Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: saintbosco13 on February 03, 2017, 09:27:18 PM
-
I used to think that the SSPX performed conditional ordinations for priests entering the Society from the Novus ordo, but have heard of numerous examples where they didn't in recent years. Does anyone know if they ever perform them, and if so, what criteria they use to decide when to do so?
Thanks
-
I came back to the Church straight back into tradition in like 1995, and from then till like about 2004, the SSPX at first conditionally ordained (CO) all the Novus Ordo priests that asked for it, and "likely" advised CO to the ones that they thought might have had doubtful ordinations due to a modernist bishop "liberal" intentions/omission of words etc.
Since like 2005, I don't hear of any conditional ordinations. If you ask any Novus Ordo ordained SSPX priest that came into the society since 2004 or so, you will find that they have not been conditionally ordained.
What this means is that the SSPX considers the new ordination rite and ALL the Novus Ordo ordained and consecrated bishops to be real priest and bishops. That is a change.
God has only placed one or two of these SSPX Novus Ordo ordained priests in my path for one or two masses, so I do not have to deal with it. If however, I had one of these priest permanently assigned to my SSPX parish, and no other option, I would go seek a less doubtful alternative.
-
SSPX priest Fr. Joseph Horvath was conditionally ordained after leaving the NO. I was present at his first Mass in Louisville, KY - I can't remember exactly but I think that was like 2010 or so. He lambasted his NO bishop and the whole NO up one side and down the other from the pulpit that day, he was really fuming at them that day - that was one awesome sermon, definitely not the usual SSPX sleeper I've become accustomed to.
I'm pretty sure that he was mostly convinced his NO ordination was valid, but I think he may have had his own doubts so he was conditionally ordained by the SSPX to eliminate all doubts about the validity of his orders.
I remember asking a +20 year SSPX priest about it a year or so ago, he immediately answered that most of the NO priests who want to come into the SSPX are usually the first ones wanting to be conditionally ordained - which makes sense imo, but also the SSPX does some investigation into the matter first. But I am pretty sure the SSPX does not make conditional ordinations an automatic requirement for NO priests.
I found this (http://www.videomusic.com.au/cormariae/ListofPriests.pdf) while searching for a date that Fr. Horvath's first Mass was. Interesting. I never heard of Catholic candle before.
-
Well, when the X-SSPX finally inks the deal with the Conciliar Church, then there will be at least three undoubtedly valid bishops in that church, and a few hundred undoubtedly valid priests. Perhaps, at that point then, the SSPX will constitute the Church! :)
Francis I is only undoubtedly a deacon, but one of the three (once and former) SSPX bishops could do him the courtesy of conditionally ordaining him a priest and consecrating him a bishop. Maybe the protection of the Holy Ghost will kick in then. Just saying ...
-
I came back to the Church straight back into tradition in like 1995, and from then till like about 2004, the SSPX at first conditionally ordained (CO) all the Novus Ordo priests that asked for it, and "likely" advised CO to the ones that they thought might have had doubtful ordinations due to a modernist bishop "liberal" intentions/omission of words etc.
Since like 2005, I don't hear of any conditional ordinations. If you ask any Novus Ordo ordained SSPX priest that came into the society since 2004 or so, you will find that they have not been conditionally ordained.
What this means is that the SSPX considers the new ordination rite and ALL the Novus Ordo ordained and consecrated bishops to be real priest and bishops. That is a change.
God has only placed one or two of these SSPX Novus Ordo ordained priests in my path for one or two masses, so I do not have to deal with it. If however, I had one of these priest permanently assigned to my SSPX parish, and no other option, I would go seek a less doubtful alternative.
Wow. Then there is also the concern of these questionable priests traveling to different Mass centers, leaving questionably consecrated hosts in the Tabernacles. No way to keep track of this problem!
Does anyone know if Fr. Danel in Roswell, GA has been conditionally ordained?
-
I came back to the Church straight back into tradition in like 1995, and from then till like about 2004, the SSPX at first conditionally ordained (CO) all the Novus Ordo priests that asked for it, and "likely" advised CO to the ones that they thought might have had doubtful ordinations due to a modernist bishop "liberal" intentions/omission of words etc.
Since like 2005, I don't hear of any conditional ordinations. If you ask any Novus Ordo ordained SSPX priest that came into the society since 2004 or so, you will find that they have not been conditionally ordained.
What this means is that the SSPX considers the new ordination rite and ALL the Novus Ordo ordained and consecrated bishops to be real priest and bishops. That is a change.
God has only placed one or two of these SSPX Novus Ordo ordained priests in my path for one or two masses, so I do not have to deal with it. If however, I had one of these priest permanently assigned to my SSPX parish, and no other option, I would go seek a less doubtful alternative.
Wow. Then there is also the concern of these questionable priests traveling to different Mass centers, leaving questionably consecrated hosts in the Tabernacles. No way to keep track of this problem!
Does anyone know if Fr. Danel in Roswell, GA has been conditionally ordained?
I know a couple Trads from Georgia -- one of them is a member of CI. I think Fr. Danel was conditionally ordained by Bishop Williamson.
However, in terms of being faithful to Tradition, Fr. Danel is unfortunately not "one of the good ones".
-
I used to think that the SSPX performed conditional ordinations for priests entering the Society from the Novus ordo, but have heard of numerous examples where they didn't in recent years. Does anyone know if they ever perform them, and if so, what criteria they use to decide when to do so?
Thanks
My sense has been that is one of the disagreements between +Fellay and +Williamson, since the latter still helps incoming priests that way but the former has pretty much stopped doing conditional ordinations, and the reason seems to be that he wants to stop making "waves" with Newchurch so as to curry favor with Francis et. al., toward some form of reconciliation.
The XSPX has a new standard for priests and it does not include the "old fight" of the classic Lefebvre brand.
