|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 19, 2023 14:42:42 GMT -5
Apparently sede bishops are fighting...Idont know either "Bishop"
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 19, 2023 15:04:31 GMT -5
This is why sedes better start learning some humility. The Chair wont be empty forever...and the entire sede clergy will have to submit to Rome for review and conditional consecrations...and certification of their seminaries ( with a semenarian by seminarian examination!)...and Many who taught heretical things (NUC) and the false application of Apostolic succesion to themselves will have to recant. I guarantee a few of these organised sede parishes will go into schism. Pray the Lord moves soon to fix Rome
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Nov 19, 2023 21:12:08 GMT -5
Apparently sede bishops are fighting...Idont know either "Bishop" The consecration of Bp Da Silva occurred in part because of the split between SGG and the RCI after the death of Fr Cekada and in order to ensure that should something happen to Bp Dolan his successor (Bp McGuire) could be consecrated. The RCI opposed the consecration of Bp da Silva as it was understood that he was below the minimum age to be consecrated a Bp at the time according to canon law and other reasons. I'm not sure why Bp McGuire needs to stop working with these men over this issue. It may have been possible to publicly state that one is unaware of the circumstances of these men and withhold any judgement or approval of the consecrations at the time without breaking ties with them entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 20, 2023 7:11:40 GMT -5
I don't know anything about the poster, but perhaps he just gave the answer as to why Bishop McGuire is taking this very public and unusual stand against these consecrations, and his answer is what I suspected anyway, but now he's confirming my suspicions.
The poster, "Traveler," on CathInfo, Nov. 19th 2023 wrote:
There has been a split among sedevacantists for a long time, and only at times has it been noticed by many Catholics. Most ignore it, just figuring it would work itself out, and others, have been openly persecuted for not accepting the opinions of Bishop Sanborn, the late Fr. Cekada, among others, and their organizations on the NUC issue.
If what this poster Traveler said is accurate, it makes sense that the NUC's want sacramental control over the sedevacantists, and this now poses a threat to them, as they have lost their leverage by having two bishops that will not push their schismatic theology on Catholics, and see their role as bishops in the more restricted sense as being providers of sacraments, not shepherds that can bind the flock to their judgments.
The CMRI has always been treated as second class sedevacantists for a long time, even by many sedes who attend their chapels and disagree with them on the NUC issue. I have even been told that some CMRI priests are quiet NUC's, holding the view against the officially stated CMRI position. Many will go to CMRI, but at the same time their mind, heart, and energy are with Bp. Sanborn and/or SGG. I've always admired CMRI for taking the hit on this issue and putting the truth first. Now, these new bishops, if it is true that they will stand against NUCism, will be treated like lepers among the various NUC factions of sedevacantists.
Only time will tell where all this will lead, but if the NUC's are opposed to this, it's probably only going to benefit non-sectarian sedevacantists. When I say all of this, let no one interpret this as saying that I think any of these episcopal consecrations are certainly licit, only Rome can judge that, and in my opinion, when the dust settles on this crisis, they will all be judged as illicit.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Nov 20, 2023 18:09:27 GMT -5
I must give the unfortunate news that Father Altamira follows Father Cekada's opinion on the NUC doctrine, he even promotes the Grain of Incense in his speeches, you can listen from minute 7:17 I don't understand why they say that it allows the faithful to go to the FSSPX when in reality it is the opposite, at minute 16:00 it states that you cannot go to the FSSPX and that it is serious and dangerous to attend with them and even at minute 19:00 he begins to say that "it is a temptation to want to attend the SSPX or an elderly priest ordained before VATII" that priest is absolutely NUC, Da Silva is NUC so I highly doubt that he will consecrate Bishops to priests who They go to the SSPX. I don't know the other priest but I'm almost sure he is also NUC. And I confirm that the CMRI has many NUCs among them and there are not a few, including a Bishop who works with them.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 20, 2023 18:24:00 GMT -5
