God Bless all clerics who defend the faith, tradition, rubrics, form, function. Having the knowledge to defend against invalid sacraments is a grace. A gift to humanity. Thank you.
Thank you, Fr. Jenkins, for your explanations of various controversial issues. I learn each week. May God bless you and Tom and all the fine people of St. Pius the Fifth always and abundantly.
Thank you Father Jenkins and dear host Thomas well said teaching and guidance my prayers from afar for you Father Jenkins , Fathers of the church and Thomas for graces, virtue and wisdom 🕊️🌹🌹🌹
I think asking anyone to come forward, if the facts are known to them, (12.35) with proof for the validity of the ordination of Bp Williamson is rather unreasonable, since we have not been told anything about this person who is shrouded in mystery. As far as the argument for invalidity goes, we listeners have been given some hearsay from an unnamed and unknown witness. We are not allowed to know the name of this person or their credentials. On the other hand, arguing for the validity of the ordination, we have a named and experienced priest who was sitting in the front row watching everything on the day. I don’t think the responsibility lies with us the listeners.
In fact the last time I met Fr. Jenkins was in the summer of 1987! As for contacting the Holy See about the issue of the alleged one-hand priestly ordination of 1976, how is this possible in today's vacant See situation? Fr. Jenkins's statement is just as illogical as consulting the present Vatican's Rota (Supreme Tribunal) to declare marriages to be invalid.
Look up "The Validity of Ordination Conferred with One Hand (2000)" by Rev. Anthony Cekada. He goes into detail to show that 1 handed ordination is valid, even after 1948.
Again, the issue remains that what's being presented is hearsay. Fr Egregyi has given public witness. If this anonymous source is not going to step up, it's not reasonable to expect anybody to see this as anything other than gossip.
Yes, it would seem the maxim “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur” applies (ie., “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”). +Vigano, whom I admire very much, recently made comments imply Francis was guilty of the same abuse as McCarrick (ie., he was a homosexual and worse), but supplied no evidence to back the claim as one ought to when making such a claim. Very well, I thought, that is a significant mistake which wounded His Excellency’s credibility, and most prudent Catholic men understood instinctively that to give credence to such a claim without any evidence was rash and imprudent, and the same maxim applies.
@@seanjohnson5518 Is there a church registry entry of Richard Williamson's conditional baptism in the traditional rite of the Catholic Church (not the Novus Ordo / Protestant rite)?
Williamson was reconditionally baptised in a Sussex (England) conservative conciliar parish either in 1971 or 1972 by the parish priest called Fr. Flanaghan. Someone should check this in the diocesan registers (Arundal and Brighton).
@@seanjohnson5518 Yes, I won't believe him unless he presents the evidence, and I also wouldn't be at all surprised if he did. Regardless, we already know the heresy Francis spews is far worse than these alleged crimes against nature and man.
This argument goes against the sensus Catholicus that Fr. Jenkins invoked in the past (in a debate with Fr. Cekada) as a guide in coming to a reasoned conclusion in the Thuc controversy. Here he cites his efforts, going to Munich, etc., to gather the evidence that led him to the conclusion that the consecrations were doubtfully valid. It's a pretty stark contrast with the efforts he's made, and the standards of proof and the evidence he's offered to support casting serious doubt on Bp. Williamson's consecration, and everything that has followed from it--the bishops he's consecrated, the confirmations, etc. I'm shocked. It makes me want to seriously rethink what is the role of faithful Catholic priests in this time of chaos and crisis.
Fr. Jenkins should not have raised doubts about this in public and should not, when challenged or further questioned, have passed the responsibility for resolution on to the faithful. It is placing an unreasonable burden on the shoulders of those who cannot carry it. I do not think his original intention was to add turmoil to already perplexed souls. What little I could find out on my own came down to a choice between equally weighted opposing opinions. In such a dilemma, a Catholic may choose whichever he wills without fear of sin. Should one’s choice turn out to be incorrect, there is still no sin so long as he switches his mind to that which is correct. St. Robert Bellarmine for a time believed the wrong man to be pope. When the true pope was made known, he accepted him without further question, end of the matter!
Fr. Francois Egregyi letter of Nov. 8, 2012 posted by Quo vadis Domine on July 24, 2024 on a catholic information forum under crisis in the church section in an article, "Why 'Father' Williamson, but 'Archbishop' Vigano?..."
