|
Post by Clotilde on Dec 2, 2022 14:32:45 GMT -5
Eric, I would disagree that it is mental gymnastics. One must merely put everything into its proper perspective and understand that there is a line that we do not cross. That line could be not doing this at all, but it’s done. It is a challenge for us to keep ourselves and those who have taken Holy Orders in the proper perspective. However, I do not think this has been given the public discussion that it needs. One reason is that there is no mechanism for teaching Catholics how to approach the issue. We have a constant influx of “converts” to the position who are at all different levels, and they get things wrong. Additionally, I do not think we have dealt with some of the bad theology we have inherited from early traditionalists.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 2, 2022 16:14:36 GMT -5
Hello Eric,
My answers to your questions below:
Eric wrote:
It's hard to say what would have happened. Did these consecrations make things better or worse? It's an arguable point. I have never been convinced that they are permissible in the first place. If you want to see mental gymnastics, then look into that question and try to defend it.
Eric wrote:
Again, this is hard to say. How do you know that things would have played out the same if these consecrations were never done to begin with? Only God knows. Your questions appear to be based on an assumption that the state of the Church would have been identical to what we are seeing now, minus the traditional bishops and priests. I'm not convinced of that.
lEric wrote:
The same as the last answer. I don't know and no one else does know of things would have played out this way if things were different.
But, all of this is irrelevant to the matter of whether these men have any authority over Catholics.
Eric wrote:
I disagree that these training centers are seminaries. I disagree that there are any ministries by these men in the Church, therefore these are not assignments from the Church. I disagree that assigning a traditional priest is an act of governance in the Church. It is s private act, of a private organization, not the Church,
Eric wrote:
I do not concede that they can do the things you mentioned. They do it, and have been doing it for decades, but that's not the same as saying that they are doing it lawfully. If you believe they do, that is your choice, but I've never seen this ever proven and I am not convinced of any arguments I've seen on it.
Eric wrote:
The intuition is built on the fact that many have come into this later in the game so to speak, and have no data to compare things to. They stumble across a trad chapel, and make assumptions, and don't ever think about how this all developed and how Catholics treated such chapels initially, and how that thinking shifted over time. When bishops were consecrated initially, it was a big deal, even those done by Lefebvre. It divided Catholics, as not all agreed on the arguments and justification for these acts. The same can be said of other trad episcopal consecrations. Things have become more normalized since those days, as Catholics of today seem to have lost the sense of how extremely irregular these consecrations are and the grave dangers that they present. It seems to me that this "normalization" has led to this intuition that you are speaking about.
I have always and will always defend a Catholic's right to request the sacraments from these priests, but that's as far as I agree with most traditionalists. Things have shifted, and I realize I am in the minority, that many share your understanding. For myself, I see this modern understanding as a another proof against traditional bishops and priests, not something that favors them. By their fruits you shall know them. The potential dangers of all of this that were warned about in the past, are now reality and are the "new normal" of the some of the groups of today.
It's one thing to leave these questions about the existence of traditional priests unanswered and leave it as unresolved, it's quite another to establish new theological and canonical principles in the Church to justify them. From my experience, the "arguments" are based on assumptions, not theology or canon law, and no one whose jumped on this train has any clue where it's leading. I know where it's leading, it's becoming more obvious over time, and in fairness to many good traditional priests, who did clearly grasp their status and role, not all of the priests are on board with the shift in thinking about the role and status of traditional bishops and priests, that we are witnessing.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Dec 2, 2022 17:24:37 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli, thank you for the reply. I agree with you that the traditionalist priests and bishops do not have authority, as I have said in the past. I also agree that things might have played out much differently -- perhaps the whole crisis would be over by now -- if those who resisted the Novus Ordo revolution had taken a different route in the 1970s, instead of making their own independent organizations with independent priests and bishops. My intent in asking you how things would have played out was not to pose a rhetorical question, as if to say that trad bishops are obviously necessary, but rather to ask for your thoughts on the matter out of genuine interest in what you might say. Eric wrote: I disagree that these training centers are seminaries. I disagree that there are any ministries by these men in the Church, therefore these are not assignments from the Church. I