Even tho we doubt the NO's ordinations validity, those who really and actually know better did not - as long as they were done "by the book".....
This issue has been around for 40 years. The sspx leadership doesn't "know better".
2) The "by the book" argument only applied in the 70s/80s when there were still OLD RITE BISHOPS doing new-rite ordinations. Those are less problematic.
But all those bishops are dead. So that argument is over. Time has run out. No longer applies.
In one of his talks, Fr. Hesse talked about his NO ordination, saying:
"...I have been ordained, unfortunately in the new rite of ordination, but thank God in Latin, everything strictly by the book and +ABL said that would be valid, +Fellay said it's valid and Fr. Franz Schmidberger who is my present superior in Austria says it's valid and +Williamson said there's no need for conditional ordination..."
Yeah, and he was conditionally ordained before he died...allegedly.
Fr Hesse's argument in one of his videos was, "I feel like it's valid."
Are +ABL, +Fellay, +Williamson etc. all wrong Pax?
+Tissier disagreed with them. So did Michael Davies. So did many others, who compare the consecration rite with the already-condemned rite of the Anglicans (the errors are the same).
Valid NO priests = valid sacrileges, invalid NO priests = invalid sacrileges, which do you think the enemies in charge who changed the Rite prefer?
This is irrelevant. There ARE valid novus ordo priests, no one debates this. But we DON'T KNOW which ones are valid. That's the point.
Topic: "Fr" Isaac Relyea in Post Falls this week (Read 1586 times)