Author Topic: A couple questions about sedevacantism (Read 4133 times)

questions · « **on:** September 29, 2011, 07:26:42 PM »

If this topic isn't allowed, go ahead and lock the thread but from the lurking I've done (albeiet limited) I haven't gotten that inclination. I have a couple questions regarding sedevacantism.

What do sedes think of new rite confession? If a Catholic goes to the new rite for confession, is he absolved (provided he is contrite and with purpose of ammendment, of course)

What do sedes think of going to a diocesan TLM? Do they believe that the TLM is the only valid mass, but with further qualifications?

Do sedes pray for Benedict in the canon? What do they do? Tying it into the question above, does a sede believe that praying for the current bishop of Rome invalidates the mass?

Do sedes believe that NO priests are actual and validly ordained priests?

Umm, I think that's it. Thanks!

ETA, if it wasn't obvious I'm hoping especially for answers from sedes.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 29, 2011, 07:44:35 PM »

No to all your questions.

Basically it boils down to this... if the rites are not valid, then the sacrament is invalid as well. Aside from marriage and baptism, all others must be done by those with valid rites (confession, consecration of the Eucharist, etc)

questions · « **Reply #2 on:** September 29, 2011, 07:48:23 PM »

Quote from: PartyIsOver221

No to all your questions.

Basically it boils down to this... if the rites are not valid, then the sacrament is invalid as well. Aside from marriage and baptism, all others must be done by those with valid rites (confession, consecration of the Eucharist, etc)

Hehe, only the last question was a yes or no- but I see what you mean.

In what capacity would a diocesan TLM be wrong, then? Because the pope is prayed for? How does that invalidate the mass?

And what do sedes do for that part of the canon? Do they just "skip" the prayers for teh pope and the bishop?

Gregory I · « **Reply #3 on:** September 29, 2011, 08:03:49 PM »

WOW, I do not mean to be rude, but I remember when I had the same questions! lol.

Here is an even more fundamental reduction:

1. The 1968 rite of episcopal ordination is invalid due to a lack of form. Remember, a valid sacrament needs form, matter, and intent. If there is a deficiency in any of these three, there is no valid sacrament. In addition, according to Pope Leo XIII a sacrament must symbolize what it effects, and effect what it symbolizes. Now, the 1968 rite of episcopal ordination does NOT unequivocally convey the ORDER to which one is being ordained. It is not clear that one is being made a bishop in the prayer of consecration. Therefore, it is better to treat all Bishops ordained in this rite since 1968 as invalid, as well as ALL the priests that they have ever ordained.

2. This means that NO sacrament offered by any of these priests can be considered valid, with the exception of baptism, and possibly matrimony.

3. That also means that any cardinals who were made bishops after 1968 are most likely not valid Bsishops.

4. But Ratzinger was consecrated Bishop in the 70's!

5. Therefore, since his episcopate is gravely doubtful, his election and installation are extremely doubtful, for there can be NO Bishop of Rome who is not...a bishop. A Priest cannot be Pope. But tis is EXACTLY what Fr. Ratzinger is. a Simple Priest.

6. The Popes have no authority to alter the substance of the sacraments: But Paul VI sought to alter them: Therefore he is either not a true Pope de facto, or he lost the Papacy through the promulgation of a Council that redefined the nature of the Church which placed HIMSELF as the head of something NEW, which makes him other than...Pope.

You see the line of arguments here?

THere are about 4 more different arguments that can be made, including the Siri thesis, the public heresy/loss of office thesis, etc.

The odds are HORRIBLY against these last 5 "Popes", who have ALL taught heresy.

questions · « **Reply #4 on:** September 29, 2011, 08:17:39 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

WOW, I do not mean to be rude, but I remember when I had the same questions! lol.

Here is an even more fundamental reduction:

1. The 1968 rite of episcopal ordination is invalid due to a lack of form. Remember, a valid sacrament needs form, matter, and intent. If there is a deficiency in any of these three, there is no valid sacrament. In addition, according to Pope Leo XIII a sacrament must symbolize what it effects, and effect what it symbolizes. Now, the 1968 rite of episcopal ordination does NOT unequivocally convey the ORDER to which one is being ordained. It is not clear that one is being made a bishop in the prayer of consecration. Therefore, it is better to treat all Bishops ordained in this rite since 1968 as invalid, as well as ALL the priests that they have ever ordained.

Yeah, the blanks can be filled in just with your first point right here.

In what way is it not clear that they are "unequivocally conveying the order?"

And wouldn't that just apply to the ordination of bishops? Couldn't a priest still be a priest? And, in the event of a bishop not really being a bishop, might there be an argument for a kind of supplied jurisdiction to ordain priests since A) he doesn't know he's not a bishop and B) it doesn't seem like there'd be any real priests outside the sspx before long.

Sedevacantist MelFan · « **Reply #5 on:** September 29, 2011, 08:40:56 PM »

The CMRI have valid priests.
So do the Priestly Union of Trent, in Mexico.
Also, there are groups such as Hutton Gibson's group in the USA.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #6 on:** September 29, 2011, 08:42:15 PM »

Quote from: questions

Quote from: Gregory I
WOW, I do not mean to be rude, but I remember when I had the same questions! lol.

Here is an even more fundamental reduction:

1. The 1968 rite of episcopal ordination is invalid due to a lack of form. Remember, a valid sacrament needs form, matter, and intent. If there is a deficiency in any of these three, there is no valid sacrament. In addition, according to Pope Leo XIII a sacrament must symbolize what it effects, and effect what it symbolizes. Now, the 1968 rite of episcopal ordination does NOT unequivocally convey the ORDER to which one is being ordained. It is not clear that one is being made a bishop in the prayer of consecration. Therefore, it is better to treat all Bishops ordained in this rite since 1968 as invalid, as well as ALL the priests that they have ever ordained.

