Author Topic: A question about confession and sedevacantism (Read 2243 times)

jhfromsf68 · « **on:** January 28, 2017, 10:54:17 AM »

I have a question for non sedevacantist Traditional Catholics,. I was wondering if you would go to confession with a validly ordained sedevacantist priest if your only choice was between him or confessing with a conservative novus ordo priest?

A related question would be would most sedevacantist priests allow you to take communion at their chapel if your last confession was with a novus ordo priest?

Thanks
James

Matto · « **Reply #1 on:** January 28, 2017, 11:26:16 AM »

I would go to confession with a sedevacantist priest before I would go to a Novus Ordo priest. I don't think the sedevacantist priest would allow someone to go to communion if they confessed to a Novus Ordo priest because most sedevacantists believe that Novus Ordo priests are not really priests and have no power to forgive sins.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #2 on:** January 28, 2017, 10:44:36 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I would go to confession with a sedevacantist priest before I would go to a Novus Ordo priest. I don't think the sedevacantist priest would allow someone to go to communion if they confessed to a Novus Ordo priest because most sedevacantists believe that Novus Ordo priests are not really priests and have no power to forgive sins.

Ditto to all, because I too have doubts whether Novus Ordo "priest" are priest.

MMagdala · « **Reply #3 on:** January 31, 2017, 01:48:44 AM »

My trad confessor, who is geographically very close to me and available to me on an almost daily basis, has forbidden me to go to a sede chapel for Sunday Mass (for example, when traveling), so -- even though this other subject has not come up, I'm reasonably certain he would disapprove of my seeking out a sedevacantist confessor. Although he is no fan of the N.O. sacramental rites (especially its "Mass"), and although he doesn't even know how to administer any N.O rites himself, I'm pretty sure that if he really thought there were only the two alternatives named in the OP, he would suggest going to the least radical N.O. priest I knew, and only if I were fairly certain I was in mortal sin, and only also if I first made a perfect Act of Contrition. He doesn't believe that N.O. priests "are not validly ordained"; it's just that he has no use for the so-called theology of most of them, or their sacramental rites. He respects a few, very select N.O. priests whose theology and spirituality he knows, and who are personally holy, so if he were recommending alternatives to me, he might say, "If I'm not around, and you have an urgent need, try to go find Father __ in [name of city or parish]."

I completely trust my confessor, and he is also my Spiritual Director, so it's difficult for me to answer the question posed in the OP, which suggests independent decision making.

Being in mortal sin scares me in the first place. I hate that feeling. I've hated it every time I've been in that state. It's an ugly feeling of dread, self-loathing, and loss of intimacy with God, so I tend to make a perfect Act of Contrition if I think I even might be in mortal sin.

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** January 31, 2017, 05:27:56 AM »

I know of at least one SSPX priest that I am sure he would say you could go to either a sede priest or a NO priest for confession. I know of other priests who would say sede but not NO and vise versa. For me, I'd go to a NO priest only if I knew I was about to die and if that were the only option - but then I would be wondering if my sins were forgiven or if I just confessed to a layman.

There is no hesitation, for me, I'd go to a sedevacantist priest for confession and the sacraments if that was my only option, the thought of going to a NO priest never enters into my mind because the fact of the matter is, there is real question as to the validity of the priests who were ordained by the New Rite of Ordination.

From Who Shall Ascend?............

Quote from: Fr. Wathen

It is not our purpose in these pages to decide whether the new ordination rite is invalid, though, as we shall see, the argument is substantial enough that we are bound to allow for this possibility. Furthermore, we must see the issue in the context of the total redefinition and reconstitution of the Church, such as was set in motion at the Council. In view of the fact that, since the Council, the priest's role has been in the process of being modified, as we said, to that of a Protestant presbyter, there is every reason to deduce that the new ordination rite sabotages the Sacrament of Holy Orders according to the explicit program and purposes of those now in power. (The reader is reminded that the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful.)