-
I've never been to seminary (like Matthew has), so I have not studied the topic, but I have heard various arguments for and against.
One of the explanations I have heard that defends Novus Ordo ordinations says that to be thorough with conditional re-ordination, one would have to endeavor to examine ALL of the sacraments that the Novus Ordo priest administered after his first ordination and before his conditional re-ordination. (Baptism is excluded because anyone can baptize, even a non-Catholic.) This means that everyone who had received Holy Communion from him should be notified that perhaps they received an invalid sacrament. If that sounds like a lot of work, how about confessions? Imagine trying to contact everyone who had gone to confession to that priest when he may not have been a priest at all. Their eternal salvation hangs in the balance. They would have to arrange for a general confession in which they try to recall all their past sins, especially those mortal sins for which they had been absolved by the priest in question.
Add to this the claim that never before in Church history has any priest's previous ordination been found lacking. Again, I have not studied this topic but I am only repeating the observations and arguments that I have heard.
-
Does anyone know if Fr. Danel in Roswell, GA has been conditionally ordained?
He was conditionally ordained Bp. Willamson, he said it himself in a sermon, and he said he was very thankful that Bp. Willamson conditionally ordained him. There is no doubt whatsoever, he is a validly ordained priest.
-
I've never been to seminary (like Matthew has), so I have not studied the topic, but I have heard various arguments for and against.
One of the explanations I have heard that defends Novus Ordo ordinations says that to be thorough with conditional re-ordination, one would have to endeavor to examine ALL of the sacraments that the Novus Ordo priest administered after his first ordination and before his conditional re-ordination. (Baptism is excluded because anyone can baptize, even a non-Catholic.) This means that everyone who had received Holy Communion from him should be notified that perhaps they received an invalid sacrament. If that sounds like a lot of work, how about confessions? Imagine trying to contact everyone who had gone to confession to that priest when he may not have been a priest at all. Their eternal salvation hangs in the balance. They would have to arrange for a general confession in which they try to recall all their past sins, especially those mortal sins for which they had been absolved by the priest in question.
Add to this the claim that never before in Church history has any priest's previous ordination been found lacking. Again, I have not studied this topic but I am only repeating the observations and arguments that I have heard.
I was just thinking about the possibility of a person innocent of all this goings on, and having 100% sureness that the priest they were going to confession was a priest, but in the eyes of God he was not for various impediments of today.
Not knowing the mind of God, but believing His Mercy don't you think that person's sins, even mortal were forgiven? Even if later, as the years went by and he discovered the possibility that some of the "priests" he depended on for sacraments were not priests at all once he was forgiven, his sins don't come back because he discovered about a particular priest.
Of course, if he wants to confess again, as we are allowed to do when in the confessional,
mention a past sin previously confessed, he can but it would not be necessary as God in His mercy has already forgiven him.
That is my assumption, am I wrong to think this way?
-
This is an interesting question about what happens if you confess your sins to a fake priest while thinking he was a real one. Would your sins be forgiven? I don't know the answer. I would guess that no, your sins are not forgiven when you confess to a fake priest, but that after the next time you confess your sins to a real priest, even though you do not mention the sins from your confession with the false priest, when you confess your sins again and you confess all of the mortal sins you were aware of, when you are absolved you will be forgiven even though there were some sins confessed to a false priest and never confessed to a real priest. But that is just a guess based on my own reasoning. I do not really know what would happen in reality and am interested in learning the truth from someone who knows what the Church teaches on this matter.
-
I've never been to seminary (like Matthew has), so I have not studied the topic, but I have heard various arguments for and against.
One of the explanations I have heard that defends Novus Ordo ordinations says that to be thorough with conditional re-ordination, one would have to endeavor to examine ALL of the sacraments that the Novus Ordo priest administered after his first ordination and before his conditional re-ordination. (Baptism is excluded because anyone can baptize, even a non-Catholic.) This means that everyone who had received Holy Communion from him should be notified that perhaps they received an invalid sacrament. If that sounds like a lot of work, how about confessions? Imagine trying to contact everyone who had gone to confession to that priest when he may not have been a priest at all. Their eternal salvation hangs in the balance. They would have to arrange for a general confession in which they try to recall all their past sins, especially those mortal sins for which they had been absolved by the priest in question.
Add to this the claim that never before in Church history has any priest's previous ordination been found lacking. Again, I have not studied this topic but I am only repeating the observations and arguments that I have heard.
I was just thinking about the possibility of a person innocent of all this goings on, and having 100% sureness that the priest they were going to confession was a priest, but in the eyes of God he was not for various impediments of today.
Not knowing the mind of God, but believing His Mercy don't you think that person's sins, even mortal were forgiven? Even if later, as the years went by and he discovered the possibility that some of the "priests" he depended on for sacraments were not priests at all once he was forgiven, his sins don't come back because he discovered about a particular priest.
Of course, if he wants to confess again, as we are allowed to do when in the confessional, mention a past sin previously confessed, he can but it would not be necessary as God in His mercy has already forgiven him.
That is my assumption, am I wrong to think this way?
Speaking from gut instincts and common sense, makes it hard to accept extreme consequences for what may appear to be foolish oversights or innocent mistakes in judgment.
We are not able to judge the internal forum. Only God knows the disposition of a person's heart. And in the end it is God's judgment that prevails.
But the Church has to go on objective reality when making rulings, and this comes into play when passing judgment on whether absolution is valid or not. Fortunately for us laymen we don't have to deal with these things.
Like I said, I have not studied Moral Theology or Sacramental Theology, but these are things a priest needs to learn, and certainly when he becomes a theologian he must study these topics in great detail. Obviously, a non-Catholic so-called theologian is most likely ignorant of sacramental theology even if he has a certificate for "Theology."
There is such a thing as validity in giving absolutions, which is why all the furror over this recent "year of mercy" when Francis granted temporary jurisdiction for absolutions for the SSPX, and then the great news of him "extending indefinitely" the same power for these priests. If it was not important, it would not be a topic of discussion.
