My answer: Not sure (because of possible defect in form).I know, that's where I'm at. I've also heard that if a sacrament is doubtful, than it's not valid. One of the FSSP priests I spoke to about it simply brushed it off saying that Jesus wouldn't allow that to happen. Unfortunately, Jesus allows (not causes) lots of evil to happen so that argument doesn't really hold with me.
I've also heard that if a sacrament is doubtful, than it's not valid.
If it's doubtful, one has to assume invalidity. (DH2101/Dz1151)Thou didst beat me to the gate. :cowboy:
If it's doubtful, one has to assume invalidity. (DH2101/Dz1151)That's correct. That is why Mgr. Lefebvre used to conduct investigations and conditionally re-ordain priests.
It seems that the non-sedevacantist Traditional priests and faithful that DO doubt the validly of the new rite of episcopal consecration usually do not carry that doubt over to the Popes that were consecrated bishop in the new rite. I would think that if one doubts that Novus Ordor bishops are really bishops, then one should doubt if Pope consecrated in the new rite are really popes.Which is why this wasnt a question before Ratzinger got elected.
Pope Pius XII explicitly defined the form and matter for Holy Orders and the consecration of bishops. He declared that consecrations that did not follow the form were invalid. In 1968, Paul VI changed the form. It seems quite clear that the form is completely different than what is required for validity, which, if true, means that all bishops consecrated in this rite are invalid and therefore, any priests they have ordained are actually priests, including the FSSP priests at my church.
It's worse than that. The Council of Florence explicitly defined the form and matter for Holy Orders and it is completely different than what Pius XII defined. Read it for yourself.The meaning and intention in the sacramental forms from that council and fron Pius XII is clear and the same in substance. The new form is ambiguous."The sixth sacrament is that of order, the matter of which is that through whose transmission the order is conferred: just as the priesthood is transmitted through the offering of the chalice with wine and of the paten with bread; the diaconate, however, by the giving of the book of the Gospels; but the subdiaconate by the giving of the empty chalice with the empty paten superimposed; and similarly with regard to the others by allotment of things pertaining to their ministry. The form of such priesthood is: Accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium in ecclesia pro vivis et mortuis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. And thus with regard to the forms of the other orders, as is contained extensively in the Roman pontifical. The ordinary minister of this sacrament is the bishop. The effect is increase of grace, so that the one ordained be a worthy minister." (Council of Florence)
Now read what Pius XII defined:
"In the Ordination to the Priesthood, the matter is the first imposition off hands of the Bishop which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition through the extension of the right hand, nor the last imposition to which are attached the words: 'Accipe Spiritum Sanctum: quorum remiseris peccata, etc.' And the form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:
'Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet.' [Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, invest this Thy servant with the dignity of the Priesthood; do Thou renew in his heart the spirit of holiness, so that he may persevere in this office, which is next to ours in dignity, since he has received it from Thee, O God. May the example of his life lead others to moral uprightness.]"
Completely different.
It's worse than that. The Council of Florence explicitly defined the form and matter for Holy Orders and it is completely different than what Pius XII defined. Read it for yourself."The sixth sacrament is that of order, the matter of which is that through whose transmission the order is conferred: just as the priesthood is transmitted through the offering of the chalice with wine and of the paten with bread; the diaconate, however, by the giving of the book of the Gospels; but the subdiaconate by the giving of the empty chalice with the empty paten superimposed; and similarly with regard to the others by allotment of things pertaining to their ministry. The form of such priesthood is: Accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium in ecclesia pro vivis et mortuis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. And thus with regard to the forms of the other orders, as is contained extensively in the Roman pontifical. The ordinary minister of this sacrament is the bishop. The effect is increase of grace, so that the one ordained be a worthy minister." (Council of Florence)
Now read what Pius XII defined:
"In the Ordination to the Priesthood, the matter is the first imposition off hands of the Bishop which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition through the extension of the right hand, nor the last imposition to which are attached the words: 'Accipe Spiritum Sanctum: quorum remiseris peccata, etc.' And the form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:
'Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet.' [Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, invest this Thy servant with the dignity of the Priesthood; do Thou renew in his heart the spirit of holiness, so that he may persevere in this office, which is next to ours in dignity, since he has received it from Thee, O God. May the example of his life lead others to moral uprightness.]"
