Author Topic: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line  (Read 1095 times)

TKGS

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2018, 01:18:53 PM »
Sorry for misleading folks.    Taylor and Adamson's episcopal lineage does not come from Palmarians. 

Is the Duarte line involved?
 

Marcellus

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2018, 03:42:39 PM »

Is the Duarte line involved?

Bp. Taylor was originally consecrated in the Duarte line, but received consecration sub conditione from +Adamson in the +Thuc line.
 

Vinny Zee

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2018, 04:31:38 PM »

The reason I would be troubled by Mith's comments is that he indicates that he has positive doubts and concerns about the orders of the individual; therefore, I would also have doubts and concerns since I have no other knowledge of the individual.  Essentially, Mith is someone I would trust to absolutely cause me to steer clear of any traditional priest.  If he provides a reason for doubt based on his knowledge, I would trust that doubt.

The reason I stay clear of the traditio directory is that traditio seems to list any and all chapels that claim to have a traditional Mass.  The Lux Vera directory is usually quite good but when there is a change in clergy they aren't necessarily informed so one still needs to confirm the status--in other words, Lux Vera is a good starting point for researching a chapel.


I appreciate your comments but I know you, Myth and the priest of this church just about all the same, which is to say not at all. However, Myth's comments and concerns were noted. Additionally, as I stated before, the list you provided and traditio both list the same church.

That would probably be true of any other internet poster, no?  If so, why do you bother asking these questions on the internet?

I had received quite a bit of information from the responses to the post and my question. However, when someone I don't know says they'd highly trust someone else I don't know, how am I really to determine or supposed to take it? I stated that Myth's comments were noted. I am glad TKGS can highly trust Myth's personal opinion on the matter. When TKGS told me to be "troubled by Myth's comments" I followed up on that too for clarification. I think my questions in the initial post were quite specific of what I was asking. I don't think it is worth being contentious over.
 

2Vermont

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2018, 05:08:52 PM »

The reason I would be troubled by Mith's comments is that he indicates that he has positive doubts and concerns about the orders of the individual; therefore, I would also have doubts and concerns since I have no other knowledge of the individual.  Essentially, Mith is someone I would trust to absolutely cause me to steer clear of any traditional priest.  If he provides a reason for doubt based on his knowledge, I would trust that doubt.

The reason I stay clear of the traditio directory is that traditio seems to list any and all chapels that claim to have a traditional Mass.  The Lux Vera directory is usually quite good but when there is a change in clergy they aren't necessarily informed so one still needs to confirm the status--in other words, Lux Vera is a good starting point for researching a chapel.


I appreciate your comments but I know you, Myth and the priest of this church just about all the same, which is to say not at all. However, Myth's comments and concerns were noted. Additionally, as I stated before, the list you provided and traditio both list the same church.

That would probably be true of any other internet poster, no?  If so, why do you bother asking these questions on the internet?

I had received quite a bit of information from the responses to the post and my question. However, when someone I don't know says they'd highly trust someone else I don't know, how am I really to determine or supposed to take it? I stated that Myth's comments were noted. I am glad TKGS can highly trust Myth's personal opinion on the matter. When TKGS told me to be "troubled by Myth's comments" I followed up on that too for clarification. I think my questions in the initial post were quite specific of what I was asking. I don't think it is worth being contentious over.

I just find it odd at best that someone who specifically asks these kinds of questions to a bunch of internet strangers would then bring up the issue of trusting folks we don't "know".
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

Vinny Zee

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2018, 07:48:21 PM »

The reason I would be troubled by Mith's comments is that he indicates that he has positive doubts and concerns about the orders of the individual; therefore, I would also have doubts and concerns since I have no other knowledge of the individual.  Essentially, Mith is someone I would trust to absolutely cause me to steer clear of any traditional priest.  If he provides a reason for doubt based on his knowledge, I would trust that doubt.