But IRONICALLY, Francis trivializes it by his cavalier treatment of the subject, as if he's just having fun throwing his power around like a simpleton playing with the levers of a great, modern bulldozer or a crane. We live in the age of unqualified leaders, apparently.
In the end, it is a good idea to review one's life and confess again sins that one believes have already been confessed and apparently absolved, in the past. I went to an SSPX retreat a few years ago, and that was the essence of the whole thing, to spend hours upon hours prayerfully contemplating all the sins of our past and reviewing them in confession to a priest whose time had been reserved for a general confession. (Protestants never bother to do anything close to that!!!) Those poor priests were really working overtime! Sometimes they were so tired that they even fell asleep while hearing confession. So does that effect the validity of their absolution??
-
This is an interesting question about what happens if you confess your sins to a fake priest while thinking he was a real one. Would your sins be forgiven? I don't know the answer. I would guess that no, your sins are not forgiven when you confess to a fake priest, but that after the next time you confess your sins to a real priest, even though you do not mention the sins from your confession with the false priest, when you confess your sins again and you confess all of the mortal sins you were aware of, when you are absolved you will be forgiven even though there were some sins confessed to a false priest and never confessed to a real priest. But that is just a guess based on my own reasoning. I do not really know what would happen in reality and am interested in learning the truth from someone who knows what the Church teaches on this matter.
Ask Matthew what he thinks. Perhaps he has learned about this question.
-
I heard of one place, I think it was in Italy, when an impostor faked being a priest and sat in a confessional so he could hear the stories of people, especially women. I don't recall hearing what the end result was of that situation, if he was caught or what, but certainly the news must have got out that a fake priest had been pulling a fast one, and people who had gone to confession there were notified, if possible.
Then I heard one story of a man faking a Mass, but that seems to be harder to believe. Why go to all that trouble to learn how to say Mass? Of course, now with the Novus Ordo it wouldn't be difficult at all, which is another reason to stay away from Newchurch.
The eternal punishment for a man who intentionally impersonates a priest would be pretty serious. God punished spectacularly those who mocked a man of God in the Old Testament, and this would be much more offensive to God than that.
-
In one of Fr. John Hardon's recordings on his website, he talked about a bishop that despised the Jesuits, yet ended up having to ordain roughly forty of them to the priesthood. This bishop confessed on his deathbed that he deliberately withheld his intention to ordain these men priests, so they were never validly ordained. I wish I had taken note of the recording that has this story so I could link to it.
Can you imagine the repercussions of something like that?
-
I can see this thread developing along the same arguments we have at times in the Baptism of Desire/Blood threads.
-
In one of Fr. John Hardon's recordings on his website, he talked about a bishop that despised the Jesuits, yet ended up having to ordain roughly forty of them to the priesthood. This bishop confessed on his deathbed that he deliberately withheld his intention to ordain these men priests, so they were never validly ordained. I wish I had taken note of the recording that has this story so I could link to it.
Can you imagine the repercussions of something like that?
I heard of that, but with no detail. It sounds apochyral. Supposedly some died of shock. If a seminarian is ordained a priest by some who is by all known evidence an undoubted bishop in good standing, it would seem unjust that an ordination would be held invalid by some occult withholding of intent. Not sure how this works.
-
I used to think that the SSPX performed conditional ordinations for priests entering the Society from the Novus ordo, but have heard of numerous examples where they didn't in recent years. Does anyone know if they ever perform them, and if so, what criteria they use to decide when to do so?
Thanks
The other day, I had the opportunity to ask an SSPX priest about this and he said that they review every NO priest's ordination and do a conditional ordination on all of the ones that are invalid or doubtfully valid - same as always. He also said that this is one of the first things that nearly all the NO priests themselves ask them to do.
He said the SSPX perform the investigation while the NO priests are being re-formed / re-trained to celebrate the TLM and in traditional theology / teachings, they are then conditionally ordained before they are allowed to celebrate the TLM - same as always.
That's what he said.
-
I used to think that the SSPX performed conditional ordinations for priests entering the Society from the Novus ordo, but have heard of numerous examples where they didn't in recent years. Does anyone know if they ever perform them, and if so, what criteria they use to decide when to do so?
Thanks
The other day, I had the opportunity to ask an SSPX priest about this and he said that they review every NO priest's ordination and do a conditional ordination on all of the ones that are invalid or doubtfully valid - same as always. He also said that this is one of the first things that nearly all the NO priests themselves ask them to do.
He said the SSPX perform the investigation while the NO priests are being re-formed / re-trained to celebrate the TLM and in traditional theology / teachings, they are then conditionally ordained before they are allowed to celebrate the TLM - same as always.
That's what he said.
Unfortunately the priest you spoke to is mistaken. As others have confirmed in this thread, not all priests who were ordained with the new rite of ordination are being conditionally ordained upon entering the Society. There are numerous examples of this over the years which is leading to doubt about the validity of the Sacraments in various places in the Society. It's a disaster.
-
I used to think that the SSPX performed conditional ordinations for priests entering the Society from the Novus ordo, but have heard of numerous examples where they didn't in recent years. Does anyone know if they ever perform them, and if so, what criteria they use to decide when to do so?
Thanks
The other day, I had the opportunity to ask an SSPX priest about this and he said that they review every NO priest's ordination and do a conditional ordination on all of the ones that are invalid or doubtfully valid - same as always. He also said that this is one of the first things that nearly all the NO priests themselves ask them to do.
He said the SSPX perform the investigation while the NO priests are being re-formed / re-trained to celebrate the TLM and in traditional theology / teachings, they are then conditionally ordained before they are allowed to celebrate the TLM - same as always.
That's what he said.