disagree that assigning a traditional priest is an act of governance in the Church. It is a private act, of a private organization, not the Church, Eric wrote: I do not concede that they can do the things you mentioned. They do it, and have been doing it for decades, but that's not the same as saying that they are doing it lawfully. If you believe they do, that is your choice, but I've never seen this ever proven and I am not convinced of any arguments I've seen on it. It seems to me that people are creating a category that doesn't exist: men who are Catholic and validly ordained and whose life's work is to be ministers of the word and the sacraments, yet have no mission and no authority. I've been researching this lately and have continued to find material that supports my view, and none that contradicts it. I believe that the ministry itself -- preaching and administering sacraments which is the raison d'être of trad priests and bishops -- necessarily implies the claim to have a mission. That is, to preach or administer sacraments is to claim a mission whether or not one wishes or intends to do so. And I don't believe that a state of emergency authorizes the conferral of holy orders without any authority, nor an ordinary ongoing ministry to people who are not here and now in grave need. Again, I am with you in the minority; actually I'm in a smaller minority, sorry to say. I don't like my own position; lately I'm feeling a need to argue myself into some different and better position if possible. My view is that people's intuition that their clergy must have authority is correct, in the sense that the Church does require every minister of the word and the sacraments to act not only in virtue of necessity and holy orders, but because the Church grants him the faculty to do so. This is true even in cases of a heretical or schismatic minister assisting a Catholic in danger of death, because the law itself grants the faculty. In my view there are simply no exceptions to the necessity of mission, not only in order to claim authority, but even to preach or to administer sacraments in any circumstances.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2022 19:36:59 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. I agree with everything you've written. The consecration is prudent for Bp Sanborn's organisation. I chose to leave a lot unsaid. It is very interesting that Abp Lefebvre adopted that position. I am not really aware of too much of the internal history of the SSPX as I adopted the classical Bellarminist sedevacantist position and all but skipped the SSPX in my journey to tradition. I don't know much of the dynamics of the Cekada-Dolan relationship. Was their a hierarchical power structure at SGG prior to Fr Cekada's death, or were things more on equal terms? I've formally distanced myself from all groups who adopt the attitudes that you've described. The letter you posted in another thread by St Francis de Sales spells out exactly what is happening with such groups.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 2, 2022 21:31:28 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli, thank you for the reply. I agree with you that the traditionalist priests and bishops do not have authority, as I have said in the past. I also agree that things might have played out much differently -- perhaps the whole crisis would be over by now -- if those who resisted the Novus Ordo revolution had taken a different route in the 1970s, instead of making their own independent organizations with independent priests and bishops. My intent in asking you how things would have played out was not to pose a rhetorical question, as if to say that trad bishops are obviously necessary, but rather to ask for your thoughts on the matter out of genuine interest in what you might say. Eric wrote: I disagree that these training centers are seminaries. I disagree that there are any ministries by these men in the Church, therefore these are not assignments from the Church. I disagree that assigning a traditional priest is an act of governance in the Church. It is a private act, of a private organization, not the Church, Eric wrote: I do not concede that they can do the things you mentioned. They do it, and have been doing it for decades, but that's not the same as saying that they are doing it lawfully. If you believe they do, that is your choice, but I've never seen this ever proven and I am not convinced of any arguments I've seen on it. It seems to me that people are creating a category that doesn't exist: men who are Catholic and validly ordained and whose life's work is to be ministers of the word and the sacraments, yet have no mission and no authority. I've been researching this lately and have continued to find material that supports my view, and none that contradicts it. I believe that the ministry itself -- preaching and administering sacraments which is the raison d'être of trad priests and bishops -- necessarily implies the claim to have a mission. That is, to preach or administer sacraments is to claim a mission whether or not one wishes or intends to do so. And I don't believe that a state of emergency authorizes the conferral of holy orders without any authority, nor an ordinary ongoing ministry to people who are not here and now in grave need. Again, I am with you in the minority; actually I'm in a smaller minority, sorry to say. I don't like my own position; lately I'm feeling a need to argue myself into some different and better position if possible. My view is that people's intuition that their clergy must have authority is correct, in the