I agree with all the sedes in this matter.

Go find sources that prove your claims, LordPhan, other than SSPX. If thats all you have, you have put down a very weak argument and one that doesn't win souls for Christ but actually panders to your own pride and twisted mind.

Quote

Because their determination of validity is based on a provably erroneous position in regards to the episcopal consecrations' validity which itself is nothing more than the byproduct of their entire approach to the crisis.

What is this "provably erroneous position" with respect to episcopal consecrations?  And what does this have to do with an "approach to the crisis"?  One does not necessarily imply the other, no matter how one looks at it.  

Their approach to the crisis is one of 'recognise but resist,' forbidding serious consideration of the proposition that the conciliar pontiffs could not actually be Popes because of manifest heresy.  Since they seem so bent on following the theological opinion of a tiny minority before the council, they likewise cannot grant that the Holy See would promulgate a per se invalid sacrament (the 1968 episcopal consecration formula), since it would result in them being forced to admit that (i) such was not promulgated by the Catholic Church, since Paul VI could not have been a true Pope, or (ii) that the Church defected, which is impossible.

P.S. My circuмstances make it such that I do not have regular access to the internet and therefore will not be able to participate in a lively debate on this subject.

But that should have nothing to do with sacramental theology.

It doesn't seem that reality and the dynamics of the Truth in relation to events in time are quite as easy to categorise and systematise as the theological faculties and manuals would prefer.

Caminus, what is your opinion of the LICITNESS of the Novus Ordo rites, assuming they are indeed valid? Archbishop Lefebvre said that even assuming their validity does not make the NO rites safe to attend or take part in. Would you agree?

By the way, while I am sure that you are clear on my position re: the Novus Ordo, please be assured that I neither intended nor was pleased with the rancorous tone of some of our earlier exchanges. I do, indeed, wish to become even more informed of the nuances of these issues than I have previously been, and I regret that I have not previously made that wish clear by my choice of communication.

Now, again, please: Could the licitness of the NO rites be questionable to enough of a degree that, even granting their validity, they, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NOVUS ORDO as it currently exists, could be rightly considered harmful to piety, and thus to souls?

What I mean to say is that there is so much doctrinal confusion among adherents to the NO and so much error being promoted by various NO presiders and prelates that those conditions must certainly add to, if they do not actually themselves create, a serious question of licitness. After all, how can the average layperson be assured of the spiritual safety of attending the NO service if they are already being fed a diet of indifferentism and ecuмenism?

It is the opinion of many that the very goal of the NO is exactly that... to introduce ecuмenical worship and to permit, if not to openly encourage, harmful habits of popular piety so that the people are fooled into thinking that whatever is going on in front of them MUST be TRUE, if it's PERMISSIBLE.

'Recognize but resist' thinking is dangerous; it is nearly impossible to be able to separate one's opinion of a person's status from a person's acts. I, personally, have known people in authority who have abused said authority. It was impossible for me to accord them anything beyond the barest civil respect out of manners, because I knew that their MORAL, and in one case, ALMOST SURELY their LEGAL, authority had been compromised.

In the case of the papal claimants in question, many believe that there are far more concrete reasons to doubt, if not reject, the authority of these men based on their actions which have belied their claims to orthodoxy.

I am interested to hear the opinions of Caminus and others.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

I think it's a heresy to change the words of the Consecration.

I am NOT an apologist for the Conciliar Church, nor novus ordo, nor Vatican II; and I'm grateful to have received God's grace to start going to a true Catholic Mass (SSPX) about 3 months ago. I NEVER want to attend a novus ordo mass again; and by the grace of God, I'll always be able to assist at a true TLM (no Motu Propio).

But I believe the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration is valid. I read the Rite along with the Rite of Consecration for the Coptics and Maronites, which is ancient, in the Catholic Church. The 1968 Rite is very similar in some parts and identical in other parts of the respective Rites.

Now, there have been a few Saints from the Coptic and Maronite tradition that were canonized by the Catholic Church BEFORE Vatican II. If the 1968 Rite of Consecration is invalid, then the Coptic and Maronite Rites have been invalid, effectively making the few "Saints" in their tradition not real Catholics, therefore, their canonizations would be invalid. The same canonizations done by PRE-Vatican II Popes, whom are supposed to be infallible in the area of Church law and morals.