Unfortunately the priest you spoke to is mistaken. As others have confirmed in this thread, not all priests who were ordained with the new rite of ordination are being conditionally ordained upon entering the Society. There are numerous examples of this over the years which is leading to doubt about the validity of the Sacraments in various places in the Society. It's a disaster.
He is not mistaken, he never said that all NO priests were conditionally ordained. He said the ordinations for all NO priests were investigated - only those with ordinations found to be invalid or doubtful were conditionally ordained.
-
On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament."
On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.
Yes, the new rite replaced the old rite and did so with the manifest intention of introducing another rite, a rite which has never been approved by the Church, but it cannot be said that the new rite's intention rejects what the Church does nor does it reject the nature of the sacrament - at least not in all cases apparently. Perhaps these are things SSPX investigates.
Either way, this goes back to the same problem of doubtful validity of NO priests, ever since V2.
-
Questionable priestly ordinations in the conciliar Church
— A letter of Archbishop Lefebvre:
[ Editor’s note: In this transcription, we have left unchanged the spelling and style found in the handwritten letter of the Archbishop. ]
Ecône, 28 oct. 1988
Very dear Mr. Wilson,
thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.
All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.
We are in the time of great apostasy.
We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics. It is necessary everywhere in the world.
Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!
We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.
I pray for you and your lovely family.
Devotly in Jesus and Mary.
Marcel Lefebvre
(http://www.dominicansavrille.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Handwritten-Letter-from-Arch-Lefebvre-necessary-to-conditionally-ordain_thumb.jpg)
Read the rest of the commentary by the Dominicans of Avrille who conclude with:
"This is why the position of Archbishop Lefebvre in the letter that we have quoted here, appears wise: because of the particular importance of the sacrament of ordination, it is necessary to conditionally re-ordain the priests who come from the conciliar Church to the Traditional one."
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/ (http://www.dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/)
-
SSPX priest Fr. Joseph Horvath was conditionally ordained after leaving the NO. I was present at his first Mass in Louisville, KY - I can't remember exactly but I think that was like 2010 or so. He lambasted his NO bishop and the whole NO up one side and down the other from the pulpit that day, he was really fuming at them that day - that was one awesome sermon, definitely not the usual SSPX sleeper I've become accustomed to.
I'm pretty sure that he was mostly convinced his NO ordination was valid, but I think he may have had his own doubts so he was conditionally ordained by the SSPX to eliminate all doubts about the validity of his orders.
I remember asking a +20 year SSPX priest about it a year or so ago, he immediately answered that most of the NO priests who want to come into the SSPX are usually the first ones wanting to be conditionally ordained - which makes sense imo, but also the SSPX does some investigation into the matter first. But I am pretty sure the SSPX does not make conditional ordinations an automatic requirement for NO priests.
I found this (http://www.videomusic.com.au/cormariae/ListofPriests.pdf) while searching for a date that Fr. Horvath's first Mass was. Interesting. I never heard of Catholic candle before.
I would say note that Catholic Candle is very critical of Bishop Williamson (https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson.html). I think they're SSPX-MC/Father Pfeiffer aligned. The link might have a slightly more up to date list (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGT0VqbXZPYW5wS0U/view) of Traditional priests. They wholly reject the Thuc line and sedevacantist ordinations. They preface them with 'so-called' before them as they do with Conciliar priests. As I best I understand they send the Conciliar priest to a House of Studies and investigate his orders.
-
I used to think that the SSPX performed conditional ordinations for priests entering the Society from the Novus ordo, but have heard of numerous examples where they didn't in recent years. Does anyone know if they ever perform them, and if so, what criteria they use to decide when to do so?
Thanks
The other day, I had the opportunity to ask an SSPX priest about this and he said that they review every NO priest's ordination and do a conditional ordination on all of the ones that are invalid or doubtfully valid - same as always. He also said that this is one of the first things that nearly all the NO priests themselves ask them to do.
He said the SSPX perform the investigation while the NO priests are being re-formed / re-trained to celebrate the TLM and in traditional theology / teachings, they are then conditionally ordained before they are allowed to celebrate the TLM - same as always.
That's what he said.
Unfortunately the priest you spoke to is mistaken. As others have confirmed in this thread, not all priests who were ordained with the new rite of ordination are being conditionally ordained upon entering the Society. There are numerous examples of this over the years which is leading to doubt about the validity of the Sacraments in various places in the Society. It's a disaster.
He is not mistaken, he never said that all NO priests were conditionally ordained. He said the ordinations for all NO priests were investigated - only those with ordinations found to be invalid or doubtful were conditionally ordained.
That is exactly the contention here. How does an SSPX priest "investigate" an ordination that was performed in the new rite, when it is the new rite of ordination itself that is considered doubtful? There is no need to "investigate" something that is already doubtful in itself.
-
I used to think that the SSPX performed conditional ordinations for priests entering the Society from the Novus ordo, but have heard of numerous examples where they didn't in recent years. Does anyone know if they ever perform them, and if so, what criteria they use to decide when to do so?
Thanks
The other day, I had the opportunity to ask an SSPX priest about this and he said that they review every NO priest's ordination and do a conditional ordination on all of the ones that are invalid or doubtfully valid - same as always. He also said that this is one of the first things that nearly all the NO priests themselves ask them to do.
He said the SSPX perform the investigation while the NO priests are being re-formed / re-trained to celebrate the TLM and in traditional theology / teachings, they are then conditionally ordained before they are allowed to celebrate the TLM - same as always.
That's what he said.
Unfortunately the priest you spoke to is mistaken. As others have confirmed in this thread, not all priests who were ordained with the new rite of ordination are being conditionally ordained upon entering the Society. There are numerous examples of this over the years which is leading to doubt about the validity of the Sacraments in various places in the Society. It's a disaster.
He is not mistaken, he never said that all NO priests were conditionally ordained. He said the ordinations for all NO priests were investigated - only those with ordinations found to be invalid or doubtful were conditionally ordained.
