Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => Traditional Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: RedCaves on January 14, 2017, 09:36:39 PM

Title: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: RedCaves on January 14, 2017, 09:36:39 PM
All right, so I decided to start this thread to bring attention to a topic that has always fascinated me: Every Trad Community in existence.

We all know the big ones: SSPX, FSSP, ICKSP, and Independent.

That last one has its own sub-categories, for sure.

I've seen (mostly online) my fair share of organizations that claim to be Traditionalist Catholics, with varying answers to fundamental questions (Vatican II, Mass, Sacraments, Modernism, etc.)

Some make the news, others remain obscure. Perhaps for good reason.

I would like to bring attention to THIS particular group: http://www.trcatholics.org/home.html

It appears that it is some kind of Independent Trad group that is largely made up of an African-American community.

They have their own YouTube channel and do Latin Masses in small homes. https://www.youtube.com/user/tradcatholics/featured

They showed up online a few years ago but it has only been recent that I have never really bothered to ask myself just WHO THE HECK ARE THEY???

Has anyone else heard about this specific group?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: QuaeriteDominum on January 17, 2017, 12:41:02 PM
They are Old Catholics.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sockpuppet on January 17, 2017, 03:07:02 PM
Vatican I trads!
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Kaesekopf on January 17, 2017, 03:34:59 PM
They are schismatics, that much is obvious.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: abc123 on January 17, 2017, 03:57:18 PM
They are schismatics, that much is obvious.

How is it obvious? Their website looks like it could be any other sedevacantist website. They reject Vatican II and claim not to be Old Catholics.

As Traditional Roman Catholics, we are really Roman Catholics distinguished from the Neo-Modernist  church of Rome who claims to be Catholic who claims to be Catholic. As traditional Catholics fact that we do not believe the pope is truly the pope is due to the fact that we do not accept the Second Vatican Council, a council or meeting called by the Church in 1962 which was initially meant to bring the Church up to date in order to adapt to the changing conditions of modern times. Why do we not accept Vatican II? We do not accept it, because it not only made simple administrative changes, but also proposed new teachings contrary to Christ’s teachings. It is not for the sake of nostalgia, a desire for the glorious appearances of the Church, but rather for the defense of the Faith against growing heresies promulgated  by Rome today due to Vatican II.

I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ

The Traditional Roman Catholic Church is a body of Christians committed to the Person of Jesus Christ and His teachings. We are a historical part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
 
     We are a Traditional Catholic Church, defending the Sacred Traditions as passed on  by the Apostles, the Church Fathers, and the Councils, prior to Vatican II.


We believe.... the Catholic Church when it speaks on faith and morals; this includes all the teachings of the past popes, councils, encyclicals, pronouncements, decrees, etc. except those after Vatican II.

What specifically makes them schismatic?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: YeOldeFustilarians on January 17, 2017, 03:58:48 PM
They are Old Catholics.

I thumbed up your post because I remember coming across this group a few years ago and arriving at a similar conclusion.  The "smoking gun" was a part of their website where it read something to the effect of "we don't judge gays".  Other than that, the site gave the impression of being for "just another trad group."  Lots of Tridentine trappings.

But this website (which is different than when I last visited it) seems to have scrubbed anything objectionable, or at least anything blatantly objectionable (the pre Pian missal is controversial but hardly heretical or schismatic).

So is there any indication from the website that they are old Catholics?  I remember the picture of their bishop from the last website, so I'm near certain it's the same group.  But the lack of a smoking gun is curious.

ETA: I don't think they're Old Catholics.  Maybe they were, or maybe there are two groups of black people in New Jersey who use the Tridentine missal, I don't know.  But no Old Catholic would include this in their profession of faith:

Quote
I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent, and by the ecumenical Council of the Vatican, particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching. I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church hath condemned, rejected, and anathematized.

I do wonder where their orders come from.

Quote
We do not accept the teachings and beliefs of the Old Roman Catholic Church thus we are not Old Catholic, we are The Traditional Roman Catholic Church, we believe and profess what Our Lord taught and the Apostles believed, based on the three pillars of the Church. Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the  Magisterium. Unlike many Traditionalist groups we do not engaged in debates, or arguments concerning Validity of Orders. Such arguments cause further wounds to the body of Christ and are not conducive to the practice of the true religion.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Michael Wilson on January 17, 2017, 04:06:57 PM
Their statement of beliefs contains the following:
Quote
I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent, and by the ecumenical Council of the Vatican, particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching. I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church hath condemned, rejected, and anathematized.
This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and to which I truly adhere, I do so profess and swear to maintain inviolate and with firm constancy with the help of God until the last breath of life. And I shall strive, as far as possible, that this same faith shall be held, taught, and professed by all those over whom I have charge. I N. do so pledge, promise, and swear, so help me God and these Holy Gospels of God.
By the bolded we know two things: 1. They are not "Old Catholics" 2. Max is not a member of this group (ironic).
But where do they get their bishop from?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Michael Wilson on January 17, 2017, 04:14:27 PM
Here is his biography: http://trcatholics.org/bishopmosleysbiography.html

Quote
His, Excellency was consecrated a bishop of the (Old) Roman Catholic Church of America on August 15, 2003 at St. John the Evangelist Oreatory in Racine, Wisconsin by Archbishop James Edward Bostwick with the Most Reverend bishops Gonzalo Jaromilla and Elias Millazo as co-consecrators.
He belongs to an Old Catholic group.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: YeOldeFustilarians on January 17, 2017, 04:20:22 PM
Here is his biography: http://trcatholics.org/bishopmosleysbiography.html

Quote
His, Excellency was consecrated a bishop of the (Old) Roman Catholic Church of America on August 15, 2003 at St. John the Evangelist Oreatory in Racine, Wisconsin by Archbishop James Edward Bostwick with the Most Reverend bishops Gonzalo Jaromilla and Elias Millazo as co-consecrators.
He belongs to an Old Catholic group.

Evidently "belonged."  So this probably is the same group I came across before.

Many parts of their website are "under construction," but if you look hard enough you can find "hidden" pages like the one you've found there. 

It strikes me as though this group, headed by this Moisley fellow, is in a transition stage from Old Catholicism.

I'd probably stay away due to orders if nothing else.  Old Catholic orders are a messy bunch.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Prayerful on January 17, 2017, 07:23:55 PM
Here is his biography: http://trcatholics.org/bishopmosleysbiography.html

Quote
His, Excellency was consecrated a bishop of the (Old) Roman Catholic Church of America on August 15, 2003 at St. John the Evangelist Oreatory in Racine, Wisconsin by Archbishop James Edward Bostwick with the Most Reverend bishops Gonzalo Jaromilla and Elias Millazo as co-consecrators.
He belongs to an Old Catholic group.

Old Catholic orders rival Thuc line orders among sedevacantists, there would have to be doubts about a transmission of apostolic succession, because since 1996 Old Catholics ordain women as priests. This means that now or later, some Old Catholic Bishops and priests have or will have orders dependent (and in fact broken) on Old Catholic women bishops. The Polish-American Old Catholics broke with the Ultrecht Old Catholics over women priests and laxness towards homosexuals. Ordaining women is one point on which Pope Francis clearly affirms Catholics teaching, noting correctly that ordaining women is impossible. Doubts cannot rightly be entertained with sacraments, least of all with the Sacrament of Orders.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Obrien on January 17, 2017, 11:56:57 PM
Anyone ever hear of this group?

http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm (http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm)
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: JubilateDeo on January 18, 2017, 12:13:47 AM
All right, so I decided to start this thread to bring attention to a topic that has always fascinated me: Every Trad Community in existence.

We all know the big ones: SSPX, FSSP, ICKSP, and Independent.

That last one has its own sub-categories, for sure.

I've seen (mostly online) my fair share of organizations that claim to be Traditionalist Catholics, with varying answers to fundamental questions (Vatican II, Mass, Sacraments, Modernism, etc.)

Some make the news, others remain obscure. Perhaps for good reason.

I would like to bring attention to THIS particular group: http://www.trcatholics.org/home.html

It appears that it is some kind of Independent Trad group that is largely made up of an African-American community.

They have their own YouTube channel and do Latin Masses in small homes. https://www.youtube.com/user/tradcatholics/featured

They showed up online a few years ago but it has only been recent that I have never really bothered to ask myself just WHO THE HECK ARE THEY???

Has anyone else heard about this specific group?

That group out in South Jersey is nutso.  I'd rather be a home aloner than associate with them.  I try to stay out of the 609 area code in general. 
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Obrien on January 18, 2017, 12:35:33 AM
Could you elaborate on nutso?

 :cheeseheadbeer:
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Kaesekopf on January 18, 2017, 01:53:01 AM
They are schismatics, that much is obvious.
What specifically makes them schismatic?

They have (somehow?) established their own "episcopal see".

"Traditional Roman Catholic Church
(Latin Rite) Episcopal See"

and
"Shermanus Randallus Pius Moslei,D.D.,
Prime Bishop of the Traditional Roman Catholic Church"

None of the other traddy bishops arrogate such things to themselves, as far as I know (even if the SSPX regularly uses the trappings of jurisdiction...).
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Bonaventure on January 18, 2017, 02:18:51 AM
Using a title such as "your Eminence," is pretty close to establishing a parallel church. I don't think they are formally schismatic, not yet.

I am fascinated in seeing an almost all black TLM congregation. I wish we had more of that.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Stubborn on January 18, 2017, 05:41:07 AM
Anyone ever hear of this group?

http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm (http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm)

They seem to be connected with Fr. Anthony Ward's group in Colorado Springs, CO. - Servants of the Holy Family.

I can't say much about that group, but I did know Fr. Ward. He studied in Econe and was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre and, replacing Fr. Bonfil in the early 1970s, Fr. Ward was the first official SSPX priest in the USA.

After only a few years, he left the SSPX (rather abruptly as I recall) and moved himself and the small group of seminarians he was training to Colorado Springs and started his own chapel, which is where they've been for the last 40 years or so.

Having lost touch with him since he left, that's about all I know about that situation, but I can say that as a young priest, he used to give some sermons that would stop you right in your tracks!
   
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: LausTibiChriste on January 18, 2017, 06:17:28 AM
Anyone ever hear of this group?

http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm (http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm)

They seem to be connected with Fr. Anthony Ward's group in Colorado Springs, CO. - Servants of the Holy Family.

I can't say much about that group, but I did know Fr. Ward. He studied in Econe and was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre and, replacing Fr. Bonfil in the early 1970s, Fr. Ward was the first official SSPX priest in the USA.

After only a few years, he left the SSPX (rather abruptly as I recall) and moved himself and the small group of seminarians he was training to Colorado Springs and started his own chapel, which is where they've been for the last 40 years or so.

Having lost touch with him since he left, that's about all I know about that situation, but I can say that as a young priest, he used to give some sermons that would stop you right in your tracks!
 

Are they in full communion with Rome and approved by their Bishop?

I buy my scapulars from them
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Kaesekopf on January 18, 2017, 06:21:02 AM
Are they in full communion with Rome and approved by their Bishop?

I buy my scapulars from them

Nope and nope.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: abc123 on January 18, 2017, 07:13:58 AM
They are schismatics, that much is obvious.
What specifically makes them schismatic?

They have (somehow?) established their own "episcopal see".

"Traditional Roman Catholic Church
(Latin Rite) Episcopal See"

and
"Shermanus Randallus Pius Moslei,D.D.,
Prime Bishop of the Traditional Roman Catholic Church"

None of the other traddy bishops arrogate such things to themselves, as far as I know (even if the SSPX regularly uses the trappings of jurisdiction...).

Gotcha. I overlooked that.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Miriam_M on January 18, 2017, 08:22:49 AM
I am fascinated in seeing an almost all black TLM congregation. I wish we had more of that.

Why? 
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: YeOldeFustilarians on January 18, 2017, 11:42:22 AM
Old Catholic orders rival Thuc line orders among sedevacantists

Oh please, no they don't.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Flick on January 18, 2017, 03:14:09 PM
From:  http://maps.thefullwiki.org/Servants_of_the_Holy_Family

"Father Anthony Ward was ordained a priest (validly but illicitly, in the view of the Catholic Church) in 1973 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of Saint Pius X. The newly-minted young priest was Lefebvre's first personal representative in the United States, and also first superior of the first SSPX seminary in the United States, in Armada, Michigan. At Christmas time of 1976 Father Ward traveled to Switzerland to meet with Lefebvre, and whatever happened there was not pleasing to Ward. Returning to the US, the young priest persuaded most of "his" seminarians to follow him in early 1977 to found a religious order in Colorado Springs . . . "

For the rest of the article go to web page and very interesting data in the footnotes, one being quoted below.

". . .the motivation for Anthony Ward's trip to Switzerland Christmas 1976 may have related to Lefebvre having replaced Ward with someone else as Lefebvre's personal representative in the US. Clarence Kelly, seminary classmate of Ward's who replaced Ward as Lefebvre's US representative, would later (1983) be expelled from the SSPX by Archbishop Lefebvre together with three other priests, because they refused to celebrate the Mass according to the Missal of 1962 but insisted on an even earlier version of the Mass, apparently due to their doubts about the legitimacy of all the Popes since Pius XII (died 1958). The expelled priests founded the Society of Saint Pius V. This perhaps ties together Kellner's and Cure's speculations about why Ward left the SSPX, perhaps because he was replaced as "country leader" and the replacement was someone whose sedevacantist ideology he found intolerable."

Will leave the above quoted footnote to speak for itself regarding the replacement of Fr. Ward with Fr. Kelly.  I'm shy about poking a nest with a stick!  :)
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: martin88nyc on January 18, 2017, 03:25:10 PM
Our TLM chapel "organizer", Mr. "Anonymous" orders calendars from the Servants of the HF.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Stubborn on January 18, 2017, 05:52:02 PM
From:  http://maps.thefullwiki.org/Servants_of_the_Holy_Family

Will leave the above quoted footnote to speak for itself regarding the replacement of Fr. Ward with Fr. Kelly.  I'm shy about poking a nest with a stick!  :)

Outside of Fr. Ward and perhaps his seminarians, I don't think anyone alive knows the real reason why he left, either way, 40 years ago Fr. Ward was awesome and if I lived near his chapel, I'd certainly go there for Mass and the sacraments. 

Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Prayerful on January 18, 2017, 06:33:12 PM
Old Catholic orders rival Thuc line orders among sedevacantists

Oh please, no they don't.

CMRI originates with the old Catholic (one Daniel Q Brown an associate) consecrated Francis Schuckardt, and more can be discovered with a little research. I exaggerate somewhat, but Duarte-Costa orders have most of the same issues as Old Catholic orders, and they also are extensively used. The SSPV obviously originate with the SSPX, but they are not dogmatic sedevacantists. Anyhow, even if the many orders were one, sedevacantists remain extraordinarily fissile.

Returning to African sedevacantists, there's one Archbishop Michael A Kwame of Ghana (https://www.facebook.com/bishopapostle.a.michael).

Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Bonaventure on January 18, 2017, 07:46:54 PM
I am fascinated in seeing an almost all black TLM congregation. I wish we had more of that.

Why?

Not enough blacks who attend the traditional sacraments. When blacks do have a Church, its like Obama's priest Pfluger in Chicago.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: YeOldeFustilarians on January 18, 2017, 09:05:56 PM
Old Catholic orders rival Thuc line orders among sedevacantists

Oh please, no they don't.

