|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 30, 2022 16:12:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 30, 2022 16:13:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 30, 2022 17:47:58 GMT -5
Yes, the story is true, I checked.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 30, 2022 19:51:19 GMT -5
So what is the status of this new Bishop in the garage
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Nov 30, 2022 22:59:47 GMT -5
So what is the status of this new Bishop in the garage I totally forgot that this was coming up! We had heard about it though when it was announced a couple/few months ago. I have actually met Father Fliess (now Bishop Fliess) before and I must say that I was quite impressed with him. Granted, that was quite a few years ago now (back when I went to Mass in Carrollton VA at Saint Augustine Chapel). But, if I remember correctly, he was a very kindly and knowledgeable priest. He is of Spanish descent if I remember correctly. I remember his having a sense of humor for I remember telling him a Spanish joke at lunch at Judith Sharpe's old house. Much more than that I can't remember as I usually spent most of the time with the Sharpe children when I used to visit them down there. 😅
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 1, 2022 0:01:01 GMT -5
The Issue is not about the Man...Im positive hes a great Priest and Catholic. The problem is where will it end with all these sorta bishops. Will He than start ordaining Bishops too? If or when we get a True Pope...all of these sortaBishops willhave to Go to Rome and get reevaluated...and Ill bet many will be rejected by Rome. Then what?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 1, 2022 0:50:29 GMT -5
So what is the status of this new Bishop in the garage The answer is the same for all of them: they have no status, but as time goes on many of these bishops in practice act as though they have some sort of status in the Catholic Church. With each one consecrated the risks (and reality) of more and more problems grow. The unity of the Church is being harmed by this idea of fiefdoms within Catholicism.
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Dec 1, 2022 7:01:30 GMT -5
While I don't agree with the traditional Catholic clergy who put themselves up as self-claimed authorities... I do think that having more good traditional bishops and priests until the Restoration of the Church happens is a good thing. (They should just act more like confessors and give guidance but not push their own opinions.)
According to the ancient traditions of the Catholic Church and the decrees of Pope Anacletus (also know as Cletus the third Pope) a bishop is supposed to be consecrated by three bishops so that there is no doubt as to his validity. I think that perhaps with the death of Bishop Dolan, Bishop Sanborn has been considering more and more his own death and is trying to provide for the future of the seminary by consecrating Father Fliess.
I noticed that when Bishop Dolan died Bishop McQuire (who was consecrated to take his place) was only consecrated by one Bishop from South America. There were two priests who stood in as witnesses (this is allowed in rare circumstances by the Church), but...SGG could easily have asked Bishop Sanborn and Bishop Piverunas to be co-co secrators. I have a lot less respect for them for doing this but more Bishop Sanborn for trying to think ahead and provide for the future of his organization.
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Dec 1, 2022 9:21:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Dec 1, 2022 13:26:04 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2022 21:38:57 GMT -5
While I don't agree with the traditional Catholic clergy who put themselves up as self-claimed authorities... I do think that having more good traditional bishops and priests until the Restoration of the Church happens is a good thing. (They should just act more like confessors and give guidance but not push their own opinions.) According to the ancient traditions of the Catholic Church and the decrees of Pope Anacletus (also know as Cletus the third Pope) a bishop is supposed to be consecrated by three bishops so that there is no doubt as to his validity. I think that perhaps with the death of Bishop Dolan, Bishop Sanborn has been considering more and more his own death and is trying to provide for the future of the seminary by consecrating Father Fliess. I noticed that when Bishop Dolan died Bishop McGuire (who was consecrated to take his place) was only consecrated by one Bishop from South America. There were two priests who stood in as witnesses (this is allowed in rare circumstances by the Church), but...SGG could easily have asked Bishop Sanborn and Bishop Pivarunis to be co-consecrators. I have a lot less respect for them for doing this but more Bishop Sanborn for trying to think ahead and provide for the future of his organization. I am actually surprised to read this. I thought Bp Pivarunis was physically present at Bp McGuire's consecration but perhaps the timing didn't suit. This is of some concern as I understand that Bp da Silva was below the minimum age required for consecration himself according to Canon law at the time that he received the episcopacy. It is prudent that Bp Sanborn have another Bp in his organisation given Bp Selway's health condition which limits his ability to travel.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 2, 2022 9:16:54 GMT -5
I think its the very opposite of prudent.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 2, 2022 12:54:23 GMT -5