That is exactly the contention here. How does an SSPX priest "investigate" an ordination that was performed in the new rite, when it is the new rite of ordination itself that is considered doubtful? There is no need to "investigate" something that is already doubtful in itself.
I don't know how they investigate but feel free to simply ask one of the SSPX priests yourself, just as I did. I can assure you of this much - that it beats criticizing them over something you know very little about.
It is just as impossible to be certain that all NO priests are invalid, as it is to be certain that all NO transubstantiations are invalid. You do not understand that the Church protects the integrity of the sacrament by first defending it as valid, i.e. validity is *always* initially presumed. There simply is no other way to defend the sacraments.
If after investigating each case individually they determine invalidity via some NO irregularity or whatever else, they conditionally ordain the priest to remove all doubt.
-
Yes, the new rite replaced the old rite and did so with the manifest intention of introducing another rite, a rite which has never been approved by the Church, but it cannot be said that the new rite's intention rejects what the Church does nor does it reject the nature of the sacrament - at least not in all cases apparently. Perhaps these are things SSPX investigates.
Either way, this goes back to the same problem of doubtful validity of NO priests, ever since V2.
Soooo.....why would you even say the new "ordinations" are doubtful? You have just judged that the new "rite" does not reject what the Church does nor the nature of the sacrament.
The issue is with the new "rite" itself, not with the innovations of certain people who administer it.
I am only pointing out the obvious in your quote from Apostolicae Curae which you neglected to acknowledge in order to have the pope's teaching jive with your opinion.
You should be able to agree with this.
I guess this means you have no problem with the "rite" the Paul VI promulgated.
According to you, as long as the VII "priests" are ordained with the Paul VI rite, it's valid in your eyes? Is this correct?
Well, I was raised a trad and have been one my whole life and hope to die one, I've only been to one NO "mass" my whole life - that one "mass" was a "funeral NO farce of a mass".
So yes, I have no problem with the "rite" pope Paul VI perpetrated and as long as the VII "priests" are ordained with the Paul VI rite, it's valid in my eyes.
:facepalm: x a million
-
I am only pointing out the obvious in your quote from Apostolicae Curae which you neglected to acknowledge in order to have the pope's teaching jive with your opinion.
You should be able to agree with this.
Are you seeing things? Which part of my original quote dealt with my opinion?
Was it the part where I added absolutely no words of my own? Or was it the part where I only quoted Pope Leo XIII?
It was your selective bolding that gave you away, in ignoring what the entire quote said, you changed the context, same o same o. This is the rule with sedevacantists, not the exception.
So yes, I have no problem with the "rite" pope Paul VI perpetrated and as long as the VII "priests" are ordained with the Paul VI rite, it's valid in my eyes.
:facepalm: x a million
Why put the words rite and priest in quotes? Why don't you find a VII "church" with a "priest" who's valid in your eyes, and go to "mass" there?
Why put yourself at odds with the "church" you consider Catholic?
Uh like totally :facepalm: x a zillion!!! haha
I copied your own post, that's how the quotes got there.
:facepalm:x infinity lol
-
I am only pointing out the obvious in your quote from Apostolicae Curae which you neglected to acknowledge in order to have the pope's teaching jive with your opinion.
You should be able to agree with this.
Are you seeing things? Which part of my original quote dealt with my opinion?
Was it the part where I added absolutely no words of my own? Or was it the part where I only quoted Pope Leo XIII?
It was your selective bolding that gave you away, in ignoring what the entire quote said, you changed the context, same o same o. This is the rule with sedevacantists, not the exception.
My bolding was to highlight the fact that intention can be presumed through the usage of the proper form and matter. That's why I underlined that part. The other bolded part was for context. Don't assume my opinion. Ask it if you want it.
If I wanted to ignore the entire quote or change the context I would have omitted the part you think makes everything okay. It doesn't by the way.
So do you want to answer the question as to why you don't just go to the New Order if it and it's "priests" are valid.
The reason I never went to the NO, is probably for the same reason you stopped attending it after it took you how many years for you to FINALLY wake up.
Paul VI:“The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…"L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2
Yes, statements like these and many others served only to add to the confusion of the masses who compromised 40 years ago, you're just recently discovering things like this, but for many of us, it's old news.
Fr. Wathen, in The Great Sacrilege (http://www.cathinfo.com/TheGreatSacrilegeCI.pdf), explains it like this:
Paul VI acts as if he is using the “New Mass” in obedience to the Second Vatican Council. This is a kind of buck-passing. He owes no obedience to this Council, if its decrees go counter to the laws of the Church, of which Quo Primum is one. Besides, it is he who promulgated its decrees; he is therefore really only obeying himself.
If you've not read that book, I highly recommend it.
-
I used to think that the SSPX performed conditional ordinations for priests entering the Society from the Novus ordo, but have heard of numerous examples where they didn't in recent years. Does anyone know if they ever perform them, and if so, what criteria they use to decide when to do so?
Thanks
The other day, I had the opportunity to ask an SSPX priest about this and he said that they review every NO priest's ordination and do a conditional ordination on all of the ones that are invalid or doubtfully valid - same as always. He also said that this is one of the first things that nearly all the NO priests themselves ask them to do.
He said the SSPX perform the investigation while the NO priests are being re-formed / re-trained to celebrate the TLM and in traditional theology / teachings, they are then conditionally ordained before they are allowed to celebrate the TLM - same as always.
That's what he said.
Unfortunately the priest you spoke to is mistaken. As others have confirmed in this thread, not all priests who were ordained with the new rite of ordination are being conditionally ordained upon entering the Society. There are numerous examples of this over the years which is leading to doubt about the validity of the Sacraments in various places in the Society. It's a disaster.