CMRI originates with the old Catholic (one Daniel Q Brown an associate) consecrated Francis Schuckardt, and more can be discovered with a little research. I exaggerate somewhat, but Duarte-Costa orders have most of the same issues as Old Catholic orders, and they also are extensively used. The SSPV obviously originate with the SSPX, but they are not dogmatic sedevacantists. Anyhow, even if the many orders were one, sedevacantists remain extraordinarily fissile.

Returning to African sedevacantists, there's one Archbishop Michael A Kwame of Ghana (https://www.facebook.com/bishopapostle.a.michael).

Of course you were exaggerating, because evidently you couldn't resist another smear.

I know about Schuckhardt.  He was run out of town, and anyone who received orders from him was conditionally ordained. 

Duarte-Costa are hardly "extensively used" either, and when they are, they're viewed suspiciously by the rest of the sedevacantists.  Duarte-Costa are used by sedeplenists, too (e.g., Patrick Taylor), maybe there's a rivalry among you lot too!

Come to think of it, there are more women who've been ordained by sedeplenists than there are sedevacantists who've been ordained by Old Catholics.  Perhaps for sedeplenists, there is a rivalry over whether or not their priests should be men or women.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Miriam_M on January 18, 2017, 09:07:36 PM
I am fascinated in seeing an almost all black TLM congregation. I wish we had more of that.

Why?

Not enough blacks who attend the traditional sacraments. When blacks do have a Church, its like Obama's priest Pfluger in Chicago.

I certainly agree with the not-enough black trads observation.  (There seems to be exactly one American black at our trad chapel; the few others there are originally from Africa, not the U.S.)  I guess I was surprised about the "almost-all-black" presence being something to be "wished for."  You may already be aware of the famous quote (I don't remember who said it, decades ago) that the most segregated day of the week in this country is Sunday.  I don't necessarily look forward to a continuation of that segregation, but rather to more of the Protestant crowd (members of any race or ethnicity) warming more to traditional Catholicism. 

Perhaps that's what you meant; it wasn't clear to me.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Chestertonian on January 18, 2017, 09:47:34 PM
Why do I keep reading the thread tutle as "spinsters and not "splinters"
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Prayerful on January 19, 2017, 06:53:04 AM
Old Catholic orders rival Thuc line orders among sedevacantists

Oh please, no they don't.

CMRI originates with the old Catholic (one Daniel Q Brown an associate) consecrated Francis Schuckardt, and more can be discovered with a little research. I exaggerate somewhat, but Duarte-Costa orders have most of the same issues as Old Catholic orders, and they also are extensively used. The SSPV obviously originate with the SSPX, but they are not dogmatic sedevacantists. Anyhow, even if the many orders were one, sedevacantists remain extraordinarily fissile.

Returning to African sedevacantists, there's one Archbishop Michael A Kwame of Ghana (https://www.facebook.com/bishopapostle.a.michael).

Of course you were exaggerating, because evidently you couldn't resist another smear.

I know about Schuckhardt.  He was run out of town, and anyone who received orders from him was conditionally ordained. 

Duarte-Costa are hardly "extensively used" either, and when they are, they're viewed suspiciously by the rest of the sedevacantists.  Duarte-Costa are used by sedeplenists, too (e.g., Patrick Taylor), maybe there's a rivalry among you lot too!

Come to think of it, there are more women who've been ordained by sedeplenists than there are sedevacantists who've been ordained by Old Catholics.  Perhaps for sedeplenists, there is a rivalry over whether or not their priests should be men or women.

:lol:

Nearly all 'Independent' or Old Catholic splinters who've had pretended ordinations of women use Old Catholic orders or Thuc-Palmarian (eg Bishop Cox who 'ordained' Sinead O'Connor for having paid for treatment for illnesses resulting from Cox's flamboyant lifestyle), and are not exactly 'sedeplenist.' Cox certainly isn't. Ultrecht Union-Old Catholics reject communion with the Pope, and Old Catholics are main source of orders for women 'consecrants' . Independent chapels ofttimes hold no dogmatic position, and are not strictly 'sedeplenist.' The Thuc line Bp Slupski, who witnessed Markus Ramolla's consecration by fellow Thuc Bp and consecrant, Robert Dymek, rejects the sedevacantist label, but is likely so de-facto. 
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: YeOldeFustilarians on January 19, 2017, 01:06:42 PM
Old Catholic orders rival Thuc line orders among sedevacantists

Oh please, no they don't.

CMRI originates with the old Catholic (one Daniel Q Brown an associate) consecrated Francis Schuckardt, and more can be discovered with a little research. I exaggerate somewhat, but Duarte-Costa orders have most of the same issues as Old Catholic orders, and they also are extensively used. The SSPV obviously originate with the SSPX, but they are not dogmatic sedevacantists. Anyhow, even if the many orders were one, sedevacantists remain extraordinarily fissile.

Returning to African sedevacantists, there's one Archbishop Michael A Kwame of Ghana (https://www.facebook.com/bishopapostle.a.michael).

Of course you were exaggerating, because evidently you couldn't resist another smear.

I know about Schuckhardt.  He was run out of town, and anyone who received orders from him was conditionally ordained. 

Duarte-Costa are hardly "extensively used" either, and when they are, they're viewed suspiciously by the rest of the sedevacantists.  Duarte-Costa are used by sedeplenists, too (e.g., Patrick Taylor), maybe there's a rivalry among you lot too!

Come to think of it, there are more women who've been ordained by sedeplenists than there are sedevacantists who've been ordained by Old Catholics.  Perhaps for sedeplenists, there is a rivalry over whether or not their priests should be men or women.

:lol:

Nearly all 'Independent' or Old Catholic splinters who've had pretended ordinations of women use Old Catholic orders or Thuc-Palmarian (eg Bishop Cox who 'ordained' Sinead O'Connor for having paid for treatment for illnesses resulting from Cox's flamboyant lifestyle), and are not exactly 'sedeplenist.' Cox certainly isn't. Ultrecht Union-Old Catholics reject communion with the Pope, and Old Catholics are main source of orders for women 'consecrants' . Independent chapels ofttimes hold no dogmatic position, and are not strictly 'sedeplenist.' The Thuc line Bp Slupski, who witnessed Markus Ramolla's consecration by fellow Thuc Bp and consecrant, Robert Dymek, rejects the sedevacantist label, but is likely so de-facto.

So in other words you're admitting that the initial contention of Old Catholics orders "rivaling" Thuc orders among sedevacantists was so grossly without regard for even the most primitive distinctions as to be a pretty worthless statement? 
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Prayerful on January 19, 2017, 03:13:28 PM
Old Catholic orders rival Thuc line orders among sedevacantists

Oh please, no they don't.

CMRI originates with the old Catholic (one Daniel Q Brown an associate) consecrated Francis Schuckardt, and more can be discovered with a little research. I exaggerate somewhat, but Duarte-Costa orders have most of the same issues as Old Catholic orders, and they also are extensively used. The SSPV obviously originate with the SSPX, but they are not dogmatic sedevacantists. Anyhow, even if the many orders were one, sedevacantists remain extraordinarily fissile.

Returning to African sedevacantists, there's one Archbishop Michael A Kwame of Ghana (https://www.facebook.com/bishopapostle.a.michael).

Of course you were exaggerating, because evidently you couldn't resist another smear.

I know about Schuckhardt.  He was run out of town, and anyone who received orders from him was conditionally ordained. 

Duarte-Costa are hardly "extensively used" either, and when they are, they're viewed suspiciously by the rest of the sedevacantists.  Duarte-Costa are used by sedeplenists, too (e.g., Patrick Taylor), maybe there's a rivalry among you lot too!

Come to think of it, there are more women who've been ordained by sedeplenists than there are sedevacantists who've been ordained by Old Catholics.  Perhaps for sedeplenists, there is a rivalry over whether or not their priests should be men or women.

:lol:

Nearly all 'Independent' or Old Catholic splinters who've had pretended ordinations of women use Old Catholic orders or Thuc-Palmarian (eg Bishop Cox who 'ordained' Sinead O'Connor for having paid for treatment for illnesses resulting from Cox's flamboyant lifestyle), and are not exactly 'sedeplenist.' Cox certainly isn't. Ultrecht Union-Old Catholics reject communion with the Pope, and Old Catholics are main source of orders for women 'consecrants' . Independent chapels ofttimes hold no dogmatic position, and are not strictly 'sedeplenist.' The Thuc line Bp Slupski, who witnessed Markus Ramolla's consecration by fellow Thuc Bp and consecrant, Robert Dymek, rejects the sedevacantist label, but is likely so de-facto.

So in other words you're admitting that the initial contention of Old Catholics orders "rivaling" Thuc orders among sedevacantists was so grossly without regard for even the most primitive distinctions as to be a pretty worthless statement?

One of the biggest trait of a sedevacantist is rancour, and a need to feel he or she has won the argument in a way that makes the interlocutor look entirely bad. Personally, I think the point about really matters. You are assuming that I mean rivalling in the sense of equally used or approaching that. Old Catholic orders seem to appeal more to ritual minded liberal Christians, which is a constituency. Rivaling can be taken to mean another direction, an alternative which could be taken.

:lol:

Perhaps I can here quote someone almost wholly negative, and at the end of her career.

'What difference does it make?'

And i would answer none.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: RedCaves on January 19, 2017, 08:46:55 PM
Wow. SOO much info to take in...

Anyway, thank you for the replies. It's interesting to see that some have seen this group's website (yes, it has changed last time I saw it).

I'm surprised to see the Duarte-Costa line mentioned here. Speaking of that, here's the Society of Leo XIII:
http://splxiii-usa.vpweb.com/
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/08/17/breakaway-group-seeks-unity-with-rome/

They seem a bit schizophrenic in terms of explaining who and what they stand for...

There are other Independent groups that I've found online. I may post them on here later.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Prayerful on January 20, 2017, 05:57:35 AM
Duarte-Costa bishops will have been consecrated using a Portuguese or other translation of the Traditional Rite of Consecration, so the usual valid but illicit applies. Duarte-Costa's schismatic Church started as a leftist, socially focussed effort, but later were stalwart supporters of the Brazil's military rulers. This LXIII society seem Old Catholic/Ultrecht Union in their 'Allowing the divorced and remarried to receive Communion' along with a more Traditional Rite, basically Anglican, liberal ritualists. If they were larger, Pope Francis would cease at nothing to woo them
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on November 28, 2017, 02:53:48 PM
Are they in full communion with Rome and approved by their Bishop?

I buy my scapulars from them

Nope and nope.

Interesting, what makes you so sure of this? What have they done to not be in union with Rome?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: ÆneasQuébécois on November 28, 2017, 03:12:51 PM
One of the biggest trait of a sedevacantist is rancour, and a need to feel he or she has won the argument in a way that makes the interlocutor look entirely bad.

One of the biggest traits of a sedeplenist is stereotyping, and a need to feel that he or she has categorized a group in a way which makes the interlocutor look entirely bad.  :P Seriously, though, just as not all sedeplentists are raving modernists like Francis, not all sedevacantists are raving lunatics. It is unfortunate that a number of bad apples have spoiled both barrels. 
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Greg on November 28, 2017, 03:23:11 PM
They made a nice job of cleaning up that church.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on November 28, 2017, 04:00:10 PM
We are not talking about the same people.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 09, 2017, 03:23:53 PM
Anyone ever hear of this group?

http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm (http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm)

They seem to be connected with Fr. Anthony Ward's group in Colorado Springs, CO. - Servants of the Holy Family.

I can't say much about that group, but I did know Fr. Ward. He studied in Econe and was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre and, replacing Fr. Bonfil in the early 1970s, Fr. Ward was the first official SSPX priest in the USA.

After only a few years, he left the SSPX (rather abruptly as I recall) and moved himself and the small group of seminarians he was training to Colorado Springs and started his own chapel, which is where they've been for the last 40 years or so.

Having lost touch with him since he left, that's about all I know about that situation, but I can say that as a young priest, he used to give some sermons that would stop you right in your tracks!
 

Fr. Ward still gives some really great sermons. They post some online:
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 09, 2017, 03:45:29 PM
From:  http://maps.thefullwiki.org/Servants_of_the_Holy_Family

"Father Anthony Ward was ordained a priest (validly but illicitly, in the view of the Catholic Church) in 1973 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of Saint Pius X. The newly-minted young priest was Lefebvre's first personal representative in the United States, and also first superior of the first SSPX seminary in the United States, in Armada, Michigan. At Christmas time of 1976 Father Ward traveled to Switzerland to meet with Lefebvre, and whatever happened there was not pleasing to Ward. Returning to the US, the young priest persuaded most of "his" seminarians to follow him in early 1977 to found a religious order in Colorado Springs . . . "

For the rest of the article go to web page and very interesting data in the footnotes, one being quoted below.

". . .the motivation for Anthony Ward's trip to Switzerland Christmas 1976 may have related to Lefebvre having replaced Ward with someone else as Lefebvre's personal representative in the US. Clarence Kelly, seminary classmate of Ward's who replaced Ward as Lefebvre's US representative, would later (1983) be expelled from the SSPX by Archbishop Lefebvre together with three other priests, because they refused to celebrate the Mass according to the Missal of 1962 but insisted on an even earlier version of the Mass, apparently due to their doubts about the legitimacy of all the Popes since Pius XII (died 1958). The expelled priests founded the Society of Saint Pius V. This perhaps ties together Kellner's and Cure's speculations about why Ward left the SSPX, perhaps because he was replaced as "country leader" and the replacement was someone whose sedevacantist ideology he found intolerable."

Will leave the above quoted footnote to speak for itself regarding the replacement of Fr. Ward with Fr. Kelly.  I'm shy about poking a nest with a stick!  :)

 :huh: He was not ordained illicitly...and there are things in the quoted article that to my knowledge are not completely true either.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 09, 2017, 03:47:30 PM
From:  http://maps.thefullwiki.org/Servants_of_the_Holy_Family

Will leave the above quoted footnote to speak for itself regarding the replacement of Fr. Ward with Fr. Kelly.  I'm shy about poking a nest with a stick!  :)

Outside of Fr. Ward and perhaps his seminarians, I don't think anyone alive knows the real reason why he left, either way, 40 years ago Fr. Ward was awesome and if I lived near his chapel, I'd certainly go there for Mass and the sacraments.

There are people who know why he left and it was with permission that he left and for good reasons.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on December 09, 2017, 09:17:38 PM
Fr Anthony Ward

https://www.diocs.org/portals/2/Documents/DeclarationJuly31_2013.pdf
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 09, 2017, 10:53:36 PM
Anyone ever hear of this group?

http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm (http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm)
 

Yes. They are about three miles from my house.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 10, 2017, 12:45:20 AM
St.Justin I am aware of that “document”. Are you aware of many of the untrue/worthless parts of it?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 10, 2017, 12:57:22 AM
Anyone ever hear of this group?

http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm (http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm)
 

Yes. They are about three miles from my house.

Nice, have you visited the Sisters there?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 10, 2017, 03:50:24 PM
Anyone ever hear of this group?

http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm (http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm)
 

Yes. They are about three miles from my house.

Nice, have you visited the Sisters there?