For what it’s worth, I wrote to +Williamson in late 2021 about this matter, and this was his response (excerpt): “ I have heard it before. The Archbishop was a competent theologian, and scrupulous about ceremonies and ceremonial. Little is less likely than that he would have confused the one hand of the diaconate with the two hands of the priesthood. I would like to see who are the "eyewitnesses" of the one hand.”
@@AS-yz2iz Who cares? Father Jenkins needs to prove that only one hand was used, not Bishop Williamson. and all he has is an unidentified source. Father François Egregyi was there and he witnessed both hands.
@@MichaelHellmann-jy9ob So, Father's source is not valid, because you don't know who it is, but Fr. Egregyi is valid, because...? Because he gave his name? How do you know he's telling the truth? Has Williamson ever denied it?
@@AS-yz2iz How do you know Father Jenkins is telling the truth? Father Egregyi can lie but not Jenkins? Again and for the last time, the Sacraments are ALWAYS ASSUMED to be valid. The burden of proof is on Father Jenkins to show actual evidence of what he is saying or to remain silent.
There are very few that stick to their guns , so to speak , like Fr. Jenkins and it is not in a negative way, objective facts / truth are important when it comes to Catholic faith and tradition of the Catholic church. All those who are living in a subjective world and criticize things because their feelings are hurt should really examine their conscience and ask why are they responding the way they are
It’s not about feelings. It’s about the truth of the matter in so far as it may be ascertained. If a large number of souls are disturbed, they are not out of line to request a more definitive argument from the one who disturbed them. He is a well-known priest and founding pastor of SSPV with a public ministry. For example, who are the two nameless witnesses whose words conflict? The keyboard warriors who fling insults and crude names at Fr. Jenkins, or precipitously cancel and block the website are rude, disrespectful, or extremely immature adults. (I don’t think many children watch WCB!)
@@mariekatherine5238 Dear mariekatherine5238, The one witness who has stated in writing in a letter dated November 8, 2012, and in the comments on this video and the previous WCB, that he witnessed Archbishop Lefebvre place two hands on the heads of Deacon Williamson and Deacon Dolan in their Ordination to the Priesthood on June 29, 1976. He was ordained a subdeacon on that same day and was seated in the front row directly behind the ordinands. He signed the letter: "May God be my witness." His name is Father Francois Egregyi. We should be grateful for his willingness to give us his testimony, and appreciate his contributions to shed light on this dilemma.
Yes, but Archbishop Thuc didn’t form or endorse the bizarre sect that became the Palmarians. He was very imprudent in some, not all, of his consecrations. Those men who were ineligible should not be considered bishops, and any priests they ordained or further bishops they consecrated are invalid. But most of those who WERE eligible, did NOT go off the deep end. They are real priests and real bishops. The confusion comes in knowing if the lines following Archbishop Thuc are legit. It’s impossible for the faithful and even Fr. Jenkins to know everything, to give a 100% yes or no response. Only God can do that. For all we know, it’s possible for any priest, bishop, layman for that matter, to be 100% certain his baptism was valid. The older the person, the less likely it was filmed or photographed, but the more likely it was properly performed, prevV2. The younger the person, the more likely it was invalid, but also more likely to have been photographed and of late, videoed. At what point do we draw the line seeking for validity? A certain amount of trust must be present concerning human beings. For example, who baptized Thuc? Was he a real priest? What if the priest who baptized him wasn’t a priest? Or what if that priest’s bishop was improperly consecrated? Other than a very old record in a church that may no longer exist, so transferred to a diocese that also may or may no longer exist…it has to stop somewhere! One must also investigate going forward. If a reasonably certain priest was made bishop by Thuc, in turn ordained priests and consecrated bishops, consider the fruit as Our Lord instructs by the parable of the tree. Has good fruit been borne? Is good fruit presently growing? Or is it rotten or deformed fruit? Listen, also, for teachings of the true Magisterium. Is it taught? Is it practiced? (No chapel is comprised of all perfect Saints, else it wouldn’t be here on earth!) Of course, this is the best I can deduce at this time. Maybe I’m all wrong. It won’t be the first time. Please pray for me. (Added 8/7/24 Call mine a ‘bishopprivationist’ point of view?)
Your excuse as to why you call Vigano Bishop and Williamson father, doesn't hold water. Because after Kelly's consecration, you managed to start calling him Bishop even though you worked with him and knew him as father beforehand. also concerning Williamson, if anything you should not have been calling him Father if you doubt his ordination. I doubt there was anything wrong with his consecration to the bishopric.