He is not mistaken, he never said that all NO priests were conditionally ordained. He said the ordinations for all NO priests were investigated - only those with ordinations found to be invalid or doubtful were conditionally ordained.
That is exactly the contention here. How does an SSPX priest "investigate" an ordination that was performed in the new rite, when it is the new rite of ordination itself that is considered doubtful? There is no need to "investigate" something that is already doubtful in itself.
I don't know how they investigate but feel free to simply ask one of the SSPX priests yourself, just as I did. I can assure you of this much - that it beats criticizing them over something you know very little about.
It is just as impossible to be certain that all NO priests are invalid, as it is to be certain that all NO transubstantiations are invalid. You do not understand that the Church protects the integrity of the sacrament by first defending it as valid, i.e. validity is *always* initially presumed. There simply is no other way to defend the sacraments.
If after investigating each case individually they determine invalidity via some NO irregularity or whatever else, they conditionally ordain the priest to remove all doubt.
The Church says that the Sacraments cannot be changed without invalidating them. The new rite of ordination was a drastic change, it is therefore doubtful at best. No investigation needed - if someone was ordained with the new rite, they MUST be conditionally ordained. The SSPX stopped doing this consistently some years ago, so there are doubtful priests (and sacraments) scattered around the Society. For this reason and other reasons (such as them teaching that a General Council can teach heresy, and that a true Pope also can, and their recognize and resist position, and their accepting/granting of annulments etc), I decided long ago to completely avoid the SSPX due to multiple dangers.
-
The Church says that the Sacraments cannot be changed without invalidating them. The new rite of ordination was a drastic change, it is therefore doubtful at best. No investigation needed - if someone was ordained with the new rite, they MUST be conditionally ordained.
No, the Church does not say any such thing. Your idea of what the Church does in regards to the sacraments is completely wrong because if your idea was actually correct and the SSPX presumed as you do, first off they would not conditionally ordain, they would necessarily automatically re-ordain.
Either way, because there is doubt, without proof of invalidity the Church has always taught that it is a sacrilege to even conditionally ordain someone who is already validly ordained, let alone automatically re-ordain them. This is why validity is and must ALWAYS be initially presumed.
The SSPX stopped doing this consistently some years ago, so there are doubtful priests (and sacraments) scattered around the Society. For this reason and other reasons (such as them teaching that a General Council can teach heresy, and that a true Pope also can, and their recognize and resist position, and their accepting/granting of annulments etc), I decided long ago to completely avoid the SSPX due to multiple dangers.
No, the SSPX has never stopped doing this consistently, exactly the opposite is the truth. A general council is only as infallible as the pope makes it, and the popes involved declared that V2 was not infallible.
You decided long ago to completely avoid them for reasons that are altogether wrong.
-
The Church says that the Sacraments cannot be changed without invalidating them. The new rite of ordination was a drastic change, it is therefore doubtful at best. No investigation needed - if someone was ordained with the new rite, they MUST be conditionally ordained.
No, the Church does not say any such thing. Your idea of what the Church does in regards to the sacraments is completely wrong because if your idea was actually correct and the SSPX presumed as you do, first off they would not conditionally ordain, they would necessarily automatically re-ordain.
Either way, because there is doubt, without proof of invalidity the Church has always taught that it is a sacrilege to even conditionally ordain someone who is already validly ordained, let alone automatically re-ordain them. This is why validity is and must ALWAYS be initially presumed.
Of course the Church has taught this! The quotes were recently posted and you just ignored them. Here they are again:
"It is well-known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments" Pope St. Pius X, Ex quo nono, 1910
"Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid." Summa Theologica, Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists?
"...the Council of Trent teaches (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII, can. 1, De Sacram, in genere), the seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over "the substance of the Sacraments," that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs." Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947
The SSPX stopped doing this consistently some years ago, so there are doubtful priests (and sacraments) scattered around the Society. For this reason and other reasons (such as them teaching that a General Council can teach heresy, and that a true Pope also can, and their recognize and resist position, and their accepting/granting of annulments etc), I decided long ago to completely avoid the SSPX due to multiple dangers.
No, the SSPX has never stopped doing this consistently, exactly the opposite is the truth. A general council is only as infallible as the pope makes it, and the popes involved declared that V2 was not infallible.
You decided long ago to completely avoid them for reasons that are altogether wrong.
There are posts from others in this SAME discussion that state the SSPX has not been consistent when it comes to conditional ordination. This is from people who attend the SSPX!
Your comments on General Councils is heretical. Look in ANY Catholic book before Vatican II and they all say General Councils, approved by a valid Pope, are infallible. A Council is considered a General Council when it is convoked from the whole world, as Vatican II was. So Vatican II is either a valid Council (and therefore infallible), or it is not a valid Council, and should therefore be ignored. There is no middle ground.
-
The Church says that the Sacraments cannot be changed without invalidating them. The new rite of ordination was a drastic change, it is therefore doubtful at best. No investigation needed - if someone was ordained with the new rite, they MUST be conditionally ordained.
No, the Church does not say any such thing. Your idea of what the Church does in regards to the sacraments is completely wrong because if your idea was actually correct and the SSPX presumed as you do, first off they would not conditionally ordain, they would necessarily automatically re-ordain.
Either way, because there is doubt, without proof of invalidity the Church has always taught that it is a sacrilege to even conditionally ordain someone who is already validly ordained, let alone automatically re-ordain them. This is why validity is and must ALWAYS be initially presumed.
Of course the Church has taught this! The quotes were recently posted and you just ignored them. Here they are again:
You are changing the subject and venturing off into an area that you know very little about, much less than me. I ignored them because they do not apply because they have nothing to do with what we are discussing.
No, the Church does not teach it and never has nor can it ever.
YOU choose to defend the integrity of the sacraments by first presuming they are invalid - in so doing you are defending nothing at all, for what is an automatically invalid sacrament if not nothing at all? - but the Church, the only protector of the sacraments, necessarily safeguards them presuming validity initially. Think about it.
