Author Topic: There may be more valid priests than we think. (Read 1733 times)

Änσnymσus · « **on:** August 01, 2015, 03:42:34 PM »

I had the courage to ask a priest when and by which rite (old or new) he was ordained and he told me his old bishop used only the old rite of ordination until his death in the 1980's
I happen to know of this bishop and this seems totally believable to me.
While he was still bishop of the diocese no churches were ruined (This was in Canada) Once he died major destruction took place.
I wonder how many other bishops didn't switch.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** August 01, 2015, 03:54:05 PM »

Quote from: Guest

I had the courage to ask a priest when and by which rite (old or new) he was ordained and he told me his old bishop used only the old rite of ordination until his death in the 1980's
I happen to know of this bishop and this seems totally believable to me.
While he was still bishop of the diocese no churches were ruined (This was in Canada) Once he died major destruction took place.
I wonder how many other bishops didn't switch.

This is why the classic SSPX attitude towards the Conciliar Church is more sane and comprehensive than the simplistic attitude of some (mostly sedevacantist) groups:
"NOT CATHOLIC! Equivalent to Lutheran!"

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #2 on:** August 01, 2015, 09:23:39 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Guest
I had the courage to ask a priest when and by which rite (old or new) he was ordained and he told me his old bishop used only the old rite of ordination until his death in the 1980's
I happen to know of this bishop and this seems totally believable to me.
While he was still bishop of the diocese no churches were ruined (This was in Canada) Once he died major destruction took place.
I wonder how many other bishops didn't switch.

This is why the classic SSPX attitude towards the Conciliar Church is more sane and comprehensive than the simplistic attitude of some (mostly sedevacantist) groups:
"NOT CATHOLIC! Equivalent to Lutheran!"

However, unless there is personal familiarity with a confirming bishop, it seems prudent to conditionally reconfirm all comers from the NO, don't you think?

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** August 02, 2015, 02:15:55 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

This is why the classic SSPX attitude towards the Conciliar Church is more sane and comprehensive than the simplistic attitude of some (mostly sedevacantist) groups:
"NOT CATHOLIC! Equivalent to Lutheran!"

Could you all please stop picking up every stick you find in the road to beat sedevacantists with? There's simply no need to bring up sedevacantists in a topic that has nothing to do with sedevacantists.

I agree that the classic SSPX attitude towards Conciliar ordinations is the proper attitude. The Neo-SSPX, on the other hand, is completely wrong in that they now seem to think that ordinations are valid if the ordinand himself believes it was valid.

But let's get back to the "simplistic attitude of sedevacantists". Every sedevacantist I've ever heard or read clearly condemns the new rite of ordination, not the traditional rite. All of them say that a priest ordained in the traditional rite by a bishop who was consecrated in the traditional rite and whose lineage is untouched by the Novus Ordo are valid priests. I've never heard any sedevacantist (of consequence--obviously the Dimond brothers aren't of consequence since they think they're the only Catholics left on earth) suggest that the date of an ordination itself ipso facto means invalid.

In fact, most sedevacantists I've heard don't even declare Novus Ordo ordinations certainly invalid. Most say that the ordinations are probably doubtful; it is the Novus Ordo consecrations that are invalid. Thus, a true bishop who ordains in the traditional rite makes certainly valid priests.

It is the Novus Ordo that is a non-Catholic rite, not the traditional rite; and, quite frankly, I don't believe you know any sedevacantists who actually have the "simplistic attitude" that priests ordained by a certainly valid bishop in a certainly valid Catholic rite are not valid priests.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #4 on:** August 02, 2015, 02:23:34 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Could you all please stop picking up every stick you find in the road to beat sedevacantists with? There's simply no need to bring up sedevacantists in a topic that has nothing to do with sedevacantists.

Both sides do the same thing. If you go to R&R people and organizations they are always attacking sedevacantists and if you go to sedevacantist people and organizations they are always attacking R&R supporters. Many on both sides are vicious and don't consider the other side Catholic. Since this is not a website that supports sedevacantism you should get used to sedevacantists being attacked, just like if you go to Novus Ordo Watch they will attack R&R supporters and call them non-Catholic all the time.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** August 02, 2015, 06:42:43 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: TKGS
Could you all please stop picking up every stick you find in the road to beat sedevacantists with? There's simply no need to bring up sedevacantists in a topic that has nothing to do with sedevacantists.

Both sides do the same thing. If you go to R&R people and organizations they are always attacking sedevacantists and if you go to sedevacantist people and organizations they are always attacking R&R supporters. Many on both sides are vicious and don't consider the other side Catholic. Since this is not a website that supports sedevacantism you should get used to sedevacantists being attacked, just like if you go to Novus Ordo Watch they will attack R&R supporters and call them non-Catholic all the time.