Completely different.
The meaning and intention in the sacramental forms from that council and fron Pius XII is clear and the same in substance. The new form is ambiguous.Form according to Florence: "Receive the power to offer the sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Pius XII himself provides the answer (and what is said of the matter is likewise applicable to the form):
“It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the "traditio instrumentorum" is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.” (See here, n. 3: papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM 6 (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM) )
Okay, so the Church can change the matter and form of the sacrament of orders. There's the answer for the OP. Pius XII changed what Florence taught, and Paul VI changed what Pius XII taught.
This concern is voiced by the best traditional sedeplenist sacramental theologians (e.g., Bishop Tissier de Mallerais; Fr. Calderon; Fr. Scott; Archbishop Lefebvre; Bishop Williamson; et al).Why do you consider them the best sedeplenist sacramental theologians?
Why do you consider them the best sedeplenist sacramental theologians?I guess I should say that, of those traditionalist theologians whom sedeplenists have trusted since V2, the SSPX theologians who have taken the closest look at the issue have acknowledged the issue is capable of doubt.
The questions surrounding the doubtful validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration do not emanate from the mere fact that there was a material change in the form, but from the fact that the form of the new rite may not sufficiently (i.e., unambiguously) signify the power being conferred.Here's where I'm confused though. Sedeplenists at this point don't just have to deal with the fact that Pope Paul VI made a mistake of this magnitude. That I could accept at least as hypothetically possible, being not a trained theologian.
This concern is voiced by the best traditional sedeplenist sacramental theologians (e.g., Bishop Tissier de Mallerais; Fr. Calderon; Fr. Scott; Archbishop Lefebvre; Bishop Williamson; et al).
Lefebvre has opined that not all acts of ecclesiastical discipline are covered by infallibility, and there have been countless threads on this forum alone regarding the idea that the entirely new "species" of sacramental forms, canonizations, etc. may not necessarily amount to dogmatic facts, as they once did (i.e., because their novelty relegates them to the level of the merely "authentic magisterium," which is a teaching promulgated by one with the authority to teach, but which has no basis in tradition. either temporally or universally, as opposed to acts of the ordinary magisterium, which are binding because contained in the perennial teaching of the Church).
Which is all another way as asking, "How can a novelty represent a dogmatic fact?"
This preclusion seems to be a built-in protection for indefectability (i.e., all novelties, regardless of the solemnity of their "promulgation," are by definition non-magisterial, and therefore not dogmatic facts).
And to go back to CatholicMonarchists subsequent comment, this is but one possible explanation as to why sedevacantism is not compulsory in one who questions the validity of the new rite(s).
I know of no way a non bishop could be the bishop of Rome, so it seems to me that if the rite is carte blanche doubtful, it is similarly doubtful that we've had a Bishop of Rome (a Pope) since *at least* 2005.If they weren't bishops, then that means they were still the pope-elect, but just not fully pope. You could be elected tomorrow, as a layman, non-priest, non-bishop, and you'd still be the pope (in the material, governing sense) but not the pope in the formal (spiritual sense). You would only attain the formal part of the office once ordained/consecrated, and then you'd have the full office.
Honestly if I were persuaded that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration was either doubtful or invalid, this seems like a much stronger argument to me for SedevacantismIt's a great argument in a long list of good arguments. Add them all up, and there's a problem, no doubt.
So it seems to me that *if* *all* new rite episcopal consecrations are doubtful, than *at least* the last two popes are too. By contrast if *some* new rite consecrations are doubtful, but the B16 and Francis ones aren't, I'd need a reason for that (is the Church somehow infallible in its near unanimous recognition of a Pope, but *not* similarly so with other bishops?)The doubt exists, for sure. How much of a doubt is there and does it fluctuate based on circuмstances? Probably, but only the future Church will be able to sort this out, because only then will theologians be able (and willing) to study this from an orthodox standpoint and from the perspective of V2-was-heretical-so-let's-clean-up-this-mess.