Many years ago we attended Mass at MHFM, then we realized they were sedevacantist, along with a few other red flags. I pulled into the entrance a few weeks ago to finish a Rosary in front of the Crucifix.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on December 10, 2017, 07:51:58 PM
St.Justin I am aware of that “document”. Are you aware of many of the untrue/worthless parts of it?

No,,, Could you point out a few? Seem to me the Bishop was pretty straight forward. He even gave them Faculties to hear Confessions.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Gardener on December 10, 2017, 08:40:05 PM
St.Justin I am aware of that “document”. Are you aware of many of the untrue/worthless parts of it?

No,,, Could you point out a few? Seem to me the Bishop was pretty straight forward. He even gave them Faculties to hear Confessions.

As far as things go, Bishop Sheridan is a good Bishop. He has been very supportive of the FSSP in Colorado Springs, and his weekly columns are generally catechetical in nature.

Here's an example where he lays it out regarding marriage, civil divorce, "remarriage" and Holy Communion:

http://www.diocs.org/CCHerald/Article/ArticleID/141/THE-BISHOPS-VOICE-Clarifying-Church-teaching-on-divorce-and-remarriage

When I read that article I personally wrote him and thanked him for his frank clarity amidst often confusing and ambiguous speech from the rest of the hierarchy. He wrote back and thanked me, asking me to pray for him to remain strong in his position.

ETA: here's a whole list of his articles. These also appear in the weekly Diocesan newspaper in both English and Spanish.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 10, 2017, 08:41:42 PM
Anyone ever hear of this group?

http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm (http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm)
 

Yes. They are about three miles from my house.

Nice, have you visited the Sisters there?

Many years ago we attended Mass at MHFM, then we realized they were sedevacantist, along with a few other red flags. I pulled into the entrance a few weeks ago to finish a Rosary in front of the Crucifix.

I don't know what MHFM is but that is not who this is. This group is most certainly not sedevacantist. I have even heard one of their sermons where they warned the people not to go to a sedevacantist mass. You must be thinking of someone else.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Gardener on December 10, 2017, 08:44:21 PM
Anyone ever hear of this group?

http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm (http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm)
 

Yes. They are about three miles from my house.

Nice, have you visited the Sisters there?

Many years ago we attended Mass at MHFM, then we realized they were sedevacantist, along with a few other red flags. I pulled into the entrance a few weeks ago to finish a Rosary in front of the Crucifix.

I don't know what MHFM is but that is not who this is. This group is most certainly not sedevacantist. I have even heard one of their sermons where they warned the people not to go to a sedevacantist mass. You must be thinking of someone else.

I think he meant SHF (Servants of the Holy Family), MHFM is the ridiculous Dimond brothers who are pretty much the only two Catholics alive in their mind. Who knows, maybe they're the two witnesses of Revelation!

 :lol:

Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 10, 2017, 08:51:58 PM
St.Justin I am aware of that “document”. Are you aware of many of the untrue/worthless parts of it?

No,,, Could you point out a few? Seem to me the Bishop was pretty straight forward. He even gave them Faculties to hear Confessions.

I will just say that the bishop there is novis ordo, and that his treatment of this group was so off that even the Vatican assigned another bishop to be their mediator. To this day I have yet to hear any real "charge" against the priests there besides that the bishop does not like them. He does not like that they say the tradition Latin Mass exclusively and that they will not compromise with the Novis Ordo is really what it comes down to, so much so that he brought in an FSSP group (which has to say that the Novis Ordo is just as valid as the traditional Latin Mass) to try to get people not to attend the Mass at Servants of the Holy Family. It is really very odd.

I know someone who goes there who has had personal experiences. It is really very sad that there is propaganda out there about these good priests.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 10, 2017, 08:55:42 PM
Anyone ever hear of this group?

http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm (http://www.sistersofcarmel.org/index.htm)
 

Yes. They are about three miles from my house.

Nice, have you visited the Sisters there?

Many years ago we attended Mass at MHFM, then we realized they were sedevacantist, along with a few other red flags. I pulled into the entrance a few weeks ago to finish a Rosary in front of the Crucifix.

I don't know what MHFM is but that is not who this is. This group is most certainly not sedevacantist. I have even heard one of their sermons where they warned the people not to go to a sedevacantist mass. You must be thinking of someone else.

I think he meant SHF (Servants of the Holy Family), MHFM is the ridiculous Dimond brothers who are pretty much the only two Catholics alive in their mind. Who knows, maybe they're the two witnesses of Revelation!

 :lol:

Yeah, that. Sorry, S.

I am fairly certain either the CMRI or Father Ward's group provide the TLM
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Gardener on December 10, 2017, 08:59:56 PM
St.Justin I am aware of that “document”. Are you aware of many of the untrue/worthless parts of it?

No,,, Could you point out a few? Seem to me the Bishop was pretty straight forward. He even gave them Faculties to hear Confessions.

I will just say that the bishop there is novis ordo, and that his treatment of this group was so off that even the Vatican assigned another bishop to be their mediator. To this day I have yet to hear any real "charge" against the priests there besides that the bishop does not like them. He does not like that they say the tradition Latin Mass exclusively and that they will not compromise with the Novis Ordo is really what it comes down to, so much so that he brought in an FSSP group (which has to say that the Novis Ordo is just as valid as the traditional Latin Mass) to try to get people not to attend the Mass at Servants of the Holy Family. It is really very odd.

I know someone who goes there who has had personal experiences. It is really very sad that there is propaganda out there about these good priests.

The Novus Ordo as promulgated, and generally as celebrated, is just as valid as the Latin Mass, as is the Orthodox Liturgy. Even the SSPX recognizes the validity of the Novus Ordo. If you're going to use terms, use them correctly. Whether or not it's objectively equal with the Latin Mass is another question entirely -- Fr. Chad Ripperger had an entire article on why the Novus Ordo is indeed inferior to the Latin Mass in other ways not impacting validity. Fr. James Jackson has written a book (Nothing Superfluous) detailing the superiority of the TLM, though he did not write it in the polemical style.

It's not unusual for mediation to come from outside if inside mediation fails. And even then, it's not unusual for outside mediation to come in during inside proceedings, to insure all is going correctly.

Heinrich and I are in Colorado Springs, and not everything is hunky dory over there. He knows people who went there. I know a priest who assisted Bp. Conley in his mediation. That place has some issues.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 10, 2017, 09:18:26 PM
St.Justin I am aware of that “document”. Are you aware of many of the untrue/worthless parts of it?

No,,, Could you point out a few? Seem to me the Bishop was pretty straight forward. He even gave them Faculties to hear Confessions.

I will just say that the bishop there is novis ordo, and that his treatment of this group was so off that even the Vatican assigned another bishop to be their mediator. To this day I have yet to hear any real "charge" against the priests there besides that the bishop does not like them. He does not like that they say the tradition Latin Mass exclusively and that they will not compromise with the Novis Ordo is really what it comes down to, so much so that he brought in an FSSP group (which has to say that the Novis Ordo is just as valid as the traditional Latin Mass) to try to get people not to attend the Mass at Servants of the Holy Family. It is really very odd.

I know someone who goes there who has had personal experiences. It is really very sad that there is propaganda out there about these good priests.

The Novus Ordo as promulgated, and generally as celebrated, is just as valid as the Latin Mass, as is the Orthodox Liturgy. Even the SSPX recognizes the validity of the Novus Ordo. If you're going to use terms, use them correctly. Whether or not it's objectively equal with the Latin Mass is another question entirely -- Fr. Chad Ripperger had an entire article on why the Novus Ordo is indeed inferior to the Latin Mass in other ways not impacting validity. Fr. James Jackson has written a book (Nothing Superfluous) detailing the superiority of the TLM, though he did not write it in the polemical style.

It's not unusual for mediation to come from outside if inside mediation fails. And even then, it's not unusual for outside mediation to come in during inside proceedings, to insure all is going correctly.

Heinrich and I are in Colorado Springs, and not everything is hunky dory over there. He knows people who went there. I know a priest who assisted Bp. Conley in his mediation. That place has some issues.

The Novus Ordo is what has lots of problems and I know many SSPX who teach not to go to a Novus Ordo Mass even if nowhere else is available to go, so I may have worded it incorrectly, but I think you probably know what I meant anyway. FSSP is required to train priests for, and ordain priests for, and allow, the Novus Ordo Mass. They could be told at anytime to say the Novus Ordo Mass and if they do not...they would be given a similar notice. I am sure they have good priests among their ranks, but they do compromise nonetheless.

Again, I hear people say that these priests at Servants of the Holy Family are doing “something wrong” and then they can never come up with what exactly they are doing that is so wrong.

I would think that during this time of crisis in the Church that people would give a little bit more benefit of the doubt to something that they really only have one side of the story and haven't even spoken to these priests about the situation(which I have). I also know someone who goes there and also someone who used to go there and doesn't anymore, but does still live in the area. The one who does not go there anymore thought the thing written by the bishop was pretty ridiculous.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 10, 2017, 09:53:15 PM
St.Justin I am aware of that “document”. Are you aware of many of the untrue/worthless parts of it?

No,,, Could you point out a few? Seem to me the Bishop was pretty straight forward. He even gave them Faculties to hear Confessions.

I will just say that the bishop there is novis ordo, and that his treatment of this group was so off that even the Vatican assigned another bishop to be their mediator. To this day I have yet to hear any real "charge" against the priests there besides that the bishop does not like them. He does not like that they say the tradition Latin Mass exclusively and that they will not compromise with the Novis Ordo is really what it comes down to, so much so that he brought in an FSSP group (which has to say that the Novis Ordo is just as valid as the traditional Latin Mass) to try to get people not to attend the Mass at Servants of the Holy Family. It is really very odd.

I know someone who goes there who has had personal experiences. It is really very sad that there is propaganda out there about these good priests.

The Novus Ordo as promulgated, and generally as celebrated, is just as valid as the Latin Mass, as is the Orthodox Liturgy. Even the SSPX recognizes the validity of the Novus Ordo. If you're going to use terms, use them correctly. Whether or not it's objectively equal with the Latin Mass is another question entirely -- Fr. Chad Ripperger had an entire article on why the Novus Ordo is indeed inferior to the Latin Mass in other ways not impacting validity. Fr. James Jackson has written a book (Nothing Superfluous) detailing the superiority of the TLM, though he did not write it in the polemical style.

It's not unusual for mediation to come from outside if inside mediation fails. And even then, it's not unusual for outside mediation to come in during inside proceedings, to insure all is going correctly.

Heinrich and I are in Colorado Springs, and not everything is hunky dory over there. He knows people who went there. I know a priest who assisted Bp. Conley in his mediation. That place has some issues.

The Novus Ordo is what has lots of problems and I know many SSPX who teach not to go to a Novus Ordo Mass even if nowhere else is available to go, so I may have worded it incorrectly, but I think you probably know what I meant anyway. FSSP is required to train priests for, and ordain priests for, and allow, the Novus Ordo Mass. They could be told at anytime to say the Novus Ordo Mass and if they do not...they would be given a similar notice. I am sure they have good priests among their ranks, but they do compromise nonetheless.


That is incorrect. The FSSP are not trained nor expected to say the NO. What article of Faith have they compromised on? You are spouting nonsense.

Furthermore, I didn't want to "go there" in regards to Father Ward and his little group just to the north of me. There are consistent anecdotes by various folk who attended there.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 10, 2017, 10:31:59 PM
St.Justin I am aware of that “document”. Are you aware of many of the untrue/worthless parts of it?

No,,, Could you point out a few? Seem to me the Bishop was pretty straight forward. He even gave them Faculties to hear Confessions.

I will just say that the bishop there is novis ordo, and that his treatment of this group was so off that even the Vatican assigned another bishop to be their mediator. To this day I have yet to hear any real "charge" against the priests there besides that the bishop does not like them. He does not like that they say the tradition Latin Mass exclusively and that they will not compromise with the Novis Ordo is really what it comes down to, so much so that he brought in an FSSP group (which has to say that the Novis Ordo is just as valid as the traditional Latin Mass) to try to get people not to attend the Mass at Servants of the Holy Family. It is really very odd.

I know someone who goes there who has had personal experiences. It is really very sad that there is propaganda out there about these good priests.

The Novus Ordo as promulgated, and generally as celebrated, is just as valid as the Latin Mass, as is the Orthodox Liturgy. Even the SSPX recognizes the validity of the Novus Ordo. If you're going to use terms, use them correctly. Whether or not it's objectively equal with the Latin Mass is another question entirely -- Fr. Chad Ripperger had an entire article on why the Novus Ordo is indeed inferior to the Latin Mass in other ways not impacting validity. Fr. James Jackson has written a book (Nothing Superfluous) detailing the superiority of the TLM, though he did not write it in the polemical style.

It's not unusual for mediation to come from outside if inside mediation fails. And even then, it's not unusual for outside mediation to come in during inside proceedings, to insure all is going correctly.

Heinrich and I are in Colorado Springs, and not everything is hunky dory over there. He knows people who went there. I know a priest who assisted Bp. Conley in his mediation. That place has some issues.

The Novus Ordo is what has lots of problems and I know many SSPX who teach not to go to a Novus Ordo Mass even if nowhere else is available to go, so I may have worded it incorrectly, but I think you probably know what I meant anyway. FSSP is required to train priests for, and ordain priests for, and allow, the Novus Ordo Mass. They could be told at anytime to say the Novus Ordo Mass and if they do not...they would be given a similar notice. I am sure they have good priests among their ranks, but they do compromise nonetheless.



That is incorrect. The FSSP are not trained nor expected to say the NO. What article of Faith have they compromised on? You are spouting nonsense.

Furthermore, I didn't want to "go there" in regards to Father Ward and his little group just to the north of me. There are consistent anecdotes by various folk who attended there.

Since on the two other posts on this page you weren’t sure if you were referring to “MFHS” (or whatever acronym that was) or “CRMI” or Servants of the Holy Family, which are VERY different groups with entirely different priests and people I really can’t take your critique/lack of critique of them seriously.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 10, 2017, 10:53:00 PM
I made a mistake with the initials of two groups with similar names and it seems more similar Catholic Weltanschauungen.  I know exactly the differences between the CMRI and the Servants, both of whom are located close to me and where I have attended. Will not go back to either.

Do you live in Colorado Springs and have an insider's knowledge of all things Catholic here?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 10, 2017, 11:26:21 PM
I made a mistake with the initials of two groups with similar names and it seems more similar Catholic Weltanschauungen.  I know exactly the differences between the CMRI and the Servants, both of whom are located close to me and where I have attended. Will not go back to either.

Do you live in Colorado Springs and have an insider's knowledge of all things Catholic here?
But you said they are Sedevacantist, which they are not. So again there must be confusion on your part.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on December 10, 2017, 11:30:54 PM
I made a mistake with the initials of two groups with similar names and it seems more similar Catholic Weltanschauungen.  I know exactly the differences between the CMRI and the Servants, both of whom are located close to me and where I have attended. Will not go back to either.

Do you live in Colorado Springs and have an insider's knowledge of all things Catholic here?

I was just talking with a Priest who is quite familiar with Fr. Ward, Father Fenton and the John
Birch Society issues.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 11, 2017, 11:38:27 AM
St.Justin I am aware of that “document”. Are you aware of many of the untrue/worthless parts of it?