Your fist argument doesn't "hold water". He obviously has seen and worked closely with Bishop Kelly for decades. You begin to use their new title out of habit long before that. When was the last time he worked with, or spent meaningful time with Bishop Williamson? And we've all ever known Vigano as "archbishop" of the NO.
Fr.. Jenkins, Please share the exact date this issue of a questionable two hand ordination was brought to your attention. We all need to know so we can help add clarity. At 5:26 you state "...something had been brought to my attention that I consider to be credible because it was from a credible, credible source and THEY brought this to my attention..." How many people are in your "credible source"?
Fr. Jenkins's sole source for the alleged one-hand imposition is a former SSPX priest (Fr. G.H.). It would be interesting to find out if this priest was Master of ceremonies on June 29, 1976, therefore a reliable witness. If he had been a reliable witness, during the ceremony, why on earth did he not stop the Archbishop to ask him to impose his two hands on Fr. Williamson's head?
@@francoisegregyi233 Dear Father Egregyi, Thank you for your comments! Perhaps Fr. Jenkins will answer your very logical question after consulting Fr. G.H., if that is still possible. As M. C., that would have been his duty to correct immediately, yes?
Catholic principle: Validity must be assumed. Invalidity must be proved. You are the one who must bring the proofs, not one anonimous testimony against witnesses with name that speak by themselves.
In any case, who are you to come to set up juridical conclusions when the facts are disputed? On whose authority do you throw a canonical decree of a dead Pope against Catholic prelads who also stand on Catholic laws and Magisterium? (I am talking about taking the premise that the one-handed ordaination is "invalid") The absence of visible lawful authority is driving everyone crazy and non-sensical.
I'm confused not having heard the previous podcast - but Father Williamson is more than a priest he was concentrated a bishop by Lefebvre who would not have made him a bishop if he was a Deacon? A deviation sounds really bad WHY WOULD THE archbishop have deviated ? On such a serious topic you should have contacted B Williamson himself - I'm very disappointed you would be specifically so scandalous based on the hearsay of one so called witness.
Fr. Jenkins goofed on this one. The interviews are not rehearsed. He spoke off the top of his head regarding an issue he should have kept private to settle amongst fellow priests. To not name the “reliable”:witnesses with opposing answers leaves the laity and possibly some priests, disturbed in spirit. When scores of distressed responses and comments are the result, it places a heavy, unfair burden on laity to do research and find out for ourselves! We have the right to valid priests, Masses, and Sacraments, but Fr. Jenkins abandons the faithful, few if any are experts in canon law! I know a lady who is so upset she remained in the pew and didn’t allow her sons to receive Communion because the priest was ordained by +Bp. Williamson. I’m sure Fr. Jenkins didn’t intend to, but he’s accidentally knocked down a wasp’s nest!
This phrase "jumping the shark" from a TV show really doesn't apply to something as serious as the doubts raised about Bp. WIlliamson's ordination. Fr. Jenkins brought up the comparison between doubting the validity of the Thuc consecrations and the Bp. Williamson ordination. In the former, the question of the intention of Abp.Thuc figured prominently in the decision that the consecrations were doubtful. Was he competent even to perform them? Why in the case of Abp. Lefebvre does he get no credit so to speak for being undoubtedly sane at the time of the ordinations?. The same "rigorous" standards are being applied to the Williamson ordinations as were applied to Thuc, when in fact they are two very different situations. This question of intention and mental competence is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the differences between the two.
I would like to point out that one hand is used in the eastern Catholic rites for the conferring of the priesthood. If the matter is valid in one rite, why would it be doubtful or invalid in another?
I am glad that you mentioned that, Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis On the Sacrament of Orders issued in 1947 that the Church of Rome accepted the Rites of Ordination in the Eastern Orthodox Church at the Council of Florence saying that with the union of the Greeks with the Roman Church, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it the traditio instrumentorum. The Eastern Orthodox have as a valid Rite of Consecration to lay the open book of the Gospels on the Head of the priest being ordained. The Council of Florence in 1442 said the Orthodox Rite of Consecration was valid and Pope Pius XII said the same thing.
Does that matter, if the matter and form of the Roman rite is different, and he was ordained in the Roman Rite, not the Eastern rite? Why have rubrics for each rite, if it really doesn't matter which you use?