By way of preface, we observe: The revisers had a reason for making changes, and particular reasons for each change they made.

They cannot argue that their new formulas are identical to the old; that would be to admit that the changes mean nothing, and that, therefore, there was no reason to make them. To admit that they made changes for no reason whatsoever would be a sign of a most irreverent capriciousness and cynicism. Besides, such an explanation could only be regarded as a concealment. The new forms (Latin and English) must be seen to say something different from the old.

Furthermore, in view of what the other changes in the liturgical rites have connoted, we are compelled to be suspicious. We should rather say, we have every reason to look for an effort at neuterizing this sacramental rite, because those in charge of the new rites have shown themselves untrustworthy, or, more accurately, determinedly subversive. The new form could not be an improvement on the old. How can one method or set of words ordain someone better than another? The alteration of the form can only have had the intention of either negating this purpose, or, at the very least, of creating a doubt as to its efficacy. (As if it needs to be said: They could not have added something to the form by taking words away. And what could they have wanted to add to the power of Orders? Why did they touch the form at all?)

MMagdala · « **Reply #5 on:** January 31, 2017, 10:37:40 AM »

Well, I don't entirely disagree with you and Fr. Wathen as to the "suspiciousness" of the validity, but again, I'm not in a position to "know" with any certainty. In my situation (where I live), it would be difficult to imagine that my option would be a sede priest or nothing. If it were a sede priest OR a stranger N.O. priest, and I were dying, I'd probably pick the sede priest, but again, it's difficult for me to imagine that circuмstance unless I were far away.

My trad priest is so devoted to his flock that if he knew of such a circuмstance, he'd probably ask a particular priest (a fellow trad) to be at my bedside. He'd hand-pick the priest.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** January 31, 2017, 12:31:32 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I would go to confession with a sedevacantist priest before I would go to a Novus Ordo priest. I don't think the sedevacantist priest would allow someone to go to communion if they confessed to a Novus Ordo priest because most sedevacantists believe that Novus Ordo priests are not really priests and have no power to forgive sins.

Unless said Novus Ordo priest had been ordained after the introduction of the new Rite of Ordination (in 1968).

Also, the couldn't really prevent you from going to communion if this confession to the Novus Ordo priest consisted of only venial sins.

So there are nuances here.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 03, 2017, 09:58:57 AM »

Quote from: MMagdala

Well, I don't entirely disagree with you and Fr. Wathen as to the "suspiciousness" of the validity, but again, I'm not in a position to "know" with any certainty. In my situation (where I live), it would be difficult to imagine that my option would be a sede priest or nothing. If it were a sede priest OR a stranger N.O. priest, and I were dying, I'd probably pick the sede priest, but again, it's difficult for me to imagine that circuмstance unless I were far away.

My trad priest is so devoted to his flock that if he knew of such a circuмstance, he'd probably ask a particular priest (a fellow trad) to be at my bedside. He'd hand-pick the priest.

As Catholic laypeople we know the reasons why clergy ordained with the new rite of ordination are doubtful because the Church has already taught on the subject. To say we are "not in a position to know" is incorrect. For instance:

"It is well-known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments" Pope St. Pius X, Ex quo nono, 1910

"Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid." Summa Theologica, Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists?

"...the Council of Trent teaches (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII, can. 1, De Sacram, in genere), the seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over "the substance of the Sacraments," that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs." Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947

Online you can look at the traditional rite of ordination compared to the new rite and see how it has been drastically changed. Therefore we know the new rite is doubtful at best based on what the Church says in the quotes above. You don't need to wait for a priest to confirm this for you - it's there in black and white.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2017, 02:23:58 PM »

Yes, SaintBosco

It does seem that the risk is great these days, going to an SSPX priest that you don't know anything about would be the same as going to a "traditional" diocesan priest with modern ordination status, might compare with just making an appointment with a local therapist, the only advantage is you won't have to pay the therapist fee.