sense that the Church does require every minister of the word and the sacraments to act not only in virtue of necessity and holy orders, but because the Church grants him the faculty to do so. This is true even in cases of a heretical or schismatic minister assisting a Catholic in danger of death, because the law itself grants the faculty. In my view there are simply no exceptions to the necessity of mission, not only in order to claim authority, but even to preach or to administer sacraments in any circumstances. Hi Eric, Well, there are really two separate issues to consider here: 1. Whether we can request the sacraments from Catholic men who are ordained but do not have a canonical mission in the Church and may be under a censure due to the manner of the way they got ordained (no dimssiorial letters): I believe that we can make such a request, and I have never read any arguments that go against that, as you know, I base my argument on the 1917 Code, canons 2261 and 2284, which specifically state that we can request the sacraments from such persons. Practically speaking, for most of us, that's the only question that matters. Is it lawful to make this request to these men, and may the men answer this request? The answer to both is certainly a yes. Any sources pre-code that forbade this are no longer relevant. 2. The second question deals with the other issues you brought up, such as can men get ordained as "traditional" priests and can men get consecrated as "traditional" bishops according to the teaching and law of the Church in our current situation. Practically speaking, this question isn't relevant for most Catholics except those considering such an ordination or consecration. This is why generally speaking I don't bother with it, as it only affects very few Catholics. If, say, the CMRI, for example, are convinced that they are on a solid ground based on their arguments that they can continue to train and ordain men in our current situation, and keep doing it, does that mean that, even if I disagree with their reasoning, that I cannot request from those already ordained to give me the sacraments? The canons I mentioned above make no such distinction. I am free as a Catholic, under the law, to make this request to any ordained Catholic man, regardless of how he was ordained or what his status is. Does this mean this ordained man has a ministry in the Church? No. His repeated answering to these requests for the sacraments does not affect his status in the Church. Does this give him the right to preach? No again, but again it's irrelevant to my request for the sacraments from him. I am not bound to listen and believe his sermon as I would be to an authorized preacher. The home-aloners conflate the two questions, and that leads to their incorrect conclusion. In my opinion, most or maybe all of the traditional groups will keep doing what they are doing. They aren't going to listen to you or me or anyone else, except the Pope if we ever get one again, at least I doubt they ever will. So, practically speaking, they are the ones taking this great chance that they might be right, not us, so I leave them in peace, but I will profess what I know to be true when asked as I did above. In the meantime, I focus on question #1 which is really all that matters for almost all Catholics today, which is their right to request the sacraments from these men, regardless of whether they have a canonical mission or not due to the legislation in the 1917 code which allows us to do this.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 3, 2022 9:43:32 GMT -5
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. I agree with everything you've written. The consecration is prudent for Bp Sanborn's organisation. I chose to leave a lot unsaid. It is very interesting that Abp Lefebvre adopted that position. I am not really aware of too much of the internal history of the SSPX as I adopted the classical Bellarminist sedevacantist position and all but skipped the SSPX in my journey to tradition. I don't know much of the dynamics of the Cekada-Dolan relationship. Was their a hierarchical power structure at SGG prior to Fr Cekada's death, or were things more on equal terms? I've formally distanced myself from all groups who adopt the attitudes that you've described. The letter you posted in another thread by St Francis de Sales spells out exactly what is happening with such groups. It’s worth taking some time to learn how the Catholic response began in the 1970’s. What were the arguments and justification used and how that thinking developed. It is with that background that you can tune out the group thinking noise that is often repeated and critically examine everything that has been said and is being said today. Archbishop Lefebvre had many things correct. His idea, generally speaking was to just reject what was evil and not obey those pushing false doctrine and evil laws on Catholics. He didn’t want to answer the bigger questions of how can such things happen in the first place in the Church. He understood the dangers of any claim to authority, and tried to maintain the fine line of what he was doing without usurping the power of the hierarchy. I think he did cross the line from time to time, but it was clear that his goal was not to do so. It seems to me that, regardless of his good intentions, the consecration of bishops in 1988 was an action that went beyond just resisting evil, as he was not just resisting, he was doing something, and that wasn’t just resistance, which is just passively not obeying. If you ever read his talk to the seminarians in Ridgefield, 