But dogmatism on the matter is supposed to be forbidden on CathInfo though dogmatic anti-sedevacantists are tolerated here and even Matthew insists of getting digs in here and there.

The only people R&R people I've ever had experience with is the SSPX and they do frequently talk about the "problem" of sedevacantism though they never seem to be able to really identify what that problem is other than to simply declare it wrong.

I have been to several sedevacantist chapels and, frankly, I've never heard the "attacks" on non-sedevacantists; wonderment that they could say their pope was a heretic but still be the pope, but that's hardly an attack. We just don't understand it.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #6 on:** August 04, 2015, 07:27:14 AM »

Quote from: Guest

I had the courage to ask a priest when and by which rite (old or new) he was ordained and he told me his old bishop used only the old rite of ordination until his death in the 1980's
I happen to know of this bishop and this seems totally believable to me.
While he was still bishop of the diocese no churches were ruined (This was in Canada) Once he died major destruction took place.
I wonder how many other bishops didn't switch.

Why did this bishop use the old rite? Was it because it is similar to the new one and he couldn't be bothered, or was too old, to learn the new? Did he also confirm in the old rite?

OHCA · « **Reply #7 on:** August 04, 2015, 12:30:27 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest
I had the courage to ask a priest when and by which rite (old or new) he was ordained and he told me his old bishop used only the old rite of ordination until his death in the 1980's
I happen to know of this bishop and this seems totally believable to me.
While he was still bishop of the diocese no churches were ruined (This was in Canada) Once he died major destruction took place.
I wonder how many other bishops didn't switch.

Why did this bishop use the old rite? Was it because it is similar to the new one and he couldn't be bothered, or was too old, to learn the new?

This wording suggests the basest of motives. Disgusting that one would immediately leap to the conclusion that what is outwardly good is motivated by laziness or simply being stuck in old ways akin to some crotchety old bastard not wanting to learn how to use a new cell phone or computer. All the more disgusting that this suggestion is hurled from the cowardly shield of anonymity.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #8 on:** August 04, 2015, 12:47:11 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest
I had the courage to ask a priest when and by which rite (old or new) he was ordained and he told me his old bishop used only the old rite of ordination until his death in the 1980's
I happen to know of this bishop and this seems totally believable to me.
While he was still bishop of the diocese no churches were ruined (This was in Canada) Once he died major destruction took place.
I wonder how many other bishops didn't switch.

Why did this bishop use the old rite? Was it because it is similar to the new one and he couldn't be bothered, or was too old, to learn the new? Did he also confirm in the old rite?

OP here. I know neither the bishop's mind nor his heart but I do know positively that he allowed priests to offer the old Mass right up to his death.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #9 on:** August 04, 2015, 01:49:27 PM »

The basic fact that the Rites of Consecration were changed first tells me that revolution was the reason for the change.

In Fr Scott's essay making the case for the validity of the new rite, Fr Scott even quotes the change agent saying that a new kind of bishop was needed for the post-Conciliar church.

The revolutionaries wanted to change the rites for bishops in case there was a universal howl, but since their wasn't, the revolutionaries went on the change to rites for priests too.

TKGS · « **Reply #10 on:** August 04, 2015, 03:44:41 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest
I had the courage to ask a priest when and by which rite (old or new) he was ordained and he told me his old bishop used only the old rite of ordination until his death in the 1980's
I happen to know of this bishop and this seems totally believable to me.
While he was still bishop of the diocese no churches were ruined (This was in Canada) Once he died major destruction took place.
I wonder how many other bishops didn't switch.

Why did this bishop use the old rite? Was it because it is similar to the new one and he couldn't be bothered, or was too old, to learn the new? Did he also confirm in the old rite?

I was originally confirmed in Seattle by a new bishop in the first year of the new rite of confirmation. They made a special point that things were new and that the bishop would no longer "slap the candidates on the face".

My wife was originally confirmed about ten years later in New Hampshire by a retired bishop who used the old rite. The bishop gave her the blow of the cheek. He used the old rite.

I know at least one elderly priest who still uses the old formulas for confession.

Except for Mass, I think a lot of priests and bishops who were trained in the traditional rites just didn't change. They didn't really see a need to change since it wasn't a weekly thing that would necessarily be noticed and they didn't want to learn how to do things "the new way."

This whole issue doesn't surprise me in the least.

Author Topic: There may be more valid priests than we think. (Read 1733 times)

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus