Author Topic: Did Cardinal Stickler ordain in the Old Rite? (Read 2364 times)

SerpKerp · « **on:** August 02, 2014, 09:59:16 PM »

Does anybody know if Cardinal Stickler or any other Bishops other that ArchBishop Lefebvre, ArchBishop Thuc, Bishop Castro Mayer, and Bishop Mendez who ordained in the pre 1968 rite?

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #1 on:** August 03, 2014, 12:42:34 AM »

It is true that Cardinal Stickler ordained with the old rite; All the while, he himself received episcopal consecration in the new rite. Which begs the question, why would a new rite bishop ordain with the old rite without first considering his own elevation to bishop by way of a new rite? Makes no sense, in my opinion.

2Vermont · « **Reply #2 on:** August 03, 2014, 07:11:27 AM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

It is true that Cardinal Stickler ordained with the old rite; All the while, he himself received episcopal consecration in the new rite. Which begs the question, why would a new rite bishop ordain with the old rite without first considering his own elevation to bishop by way of a new rite? Makes no sense, in my opinion.

Agree 100%.

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** August 03, 2014, 11:36:50 AM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

It is true that Cardinal Stickler ordained with the old rite; All the while, he himself received episcopal consecration in the new rite. Which begs the question, why would a new rite bishop ordain with the old rite without first considering his own elevation to bishop by way of a new rite? Makes no sense, in my opinion.

I had heard that he did, but I never heard that he, himself, was consecrated in the new rite. This, to my mind, muddies even more waters.

2Vermont · « **Reply #4 on:** August 03, 2014, 11:53:38 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
It is true that Cardinal Stickler ordained with the old rite; All the while, he himself received episcopal consecration in the new rite. Which begs the question, why would a new rite bishop ordain with the old rite without first considering his own elevation to bishop by way of a new rite? Makes no sense, in my opinion.

I had heard that he did, but I never heard that he, himself, was consecrated in the new rite. This, to my mind, muddies even more waters.

I'm fairly sure this is accurate because I remember watching a video of Fr. Hesse discussing the validity of the New Mass/New Rites. I'm pretty sure he stated (and defended) that he was ordained as a priest under the New Rite and Cardinal Stickler was consecrated in the New Rite.

SerpKerp · « **Reply #5 on:** August 03, 2014, 09:07:58 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
It is true that Cardinal Stickler ordained with the old rite; All the while, he himself received episcopal consecration in the new rite. Which begs the question, why would a new rite bishop ordain with the old rite without first considering his own elevation to bishop by way of a new rite? Makes no sense, in my opinion.

I had heard that he did, but I never heard that he, himself, was consecrated in the new rite. This, to my mind, muddies even more waters.

I'm fairly sure this is accurate because I remember watching a video of Fr. Hesse discussing the validity of the New Mass/New Rites. I'm pretty sure he stated (and defended) that he was ordained as a priest under the New Rite and Cardinal Stickler was consecrated in the New Rite.

I went back and looked at this it was Father Perez of Our Lady Help of Christians who was Ordained in the Old Rite By a Bishop in Consecrated in the New Rite (Cardinal Stickler Consecrated 1980), and Father Hesse who was Ordained in the New Rite by a Bishop Consecrated in the Old Rite.

SerpKerp · « **Reply #6 on:** August 03, 2014, 09:10:35 PM »

By the way, even as a Sedevacantist I think that Father Gregory Hesse is a very intelligent man, and its worth your time looking at his Lectures

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 03, 2014, 11:38:10 PM »

It does matter if Cardinal Stickler ordained in the new or old rite.
He was a true Cardinal and a Prince of the Church.
I will never say that that the new rites are invalid because the
church can never fail in saving souls throughout the ages.
We happen to live in very bad times. Bad times can have
opportunities. We can offer our sufferings to Jesus Christ for
the good of the church. We can become martyrs for the Faith
and that can be when a bad Catholic tries to make you into
a very bad person. This happens on CI all the time. Mostly
because people are either ignorant and is the know it all type,
when he really knows nothing if his Faith is put to the test.
He be the first one to run from the Roman Lion.
I am of the opinion that Tradition is gradually being restored
in the Church. We have many more holy priests whom says
the traditional Mass, The personal growth of holiness is far
more important than a person's ego.

2Vermont · « **Reply #8 on:** August 04, 2014, 04:32:53 AM »

Quote from: SerpKerp

By the way, even as a Sedevacantist I think that Father Gregory Hesse is a very intelligent man, and its worth your time looking at his Lectures

I found his stance confusing.

PG · « **Reply #9 on:** August 04, 2014, 02:18:16 PM »

Canon Hesse was consecrated in the new rite by bishop(s)(Siri was a part of it) consecrated in old rite. Perez was consecrated in the old rite by a new rite bishop. Canon Hesse indirectly sought out Bp. Fellay about a conditional ordination. Bp. Fellay knew what he was implying, and squashed him. I have a doubt about the validity of both of their ordinations. But, I will take what I can get, and from Canon Hesse, you can get a lot of good information. Despite his shortcomings, he was a giant.

PG · « **Reply #10 on:** August 04, 2014, 02:38:08 PM »

typo in my last post - Canon Hesse was "ordained" in the new rite.

2Vermont · « **Reply #11 on:** August 04, 2014, 02:56:15 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

Canon Hesse indirectly sought out Bp. Fellay about a conditional ordination.

This surprises me because if I remember correctly, he states in the aforementioned video that he has no doubt that he was a priest ("I KNOW that I am a priest"). If he had no doubt, why would he seek out a conditional ordination?

2Vermont · « **Reply #12 on:** August 04, 2014, 03:00:43 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

Canon Hesse was consecrated in the new rite by bishop(s)(Siri was a part of it) consecrated in old rite. Perez was consecrated in the old rite by a new rite bishop. Canon Hesse indirectly sought out Bp. Fellay about a conditional ordination. Bp. Fellay knew what he was implying, and squashed him. I have a doubt about the validity of both of their ordinations. But, I will take what I can get, and from Canon Hesse, you can get a lot of good information. Despite his shortcomings, he was a giant.

I have more doubt about Perez than Hesse.

Ambrose · « **Reply #13 on:** August 04, 2014, 04:21:40 PM »

For myself, I will not go to any priest ordained in the Paul VI rite, or ordained in the Catholic ordination rite by a bishop of the Paul VI rite.

PG · « **Reply #14 on:** August 04, 2014, 05:16:31 PM »

2vermont - do you remember the part that I am referring to? He briefly spoke about it in one of his videos. I know that he said what you are saying, but he also brought up his hypothetical discussed with Bp. Fellay about himself being conditionally ordained. Bp. Fellay responded with something along the lines of that he would have to be completely convinced that he was not a priest. And, that line of thought really doesn't "conform" to the sspx position, and bp. fellay could surely trap him on for it. With him being an "independent", I think it impossible to take that route(menzingen has been in bed with rome since 1996). In sum, it could ultimately threaten his chance of being conditionally ordained, and he probably sensed that. He was very educated. Canon Hesse's explanation for why he "knows" that he is a priest was an emotional one. But, he brings up great reasons for why it is rash to regard everything now as invalid.