It does matter, you aren't supposed to use one hand in the Roman rite but it wouldn't invalidate the sacrament. Take, for example, a priest that uses leavened bread in the Latin Mass, he is supposed to use unleavened but the church has said leavened is valid and is used in the Eastern rites, it doesn't invalidate the Mass. A similar situation is here where a bishop may or may not have used one hand in conferring the priesthood, it is valid in the eastern rite, what would invalidate that matter in the Latin rite
@@CanisDomini777 Can you give references that say that one handed ordination in the Roman rite is valid? References after Pope Pius XII's declaration, but before the V2 changes? Or is it just your assumption that what applies to one sacrament applies to another?
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. All this controversy and murmuring seems to me like highschool girls gossiping. Why cant grown men be reasonable ? It seems to me the SSPV is quite bellicose and ready to create contempt of others for minute details.
The entire SSPV? No. Fr. Jenkins seems to be unreasonably insistent upon a debatable matter of which he himself is unsure. Whatever his fault, it hardly carries over to every priest and person of the SSPV. May I suggest to just let it go?
Father, How do we know who are sinners. Should we assume? I talk to strangers all the time some look different than me some act different but should I avoid them or be kind to them and have small talk ? I have no way of knowing their soul. Please explain clearer. Thank you🙏🏻
I want the priests to do all that they can to ensure that Catholics receive valid sacraments. I'm grateful that the people who are offended by the desire to ensure the validity of the sacraments - are in fact, only laymen. They don't get it. We're talking about souls and where they spend eternity. They need to sit down and stop talking.
Father Jenkins is not a priest. I know this because I heard from a very reliable source that Archbishop Lefebvre sneezed during the recitation of the form at his ordination (*Sarcasm*).
Nobody should be offended as in feelings hurt. Those who responded by insulting or unloading anger on Fr. Jenkins are in the wrong. Their belief may or may not be correct, but disrespecting a priest is just wrong. I hope Fr. Jenkins or whoever monitors his mail deleted or tossed in the bin any correspondence that starts with invectives or uses profanity! Such correspondence says more about the bad will and character of the sender than about any issue raised by Fr. Jenkins! Sincere, respectful inquiries, however, deserve an answer.
BTW, the Palmerian “pope” before the present one, decided after what he said were years of “playing around.” He resigned and moved in with his mistress!
I do belive the Sacred Heart church lighing up was a sign. However, logic tells me it was fruitless because the wicked and spiritually dead don't recognize it because it's a passive benign sign from God. In other words, God dosent punishment so they continue on due to a lack of direct and painful punishment from God.
They are wrong. No disciples ever venerated Mary. Jesus also said no man comes to the Father except through him and that there is no mediator between Hod and man except him. Oh and by the way, Jesus also said to not call any man "Father". The catholics don't read the teachings of our Lord. They rely on men who create their own vain religion.
I do agree about his conclusions about the Olympics however. Just can't understand how he can criticize idolizing Olympians when he idolized the "immaculate Mary" ...
Catholics don't "idolize Mary". And I'm assuming that when anyone asks you who your father is, or how your father is, you tell them that you have no father except in heaven?
Timestamps:
0:00 - Intro
1:03 - Welcome & Prayer requests
2:55 - Father Williamson objections
14:51 - 2024 Paris Olympics blasphemy
30:57 - Secret service understaffed
35:35 - Leftists' new magic word: "weird."
44:05 - Catholic Patriotism
49:52 - Eating with sinners?
1:01:24 - Watching romantic movies
1:02:30 - Striking breast during prayer
1:03:42 - Smoking before communion?
1:04:28 - Palmarian Church
1:06:26 - Illuminating the Sacred Heart
God Bless all clerics who defend the faith, tradition, rubrics, form, function. Having the knowledge to defend against invalid sacraments is a grace. A gift to humanity. Thank you.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us. 🙏🙏🙏
Thank you, Fr. Jenkins, for your explanations of various controversial issues. I learn each week. May God bless you and Tom and all the fine people of St. Pius the Fifth always and abundantly.
Thank you Father Jenkins and dear host Thomas well said teaching and guidance my prayers from afar for you Father Jenkins , Fathers of the church and Thomas for graces, virtue and wisdom 🕊️🌹🌹🌹
I think asking anyone to come forward, if the facts are known to them, (12.35) with proof for the validity of the ordination of Bp Williamson is rather unreasonable, since we have not been told anything about this person who is shrouded in mystery. As far as the argument for invalidity goes, we listeners have been given some hearsay from an unnamed and unknown witness. We are not allowed to know the name of this person or their credentials. On the other hand, arguing for the validity of the ordination, we have a named and experienced priest who was sitting in the front row watching everything on the day. I don’t think the responsibility lies with us the listeners.
