us.

You bring yours in, and we'll gore it for free!

:wink:


Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:42 pm
Profile
New post 
Dear Vince, These days many if not most of the world now view Catholicism as outdated, the Novus Ordinarians , view Traditionalists as schismatic, traditionalists view sedevacantists as something not to be spoken of in public, and now here we are at Bellarmine Forums being described as cultish. New MENSA word to describe someone who assists at SSPV chapel: Oxymoron. Love, Elizabeth


Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:50 am

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear Eliz,

Quote:
Dear Vince, These days many if not most of the world now view Catholicism as outdated, the Novus Ordinarians , view Traditionalists as schismatic, traditionalists view sedevacantists as something not to be spoken of in public, and now here we are at Bellarmine Forums being described as cultish. New MENSA word to describe someone who assists at SSPV chapel: Oxymoron. Love, Elizabeth


I am not casting aspersions at anyone going to the SSPV, nor the good and wonderful work the clergy and sisters of the SSPV perform. And I am sure everyone has a very active parish life. But, the clergy would not grant me Holy Communion. Given this policy, along with a " secret" bishop, I really cannot support the SSPV, other then with my prayers. I love all my fellow members of the Mystical Body, and I include the SSPV in this role call. However, they do not include me in theirs.



In Xto,
Vincent


Last edited by Vince Sheridan on Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:58 am
Profile
New post 
Dear Vince, Hmm. The secret bishop thing sounds like someone is pulling your leg, or deadpan joke by a witty priest taken to the Internet by way of hoping things will get better. love, Eliz.


Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:44 am

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 516
New post 
This entire debate seems a bit like an Angelqueen debate...that is...points are never answered...just sidestepped over and over again. Changing the subject is not an answer.

Quote:
A priest may not publicly refuse the sacraments unless he is obliged by some law to do so.


Either this is true or it is not. If it is, then the SSPV position of refusal of the sacraments is in error because they have not shown what law obliges them to refuse.

To those who support the SSPV position of refusing the sacraments...Can you answer this directly?


Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:08 am
Profile
New post 
Dear Robert, Maybe re-reading the first page of this thread will remind you that this is not AQ. When I push the little button, it says discussion. You've shared your insights into what Fr. Skeirke may be feeling, and nobody debated the usefullness of your intuition about Fr.'s Catholic sense.
It's late, and I am going to watch the debate between Fr. Jenkins and Fr. Cekada. Nobody's dodging anything. The discussions here prompted me to ask questions, and I heard about the debate, and someone loaned me her copy. We might need John Daly to translate, because the sound quality is awful, the windows are open and Norwood is very loud. And it might well turn out to be a boring dud in which nothing is clarified or explained after all. Thanks for putting up with me. love, Eliz.


Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:06 am

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear Eliz,

Could you ask about the " secret" bishop topic at your SSPV chapel? It is a concept that emanates from some of the SSPV attendees, most recent example was from Frank. Also, do you hold the CMRI and those attending their chapels to be non-Catholic? The CMRI certainly holds the SSPV to be Catholic.

In Xto,
Vincent


Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:17 am
Profile
New post 
Dear Vince,
From watching part of the two-hour debate last night Fr. Jenkins went over the legal requirements necassary to consecrate a bishop in private or in secret. This as he outlines his position on Thuc line conscrations, and lack of documentation and so forth. Explains the sworn affidavits of witnessess competant to know exactly what is required for a Catholic consecration to take place when Bishop Mendez made his consecrations. Avoiding the future possibility of scandal and dissent for SSPV consecrations.
Explores the very same conclusions drawn by Frs. Sanborn , Dolan and Cekada about the validity and lack of Catholicity of the Archbishop Thuc consecrations, before they changed their position. Fr. Jenkins did further travel and research and found more sordid info about the bishop who had three previous consecrations and was a satanist when Abp. Thuc consecrated him.
Also describes the ability for the priest to refuse communion when people are improperly dressed.
This debate took place almost four years ago to the day, Sept 17, 2002. I don't think I need to ask anyone about "secret consecrations" based on Frank's offhand remark, when I can see and hear Fr. Jenkins explain.
As far as me, Elizabeth Carroll, daughter of Communists and survivor of Hell on earth daring to call CMRI or Novus Ordo non-Catholics, um,no Vince. I call the satanists dressed up in priest costumes destroying the purity of children nonCatholics. I am using my true identity here, and my location, and anyone who wanted to could hunt down my kids. By miracles of God's grace and a powerful Guardian Angel I am actually alive and still offered the chance for reparation and working out my salvation and educating our children. I hope my boring reply quashes any idea of me saying some CMRI person caught up in the insanity of the eclipse of the Church-this horrible mess-cannot be Catholic. Respectfully yours, Elizabeth


Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:35 pm
New post 
Oops, forgot to add that it wouldn't matter what Eliz. thinks about CMRI. It would matter what Holy Mother Church says, and means when She says it. I am not the Church.


Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:50 pm

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Dear Eliz,

I do apologies if I have offended you, and it is most joyful to hear of your journey to the true Faith. However, much of what you just wrote describing Fr. Jenkens " defense" against the Thuc Line is more of the same " melodrama" that keeps emanating from the SSPV. A consecration is valid or it is not. Period. Did you read Fr. Cekada's investigation into the Thuc line consecration? Granted one can do " private" consecrations, that is not the issue. What is interesting is the alleged SSPV "secret" consecration, which seems motivated in order to uphold this most purest of Apostolic " linages".

Question: Would you receive the sacraments from the CMRI?

In Xto,


"At times a single word is sufficient to cool a person who is burning with anger; and, on the other hand, a single word may be capable of desolating a soul, and infusing into it a bitterness which may be most hurtful."
- St. Vincent de Paul


Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:05 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Here is a link to Thuc Line -Bishop Carmona's declaration.

http://www.cmri.org/carmona.html

In Xto,
Vincent


Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:17 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 73
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi

Dear Frank - am still awaiting an answer to my last question directed to you. Thanks for answering this one:

Quote:
No not yet but I would not be surprised if he has consecrated at least one of his priests in a private ceremony, like he was. If Bp. Kelly did die then the SSPV would be un-able to provide the Church with any more priests.


Without rancor, in my view this sounds rather ' cultish' ........secret Bishop within a " religious congregation", and please don't posit Pope Pius XIIth keeping the names of Bishops and Cardinal secret during communist persecutions in China and the Iron Curtain.

Frank- with your postings and other SSPV attendee's that I have conversed with, I will not step foot in a SSPV chapel. This has nothing to do with the fact, I am sure the priests and Nuns live holy lives. The policy emanating from Bp. Kelly is one that in my humble view is better to stay clear of.

In Xto,
Vincent


I have been misunderstood. I have no idea if Bp. Kelly has already consecrated his succesor. The chances are he has not. I simply meant that it would not surprise me if he had because it is practical to do so. It in no way makes them a cult. Sorry I don't have time to respond to many of these objections. It has been five days since I have had access to a computer, my father is very sick and I am helping my mother with his care. Please pray for him, his name is also Frank Gale.

In the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts.


Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:09 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi,

Dear Frank,

Sorry about my misunderstanding you. And your father is deeply in my prayers !

In Xto,
Vincent


Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:19 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:44 am
Posts: 34
New post Hopeful Sign of Change in SSPV Policy?
A friend in Cinci. told me something that might indicate a significant change in SSPV's "anti-Thuc" policy, at least in Ohio.

A few days ago some parishioners from Bp. Dolan's parish (St. Gertrude's) had a baby and wanted some friends at the local SSPV parish to be baptismal sponsors.

The priest at the SSPV parish agreed to baptize their baby at Immaculate Conception (Fr. Jenkins parish), even though the parents are regular communicants at St. Gertrude's.

Before, Bp. Dolan's parishioners were forbidden even to be BAPTISMAL SPONSORS at the SSPV church, on grounds that they were non-Catholic.

Baptizing the baby of a St. Gertrude's family is a hopeful sign that the SSPV rules may be changing!

Let us thank God, and keep this good intention in our prayers!


Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:10 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 162
New post 
WHen my wife was in the hospital I tried to reach the SSPV, SSPX and the CMRI pastor and left messages to come and give her Extreme Unction. None of them had any obligation of course since we are not registered parishonerfs in any of them. The SSPV pastor responded. He came, heard confession and gave her the anointing. Not communion or EU. I was very disappointed buf glad for the 'scraps' from His table seeing that the other two groups had not responded.

But here's the kicker. The local NO pastor of the church a hundred years away from us to which I used to go till the last couple of years and with whom I am good friends dropped by and gave her a blessing. I was very sad about this for I know he would have given her the works and them some for he is a very very good person despite his weaknesses. I just heard that he had prostate cancer so I would like to ask for all to pray for him.

God Bless.


Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 73
New post Re: Hopeful Sign of Change in SSPV Policy?
sacerdos wrote:
A friend in Cinci. told me something that might indicate a significant change in SSPV's "anti-Thuc" policy, at least in Ohio.

A few days ago some parishioners from Bp. Dolan's parish (St. Gertrude's) had a baby and wanted some friends at the local SSPV parish to be baptismal sponsors.

The priest at the SSPV parish agreed to baptize their baby at Immaculate Conception (Fr. Jenkins parish), even though the parents are regular communicants at St. Gertrude's.

Before, Bp. Dolan's parishioners were forbidden even to be BAPTISMAL SPONSORS at the SSPV church, on grounds that they were non-Catholic.

Baptizing the baby of a St. Gertrude's family is a hopeful sign that the SSPV rules may be changing!

Let us thank God, and keep this good intention in our prayers!


I haven't heard any of the SSPV priests claim that those who attend SGG are non-catholics. Is there an article or sermon you are referring to?


Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:01 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 152 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.