Here's where I'm confused though. Sedeplenists at this point don't just have to deal with the fact that Pope Paul VI made a mistake of this magnitude. That I could accept at least as hypothetically possible, being not a trained theologian.ByzCat, I think it's interesting when non-sedevacantists come up with these questions rather than the sedevacantists.
The more obvious problem to me here is that Benedict XVI and Francis simply were not bishops, if the new rite of episcopal conseration is invalid. I know of no way a non bishop could be the bishop of Rome, so it seems to me that if the rite is carte blanche doubtful, it is similarly doubtful that we've had a Bishop of Rome (a Pope) since *at least* 2005.
Honestly if I were persuaded that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration was either doubtful or invalid, this seems like a much stronger argument to me for Sedevacantism than the conjecture of "this Pope is a heretic" which seems hard to prove from a formal standpoint. Anybody can say stuff that sounds sketch, and we can quibble all day long about how culpable they are for it, but that's not nearly as clear cut as "that guy just isn't a bishop."
So it seems to me that *if* *all* new rite episcopal consecrations are doubtful, than *at least* the last two popes are too. By contrast if *some* new rite consecrations are doubtful, but the B16 and Francis ones aren't, I'd need a reason for that (is the Church somehow infallible in its near unanimous recognition of a Pope, but *not* similarly so with other bishops?)
I honestly want to learn. What am I missing here?
If it's doubtful, one has to assume invalidity. (DH2101/Dz1151)
If they weren't bishops, then that means they were still the pope-elect, but just not fully pope. You could be elected tomorrow, as a layman, non-priest, non-bishop, and you'd still be the pope (in the material, governing sense) but not the pope in the formal (spiritual sense). You would only attain the formal part of the office once ordained/consecrated, and then you'd have the full office.
ByzCat, I think it's interesting when non-sedevacantists come up with these questions rather than the sedevacantists.
Since someone brought up the possibility that the doubt could be based on circuмstances, maybe the question to ask them would be (Rather than speaking of this or that priest or bishop ordained/consecrated in the New Rite):
If Bergoglio or Ratzinger , as "pope" , were to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass (ie. the Traditional Latin Mass) would they assist at that mass? If not, why not?
While the doubt would preclude one from the reception of sacraments depending upon valid orders, the matter of the legitimacy of the pope is not directly a sacramental issue, but a juridical one.I agree but probably for different reasons. As a layman, it's not my job, nor am I compelled morally, nor am I authorized, to fix/decide the pope situation. However, I am compelled, due to the 3rd commandment, to act/decide on the mass situation. So, morally speaking, one can ignore/avoid the papal question but cannot when it comes the new mass question.
Consequently, one cannot be accused of logical inconsistency for recognizing the legitimacy of the pope, but refusing to attend his Mass because of doubt.
Regarding this issue of legitimacy, one instead refers to the opinions of the same theologians cited above: The validity of the new rite is probable.Which new rite are you talking about? The Episcopal consecrations?
One would not logically reject the legitimacy of a papal claimant universally recognized because of a doubt regarding the validity of the rite of consecration, where the same authors noting the doubt declare it outweighed by probable validity, because regarding the pope as pope is not a sacramental matter.Well, I think you're mixing and matching 2 completely different tests of validity. The "universal recognition" test confirms that the ELECTION was valid (i.e. the man elected by the Cardinals was validly elected). This has nothing to do with if he's a valid bishop. A layman could be universally recognized (i.e. if you were elected tomorrow) but that doesn't automatically grant you priestly/bishop orders. That's a totally separate, and sacramental, issue. So Benedict/Francis could be validly elected, but not fully popes, because there is still a doubt as to if they were true bishops. So they could be pope-elects only.
As regards the possibility regarding the doubt that BXVI/Francis are not real bishops, and therefore not real popes, I note the more common opinion of Billot (et al) that once a pope is universally recognized, all defects regarding his legitimacy are healed in the root.