It doesn’t!
In fact the last time I met Fr. Jenkins was in the summer of 1987!
As for contacting the Holy See about the issue of the alleged one-hand priestly ordination of 1976, how is this possible in today's vacant See situation? Fr. Jenkins's statement is just as illogical as consulting the present Vatican's Rota (Supreme Tribunal) to declare marriages to be invalid.
That is a valid question. May it be addressed.
You miss the point entirely.
Look up "The Validity of Ordination Conferred with One Hand (2000)" by Rev. Anthony Cekada. He goes into detail to show that 1 handed ordination is valid, even after 1948.
Picasso 🤣 Thank you for your insights, Fr. Jenkins 🙏🙏🙏🌹
An excellent explanation of the issues surrounding the Games in Paris. Thank you so much.
Father...you have me in stitches......😅....God bless you
Again, the issue remains that what's being presented is hearsay.
Fr Egregyi has given public witness. If this anonymous source is not going to step up, it's not reasonable to expect anybody to see this as anything other than gossip.
Yes, it would seem the maxim “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur” applies (ie., “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”).
+Vigano, whom I admire very much, recently made comments imply Francis was guilty of the same abuse as McCarrick (ie., he was a homosexual and worse), but supplied no evidence to back the claim as one ought to when making such a claim. Very well, I thought, that is a significant mistake which wounded His Excellency’s credibility, and most prudent Catholic men understood instinctively that to give credence to such a claim without any evidence was rash and imprudent, and the same maxim applies.
@@seanjohnson5518 Is there a church registry entry of Richard Williamson's conditional baptism in the traditional rite of the Catholic Church (not the Novus Ordo / Protestant rite)?
Williamson was reconditionally baptised in a Sussex (England) conservative conciliar parish either in 1971 or 1972 by the parish priest called Fr. Flanaghan. Someone should check this in the diocesan registers (Arundal and Brighton).
@@Madridismus_ESP This isn't even a part of the question.
ua-cam.com/video/fQKG10N7Q-E/v-deo.html
@@seanjohnson5518 Yes, I won't believe him unless he presents the evidence, and I also wouldn't be at all surprised if he did. Regardless, we already know the heresy Francis spews is far worse than these alleged crimes against nature and man.
This argument goes against the sensus Catholicus that Fr. Jenkins invoked in the past (in a debate with Fr. Cekada) as a guide in coming to a reasoned conclusion in the Thuc controversy. Here he cites his efforts, going to Munich, etc., to gather the evidence that led him to the conclusion that the consecrations were doubtfully valid. It's a pretty stark contrast with the efforts he's made, and the standards of proof and the evidence he's offered to support casting serious doubt on Bp. Williamson's consecration, and everything that has followed from it--the bishops he's consecrated, the confirmations, etc. I'm shocked. It makes me want to seriously rethink what is the role of faithful Catholic priests in this time of chaos and crisis.
Fr. Jenkins should not have raised doubts about this in public and should not, when challenged or further questioned, have passed the responsibility for resolution on to the faithful. It is placing an unreasonable burden on the shoulders of those who cannot carry it.
I do not think his original intention was to add turmoil to already perplexed souls. What little I could find out on my own came down to a choice between equally weighted opposing opinions. In such a dilemma, a Catholic may choose whichever he wills without fear of sin. Should one’s choice turn out to be incorrect, there is still no sin so long as he switches his mind to that which is correct. St. Robert Bellarmine for a time believed the wrong man to be pope. When the true pope was made known, he accepted him without further question, end of the matter!
I love being Catholic
Fr. Francois Egregyi letter of Nov. 8, 2012 posted by Quo vadis Domine on July 24, 2024 on a catholic information forum under crisis in the church section in an article, "Why 'Father' Williamson, but 'Archbishop' Vigano?..."
For what it’s worth, I wrote to +Williamson in late 2021 about this matter, and this was his response (excerpt):
“ I have heard it before.
The Archbishop was a competent theologian, and scrupulous about ceremonies and ceremonial. Little is less likely than that he would have confused the one hand of the diaconate with the two hands of the priesthood.
I would like to see who are the "eyewitnesses" of the one hand.”