No,,, Could you point out a few? Seem to me the Bishop was pretty straight forward. He even gave them Faculties to hear Confessions.

I will just say that the bishop there is novis ordo, and that his treatment of this group was so off that even the Vatican assigned another bishop to be their mediator. To this day I have yet to hear any real "charge" against the priests there besides that the bishop does not like them. He does not like that they say the tradition Latin Mass exclusively and that they will not compromise with the Novis Ordo is really what it comes down to, so much so that he brought in an FSSP group (which has to say that the Novis Ordo is just as valid as the traditional Latin Mass) to try to get people not to attend the Mass at Servants of the Holy Family. It is really very odd.

I know someone who goes there who has had personal experiences. It is really very sad that there is propaganda out there about these good priests.

The Novus Ordo as promulgated, and generally as celebrated, is just as valid as the Latin Mass, as is the Orthodox Liturgy. Even the SSPX recognizes the validity of the Novus Ordo. If you're going to use terms, use them correctly. Whether or not it's objectively equal with the Latin Mass is another question entirely -- Fr. Chad Ripperger had an entire article on why the Novus Ordo is indeed inferior to the Latin Mass in other ways not impacting validity. Fr. James Jackson has written a book (Nothing Superfluous) detailing the superiority of the TLM, though he did not write it in the polemical style.

It's not unusual for mediation to come from outside if inside mediation fails. And even then, it's not unusual for outside mediation to come in during inside proceedings, to insure all is going correctly.

Heinrich and I are in Colorado Springs, and not everything is hunky dory over there. He knows people who went there. I know a priest who assisted Bp. Conley in his mediation. That place has some issues.

The Novus Ordo is what has lots of problems and I know many SSPX who teach not to go to a Novus Ordo Mass even if nowhere else is available to go, so I may have worded it incorrectly, but I think you probably know what I meant anyway. FSSP is required to train priests for, and ordain priests for, and allow, the Novus Ordo Mass. They could be told at anytime to say the Novus Ordo Mass and if they do not...they would be given a similar notice. I am sure they have good priests among their ranks, but they do compromise nonetheless.


I wish I was just "spouting nonsense", but sadly this is true and very common knowledge regarding FSSP. I looked into it many years ago.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Gardener on December 11, 2017, 02:38:47 PM
Sophia3, it's a canard, pure and simple. It has no truth. I personally know 6 FSSP priests, Heinrich knows many of the same, and none of them are required to celebrate, even once a year, the Novus Ordo. The times where a priest at a diocesan parish is sick, and they have been asked to say Mass, they make it clear they will be celebrating the TLM. Sometimes they are taken up on it and other times they are told someone else can be found. They are not ordained to that end, of celebrating the Novus Ordo. They are not trained to that end. That which can be gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied, and I'm denying it because I've asked multiple FSSP priests if this is true. They all say the same thing: it's not true.

Feel free to contact their seminary in Denton and clarify.

I personally know a former seminarian who, along with everyone in his first year class, was told the following, "If you ever intend to say the Novus Ordo, please let us know now. This is not the place for you."

Kind of an odd thing to say to a bunch of men in a Fraternity that "...is required to train priests for, and ordain priests for, and allow, the Novus Ordo Mass."
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 11, 2017, 03:47:50 PM
Sophia3, it's a canard, pure and simple. It has no truth. I personally know 6 FSSP priests, Heinrich knows many of the same, and none of them are required to celebrate, even once a year, the Novus Ordo. The times where a priest at a diocesan parish is sick, and they have been asked to say Mass, they make it clear they will be celebrating the TLM. Sometimes they are taken up on it and other times they are told someone else can be found. They are not ordained to that end, of celebrating the Novus Ordo. They are not trained to that end. That which can be gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied, and I'm denying it because I've asked multiple FSSP priests if this is true. They all say the same thing: it's not true.

Feel free to contact their seminary in Denton and clarify.

I personally know a former seminarian who, along with everyone in his first year class, was told the following, "If you ever intend to say the Novus Ordo, please let us know now. This is not the place for you."

Kind of an odd thing to say to a bunch of men in a Fraternity that "...is required to train priests for, and ordain priests for, and allow, the Novus Ordo Mass."
May years ago I communicated with a FSSP priest who was saying similar things to what you are saying but eventually admitted that they have to agree with the Novus Ordo to some degree in order to do whst they do, so no, I am not spreading rumors.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 11, 2017, 03:55:47 PM
Here is information as well: http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B556_FSSP.html

And this one on "How you know FSSP compromised" http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/F038_FSPCompromise.html
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 11, 2017, 04:17:47 PM
It is you who are spreading rumors by insinuating that Servants of the Holy Family is doing something that makes it a place that people should not go when you have nothing to stand on. What is their crime?
Their crime is that they will not pay homage to the Novus Ordo. If they did, they would have the same exact status as the FSSP in Colorado Springs.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 11, 2017, 05:56:48 PM
Common knowledge of misinformed people.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Gardener on December 11, 2017, 06:46:17 PM
Sophia3, it's a canard, pure and simple. It has no truth. I personally know 6 FSSP priests, Heinrich knows many of the same, and none of them are required to celebrate, even once a year, the Novus Ordo. The times where a priest at a diocesan parish is sick, and they have been asked to say Mass, they make it clear they will be celebrating the TLM. Sometimes they are taken up on it and other times they are told someone else can be found. They are not ordained to that end, of celebrating the Novus Ordo. They are not trained to that end. That which can be gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied, and I'm denying it because I've asked multiple FSSP priests if this is true. They all say the same thing: it's not true.

Feel free to contact their seminary in Denton and clarify.

I personally know a former seminarian who, along with everyone in his first year class, was told the following, "If you ever intend to say the Novus Ordo, please let us know now. This is not the place for you."

Kind of an odd thing to say to a bunch of men in a Fraternity that "...is required to train priests for, and ordain priests for, and allow, the Novus Ordo Mass."
May years ago I communicated with a FSSP priest who was saying similar things to what you are saying but eventually admitted that they have to agree with the Novus Ordo to some degree in order to do whst they do, so no, I am not spreading rumors.

To agree with the Novus Ordo to some degree != learn, celebrate, and allow.

Which is it?

Because you're jumping all over the place and I don't know if it's because you're a deficient debater or think you're being clever.
ETA:
Please define what you mean by "agree with the Novus Ordro to some degree", or what this priest with whom you talked apparently meant.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 11, 2017, 07:06:23 PM
It is you who are spreading rumors by insinuating that Servants of the Holy Family is doing something that makes it a place that people should not go when you have nothing to stand on. What is their crime?
Their crime is that they will not pay homage to the Novus Ordo. If they did, they would have the same exact status as the FSSP in Colorado Springs.

Ridiculous. Gardener clearly elucidated the facts, but you still ramble on with the same pablum. Once again I will ask, have you ever in any way been associated with the Catholic scene in Colorado Springs?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 11, 2017, 08:10:36 PM
Sophia3, it's a canard, pure and simple. It has no truth. I personally know 6 FSSP priests, Heinrich knows many of the same, and none of them are required to celebrate, even once a year, the Novus Ordo. The times where a priest at a diocesan parish is sick, and they have been asked to say Mass, they make it clear they will be celebrating the TLM. Sometimes they are taken up on it and other times they are told someone else can be found. They are not ordained to that end, of celebrating the Novus Ordo. They are not trained to that end. That which can be gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied, and I'm denying it because I've asked multiple FSSP priests if this is true. They all say the same thing: it's not true.

Feel free to contact their seminary in Denton and clarify.

I personally know a former seminarian who, along with everyone in his first year class, was told the following, "If you ever intend to say the Novus Ordo, please let us know now. This is not the place for you."

Kind of an odd thing to say to a bunch of men in a Fraternity that "...is required to train priests for, and ordain priests for, and allow, the Novus Ordo Mass."
May years ago I communicated with a FSSP priest who was saying similar things to what you are saying but eventually admitted that they have to agree with the Novus Ordo to some degree in order to do whst they do, so no, I am not spreading rumors.

To agree with the Novus Ordo to some degree != learn, celebrate, and allow.

Which is it?

Because you're jumping all over the place and I don't know if it's because you're a deficient debater or think you're being clever.
ETA:
Please define what you mean by "agree with the Novus Ordro to some degree", or what this priest with whom you talked apparently meant.
Read the links that I provided for examples of what is required for the status that you enjoy. You sound very intelligent, which makes me think that it is you who are playing dumb.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 11, 2017, 08:12:28 PM
It is you who are spreading rumors by insinuating that Servants of the Holy Family is doing something that makes it a place that people should not go when you have nothing to stand on. What is their crime?
Their crime is that they will not pay homage to the Novus Ordo. If they did, they would have the same exact status as the FSSP in Colorado Springs.

Ridiculous. Gardener clearly elucidated the facts, but you still ramble on with the same pablum. Once again I will ask, have you ever in any way been associated with the Catholic scene in Colorado Springs?
Funny, still no reason given for your condemning of these priests. I already answered your question.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 11, 2017, 08:31:13 PM
It is you who are spreading rumors by insinuating that Servants of the Holy Family is doing something that makes it a place that people should not go when you have nothing to stand on. What is their crime?
Their crime is that they will not pay homage to the Novus Ordo. If they did, they would have the same exact status as the FSSP in Colorado Springs.

Ridiculous. Gardener clearly elucidated the facts, but you still ramble on with the same pablum. Once again I will ask, have you ever in any way been associated with the Catholic scene in Colorado Springs?
Funny, still no reason given for your condemning of these priests. I already answered your question.

You know someone who goes there. Woooppeee. I know many who once did and share similar stories. I was there once. Who, objectively, has more knowledge of this?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 11, 2017, 08:38:36 PM
It is you who are spreading rumors by insinuating that Servants of the Holy Family is doing something that makes it a place that people should not go when you have nothing to stand on. What is their crime?
Their crime is that they will not pay homage to the Novus Ordo. If they did, they would have the same exact status as the FSSP in Colorado Springs.

Ridiculous. Gardener clearly elucidated the facts, but you still ramble on with the same pablum. Once again I will ask, have you ever in any way been associated with the Catholic scene in Colorado Springs?
Funny, still no reason given for your condemning of these priests. I already answered your question.

You know someone who goes there. Woooppeee. I know many who once did and share similar stories. I was there once. Who, objectively, has more knowledge of this?
You missed additional points—either way—I am well aware of what is going on in the area. You have yet to answer my question...
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 11, 2017, 09:27:43 PM
It is you who are spreading rumors by insinuating that Servants of the Holy Family is doing something that makes it a place that people should not go when you have nothing to stand on. What is their crime?
Their crime is that they will not pay homage to the Novus Ordo. If they did, they would have the same exact status as the FSSP in Colorado Springs.

Ridiculous. Gardener clearly elucidated the facts, but you still ramble on with the same pablum. Once again I will ask, have you ever in any way been associated with the Catholic scene in Colorado Springs?
Funny, still no reason given for your condemning of these priests. I already answered your question.

You know someone who goes there. Woooppeee. I know many who once did and share similar stories. I was there once. Who, objectively, has more knowledge of this?
You missed additional points—either way—I am well aware of what is going on in the area. You have yet to answer my question...

How? Do you live here? What was your question?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 11, 2017, 10:11:53 PM
It is you who are spreading rumors by insinuating that Servants of the Holy Family is doing something that makes it a place that people should not go when you have nothing to stand on. What is their crime?
Their crime is that they will not pay homage to the Novus Ordo. If they did, they would have the same exact status as the FSSP in Colorado Springs.

Ridiculous. Gardener clearly elucidated the facts, but you still ramble on with the same pablum. Once again I will ask, have you ever in any way been associated with the Catholic scene in Colorado Springs?
Funny, still no reason given for your condemning of these priests. I already answered your question.

You know someone who goes there. Woooppeee. I know many who once did and share similar stories. I was there once. Who, objectively, has more knowledge of this?
You missed additional points—either way—I am well aware of what is going on in the area. You have yet to answer my question...

How? Do you live here? What was your question?

 ::) Guess you will have to read back to figure out what I asked several times... PS living somewhere doesn’t make you an expert on anything.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: bigbadtrad on December 13, 2017, 09:54:25 AM
Just to follow up on Sophia's point which is that yes some priests in the FSSP were asked (not required) to do the Novus Ordo, and yes some were required (some in France 15 years ago at least) to do it and I know of one who wandered from priory to priory to avoid saying the Novus Ordo. Maybe they've been weeded out after the shakeout of Protocol 1411 and this info is 15 years old about France. Most of the accusations against the FSSP were based on actions post Protocol 1411 which in fact were true.

The Novus Ordo of the FSSP I know of for a fact was in Scranton, PA on Saturday at 4 or 5pm also about 15 years ago. I know the priest and stayed in the rectory, this is not speculation. It was a good faith type thing with the diocese. I know they didn't do it later on with subsequent priests and to this day I can't think of 1 place of the FSSP that does do the Novus Ordo anymore. During that time even the ICK did the Novus Ordo around the Protocol 1411 shakeout. They concelebrated to avoid having issues. Fr. Schmidtz concelebrated with the then Bishop Burke and Fr. Wach did it with the bishop over in Germany to avoid the scrutiny of the FSSP. They don't do it anymore, but it did happen around the year 2000 as also an act of good faith that they weren't opposed to the Novus Ordo in principle.

I will add in the seminary in Denton they do teach the TLM as a preference than a point of principle. They did change the professors back around 2000 to reflect the changes the Vatican mandated, which isn't to say there aren't fine priests or professors still in the seminary because there are some great ones still there.

Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: tradne4163 on December 13, 2017, 10:23:59 AM
Are they in full communion with Rome and approved by their Bishop?

I buy my scapulars from them

Nope and nope.

Interesting, what makes you so sure of this? What have they done to not be in union with Rome?
I have a better question. Where are their Holy Orders coming from these days? I've known about these guys for a while, and can't find that answer to this day.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on December 13, 2017, 10:44:32 AM
Are they in full communion with Rome and approved by their Bishop?

I buy my scapulars from them

Nope and nope.



Interesting, what makes you so sure of this? What have they done to not be in union with Rome?
I have a better question. Where are their Holy Orders coming from these days? I've known about these guys for a while, and can't find that answer to this day.
Ordination is not a private Sacrament. It is a public one for the good of the Church. The Ordination record should be public knowledge.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 13, 2017, 01:14:34 PM
Are they in full communion with Rome and approved by their Bishop?

I buy my scapulars from them

Nope and nope.

Interesting, what makes you so sure of this? What have they done to not be in union with Rome?
I have a better question. Where are their Holy Orders coming from these days? I've known about these guys for a while, and can't find that answer to this day.

I do not remember the name of the bishop who ordained the priests, but it was legit and has been made public. They would tell you if you asked.

