Author Topic: Did Cardinal Stickler ordain in the Old Rite? (Read 2474 times)

2Vermont · « **Reply #15 on:** August 04, 2014, 05:28:09 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

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.

I'm not sure I'm following the part about Bp. Fellay. I do remember Fr. Hesse's emotional *I know* though and remember thinking "that was lame".

SerpKerp · « **Reply #16 on:** August 04, 2014, 11:27:12 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

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.

I said that, because some Sedevacantists might dislike him for not getting conditionally re-ordained.

PG · « **Reply #17 on:** August 05, 2014, 12:36:32 AM »

I have a confession to make. I have put my foot in my mouth by what I was saying about Hesse, I really don't know his intentions. I have jumped to my conclusion, and am giving him too much credit. He is on the wrong side of the fence in far too impressive a fashion in areas that I know currently require absolutely no compromise. I now attribute my attraction to Hesse because he raised my game("I will make thine enemies thy footstool"), but that can be false and deadly attraction. I believe that I can prove and point out exactly his errors, but I will save that for another time. I apologize if my flip flop causes confusion, but I wanted to withdraw my praise of him. Recommending him may be more harmful than helpful. This change of heart comes after watching over 2 hours of new uploaded videos that were very in depth on his position of the crisis.

PG · « **Reply #18 on:** August 05, 2014, 12:37:48 AM »

PG · « **Reply #19 on:** August 05, 2014, 01:10:25 AM »

I think it is past my bedtime, and time to go

2Vermont · « **Reply #20 on:** August 05, 2014, 06:20:54 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

I have a confession to make. I have put my foot in my mouth by what I was saying about Hesse, I really don't know his intentions. I have jumped to my conclusion, and am giving him too much credit. He is on the wrong side of the fence in far too impressive a fashion in areas that I know currently require absolutely no compromise. I now attribute my attraction to Hesse because he raised my game("I will make thine enemies thy footstool"), but that can be false and deadly attraction. I believe that I can prove and point out exactly his errors, but I will save that for another time. I apologize if my flip flop causes confusion, but I wanted to withdraw my praise of him. Recommending him may be more harmful than helpful. This change of heart comes after watching over 2 hours of new uploaded videos that were very in depth on his position of the crisis.

Not a problem PG. I look forward to hearing what you have to say regarding the bolded.

BTNYC · « **Reply #21 on:** August 06, 2014, 11:35:14 AM »

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 though the new rite of Episcopal Consecration - and not the new rite of Priestly Ordination - was the one whose validity is doubted...

If that is the case, why would the validity of Canon Hesse's ordination be doubted?

PG · « **Reply #22 on:** August 06, 2014, 03:23:52 PM »

Here are two new video interviews that I found of Hesse. Video 2 is on vatican 2, and it is worthwhile and good. Video 1 covers a lot of issues. He talks about his seminary years, his priestly years, the new mass, his ordination, the new rites of ordination and consecration, and more. This interview changes my opinion of Hesse. Perhaps it is the head bow at the name of malachi martin that pushes me over the edge. His certitude about the validity of the new mass because the "official" doctrine has not changed is foolish, he even admits a heretical definition in the rubrics. His celebrating it in Latin for a few months(most likely in private) is simply emotion. He pretends to address ordination and consecration, but he gives a pass on the form with a climactic defense of the rite/his ordination because he touched/was passed the sacred instruments(a traditionally believed matter distinct from the current imposition of hands). In sum, I question his honesty.

1 -
2 -