Yeah, the blanks can be filled in just with your first point right here.

In what way is it not clear that they are "unequivocally conveying the order?"

And wouldn't that just apply to the ordination of bishops? Couldn't a priest still be a priest? And, in the event of a bishop not really being a bishop, might there be an argument for a kind of supplied jurisdiction to ordain priests since A) he doesn't know he's not a bishop and B) it doesn't seem like there'd be any real priests outside the sspx before long.

The rite of consecration for bishops was changed in 1968, as was the rite of ordination for priests. According to that ritual, the man being ordained is not a sacerdotal priest empowered to offer a true Sacrifice for the living and the dead, merely a minister that presides over a congregation and a symbolic meal. And even if the character of the ordination had remained, a lack of valid bishops means that, eventually, there would no valid priests, as a priestly ordination can only effected by a valid bishop.

A valid consecration, like all sacraments, imprints a character upon the soul of a recipient. Without this character, the man in question has no ability to exercise the powers of the office he presumes to hold. In fact, to do so is a mortal sin known as simulation. A man who is not a bishop cannot by virtue of intent or desire perform the actions of a bishop, any more than a man by will or any other power bear a child.

questions · « **Reply #7 on:** September 29, 2011, 08:57:27 PM »

I'm sure you guys won't take this the wrong way, but how am I to know that? You are telling me that the ordination rite this and the ordination rite that, but what does that mean to me? What specifically is the difference now, and how is it CLEARLY an invalid ordination of a bishop? And how could anyone attend a valid mass outside the sspx? Wouldn't ABL be the last bishop who ordained (validly) subsequent bishops?

Also- are sspx masses invalid because they pray for the pope? Do sedes believe the sspx to be heretical for this reason?

Sedevacantist MelFan · « **Reply #8 on:** September 29, 2011, 09:07:37 PM »

Why not go to the CMRI ?
The CMRI have valid Sacraments, and the CMRI are great.
Read my post, above (three posts back, or something like that)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #9 on:** September 29, 2011, 09:08:49 PM »

Quote from: questions

Also- are sspx masses invalid because they pray for the pope? Do sedes believe the sspx to be heretical for this reason?

Welcome questions. I'm not a sede but will answer this question anyway.

The sedes don't have a problem with the Society so much because they pray for the Pope. People should actually be praying daily that Benedict comes to his senses and fights modernism. Problems that sedes have with the Society varies. Some don't like the Society because of their "disobey but still accept the Pope" philosophy, others don't like the Society because of whatever problems they have with Bishop Fellay or someone else in the SSPX. I myself have some issues with Fellay, but that's another topic. But typically, sedes don't think the Society is heretical, they just think their reasoning is not accurate.

Praying for Benedict XVI wouldn't make their Masses invalid.

questions · « **Reply #10 on:** September 29, 2011, 09:20:27 PM »

Quote from: Sedevacantist MelFan

Why not go to the CMRI ?
The CMRI have valid Sacraments, and the CMRI are great.
Read my post, above (three posts back, or something like that)

How do you know their priests are valid?

Oremus · « **Reply #11 on:** September 29, 2011, 09:28:51 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

The rite of consecration for bishops was changed in 1968, as was the rite of ordination for priests. According to that ritual, the man being ordained is not a sacerdotal priest empowered to offer a true Sacrifice for the living and the dead, merely a minister that presides over a congregation and a symbolic meal. And even if the character of the ordination had remained, a lack of valid bishops means that, eventually, there would no valid priests, as a priestly ordination can only effected by a valid bishop.

Could you expand on this some more? I am a bit of a lurker myself and I don't really know what you are saying here. (New to tradition).

To be more specific, who determined the valid form of ordination prior to being undone in 1968? Is there a side by side comparison I could read to see the differences? I've seen something similar for the Mass.

Thanks.

questions · « **Reply #12 on:** September 29, 2011, 09:31:07 PM »

Yes, what oremus said.

Gregory I · « **Reply #13 on:** September 29, 2011, 09:41:28 PM »

Yeah, spiritus, you would have to be a real hardliner sede to think an una cuм mass is sacramentally deficient.

Crazy too.

questions, compare these:

I got these from the Dimond's:

TRADITIONAL FORM FOR CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS
Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947: “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: …in the Episcopal ordination or consecration… the form consists of the words of the ‘Preface,’ of which the following are essential and so required
for validity:

► “Complete in Thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and
adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of
heavenly anointing.”

With its mention of “the fullness of Thy ministry… raiment of all glory” this traditional form unequivocally signifies the power of the episcopacy, which is the “fullness of the priesthood.” Paul VI’s new form in the 1968 rite is given below. The two forms only have one thing in common, the single word “et,” which means “and.”

PAUL VI’S NEW FORM FOR CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS
• “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you,
the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ,
the Spirit given by Him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in
every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your
name.”

This new form does not unequivocally signify the power of the episcopacy. The phrase “governing Spirit” is used to refer to many things in scripture or tradition (e.g. Psalm 5:14), but it doesn't unequivocally signify the powers of the episcopacy. Therefore, the new form is of gravely doubtful validity.

Gregory I · « **Reply #14 on:** September 29, 2011, 09:42:45 PM »

PM me if you like. I have LOADS of info if you need it. Fire off the questions, they may get tedious for others. Or they might be fun for people like me. Ask away...