Author Topic: Does the SSPX perform conditional ordinations? (Read 5123 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #15 on:** February 06, 2017, 07:54:36 PM »

I can see this thread developing along the same arguments we have at times in the Baptism of Desire/Blood threads.

Prayerful · « **Reply #16 on:** February 06, 2017, 08:59:16 PM »

Quote from: Oatmeal

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #17 on:** February 12, 2017, 11:55:59 AM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

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.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 12, 2017, 03:00:28 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: saintbosco13
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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2017, 04:07:16 AM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: saintbosco13
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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #20 on:** February 13, 2017, 07:06:21 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

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.

John Steven · « **Reply #21 on:** February 13, 2017, 08:51:36 AM »

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

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/

Prayerful · « **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2017, 12:38:44 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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 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. I think they're SSPX-MC/Father Pfeiffer aligned. The link might have a slightly more up to date list 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.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 13, 2017, 12:43:58 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: saintbosco13
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: saintbosco13
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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #24 on:** February 14, 2017, 04:39:55 AM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: saintbosco13
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: saintbosco13
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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #25 on:** February 14, 2017, 04:49:25 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
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.

Quote from: An even Seven

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.

x a million

Stubborn · « **Reply #26 on:** February 14, 2017, 05:53:37 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
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.
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 x a zillion!!! haha

I copied your own post, that's how the quotes got there.
:facepalm:x infinity lol

Stubborn · « **Reply #27 on:** February 14, 2017, 07:30:17 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn

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.

Quote from: An even Seven

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, explains it like this:

Quote

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.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 14, 2017, 11:49:13 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: saintbosco13
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: saintbosco13
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: saintbosco13
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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #29 on:** February 14, 2017, 01:38:22 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

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.

Quote from: saintbosco13

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.