Is Fr. Johnson really a goofball or was he simply expressing his worries over the new rite of ordination. I would disagree with father's view that the new rite of ordination and episcopal consecration are flat out invalid, we don't know yet until the Church decides on this issue. In the meantime it is prudent to conditionally reordain Novus ordo priests just in case, and not because of doubtful intentions, but because of the form for the new rite of episcopal consecration.

Pretty sure that Fr. Johnson stated that the Novus Ordo ordinations are invalid. He wasn't just expressing worries about it.

The SSPX has never held that all Novus Ordo priests who want to join the SSPX were invalidly ordained. They have usually judged each case individually. Since they are not sedevacantists, they do not hold, and have never held, that all Novus Ordo priests were invalidly ordained.

Sedevacantists (not sure if you are sedevacantist) generally hold that all NO orders are invalid, and they tend to judge the SSPX by sedevacantist standards, as if the SSPX are required to make the same judgements as sedevacantists would, even the SSPX is not sedevacantist. That's the typical arrogant stance of the sedevacantists, in that they believe that all traditionalists are required to hold the sedevacantist view on pretty much every issue.

Pretty sure that Fr. Johnson stated that the Novus Ordo ordinations are invalid. He wasn't just expressing worries about it.

The SSPX has never held that all Novus Ordo priests who want to join the SSPX were invalidly ordained. They have usually judged each case individually. Since they are not sedevacantists, they do not hold, and have never held, that all Novus Ordo priests were invalidly ordained.

Sedevacantists (not sure if you are sedevacantist) generally hold that all NO orders are invalid, and they tend to judge the SSPX by sedevacantist standards, as if the SSPX are required to make the same judgements as sedevacantists would, even the SSPX is not sedevacantist. That's the typical arrogant stance of the sedevacantists, in that they believe that all traditionalists are required to hold the sedevacantist view on pretty much every issue.

All the traditionalists groups do that.

They all "excommunicate" each other.

I think it should be remembered that Fr. Johnson qualified his statement.  He didn't simply say that the Novus Ordo priests are invalid, but rather he said that it was his "personal conviction" that they were invalid.

Bp. Williamson also qualified his language in speaking about that which is commonly referred to as the h0Ɩ0cαųst by making it known that he was expressing his opinion (one which I agree with!) concerning same.

It is interesting to see how no firestorm has as of yet come down upon Fr. Johnson from on SSPX high for expressing his "personal conviction" about the validity of Novus Ordo Priests as compared to that which came down upon the senior SSPX bishop who had to be put away "in a closet" (i.e., in the SSPX's St. George's House in London while at the same time taking away from him his public ministry).

Okay, thanks for the correction. Do sedevacantists, who believe that all NO ordinations are invalid - do they believe this in an absolute sense? Or is it just a personal conviction from which others are free to disagree? I'm confident that the former is the case, and not the latter, since sedevacantists tend to view their beliefs as absolute fact (though not all sedevacantists do this of course), but that's the tendency.

We don't know how the SSPX has treated Fr. Johnson for this issue. One forum member has said that he hasn't been back to his chapel since he made that comment. So maybe he's taking a little break of sorts.

Surely.

Elevating opinions to the same category of dogmatic definitions is a serious issue.

I would say that more honesty and humilty are necessary.

Yes, indeed!

There's something incredibly choppy about the way he thinks and speaks, throwing out partial thought fragments that he never completes or links together into coherency, causing me a great deal of mental pain.  Most of his sermon was as clear as mud.

Lot of cognitive dissonance going on with him while making this sermon.

Yes, you're right Meg. There are a lot of quotes from the good Archbishop in the link....

From Archbishop Lefebvre:
“...that is the reason why I said to you yesterday [...] that we must do an inquisition, (a study of each case) to know what the situation really is - in this case - not in all cases in general (i.e. not a blanket judgement) but in this case, to see if his ordination is valid or invalid. And I ... I am responsible, and I make the decision. I can say to him: ‘You must be re-ordained.’ Otherwise, if I think that his ordination his valid, really valid, then I have no right to repeat the Sacrament. (NB: It would be a grave sacrilege to knowingly do so).”

