Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Johannes on November 18, 2024, 10:09:02 AM
-
[DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to induce doubt into anyone's mind - if you are someone who is easily affected by those things - please don't read - for me this is a purely objective question].
During these trying times, without recourse to the Holy Office, what principles do you use to determine how/why to place your trust in a particular priest/bishop to determine the validity of previously conferred Sacraments?
This of course, not only pertains to Baptism/Confirmation/Marriages for laypeople but, also Baptism/Confirmation for priests not born/raised in Tradition.
For those not coming from the Novus Ordo or other sects and have never thought about it, I suppose this would only "affect" you if your priest had come from there because it could call into question his baptismal character thereby rendering his priesthood null.
Some factors to consider:
"If, however, after diligent inquiry reasonable doubt remains concerning the validity of their former Baptism, they are now to be baptized conditionally."
Taken from: Reception of Converts and Profession of Faith (http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Reception_of_Converts.html)
See also Denzinger #1848 Pope Leo XIII the Reception of Converted Heretics [From the decree of the Holy Office, Nov. 20,1878]
Denzinger - Sources of Catholic Dogma.pdf : Denzinger - Sources of Catholic Dogma.pdf (https://1library.net/docuмent/yex1e37q-denzinger-sources-of-catholic-dogma-pdf.html)
See how Tucho [Fernandaz] mocks:
"In their January 2022 Plenary Assembly, the Cardinal and Bishop Members of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith expressed concern about the increasing number of situations in which Sacraments were being celebrated invalidly. The grave modifications that were made to the matter or form of the Sacraments, which nullified those celebrations, led to the need to track down those who were involved and repeat the Rite of Baptism or Confirmation, and a significant number of the faithful rightly expressed their distress."
Taken from:
Note Gestis Verbisque on the Validity of the Sacraments (2 February 2024) (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_ddf_doc_20240202_gestis-verbisque_en.html)
So here Tucho, is telling everyone, it is much worse than you think (the number of cases of invalidity). He mocks Catholics by summing up that "you know we shouldn't mess with the sacraments." Of course, these problems stem from messing with the sacred rites and free-wheeling spirit of VII. IMO, In times past, anything that had such suspicion attached to it would ispo facto require conditional administration. But in these times, one places there trust in a particular priest, bishop, group, etc. What criteria do you use to place that trust?
If you believe in explicit BOD, then laypeople would be "good" on the baptism side of things.
But this would not be the case with priests who come from outside Tradition and have doubtful baptism, because if they were never baptized, then they can't be valid priests no matter how much desire they have for the priesthood. If they aren't priests (or their priesthood is doubtful because of their doubtful baptism) then all the sacraments they confect are doubtful too.
Perhaps you & your priest were raised in Tradition and have received all the traditional Sacraments without any doubt, then you are truly blessed and should give thanks to God many times a day for such a wonderful grace. God is good - always.
Praise be Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!
-
1. Multiple, multiple Trad clerics...from all different decades (70s, 80s, 90s and present)...from all different groups (i.e. sspx, Sedevacantist, independent)...have ALL concluded that the new rites of ordination and consecration all have 'positive' doubts.
2. Cardinals Ottaviani/Bacci both concluded that one can 'positively' doubt the new mass' consecration....even IF the priest is valid. Thus, the new mass is doubly doubtful if said by a new rite priest.
-
Right on both counts - no dispute here.
What am I asking more specifically is:
What criteria do you use to put your trust in Trad clerics on the subject of doubtful baptisms i.e., their method of how they come to determine if someone's baptism is valid or not - this would include men who come to their seminaries from the Novus Ordo or other Protestant sects, and either being conditionally baptized or not. It seems to me that because we do not have recourse to the Holy Office, so it is every man for himself, based on his preference, gut-feeling, powers of deduction, etc. So, we choose to put our trust in different groups/people - what is the criteria you use to do that?
An additional factor to consider:
Say your priest was a Novus Ordo convert, or Protestant convert who was baptized in that sect but never received conditional baptism. Without having recourse to decisions from Rome, how can we be morally certain they are even baptized due to all of the fallout from the Novus Ordo fiddling with the rite of baptism and also from the general principle that many Protestant converts were conditionally baptized when entered the Church based on "reasonable doubt". No baptism = no priests. To approach doubtful Sacraments is grave matter and forbidden.
So maybe someone would answer, "I choose to align myself with the way bishop so-and-so does things because I think he is smart"., Or "I follow the principles of our organization, etc. Or maybe people never think about it and just go the Sacraments assuming their priest is validly baptized. But is such an assumption prudent during this time? That is more what I am driving at. What are your thoughts?
Maybe, like I said above - your priest is undoubtably baptized/raised in Tradition and so were you. That is a HUGE grace and then the question probably never came up to your mind.
In general there are no conditional baptisms for converts from the Novus Ordo, but in our case, the priest did perform the exorcisms that are no longer done
-
If they aren't priests (or their priesthood is doubtful because of their doubtful baptism) then all the sacraments they confect are doubtful too.
Not quite. Valid Holy Orders is not required to validly administer the Sacrament of Baptism.
-
But, yes, I would recommend conditional Baptism / Confirmation and then Ordination for any priest baptized in the Novus Ordo, and just Baptism / Confirmation for anyone else baptized in the NO. I've stated that here.
Some Trad groups do an "investigation" IF you were baptized between certain years (I actually believe they have it flipped in terms of the years they focus on), whereas others assume validity.
I've never understood this ... at all. They're so worried about some kind of "sacrilege" against the Sacrament, but that's the entire point of CONDITIONAL Sacraments, where it it was already validly administered, it's not done again. So there's absolutely NO danger of sacrilege when it's administered conditonally.
Now, you can't just willy-nilly rebaptized everybody based on "what if my priest got the words wrong?" ... since that would just make the Church ridiculous (subjecting everyone to the same standards of proof that Bishop Kelly made up about the +Thuch bishops) and making a mockery of the Church.
But due to the prevailing attitude in the NO where "ad libbing" stuff is OK (this is a widespread mentality among them that I've run into on a regular basis), I would consider it perfectly reasonable to conditionally baptize everyone baptized in the NO. In addition, I would supplement the conditional Baptism with the additional Traditional Rites, just as you would if someone received emergency Baptism without the solemnity.
I've never understood this IMO absurdly-over-cautious attitude about some kind of possible sacrilege against the Sacrament ... which can't happen if you use the conditional form. I believe that it's perfectly reasonable ... and highly recommended to engage in this practice, unless you actually have positive indicators that the NO one was valid.
-
This ^^ is the conclusion that I have reached as well.
I know that the SSPX doesn't do conditional baptisms in every case - but rather do their own investigation case-by-case. Where one could argue that this might not be the most imprudent course of action concerning laypeople - I think it can/could have disastrous consequences for priests coming from the N.O. So, IMO a lot of people waste ink arguing about the validly of the new rites of ordination, when at least since the 1970s anyone who is even baptized in the N.O. should be conditionally baptized and especially candidates for the traditional priesthood who were not born/raised in tradition - so as to ensure the validly of their traditional priesthood. My old SSPX priest was raised in N.O. (I don't know if he was conditionally baptized - never thought to ask). Also, I know that the SSPX priest running the Immaculata now is a Protestant convert - was he conditionally baptized? Father Albert the Dominican, was I know because he stated so online, was Bishop Williamson - anyone know? I am not trying to open a can of worms, but the Modernists are really to blame as they have sown doubt, and confusion into everything.
So, I am wondering what others think and what criteria they use to determine who to trust with making these "investigations" and determinations especially concerning seminarians for the priesthood.
The problem is that the Church *initially, always* presumes validity. As such, to indiscriminately administer the sacrament again, even conditionally *can* be a sacrilege. We have no official Church authority to tell us all NO sacraments are doubtful or invalid, hence, why the SSPX investigates as far as possible to determine invalidity or doubtful, each case individually.
Trent's Catechism....
In Conditional Baptism The Sacrament Is Not Repeated
Nor let anyone suppose that it is repeated by the Church when she baptises anyone whose previous Baptism was
doubtful, making use of this formula: If thou art baptised, I baptise thee not again but if thou art not yet
baptised, I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In such cases Baptism
is not to be considered as impiously repeated, but as holily, yet conditionally, administered.
In this connection, however, there are some matters, in which, to the very great injury of the Sacrament, abuses
are of almost daily occurrence, and which therefore demand the diligent attention of pastors. For there are not
wanting those who think that no sin is committed if they indiscriminately administer conditional Baptism. Hence if an infant be brought to them, they think that no inquiry need be made as to whether it was previously baptised, but proceed immediately to baptise the child. Nay more, although they be well aware that the Sacrament was administered at home, they do not hesitate to repeat its administration in the Church conditionally, making use of the solemn ceremonies of the Church.
This certainly they cannot do without sacrilege and without incurring what theologians call an irregularity.
According to the authority of Pope Alexander the conditional form of Baptism is to be used only when after due
inquiry doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous Baptism. In no other case is it ever lawful to
administer Baptism a second time, even conditionally.
