Must priests who come to Tradition be re-ordained?
This article by Fr. Peter Scott first appeared in the September 2007 issue of The Angelus magazine.
https://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained-30479
So, that's one reason that one of the brightest minds in SSPX has been relegated to a mud hut in Nigeria, and not only that, as an "assistant priest", not even the Prior there.
I'll nevertheless have to disagree with much of his rationale here, where he concludes things like ...
If it cannot be said, as with Anglican orders, that the Novus Ordo rite was changed with the manifest intention of rejecting a sacrificing priesthood, nevertheless the deliberate exclusion of the notion of propitiation, in order to please Protestants, could easily be considered as casting a doubt on the intention of doing what the Church does, namely of offering a true and propitiatory sacrifice. Of course, this doubt would not exist if the ordaining bishop had indicated otherwise his truly Catholic intention of doing what the Church does.
Why, Father Scott, "cannot [that] be said"? I think it's quite clear that it's PRECISELY why they were doing that, excising every single reference to the power of the priest to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, not even leaving one reference behind by accident? In fact, many of the Deformers of the Catholic Rites publicly ADMITTED that it was their intention with both the Mass and the Orrders to make them non-offensive to Prots, i.e. to make them "in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers" ) [Apostolicae Curae 30]. Father should have quoted the entire thing. Notice that Leo XIII didn't even say the Anglicans were "rejecting a sacrificing priesthood" (as Father Scott falsely puts in the mind of Pope Leo), when Pope Leo actually said that they were merely attempting to SUIT the "errors of the reformers". How is that not exactly what the Conciliar Deformers were doing?
So, yes, Father, it absolutely CAN be said that this was their INTENTION, and again, the intention as manifest in the external forum, by what they DID, not what they may or may not have intended in the internal forum.
This was consistent with the SSPX "have your cake and eat it too" theology, where they wanted to regularly do conditionals, perhaps because they knew the faithful would not accept anything else and keep donating, but without then having to fight off the attacks from the SVs about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants. It's just like with the FrankenChurch theology of "Eternal Rome" and "Modernist Rome" ... where they could have their pope and eat him too, technical have a guy was was part "Eternal Pope" (whom they could pay lip service to and put up pictures of in their vestibules, so as not to scare off new visitors and contributors to their collections, and part "Modernist Pope" (that they could rip to pieces and justify their whole apostolate).
Topic: SSPX Fake Priests (Read 114659 times)