Are the FSSP priests at the church I attend actually priests or are they laymen. The bishop who ordained them was consecrated under the new rite. If that rite is invalid, then he cannot actually ordain priests.The simple answer is "it depends". Lots of investigation is required on who consecrated who, and who ordained who. Doubt is not an easy thing to overcome. Personally, i'm well within my catholic rights to assume they aren't ordained, until such doubt is removed. I treat them with respect all the same, but still, when the Church reaches a saner day, and if I was one of these FSSP guys, I'd run to be conditionally ordained. Not only to appease my conscience but, more importantly, to cast aside all doubts in the minds of the faithful, so that the devil can't use this as confusion.
I agree but probably for different reasons. As a layman, it's not my job, nor am I compelled morally, nor am I authorized, to fix/decide the pope situation. However, I am compelled, due to the 3rd commandment, to act/decide on the mass situation. So, morally speaking, one can ignore/avoid the papal question but cannot when it comes the new mass question.
Which new rite are you talking about? The Episcopal consecrations?
.
The new rite of the new mass is doubtful, and positively doubtful, so said the Ottaviani report.
.
Another reason to avoid the new mass, while (possibly) being able to accept a papal election.
Well, I think you're mixing and matching 2 completely different tests of validity. The "universal recognition" test confirms that the ELECTION was valid (i.e. the man elected by the Cardinals was validly elected). This has nothing to do with if he's a valid bishop. A layman could be universally recognized (i.e. if you were elected tomorrow) but that doesn't automatically grant you priestly/bishop orders. That's a totally separate, and sacramental, issue. So Benedict/Francis could be validly elected, but not fully popes, because there is still a doubt as to if they were true bishops. So they could be pope-elects only.
ByzCat, I think it's interesting when non-sedevacantists come up with these questions rather than the sedevacantists.TBH I'm more inclined to agree with the R + R on most things. I don't necessarily feel obligated to agree with everything in papal encyclicals, though obviously we'd normatively give them more deference than we do now. But like, I'm not terribly bothered by the idea that Popes could teach serious errors in their non infallible capacity. As a non Sedevacantist, I come to this conclusion the same exact way the Sedevacantist does (That Francis has taught certain things that are seriously wrong). I don't feel the need to take the "therefore he isn't Pope" extra step that sedes do. That being said, for a true Pope to invalidate the holy orders of the entire Church seems a step too far to me. That's not just him teaching stuff that's wrong, that's him basically making the visible Church not the visble Church. For whatever good that is, that seems to violate my common sense.
Since someone brought up the possibility that the doubt could be based on circuмstances, maybe the question to ask them would be (Rather than speaking of this or that priest or bishop ordained/consecrated in the New Rite):
If Bergoglio or Ratzinger , as "pope" , were to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass (ie. the Traditional Latin Mass) would they assist at that mass? If not, why not?
When Fr. Calderon declares the new rite is “probably valid,” he is simultaneously saying it is doubtful, yes.I've not read what Fr Calderon said, so trying to understand. It seems to me that each sacrament that has changed would have different degrees of doubt, based on degree of change. So which sacrament was Fr Calderon saying was "probably valid"?
I believe that the opinion that the episcopacy is contained in the priesthood is a minority opinion, which still leave the person's condition in doubt.
I've not read what Fr Calderon said, so trying to understand. It seems to me that each sacrament that has changed would have different degrees of doubt, based on degree of change. So which sacrament was Fr Calderon saying was "probably valid"?
Now maybe there are abuses made by some bishops in the new rites of ordination/consecration that make them invalid, but provided they are done "by the book" I don't see how they can possibly be invalid if the conciliar popes are true popes. I think Salza and Siscoe's arguments there are pretty convincing as well.Many different Trads from different groups have come to the same conclusion that the changes are problematic.