-
I think they just need to stop wasting time on "investigations". As we put it in the busines world, there's very little "Return on Investment" for making the effort, and unless you have a videotape (which establishes only that there's NO postiive doubt), it's nearly impossible to make such an investigation and, quite frankly, isn't worth the effort. So, what?, you'd go to the trouble of asking questions sabout whether Father Bob or Father Bill was more on the "conservative" side or was he more "liberal" inclined, trying to find individuals who knew them to interview?
That's a tremendous waste of time and effort when 90% of the time even AFTER all that effort you won't be able to come up with a solid answer. There's NO RISK OF SACRILEGE and it's perfectly sufficient to know that there's a mindeset and tendency very common in the Conciliar Church to play free and loose with the Sacramental Rites and to "ad lib" stuff. I've heard it myriad times from priests that the priests SHOULD "ad lib" Sacramental Rites because that's "how the early Church did it." That relatively-widespread attitude more than suffices for the CONDITIONAL use of the Sacrament, and likely even strongly commends it.
It would be another matter if the Church did not have conditional forms of the Sacraments but only permitted the absolute celebration and youl could be committing a sacrilege by "redo"-ing Baptism.
-
The problem is that the Church *initially, always* presumes validity.
Absolutely not. It depends on which group you come over from. Depending on that, in many cases positive doubt is presumed. NO (in our judgment) falls squarely into that category ... rather than, say, the Orthodox, who use very precise Sacramental Rites and among whom there's no tendency or culture of "ad libing" or deviating from those Rites.
You can read that the issue is with individuals who go around "indiscriminately" administering conditionals. "Hey, just in case the priest got the words wrong when you were baptized as a bay, if you are not baptized, I baptize you ..."
That is the kind of scenario they're talking about, not where you have a non-Catholic religion (essentially) where the priests cannot be trusted as a rule to properly follow established Sacramental Rites.
There's nothing "indiscriminate" about administering conditional Baptism for anyone coming over from the Novus Ordo.
As per many issues in the Church today, there is error to both extremes. Examples given are some guy who doesn't even ask whether someone was baptized and just starts rattling off the forumla "indiscriminately". As I said, that's certainly an abuse. So when the faithful come to your chapel, you ask them. So, are you baptized? If so, where and by whome were you baptized? Then, depending on how they answer you may conditionally Baptize. So, for instance, if they tell you, "I was baptized by the Greek Orthodox." or "I was baptized by a Maronite priest." vs. "I was 'baptized' by the Mormons [invalid]." vs. "I was baptized by some Evangelical group where we walked into the river." Some GROUPS occasion no positive doubt (Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, etc.), whereas others inherently entail invalidity (Moron) or positive doubt (many Prot groups that just make it up as they go along). That is what's meant by making "due inquiry", not that I need to go track down this Prot minister and interrogate him about his beliefs and take his word for it if he claims that he used the formula, etc. If you don't make that inquiry, and start just baptizing everyone that shows up ... and it turns out they were baptized Orthodox or Maronite or some other group ... then THAT is when you commit sin by indiscriminately baptizing. But if you ask and find it it's some Prot group, you just go ahead and do it ... conditionally.
You don't do it indiscriminately, without reasonable inquiry, but you also don't have to launch some absurd investigation to somehow prove positive doubt in every given case.
-
The examples given by Trent are clear - they do not apply to "doubtful baptism". IMO no one can presume the validly of N.O. baptisms based on their own admission. Keep in mind that these things have only become common knowledge recently, and you also have to factor in what the *DDF* is admitting.
Right. Trent was referring to case where the priest doesn't even bother to check and just randomly administers the Sacrament. So the priest needs to make inquiry at a high level. Orthodox? Eastern Rite? ... OK, valid, no conditional. Methodist? Evangelical? doubtful, conditional (Novus Ordo fits in this group IMO) Mormon? invalid, unconditional/absolute Baptism.
Church used to maintain lists of which groups had Sacraments presumed valid w/o positive doubt, which groups were doubtful, and which groups were invalid ... and the pastor would act upon those group-level determinations. Pastor would NOT be required (nor had the time to do it) to launch an investigation specific to the individual Prot pastor who baptized someone. That's the right balance between being "indiscriminate" (too loose, making a joke of the Sacraments ... "hey, just in case you're not validly baptized" ... and then feeling that you have to conduct an individual case-by-case investigation worth of a diocesan marriage tribunal investigating an annulment.
-
Trent's Catechism....
For there are not wanting those who think that no sin is committed if they indiscriminately administer conditional Baptism. Hence if an infant be brought to them, they think that no inquiry need be made as to whether it was previously baptised, but proceed immediately to baptise the child.
-
But, yes, I would recommend conditional Baptism / Confirmation and then Ordination for any priest baptized in the Novus Ordo, and just Baptism / Confirmation for anyone else baptized in the NO. I've stated that here.
Ladislaus, if the priest was ordained prior to 1950, would you recommend the conditional Baptism?
-
Ladislaus, if the priest was ordained prior to 1950, would you recommend the conditional Baptism?
I don't understand. He would have been baptized presumably in the 1920s when Catholic Baptisms were highly reliable
-
Not quite. Valid Holy Orders is not required to validly administer the Sacrament of Baptism.
What is the case with Matrimony?
-
…Mormon? invalid, unconditional/absolute Baptism.…
I am unfamiliar with Mormon rites. What is their baptismal rite?
-
I don’t recall exactly where I heard this, but someone was reviewing a videotape of the baptism (which I’m guessing was done sometime and the 90’s), and saw/heard that the priest did the “we” form instead of “I”. This person brought this tape to her priest, who after viewing conditionally baptized her. Or at least that’s how I remember it.
Regarding baptisms in general, and especially those done outside the Church, I have found this to be a decent guide: https://www.dosp.org/wp-content/uploads/9_3.-Valid-and-Invalid-Baptisms.pdf
-
That's a tremendous waste of time and effort when 90% of the time even AFTER all that effort you won't be able to come up with a solid answer. There's NO RISK OF SACRILEGE and it's perfectly sufficient to know that there's a mindeset and tendency very common in the Conciliar Church to play free and loose with the Sacramental Rites and to "ad lib" stuff.
You make it sound as if it takes months or years of investigation, when in reality, these days if it takes 3 or 4 hours would be a long time.
-
Absolutely not. It depends on which group you come over from.
You don't do it indiscriminately, without reasonable inquiry, but you also don't have to launch some absurd investigation to somehow prove positive doubt in every given case....
Anyone, literally any one, any jew, heretic or even a little kid can baptize validly, this in and of itself is reason enough that the Church initially, always presumes validity. She does not want her sacraments repeated, not even conditionally, the way she accomplishes this is by initially presuming validity, then investigating each case individually.
Exactly what do you think an investigation consists of that it's so absurd, unnecessary and a big waste of precious time?
I can tell you with certainty that 99.9% of the time it takes less than a minute, and sometimes it might take 20-30 minutes. The other 0.1% of the time it might take longer than that, but not much longer.
Some of the sede groups (can't remember which ones), automatically presume invalidity, but this is according to their own laws, not the Church's and not the SSPX's.
As for me, I doubt the validity of all NO ordinations and believe the rule should be that they should all be conditionally ordained, but thankfully I am in no way tasked with having to carry out that responsibility.
-
Thanks, you have come the closest to answering my original question - though you didn't fully answer it either.
You seem to think the above guide is "decent", I see that it was lifted from a guide printed by the Franciscan Press in 1995 - I immediately think the 1983 "new-code of Canon Law". Personally, I would only use it for Firestarter. Vatican II stopped doing many conditional Baptisms due to the new ecuмenical spirit. The list you sent, states validity is presumed when one is coming from those sects - so ecuмenical of them! This way of dealing with converts is false. Prior to VII, the Church took baptism most seriously and anyone coming from a false sect would need to have the validity of their baptism confirmed beyond even reasonable doubt i.e. morally certain.
I think the list is just based on a high-level view of whether those groups tend to use a valid form and have a theological view of the nature of the Sacrament that doesn't invalidate. It does not speak to whether any of those groups tend to have a loosey-goosey, non-formal, approach to their rites, where any "minister" can just do whatever he wants. And that's actually most of them.
To have a strict ritual to which all the ministers (aka priests) must adhere (or are supposed to adhere) and where there's no mentality where it's OK to make up whatever you want ... that mentality tends to be limited to the Eastern Orthodox (and for our purposes, since the question is about Novus Ordo, the Eastern Catholics).
Such rigorous adherence to a fixed ritual is VERY MUCH CONTRARY to the Prot mentality, and there's widespread adaptation ... and actually it's precisely what you're referring to in the Novus Ordo, where that attitude has become very prevalent among them as well.
So, IMO, unless someone's coming over from Eastern Orthodox, or an Eastern Catholic Rite ... I would say a conditional Baptism is warranted and even advised. I heard once from some older priests that in fact it was common practice that if you came from some Prot denomination, they would conditionally baptize you as a matter of course (for this reason). There was never this attitude (that seems to be prevalent among the Traditional clergy) where they felt they must to a case-by-case investigation ... almost like one a marriage tribunal would do when researching an annulment.