The reason I stay clear of the traditio directory is that traditio seems to list any and all chapels that claim to have a traditional Mass.  The Lux Vera directory is usually quite good but when there is a change in clergy they aren't necessarily informed so one still needs to confirm the status--in other words, Lux Vera is a good starting point for researching a chapel.


I appreciate your comments but I know you, Myth and the priest of this church just about all the same, which is to say not at all. However, Myth's comments and concerns were noted. Additionally, as I stated before, the list you provided and traditio both list the same church.

That would probably be true of any other internet poster, no?  If so, why do you bother asking these questions on the internet?

I had received quite a bit of information from the responses to the post and my question. However, when someone I don't know says they'd highly trust someone else I don't know, how am I really to determine or supposed to take it? I stated that Myth's comments were noted. I am glad TKGS can highly trust Myth's personal opinion on the matter. When TKGS told me to be "troubled by Myth's comments" I followed up on that too for clarification. I think my questions in the initial post were quite specific of what I was asking. I don't think it is worth being contentious over.

I just find it odd at best that someone who specifically asks these kinds of questions to a bunch of internet strangers would then bring up the issue of trusting folks we don't "know".

You're spinning it way out of context, maybe there haven't been any good posts lately to opine on so why not start an argument with me over something. Basically TKGS stated, "I trust him, you should too." I've taken such advice from lifelong friends and counterparts whom I trust and know. For those people to tell me I can trust who they trust is sometimes good enough. However, yes, in an Internet forum there is going to be a bit more vetting on statements than just, "I trust him therefore so can you." If you don't like that then I am sorry you feel that way.
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav

TKGS

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2018, 06:40:18 AM »
You're spinning it way out of context, maybe there haven't been any good posts lately to opine on so why not start an argument with me over something. Basically TKGS stated, "I trust him, you should too." I've taken such advice from lifelong friends and counterparts whom I trust and know. For those people to tell me I can trust who they trust is sometimes good enough. However, yes, in an Internet forum there is going to be a bit more vetting on statements than just, "I trust him therefore so can you." If you don't like that then I am sorry you feel that way.

Actually, I could not care less whether you trust Mith's judgment on the issue.  I simply posted my opinion on the matter.

Frankly, 2Vermont is absolutely correct and what she's stating is completely in context.  It really doesn't make sense to ask a bunch of strangers for their opinion on a matter and then complain that you really can't trust they're opinion since they are a bunch of strangers.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 06:46:39 AM by TKGS »
 
The following users thanked this post: 2Vermont

2Vermont

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2018, 06:50:23 AM »
You're spinning it way out of context, maybe there haven't been any good posts lately to opine on so why not start an argument with me over something. Basically TKGS stated, "I trust him, you should too." I've taken such advice from lifelong friends and counterparts whom I trust and know. For those people to tell me I can trust who they trust is sometimes good enough. However, yes, in an Internet forum there is going to be a bit more vetting on statements than just, "I trust him therefore so can you." If you don't like that then I am sorry you feel that way.

Actually, I could not care less whether you trust Mith's judgment on the issue.  I simply posted my opinion on the matter.

Frankly, 2Vermont is absolutely correct and what she's stating is completely in context.  It really doesn't make sense to ask a bunch of strangers for their opinion on a matter and then complain that you really can't trust their opinion since their a bunch of strangers.

Thanks TKGS.  Just to be clear, I actually don't have a problem with him not trusting you nor MIth. It takes awhile for me to trust a poster...especially a new poster.   

For those of us who have been posting for years on various forums know who we can trust, those we need to keep at arm's length and those who we absolutely need to question.  Even then, we don't always agree with those posters we trust. 
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

Anonimus

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2018, 07:28:36 AM »
Sacramental Theology 101 - WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR A VALID SACRAMENT -

1)  Proper Form
2)  Proper Matter
3)  Proper Intention
4)  Valid Minister


Whether or not one has a mission, is schismatic, is married, etc, HAS NO BEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS.

These things concern licitness, not validity. 