The SSPX stopped doing this consistently some years ago, so there are doubtful priests (and sacraments) scattered around the Society. For this reason and other reasons (such as them teaching that a General Council can teach heresy, and that a true Pope also can, and their recognize and resist position, and their accepting/granting of annulments etc), I decided long ago to completely avoid the SSPX due to multiple dangers.
No, the SSPX has never stopped doing this consistently, exactly the opposite is the truth. A general council is only as infallible as the pope makes it, and the popes involved declared that V2 was not infallible.
You decided long ago to completely avoid them for reasons that are altogether wrong.
There are posts from others in this SAME discussion that state the SSPX has not been consistent when it comes to conditional ordination. This is from people who attend the SSPX!
I have asked probably 5 or 6 different SSPX priests over the last 40 years who all gave the same answer, which answer I already posted, it's not my fault that does not meet with any of your preconceived and false ideas in the matter, but they all say the same thing. Go ask any SSPX priest yourself, otherwise, why do you even care since you decided long ago to completely avoid them?
Your comments on General Councils is heretical. Look in ANY Catholic book before Vatican II and they all say General Councils, approved by a valid Pope, are infallible. A Council is considered a General Council when it is convoked from the whole world, as Vatican II was. So Vatican II is either a valid Council (and therefore infallible), or it is not a valid Council, and should therefore be ignored. There is no middle ground.
And that same false teaching is the foundation of both NOers and sedevacantism because without that false teaching, there are two things we can say:
1) the sedevacantist would lose a big reason for being sedevacantist.
2) the NOers would have lost a big reason for being NOers.
-
The reason I never went to the NO, is probably for the same reason you stopped attending it after it took you how many years for you to FINALLY wake up.
At least I finally DID wake up. You are still in the Novus Ordo. The Catholic Church and the Pope cannot be separated. I would quote the Church for you but you will just culpably ignore the quotes again. If you think he's the Pope then you're either in his "church" or not.
You misunderstood - I was never in the NO, as such, I am not the one "still in the Novus Ordo" - you are, even if only by default. Think about that. Nor is it I who dwells on the false, Novus Ordo idea of what the "Church and the Pope cannot be separated" actually means.
No, you woke up to realize that what was going on was very wrong, thankfully you found out the truth of that whole tragedy and left it behind. What you have yet to rid yourself of, is the decades worth of false ideas welcomed, implanted and still embedded within you that many others who've been in your situation have rid themselves of, or still struggle to do - that's just the way it is.
The false ideas that the NO preaches and which you accepted for years, reflect in some of your posts, particularly when it comes to the idea of authority and the pope. In short, you fell into the same trap that ensnared generations into the NO and those NO ideas repeatedly show themselves almost whenever you post on the subject.
Paul VI:“The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…"L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2
Yes, statements like these and many others served only to add to the confusion of the masses who compromised 40 years ago, you're just recently discovering things like this, but for many of us, it's old news.
I realized it as soon as I started to care about religion. The difference is you deny the Authority given to a true Pope still. If Paul VI were Pope you would have no choice. I'm just bringing this up now again for a reminder that you will be held responsible for your denial of Dogma.
I am not the one who has ever denied the authority of popes, all the popes are true popes, none of them are God. When one comes to accept that reality, it's relatively easy to remain the pope's good subject, but God's first.
Fr. Wathen, in The Great Sacrilege (http://www.cathinfo.com/TheGreatSacrilegeCI.pdf), explains it like this:
Paul VI acts as if he is using the “New Mass” in obedience to the Second Vatican Council. This is a kind of buck-passing. He owes no obedience to this Council, if its decrees go counter to the laws of the Church, of which Quo Primum is one. Besides, it is he who promulgated its decrees; he is therefore really only obeying himself.
If you've not read that book, I highly recommend it.
Read it about 12 years ago. This quote doesn't really even make sense. Why would Paul VI tell himself to change the Mass, then not obey himself. The only way to understand that situation is that Paul VI was a heretic bent upon the destruction of souls and wanted to cease the Continual Sacrifice all along.
Yes, that is how I understand it. Not sure there is any other way to logically understand it.
-
You misunderstood - I was never in the NO, as such, I am not the one "still in the Novus Ordo" - you are, even if only by default.
I understood just fine. Francis is the 'pope' of the N.O. You consider him 'pope'. Therefore, you are in the N.O.
As I said, you demonstrate remnants of the NO within you every time you post things like this.
Think about that. Nor is it I who dwells on the false, Novus Ordo idea of what the "Church and the Pope cannot be separated" actually means.
I guess Pope Leo XIII was part of the N.O. according to you.
Satis Cognitum:"Christ therefore must have given to His Church a supreme authority to which all Christians must render obedience. For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino...When the Divine founder decreed that the Church should be one in faith, in government, and in communion, He chose Peter and his successors as the principle and centre, as it were, of this unity."
No, Pope Leo was not part of the NO. This quote is and entirely Catholic teaching. There is nothing NO about it.Your problem, it seems, is that you maintain the NO idea you wholly accepted and have yet to rid from yourself, that idea being that you equate the pope to the Church - that *is* NO.
The false ideas that the NO preaches and which you accepted for years, reflect in some of your posts, particularly when it comes to the idea of authority and the pope. In short, you fell into the same trap that ensnared generations into the NO and those NO ideas repeatedly show themselves almost whenever you post on the subject.
This is really something. I have proved my points from the Magisterium many times. You cannot and have not proven anything you say on this topic. When I pressed you about this, the most you could muster was a quote from Fr. Wathen. You guys talk about me making the Pope the rule of faith. Well you have made Lefebvre and Wathen your rules of faith. It's ridiculous.