That being said, for a true Pope to invalidate the holy orders of the entire Church seems a step too far to me.Ahh, but not all holy orders of the entire Church are invalidated, only those of the new rite. The old rite still exists, thus so does the Church. Your comment of "a step too far" is understandable, but also a human reaction. Were not the Apostles scandalized when Our Lord was captured, scourged and crucified? Didn't they think that God had gone "one step too far" in allowing Himself to suffer? In the same way, as the Church is currently going through Her own passion, then how can we say what is "too far" and what isn't? God's ways are not our ways.
That's not just him teaching stuff that's wrong, that's him basically making the visible Church not the visble Church. For whatever good that is, that seems to violate my common sense.But the visible Church is still visible, as long as there are Traditional Bishops, priests and laity. It is not a doctrine/requirement for the pope/cardinals/priests to ALL hold the Faith. The Arian heresy (as well as other times) prove that a general falling away from the Faith, mixed with invalid orders/sacraments is not out of the question. Remember it was "St Athanasius against the world" while the world "groaned under the heresy of Arianism". Our times, while worse, are very similar to Arianism.
I realize most people here would disagree with this, based on the assumptions #1: That Francis/Benedict are doubtfully consecrated. #2: Scandal of some kind. #3: That attendance at the indult is an implicit acceptance of the Novus Ordo.#1. The episcopal consecration is doubtful. That's a fact.
I currently think #1 is false... I respect it but I don't agree with it. I'm theoretically persuadable but I think the burden of proof is majorly on the side that makes that argument. Our default assumption should be that the Church didn't invalidate her orders. #2 would need to be defined for me. I don't really accept #3 either. Like even if the Pope said somewhere that that's the case, I still never agreed to that.
My comments, in red, on the Billot article. I read it differently than you.Yes, we read it differently, because when I see Billot speaking of “all the conditions required for legitimacy,” I note that election is only one of them. Therefore i conclude he is speaking about more than just election when discussing legitimacy.
.
.Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope falling into heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff (determined pontiff = he's speaking of an election), and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself (he's saying that universal acceptance means the pope-elect is ABLE to be pope. He's saying they have fulfilled the conditions TO BE ELECTED. Since one can be elected without being a bishop, this acceptance does not provide the episcopal faculties, it only says the person has the POTENTIAL to be a bishop, with no impediments.)..It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith,[2] (http://file///C:/Users/user/Desktop/PUA.docx#_ftn2) seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately."Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”[3] (http://file///C:/Users/user/Desktop/PUA.docx#_ftn3)(Since it is not a condition to be a bishop to be elected pope, then the legitimacy of an election does not depend on this fact. So, it is not a FAULT of the pope-elect. Therefore, Billot's comment of a "healing" does not apply to the lack of episcopacy. I think he's talking about the doubts related to if one was ineligible to be elected (i.e. questionable orthodoxy in the past, age requirements, possible voting scandals, etc).)
Yes. If anyone still doubts the validity of the new rite after Pope Benedict XVI was manifestly universally accepted (and therefore known to have become Bishop of Rome) in Rome, he ipso facto commits an objective mortal sin and denies two dogmatic facts (1) that Pope Benedict XVI, in 2005, was Sovereign Pontiff of the Universal Church. (2) that Pope Benedict XVI, in 2005, was the reigning Bishop of Rome, and therefore known with infallible certainty to be a valid Bishop. In other words, just as the fact alone of Universal Acceptance proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required, and makes continued doubt regarding his person as Pope sinful and illicit, it also makes continued doubt of the validity of the rite in which he was consecrated Bishop likewise sinful and illicit. In 2007, there was an excellent study by Fr. Pierre Marie, proving from two Eastern rites, the Coptic and the West Syrian, that the NREC is surely valid.This was a serious conversation before you joined it.
Some of the careless people here don't say that they make an absolute mockery of the Roman Catholic religion by professing and teaching as their own self-invented dogmatic fact that rites the Roman Church has used for 50+years are invalid. Get ready to see mor people running to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, then, as we've already seen, as you yourself undermine the Roman Church so badly.
Yes, we read it differently, because when I see Billot speaking of “all the conditions required for legitimacy,” I note that election is only one of them.But he finishes the sentence by using the term "determined pontiff" which can only refer to a pope-elect. The entire focus of the article is about the election. He doesn't even mention the words "ordination" or "episcopacy".
