Fr. Markus Ramolla

@Soccermom013521 When will the names of those bishops be public?

10 Bishops now! 1600 signatures. USA has fallen behind Brazil. Let’s go, talk to your Priest Sunday. How can you not sign this, yet pray to God for a Pope? unamsanctam.org/open-letter

@AsTheRain1 @FourEyedEagle @D1870473838573 @DTCory It is. If many bishops and priests say the same, then there is obviously something to it.

@FrRamolla @FourEyedEagle @D1870473838573 @DTCory I have heard this also, but it's not relevant to the original warning about Frei Tiago, is it?

@FrRamolla @DTCory I count at least 6 different people in this thread asking why this man is to be avoided, and neither of you has given a reason, except "clergy have said, traditional bishops have said, etc." Maybe he should be avoided, but why no direct answer to the question?

@AsTheRain1 @DTCory Asked me privately. MarkusRamolla@web.de

@FourEyedEagle @D1870473838573 @AsTheRain1 @DTCory This is true.

@D1870473838573 @AsTheRain1 @FrRamolla @DTCory Yeah, Bp. Da Silva is very criticised for ordaining and consrecrating priests and bishops without due diligence or caution. I have heard bishop Davila and other priests in Mexico say that

@TrinityJMJ @CathFamPodcast There are not in error.

@FrRamolla @CathFamPodcast We need it to correct the errors of pre 55 priest and bishops.

Hey folks let's remember that Unam sanctam is about attempting to find unity. Let's cool it with the attacks.... Let it breathe a bit. We are all on the same side. That's the point. We just need a Pope. Pray!

@TradCathSermons But it has to granted, cannot be by tacit will of the Pope nor by Ordination or Consecration!

Ordinary jurisdiction can be had without a diocese youtube.com/shorts/DtsbYLS…

@TradCathSermons It is either territorial or over a certain moral body. Traditional bishops are not possessing unlimited universal jurisdiction

@TradCathSermons It is no where found in any book nor in any theological manual!

@FrRamolla From the tacit will of all true popes or directly from Christ himself. Do you have a specific objection to this answer, Father? I know that answer has been provided already several times es, but you keep asking ...

@engl1shtradcat Friar Tiago is a wicked man, who lied for his holy orders, and abused dear friends of mine. He will face his day.

@PapaEgoLeoni @ArchAngelGabe76 Of course they do!

@ArchAngelGabe76 @FrRamolla Hmmm. I wonder if Rome considers your priests to have valid orders then.

Jurisdiction by tacit will of the Pope???

@PapaEgoLeoni @ArchAngelGabe76 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

@ArchAngelGabe76 @FrRamolla Who ordained Bp Daniel Dolan?

@PapaEgoLeoni @ArchAngelGabe76 Excuse me! The commentary " CANON LAW A text and Commentary by T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., and Adam C. Ellis, S.J. is from the 2nd edition 1953.

@FrRamolla @ArchAngelGabe76 You can use a commentary published after the 1917 code was promulgated by Benedict XV. Before that would be historical reference for that code. Gratian Decretum is a great historical reference, particularly with Alexander III’s and Gregory XIII’s adoption.

@PapaEgoLeoni @ArchAngelGabe76 Why not, I could use any other commentary before 1958

@ArchAngelGabe76 @FrRamolla Is he studying canon law history? The book is not a valid commentary on the 1917 code, which was promulgated before the last pope he recognizes as valid.

@PapaEgoLeoni @ArchAngelGabe76 What are you referring to?

@ArchAngelGabe76 @FrRamolla I realize he is a sede. I would be interested in the validity of his holy orders. Just very confusing. He doesn’t show commentary on the 1917 code? I thought his last valid he recognized was Pope Pius XII, after the 1917 code was promulgated.

@TradCathSermons @TheWMReview @HierB4TheAC @AbbeDutertre Really?

@FrRamolla @TheWMReview @HierB4TheAC @AbbeDutertre Your voice will not be heard unless you participate. Go!