All you have actually proven is as I said - that you have yet to rid yourself of those NO ideas. Yes, you repeatedly say that you have proven your points when the truth is that all you actually did was apply false, NO inspired misinterpretations to Catholic teachings and the Catholic principles derived from them, only proves you maintain the errors you got from your decades in the NO.
I am not the one who has ever denied the authority of popes, all the popes are true popes, none of them are God. When one comes to accept that reality, it's relatively easy to remain the pope's good subject, but God's first.
Yes you have many times. To name a few. You deny that heretics are not in the Church. This is infallible. You also deny that you don't have to be obedient to the Pope. This is infallible.
Here again, this has been explained repeatedly to you - and more especially, it was thoroughly and beautifully explained by Drew. IMO, it is your NO indoctrination which you need to rid from yourself which makes you insist the contrary.
Yes, that is how I understand it. Not sure there is any other way to logically understand it.
I know that's how you understand it. And it doesn't make sense because that means a Pope, who has supreme power on earth, given to him by God for feeding his sheep, had enacted a form of worship that essentially changes one's belief into something not Catholic.
It makes sense when you afford the pope only the authority that as pope, which is that same authority that he can neither lose nor can it be taken from him except by his death or his willing abdication from office. His infallible authority is not limitless, it has clearly defined boundaries.
To repeat Drew - all you are doing is making the pope the rule of faith. While apparently you do not see this, others do. It's only too obvious.
To quote Fr. Wathen - "The doctrine of papal infallibility, by stating in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives the pope is completely fallible."
Can you accept this?
-
you maintain the NO idea you wholly accepted and have yet to rid from yourself, that idea being that you equate the pope to the Church - that *is* NO.
I have been listening to your “snappy” comebacks for a while now. You are so confident that you are right you must be basing your opinion on the immutable truth of Dogma.
Can you explain what it is you actually mean above and what Dogma you base it off of?
This is not based off any particular defined dogma.
You deny that heretics are not in the Church. This is infallible. You also deny that you don't have to be obedient to the Pope. This is infallible.
Here again, this has been explained repeatedly to you - and more especially, it was thoroughly and beautifully explained by Drew.
Can you demonstrate from anywhere besides from those associated to the SSPX and Fr. Wathen, that a) heretics are in the Church and b) that you don’t have to be obedient to a valid Pope in all things that he commands pertaining to the welfare of the Church?
We've already beat this horse to death. For a), Drew already explained it - all I could do is say the same thing he did, except my reply would probably be 5 times longer and not be anywhere near as clear as his.
For b) We've beat this one to death as well. It is a fundamental Catholic principle of our faith that our duty to obey all of our superiors, including the pope's wishes and commands, is wholly dependent upon our superiors', including the popes' duty to command us to do only those things which are not displeasing to God.
Your conundrum comes from imagining that a pope is incapable of wanting the faithful to do anything which is displeasing to God, that God would never permit a pope to suggest or teach anything that might lead souls to hell, nor would He permit a pope to make any effort to destroy His Church. And that's where you stop. You go no further. You cannot see past this. There is something within you that blinds you from seeing anything further, that makes you insist those in disagreement with you are wrong - meanwhile the actual truth of the matter is, your thinking which is shared with others, actually is blatant insanity in light of what actually happened, in light of the reality of the Church post V2.
To repeat Drew - all you are doing is making the pope the rule of faith.
Can you show me exactly how I am making the “pope the rule of faith” and what Church teachings I am disregarding?
To show you how you are making the pope your rule of faith, all you need to do is answer this simple question I already asked: "To quote Fr. Wathen - "The doctrine of papal infallibility, by stating in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives the pope is completely fallible."
Can you accept this?"
If you answer no, the reason is because you make the pope your rule of faith.
Denz.1976: “But the true church is one, One in unity of doctrine as in unity of government and this Catholic, such is the Church; and since God has established that its center and foundation be in the Chair of Peter, it is rightly called Roman; for "where Peter is, there is the Church." * Therefore, whoever wishes to be called by the name of Catholic, ought truly to heed the words of Jerome to Pope Damasus: "I who follow no one as first except Christ, associate myself in communion with your Beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter; upon that Rock, I know the Church is built [Matt. 16:18]; . . . whoever gathereth not with thee scattereth" * [Matt. 12:30].”
From this quote above please answer the following.
Can you tell me how you have a unity of doctrine and government with the man occupying the Chair of Peter, whom you call a heretic?
If Francis is Peter, is he where the Church is?
Is Francis the center and foundation of the Catholic Church?
Do you gather with Francis as St. Jerome says he does and are you in communion with Francis as St. Jerome says he is with the Chair of Peter and how?
If your answer is "no" to any of these questions, please provide a Magisterial source to back up your claims. If you can't, you must admit that you are a follower of man and not GOD.
This exchange is really quite phenomenal. Why do you consistently selectively quote? - in this case it's Pope Leo XIII? Do you not see that you take what he said completely out of context? That by the pope being your rule of faith you have left out the Church? - literally?
Here (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm), read the whole quote.....
"But the true church is one, as by unity of doctrine, so by unity of government, and she is catholic also. Since God has placed the center and foundation of unity in the chair of Blessed Peter, she is rightly called the Roman Church, for "where Peter is, there is the church." Wherefore, if anybody wishes to be considered a real Catholic, he ought to be able to say from his heart the selfsame words which Jerome addressed to Pope Damasus: "I, acknowledging no other leader than Christ, am bound in fellowship with Your Holiness; that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that the church was built upon him as its rock, and that whosoever gathereth not with you, scattereth."
Your entire focus is entirely biased unto sedevacantism because reading it as a Catholic, this entire quote condemns sedevacantism. "if anybody wishes to be considered a real Catholic, he ought to be able to say from his heart the selfsame words which Jerome addressed to Pope Damasus....." sedevacantists certainly do not say what St. Jerome said - so what does that make them?
-
As I said....
There is something within you that blinds you from seeing anything....