But he finishes the sentence by using the term "determined pontiff" which can only refer to a pope-elect. The entire focus of the article is about the election. He doesn't even mention the words "ordination" or "episcopacy".
.
Secondly, when he uses the term "legitimacy" he's speaking of a valid election. What is required for a legimate papal election? (paraphrasing and generalizing here)...An unmarried male, of the proper age, with no impediments to being (in the future) ordained and consecrated, who was properly elected by the Church.
.
The secondary step of being ordained/consecrated is part of the VALIDITY of being pope, but not the LEGITIMACY (which only deals with the election and the Church's role in choosing the candidate). Properly speaking, we talk of sacraments being valid, not legitimate. In theory, a layman could be legitimately elected, and die the next day before being made a priest/bishop. He would be the legitimate pope-elect, but such acceptance by the Church cannot supply the lack of sacramental character.
#3. Both the Ecclesia Dei docuмent of the 80s and +Benedict's "motu" of 2007 specifically mention that attendance at an "under Rome" latin mass is acceptance of the new mass. It's the law and it's public. Your ignorance of this fact doesn't change the reality.In addition, the fact that EVERY SINGLE so-called "traditional" order "under new-rome" has openly and publically accepted V2 as orthodox and the new mass/rites as valid. Go read the FSSP's charter docuмent, which created their order. It's all there.
It's a mortal sin to doubt a dogmatic fact ...
:facepalm: Oh, Xavier...you're just not worth the time...
+Lefebvre, +Williamson, and +Tissier have all publicly doubted the legitimacy of the Vatican II papal claimants. So please write +Williamson and +Tissier to correct their mortal sin.Even if it is a dogmatic fact wouldn’t they have to know that and still deny it for it to be a mortal sin?
Actually, alas, it's more than just mortal sin to doubt dogmatic fact. It's actually heresy. Therefore, let us pray for the conversion of +Williamson and +Tissier to the Catholic faith. Sadly, it's too late for +Lefebvre; he died outside the Church.
:incense:
Maybe the question should be, is the Novus Ordo giving valid sacraments? Answer is NO. We know that.
So, there is more than one way to-skin-a-cat.
I don't care if any of the Novus Ordo claim valid orders. Point is there are no sacraments, no grace. Nothing, Nil!
All New Order are Marxist! All New Order salute the government/state. All New Order serve the federal gov't. All New Order taking on Catholic Charities are supporting abortion, democrats anything that is of their "club" marxist. They have been this way in the USA for what, over 70 years! Just look up when Catholic charities was born.What does Bishop Olmstead have to do with what happened with Fr. Walker and Fr. Terra?
I read Federal Grants for the state of AZ in 1987-95. If you have never read Federal Grants, you are in for a great shock! That is how I was able to find/read docuмents that proved the Dioceses was the entity that brought SEX ED into the catholic schools, into a State with laws that said, NO SEX ED. Proved!!
Don't even think that some dioceses are good and other bad. NO they are all the same. Those who appear good, then they are doing a fantastic job to fool you!
AZ, Bishop Olmstead is a perfect example and I say, he is probably the most notorious. The keener they are the more dangerous they are.
We had Kenneth Walker of FSSP murdered. News media never said, that he was shot 11 times. That news came out when his mother had her sons body autopsied.
And the other Terra was beaten so bad, he should have died of his injuries.
So, ALL New Order are of the order of Satan!
Maybe the question should be, is the Novus Ordo giving valid sacraments? Answer is NO. We know that.Well leaving aside potential *Novus Ordo* legitimacy, any validly ordained priest can hear the TLM, and I've never heard of any doubt regarding Novus Ordo rites of *confession*
So, there is more than one way to-skin-a-cat.
I don't care if any of the Novus Ordo claim valid orders. Point is there are no sacraments, no grace. Nothing, Nil!