But, does he deny it outright? I'm assuming he should know if one or two hands were used...
@@AS-yz2iz Who cares? Father Jenkins needs to prove that only one hand was used, not Bishop Williamson. and all he has is an unidentified source. Father François Egregyi was there and he witnessed both hands.
@@MichaelHellmann-jy9ob So, Father's source is not valid, because you don't know who it is, but Fr. Egregyi is valid, because...? Because he gave his name? How do you know he's telling the truth? Has Williamson ever denied it?
@@AS-yz2iz How do you know Father Jenkins is telling the truth? Father Egregyi can lie but not Jenkins? Again and for the last time, the Sacraments are ALWAYS ASSUMED to be valid. The burden of proof is on Father Jenkins to show actual evidence of what he is saying or to remain silent.
@@AS-yz2iz Your insistence on defending your priest no matter what amazes me.
There are very few that stick to their guns , so to speak , like Fr. Jenkins and it is not in a negative way, objective facts / truth are important when it comes to Catholic faith and tradition of the Catholic church. All those who are living in a subjective world and criticize things because their feelings are hurt should really examine their conscience and ask why are they responding the way they are
It’s not about feelings. It’s about the truth of the matter in so far as it may be ascertained. If a large number of souls are disturbed, they are not out of line to request a more definitive argument from the one who disturbed them. He is a well-known priest and founding pastor of SSPV with a public ministry. For example, who are the two nameless witnesses whose words conflict?
The keyboard warriors who fling insults and crude names at Fr. Jenkins, or precipitously cancel and block the website are rude, disrespectful, or extremely immature adults. (I don’t think many children watch WCB!)
@@mariekatherine5238 Dear mariekatherine5238, The one witness who has stated in writing in a letter dated November 8, 2012, and in the comments on this video and the previous WCB, that he witnessed Archbishop Lefebvre place two hands on the heads of Deacon Williamson and Deacon Dolan in their Ordination to the Priesthood on June 29, 1976. He was ordained a subdeacon on that same day and was seated in the front row directly behind the ordinands. He signed the letter: "May God be my witness." His name is Father Francois Egregyi. We should be grateful for his willingness to give us his testimony, and appreciate his contributions to shed light on this dilemma.
Additional Buzzwords
1. woke
2. cancel
3. gaslight
4. base
5. fake
6. elite
7. narrative
8. rad-trad
9. trad-cat
10. meme/selfie
I knew as soon as the Palmarian Church topic came up it would be less than 10 seconds before Father mentioned Archbishop Thuc
Yes, but Archbishop Thuc didn’t form or endorse the bizarre sect that became the Palmarians. He was very imprudent in some, not all, of his consecrations. Those men who were ineligible should not be considered bishops, and any priests they ordained or further bishops they consecrated are invalid. But most of those who WERE eligible, did NOT go off the deep end. They are real priests and real bishops. The confusion comes in knowing if the lines following Archbishop Thuc are legit. It’s impossible for the faithful and even Fr. Jenkins to know everything, to give a 100% yes or no response. Only God can do that. For all we know, it’s possible for any priest, bishop, layman for that matter, to be 100% certain his baptism was valid. The older the person, the less likely it was filmed or photographed, but the more likely it was properly performed, prevV2. The younger the person, the more likely it was invalid, but also more likely to have been photographed and of late, videoed. At what point do we draw the line seeking for validity? A certain amount of trust must be present concerning human beings. For example, who baptized Thuc? Was he a real priest? What if the priest who baptized him wasn’t a priest? Or what if that priest’s bishop was improperly consecrated? Other than a very old record in a church that may no longer exist, so transferred to a diocese that also may or may no longer exist…it has to stop somewhere!
One must also investigate going forward. If a reasonably certain priest was made bishop by Thuc, in turn ordained priests and consecrated bishops, consider the fruit as Our Lord instructs by the parable of the tree. Has good fruit been borne? Is good fruit presently growing? Or is it rotten or deformed fruit? Listen, also, for teachings of the true Magisterium. Is it taught? Is it practiced? (No chapel is comprised of all perfect Saints, else it wouldn’t be here on earth!)
Of course, this is the best I can deduce at this time. Maybe I’m all wrong. It won’t be the first time. Please pray for me.
(Added 8/7/24 Call mine a ‘bishopprivationist’ point of view?)