If found this about Father Ward’s ordination on the web: Fr. Anthony D. Ward, was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre on April 14, 1973 and was incardinated to a diocese in northern Spain and subsequently given permission by the-then local bishop to travel abroad since Spanish was not his native language.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: mikemac on December 13, 2017, 05:09:52 PM
After reading this thread I am going to have to ask the two priests that offer the TLM in this area whether they still consider themselves FSSP priests or not.  I know both were ordained priests at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska.  And I know one is incardinated to a diocese in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where the FSSP has St. Michael's.  I was to a High Mass in Campbellford a while back where a newly ordained priest from the FSSP Seminary in Denton, Nebraska offered his first Mass outside the Seminary.  I know diocesan bishops are requesting FSSP priests.  I know priests have to swear an oath of obedience to their bishops.  So what happens when an FSSP priest is given his own parish?  That FSSP priest cannot just come to that parish and change from the NO to the TLM immediately.  You know what I'm saying?  There are no other priests in their respective parishes to continue to say the NO.  So these two priests have no choice if they want to offer the TLM in the area; to uphold their oath to their ordinary they also have to offer the NO.  Also the bishop did not allow the TLM to be offered every Sunday to start with.  First it was just one Sunday a month for a couple of years, then two Sundays a month for a couple more years and now for the past two years we have the TLM every Sunday.  Maybe these two priests don't consider themselves FSSP priests anymore, but there is clearly still an affiliation, otherwise the one priest wouldn't be incardinated to a diocese in Scranton or the newly ordained priest from the FSSP Seminary in Denton wouldn't have offered his first public Mass at our parish in Campbellford.  I will definitely ask.  But it won't matter to me one way or another, because I am very grateful for these two priests.  We would not have the TLM in our area without them.

Last Friday night after Adoration here in Hastings I stayed for the NO Mass.  The priest says the NO ad orientem, a brother read the Epistle, the priest always has a good Sermon, they haven't been saying "for all" in the NO for years now, the faithful don't turn around to shake hands or say peace be with you, the faithful sing the Agnus Dei in Latin, there are definitely no extra ordinary Eucharistic ministers, the faithful kneel at the rail to receive the Holy Eucharist, most of them on the tongue and we finished by saying the Leonine prayers.  Clearly not your run of the mill NO Mass.  All these changes came one by one.  These two priests know what they are doing.  Little by little.  Since he has been at Our Lady of Mount Carmel this same priest has moved the Tabernacle back to the middle (that was the first thing he did), installed the kneeling rail, two side altars and a traditional confessional.  Same goes for the Visitation Of The Blessed Virgin Mary parish in Campbellford; changes there include a beautiful high altar, two side altars and a traditional confessional; it already had the kneeling rail.  Like I say, it doesn't matter to me whether these two priests still consider themselves to be FSSP priests or not.  I can't describe how grateful I am for both of them.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on December 14, 2017, 09:12:31 PM
Are they in full communion with Rome and approved by their Bishop?

I buy my scapulars from them

Nope and nope.

Interesting, what makes you so sure of this? What have they done to not be in union with Rome?
I have a better question. Where are their Holy Orders coming from these days? I've known about these guys for a while, and can't find that answer to this day.

I do not remember the name of the bishop who ordained the priests, but it was legit and has been made public. They would tell you if you asked.

If found this about Father Ward’s ordination on the web: Fr. Anthony D. Ward, was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre on April 14, 1973 and was incardinated to a diocese in northern Spain and subsequently given permission by the-then local bishop to travel abroad since Spanish was not his native language.

Not questioning Father Wards Ordination just the rest of them? Everything I can find says they will not devulge the Bishops name because they don't want to and the Bishops doesn't want anyone to know who he is. There is something not kosher about that.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 15, 2017, 03:33:02 PM
Are they in full communion with Rome and approved by their Bishop?

I buy my scapulars from them

Nope and nope.

Interesting, what makes you so sure of this? What have they done to not be in union with Rome?
I have a better question. Where are their Holy Orders coming from these days? I've known about these guys for a while, and can't find that answer to this day.

I do not remember the name of the bishop who ordained the priests, but it was legit and has been made public. They would tell you if you asked.

If found this about Father Ward’s ordination on the web: Fr. Anthony D. Ward, was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre on April 14, 1973 and was incardinated to a diocese in northern Spain and subsequently given permission by the-then local bishop to travel abroad since Spanish was not his native language.

Not questioning Father Wards Ordination just the rest of them? Everything I can find says they will not devulge the Bishops name because they don't want to and the Bishops doesn't want anyone to know who he is. There is something not kosher about that.

I have personally heard the name before and it has been put out there--nothing not kosher about it---they had a good reason for not publishing the name to the world. Rome has the name and all is well.

 I'm sure it's not too hard in this day and age in the Church to imagine that there could be a reason for it. If you knew their story I think you would understand.

 It still baffles me how they are not at least given the benefit of the doubt until people find out for sure.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: tradne4163 on December 16, 2017, 01:27:57 AM
Are they in full communion with Rome and approved by their Bishop?

I buy my scapulars from them

Nope and nope.

Interesting, what makes you so sure of this? What have they done to not be in union with Rome?
I have a better question. Where are their Holy Orders coming from these days? I've known about these guys for a while, and can't find that answer to this day.

I do not remember the name of the bishop who ordained the priests, but it was legit and has been made public. They would tell you if you asked.

If found this about Father Ward’s ordination on the web: Fr. Anthony D. Ward, was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre on April 14, 1973 and was incardinated to a diocese in northern Spain and subsequently given permission by the-then local bishop to travel abroad since Spanish was not his native language.

Not questioning Father Wards Ordination just the rest of them? Everything I can find says they will not devulge the Bishops name because they don't want to and the Bishops doesn't want anyone to know who he is. There is something not kosher about that.

I have personally heard the name before and it has been put out there--nothing not kosher about it---they had a good reason for not publishing the name to the world. Rome has the name and all is well.

 I'm sure it's not too hard in this day and age in the Church to imagine that there could be a reason for it. If you knew their story I think you would understand.

 It still baffles me how they are not at least given the benefit of the doubt until people find out for sure.
It's rather moot for me at this point, but it has always struck me as odd. I've never heard of that even under Francis's reign, and these guys likely hid it even under the relatively friendly reign of Benedict XVI. Mind you, Archbishop Lefebvre never hid it when he ordained priests. Nor did any other traditional Catholic bishops that I am aware of. It really looks off that this place give no info at all about ordinations to the public, especially given the common concerns traditional Catholic laity have over validity of Holy Orders. It may seem justified to them (and even could be given the current situation in Rome), though it looks suspicious.

Admittedly, I only know a little bit about them, so I won't condemn them wholeheartedly. As I pointed out above, I don't have a dog in that particular fight anymore.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on December 16, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
Are they in full communion with Rome and approved by their Bishop?

I buy my scapulars from them

Nope and nope.

Interesting, what makes you so sure of this? What have they done to not be in union with Rome?
I have a better question. Where are their Holy Orders coming from these days? I've known about these guys for a while, and can't find that answer to this day.

I do not remember the name of the bishop who ordained the priests, but it was legit and has been made public. They would tell you if you asked.

If found this about Father Ward’s ordination on the web: Fr. Anthony D. Ward, was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre on April 14, 1973 and was incardinated to a diocese in northern Spain and subsequently given permission by the-then local bishop to travel abroad since Spanish was not his native language.

Not questioning Father Wards Ordination just the rest of them? Everything I can find says they will not devulge the Bishops name because they don't want to and the Bishops doesn't want anyone to know who he is. There is something not kosher about that.

I have personally heard the name before and it has been put out there--nothing not kosher about it---they had a good reason for not publishing the name to the world. Rome has the name and all is well.

 I'm sure it's not too hard in this day and age in the Church to imagine that there could be a reason for it. If you knew their story I think you would understand.

 It still baffles me how they are not at least given the benefit of the doubt until people find out for sure.
It is not normal to give benefit of the doubt when it comes to validity of Ordinations. This is not normal behavior.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 17, 2017, 07:58:43 PM
Are they in full communion with Rome and approved by their Bishop?

I buy my scapulars from them

Nope and nope.

Interesting, what makes you so sure of this? What have they done to not be in union with Rome?
I have a better question. Where are their Holy Orders coming from these days? I've known about these guys for a while, and can't find that answer to this day.

I do not remember the name of the bishop who ordained the priests, but it was legit and has been made public. They would tell you if you asked.

If found this about Father Ward’s ordination on the web: Fr. Anthony D. Ward, was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre on April 14, 1973 and was incardinated to a diocese in northern Spain and subsequently given permission by the-then local bishop to travel abroad since Spanish was not his native language.

Not questioning Father Wards Ordination just the rest of them? Everything I can find says they will not devulge the Bishops name because they don't want to and the Bishops doesn't want anyone to know who he is. There is something not kosher about that.

I have personally heard the name before and it has been put out there--nothing not kosher about it---they had a good reason for not publishing the name to the world. Rome has the name and all is well.

 I'm sure it's not too hard in this day and age in the Church to imagine that there could be a reason for it. If you knew their story I think you would understand.

 It still baffles me how they are not at least given the benefit of the doubt until people find out for sure.
It is not normal to give benefit of the doubt when it comes to validity of Ordinations. This is not normal behavior.

Nor is this a normal time in the Church... Do you normally assume that all priests are invalid? If you knew Father Ward at all or anything about him you would know that he would never allow seminarians in his care to be ordained invalidly. But I think the point here is that things are being assumed and rumors are being spread by people who don’t even know these priests.

God knows the Truth, so go ahead and believe whatever you want.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 17, 2017, 08:04:06 PM
Are they in full communion with Rome and approved by their Bishop?

I buy my scapulars from them

Nope and nope.

Interesting, what makes you so sure of this? What have they done to not be in union with Rome?
I have a better question. Where are their Holy Orders coming from these days? I've known about these guys for a while, and can't find that answer to this day.

I do not remember the name of the bishop who ordained the priests, but it was legit and has been made public. They would tell you if you asked.

If found this about Father Ward’s ordination on the web: Fr. Anthony D. Ward, was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre on April 14, 1973 and was incardinated to a diocese in northern Spain and subsequently given permission by the-then local bishop to travel abroad since Spanish was not his native language.

Not questioning Father Wards Ordination just the rest of them? Everything I can find says they will not devulge the Bishops name because they don't want to and the Bishops doesn't want anyone to know who he is. There is something not kosher about that.

I have personally heard the name before and it has been put out there--nothing not kosher about it---they had a good reason for not publishing the name to the world. Rome has the name and all is well.

 I'm sure it's not too hard in this day and age in the Church to imagine that there could be a reason for it. If you knew their story I think you would understand.

 It still baffles me how they are not at least given the benefit of the doubt until people find out for sure.
It's rather moot for me at this point, but it has always struck me as odd. I've never heard of that even under Francis's reign, and these guys likely hid it even under the relatively friendly reign of Benedict XVI. Mind you, Archbishop Lefebvre never hid it when he ordained priests. Nor did any other traditional Catholic bishops that I am aware of. It really looks off that this place give no info at all about ordinations to the public, especially given the common concerns traditional Catholic laity have over validity of Holy Orders. It may seem justified to them (and even could be given the current situation in Rome), though it looks suspicious.

Admittedly, I only know a little bit about them, so I won't condemn them wholeheartedly. As I pointed out above, I don't have a dog in that particular fight anymore.

It’s no fight—if you cared to know anything about it you could easily find out; instead you very rudely keep referring to priests as “these guys”. They are priests and recognized as such by the Bishop who ordained them, by Rome and even the local Bishop knows that they are or why would he have given them faculties before? Really, this is nonesense. It is an offense to God when you keep referring to them in that way.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 17, 2017, 08:06:17 PM
Sophia, why are you so emotionally attached to a place you have not been to? Or have you?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 17, 2017, 08:12:46 PM
Sophia, why are you so emotionally attached to a place you have not been to? Or have you?

I have no interest in responding to you.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 17, 2017, 08:20:00 PM
Merry Christmas.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on December 17, 2017, 08:51:41 PM
Are they in full communion with Rome and approved by their Bishop?

I buy my scapulars from them

Nope and nope.

Interesting, what makes you so sure of this? What have they done to not be in union with Rome?
I have a better question. Where are their Holy Orders coming from these days? I've known about these guys for a while, and can't find that answer to this day.

I do not remember the name of the bishop who ordained the priests, but it was legit and has been made public. They would tell you if you asked.

If found this about Father Ward’s ordination on the web: Fr. Anthony D. Ward, was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre on April 14, 1973 and was incardinated to a diocese in northern Spain and subsequently given permission by the-then local bishop to travel abroad since Spanish was not his native language.

Not questioning Father Wards Ordination just the rest of them? Everything I can find says they will not devulge the Bishops name because they don't want to and the Bishops doesn't want anyone to know who he is. There is something not kosher about that.

I have personally heard the name before and it has been put out there--nothing not kosher about it---they had a good reason for not publishing the name to the world. Rome has the name and all is well.

 I'm sure it's not too hard in this day and age in the Church to imagine that there could be a reason for it. If you knew their story I think you would understand.

 It still baffles me how they are not at least given the benefit of the doubt until people find out for sure.
It is not normal to give benefit of the doubt when it comes to validity of Ordinations. This is not normal behavior.

Nor is this a normal time in the Church... Do you normally assume that all priests are invalid? If you knew Father Ward at all or anything about him you would know that he would never allow seminarians in his care to be ordained invalidly. But I think the point here is that things are being assumed and rumors are being spread by people who don’t even know these priests.

God knows the Truth, so go ahead and believe whatever you want.

If it is so easy to find why can't anyone find the information??? The Church does not work this way in that Ordinations aren't to be in the category of "Only God knows". They are supposed yto be in the public domain. This is starting to sound more like a cult.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 17, 2017, 09:17:30 PM
Are they in full communion with Rome and approved by their Bishop?

I buy my scapulars from them

Nope and nope.

Interesting, what makes you so sure of this? What have they done to not be in union with Rome?
I have a better question. Where are their Holy Orders coming from these days? I've known about these guys for a while, and can't find that answer to this day.

I do not remember the name of the bishop who ordained the priests, but it was legit and has been made public. They would tell you if you asked.

If found this about Father Ward’s ordination on the web: Fr. Anthony D. Ward, was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre on April 14, 1973 and was incardinated to a diocese in northern Spain and subsequently given permission by the-then local bishop to travel abroad since Spanish was not his native language.

Not questioning Father Wards Ordination just the rest of them? Everything I can find says they will not devulge the Bishops name because they don't want to and the Bishops doesn't want anyone to know who he is. There is something not kosher about that.

I have personally heard the name before and it has been put out there--nothing not kosher about it---they had a good reason for not publishing the name to the world. Rome has the name and all is well.

 I'm sure it's not too hard in this day and age in the Church to imagine that there could be a reason for it. If you knew their story I think you would understand.

 It still baffles me how they are not at least given the benefit of the doubt until people find out for sure.
It is not normal to give benefit of the doubt when it comes to validity of Ordinations. This is not normal behavior.

Nor is this a normal time in the Church... Do you normally assume that all priests are invalid? If you knew Father Ward at all or anything about him you would know that he would never allow seminarians in his care to be ordained invalidly. But I think the point here is that things are being assumed and rumors are being spread by people who don’t even know these priests.

God knows the Truth, so go ahead and believe whatever you want.

If it is so easy to find why can't anyone find the information??? The Church does not work this way in that Ordinations aren't to be in the category of "Only God knows". They are supposed yto be in the public domain. This is starting to sound more like a cult.