I remember a day when a Catholic felt secure meeting a new priest for the first time. Catholics wore medals with words and/or in our purse or wallet that said, "I am a Catholic, please notify a priest" today one needs to have the name of the priest and phone number printed on that card in your purse, and hope he is within a reasonable distance.

Pray daily we never fall into mortal sin, would be the best plan for all of us, including those who depend on their sedevacantist priest.

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #9 on:** February 03, 2017, 02:36:22 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: MMagdala
Well, I don't entirely disagree with you and Fr. Wathen as to the "suspiciousness" of the validity, but again, I'm not in a position to "know" with any certainty. In my situation (where I live), it would be difficult to imagine that my option would be a sede priest or nothing. If it were a sede priest OR a stranger N.O. priest, and I were dying, I'd probably pick the sede priest, but again, it's difficult for me to imagine that circuмstance unless I were far away.

My trad priest is so devoted to his flock that if he knew of such a circuмstance, he'd probably ask a particular priest (a fellow trad) to be at my bedside. He'd hand-pick the priest.

As Catholic laypeople we know the reasons why clergy ordained with the new rite of ordination are doubtful because the Church has already taught on the subject. To say we are "not in a position to know" is incorrect. For instance:

"It is well-known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments" Pope St. Pius X, Ex quo nono, 1910

"Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid." Summa Theologica, Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists?

"...the Council of Trent teaches (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII, can. 1, De Sacram, in genere), the seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over "the substance of the Sacraments," that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs." Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947

Online you can look at the traditional rite of ordination compared to the new rite and see how it has been drastically changed. Therefore we know the new rite is doubtful at best based on what the Church says in the quotes above. You don't need to wait for a priest to confirm this for you - it's there in black and white.

What happens if the last pre-1968 bishop dies? Most of them are over 95 years old. Remember that we need bishops with papal missions and jurisdiction.

This is my main issue with the idea that the rite of ordination and consecration is invalid. It doesn't answer that question.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 03, 2017, 04:18:51 PM »

Quote from: JezusDeKoning

Quote from: saintbosco13
Quote from: MMagdala
Well, I don't entirely disagree with you and Fr. Wathen as to the "suspiciousness" of the validity, but again, I'm not in a position to "know" with any certainty. In my situation (where I live), it would be difficult to imagine that my option would be a sede priest or nothing. If it were a sede priest OR a stranger N.O. priest, and I were dying, I'd probably pick the sede priest, but again, it's difficult for me to imagine that circuмstance unless I were far away.

My trad priest is so devoted to his flock that if he knew of such a circuмstance, he'd probably ask a particular priest (a fellow trad) to be at my bedside. He'd hand-pick the priest.

As Catholic laypeople we know the reasons why clergy ordained with the new rite of ordination are doubtful because the Church has already taught on the subject. To say we are "not in a position to know" is incorrect. For instance:

"It is well-known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments" Pope St. Pius X, Ex quo nono, 1910

"Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid." Summa Theologica, Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists?

"...the Council of Trent teaches (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII, can. 1, De Sacram, in genere), the seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over "the substance of the Sacraments," that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs." Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947

Online you can look at the traditional rite of ordination compared to the new rite and see how it has been drastically changed. Therefore we know the new rite is doubtful at best based on what the Church says in the quotes above. You don't need to wait for a priest to confirm this for you - it's there in black and white.

What happens if the last pre-1968 bishop dies? Most of them are over 95 years old. Remember that we need bishops with papal missions and jurisdiction.

This is my main issue with the idea that the rite of ordination and consecration is invalid. It doesn't answer that question.

There are many bishops that exist that have been consecrated with the traditional rite such as Bishop Sanborn, Bishop Dolan, Bishop Pivarunas, and Bishop Williamson. Several others as well. As long as they consecrate other bishops with the traditional rite before they pass away and that process keeps continuing, we are okay. No doubt though, the numbers are dwindling.