That's right, Stubborn.

Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly taught that the new rite of ordination is valid.

However, he never addressed the new rite of episcopal consecration, which is quite another issue. Many years have passed since he made these comments, and back then we were dealing with priests, most of whom were ordained by bishops consecrated in the old rite. Now, we are mostly dealing with priests ordained by bishops consecrated in the new rite. 

The authorities investigating the ordination of a priest from the Conciliar Church should inquire at the outset as to whether or not he was ordained by a new-rite bishop. If the answer is yes, then no further investigation is required and he must be reordained conditionally. That is very obvious from Fr Calderon's study which I hope to post soon.

Unfortunately, the SSPX is ignoring this study, while pretending to be still following Archbishop Lefebvre.

Even ignoring this study of Fr Calderon, we can see clearly from the Archbishop's 'letter to Mr Wilson' that even 40 years ago his attitude towards reordination was very different from the neo-SSPX because of the compounding of doubt over many years of modernist praxis in this matter.

That's right, Stubborn.

Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly taught that the new rite of ordination is valid.

However, he never addressed the new rite of episcopal consecration, which is quite another issue. Many years have passed since he made these comments, and back then we were dealing with priests, most of whom were ordained by bishops consecrated in the old rite. Now, we are mostly dealing with priests ordained by bishops consecrated in the new rite.

The authorities investigating the ordination of a priest from the Conciliar Church should inquire at the outset as to whether or not he was ordained by a new-rite bishop. If the answer is yes, then no further investigation is required and he must be reordained conditionally. That is very obvious from Fr Calderon's study which I hope to post soon.

Unfortunately, the SSPX is ignoring this study, while pretending to be still following Archbishop Lefebvre.

Even ignoring this study of Fr Calderon, we can see clearly from the Archbishop's 'letter to Mr Wilson' that even 40 years ago his attitude towards reordination was very different from the neo-SSPX because of the compounding of doubt over many years of modernist praxis in this matter.

IMO, I think he did address the new rite of episcopal consecration - when he consecrated the four bishops. The reason he consecrated them was first of all because he knew that the Modernists would never provide his SSPX with one, but also because he could not be sure of the validity of one if in the future they ever did provide one.

Either way, note what he said: "Otherwise, if I think that his ordination his valid, really valid, then I have no right to repeat the Sacrament." I do not know who added the nb: "(NB: It would be a grave sacrilege to knowingly do so)”  but whoever did is right. It is for this reason that the SSPX still does as +ABL directed, to investigate each case individually. It is also for this reason that the SSPX does not automatically conditionally ordain or automatically re-ordain all NO priests who come to them.

It's a mess alright, but for me, I agree with +ABL that there cannot be a blanket policy of automatic conditional / re-ordaining for all NO priests who come to them.



 

I absolutely agree with ABL, but how does this address the intrinsic validity of the NREC?

The Church always *initially* presumes validity of her sacraments until or unless proven otherwise, this includes NO consecrations/ordinations. This is why +ABL said what he said. Although things have gotten progressively worse since then, nothing has changed in that regard. In order to safeguard and preserve the sacraments, the Church *must* initially presume validity.

Were it otherwise, always presuming invalidity without first proving invalidity is denying the divine prerogative given to the Church to defend, protect and preserve the sacraments till the end of time. IOW, always presuming automatic invalidity means the Church is not defending, protecting or preserving anything at all, not even thin air.

Those trad groups out there whose policy is  automatic re-ordination are presuming automatic invalidity, and in so doing are going contrary to what the Church has always done. 

In the grand scheme of things it (validity/invalidity) is actually an academic point because as long as the NO priests and bishops etc. continue in their abominations, we can have no part of it or them whether they are valid or invalid.