To say that the holiness or worthiness of the minister (or recipient) of a Sacrament affects the validity of a Sacrament is a condemned heresy known as Donatism.  This heresy has, unfortunately, resurfaced under the guise of scrupulosity of the validity of Holy Orders it seems.

God bless.

I agree with these four criteria for a valid sacrament, but there is a guy on Cathinfo right now contesting that "4) Valid minister" is a requirement!

His argument? 

The manuals only list form, matter, intention.

Chowderheads!

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590159/?topicseen#msg590159

PS: Don't want to derail, but couldn't resist.  Carry on!
 

Rubecorks

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2018, 07:54:39 AM »
Sacramental Theology 101 - WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR A VALID SACRAMENT -

1)  Proper Form
2)  Proper Matter
3)  Proper Intention
4)  Valid Minister


Whether or not one has a mission, is schismatic, is married, etc, HAS NO BEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS.

These things concern licitness, not validity. 

To say that the holiness or worthiness of the minister (or recipient) of a Sacrament affects the validity of a Sacrament is a condemned heresy known as Donatism.  This heresy has, unfortunately, resurfaced under the guise of scrupulosity of the validity of Holy Orders it seems.

God bless.

I agree with these four criteria for a valid sacrament, but there is a guy on Cathinfo right now contesting that "4) Valid minister" is a requirement!

His argument? 

The manuals only list form, matter, intention.

Chowderheads!

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590159/?topicseen#msg590159

PS: Don't want to derail, but couldn't resist.  Carry on!

SJ started that thread on cathinfo to criticize what an SSPX priest said, though he doesn't give the context. Then at the end SJ admits, "Many of the manuals speak only of form, matter, and intent because the validity of the minister is presumed."  I am sure that is what the priest himself was doing. I am sure if the priest were asked directly if a valid minister is necessary, he would say yes. SJ should have contacted the priest from whom he "heard" it and asked that question first. I don't have any use for the SSPX, but that was an unfair way to handle it.

 

Anonimus

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2018, 08:17:35 AM »
Sacramental Theology 101 - WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR A VALID SACRAMENT -

1)  Proper Form
2)  Proper Matter
3)  Proper Intention
4)  Valid Minister


Whether or not one has a mission, is schismatic, is married, etc, HAS NO BEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS.

These things concern licitness, not validity. 

To say that the holiness or worthiness of the minister (or recipient) of a Sacrament affects the validity of a Sacrament is a condemned heresy known as Donatism.  This heresy has, unfortunately, resurfaced under the guise of scrupulosity of the validity of Holy Orders it seems.

God bless.

I agree with these four criteria for a valid sacrament, but there is a guy on Cathinfo right now contesting that "4) Valid minister" is a requirement!

His argument? 

The manuals only list form, matter, intention.

Chowderheads!

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590159/?topicseen#msg590159

PS: Don't want to derail, but couldn't resist.  Carry on!

SJ started that thread on cathinfo to criticize what an SSPX priest said, though he doesn't give the context. Then at the end SJ admits, "Many of the manuals speak only of form, matter, and intent because the validity of the minister is presumed."  I am sure that is what the priest himself was doing. I am sure if the priest were asked directly if a valid minister is necessary, he would say yes. SJ should have contacted the priest from whom he "heard" it and asked that question first. I don't have any use for the SSPX, but that was an unfair way to handle it.

Disagree:

That thread frames the priests' comment/response within the context of responding to a parishioner's question as to whether or not they could attend an FSSP Mass:

"In the conversation in which the SSPX priest mentioned the first three criteria, he was responding to a question as to whether or not the faithful could attend an FSSP Mass, and whether it would be valid."

In that case, why would the priest omit to mention the 4th criteria? 

Is form, matter, and intent really all this parishioner needed to worry about?

No need to go into the matter of valid ministers when discussing whether or not one should attend an FSSP Mass?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 08:23:30 AM by Anonimus »