Your excuse as to why you call Vigano Bishop and Williamson father, doesn't hold water. Because after Kelly's consecration, you managed to start calling him Bishop even though you worked with him and knew him as father beforehand. also concerning Williamson, if anything you should not have been calling him Father if you doubt his ordination. I doubt there was anything wrong with his consecration to the bishopric.
Your fist argument doesn't "hold water". He obviously has seen and worked closely with Bishop Kelly for decades. You begin to use their new title out of habit long before that. When was the last time he worked with, or spent meaningful time with Bishop Williamson? And we've all ever known Vigano as "archbishop" of the NO.
Agreed.
Fr.. Jenkins, Please share the exact date this issue of a questionable two hand ordination was brought to your attention. We all need to know so we can help add clarity.
At 5:26 you state "...something had been brought to my attention that I consider to be credible because it was from a credible, credible source and THEY brought this to my attention..." How many people are in your "credible source"?
Fr. Jenkins's sole source for the alleged one-hand imposition is a former SSPX priest (Fr. G.H.). It would be interesting to find out if this priest was Master of ceremonies on June 29, 1976, therefore a reliable witness. If he had been a reliable witness, during the ceremony, why on earth did he not stop the Archbishop to ask him to impose his two hands on Fr. Williamson's head?
@@francoisegregyi233 Dear Father Egregyi, Thank you for your comments! Perhaps Fr. Jenkins will answer your very logical question after consulting Fr. G.H., if that is still possible. As M. C., that would have been his duty to correct immediately, yes?
Catholic principle:
Validity must be assumed.
Invalidity must be proved.
You are the one who must bring the proofs, not one anonimous testimony against witnesses with name that speak by themselves.
In any case, who are you to come to set up juridical conclusions when the facts are disputed? On whose authority do you throw a canonical decree of a dead Pope against Catholic prelads who also stand on Catholic laws and Magisterium? (I am talking about taking the premise that the one-handed ordaination is "invalid")
The absence of visible lawful authority is driving everyone crazy and non-sensical.
Because you do set it up with the father calling, and all that non-sense.
I'm confused not having heard the previous podcast - but Father Williamson is more than a priest he was concentrated a bishop by Lefebvre who would not have made him a bishop if he was a Deacon?
A deviation sounds really bad WHY WOULD THE archbishop have deviated ?
On such a serious topic you should have contacted B Williamson himself -
I'm very disappointed you would be specifically so scandalous based on the hearsay of one so called witness.
Fr. Jenkins goofed on this one. The interviews are not rehearsed. He spoke off the top of his head regarding an issue he should have kept private to settle amongst fellow priests. To not name the “reliable”:witnesses with opposing answers leaves the laity and possibly some priests, disturbed in spirit. When scores of distressed responses and comments are the result, it places a heavy, unfair burden on laity to do research and find out for ourselves! We have the right to valid priests, Masses, and Sacraments, but Fr. Jenkins abandons the faithful, few if any are experts in canon law!
I know a lady who is so upset she remained in the pew and didn’t allow her sons to receive Communion because the priest was ordained by +Bp. Williamson. I’m sure Fr. Jenkins didn’t intend to, but he’s accidentally knocked down a wasp’s nest!
Thank you for your reply.
This phrase "jumping the shark" from a TV show really doesn't apply to something as serious as the doubts raised about Bp. WIlliamson's ordination. Fr. Jenkins brought up the comparison between doubting the validity of the Thuc consecrations and the Bp. Williamson ordination. In the former, the question of the intention of Abp.Thuc figured prominently in the decision that the consecrations were doubtful. Was he competent even to perform them? Why in the case of Abp. Lefebvre does he get no credit so to speak for being undoubtedly sane at the time of the ordinations?. The same "rigorous" standards are being applied to the Williamson ordinations as were applied to Thuc, when in fact they are two very different situations. This question of intention and mental competence is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the differences between the two.
Thank you, Father Jenkins, and Thomas. Excellent programme.
I would like to point out that one hand is used in the eastern Catholic rites for the conferring of the priesthood. If the matter is valid in one rite, why would it be doubtful or invalid in another?
I am glad that you mentioned that, Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis On the Sacrament of Orders issued in 1947 that the Church of Rome accepted the Rites of Ordination in the Eastern Orthodox Church at the Council of Florence saying that with the union of the Greeks with the Roman Church, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it the traditio instrumentorum. The Eastern Orthodox have as a valid Rite of Consecration to lay the open book of the Gospels on the Head of the priest being ordained.