Lol, nice, except that anyone can find the information if they want to.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on December 17, 2017, 10:11:30 PM


Nor is this a normal time in the Church... Do you normally assume that all priests are invalid? If you knew Father Ward at all or anything about him you would know that he would never allow seminarians in his care to be ordained invalidly. But I think the point here is that things are being assumed and rumors are being spread by people who don’t even know these priests.

God knows the Truth, so go ahead and believe whatever you want.
[/quote]

If it is so easy to find why can't anyone find the information??? The Church does not work this way in that Ordinations aren't to be in the category of "Only God knows". They are supposed yto be in the public domain. This is starting to sound more like a cult.
[/quote]

Lol, nice, except that anyone can find the information if they want to.
[/quote]

I can't find it so why don't you just post it or give me the link and that will settle my point?????

Otherwise I have to assume that you don't know
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 17, 2017, 10:30:05 PM
Oh, I see, because google doesn’t tell you, that is the only way to find things out—

Let’s see, you could contact Rome, you could respectfully ask these priests, or you can ask the local bishop (who clearly recognizes them as priests because he has given them faculties before and even refers to them as priests).
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on December 17, 2017, 11:13:24 PM
I can't find it so why don't you just post it or give me the link and that will settle my point?????

Otherwise I have to assume that you don't know

Oh, I see, because google doesn’t tell you, that is the only way to find things out—

Let’s see, you could contact Rome, you could respectfully ask these priests, or you can ask the local bishop (who clearly recognizes them as priests because he has given them faculties before and even refers to them as priests).
[/quote]

So you don't know. You are assuming a lot.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 18, 2017, 09:03:00 AM
I can't find it so why don't you just post it or give me the link and that will settle my point?????

Otherwise I have to assume that you don't know

Oh, I see, because google doesn’t tell you, that is the only way to find things out—

Let’s see, you could contact Rome, you could respectfully ask these priests, or you can ask the local bishop (who clearly recognizes them as priests because he has given them faculties before and even refers to them as priests).

So you don't know. You are assuming a lot.
[/quote]

No, I do know. I was given the name of the bishop some time ago, and I don’t remember his name now, like I said in an earlier post.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 18, 2017, 10:38:49 AM
You should have written "as" instead of "like." But I digress.

I just mapped Fr. Ward's location from my house: an eight minute drive. Should I go there and ask?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 18, 2017, 10:50:51 AM
You should have written "as" instead of "like." But I digress.

I just mapped Fr. Ward's location from my house: an eight minute drive. Should I go there and ask?

No, you should probably call. For you I would note the part where it say “respectfully” or you shouldn’t even bother. It all depends on if you are able to pull off the respectful part.

You would, from what I could tell from this forum, have better luck with the bishop.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 18, 2017, 12:04:04 PM
You should have written "as" instead of "like." But I digress.

I just mapped Fr. Ward's location from my house: an eight minute drive. Should I go there and ask?

No, you should probably call. For you I would note the part where it say “respectfully” or you shouldn’t even bother. It all depends on if you are able to pull off the respectful part.

You would, from what I could tell from this forum, have better luck with the bishop.

Now that is just downright insulting, you cantankerous rattlesnake.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 18, 2017, 01:34:01 PM
Take it for what it's worth: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9382/rogue-parish-not-roman-catholic
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on December 18, 2017, 02:03:54 PM
You should have written "as" instead of "like." But I digress.

I just mapped Fr. Ward's location from my house: an eight minute drive. Should I go there and ask?

No, you should probably call. For you I would note the part where it say “respectfully” or you shouldn’t even bother. It all depends on if you are able to pull off the respectful part.

You would, from what I could tell from this forum, have better luck with the bishop.

Now that is just downright insulting, you cantankerous rattlesnake.

I was just trying to help you get the information you needed, if in fact you really needed it. It looks like you gave up on that and went back to spreading gossip about good priests.

It’s one thing to do that about a regular person, but to do that about good priests—bad idea. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on December 18, 2017, 04:00:49 PM
You should have written "as" instead of "like." But I digress.

I just mapped Fr. Ward's location from my house: an eight minute drive. Should I go there and ask?

No, you should probably call. For you I would note the part where it say “respectfully” or you shouldn’t even bother. It all depends on if you are able to pull off the respectful part.

You would, from what I could tell from this forum, have better luck with the bishop.

Now that is just downright insulting, you cantankerous rattlesnake.

I was just trying to help you get the information you needed, if in fact you really needed it. It looks like you gave up on that and went back to spreading gossip about good priests.

It’s one thing to do that about a regular person, but to do that about good priests—bad idea. Good luck with that.

It is you who is spreading calumny.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on September 11, 2018, 05:09:08 PM
Take it for what it's worth: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9382/rogue-parish-not-roman-catholic

A great response to this article of false information about good priests was recently brought to my attention. I knew you would want to know the truth:

Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on September 12, 2018, 01:29:05 PM
St.Justin I am aware of that “document”. Are you aware of many of the untrue/worthless parts of it?

No,,, Could you point out a few? Seem to me the Bishop was pretty straight forward. He even gave them Faculties to hear Confessions.

As far as things go, Bishop Sheridan is a good Bishop. He has been very supportive of the FSSP in Colorado Springs, and his weekly columns are generally catechetical in nature.

Here's an example where he lays it out regarding marriage, civil divorce, "remarriage" and Holy Communion:

http://www.diocs.org/CCHerald/Article/ArticleID/141/THE-BISHOPS-VOICE-Clarifying-Church-teaching-on-divorce-and-remarriage

When I read that article I personally wrote him and thanked him for his frank clarity amidst often confusing and ambiguous speech from the rest of the hierarchy. He wrote back and thanked me, asking me to pray for him to remain strong in his position.

ETA: here's a whole list of his articles. These also appear in the weekly Diocesan newspaper in both English and Spanish.

This recent video review is a great response to these statements if you are open to hearing it
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Kaesekopf on September 12, 2018, 01:46:36 PM
Nine months old....  sigh...
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on September 12, 2018, 03:42:10 PM
Nine months old....  sigh...
The review just came out and as you know this topic is still relevant since two members of this forum have continued to badmouth these priests. I don't understand how that is okay? Did you watch this video?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Kaesekopf on September 12, 2018, 05:14:43 PM
Nine months old....  sigh...
The review just came out and as you know this topic is still relevant since two members of this forum have continued to badmouth these priests. I don't understand how that is okay? Did you watch this video?

Well, there are some posters I trust when it comes to Catholic things, or at least being somewhat knowledgeable about stuff.

And, I rarely watch most videos posted here. 
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on September 12, 2018, 05:40:31 PM
Nine months old....  sigh...
The review just came out and as you know this topic is still relevant since two members of this forum have continued to badmouth these priests. I don't understand how that is okay? Did you watch this video?

Well, there are some posters I trust when it comes to Catholic things, or at least being somewhat knowledgeable about stuff.

And, I rarely watch most videos posted here.
Your trust may be misplaced.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Gardener on September 12, 2018, 06:00:30 PM
Nine months old....  sigh...
The review just came out and as you know this topic is still relevant since two members of this forum have continued to badmouth these priests. I don't understand how that is okay? Did you watch this video?

I don't recall ever specifically badmouthing Fr. Ward et al.

Rather Heinrich and I have said the chapel has problems.

If you want to associate a chapel with a specific priest, you've entered into the cult of personality sphere and that's exactly why there are issues there.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on September 12, 2018, 06:07:38 PM
 "Sheridan�s letter, sent last month, sidesteps accusations by former members who say Servants of the Holy Family is dysfunctional and perhaps a cult.

Former members say priests berate church members from the pulpit and demand unquestioned loyalty, that families have been torn apart over the church, and that many members refuse � or are unable � to talk with parents, children or siblings who have left the church."

There is much more here: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9382/rogue-parish-not-roman-catholic

Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Philip G. on September 12, 2018, 08:17:16 PM
I have listened to many sermons from servi, and they are usually all very good.  I do find it concerning that they do not publicize who ordains their priests.  Because, the word is that dubious bishop/conman Ambrose Moran was able to get his foot in the door at servi and administer I think the tonsure/minor orders on one occasion.  That is a reflection of poor judgment by Fr. Ward. 

Also, and more interesting, is that I heard that Fr. Ward has a written letter of approval from Pope Paul VI approving of his operation.  Fr. Ward petitioned the pope prior to or concurrent with the formation of his monastery for approval, and received it.  And, the word is that he received approval to say the old rite and use old liturgical calendar.  If this is true, this is very interesting.  Because, Fr. Ward's operation is a hybrid operation.  It is half monastic like a benedictine and half ministerial if I am correct.  They really seem like canons if you ask me.  Anyway, what is interesting, is that if his operation were categorized as monastic, that would make him an abbot of sorts.  And, an abbot of sorts with the popes approval has if I am not mistaken a type of jurisdiction.  And, if I am not mistaken, that type of jurisdiction is not dependent on the local ordinaries, being approved by the pope himself.  And, traditionally speaking, I think it is immune from non papal infringement.  My guess is that it would require an explicit reversal by a future pope in order to rescind the approval Fr. Ward apparently received from Paul VI.  And, I doubt that has occurred. 

Don't attack me for stating such.  But, the word really is that he has an approval by Paul VI.  That is all I know.  However, if he got lucky and ordered his operation in such a way favorable for the argument I present above, that is worth noting.  I have heard that high-ups in the novus ordo are familiar and friendly with him, and have supported and encouraged him a private capacity. 

Aside from that, I do not think I have ever donated to them, and I have never attended their church.  I find it very believable that there may be small issues at their church.  But, if I were to go out on a limb, I would say that I am not afraid to step through their doors.   

Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on September 12, 2018, 08:57:42 PM
Did you read the link????????? If he had approval from any Pope then the local Bishop can't deny him faculties which he has.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Philip G. on September 12, 2018, 09:23:42 PM
Did you read the link????????? If he had approval from any Pope then the local Bishop can't deny him faculties which he has.

You need to calm down.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on September 12, 2018, 09:41:51 PM
Did you read the link????????? If he had approval from any Pope then the local Bishop can't deny him faculties which he has.

You need to calm down.

What??? These people sound like the Dimond bros.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Elizabeth on September 12, 2018, 11:25:23 PM
I am fascinated in seeing an almost all black TLM congregation. I wish we had more of that.

Why?

Not enough blacks who attend the traditional sacraments. When blacks do have a Church, its like Obama's priest Pfluger in Chicago.
Monsignor Pope's parish in DC is almost all African American.  He has some very interesting scrapbooks etc. detailing the rich history of black Catholics in DC in a waiting room at Holy Comforter.  One thing is, they do Gospel services there, or used to.  (very compelling, difficult to separate the emotions form the Holy Ghost.)  Not sure if Msgr. Pope offers TLM at Holy Comforter, or only at Old St. Mary's.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Philip G. on September 12, 2018, 11:31:46 PM
StJustin - No trad bashing.  Servi is not at all comparable to MHFM. 

The obvious thing from the +Sheridan letter is that Fr. Ward acted "without any approval or consent of any ordinary".  Does that clearly enough include the pope, if Fr. Ward did in fact receive his approval(not an established fact)?  Dumb question, is the pope categorized as an "ordinary"?  Another thing, I do not know how canon law has changed, but there is potential that the new law changes affect Fr. Ward's long shot argument.  I repeat, long shot.  Don't shoot the messenger.  I am just telling you what my research has revealed.  I don't know anything about bishop sheridan, but I will not at all be surprised if he is a poor NO bishop who abuses the rules to further modernism.  Also, for comparison, have you never heard of the hawaii six?  https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/remember-hawaii-six-case-3112

Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Elizabeth on September 12, 2018, 11:55:05 PM

Now that is just downright insulting, you cantankerous rattlesnake.
Dear Heinrich, 
  ;D
brilliant comeback

Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on September 13, 2018, 11:28:04 AM
StJustin - No trad bashing.  Servi is not at all comparable to MHFM. 

The obvious thing from the +Sheridan letter is that Fr. Ward acted "without any approval or consent of any ordinary".  Does that clearly enough include the pope, if Fr. Ward did in fact receive his approval(not an established fact)?  Dumb question, is the pope categorized as an "ordinary"?  Another thing, I do not know how canon law has changed, but there is potential that the new law changes affect Fr. Ward's long shot argument.  I repeat, long shot.  Don't shoot the messenger.  I am just telling you what my research has revealed.  I don't know anything about bishop sheridan, but I will not at all be surprised if he is a poor NO bishop who abuses the rules to further modernism.  Also, for comparison, have you never heard of the hawaii six?  https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/remember-hawaii-six-case-3112

Let's just say, like most people on this forum I have been in this battle for a long time. I knew about the Hawaii six when it was happening and researched this quite awhile back. Like most people you will believe what you want to believe.  One other thing since the Pope is the Bishop of Rome he is an ordinary but with Supreme Ordinary Jurisdiction.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: queen.saints on September 13, 2018, 11:50:08 AM
Take it for what it's worth: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9382/rogue-parish-not-roman-catholic

A great response to this article of false information about good priests was recently brought to my attention. I knew you would want to know the truth:



This kind of stuff just brings me so much joy:

Like, somebody actually verifying statements.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on September 13, 2018, 11:55:07 AM
The followers of the Dimond brothers "feel" the same way.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Philip G. on September 13, 2018, 12:15:16 PM
stjustin - it seems that you do not believe that the church is in unprecedented and confusing times.  With that said, how can you tolerate this forums policy regarding sedevacatism?  Servi aren't even sedevacantist.  I am not a sedevacantist, nor am I a Fr. Ward partisan.  But, for you to compare these priests to MHFM is ridiculous.  There are likely complaints against ecclesia dei communities similar to those against servi.  And, we all know there are complaints against the sspx that are similar.  It is easy for an enemy to level an accusation.  But, why exactly does that carry such weight with you? 





 
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Philip G. on September 13, 2018, 12:24:41 PM
That video review was useful but in many respects amateur.  The argument that because Fr. Ward was granted faculties by the diocese of fribourg from his sspx days is not very strong.  It is mainly not strong because Fr. Ward left the sspx.  The early sspx(the nine) argue that the structure of back then is misrepresented now, that argument is useless if it is not backed up by clear and official documentation.  And, I have never seen that.  Yes, the nine won the court case, but that was a result of USA church state separation bias. 

I have personally gotten to the point in my life where I am fed up with the lack of transparency, even in tradition.   Personality cult is ordered.   And, ecclesiastically speaking, the papacy comes first in that regard.  As much as I like the old holy week, the liturgy is only a means to and end.  Fr. Ward is not on my dream team/in my fantasy league.  But, if he prays for Francis in the una cum, it is clear to me that I have got bigger fish to fry. 
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Lynne on September 13, 2018, 12:53:30 PM
Are people confusing/conflating the nine priests who sued the SSPX with the Hawaii Six who were laity who went to an SSPX chapel in Hawaii? They were excommunicated by their bishop but Cardinal Ratzinger instructed the United State's Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, to inform the Bishop of Honolulu, Joseph Ferrario, that his decree of excommunication against the six Catholics was invalid.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Philip G. on September 13, 2018, 01:17:06 PM
Are people confusing/conflating the nine priests who sued the SSPX with the Hawaii Six who were laity who went to an SSPX chapel in Hawaii? They were excommunicated by their bishop but Cardinal Ratzinger instructed the United State's Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, to inform the Bishop of Honolulu, Joseph Ferrario, that his decree of excommunication against the six Catholics was invalid.