What's being condemned by Trent is the scenario where someone wants to become Catholic and you just baptize them without making any inquiry, where they might tell you that they were baptized Eastern Orthodox or something obviously valid, or perhaps even Catholic when they were infants, but then at some point they left the Church, etc.
Depending on which denomination you came over from, one could make a general judgment (oh, Baptist? ... let's conditionally baptize you. oh, one of the strict Lutheran groups? ... not needed, etc.). It suffices to make a judgment based on a generalization based on group without a case-by-case in-depth investigation. Nobody has the time for that, and in 90% of the cases you won't get sufficient information to make a judgment anyway.
There are extremes on both sides, with a willy-nilly conditionally baptize anyone who comes to you with no questions asked even if they just have negative doubt on the one side, and sinful unless you can positively establish positive doubt in each specific case on the other side.
As long as you're making prudent judgment based on asking questions, that suffices to not cause injury to the Sacrament, and there's no risk of actual sacrilege due to it being conditional. What Trent was trying to avoid was guys going around baptizing everyone (including those baptized Catholic) "just in case", say, the priest did it wrong (negative doubt).
-
I am unfamiliar with Mormon rites. What is their baptismal rite?
Take this for what it's worth: https://infogalactic.com/info/Baptism_in_Mormonism
Generally speaking, AFAIK, most Mormon "rites" follow and/or mimic Masonic rituals.
-
What is the case with Matrimony?
So, that's more a question of the priest's jurisdiction to witness. In the Roman Rite, matrimony is confected by the couple themselves, and the priests serves as the witness. Canon Law requires that those baptized Catholic confect matrimony before a witness who has the appropriate jurisdiction ... or else it's invalid (you just have to be baptized Catholic, so that even if starting the day after your Baptism you were raised a Protestant, you're still bound by this ... a not-entirely-uncommon ground for annulment). Now, at one point we looked at the details here, but there are some exceptions, such as if you cannot find a Catholic priest with the necessary jurisdiction in a certain timeframe, then you could just have any priest witness, and if no priest then some lay people, etc., though don't quote me on the details since I can't quite recall. In theory, the Church could designate a non-priest to have the jurisdiction to witness marriages, since the Power of Orders isn't required to basically just act as a witness on behalf of the Church. So, as we know the neo-SSPX have agreed to get all their marriages witnessed by Novus Ordo presbyters sent by the NO "bishop".
So, if you're a Traditional Catholic outside of neo-SSPX, you have to make a judgment that the Church supplies, since we don't have priests with the jurisdiction, or that the Canon Law applies where we can't have access to a priest with jurisdiction (since they're all in the Novus Ordo, depending on your theological perspective, or else none exist at this time, except perhaps in some Eastern Rites).
Where doubtful Orders might come into play would depend on the details of Canon Law I can't quite remember now where it says you can go to some other priest if one with jurisdiction isn't available in a reasonable amount of time (and whether the language requires that it be a priest) ... or whether you simply rely on God supplying due to the Crisis. If I have some time, I'll see if I can dig up the Canon Law.
Now, in the Eastern Rite, the priest is actually the minister of the Sacrament and confects the Sacrament, so that's a different ballgame and I'm pretty sure (though not 100% certain) that you would need a valid priest over there ... but then most Eastern Rites still have valid priests.
-
I don’t recall exactly where I heard this, but someone was reviewing a videotape of the baptism (which I’m guessing was done sometime and the 90’s), and saw/heard that the priest did the “we” form instead of “I”. This person brought this tape to her priest, who after viewing conditionally baptized her. Or at least that’s how I remember it.
Regarding baptisms in general, and especially those done outside the Church, I have found this to be a decent guide: https://www.dosp.org/wp-content/uploads/9_3.-Valid-and-Invalid-Baptisms.pdf
Yeah, there have been a few cases of this, where one I think was some deacon in the Phoenix area. See, the Novus Ordo is so much about "we" and "Community Action", where in the Creed, for some time (may be fixed now), it was "We believe ..." (as a community) vs. I (as an individual). So that "we" mentality is so prevalent in the Conciliar Church that I doubt this guy who was caught on video was an isolated case. There's a similar mentality about Confession, where you go there to Reconcile with God AND the "Community", so I could also see priests using the old "We absolve you ..." variation on the form.
They think of the priest as merely a representative and spokesman of the Community. Thus, during the Mass, the only reason he's up there in the "sanctuary" in the front is because the entire congregation can't be up there, so he's just their stand-in for this Community Action.
-
Where doubtful Orders might come into play would depend on the details of Canon Law I can't quite remember now where it says you can go to some other priest if one with jurisdiction isn't available in a reasonable amount of time (and whether the language requires that it be a priest)
Yes, I think canon law allows you to go to another priest, if the appropriate priest is unavailable. And I think it mentions a few months time is the period. Obviously, in the present crisis, the new-order priests are doubtful which makes them off-limits/unavailable. And/or they are heretics, or suspected of heresy, which one cannot partake of the sacraments from, per canon law. There's multiple canon laws at play which allow/force (by process of elimination) that Trad clerics are the only ones who could properly marry today.
-
So, that's more a question of the priest's jurisdiction to witness. In the Roman Rite, matrimony is confected by the couple themselves, and the priests serves as the witness. Canon Law requires that those baptized Catholic confect matrimony before a witness who has the appropriate jurisdiction ... or else it's invalid (you just have to be baptized Catholic, so that even if starting the day after your Baptism you were raised a Protestant, you're still bound by this ... a not-entirely-uncommon ground for annulment). Now, at one point we looked at the details here, but there are some exceptions, such as if you cannot find a Catholic priest with the necessary jurisdiction in a certain timeframe, then you could just have any priest witness, and if no priest then some lay people, etc., though don't quote me on the details since I can't quite recall. In theory, the Church could designate a non-priest to have the jurisdiction to witness marriages, since the Power of Orders isn't required to basically just act as a witness on behalf of the Church. So, as we know the neo-SSPX have agreed to get all their marriages witnessed by Novus Ordo presbyters sent by the NO "bishop".
So, if you're a Traditional Catholic outside of neo-SSPX, you have to make a judgment that the Church supplies, since we don't have priests with the jurisdiction, or that the Canon Law applies where we can't have access to a priest with jurisdiction (since they're all in the Novus Ordo, depending on your theological perspective, or else none exist at this time, except perhaps in some Eastern Rites).
Where doubtful Orders might come into play would depend on the details of Canon Law I can't quite remember now where it says you can go to some other priest if one with jurisdiction isn't available in a reasonable amount of time (and whether the language requires that it be a priest) ... or whether you simply rely on God supplying due to the Crisis. If I have some time, I'll see if I can dig up the Canon Law.
Now, in the Eastern Rite, the priest is actually the minister of the Sacrament and confects the Sacrament, so that's a different ballgame and I'm pretty sure (though not 100% certain) that you would need a valid priest over there ... but then most Eastern Rites still have valid priests.
Thank you. Even more complicated than I had thought.
-
Yes, I think canon law allows you to go to another priest, if the appropriate priest is unavailable. And I think it mentions a few months time is the period. Obviously, in the present crisis, the new-order priests are doubtful which makes them off-limits/unavailable. And/or they are heretics, or suspected of heresy, which one cannot partake of the sacraments from, per canon law. There's multiple canon laws at play which allow/force (by process of elimination) that Trad clerics are the only ones who could properly marry today.
Agreed, and, yes, I thought it was something like what you said, where you could go to some other priests if one with jurisdiction isn't available in some reasonable amount of time (e.g. a few months, not sure exactly how many), and then possibly even a non-priest if even a priest w/o jurisdiction isn't available (but you should get other witnesses then), etc.
-
Thank you. Even more complicated than I had thought.
Probably just due to my run-on babbling.
Short answer is that in the Roman Rite, since the priest doesn't confect the Sacrament but merely witnesses it, valid Orders isn't strictly required ... but jurisdiction is normally required. Absent jurisdiction, one could go to any priest, and then absent a priest you could get some other witnesses ... as they're really just witnesses and not confecting the Sacrament. And the requirement to go to some other priest if you don't have jurisdiction is just because all priests could be considered, in a way, to represent the Church, even if they don't have the exact jurisdiction for this purpose ... but not because Power of Order is strictly required.
-
Can you point me to this Canon please?
I don't have that handy. "Suspected of heresy" was my phrase, not necessarily used by canon law. What I meant to say is, one is not allowed to go to masses/sacraments of the following:
a) Doubtful priests
b) priests suspected of heresy (i.e. materially in error)
c) priests who hold heresy (i.e. formally in error)
d) priests who are schismatic
e) priests who are guilty of excommunication, interdicts, or penalties due to the above.