I'm pretty much a sedevacantist in that I don't believe the post conciliar popes are valid. That's about as far as I take it though. I still regularly attend a FSSP parish and go to a NO priest for confession sometimes. However, I was recently made aware of a potential problem and am looking for a way around it.He did change the form, and the surrounding rite outside of the form does not make it clear enough to support the Catholic meaning of what the form must mean, therefore, I believe Catholics should avoid bishops consecrated with this rite, and avoid priests ordained by such bishops, until a certain Pope rules on the matter.
For the full details, see this article: http://www.stjosephschurch.net/cekada.htm (http://www.stjosephschurch.net/cekada.htm)
Pope Pius XII explicitly defined the form and matter for Holy Orders and the consecration of bishops. He declared that consecrations that did not follow the form were invalid. In 1968, Paul VI changed the form. It seems quite clear that the form is completely different than what is required for validity, which, if true, means that all bishops consecrated in this rite are invalid and therefore, any priests they have ordained are actually priests, including the FSSP priests at my church.
We all know that if Pope Francis (or some other future pope) were to change the type of bread used for the Eucharist (yuca root in the Amazon for example), that it would not be a valid sacrament as the essential form has changed. Why would this case with the bishops be any different?
Well leaving aside potential *Novus Ordo* legitimacy, any validly ordained priest can hear the TLM, and I've never heard of any doubt regarding Novus Ordo rites of *confession*Valid confession depends on the validity of the priest's orders. So, no, confession is not valid in the NO unless by some rare chance you get a hold of a very old, perhaps retired, priest.
I've never heard of any doubt regarding Novus Ordo rites of *confession*I wouldn’t call it a doubt but straight-up invalidity. Plenty of first-hand stories I’ve heard where new-priests “absolved” sins using invalid words:
I wouldn’t call it a doubt but straight-up invalidity. Plenty of first-hand stories I’ve heard where new-priests “absolved” sins using invalid words:Yes, anything that doesn't have "I absolve thee" is invalid, because Jesus said "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth" etc. (Mt. 16:19 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?b=drl&q=Mt++16%3A19)).
1. “The Church absolves you...”
2. “Christ absolves you...”
3. “God forgives you...”
.
All of these are straight invalid. Better watch out what they say!
in giving sacramental absolution it would not suffice to say: "May Almighty God have mercy on thee," or: "May God grant thee absolution and forgiveness," because by such words the priest does not signify the giving of absolution, but prays that it may be given.
Yes, anything that doesn't have "I absolve thee" is invalid, because Jesus said "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth" etc. (Mt. 16:19 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?b=drl&q=Mt++16%3A19)).Doesn't matter if a NO priest said the right words/form if he was ordained in the New Rite ....especially if he was ordained in the New Rite by a bishop that was consecrated in the New Rite.
Yes, anything that doesn't have "I absolve thee" is invalid, because Jesus said "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth" etc. (Mt. 16:19 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?b=drl&q=Mt++16%3A19)).The official English form in the N.O. includes "I absolve you".
For this reason, when the priest is baptizing, he does not say: "I baptize so-and-so," but: "So-and-so is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". In this way he shows that it is not he who baptizes but those whose names have been invoked.
The rite of Consecration was changed in 1978. The Sacred Priesthood was changed in 1963.Even the primary end of marriage was redefined at Vatican II and the 1983 Code.
There, that's better.
I seriously question the validity of the greater majority of Novus Ordo Bishops. The rite of Consecration was changed in19781968. The Sacrament of Ordination of the Sacred Priesthood was changed in19631968.
There, that's better.I thought they call it the "Anointing of the Sick" now.
Additionally, the sacrament of Extreme Unction was eliminated in 1968, it no longer exists in the Novus Ordo church.
I thought they call it the "Anointing of the Sick" now.
I thought they call it the "Anointing of the Sick" now.Anointing of the sick is not the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, it is just a blessing. The Novus Ordo seniors still call it Extreme Unction, not knowing that it is just a blessing.
Anointing of the sick is not the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, it is just a blessing. The Novus Ordo seniors still call it Extreme Unction, not knowing that it is just a blessing.I have never heard a traditional Catholic priest say that the Novus Ordo also changed the Sacrament of Extreme Unction to merely a blessing. The issue is the man giving it who calls himself a priest.