The Council of Florence in 1442 said the Orthodox Rite of Consecration was valid and Pope Pius XII said the same thing.
Good point!
Does that matter, if the matter and form of the Roman rite is different, and he was ordained in the Roman Rite, not the Eastern rite? Why have rubrics for each rite, if it really doesn't matter which you use?
It does matter, you aren't supposed to use one hand in the Roman rite but it wouldn't invalidate the sacrament. Take, for example, a priest that uses leavened bread in the Latin Mass, he is supposed to use unleavened but the church has said leavened is valid and is used in the Eastern rites, it doesn't invalidate the Mass. A similar situation is here where a bishop may or may not have used one hand in conferring the priesthood, it is valid in the eastern rite, what would invalidate that matter in the Latin rite
@@CanisDomini777 Can you give references that say that one handed ordination in the Roman rite is valid? References after Pope Pius XII's declaration, but before the V2 changes? Or is it just your assumption that what applies to one sacrament applies to another?
Please make this program longer than an hour, at least 2 hours.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
All this controversy and murmuring seems to me like highschool girls gossiping.
Why cant grown men be reasonable ? It seems to me the SSPV is quite bellicose and ready to create contempt of others for minute details.
The entire SSPV? No. Fr. Jenkins seems to be unreasonably insistent upon a debatable matter of which he himself is unsure. Whatever his fault, it hardly carries over to every priest and person of the SSPV. May I suggest to just let it go?
All of them. They’re too old for all this old man beefing. Stay dragging each other. Dredging up old time beefs.
Thomas J also belongs to the red sea pedestrians.
Who is Thomas J?
Father, How do we know who are sinners. Should we assume? I talk to strangers all the time some look different than me some act different but should I avoid them or be kind to them and have small talk ? I have no way of knowing their soul. Please explain clearer. Thank you🙏🏻
I want the priests to do all that they can to ensure that Catholics receive valid sacraments.
I'm grateful that the people who are offended by the desire to ensure the validity of the sacraments - are in fact, only laymen. They don't get it. We're talking about souls and where they spend eternity. They need to sit down and stop talking.
Father Jenkins is not a priest. I know this because I heard from a very reliable source that Archbishop Lefebvre sneezed during the recitation of the form at his ordination (*Sarcasm*).
Nobody should be offended as in feelings hurt. Those who responded by insulting or unloading anger on Fr. Jenkins are in the wrong. Their belief may or may not be correct, but disrespecting a priest is just wrong. I hope Fr. Jenkins or whoever monitors his mail deleted or tossed in the bin any correspondence that starts with invectives or uses profanity! Such correspondence says more about the bad will and character of the sender than about any issue raised by Fr. Jenkins! Sincere, respectful inquiries, however, deserve an answer.
@@MichaelHellmann-jy9ob If you’re from NYC area, your comment is funny! 😂 I get it. But many people won’t, even though you explain it’s sarcastic. 😡
I think they're getting to much attention
What they're there for, evil wants company
BTW, the Palmerian “pope” before the present one, decided after what he said were years of “playing around.” He resigned and moved in with his mistress!
Kamala has managed an act of mercy - brevity is now the soul of banality. That means less interminable word salads for all. God be praised.
Can someone produce Fr. Francois Egregyi's letter?
Search "Fr Egregy" and "Cathinfo" , you should then be able to see the post that shows the photo of the letter.
I do belive the Sacred Heart church lighing up was a sign. However, logic tells me it was fruitless because the wicked and spiritually dead don't recognize it because it's a passive benign sign from God. In other words, God dosent punishment so they continue on due to a lack of direct and painful punishment from God.
They are wrong. No disciples ever venerated Mary. Jesus also said no man comes to the Father except through him and that there is no mediator between Hod and man except him. Oh and by the way, Jesus also said to not call any man "Father". The catholics don't read the teachings of our Lord. They rely on men who create their own vain religion.
I do agree about his conclusions about the Olympics however. Just can't understand how he can criticize idolizing Olympians when he idolized the "immaculate Mary" ...
🥱Why do protestants make those objections as if Catholics have never heard them, and answered them, thousands of times before?
Catholics have heard, and answered, those objections thousands of times before.
Catholics don't "idolize Mary". And I'm assuming that when anyone asks you who your father is, or how your father is, you tell them that you have no father except in heaven?
@@marycaine8874With Protestants, there's a sucker/ heretic born every minute.