1986, he outlines the thinking that existed in the SSPX that had clearly developed over time, and why that thinking was incorrect. He clearly saw the problems with the very situation he had created and in my opinion, he was laying the groundwork of how to correct it, but for whatever reason, this never happened. The consecrations of 1988 made it possible for that incorrect thinking to remain in perpetuity and never be corrected and most likely just get more ingrained over time, which is what we are seeing today. So, it’s not important to know how the early traditional response developed or the history of the SSPX to know your Faith, but to unravel the very complex issues of traditionalism it is absolutely crucial. The old debates are now forgetting about and Catholics for the most part treat traditional groups, bishops and priests in such as way as all is normal, but if anyone actually takes the time to understand how this all developed they will quickly see that the entire traditionalist response was messy, and not built on a clear position grounded solely on pre-Vatican theology. Every attempt to correct this was like putting a patch on a deteriorating shirt, one hole is fixed but the shirt is falling apart everywhere else. To your last point, in regards to SGG, I think that Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan ran things collaboratively, and it was not a hierarchical relationship with Bp. Dolan ruling. Fr. Cekada was around too long to know that these bishops such as Dolan and Sanborn were his equals, not his superiors. Their episcopal orders were for sacramental purposes only, not jurisdictional. The younger and newer priests may not grasp this, so things could change with the new generation.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2022 12:09:11 GMT -5
It’s worth taking some time to learn how the Catholic response began in the 1970’s. What were the arguments and justification used and how that thinking developed. It is with that background that you can tune out the group thinking noise that is often repeated and critically examine everything that has been said and is being said today. Archbishop Lefebvre had many things correct. His idea, generally speaking was to just reject what was evil and not obey those pushing false doctrine and evil laws on Catholics. He didn’t want to answer the bigger questions of how can such things happen in the first place in the Church. He understood the dangers of any claim to authority, and tried to maintain the fine line of what he was doing without usurping the power of the hierarchy. I think he did cross the line from time to time, but it was clear that his goal was not to do so. It seems to me that, regardless of his good intentions, the consecration of bishops in 1988 was an action that went beyond just resisting evil, as he was not just resisting, he was doing something, and that wasn’t just resistance, which is just passively not obeying. If you ever read his talk to the seminarians in Ridgefield, 1986, he outlines the thinking that existed in the SSPX that had clearly developed over time, and why that thinking was incorrect. He clearly saw the problems with the very situation he had created and in my opinion, he was laying the groundwork of how to correct it, but for whatever reason, this never happened. The consecrations of 1988 made it possible for that incorrect thinking to remain in perpetuity and never be corrected and most likely just get more ingrained over time, which is what we are seeing today. So, it’s not important to know how the early traditional response developed or the history of the SSPX to know your Faith, but to unravel the very complex issues of traditionalism it is absolutely crucial. The old debates are now forgetting about and Catholics for the most part treat traditional groups, bishops and priests in such as way as all is normal, but if anyone actually takes the time to understand how this all developed they will quickly see that the entire traditionalist response was messy, and not built on a clear position grounded solely on pre-Vatican theology. Every attempt to correct this was like putting a patch on a deteriorating shirt, one hole is fixed but the shirt is falling apart everywhere else. To your last point, in regards to SGG, I think that Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan ran things collaboratively, and it was not a hierarchical relationship with Bp. Dolan ruling. Fr. Cekada was around too long to know that these bishops such as Dolan and Sanborn were his equals, not his superiors. Their episcopal orders were for sacramental purposes only, not jurisdictional. The younger and newer priests may not grasp this, so things could change with the new generation. Pacelli , can you recommend any resources that discuss the history of the "traditional movement" in an unbiased way?
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Dec 3, 2022 17:10:25 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. I didn't know that Bishop Selway had a health condition... 😬 May I ask what it is?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2022 19:51:55 GMT -5
I didn't know that Bishop Selway had a health condition... 😬 May I ask what it is? It is public knowledge so you can ask. From memory I think he has a form of Reynauld's Syndrome which affects peripheral arterial circulation. From what I understand he can only reside in very warm climates and this was one of the reasons MHT Seminary moved to Florida in the first place. EricH , I would quote you but I think this needs to be taken to a new thread so we don't derail this one.
