Author Topic: Father Kellys Consecration was invalid (Read 8326 times)

Rosemary · « **Reply #15 on:** May 12, 2012, 10:54:48 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Francisco
The Minister of a Sacrament must intend to do what the Church does. As soon as Bishop Mendes vested and begun the ceremony to consecrate Fr Kelly as a bishop, his intention has to be presumed. In the old days there used to be the Hoc Hocker joke. Some priests would be so overly scrupulous about the words of Consecration that they would repeat them until they thought they had them right. But once they had their vestments on and began Mass, intention was presumed, and the Church supplies everything else. Ecclesia supplet!

This is wrong because you have extended the intention to the actual matter and form. If a priest "puts on his vestments" to perform a baptism, his intention is presumed to do what the Church does, but he still is required to use the correct matter and form. He could make a substantial error that would invalidate the sacrament. What can't be questioned is his proper intention, as even if he withheld it secretly, that alone would not invalidate the sacrament.

:rahrah:

Thank you, SJB, for elucidating so well what is required for the validity of a sacrament.

Francisco · « **Reply #16 on:** May 12, 2012, 11:20:55 PM »

Quote from: ascent

Yeah, like Jesus is not going to honor the Consecration because of a pause between syllables in a word pronounced by the Bishop? Give me a break. You really think He would not honor this Consecration, thereby, effecting invalid Sacraments to the faithful for such a long time which would put them at risk of losing grace? Deniers of this Consecration sound like litigious pharisees to me.

And there a groups of people throughout the world who find difficulty in pronouncing words the normal way. In parts of Africa and the Far East, for example, they pronounce the letter L in the way most people pronounce R, and vice versa. Mendes intended to consecrate Kelly. Given his age, allowance must be made. What does St Paul tell us about childhood and old age? I'm not with the SSPV ( I'm with the SSPX) but I'm happy not to have attacked any of the other groups for all of these years.

SJB · « **Reply #17 on:** May 13, 2012, 10:12:23 AM »

Quote from: Francisco

Quote from: ascent
Yeah, like Jesus is not going to honor the Consecration because of a pause between syllables in a word pronounced by the Bishop? Give me a break. You really think He would not honor this Consecration, thereby, effecting invalid Sacraments to the faithful for such a long time which would put them at risk of losing grace? Deniers of this Consecration sound like litigious pharisees to me.

And there a groups of people throughout the world who find difficulty in pronouncing words the normal way. In parts of Africa and the Far East, for example, they pronounce the letter L in the way most people pronounce R, and vice versa. Mendes intended to consecrate Kelly. Given his age, allowance must be made. What does St Paul tell us about childhood and old age? I'm not with the SSPV ( I'm with the SSPX) but I'm happy not to have attacked any of the other groups for all of these years.

Are you saying matter and form simply do not matter as long as there is an intention? So if Bp. X announces he will consecrate Fr. Y, and at the beginning of the consecration, Bp. X drops dead, then the Church supplies for this defect and Fr. Y is now a bishop?

I'm not taking a position either way on the Mendez consecration, but you are absolutely wrong here.

insidebaseball · « **Reply #18 on:** May 13, 2012, 10:56:50 AM »

You may be right Elizabeth about "cult" tactics, and the hypocrisy of the sspv stance on the Thuc line.

jhfromsf68 · « **Reply #19 on:** May 13, 2012, 11:37:49 AM »

I'm not a sspv mass goer or supporter but I like listening to their sermons online and have come to admire these zealous priests. I would hate to think there are questions to the validity of their priestly orders or consecrations.

From the sspv side of things has there been a detailed response to these detailed accusations? I'm not taking sides, just curious to get to the bottom of truth of this matter.

James

katholikos · « **Reply #20 on:** May 13, 2012, 06:31:13 PM »

To my knowledge, what was posted here regarding the Bp. Kelly consecration is "old news." The evidence/docuмentation that has since been provided by the SSPV for the Kelly consecration is sufficient to allow for a presumption of validity. So much so that the authors of the "Notes" posted here themselves do not doubt the Kelly consecration's validity.

Francisco · « **Reply #21 on:** May 13, 2012, 10:27:53 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Francisco
Quote from: ascent
Yeah, like Jesus is not going to honor the Consecration because of a pause between syllables in a word pronounced by the Bishop? Give me a break. You really think He would not honor this Consecration, thereby, effecting invalid Sacraments to the faithful for such a long time which would put them at risk of losing grace? Deniers of this Consecration sound like litigious pharisees to me.

And there a groups of people throughout the world who find difficulty in pronouncing words the normal way. In parts of Africa and the Far East, for example, they pronounce the letter L in the way most people pronounce R, and vice versa. Mendes intended to consecrate Kelly. Given his age, allowance must be made. What does St Paul tell us about childhood and old age? I'm not with the SSPV ( I'm with the SSPX) but I'm happy not to have attacked any of the other groups for all of these years.

Are you saying matter and form simply do not matter as long as there is an intention? So if Bp. X announces he will consecrate Fr. Y, and at the beginning of the consecration, Bp. X drops dead, then the Church supplies for this defect and Fr. Y is now a bishop?

I'm not taking a position either way on the Mendez consecration, but you are absolutely wrong here.

No, I'm not saying Matter and Form do not matter. I would never say that. I am saying that if for reasons of age or linguistic quirks based on culture, fumbles and stutters in respect of the former, and "mis-pronounciations" in respect of the latter, should be tolerated. These are unintentional and the Church supplies in these cases.