It is like they call Log Cabin Maple syrup, when it is just corn syrup, there is no maple syruo in it. There is no Extreme Unction in it, the Novus Ordo church.
I have never heard a traditional Catholic priest say that the Novus Ordo also changed the Sacrament of Extreme Unction to merely a blessing. The issue is the man giving it who calls himself a priest.Likely your priests were born and raised traditionalist and therefore could care less what the Novus Ordo does. Just like I do not know the names of any movie stars in the last 20 years. Who cares?
Well that response seemed rude and unnecessary. It's more likely that it just never came up.It was not meant to be rude and unnecessary, I'm surprised that you took it that way. I do not see it.
I said : "Likely your priests were born and raised traditionalist and therefore could care less what the Novus Ordo does. Just like I do not know the names of any movie stars in the last 20 years. Who cares?"
Well that response seemed rude and unnecessary. It's more likely that it just never came up. I am surprised and happy to see that what you've provided comes from Frs. Radecki. I did not know this was an issue.
I said : "Likely your priests were born and raised traditionalist and therefore could care less what the Novus Ordo does. Just like I do not know the names of any movie stars in the last 20 years. Who cares?"Yes, that does clear it up. That is how I took it. I apologize. I should have realized that that's not typical of you.
Maybe you understood me to mean who cares what your priests thought or knew? What I meant was not that, but who cares about what the Novus Ordo is doing, it has no effect on us. It is like I not knowing who the famous movie stars are today, I do not know, nor do I care.
Hope that clears it up.
God Bless
Fr. Ronald Ringrose was ordained in the 60s shortly after the new rite began..
Archbishop Lefebvre doubted that the new rite of ordination was valid and conditionally ordained priests that wanted to work with the SSPX. Fr. Ronald Ringrose was ordained in the 60s shortly after the new rite began. The bishop who ordained him was certainly a valid bishop. Archbishop Lefebvre conditionally ordained him.Rites are not dogmatic so infalibility does not apply here. Popes though can set laws and similar matters binding to all faithful and here's where the rites belong (of course following tradition, no innovations).
Canon Hesse believed that the new rite of ordination was valid. He was ordained in the new rite and never conditionally ordained.
They are both highly educated men. Thus, the question seems to be disputable. One day the Church may have to decide.
Pope Pius XII's definition of the matter and form of ordination is curious because it only applies to the Roman rite. To be infallible a definition must be for the whole Church. Can the Pope make an infallible definition for only one rite? That is not what Vatican I said.
Rites are not dogmatic so infalibility does not apply here. Popes though can set laws and similar matters binding to all faithful and here's where the rites belong (of course following tradition, no innovations).
.
Just for the record, he was ordained in 1979.
Nonsense, for the Church's Universal Discipline is also infallible. It is completely incompatible with the indefectibility of the Church's mission to claim that the Church can promulgate a Sacramental Rite of doubtful validity. And this is not subject to our private judgment that these Rites "follow tradition". Trent dogmatically condemned the proposition that the Rites in use by the Catholic Church can be incitements to impiety. If the Church's Apostolic Orders (episcopal consecration) were to become invalid, that directly undermine's the Church's indefectibility of mission and the Apostolic succession.I'm sorry if I conveyed the wrong message. English is not my first language. What I meant in my response to Kolar was that, by papal disposition, specific words in a rite may be different for a specific part of the Church (e.g. Latin church vs Oriental church) but have the same meaning and intention, not affecting infallibility. Defining dogmas is not necessarily about the use of specific words but of principles and doctrine (e.g. The Assumption of Our Lady).
What's wrong with everyone, man? You're losing your Catholic bearings in desperate support of the R&R position.
If someone holds these Rites to be in doubt, then one must simultaneously hold the legitimacy of the Popes who promulgated them to be in doubt ... as in fact Archbishop Lefebvre did.
Fr. Ringrose was conditionally ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. He told met this himself..