If you search canon law, all of these categories should be mentioned in the same area. And all V2/new-rite/indult priests fall into these categories, so they are off-limits.
p.s. The above prohibitions do not apply "in cases of emergency/death", which is applicable to many canons related to sacraments of penance. This entire discussion is related to "non-emergency, non-death, normal" situations.
-
So, considering your list above a) "Doubtful priest"; Would you go to a traditional priest who had been baptized in the N.O. or came from a protestant sect? If his baptism was doubtful,
99% of novus ordo baptisms are valid. Don't be scrupulous about this.
Most of protestant baptisms are valid. Some are doubtful but this is based on the "type" of protestant sect.
-
I would disagree, I would say that we are in an unprecedented crisis and nothing about this situation is normal,
"Normal" means non-emergency situation (i.e. not life and death). Canon law forbids you from going to confession to a heretic/excommunicated priest. BUT...in an 'emergency/life or death' situation, you could confess to him, if he was the only option. Same applies to an orthodox priest or a doubtful priest.
-
So, considering your list above a) "Doubtful priest"; Would you go to a traditional priest who had been baptized in the N.O. or came from a protestant sect? If his baptism was doubtful, so is his priesthood...
Good question. I think there are thresholds or degrees of doubt. I think a lesser degree of doubt suffices to justify a conditional Baptism vs. the degree of doubt required to avoid a priest who may have been baptized Novus Ordo. At that level, you'd probably be looking at something closer to a negative than a positive doubt, where you're in "what it ...?" territory (the general characterization of negative doubt). What if THIS priest's Novus Ordo Baptism was invalid? To me that's closer to the question even in the Traditional era of "What if the priest who baptized this priest [Traditional Rite] botched the form?" It's much less likely that this would happen, but still possible.
Let's say that in the pre-V2 era, .005% of Baptisms were invalid (due to mistakes by priests) but in the Novus Ordo era, .5% are invalid due to, say, a tendency for some priests to go "off script" and invalidate the essential form.
I believe that the .5% we're talking about here would suffices to justify a conditional Baptism, but not be sufficient to be required to treat any given priest as doubtful, or to withhold giving Holy Communion to those who had come over from the NO without a conditional Baptism.
So, IMO, different thresholds of doubt required, a lower one for conditional Baptism, a higher one for doubting the validity of any given priest.
You know, given the modern era, I do question why the Church wouldn't and shouldn't add various requirements (ordinary requirements) to have all the essential form parts of Baptisms videotaped, and then reviewed quickly by someone at the Chancery in case any problems are detected. I mean, why not? We have the technology that would make it a trivial effort. I imagine an individual at the Chancery could go through all the tapes in about an hour a week. Probably much better use of that time than 95% of all the activities that happen in the NO circuses.
-
Thanks for circling the wagon back to my original question (which, as of yet no one has actually answered). I restate:
What criteria do you use to decide to place your trust in these investigations/determinations?
What is the logic that you use? Or is it more like - "I just do what so-and-so says, not my responsibility, etc." Even if you think it is not your "responsibility" to make those determinations, Catholics a moral obligation to have moral certitude in the Sacraments they receive. Without the Holy Office to rule on these things - we all have to function in our own way. What criteria do you use to make those decisions?
Initially, I like to know a little about the priest, specifically I like to know about his orthodoxy. But yes, for the most part I do place my trust in those who should know what is valid and what is invalid - for me that usually means the SSPX, but in the end, validity and orthodoxy go together. I will add that I have had no issues with any NO-to-Trad priest.
For me, whenever I come across a trad priest that was NO, I always go out of my way to ask the priest to his face, or in the confessional about his ordination. In over 5 decades, I guess I've asked enough priests to say that they *all* are as concerned about their validity as I was, and that they have all been very happy and maybe even a bit proud to talk about their ordinations / conditional ordinations.
Additional questions just for you:
1) Would you have received Penance/Holy Communion from Fr. Hesse (who was not conditionally ordained)?
2) What about a traditionally ordained priest who was baptized in the N.O. and had no conditional baptism?
1) Yes. Of course. As I said above, those who should know, knew his ordination was valid.......
In one of his talks, Fr. Hesse talked about his NO ordination, saying:
"...I have been ordained, unfortunately in the new rite of ordination, but thank God in Latin, everything strictly by the book and +ABL said that would be valid, +Fellay said it's valid and Fr. Franz Schmidberger who is my present superior in Austria says it's valid and +Williamson said there's no need for conditional ordination..."
2) If the priest is traditionally ordained, his baptism was valid. I am not the least bit scrupulous about this. If there was ever a doubt, he would have been conditionally baptized prior to being ordained.
-
"...I have been ordained, unfortunately in the new rite of ordination, but thank God in Latin, everything strictly by the book and +ABL said that would be valid, +Fellay said it's valid and Fr. Franz Schmidberger who is my present superior in Austria says it's valid and +Williamson said there's no need for conditional ordination..."
You can say the new rite in Latin, or French, or greek...it doesn't change the fact that this rite is positively doubtful. Fr Hesse's arguments are based on probabilities and guesses. He was a doubtful priest, period.
-
The sspx follows a kinda-probablist opinion on the new rite. Their reasoning is flawed. We cannot presume validity for rites (i.e. V2 rites) which aren't officially promulgated by the Church. We MUST choose certain rites (i.e. Traditional). Allowing, condoning or conferring "probably valid" rites is condemned and prohibited.
“We cannot choose a less certain option, called by the moral theologians a simply probable manner of acting, that could place in doubt the validity of the sacraments, as we are sometimes obliged to do in other moral questions. If we were able to follow a less certain way of acting, we would run the risk of grave sacrilege and uncertainty concerning the sacraments, which would place the eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy. Even the lax “probabilist” theologians admitted this principle with respect to baptism and holy orders, since the contrary opinion was condemned by Pope Innocent XI in 1679.
It is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned.... Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders."
--(Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)
Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent conferring of sacraments. One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things necessary for eternal salvation. The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the Church. They do not want to share modernist, liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests ordained in such rites, for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters. It is for this reason that they turn to the superiors to guarantee validity.”
-- Fr Scott, sspx, 2007
https://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained-30479
-
The same logic you are using here would also apply to the new rite of baptism simply because they admit the problem(s) they have encountered with it from the very top *DDF*, "increasing number of situations..."
The difference is that the form of baptism is so short and simple. And it's taken, word for word, from Scripture (which is why protestants get it right, most of the time). The parents, godparents SHOULD be able to determine of the simple sentence was said. Or not.
I'm not saying there can't be issues, but it's normally done correctly.
p.s. your link doesn't work.
-
It seems you "usually" follow the judgements of the SSPX. I would guess you choose to do so, because of the trust you place in their founder and the good fruit that has come from their Apostolate? I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
As for your answer to number 2 - one thing does not automatically follow the other, "If the priest is traditionally ordained, his baptism was valid.".
By "usually" I mean that I take the orthodoxy of the priest into consideration. But again for me, I have not needed to worry about this issue for decades because when we get new priests, they keep sending their own priests, priests who were ordained by the SSPX. Fr. Horvath was one conditionally ordained that I met in Louisville, KY about the year 2006 or 2007 I think, then some 6 or 7 years later he administered the Last Rites to me before my surgery. I did not ask him if he was conditionally baptized, they will not conditionally / ordain anyone who has a doubtful baptism.
I heard that Fr. Robinson was in charge of looking into these things now (from the side of N.O. priests coming over to Tradition), is that true?
I don't know, what I do know is they already know there are certain NO bishops that they do not trust to ordain validly, so those priests get very little or no investigation.
-
You can say the new rite in Latin, or French, or greek...it doesn't change the fact that this rite is positively doubtful. Fr Hesse's arguments are based on probabilities and guesses. He was a doubtful priest, period.
Ok, so you think that you know better than +ABL, +Fellay, Fr. Franz Schmidberger and +Williamson. Good for you.
-
You can say the new rite in Latin, or French, or greek...it doesn't change the fact that this rite is positively doubtful. Fr Hesse's arguments are based on probabilities and guesses. He was a doubtful priest, period.
Agreed. So in the NO Rite (Latin vs. English is irreelvant), they removed the "ut" ... from the essential form AND all the surrounding references to a specifically-Catholic notion of the priesthood, and Pope Leo XIII stated that the Anglican Orders were invalid even after they had corrected the essential form due to the surrounding stuff.
So, people say, eh, it's just a two-letter word. How could it possibly affect validity? OK, well, if it's JUST a two-letter word, so why did they feel a need to remove it? Did it make that much of a difference to making the meaning oh-so-much-more modernized and relevant to "modern man"? That speaks to some malicious intent there, as there's no good reason it had to be removed ... other than if you're looking to deliberately vitiate and invalidate the essential form.
And here's the problem ... the "ut" means "so that", meaning that what comes after it is known as the Sacramental Effect, and what comes before it is the cause of said Effect.
Pius XII declared that the essential form included an invocation of the Holy Ghost in order to produce the Sacramental Effect that is being named.
So here's the meaning change.
OLD: May the Holy Ghost come down to make this man a priest.