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Dec 4, 2022 14:26:33 GMT -5
I didn't know that Bishop Selway had a health condition... 😬 May I ask what it is? It is public knowledge so you can ask. From memory I think he has a form of Reynauld's Syndrome which affects peripheral arterial circulation. From what I understand he can only reside in very warm climates and this was one of the reasons MHT Seminary moved to Florida in the first place. EricH , I would quote you but I think this needs to be taken to a new thread so we don't derail this one. Thank you for explaining, Resolution! For some reason I just never heard about his health condition. 😅
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 4, 2022 17:29:29 GMT -5
It’s worth taking some time to learn how the Catholic response began in the 1970’s. What were the arguments and justification used and how that thinking developed. It is with that background that you can tune out the group thinking noise that is often repeated and critically examine everything that has been said and is being said today. Archbishop Lefebvre had many things correct. His idea, generally speaking was to just reject what was evil and not obey those pushing false doctrine and evil laws on Catholics. He didn’t want to answer the bigger questions of how can such things happen in the first place in the Church. He understood the dangers of any claim to authority, and tried to maintain the fine line of what he was doing without usurping the power of the hierarchy. I think he did cross the line from time to time, but it was clear that his goal was not to do so. It seems to me that, regardless of his good intentions, the consecration of bishops in 1988 was an action that went beyond just resisting evil, as he was not just resisting, he was doing something, and that wasn’t just resistance, which is just passively not obeying. If you ever read his talk to the seminarians in Ridgefield, 1986, he outlines the thinking that existed in the SSPX that had clearly developed over time, and why that thinking was incorrect. He clearly saw the problems with the very situation he had created and in my opinion, he was laying the groundwork of how to correct it, but for whatever reason, this never happened. The consecrations of 1988 made it possible for that incorrect thinking to remain in perpetuity and never be corrected and most likely just get more ingrained over time, which is what we are seeing today. So, it’s not important to know how the early traditional response developed or the history of the SSPX to know your Faith, but to unravel the very complex issues of traditionalism it is absolutely crucial. The old debates are now forgetting about and Catholics for the most part treat traditional groups, bishops and priests in such as way as all is normal, but if anyone actually takes the time to understand how this all developed they will quickly see that the entire traditionalist response was messy, and not built on a clear position grounded solely on pre-Vatican theology. Every attempt to correct this was like putting a patch on a deteriorating shirt, one hole is fixed but the shirt is falling apart everywhere else. To your last point, in regards to SGG, I think that Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan ran things collaboratively, and it was not a hierarchical relationship with Bp. Dolan ruling. Fr. Cekada was around too long to know that these bishops such as Dolan and Sanborn were his equals, not his superiors. Their episcopal orders were for sacramental purposes only, not jurisdictional. The younger and newer priests may not grasp this, so things could change with the new generation. Pacelli , can you recommend any resources that discuss the history of the "traditional movement" in an unbiased way? There is so much, I will have to think on it and will start a thread dedicated to this.
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Dec 4, 2022 22:55:45 GMT -5
I finally found some time to skim through the consecration part of this video. So... Bishop Sanborn only had Bishop Selway as a co-consecrator Bishop and then a priest as a step-in to cover the other spot... Why couldn't they just have asked Bishop Piverunas or someone else to be there as the third bishop? I know it doesn't technically affect the validity but... It has been in the canons of the Church since the 3rd Pope to have 3 bishops for a consecration of another bishop and it isn't like they are in another country with more travel restrictions or there aren't other sede U.S Bishops... 😣 Or maybe I am just a bit bothered when they unnecessarily decided to skip rules...
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2022 23:10:12 GMT -5
I finally found some time to skim through the consecration part of this video. So... Bishop Sanborn only had Bishop Selway as a co-consecrator Bishop and then a priest as a step-in to cover the other spot... Why couldn't they just have asked Bishop Piverunas or someone else to be there as the third bishop? I know it doesn't technically affect the validity but... It has been in the canons of the Church since the 3rd Pope to have 3 bishops for a consecration of another bishop and it isn't like they are in another country with more travel restrictions or there aren't other sede U.S Bishops... 😣 Or maybe I am just a bit bothered when they unnecessarily decided to skip rules... Perhaps they have run out of willing friends to ask? The division between the priests of the different sede groups is at an all time high.
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Dec 5, 2022 6:39:03 GMT -5
I finally found some time to skim through the consecration part of this video. So... Bishop Sanborn only had Bishop Selway as a co-consecrator Bishop and then a priest as a step-in to cover the other spot... Why couldn't they just have asked Bishop Piverunas or someone else to be there as the third bishop? I know it doesn't technically affect the validity but... It has been in the canons of the Church since the 3rd Pope to have 3 bishops for a consecration of another bishop and it isn't like they are in another country with more travel restrictions or there aren't other sede U.S Bishops... 😣 Or maybe I am just a bit bothered when they unnecessarily decided to skip rules... Perhaps they have run out of willing friends to ask? The division between the priests of the different sede groups is at an all time high. That makes sense... But it is so sad... It isn't like their beliefs are that different... 😥
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2022 22:28:47 GMT -5
Perhaps they have run out of willing friends to ask? The division between the priests of the different sede groups is at an all time high. That makes sense... But it is so sad... It isn't like their beliefs are that different... 😥 If anyone knowingly abandons even one point of the Catholic Faith it doesn't matter how similar their beliefs might be, they are miles apart in the supernatural order.
|
|