This is why sedes better start learning some humility. The Chair wont be empty forever...and the entire sede clergy will have to submit to Rome for review and conditional consecrations...and certification of their seminaries ( with a semenarian by seminarian examination!)...and Many who taught heretical things (NUC) and the false application of Apostolic succesion to themselves will have to recant. I guarantee a few of these organised sede parishes will go into schism. Pray the Lord moves soon to fix Rome
|
|
|
Post by marcellusfaber on Nov 20, 2023 18:29:36 GMT -5
I must give the unfortunate news that Father Altamira follows Father Cekada's opinion on the NUC doctrine, he even promotes the Grain of Incense in his speeches The Grain of Incense analogy is honestly absurd. To offer a grain of incense under the Roman persecutions was to worship a false god, a demon. It was an act of apostasy. But for a priest to name a false Pope in the canon is to pray for an heretic. The false Pope is not a demon and to pray to the true God for him is not to worship a demon, in fact it is an act of worship of the true God. There is nothing similar about the two actions; it is retarded propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 21, 2023 5:59:39 GMT -5
I must give the unfortunate news that Father Altamira follows Father Cekada's opinion on the NUC doctrine, he even promotes the Grain of Incense in his speeches, you can listen from minute 7:17 I don't understand why they say that it allows the faithful to go to the FSSPX when in reality it is the opposite, at minute 16:00 it states that you cannot go to the FSSPX and that it is serious and dangerous to attend with them and even at minute 19:00 he begins to say that "it is a temptation to want to attend the SSPX or an elderly priest ordained before VATII" that priest is absolutely NUC, Da Silva is NUC so I highly doubt that he will consecrate Bishops to priests who They go to the SSPX. I don't know the other priest but I'm almost sure he is also NUC. And I confirm that the CMRI has many NUCs among them and there are not a few, including a Bishop who works with them. Thank you Didymus. This is good information on Bp. DaSilva and Fr. Altamira. I wonder now what the CI poster, "Traveler," was basing his statement on. The only piece of the puzzle to resolve is the position of Fr. Pierre Roy. If anyone knows his position on NUCism, please let us know. This affects me personally, as I know many Canadians, and will even have family in Canada soon, so I would like to know what he is teaching to Catholics on this so I can either warn them about him, or tell them he's safe on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Nov 21, 2023 7:21:46 GMT -5
I don't know about you but I feel more and more dislike for the sedevacantist groups, only with some priests of the CMRI so far it is the only one I feel confident attending but they are not in South America, when I can I attend with the SSPX for the simple reason that I feel that they are not sectarian in general, most of the headquarters groups are sectarian in their way of seeing things.
|
|
|
Post by marcellusfaber on Nov 21, 2023 8:48:45 GMT -5
I don't know about you but I feel more and more dislike for the sedevacantist groups, only with some priests of the CMRI so far it is the only one I feel confident attending but they are not in South America, when I can I attend with the SSPX for the simple reason that I feel that they are not sectarian in general, most of the headquarters groups are sectarian in their way of seeing things. Is the SST also very sectarian?
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Nov 21, 2023 16:22:25 GMT -5
Apparently sede bishops are fighting...Idont know either "Bishop" The consecration of Bp Da Silva occurred in part because of the split between SGG and the RCI after the death of Fr Cekada and in order to ensure that should something happen to Bp Dolan his successor (Bp McGuire) could be consecrated. The RCI opposed the consecration of Bp da Silva as it was understood that he was below the minimum age to be consecrated a Bp at the time according to canon law and other reasons. I'm not sure why Bp McGuire needs to stop working with these men over this issue. It may have been possible to publicly state that one is unaware of the circumstances of these men and withhold any judgement or approval of the consecrations at the time without breaking ties with them entirely. Having interacted with one of the SGG attendees, it seems that everyone he has talked to is at a loss as to why Bp McGuire has taken the stand that he has and see the situation as absurd. None of them believe Bp Da Silva requires his approval to consecrate more bishops. I was told that the priest in question in Canada has been working along the CMRI priest Fr Saunders in a very cooperative manner.
|
|