NEW: May the Holy Ghost come down. May this man become a priest.
So in the first form, you're clearly indicating that you're asking the Holy Ghost to turn the man into a priest.
In the second, the new, you're asking for the Holy Ghost to come down. Then you're asking (God? the Holy Ghost?) that this man might become a priest. It's not unequivocally and unambiguously clear. You could argue that it's implied, but I don't think it is necessarily (unless you already know the previous version and are reading that meaning into this). Taken standalone, without that context of what came before, "unburdened by what came before", as hαɾɾιs would say, I could just be asking the Holy Ghost to come down ... so as to ... give this man graces to become a good priest, various actual graces, or to have the right dispositions to become a good pirest. If I didn't know anything about the Sacrament and no memory of the previous Rite, I can't say for sure what this prayer is asking the Holy Ghost to do in connection with making the man a priest.
In other words, you're separating the invocation of the Holy Ghost from any explicit connection with the Sacramental Effect.
That's a SERIOUS problem ... whether in Latin or in vernacular.
This would actually be a great Motto for the Conciliar Church:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ84VLgJ3g-K25N7JZpqOdJQvB9ujmuxsAQ8g&s)
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/9axb8d.jpg)
-
Ok, so you think that you know better than +ABL, +Fellay, Fr. Franz Schmidberger and +Williamson. Good for you.
It's not about "knowing more"; it's about having as much certainty as possible (as canon law requires, and as Pope Innocent demands).
+ABL's policy changed a few times, and in the beginning might have been ok because there were still old-rite bishops consecrating new-rite priests. But as time went by, old rite bishops died off, which means the policy had to change. At the time of his death, in the 90s, the sspx's policy was to conditionally ordain.
+Fellay and Fr Schmidberger are neo-Trads who want a deal with new-rome. Can't trust their view on the matter.
+Williamson has always been back-n-forth on the new rites (and even the new mass). His view isn't based on facts, but more on emotion.
I don't have to "know more" than the above people; I just have to apply principles, follow canon law and follow what Pope Innocent said. It's not that complicated.
-
It's not about "knowing more"; it's about having as much certainty as possible (as canon law requires, and as Pope Innocent demands).
It is when it comes to Fr. Hesse whom you say "was a doubtful priest, period" just as if that is the fact. Fr. Hesse said that he was ordained in the new rite by a bishop consecrated in the old rite.
You said "in the beginning might have been ok because there were still old-rite bishops consecrating new-rite priests." So first, by your own admission that shoots your statement about Fr. Hesse in the foot.
Second, if all it took was an old rite bishop, then the new rite in and of itself is valid, if it is valid, then so are all the NO priests and bishops ordained /consecrated in the new rite since they all can trace their lineage back to old rite bishops. But there is more to it than that.
+ABL and the others, including Fr. Hesse himself, said that the validity of his ordination was without doubt. Yet here's you saying they were all wrong, "period."
I just wanted to let you know that.
-
It seems you "usually" follow the judgements of the SSPX. I would guess you choose to do so, because of the trust you place in their founder and the good fruit that has come from their Apostolate? I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
As for your answer to number 2 - one thing does not automatically follow the other, "If the priest is traditionally ordained, his baptism was valid.".
I heard that Fr. Robinson was in charge of looking into these things now (from the side of N.O. priests coming over to Tradition), is that true?
Which Fr. Robinson? The good one, I hope.
-
Ok, so you think that you know better than +ABL, +Fellay, Fr. Franz Schmidberger and +Williamson. Good for you.
So sick of these fallacious arguments, here it's selective argument from authority filtered by confirmation bias.
These same "authorities" believe in Baptism of Desire also ... so you "know better than [them]" ?
Haven't you been on the receiving end of this crap enough to know that it's a blatant fallacy and not to use it yourself against others? You know better than St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, and St. Robert Bellarmine? ... much higher authorities thatn +Lefebvre and Schmidberger.
Argue from principles, facts, using syllogisms, etc. ... not with this nonsense.
-
+ABL and the others, including Fr. Hesse himself, said that the validity of his ordination was without doubt. Yet here's you saying they were all wrong, "period."
Well, apart from the fact that I've only ever seen this claim made by Fr. Hesse himself, who, even if not outright lying, may have been applying some spin, and he definitely likes to spin tall tales (reminding me a bit of Malachin Martin), but ... if they said these things ... then, yep, they're wrong.
Now here's where you can come out from hiding behind your selective argument from authority ... we explained why they're wrong. You're welcome to refute it. That's how actual arguments work, not by flinging around ridiculous fallacies.
-
So, the argument here is that in the New Rite (even in Latin) ... regardless of the validity of the bishop:
1) they changed the essential form, removing the word ut
2) they stripped away nearly all references to the powers of the priest in the Traditional Rite that were disctinctively Catholic.
I argue why the removal of ut could invalidate since it changes the logic of the essential form and the causal connetion between the Holy Ghost and the Saramental Effect, the two key elements of the essential form for Ordination (per Pius XII).
I argue that the removal of the distintively-Catholic elements outside the essential form could invalidate ex adjunctis in a manner very consistent with what Pope Leo XIII taught about Anglican Orders.
So, here's the thing about positive doubt. We don't have to definitively prove invalidity. We merely have to demonstrate that there's a demostrable, concrete, and rational POSSBILITY that the New Rites are invalid. We easily met that burden of proof. In fact, the burden of proof is on you to PROVE validity without any positive doubt, and you can't do that. Only the Church's authority can do that definitively. Yes, you can argue as some have, why these changes are probably or likely valid (in your opinion) but you cannot do so to the degree of elminating postiive doubt.
QED ... there's clear positive doubt about NO Orders, and those defending their validity not only have not but CANNOT (without the Church's authority) meet the necessary burden of proof to completely eliminate it.
In the vast majority of cases, those who want to pretend there's no positive doubt (when there demonstrably is) ... they do so for political or emotional reasons, since invalid Holy Orders promulgated by the Conciliar Church would call into question the legitimacy of their authority and draw individuals in the direction of that "wicked sedevacantism", so we can't have that. It reminds me of the comment Bishop Kelly once made about the +Thuc line: "We can't say they're valid because then people might go there."
-
You said "in the beginning might have been ok because there were still old-rite bishops consecrating new-rite priests." So first, by your own admission that shoots your statement about Fr. Hesse in the foot.
I was paraphrasing +ABL's argument. I don't agree with it.
Second, if all it took was an old rite bishop, then the new rite in and of itself is valid, if it is valid, then so are all the NO priests and bishops ordained /consecrated in the new rite since they all can trace their lineage back to old rite bishops. But there is more to it than that.
Yes, this is the logic of +ABL and the "classic" sspx. Which is, obviously, flawed. I think it's totally wrong. As you admit "there's more to it than that". And there is.
Even +Tissier says that the new rites have 'positive doubt'. And +Tissier's analysis agrees with many other Trad clerics (i.e. it's the "consensus" if such a thing exists). Therefore, this is why I said that ... "Fr Hesse is doubtful. Period." Because I go based on facts, which is what +Tissier bases his opinion on.
The other problem with the new rites is admitted by Fr Hesse, when he said his ordination was done "by the book". This implies that many are not. And if one isn't paying absolute attention the entire (multiple hours) ceremony, then 'modernist' things can slip in. No amount of investigation can lift this type of doubt. Because you can't go back in time and witness the ceremony. Therefore, there's doubt.
-
From what I remember, Hesse asked them about his ordination, and they told him it was fine. But, for the very reason he asked, implies that he had a doubt...
Additionally, Bishop Tissier (RIP) gave a homily at traditional ordination not long ago, where he expressed the view that many of the ordinations in the new rite were, "positively doubtful". It is actually a really good homily wherein he gives the objective reasons for the doubt.
NO ordinations have always been positively doubtful, even after 1968 there were many priests who were ordained in the old rite that didn't act like priests. We avoided those priests too because we doubted their validity - this was because of their modernistic, fem ways, not necessarily doubtful ordinations but the doubt was there. But nobody is defending the new rite as positively valid, it has *always* been deemed "doubtful at best" by the faithful.
This is my perception of how the SSPX has always dealt with things, if they liked you and you said the right things (like Hesse), then you were good. If they didn't like you or you, the bishop who ordained you, the place you went to seminary was sketchy, you treated them with less respect than they thought they deserved, etc., then you were doubtful. A very non-objective way of approaching the issue, IMO (which I know is worth as much as two-kicks-of-tin can).
I understand your perception, but that is a false perception. Again, the SSPX, like the Church, initially always presumes validity, not invalidity. This is something that for whatever reason, many faithful do not accept.
But that is the method of the Church, it's how she preserves and defends her sacraments. If OTOH she did not do that, then she would be defending nothing at all and not preserving anything. I mean, aside from possibly being sinful, an invalid sacrament is nothing at all.
I think the same approach to the validly of baptisms is equally flawed. Conditionals for everyone not coming from Tradition (minus-video proof) makes things "safe".
I think you're being a bit scrupulous.