No, I am conflating the argument of the video review of servi that Fr. Ward was incardinated into the diocese of fribourg as(for lack of better words) a "free agent" to travel at will and operate in other diocieses with the sentiment of the nine that the sspx was not a religious order with defined superior(s) and ownership of property by superior(s).  The Fr. Ward Fribourg argument smells of that sentiment, despite the fact that Fr. Ward left the sspx.

Now, is it my opinion that Fr. Ward uses that argument to legitimize his operation?  No.  I have no idea what goes on in Fr. Ward's head.  And, that is a problem.  But, Fr. Ward as an individual priest has no authority from Fribourg despite the lack of explicit reversal by the diocese of fribourg.  And, such a fribourg decree doesn't give you authority in another diocese.  Fr. Ward has got to use a different argument for that.  But, it is all speculation.  And, it is speculation that I do not care much about.  Because, it is all hearsay even from my standpoint.  There are no official positions of servi on their website.  In sum, it is a personality cult.  But, that is what has come to define tradition.  Personal prelature is another manifestation of it, and only hardly superior. 
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on September 13, 2018, 03:10:26 PM
Are people confusing/conflating the nine priests who sued the SSPX with the Hawaii Six who were laity who went to an SSPX chapel in Hawaii? They were excommunicated by their bishop but Cardinal Ratzinger instructed the United State's Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, to inform the Bishop of Honolulu, Joseph Ferrario, that his decree of excommunication against the six Catholics was invalid.

No, I am conflating the argument of the video review of servi that Fr. Ward was incardinated into the diocese of fribourg as(for lack of better words) a "free agent" to travel at will and operate in other diocieses with the sentiment of the nine that the sspx was not a religious order with defined superior(s) and ownership of property by superior(s).  The Fr. Ward Fribourg argument smells of that sentiment, despite the fact that Fr. Ward left the sspx.

Now, is it my opinion that Fr. Ward uses that argument to legitimize his operation?  No.  I have no idea what goes on in Fr. Ward's head.  And, that is a problem.  But, Fr. Ward as an individual priest has no authority from Fribourg despite the lack of explicit reversal by the diocese of fribourg.  And, such a fribourg decree doesn't give you authority in another diocese.  Fr. Ward has got to use a different argument for that.  But, it is all speculation.  And, it is speculation that I do not care much about.  Because, it is all hearsay even from my standpoint.  There are no official positions of servi on their website.  In sum, it is a personality cult.  But, that is what has come to define tradition.  Personal prelature is another manifestation of it, and only hardly superior.

"Personal prelature " Do you have any idea what a Personal prelature is?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Philip G. on September 13, 2018, 03:28:01 PM

[/quote]

"Personal prelature " Do you have any idea what a Personal prelature is?
[/quote]

You are a negative person.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Gardener on September 13, 2018, 07:04:22 PM


"Personal prelature " Do you have any idea what a Personal prelature is?
[/quote]

You are a negative person.
[/quote]

Is he wrong?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Gardener on September 13, 2018, 07:04:34 PM
There's some problems with the sandlot/pick-up-league theology and canon law (including 1917 which would have been in effect when Fr. Ward moved to COS) understanding of the northeasterner(?) in the video.

I'm at work and cannot view youtube videos here to go through and pick it apart by minute/seconds, but for example, the illicit establishment of the community: priests and/or religious do not just get to pick up, go wherever, and start publicly ministering and/or forming religious communities (or private/diocesan[canon law term]/secular communities) without permission from the Ordinary of the new location. Hence, the use of the term illicit. Further, a Bishop cannot tell a priest he can just go wherever and have faculties "until revoked" when that priest is then providing Sacraments to the public in another Bishop's diocese. Only a group of Pontifical Right, or individuals as declared by the Pope, can do such a thing and even then I'm not sure how far that actually extends. In other words, your dad has absolutely 0 authority to tell you that you can come into my house and jump on the couch with muddy shoes; he also has 0 authority to tell you that you can come in my house and clean the thing to anal-retentive military standards. It's MY house. Same with a Bishop, as it's HIS diocese and HE is the only one who can do that. Fr. Ward and crew did not just move there and keep to themselves, so the comment about being told/getting permission where to live is just... idiotic. The diocesan declaration was in no way factually wrong in this regard. Whether or not there is a state of necessity which nullifies the letter in order to cater to the true spirit of the law as a whole is another thing entirely. Further, Fr. Ward was ordained by Abp. Lefebvre for the SSPX, not to go rogue.

He also makes a pretty stupidly disguised attempt at a red herring with bringing in Bp. Sheridan's comments on the original interview with Peter Howard, STL. Bishop Sheridan had two full articles on that and what true ecumenism should be (according to his understanding post-Vatican 2), but they are no longer available. It's my belief that the main problem was Mr. Howard was publicly commenting in a capacity which made him seem as if a Diocesan representative in that capacity without approval. The bottom line is the Bishop has legal authority and his good/bad actions in other instances, whether prudential or not, have zero effect on this reality unless by the action in question he is ipso facto deposed, or subsequent post-action tribunals, etc., render named actions null and void (perhaps due to insanity, etc.).

Regardless of all this, and that rather boring and incorrect video, Heinrich and I both know people who used to go there. There are some serious issues at the location.

Servants of the Holy Family (SHF) considers themselves a Religious community(http://servi.org/about-us-2/). Pay attention to that, as it has a canonical meaning and cannot be ignored. This differs from the SSPX, which does not consider itself a religious community per se.

As such, SHF were and are subject to particular codes of canon law in both 1917 and 1983 as will be demonstrated. Because they would have been under the 1917 code in 1977, they are subject to 1917 Code #497 which required either papal approval (certain conditions)+Ordinary or at least the permission of the Ordinary. Nuns always require papal permission (and thus the "community" of "nuns" there do not meet the requirement of recognition as such from a canonical perspective).

I cannot copy the English but you can view it here @ #342 (canon 497):
http://www.archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft#page/88

Or in Latin here:

Quote
Can 609 §1. Si ecclesia, apud quam residet communitas religiosa, sit simul paroecialis, servetur, congrua congruis referendo, praescriptum can. 415.
  §2. In ecclesia religiosarum a votis sive sollemnibus sive simplicibus paroecia erigi nequit.
  §3. Advigilent Superiores ne divinorum officiorum in propriis ecclesiis celebratio catecheticae instructioni aut Evangelii explanationi in ecclesia paroeciali tradendae nocumentum afferat; iudicium autem utrum nocumentum afferat, necne, ad loci Ordinarium pertinet.
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic17lat.html


As such, Fr. Ward, in attempting to establish a Religious community, removed himself from the putative provisions set forth with any (supposed) permissions from any Diocesan authority from Fribourg (which is actually undemonstrated as far as I could tell -- I'd like to confirm on the video again before owning that statement); elsewhere it seems he was supposedly incardinated into an unnamed diocese in Northern Spain -- which is it? He moved himself from a secular cleric to an attempted religious status, which has other consequences canonically. One of the things that the video keeps doing is referring to Fr. Ward as if he is just a secular cleric. Yet, he is not. There are very real canonical difference between the two and this is a dangerous omission.

This is why the hullabaloo in the video about the term illicit is, frankly, laughable. It was indeed illicit prima facie. Special plead all you want, but that's a fact. Licity is important to a degree, but if the enforcement of the law is impossible due to having fallen from office, inability to enforce, or lack of contact with the Ordinary it is of no concern. That's the row the video should have attempted to hoe. Should I make the argument for SHF for you? Because I'd do a lot better job than that hack in the video.

Further, because Mass is being offered and other prayers, the SHF would be subject under 1917 code to canons 1259, 1260, and 1261 (http://www.archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft#page/258); 1983 would be [in order of reference to 1917]: 839, null, 838. Therefore, violations of canon law would render the Sacraments illicit in addition to their "founding".

I could go on, but I'd need to be able to view the video again and go bit by bit. I honestly don't see the point since I could give you absolute proof there are some real issues and you'd plug your ears because the easily faked piety of sermons sways you. Tradition by numbers is a simple game and it easily sways simple people. Simply put, I don't trust singular priests who just go do whatever they want.

But your video tried to play the legal card (by hand waving it away with a definition about Sacraments, attempting to act like people can just live wherever they want, and ignoring the reality of the SHF in light of canon law), and then engage in a red herring about the Bishop which has literally nothing to do with the reality of the argument as concerns an Ordinary's authority, and whatever other road the video went down. If it weren't 30 minutes of a grating yankee accent, I might watch it entirely just for the fun of ripping it to shreds.

As an aside, elsewhere it seems to be claimed that the Bishop who supposedly ordained the other priests was actually consecrated Bishop in the new rite. Doesn't this concern the typical Indie/Sede crowd? Where are their orders coming from? Why be secretive?

Let one say what they want about the SSPX, but at least we know where their holy orders came from and we know they operate within a structure that has a definable history and some level of accountability. Aside from Fr. Ward (ordained by Abp. Lefebvre), we have literally no idea. Why did Fr. Ward actually leave the Society? I understand the reason for the Society, but not SHF which started by a priest stomping off with his seminarians in tow. Under what sort of intellectual hubris did the event occur, and if not hubris, why is he not shouting the problems with the SSPX from the rooftops? They're religious, so what rule do they follow and what is their spirituality? I'd take my family to the SSPX in a heartbeat if necessary. I'd never set foot at SHF unless every other priest in a 30 mile radius were to disappear.



Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Philip G. on September 13, 2018, 09:26:53 PM
Gardener - Do you know much about Fr. Perez and his fellow priests in california?  They also make use of the 1945 liturgy, and are friendly with the novus ordo structure, while at the same time defying it.  Would you attend their masses?  What about Fr. ringrose?  He is 1945 sedeplenist friendly.  Would you attend his mass? 

From reading you post, you seem quite savvy as to traditions complications, particularly in your mention of the seeming possibility as a sedeplenist that a novus ordo ordinary can be ipso facto deposed.  Do you believe in the possibility that a novus ordo ordinary is ipso facto deposed as a result of material heresy? 
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Gardener on September 13, 2018, 10:02:20 PM
Never heard of Fr. Perez until your post. Heard the name of Fr. Ringrose, but I have no idea who he is.

Savvy? Hardly. It's just an easily parroted position as regards the issue of a Bishop losing competency (either of himself, i.e., insanity, etc.) or juridically.

Material heresy deposing a Bishop would be problematic, as material simply means that the heresy is not formal, which has a character that necessitates the declaration of the Church or otherwise the holder of said heresy is truly aware it is heresy. But that would get into the issue of public or occult heresy. I would defer to St. Augustine's Letters #43 on the issue as applicable, even if obliquely since it is actually dealing with persons outside the Church. Such a thing would be highly problematic if they were not educated on that particular point of doctrine, or innocently misunderstood the doctrine. It seems to place a very high level onus on a person as if necessitating that they hold, understand, and can properly convey the entire magisterial reality of Catholic doctrine. Eek. Even St. Thomas couldn't do that, and he was likely one of the smartest and holiest people in the history of the Church.

If the Bishop would be deposed by the very fact of holding materially heretical positions, it would be due to excommunication correct?

That brings in a very problematic thing for priests, deacons, and laity too, since such a thing should apply to them as well.

It's also contra the history of the Church in dealing with such matters.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: St.Justin on September 13, 2018, 10:26:40 PM
Philip G.,

The Mass I go to at present is said by a Novus Ordo Priest. One of my good friends is a SedeVacante Priest and I attend his Masses when I can. My preference is the SSPX but unfortunately not one nearby. I have no problem attending any valid Traditional Mass as long as it is valid (matter, form and intention). Do not go to any NO except for funerals etc. The issues you keep bringing up have nothing to do with any of that. That group has serious issues which warrant people staying away from them period.

There are several Priest in California name Perez. You need to be more specific.
Fr. Ringrose is a whole other discussion.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Philip G. on September 13, 2018, 11:25:44 PM
Gardener - Perhaps I shouldn't say as a result of material heresy, but I do not know how it could be formal in our situation.  There are enough trads who believe that the pope cannot be judged.  And, for me, that translates into the fact that a pope cannot be a formal heretic.  And, that is something that I do believe.  However, if you have a situation like ours, where our popes are material heretics, and nearly all of the novus ordo bishops are material heretics, how exactly can a NO ordinary ever even become a "formal heretic".  A materially heretical papacy and collective council are not going to judge.  It is not conclusive or even directly believed by trads that a NO ordinary is similar to the pope in that he can never be a "formal heretic".  That would be placing every single bishop of the church by association with the pope under Christs promise to peter.  And, I am not willing to extend ordinaries such a privilege.  The old code of canon law did address how an ordinary can be deposed as a result of heresy, but I do not know if or how the new code addresses it. But, it did not favor execution of ipso facto deposition for material heresy.

This theory is a bit of a patch job at the moment.  But, if there is any truth to the ipso facto-ism of the sedevacantists, it seems it would only be able to be applied to the novus ordo local bishops.  Because, it certainly does not apply to the papacy.  If there is not anything to the ipso facto-ism of the sedevacantists, why exactly are they so successful?  They have to have some argument, and I think it regards ipso facto deposition.  I mean, even this forum states that sedevacantism is reasonable enough position.  If it is not ipso facto deposition for the vacantists, what is it?  That is the only savory thing idea about them(for the papacy not included).  I think there is something to it, just not regarding the pope.  And, me being a layman, I am not going to spear-head that movement.  I might act as tailwind.  But, so far sspx and even +Williamson resistance want to consider the local ordinaries as legitimate, as indicated by their inclusion in the una cum and other initiatives. 

I just found it interesting that you mentioned the idea in an isolated manner.  Because, in its isolated form, which is when it only regards local ordinaries, it is as I see it the only way to bridge the gap between plenists and vacantists, if that is what one wants to do.  However, there are obviously other consequences to adopting such a theory.  It is either that(to bring in vacantists), or the liturgy of econe(to unite the NO church) if you ask me(bye bye 1945).  Take your pick.   
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on September 18, 2018, 04:09:08 PM
There's some problems with the sandlot/pick-up-league theology and canon law (including 1917 which would have been in effect when Fr. Ward moved to COS) understanding of the northeasterner(?) in the video.

I'm at work and cannot view youtube videos here to go through and pick it apart by minute/seconds, but for example, the illicit establishment of the community: priests and/or religious do not just get to pick up, go wherever, and start publicly ministering and/or forming religious communities (or private/diocesan[canon law term]/secular communities) without permission from the Ordinary of the new location. Hence, the use of the term illicit. Further, a Bishop cannot tell a priest he can just go wherever and have faculties "until revoked" when that priest is then providing Sacraments to the public in another Bishop's diocese. Only a group of Pontifical Right, or individuals as declared by the Pope, can do such a thing and even then I'm not sure how far that actually extends. In other words, your dad has absolutely 0 authority to tell you that you can come into my house and jump on the couch with muddy shoes; he also has 0 authority to tell you that you can come in my house and clean the thing to anal-retentive military standards. It's MY house. Same with a Bishop, as it's HIS diocese and HE is the only one who can do that. Fr. Ward and crew did not just move there and keep to themselves, so the comment about being told/getting permission where to live is just... idiotic. The diocesan declaration was in no way factually wrong in this regard. Whether or not there is a state of necessity which nullifies the letter in order to cater to the true spirit of the law as a whole is another thing entirely. Further, Fr. Ward was ordained by Abp. Lefebvre for the SSPX, not to go rogue.

