Author Topic: SSPX Fake Priests (Read 114963 times)

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #175 on:** August 03, 2025, 09:54:49 PM »

Thanks for taking on this project, Lad.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #176 on:** August 03, 2025, 10:09:12 PM »

And what do we make of the SSPX nonsense about "judging each particular case"? Virtually every NO bishop in America was consecrated post 1968, so necessarily this fact alone calls into doubt every NO ordination. Take for instance Cardinal Arinze, he was consecrated a bishop in 1965. Ok, he is a bishop. But if he uses the Novus Ordo rite, absolutely do I call into question the validity of the ordination.

The SSPX wants to dance with the modernists, which is nothing more than a dance with the devil.

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #177 on:** August 03, 2025, 10:17:42 PM »

And to add to what was I said above, the principle as I learned it is: If the traditional formula is used, then we presume the intention. But, if the modernist formula is used, we must presume an ill intention, or at least a modernist intention. And nothing seems to be said of the orthodoxy of these NO bishops. Take for instance Cardinal Bernardin, he was a valid bishop. But what guy in his right mind would go to Bernardin for ordination? The guy was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, borderline Luciferian; at least an outright modernist liberal. Even if Bernardin used the orthodox formula, one would be insane to go to him for ordination.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #178 on:** August 04, 2025, 07:44:49 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 03, 2025, 08:24:29 PM

Postive means that there's something you can point to. Period. You make garbage up about "canonically", a nonsensical term that doesn't apply to this question. Positive differs from negative only in that the latter is a "what if" type of doubt, i.e. where you cannot concretely verify validity in a particular case, i.e. "what if Father mess up the consecration at Mass today."

It's simple fact, admitted by the SSPX even, in the first video that Robinson had to then come out and do damage control on ... that there were very significant changes made to the episcopal rite of consecration, and that the rite itself has no precedent in Tradition.

That suffices for postiive doubt.

Anonymous Troll can take you crap somewhere else. You're free to decide that the Novus Ordo Presbyters are all valid and go to as many of their Masses as you like.

But your buffoonery has not authority to impose your (idiotic self-serving) conclusions on anyone else ... so you can stand up here opining until you're blue in the face.

Now, this thread is for people who with to report SSPX Fake Priests, not for your stupidity. Take it somewhere else if you want to start a thread attempting to prove the validity of Bogus Ordo Orders. Of course, you can't ... since the burden of proof is on you to prove validity, and you can't do it, since you lack the authority to do so.

'Positive doubt' is a canonical term applied after a Rite or the administration of a sacrament has been found, by the correct authorities and in accordance to specific guidelines , to be lacking in some essential element to render it possibly invalid. Now you are correct when you state that very significant changes have been made to the episcopal rite of consecration, but has it been established as invalid? No. Has a 'positive doubt' been established? Certainly there are serious reasons to cause one to have doubts - not knowing one way or another - but has a 'Positive doubt' been established?

You make mention of the Anglican Rite that Pope Leo XIII declared to be "absolutely invalid, null, and void" but this has no bearing on the Catholic New Rite as it have not been declared upon. In fact, as we have established, even his Lordship Williamson believed the New Rite to be valid. Why was that? We have also established that His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre only re-ordained when each individual case was investigated on its own merits; not simply because they were ordained in the New Rite. Why was that?

Now along comes Mr. Ladislaus who declares that the SSPX are all modernists because they do not treat the New Rite of Ordinations as invalid as he wants them to. And this is the crux of the matter isn't it? I am a traditional Catholic of the Roman Catholic Church. I am not a member of your personal church. If no 'positive doubt' has been established in the New Rite, if it has not been declared as invalid, then I as a Catholic must be content with this ruling trusting that the SSPX will make the right decision about each individual case as it has always done. It is the same of the New Rite Mass. You have declared it invalid. You have no right or authority to do that. You can think it if you want but you cannot impose that on other Catholics. Out of principle, I would never attend a New Rite Mass, but neither do I condemn a fellow Catholic for going to one. Bishop Williamson was of this mindset too. As I said, if it gives your personal peace of mind to formulate this list of transparency, then go for it, do your best - make sure you get those child abusers on there too. But don't use it as tool to bash the SSPX with. That's your own personal beef and has no place here.

Yeti · « **Reply #179 on:** August 04, 2025, 07:47:32 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 04, 2025, 07:44:49 AM

'Positive doubt' is a canonical term applied after a Rite or the administration of a sacrament has been found, by the correct authorities and in accordance to specific guidelines , to be lacking in some essential element to render it possibly invalid.

.

Which canon are you referring to?

There is also positive doubt when incorrect words are used for the form. Pius XII defined what words are the form of Holy Orders. The new rite does not use those words.

This has all been decided by the Church already. We are not just expressing our own opinions when we say the new rite is doubtful.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: SSPX Fake Priests (Read 114963 times)

Änσnymσus

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Änσnymσus

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

OABrownson1876

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Änσnymσus

Re: SSPX Fake Priests

Yeti

Re: SSPX Fake Priests