Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: SSPX Fake Priests  (Read 115518 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #170 on: August 03, 2025, 09:04:24 PM »
Apostolicae Curae ... 30-33

30. For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circuмstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it necessary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying”, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.

31. In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost”, no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words “for the office and work of a priest or bishop”, and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.

32. Many of the more shrewd Anglican interpreters of the Ordinal have perceived the force of this argument, and they openly urge it against those who take the Ordinal in a new sense, and vainly attach to the Orders conferred thereby a value and efficacy which they do not possess. By this same argument is refuted the contention of those who think that the prayer, “Almighty God, giver of all good Things”, which is found at the beginning of the ritual action, might suffice as a legitimate “form” of Orders, even in the hypothesis that it might be held to be sufficient in a Catholic rite approved by the Church.

33. With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.



Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #171 on: August 03, 2025, 09:08:55 PM »
Pope Leo XII clearly teaches that the Church does not judge the intention of the minister, but the intention of the Rite, and the intention of the Rite was made clear by virtue of the fact that the heretic "reformers" removed as many quintessentially-Catholic elements as they could from the Rite in order that the Rite no longer contradict their heresies and errors.  THAT is what he teaches constitutes the "intention" of the Rite.  He then says that any attempts to rectify the original defect of the essential form is meaningless, since it's vitiated by the larger context of the entire Rite, namely, the aforementioned elimination of the Catholic elements from the Rite.  This is 1000% what the Conciliar "reformers" did to the Catholic Sacramental Rites, whether the Sacrifice of the Mass or the different Rites of Holy Orders.  We've had one Traditional Catholic study after another show how they systematically expunged references to sacrifice from the various Rites, and it's the very same reason that Pope Leo XIII gives for rendering the Anglican Rite "absolutely invalid, null, and void" ... due to its methodical removal of any references to sacrifice from the Rites.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #172 on: August 03, 2025, 09:27:45 PM »
Pope Leo XIII, as we have seen, taught that the intention of the Anglical Ordination Rite was shown to have been vitiated by the deliberate removal of all references to sacrifice from the Ordinal.  Hmmm.  Where have we seen that in more recent times.  Oh, yeah ... now I remember.






Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicase Curae ...

... they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.  ... In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself.

Ah, yes, SSPX !  Yes, it's just that one word "ut" that was removed, right ... you dishonest gaslighting fools !

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #173 on: August 03, 2025, 09:31:17 PM »
Oh, I'll tell you why ... and EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.  These guys DID NOT come to this conclusion objectively or based on any solid theological reasoning, but simply because they NEED TO SAY THIS SO THEY CAN KEEP PLAYING FOOTSIE WITH MODERNIST ROME.

This is so obvious, and yet so easily forgotten. In other words, they are dishonest, and are absolutely not to be trusted.

Once you start imposing doubtful sacraments on the faithful, you have really no reason to be there, since the main reason for priests to exist is to provide the sacraments.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #174 on: August 03, 2025, 09:48:53 PM »
Katherine Emmerich:

Quote
“I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church ... But God had other designs. ... I saw again the new and odd‑looking church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it ... People were kneading bread in the crypt below ... but it would not rise, nor did they receive the body of our Lord, but only bread. Those who were in error, through no fault of their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the Body of Jesus were spiritually consoled, but not by their communion.”