One aspect of the "Imperfect General Council" talk: Some hold that, in the Great Western Schism, Benedict XIII showed himself to be a schismatic, and thus not the Pope, by his refusal to resign and allow the Council to elect an undoubted Pope. Effectively, his actions were construed as contrary to the good and unity of the Church, and thus evidence of schism. This is the principle to which some of the Council advocates have started referring. At the beginning of this debate, there were suggestions that any clergy who wouldn't "get with the programme" would effectively be left behind, because their faithful would abandon them. It has become more frequent and clearer. If the advocates of a Council follow through, and elect a papal claimant, this is what will happen. Those who don't accept their actions or arguments will be cast as schismatics and outside the Church. This is why I said the other day, and why @AbbeDutertre said yesterday: if this is where this movement is going, it should just go ahead and do it. Those who do not accept the theology or arguments are already unnecessary for the proposed Council and the election, and it seems clear that some of its advocates are laying the ground for an accusation of schism in the future. This makes the current period look like a kind of "two warnings" situation to establish the "pertinacity" of clergy who do not accept the IGC plans. Again, those who think that people don't notice that this is the way they are talking are mistaken. We see what you are doing. But if this is so, there is no need for those clergy who think like this, or for the agreement of laity who agree with them. Get on and do what you're going to do quickly, and have done with it.

@DTCory @AsTheRain1 Another traditional bishop in France warned about him. And there are many documents from Novus Ordo bishops warning about him, and this not because Tiago became traditional.

@DTCory @AsTheRain1 This has nothing to do with the thesis. Until recent, every serious bishop avoided him.

Frei Tiago is someone to be avoided, and he has been for some time even before these unfortunate statements.

Dear Father, Laudetur Jesus Christus! I appreciate your answer and your efforts for the Church. It is clear to me that calling an Imperfect General Council requires Ordinary Jurisdiction obtained through the proper channels of the Church and to hold a true Office of the Church. Would you agree with this? Since you talk about delegated Jurisdiction let me quote Bouscaren: " Delegated Jurisdiction is any which has not these two qualities; (1. attached to an office in the strict sense [c. 145,] 2. it must be attached to that Office by law [c. 197, Paragr. 1]), is merely given to a person. This may be done in either of two ways. 1. The law itself may grant the jurisdiction in certain circumstances; as canon 882 grants to all priests jurisdiction to absolve from all sins and censures in danger of death. This is Jurisdiction delegated by law. It is not ordinary because it is not attached to an office in the strict sense. The priesthood is not such an office. 2. The jurisdiction may be expressly granted by a special act of the superior. Such jurisdiction is delegated, whether the person chosen for personal qualifications or by reason of the office which he holds...." Please consider this and perhaps you do. God Bless.

Thank you, Father. I have some prior commits on this topic to respond to, so it wouldn't be right for me to start a new discussion on it until I finish those. However, I would like to at least make it clear that I am not arguing that trad bishops have ordinary jurisdiction. I believe the most defensible explanation is that it is delegated jurisdiction from the tacit will of the Popes (it doesn't matter which one and would have been the will of all in any case). You can word search my replies for "Lainez" or "tacit" to find places where I have explained that this is not a new teaching at all and was taught be Lainez at Trent, not to mention others. Unfortunately, I never got to reading most of the quotes I dug up from Lainez and others at my talk on Apostolicity a few years ago, but WM Review has recently published some of them which they obtain from someone to whom I sent them a few years ago. The bottom line is, it seems incompatible with the indefectibility of the Church to say that there is no exercise of jurisdiction at all in the Church today and there are no pastors of any kind. The only question seems to be whether or not a state of zero ordinary jurisdiction and only delegated jurisdiction in trad bishops is compatible with indefectibility. I don't think anyone has proven that the existence in bishops at all times of ordinary jurisdiction is a matter of the indefectibility of the Church. In fact, I believe some theologians believe that in apostolic times all the Apostles and other bishops operated on delegated jurisdiction, that is, papal jurisdiction delegated by Peter, and this is why they could go anywhere and make bishops. Whether or not that is true, it seems to show that theologians to not consider such a state as incompatible with the essential nature of the Church. But, if delegated jurisdiction is not sufficient to this essential nature, then we must admit that somehow the jurisdiction tacitly given to trad bishops is in fact ordinary. I have not seen a convincing argument for this, but either delegated jurisdiction is alone sufficient for the necessary presence of pastors in the Church, or they must have ordinary jurisdiction. Nor would this be sufficiently solved by one or a few unknown "Ordinaries" in the world while almost the entirety of the faithful are deprived of pastors of any kind. No theologian I am aware of has ever taught that the complete absence of jurisdiction and pastors of any kind all over the world is consistent with the nature of the Church. Yet this is what the Thesis claims has happened.

It might change tomorrow if they are spammers, but this is an addition of 1 bishop, 8 priests and 6 religious!

@SatisCognitum07 @DTCory @AsTheRain1 Many clerics say the same. Of of them is Bp Pio Espina

@DTCory @AsTheRain1 Is he to be avoided because he doesn’t hold the thesis? Because he promotes an imperfect general council? Etc.