He also makes a pretty stupidly disguised attempt at a red herring with bringing in Bp. Sheridan's comments on the original interview with Peter Howard, STL. Bishop Sheridan had two full articles on that and what true ecumenism should be (according to his understanding post-Vatican 2), but they are no longer available. It's my belief that the main problem was Mr. Howard was publicly commenting in a capacity which made him seem as if a Diocesan representative in that capacity without approval. The bottom line is the Bishop has legal authority and his good/bad actions in other instances, whether prudential or not, have zero effect on this reality unless by the action in question he is ipso facto deposed, or subsequent post-action tribunals, etc., render named actions null and void (perhaps due to insanity, etc.).

Regardless of all this, and that rather boring and incorrect video, Heinrich and I both know people who used to go there. There are some serious issues at the location.

Servants of the Holy Family (SHF) considers themselves a Religious community(http://servi.org/about-us-2/). Pay attention to that, as it has a canonical meaning and cannot be ignored. This differs from the SSPX, which does not consider itself a religious community per se.

As such, SHF were and are subject to particular codes of canon law in both 1917 and 1983 as will be demonstrated. Because they would have been under the 1917 code in 1977, they are subject to 1917 Code #497 which required either papal approval (certain conditions)+Ordinary or at least the permission of the Ordinary. Nuns always require papal permission (and thus the "community" of "nuns" there do not meet the requirement of recognition as such from a canonical perspective).

I cannot copy the English but you can view it here @ #342 (canon 497):
http://www.archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft#page/88

Or in Latin here:

Quote
Can 609 §1. Si ecclesia, apud quam residet communitas religiosa, sit simul paroecialis, servetur, congrua congruis referendo, praescriptum can. 415.
  §2. In ecclesia religiosarum a votis sive sollemnibus sive simplicibus paroecia erigi nequit.
  §3. Advigilent Superiores ne divinorum officiorum in propriis ecclesiis celebratio catecheticae instructioni aut Evangelii explanationi in ecclesia paroeciali tradendae nocumentum afferat; iudicium autem utrum nocumentum afferat, necne, ad loci Ordinarium pertinet.
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic17lat.html


As such, Fr. Ward, in attempting to establish a Religious community, removed himself from the putative provisions set forth with any (supposed) permissions from any Diocesan authority from Fribourg (which is actually undemonstrated as far as I could tell -- I'd like to confirm on the video again before owning that statement); elsewhere it seems he was supposedly incardinated into an unnamed diocese in Northern Spain -- which is it? He moved himself from a secular cleric to an attempted religious status, which has other consequences canonically. One of the things that the video keeps doing is referring to Fr. Ward as if he is just a secular cleric. Yet, he is not. There are very real canonical difference between the two and this is a dangerous omission.

This is why the hullabaloo in the video about the term illicit is, frankly, laughable. It was indeed illicit prima facie. Special plead all you want, but that's a fact. Licity is important to a degree, but if the enforcement of the law is impossible due to having fallen from office, inability to enforce, or lack of contact with the Ordinary it is of no concern. That's the row the video should have attempted to hoe. Should I make the argument for SHF for you? Because I'd do a lot better job than that hack in the video.

Further, because Mass is being offered and other prayers, the SHF would be subject under 1917 code to canons 1259, 1260, and 1261 (http://www.archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft#page/258); 1983 would be [in order of reference to 1917]: 839, null, 838. Therefore, violations of canon law would render the Sacraments illicit in addition to their "founding".

I could go on, but I'd need to be able to view the video again and go bit by bit. I honestly don't see the point since I could give you absolute proof there are some real issues and you'd plug your ears because the easily faked piety of sermons sways you. Tradition by numbers is a simple game and it easily sways simple people. Simply put, I don't trust singular priests who just go do whatever they want.

But your video tried to play the legal card (by hand waving it away with a definition about Sacraments, attempting to act like people can just live wherever they want, and ignoring the reality of the SHF in light of canon law), and then engage in a red herring about the Bishop which has literally nothing to do with the reality of the argument as concerns an Ordinary's authority, and whatever other road the video went down. If it weren't 30 minutes of a grating yankee accent, I might watch it entirely just for the fun of ripping it to shreds.

As an aside, elsewhere it seems to be claimed that the Bishop who supposedly ordained the other priests was actually consecrated Bishop in the new rite. Doesn't this concern the typical Indie/Sede crowd? Where are their orders coming from? Why be secretive?

Let one say what they want about the SSPX, but at least we know where their holy orders came from and we know they operate within a structure that has a definable history and some level of accountability. Aside from Fr. Ward (ordained by Abp. Lefebvre), we have literally no idea. Why did Fr. Ward actually leave the Society? I understand the reason for the Society, but not SHF which started by a priest stomping off with his seminarians in tow. Under what sort of intellectual hubris did the event occur, and if not hubris, why is he not shouting the problems with the SSPX from the rooftops? They're religious, so what rule do they follow and what is their spirituality? I'd take my family to the SSPX in a heartbeat if necessary. I'd never set foot at SHF unless every other priest in a 30 mile radius were to disappear.
And yet you applaud the same bishop who is described in this video:
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Heinrich on September 18, 2018, 05:44:47 PM
Is this group in any way affiliated with Servants? I mean, it is like a car dealership sponsoring an awards ceremony for excellence in car dealing, and then awarding the sponsor first place. Or is this guy part of an established, independent group of concerned Catholics who adhere to canonical and diocesan structures as their most stringent criteria?
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Sophia3 on September 18, 2018, 11:11:26 PM

Now that is just downright insulting, you cantankerous rattlesnake.
Dear Heinrich, 
  ;D
brilliant comeback

Sorry Heinrich,
I just can't take any of your criticisms seriously when you like comments like the above and when you talk about priests with such disgust all while not even knowing who they are or what group they belong to.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Prayerful on September 19, 2018, 12:21:14 PM
There's some problems with the sandlot/pick-up-league theology and canon law (including 1917 which would have been in effect when Fr. Ward moved to COS) understanding of the northeasterner(?) in the video.

I'm at work and cannot view youtube videos here to go through and pick it apart by minute/seconds, but for example, the illicit establishment of the community: priests and/or religious do not just get to pick up, go wherever, and start publicly ministering and/or forming religious communities (or private/diocesan[canon law term]/secular communities) without permission from the Ordinary of the new location. Hence, the use of the term illicit. Further, a Bishop cannot tell a priest he can just go wherever and have faculties "until revoked" when that priest is then providing Sacraments to the public in another Bishop's diocese. Only a group of Pontifical Right, or individuals as declared by the Pope, can do such a thing and even then I'm not sure how far that actually extends. In other words, your dad has absolutely 0 authority to tell you that you can come into my house and jump on the couch with muddy shoes; he also has 0 authority to tell you that you can come in my house and clean the thing to anal-retentive military standards. It's MY house. Same with a Bishop, as it's HIS diocese and HE is the only one who can do that. Fr. Ward and crew did not just move there and keep to themselves, so the comment about being told/getting permission where to live is just... idiotic. The diocesan declaration was in no way factually wrong in this regard. Whether or not there is a state of necessity which nullifies the letter in order to cater to the true spirit of the law as a whole is another thing entirely. Further, Fr. Ward was ordained by Abp. Lefebvre for the SSPX, not to go rogue.

He also makes a pretty stupidly disguised attempt at a red herring with bringing in Bp. Sheridan's comments on the original interview with Peter Howard, STL. Bishop Sheridan had two full articles on that and what true ecumenism should be (according to his understanding post-Vatican 2), but they are no longer available. It's my belief that the main problem was Mr. Howard was publicly commenting in a capacity which made him seem as if a Diocesan representative in that capacity without approval. The bottom line is the Bishop has legal authority and his good/bad actions in other instances, whether prudential or not, have zero effect on this reality unless by the action in question he is ipso facto deposed, or subsequent post-action tribunals, etc., render named actions null and void (perhaps due to insanity, etc.).

Regardless of all this, and that rather boring and incorrect video, Heinrich and I both know people who used to go there. There are some serious issues at the location.

Servants of the Holy Family (SHF) considers themselves a Religious community(http://servi.org/about-us-2/). Pay attention to that, as it has a canonical meaning and cannot be ignored. This differs from the SSPX, which does not consider itself a religious community per se.

As such, SHF were and are subject to particular codes of canon law in both 1917 and 1983 as will be demonstrated. Because they would have been under the 1917 code in 1977, they are subject to 1917 Code #497 which required either papal approval (certain conditions)+Ordinary or at least the permission of the Ordinary. Nuns always require papal permission (and thus the "community" of "nuns" there do not meet the requirement of recognition as such from a canonical perspective).

I cannot copy the English but you can view it here @ #342 (canon 497):
http://www.archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft#page/88

Or in Latin here:

Quote
Can 609 §1. Si ecclesia, apud quam residet communitas religiosa, sit simul paroecialis, servetur, congrua congruis referendo, praescriptum can. 415.
  §2. In ecclesia religiosarum a votis sive sollemnibus sive simplicibus paroecia erigi nequit.
  §3. Advigilent Superiores ne divinorum officiorum in propriis ecclesiis celebratio catecheticae instructioni aut Evangelii explanationi in ecclesia paroeciali tradendae nocumentum afferat; iudicium autem utrum nocumentum afferat, necne, ad loci Ordinarium pertinet.
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic17lat.html


As such, Fr. Ward, in attempting to establish a Religious community, removed himself from the putative provisions set forth with any (supposed) permissions from any Diocesan authority from Fribourg (which is actually undemonstrated as far as I could tell -- I'd like to confirm on the video again before owning that statement); elsewhere it seems he was supposedly incardinated into an unnamed diocese in Northern Spain -- which is it? He moved himself from a secular cleric to an attempted religious status, which has other consequences canonically. One of the things that the video keeps doing is referring to Fr. Ward as if he is just a secular cleric. Yet, he is not. There are very real canonical difference between the two and this is a dangerous omission.

This is why the hullabaloo in the video about the term illicit is, frankly, laughable. It was indeed illicit prima facie. Special plead all you want, but that's a fact. Licity is important to a degree, but if the enforcement of the law is impossible due to having fallen from office, inability to enforce, or lack of contact with the Ordinary it is of no concern. That's the row the video should have attempted to hoe. Should I make the argument for SHF for you? Because I'd do a lot better job than that hack in the video.

Further, because Mass is being offered and other prayers, the SHF would be subject under 1917 code to canons 1259, 1260, and 1261 (http://www.archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft#page/258); 1983 would be [in order of reference to 1917]: 839, null, 838. Therefore, violations of canon law would render the Sacraments illicit in addition to their "founding".

I could go on, but I'd need to be able to view the video again and go bit by bit. I honestly don't see the point since I could give you absolute proof there are some real issues and you'd plug your ears because the easily faked piety of sermons sways you. Tradition by numbers is a simple game and it easily sways simple people. Simply put, I don't trust singular priests who just go do whatever they want.

But your video tried to play the legal card (by hand waving it away with a definition about Sacraments, attempting to act like people can just live wherever they want, and ignoring the reality of the SHF in light of canon law), and then engage in a red herring about the Bishop which has literally nothing to do with the reality of the argument as concerns an Ordinary's authority, and whatever other road the video went down. If it weren't 30 minutes of a grating yankee accent, I might watch it entirely just for the fun of ripping it to shreds.

As an aside, elsewhere it seems to be claimed that the Bishop who supposedly ordained the other priests was actually consecrated Bishop in the new rite. Doesn't this concern the typical Indie/Sede crowd? Where are their orders coming from? Why be secretive?

Let one say what they want about the SSPX, but at least we know where their holy orders came from and we know they operate within a structure that has a definable history and some level of accountability. Aside from Fr. Ward (ordained by Abp. Lefebvre), we have literally no idea. Why did Fr. Ward actually leave the Society? I understand the reason for the Society, but not SHF which started by a priest stomping off with his seminarians in tow. Under what sort of intellectual hubris did the event occur, and if not hubris, why is he not shouting the problems with the SSPX from the rooftops? They're religious, so what rule do they follow and what is their spirituality? I'd take my family to the SSPX in a heartbeat if necessary. I'd never set foot at SHF unless every other priest in a 30 mile radius were to disappear.
And yet you applaud the same bishop who is described in this video:

That channel has exactly one video, and some points it makes are either whataboutery or not correct.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: desicatholic on September 21, 2018, 01:52:27 PM
Philip G.,

The Mass I go to at present is said by a Novus Ordo Priest. One of my good friends is a SedeVacante Priest and I attend his Masses when I can. My preference is the SSPX but unfortunately not one nearby. I have no problem attending any valid Traditional Mass as long as it is valid (matter, form and intention). Do not go to any NO except for funerals etc. The issues you keep bringing up have nothing to do with any of that. That group has serious issues which warrant people staying away from them period.

There are several Priest in California name Perez. You need to be more specific.
Fr. Ringrose is a whole other discussion.

http://www.ourladyhelpofchristians.us/

This is the chapel where father perez is a monsignor. They say the traditional mass. They have a picture of the pope in the vestibule. I used to attend mass there. Infact Father Perez baptized me.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: Philip G. on September 21, 2018, 02:45:17 PM
Philip G.,

The Mass I go to at present is said by a Novus Ordo Priest. One of my good friends is a SedeVacante Priest and I attend his Masses when I can. My preference is the SSPX but unfortunately not one nearby. I have no problem attending any valid Traditional Mass as long as it is valid (matter, form and intention). Do not go to any NO except for funerals etc. The issues you keep bringing up have nothing to do with any of that. That group has serious issues which warrant people staying away from them period.

There are several Priest in California name Perez. You need to be more specific.
Fr. Ringrose is a whole other discussion.

http://www.ourladyhelpofchristians.us/

This is the chapel where father perez is a monsignor. They say the traditional mass. They have a picture of the pope in the vestibule. I used to attend mass there. Infact Father Perez baptized me.

I used to attend their Northridge mission chapel.  I really liked it.  But, good luck trying to get Fr. Perez to say the 1962 liturgy as opposed to the 1954.  He is just as set in his ways as Fr. Ward.  It is a phenomenon I have to make note of.  Because, I cannot think of any sedeplenist traditional bishop who uses it or swears by it.  And, the only rebellions I am going to support against the papacy are rebellions lead by sedeplenist traditional bishops.  That is not to say that am against Fr. Perez.  I am just venting.
Title: Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
Post by: desicatholic on September 22, 2018, 10:26:36 PM
I used to attend their Northridge mission chapel.  I really liked it.  But, good luck trying to get Fr. Perez to say the 1962 liturgy as opposed to the 1954.  He is just as set in his ways as Fr. Ward.  It is a phenomenon I have to make note of.  Because, I cannot think of any sedeplenist traditional bishop who uses it or swears by it.  And, the only rebellions I am going to support against the papacy are rebellions lead by sedeplenist traditional bishops.  That is not to say that am against Fr. Perez.  I am just venting.
[/quote]

I used attend at garden grove with my family. But we ended leaving because of questions concerning the validity of the ordinations of the priests.