While I don't agree with the traditional Catholic clergy who put themselves up as self-claimed authorities... I do think that having more good traditional bishops and priests until the Restoration of the Church happens is a good thing. (They should just act more like confessors and give guidance but not push their own opinions.) According to the ancient traditions of the Catholic Church and the decrees of Pope Anacletus (also know as Cletus the third Pope) a bishop is supposed to be consecrated by three bishops so that there is no doubt as to his validity. I think that perhaps with the death of Bishop Dolan, Bishop Sanborn has been considering more and more his own death and is trying to provide for the future of the seminary by consecrating Father Fliess. I noticed that when Bishop Dolan died Bishop McGuire (who was consecrated to take his place) was only consecrated by one Bishop from South America. There were two priests who stood in as witnesses (this is allowed in rare circumstances by the Church), but...SGG could easily have asked Bishop Sanborn and Bishop Pivarunis to be co-consecrators. I have a lot less respect for them for doing this but more Bishop Sanborn for trying to think ahead and provide for the future of his organization. I am actually surprised to read this. I thought Bp Pivarunis was physically present at Bp McGuire's consecration but perhaps the timing didn't suit. This is of some concern as I understand that Bp da Silva was below the minimum age required for consecration himself according to Canon law at the time that he received the episcopacy. It is prudent that Bp Sanborn have another Bp in his organisation given Bp Selway's health condition which limits his ability to travel. The prudence of such an action depends on how your looking at it, if you are looking at the survival of the group and the group's ability to keep up with its growth, then yes, it's prudent. Organizations have an survival instinct in them just like people do, and this, with other consecrations previously done, assures the survival of this group. If you are looking at the Church as a whole, then I do not believe it's prudent. Every one of these episcopal consecrations, in my opinion, further opens the possibility of the formation of a schismatic sect. These consecrations, coupled with a widespread ignorance among "traditional" Catholics that these bishops are supposed to be merely "sacramental" bishops, is a recipe for disaster. Archbishop Lefebvre knew the risks, and that's why he ordered that an SSPX bishop could never be the leader of the SSPX (something later ignored by bishop Fellay), but this hasn't happened with the sedecavantist groups, where a bishop is always at the helm giving the appearance that the bishop is something more than just a sacramental bishop who was consecrated to do confirmations, ordinations, and bless the Chrism oils, and nothing more besides that as far as his episcopal orders are concerned. What I am seeing develop over the years is that each group will have its own bishops, and in many case these bishops will impose their judgments based on their opinions and will bind Catholics who go to mass with these groups. If the Catholics will not submit to this non-authority, he will be denied the sacraments or tossed out altogether. We are already seeing this explicitly with Sanborn's group and with the SSPV, and to a lesser extent with SGG. So, I am not imagining what might happen, it's already happening. The bishops in question deny jurisdiction, yet bind Catholics at the same time, thereby exercising jurisdiction in the Church over Catholics, so they are speaking with a forked tongue.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Dec 2, 2022 13:37:42 GMT -5
It would be one thing if it was merely for the purpose of Confirmations or bringing people the sacraments. As we know, not all groups have that spirit of carrying on for the sake of souls. They are more interested in building their parallel Church and it’s dangerous. Every ordination and episcopal consecration is gravely dangerous and if we fail to recognize the risks, we are deceiving ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Dec 2, 2022 13:37:43 GMT -5
I am actually surprised to read this. I thought Bp Pivarunis was physically present at Bp McGuire's consecration but perhaps the timing didn't suit. This is of some concern as I understand that Bp da Silva was below the minimum age required for consecration himself according to Canon law at the time that he received the episcopacy. It is prudent that Bp Sanborn have another Bp in his organisation given Bp Selway's health condition which limits his ability to travel. The prudence of such an action depends on how your looking at it, if you are looking at the survival of the group and the group's ability to keep up with its growth, then yes, it's prudent. Organizations have an survival instinct in them just like people do, and this, with other consecrations previously done, assures the survival of this group. If you are looking at the Church as a whole, then I do not believe it's prudent. Every one of these episcopal consecrations, in my opinion, further opens the possibility of the formation of a schismatic sect. These consecrations, coupled with a widespread ignorance among "traditional" Catholics that these bishops are supposed to be merely "sacramental" bishops, is a recipe for disaster. Archbishop Lefebvre knew the risks, and that's why he ordered that an SSPX bishop could never be the leader of the SSPX (something later ignored by bishop Fellay), but this hasn't happened with the sedecavantist groups, where a bishop is always at the helm giving the appearance that the bishop is something more than just a sacramental bishop who was consecrated to do confirmations, ordinations, and bless the Chrism oils, and nothing more besides that as far as his episcopal orders are concerned. What I am seeing develop over the years is that each group will have its own bishops, and in many case these bishops will impose their judgments based on their opinions and will bind Catholics who go to mass with these groups. If the Catholics will not submit to this non-authority, he will be denied the sacraments or tossed out altogether. We are already seeing this explicitly with Sanborn's group and with the SSPV, and to a lesser extent with SGG. So, I am not imagining what might happen, it's already happening. The bishops in question deny jurisdiction, yet bind Catholics at the same time, thereby exercising jurisdiction in the Church over Catholics, so they are speaking with a forked tongue. What do you suppose would have happened if there had been no independent trad episcopal consecrations? Where would people be attending Mass nowadays? How would men be trained and ordained to the priesthood? I think that running a seminary, ordaining priests, and assigning them to a ministry are among the most important functions of external governance in the Church. So if trad bishops can do those things, it's silly for them to claim no authority. Everybody understands this intuitively; very few people can do the mental gymnastics to believe that trad priests and bishops have no authority even if they say so themselves. It just doesn't fit with the day-to-day reality of how they are acting.
|
|