-
The other problem with the new rites is admitted by Fr Hesse, when he said his ordination was done "by the book". This implies that many are not.
Yes, and OTOH, it also shows the mind of the SSPX that when done "by the book," the ordination is valid.
This has been the case since the start of this crisis. In my mind, most (many?) NO priests are invalid due to the consecrating bishops not going "by the book."
A few decades ago, the SSPX had a type of running list of these bishops, as well as those known to always go "by the book." So when a NO priest came to them, the whole investigation might only be a matter of asking who ordained him. As was the case with Fr. Hesse and who knows how many others.
-
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_ddf_doc_20240202_gestis-verbisque_en.html
(https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_ddf_doc_20240202_gestis-verbisque_en.html)You would be surprised. Bishop Sanborn actually claimed the opposite - he said it is the simplest Sacrament but the one that is most commonly messed up.
In some of the more, for lack of a better word, primitive manifestations of Protestantism, the minister will say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost", with no "and of" before "the Son" or "the Holy Ghost". (Thankfully, at least they do often say "Holy Ghost".) It's more ungrammatical than anything else, but it is still kind of "cringe". They also immerse the baptized person just once, not three times. Whether either of these things makes the baptism doubtful, I couldn't say without looking further into the matter, I'm guessing that Jone (or someone) could put a finer point on it.
-
Yes, and OTOH, it also shows the mind of the SSPX that when done "by the book," the ordination is valid.
This has been the case since the start of this crisis. In my mind, most (many?) NO priests are invalid due to the consecrating bishops not going "by the book."
Just out of curiosity, what would be an example of an NO ordination not being done "by the book"?
-
Yes, and OTOH, it also shows the mind of the SSPX that when done "by the book," the ordination is valid.
Yes and the 'mind of the sspx' on the matter is baseless. As you said in the above post...But nobody is defending the new rite as positively valid, it has *always* been deemed "doubtful at best" by the faithful.
Even a "by the book" service is doubtful, because the doubts are inherent in the rite itself.
This has been the case since the start of this crisis. In my mind, most (many?) NO priests are invalid due to the consecrating bishops not going "by the book."
Even a "by the book" service is doubtful, because the doubts are inherent in the rite itself. As +Tissier (and others) have explained.
A few decades ago, the SSPX had a type of running list of these bishops, as well as those known to always go "by the book." So when a NO priest came to them, the whole investigation might only be a matter of asking who ordained him. As was the case with Fr. Hesse and who knows how many others.
This is a super shaky, evidence-less, and just outright assumption-filled way to decide on the matter. The sspx should be ashamed.
-
Just out of curiosity, what would be an example of an NO ordination not being done "by the book"?
I have no idea, but can imagine a NO bishop skipping parts.
-
You are contradicting yourself:
"NO ordinations have always been positively doubtful"
then,
"the SSPX, like the Church, initially always presumes validity, not invalidity."
The reason you are doing this is rather simple:
Do you believe that the post VII church is the Catholic Church? Yes or No?
No, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church. And when I said "NO ordinations have always been positively doubtful" I meant from a layman's point of view.
When I said "the SSPX, like the Church, initially always presumes validity, not invalidity," I mean that for those responsible for making sure their priests are valid.
While *I* think they should just completely re-train and conditionally ordain all convert priests indiscriminately, it is for good reason that they don't and never have. They are not the Church.
I also explained to you why the presumption is always validity, but as I also said, for whatever reason you are among those who do not accept it.
If you say yes - it is the Catholic Church - then of course, She always presumes the validity of HER OWN Sacraments (never of those outside the Church - that is why investigations are the first step concerning baptisms)
If you say no - the conciliar church is NOT the Catholic Church - then it must be treated as any non-Catholic sect and validity is never presumed rather it would depend on various factors such as their rites, how they conduct them, history of abuses, etc.
You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You may not know that even heretic, schismatic and excommunicated bishops have and can confer valid sacraments, including that of Holy Orders, as well as consecrations of other bishops.
Ordinations - as you stated, they do their own investigations, based on their own criteria to determine validity so initially they are presumed as doubtful until they do their "investigation"
I don't know, that may be the case, but the purpose of their investigation is supposed to be to prove doubt or invalidity.
-
Denzinger addresses all these points through papal docuмents. Omitting "and of" would not invalidate, immersion would not invalidate.
Saying "we" instead of "I" as was done in "increasing cases" after VII by N.O. church invalidates - this is because Christ is the one who performs all the Sacraments, with the minister merely standing in His place. To say "we" instead of "I" denies that it is Christ who performs the Sacraments and implies that it is rather the community that does it.
Also, the water must touch the skin, if a baby had lots of hair and the minister only poured the water on what looked like their hair it would be doubtful thus a conditional is warranted. The sloppiness of N.O. "priest" training often does not stress that the water MUST touch the scalp/skin - Sanborn explains it all in the video.
Immersion certainly wouldn't invalidate the sacrament, if anything, it would make it absolutely certain that water touched the skin, as well as the skin of the head.
The "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" is just sloppy grammar (and, incidentally, counter to the words of the King James Bible, which many of these groups hold as the only fully legitimate Bible). Many of these sectarians are basically uneducated and wouldn't comprehend the distinction.
The "we baptize" business is no doubt informed by the "groupy-groupy" mindset of Newchurch, "we are all welcoming you into the community". For such folks, community is everything, and the cringey communal sign of peace is one of the most important parts of the Mass for them, possibly for some just as important as partaking of the community meal. Many Protestants have incorporated "passing of the peace" into their proto-liturgies, which speaks volumes.
-
I agree that all those classes of non-members CAN (it is possible) confect valid Sacraments.
You just summed up the situation in the Church today which we're discussing in one sentence.
Snip from Who Shall Ascend?
"...It is not our purpose in these pages to decide whether the new ordination rite is invalid, though, as we shall see, the argument is substantial enough that we are bound to allow for this possibility. Furthermore, we must see the issue in the context of the total redefinition and reconstitution of the Church, such as was set in motion at the
Council. In view of the fact that, since the Council, the priest's role has been in the process of being modified, as we said, to that of a Protestant presbyter, there is every reason to deduce that the new ordination rite sabotages the Sacrament of Holy Orders according to the explicit program and purposes of those now in power. (The reader
is reminded that the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful.)
By way of preface, we observe: The revisers had a reason for making changes, and particular reasons for each change they made. They cannot argue that their new formulas are identical to the old; that would be to admit that the changes mean nothing, and that, therefore, there was no reason to make them. To admit that they made
changes for no reason whatsoever would be a sign of a most irreverent capriciousness and cynicism. Besides, such an explanation could only be regarded as a concealment. The new forms (Latin and English) must be seen to say something different from the old. Furthermore, in view of what the other changes in the liturgical rites have connoted, we are compelled to be suspicious. We should rather say, we have every reason to look for an effort at neuterizing this sacramental rite, because those in charge of the new rites have shown themselves untrustworthy,
or, more accurately, determinedly subversive. The new form could not be an improvement on the old. How can one method or set of words ordain someone better than another? The alteration of the form can only have had the intention of either negating this purpose, or, at the very least, of creating a doubt as to its efficacy. (As if it
needs to be said: They could not have added something to the form by taking words away. And what could they have wanted to add to the power of Orders? Why did they touch the form at all?)..."
-
That is correct!
I was referring not to the adherents of Newchurch, but to the more basic forms of Protestantism, such as largely self-taught preachers in rural areas, the Appalachian hills and hollers (hollows) being an example. They pretty much take the Bible (they incline towards the KJV), start reading it, and go from there. It's highly doubtful that they know, for instance, who the Fathers of the Church even were, and they have a spotty grasp even of Luther, Calvin, and the early heretics of the so-called "reformation". They are sola scriptura in its rawest form.
All this said, they probably have a deeper understanding of Christianity than many a Newchurch pew-warmer, and in the main, their morality tends to be utterly traditional. If these people could be reached with the full truth, many of them would likely make exemplary traditional Catholics.
-
I also explained to you why the presumption is always validity,
Yes and no. You're not making distinctions.
Trent told us that we must presume validity...BUT...this only applies to the "received and approved rites". Trent's Presumed validity ONLY applies to the rites Trent was discussing (i.e. Tridentine/St Pius V/Traditional rites).
V2's rites aren't Tridentine and aren't from Trent. Ergo, presumed validity doesn't apply.
-
People may choose to come on her and still hash about the validity of Sacraments but, my original intent/question still stands. What criteria do you use in deciding to place your trust in a priest/bishop/group as to determine the validity of previously conferred Sacraments coming from the N.O. especially baptism - considering what the *DDF* as admitted, "increasing cases of invalidity"
Stubborn answered, he said he trusts the SSPX to make those determinations because of their leadership qualities. Now, should he trust them - is another question. but no one else actually said what criteria they use, and I am beginning to wonder if it is simply because they never thought to ask themselves why they trust these "investigations" and "determinations" themselves...
What right do you have judge how we determine validity of sacraments?