I don't believe the PRE-VII Popes could error in canonizing these Saints from the Coptic and Maronite tradition, nor could they error in allowing a non-valid Rite of Episcopal Consecration in their traditions. This is the main reason I believe the 1968 Rite is valid.

I think it's a heresy to change the words of the Consecration.

Since when is it heresy to assert that Christ died for all men?

It is not heresy to say that Christ died 'for all' in the sense of His Words in the holy Gospel of St. John, chapter 3, where Our Lord says,

"For God sent not His Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by Him."[/color]

In other words, in the sense that Christ's death is SUFFICIENT to save every person who ever lived, then it is most fitting to say that He died 'for all'.

In the Words of the Consecration, however, Our Lord specifically said, "For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.[/color]

In this case, Our Lord intended to express the EFFICACY of His Sacrifice, that is, the merit that would actually be applied to souls. He was stating that there were ALREADY souls in existence for whom His Sacrifice would ACTUALLY be salvific, and not just potentially so.

This issue is actually one of the main conflicts within Protestantism as well; there are those who insist, wrongly, that Christ died for all, so all are saved, no matter what they may or may not do in terms of faith. This, of course, is heresy.

Then there are those who say that Christ died ONLY for His elect, a definite, foreordained number, and that all those (and ONLY those) elect will somehow, eventually, come to public, professed faith in Christ. Those elect will then NEVER be able to fall away from the faith, a notion which Scripture denies clearly. MOST of these, usually called 'Calvinists', confess that Christ's death was SUFFICIENT to save ALL, but EFFICACIOUS ONLY in the salvation of the elect. This is heretical because it is clear from Scripture that many can and do fall away from the faith, and the Calvinistic heresy teaches that there is need to confess and repent of sin, yet there is no way that any of said sin can possibly be symptomatic of one's rejection of the faith. There are those among the Calvinists who even believe that a man, who PUBLICLY REPUDIATES his faith in Christ and lapses into the gravest sins, MAY still be saved because he MAY be one of the 'elect', and that God will certainly still somehow save that man. What nonsense, and all because they have rejected the ONLY avenues through which God restores sanctifying grace to a soul, namely, His Sacraments.

There are also Protestants who believe that it is man's duty to cooperate with God's offer of salvation through Christ's Cross, but that once a person has made a 'profession of faith', usually via a 'sinner's prayer' of some sort, they are irrevocably and eternally saved, even if they fall into pertinacious and grave, scandalous sin. Obviously, this is heresy of the basest sort, not only because it allows for imprudent lifestyles, but because it engenders smug self-satisfaction (I prayed the prayer, so I know I'm saved, even if I go kill ten people right now and then shoot myself). [NOTE: Yes, I have actually heard Prot 'preachers' and congregants say that very thing, or things just like it.]

Finally, there are those among the Protestants who believe that Christ died a death, again, SUFFICIENT for all but EFFICIENT for many who would make a profession of faith. This profession of faith is an effort engendered by and motivated by God alone, yet in no sense violating man's free will. They believe that while a man can be saved through the graces which God gives through His Church, some also believe that men CAN (and often do) fall away from the faith. They believe that confession (after a sort) and penance (in terms of a determination to reform one's life) are necessary to be restored to right relationship with God. These Protestants also believe that it is possible for someone to fall away entirely and die in their sin, thus being sent to Hell.

Oddly, that last group, although their theology most closely mirrors that of Holy Church, is considered the most bizarre and legalistic of the larger Protestant groups. Several major denominations believe what was expressed in the previous paragraph, and yet, those who claim to be the heirs of the 'Reformation' are insistent that the above statements are heretical and most often not even worth of consideration.

Again, it is certainly true that Christ died for all in the sense that all are WELCOME to come to Him, and all MAY be saved by the merits of His Cross and Resurrection, but only those who ACTUALLY DO SO, whose true disposition of faith is known to God alone, will actually BE saved, provided they persevere in faith and die in God's friendship.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.