-
"Another attack?" :confused: "One of... them?" :confused: "How dare you!" :mad:
Sad... :facepalm:
God has rights, His Church has rights, Her members have rights. No member of the Church, absent the jurisdictional authority of the pope has the right to determine the validity of the Sacraments on their own. We are commanded to judge all things with the judgement of Christ (1 Cor. 2:15) but we don't judge souls - that is God's domain.
That is the entire point I am making. We are in unprecedented times, with a fake pope, no pope, antipope, bad pope, loopy pope, (whatever you like) so I am asking others what criteria do you use to determine who to trust about these "investigations"? Stubborn was the only one that answered me. Did I "judge" him? No - I thanked him for sharing - even if I disagree with his method.
If you and your priest were born and raised in Tradition, this isn't even a problem for you.
Just like my other poll/post, if you don't want to play, why drop by? You can just ignore me. This is forum, I am a member as you are, If Matthew lets me stay, I can ask questions, you can choose to answer them or not.
God bless you.
That's not actually an answer to my question, so I'll ask it again. What right do you have to judge how we determine the validity of sacraments? Who do you think you are? And...I don't have to ignore this thread. I am allowed to post on it.
-
I have the same right you do - If you claim to be a believer (Catholic) as Paul is speaking about - Catholics have the rights given them by sharing in His Body to judge all things i.e., question, examine, determine, etc.
I can and should judge your way of doing things as you should mine. It is my right as a Christian, to judge your soul is never my right.
So you believe that you have some kind of authority here. Why?
-
I have authority over my own soul, I have no authority on an internet forum that is absurd. I am questioning others to measure their way of doing things to determine if I can learn from them. If You don't like my questions - then don't answer them. Run along now.
God bless you.
You do presume to have authority here. You have been a forum member....for what....13 days or so? And you are presuming already to tell us what we are supposed to believe, as if you have authority here. But you do not.
-
I think +Fr. Wathen meant well and did a lot of good- May he rest in peace. I disagree with him that such changes can come from the Church.
I didn't post it, but he gets into the whole "ut. . . obtineat" vs. "obtineat" that Lad concerns himself with.
The Church cannot foist evil on Her children, She is led by Her Spouse - Christ "Her invisible Head" through His visible representative on earth the pope - who, while still only a man, has the infallible protection as promised by Christ to hold the faith, "unimpaired by any error " (Vatican I). She exists for the glory of God and salvation of souls. Neither Francis nor the conciliar church does either of those things.
Well, the Church has not foisted evil on her children, the Church has not been destroyed by heretical popes, rather, the Church remains spotless and is still here on earth welcoming all those who want to join her and live according to her rule - consider yourself for example. This is how it's been and will be for all converts and members till who knows when.
The part about "unimpaired by any error" is talking about the pope when he speaks ex cathedra.
-
So, considering our own predicament, this will give rise to the obvious question for any Catholic - does the pope have to be Catholic? R&R keep lowering the bar. If Francis sacrifices a child on the altar of St. Peter's tomorrow while chanting "Hail Lucifier O' Lord of Light" The SSPX will still call him pope. There is nothing the conciliar Church has done, or could do to prove to them that it is NOT the Catholic Church.
You are phrasing the question incorrectly, as such you are forming your conclusion incorrectly. Yes, the pope has to be Catholic - if he does not want to burn in hell forever.
R&R is simply obeying the explicit directive given to us by Pope Paul IV in cuм ex.
-
What right do you have to judge how we determine the validity of sacraments?
You're asking the wrong question. Multiple, multiple Trad clerics in the last 50 years have all come to the same conclusion - there is positive doubt. That is the Trad consensus.
Only the Church can say whether the V2 sacraments are valid or invalid....BUT...when positive doubts exist, the Church has told us, through Canon Law, that we MUST avoid doubtful sacraments (and treat them as invalid) under pain of grave sin.
1. Canon Law commands that we avoid doubtful sacraments under pain of sin.
1b. Pope Innocent condemned the idea that we can receive "probably valid" sacraments. We cannot, except in danger of death.
2. The Trad consensus is that V2 sacraments (ordination, consecration, new mass) are doubtful. There are multiple facts to reach this conclusion.
3. Ergo, the Church's canon law tells us how to treat V2 sacraments.
The question of "Are they valid?" is irrelevant. All we need to know is "Do they have positive doubts?" And the answer is "Yes".
-
You may choose to think or feel that I am presuming to have authority - go ahead and argue it to the high heavens, shout it from the rooftops, hold it to your dying breath - makes no difference to me. Or, come after me by addressing my question(s) and arguments. If you won't do that - I refuse to speak to you anymore - Go ahead, you can have the last word.
It's an over-reaction to think that I want to shout it from the rooftops, or to hold it to my dying breath. What an odd thing to say.
You cloak your "questions" with an air of charity which you obviously do not really have. Your arrogance betrays you.
-
The pope speaks ex cathedra much more than you would like to admit. He speaks "from the chair" whenever he acts as teacher for all Christians. R&R commonly conflates ex cathedra with "solemn definition". I know we could go in circles over this point ad nauseum - so I am happy to let it go at - agree to disagree.
Do you think Francis is Catholic?
No need to go in circles if we simply adhere to the infallible definition V1 gave us, i.e. the pope is in fallible when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. They prefaced that by saying he is not infallible when he makes known new doctrines. New doctrines = heresies. V1 never said popes would not be able to make known new doctrines.
I do not think the pope is Catholic, I think he is an anti-Catholic heretic. And I profess that (to paraphrase St. Thomas More)....I remain the pope's good subject, but God's first.
-
I consider ^^ this to be a twisting/misreading of Papal Infallibility. Some competent theologians argue otherwise than you have about the pope being able to teach heresy for the Universal Church (I know you are aware these theologians exist, everyone who is a vocal member here is) You may feel the need to defend you interpretation of Papal Infallibility as the correct one for the 1000th time - go ahead - we have all heard it before - the impasse remains - the problem cannot be overcame with argumentation - better minds than ours have tried.
And other theologians agree with me, so there's that. But for me, I can read what is written in V1 and it is in perfect unity with all of the doctrines of the Church. OTOH, if what you say is actually true, then all trads are exactly wrong and need to convert to the NO.
I like this snip from a sermon given by Fr. Wathen....
"….All of you know very well, what God has revealed both in the Old Testament and Through Christ and His Apostles, is one doctrine. Not only does it mean one thing, but it is a single, as it were, a single cloth woven from the top so that there are no seams, there is a perfect unity. Therefore, anyone who in any way teaches contrary to any one of it’s doctrines, any part of this holy deposit, violates it’s holiness and of course the truth of God. And if anyone comes forth and presents a doctrine contrary to it, he necessarily rouses the ire of Almighty God because he substitutes his puny human ideas and preferences to the holiness of the Divine Revelation."
So, we as I said, we will have to agree to disagree because we cannot agree, and we are at an impasse. That's OK with me, I don't need everyone to think like I do, I don't need to impose my understanding of things on others as dogma. I have made my arguments against the presumed validity of N.O. baptisms and trad priests who were baptized in the N.O. - that is my position. You have explained why you follow the SSPX in deciding these things - that is your choice, and you have the responsibility to make that choice for yourself during this time. I choose not to trust those judgments, unless someone can sway my mind with better arguments. I still consider you a Catholic (for what that is worth) and I am thankful for your contribution to this thread.
Well, baptisms are too easy to administer validly even when illicit, even for NO baptisms. And yes, ultimately it is my choice - which is why I ask the priest face to face as and consider that a major factor in making my decision. This hasn't been a concern of mine for decades, but for those who have this concern, I recommend that they need to do the same. If they still have doubts then do not go to that priest.
I consider sedes Catholic, albeit a kind of "special needs Catholic" because their faith seems to depend very much on presuming with some degree of certainty papal invalidity.
-
The topic of infallibility is irrelevant. V2's rites aren't infallible, they don't claim to be and no V2 pope ever said they were.
-
Can you clarify?
If you agree with those theologians teaching that the pope is unable to teach heresy for the Universal Church, then all the heresies taught since V2 are not heresies at all.
It sounds as if you agree with Fr. Fenton, who agrees with some other theologians of which you speak:
"In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth".
If this is a teaching of the Church, which it isn't, but if it were, then all trads of whatever persuasion are altogether wrong, because per the above quote it is impossible for a pope to preach heresy.
OTOH, it is because so many wrongfully believe the above to be what the Church teaches, that they've done one of two things, 1) they follow the conciliar popes and are NOers, 2) they are sedes.
For those in my #1, they demonstrate their faith in a [false] Church teaching by following the conciliar popes. For those in my #2, they demonstrate they have zero faith in a [false] Church teaching by their sedeism.
I could spin the same back at you. Is not your faith too some degree dependent on acknowledging that Francis is pope? I mean would you die a martyr's death to uphold that he is?
No, my faith is not dependent to any degree on the status of the pope. I pray daily for him and pray extra for him when I happen across an article or news bit telling of some of the things he does. Beyond that I pay no attention to him. If he were to ever command something, I would do it out of obedience - as long as it wasn't sinful.
And no, I would not die a martyrs death to uphold that he is the pope - that'd be a wasted martyrdom whether he's the pope or not.
-
This would only make sense if I believe that the V2 popes were actually popes,
Well, the popes were elected by the college of cardinals, they all accept him as pope and we have to also. There is no getting around this.
I do like that quote from Fenton - thanks! It in no way would make "all the trads wrong". Because if the pope were to preach heresy, he would fall ipso facto from the papacy.
The quote you like from Fr. Fenton says that the pope has an additional infallibility, not sure where it came from, it's not taught in V1 but because of that infallibility...."those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience."
So you say "if the pope were to preach heresy, he would fall ipso facto from the papacy." Yet per Fr. Fenton, that is an absolute impossibility for the pope to preach heresy. Per Fr. Fenton, he has an additional infallibility that prevents him from preaching heresy.
And this is the conundrum: The Pope cannot preach heresy, but if he does, he is no longer pope - but popes cannot preach heresy! - but if he does he is no longer pope. Again, conundrum.
And if you won't die to uphold the "Dogmatic Fact" (which you believe it is) that Francis is pope - wouldn't that be tantamount to denying the dogma of Papal Supremacy with which that fact is "intimately connected"?
We can die a martyr's death defending any one of the Church's doctrines, the status of the pope is not a doctrine. Now we could hope to die a martyr's death defending the dogma from Unam Sanctam: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." But to die defending the status of the pope? I wouldn't.
-
To me, they all the "cardinals" manifested their heresy when they signed the docuмents of VII. They had already lost their offices by internally consenting to the heresies within and they manifested it externally by signing the docuмents. Many of them may not have even been cardinals for the following reason(s):
John XXIII may not have even been canonically elected, too much suspicion around him (suspect of Modernism file at the Holy Office) he was an unworthy candidate (cuм ex) and/or there are other theories like the whole Siri thing, it will probably all come out in the end. Him taking the name of an anti-pope should have been a clue.
So, "getting around this" is not that hard for me. God made this world from nothing, He took on mortal flesh, walked on water, rose from the dead and gives Himself to us in what looks like bread. By the grace of God, I believe much more difficult things then what happened before/during V2, I may not know exactly what happened, but then I don't have to. The pope cannot teach condemned heresy from his magisterium. That I have to believe.
Well, the consequence of getting around it, is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, violated, or it's destroyed. And if it's not destroyed, then what is it?
-
Well, the consequence of getting around it, is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, violated, or it's destroyed. And if it's not destroyed, then what is it?
If it's not destroyed, then maybe it's a situation of the true Church being occupied, and as such, the conciliar church still retains some elements of Catholicism, though not many.
In Bp. Tissier's study, I recall that he said that the conciliar church is like a parasite that feeds off of the True Church, and that the conciliar church could not even exist, unless it's gets its lifeblood from the True Church. So there are elements that are retained, insomuch as a parasite will retain the life of the host that it feeds off of. An odd way to put the Crisis, but it makes a certain amount of sense.
Unlike some, +ABL never completely wrote off the conciliar church. He had hope that Rome would one day embrace Tradition be Catholic again.
-
That my friend, is what we call a mystery :laugh1:
lol, but it's a self imposed mystery, necessary to maintain the idea that 1) popes were never popes to begin with in order to eliminate 2) the conundrum (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/doubtful-validity-of-sacraments-outside-tradition/msg963674/#msg963674). This is all rooted in the false teaching exemplified by Fr. Fenton in the quote I provided (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/doubtful-validity-of-sacraments-outside-tradition/msg963643/#msg963643).
Everyone who believes that the Church teaches what Fr. Fenton taught, are all bound to be NO - because the pope can do no wrong to the Universal Church militant. Indeed, we would all be bound to adhere to this [false] teaching of the Church - because it's a teaching of the Church. But it's not, what it is, is error that people believe is a teaching of the Church because it was taught by theologians as tho it is a teaching of the Church.
-
If it's not destroyed, then maybe it's a situation of the true Church being occupied, and as such, the conciliar church still retains some elements of Catholicism, though not many.
In Bp. Tissier's study, I recall that he said that the conciliar church is like a parasite that feeds off of the True Church, and that the conciliar church could not even exist, unless it's gets its lifeblood from the True Church. So there are elements that are retained, insomuch as a parasite will retain the life of the host that it feeds off of. An odd way to put the Crisis, but it makes a certain amount of sense.
Unlike some, +ABL never completely wrote off the conciliar church. He had hope that Rome would one day embrace Tradition be Catholic again.
Yes, the Church's enemies do occupy the Church as +Tissier said. Fr. Wathen agrees, in his book he said: "...the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column..."
Google definition of a Fifth Column: A fifth column is a group of people who undermine a larger group or nation from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or another nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine.
-
Yes, the Church's enemies do occupy the Church as +Tissier said. Fr. Wathen agrees, in his book he said: "...the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column..."
Google definition of a Fifth Column: A fifth column is a group of people who undermine a larger group or nation from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or another nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine.
Yes, I agree. Fr. Wathen's view about the conciliar church as being within the Catholic Church, like a fifth column, makes sense.
-
Well, not exactly. You think I am using Papal Infallibility to maintain the "mystery" of Church's Indefectibility. But for me that is not the case.
What I think is that sedes are judging the pope, something we are not permitted to do per canon law, cuм ex and every other Church teaching out there since the first Pentecost Sunday.
Per cuм ex we *are* permitted to do what we are doing, i.e. "contradict" him by persevering in the true faith and condemning the NO. R&R do this without concern of the status of popes because the conciliar popes have met the criteria of cuм ex by deviating from the faith. Whether they were or never were popes is irrelevant, everyone on earth (except sedes) knows them all as popes, and as long as we persevere in the faith, his status does not matter. Our salvation depends on us keeping the faith no matter what scandals that "must needs be" cometh.
This is how I got to this point:
1) If one is a public heretic = proof one is not a member of the Catholic Church
2) If he is not member of the Church = not the pope
3) If not the pope = false pope
You have to remember here that heresy is a sin, a Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy is a sinner, in the case of the pope (and to not lose sight of what heresy is), lets say the pope is a mortal sinner. Should the heretic pope decide to repent, all he has to do is go to confession same as you and I and every other Catholic and his sin of heresy can be forgiven.
Now obviously you know that this sacrament is for Catholics only, for members of the Church only, and that one who is not a member of the Church cannot use it, but the pope can use it same as only Catholics can. And in danger of death, Trent says repentant heretics can also receive the sacrament of Extreme Unction, which is another sacrament only members of the Church can receive. Ergo, the pope is a member of the Church.
And before you go there, yes, I agree that he should first publicly abjure his heresies, but regardless, that's up to him, the remedy for forgiveness of his sin of heresy is the same for all members of the Church in the state of sin, the sacrament of Penance.
All of this is to say a heretic who was a Catholic is still a member of the Church in virtue of the sacrament of penance, which is to say that relying on the above formula as part of your reasoning, doesn't work.
-
That is what you think. But, it is not how SVs see it = difference of opinion/perception and gets us nowhere.
I agree we see it differently, we see everything differently lol. Papal teachings have dual meaning, words have dual meanings. One thing is certain for both of us, our salvation is not dependent upon the status of popes.
But in the case with public heresy - the Sacrament of Penance alone will NOT remedy a heretic's situation. He must also make a public (two witnesses) abjuration of his heresy in front of his superior (bishop), then receive absolution in order to enter back into the Church.
Here you are making your own rules. The pope has no superior lol and if you look it up in canon law, you will find that public abjuration is only required in 2 situations: 1) for a new convert prior to baptism or 2) if the bishop mandates it, other than that, the norm is confession only. The thing you're after using the label of "public abjuration," is in reality a public confession. Trent says this is not required.
You must have faith in the power of the keys given to priests in the sacrament, in the confessional to forgive sins - or to not forgive sins, Christ said it is up to them.
Also, Trent Session XIV, Ch. VII teaches when death is imminent:
Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all
penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution.
Trent is not talking about non-members here. The penitent heretic could well receive the sacrament, die, and go straight to heaven without any public abjuration. His sin of heresy was forgiven, which could never happen if he was not already a Catholic.
There is no getting around this.
-
I would recommend you read the paper, past that "getting around this" is again not hard at all. They were never popes to begin with because of anyone of those reasons I listed above or for some other reason we do not yet know about.
Thanks again.
God bless you
And that is where it always ends up - "he was never pope to begin with."
But the thing is, it takes destroying the entire legal structure of the Church to believe that - *after* doing all that, *then* it's not hard at all to "get around this." lol
I have to ask, but why? Why is determining the popes' status even remotely necessary? If he is pope - he's a heretic and we must contradict him. If he is not the pope - he's a heretic and we must contradict him.
-
^^ Doesn't apply to proselytizing heretics:
It does when the penitent is in danger of death and per Canon Law, at all other times minus the 2 exceptions.