Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 14

Author Topic: Fr. Burfitt Corrects Fr. Johnson on Validity of Novus Ordo Priests  (Read 4734 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline poenitens

Re: Fr. Burfitt Corrects Fr. Johnson on Validity of Novus Ordo Priests
« Reply #50 on: July 14, 2023, 01:20:10 PM »
Fr. Cekada relates this in his study (attached) on the invalidity of the NREC:

Quote
In an early 1983 conversation [of then Fr. Sanborn] with the Archbishop and Fr. Schmidberger over the SSPX/Vatican negotiations then taking place (plus ça change…), he asked how the Society could accept any solution at all, since the Archbishop had told us many times that he considered the new rite of episcopal consecration invalid. The Archbishop replied, “Apparently, it is valid,” and made a gesture for Fr. Schmidberger to speak, who then said, “It’s Eastern Rite.”
Observe the part in bold. +ABL not always thought that the NREC was valid. In this bulletin entry, Fr. Cekada adds another twist to that story:


Quote
The basis for [Archbishop Lefebvre's] impression, it seems, was a “study” by Fr. Franz Schmidberger, who favored reconciling with John Paul II. According to a seminarian who later asked to read the study, it turned out to be nothing more than a single page in a folder!
So the reason why, +ABL assumed that the NREC was valid was not this principle of presuming validity always but because he (incorrectly) thought that the NREC was an Eastern rite. Where did he get that idea? From a very questionable "study" Fr. Schmidberger did.

Turns out, Fr. Cekada DID take a look at the forms of the Eastern Rites that Paul IV claimed the NREC was based on and they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT (see sections IV and V of his study that I attached). They are SO different that the forms do not even have the same word count!

NOTE: I'm not endorsing everything fr. Cekada believed/said. Turns out this particular study of his is very good and objective.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Burfitt Corrects Fr. Johnson on Validity of Novus Ordo Priests
« Reply #51 on: July 14, 2023, 01:22:58 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 14, 2023, 01:17:35 PM
:confused:


First you said this:


Then you said this: 

These 2 statements, as written, directly contradict one another. 
Glad you consider me the Church, trads too - but we are the peons, not the Church. The Church is the authority, the keeper of the sacraments, the one who makes the rules, not you and me.

We have our doubts, but if it we were responsible for confirming without doubt they are valid priests, we had best do what the church does and investigate each case individually first - knowing that unless we can prove doubt they cannot be re-ordained in order to satisfy anyone, not even the NO priest himself.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Burfitt Corrects Fr. Johnson on Validity of Novus Ordo Priests
« Reply #52 on: July 14, 2023, 01:26:32 PM »
Quote from: poenitens on July 14, 2023, 01:20:10 PM
Fr. Cekada relates this in his study (attached) on the invalidity of the NREC:
There are enough quotes from +ABL himself on this matter, do not rely on Fr. Cekada.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Burfitt Corrects Fr. Johnson on Validity of Novus Ordo Priests
« Reply #53 on: July 14, 2023, 01:29:33 PM »
Quote
You are simply wrong regarding +ABL investigating to "figure out if the consecrating bishop was new/old rite" - he considered the rite, as is, valid. Period.

+ABL and +Williamson considered Fr. Hesse's NO ordination valid. Old Rite Bishop/NO Ceremony. They considered (I cannot remember his name but Fr. Hesse said it in his talk) new rite Bishop / old ceremony valid. How could this be if all NO consecration/ordinations are invalid as you said?

I have had numerous priests, both SSPX and independent priests say what I've been saying - validity is always initially presumed with the NO ordinations.
The old and new sspx was wrong to presume validity.  Even +Tissier wrote a lengthy study in early 2000 where he said such doubts are positive.  But they've gone back-n-forth on many different topics.  Nothing wrong with this, as we live in crazy times.  But I will not accept "revisionist history" that says they've been 100% consistent.


Quote
The concern is as Giovanni posted, the translations, the ad libbing and the intention of the ministers, not the validity of the original (new) rites in Latin.
That was +ABL's concern.  He doesn't own tradition and never did.  Plenty of others disagreed with him (and still do).

Quote
The landscape has changed, but the principle has not and can never. Nothing in this world is worth risking committing a sacrilege. The SSPX knew this then and knows this now, even if the whole world insists otherwise, or insists they're wrong.
This "principle" you keep bringing up, doesn't apply.  It only applies to legitimate, legal, morally approved rites, which the NO rites are not.

Quote
And there's always the case of imminent death when only a NO priest is available, what, is the priest suddenly made valid for the occasion, then afterwards returns to being invalid?
I also don't think you understand the difference between the following.  Your example above makes no sense.

a. Negatively doubtful validity
b. Positively doubtful validity
c.  Positively (or 100% certain) invalid
Logged

Offline Giovanni Berto

Re: Fr. Burfitt Corrects Fr. Johnson on Validity of Novus Ordo Priests
« Reply #54 on: July 14, 2023, 01:30:04 PM »
Quote from: poenitens on July 14, 2023, 01:20:10 PM
Fr. Cekada relates this in his study (attached) on the invalidity of the NREC:
Observe the part in bold. +ABL not always thought that the NREC was valid. In this bulletin entry, Fr. Cekada adds another twist to that story:

So the reason why, +ABL assumed that the NREC was valid was not this principle of presuming validity always but because he (incorrectly) thought that the NREC was an Eastern rite. Where did he get that idea? From a very questionable "study" Fr. Schmidberger did.

Turns out, Fr. Cekada DID take a look at the forms of the Eastern Rites that Paul IV claimed the NREC was based on and they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT (see sections IV and V of his study that I attached). They are SO different that the forms do not even have the same word count!

NOTE: I'm not endorsing everything fr. Cekada believed/said. Turns out this particular study of his is very good and objective.

Yes, this is a great study that Fr. Cekada did.

This study is what convinced me that the new consecration rite is doubtful. I wouldn't go as far as to say that is surely invalid, but I cannot see how to deny that it is doubtful.

What I really wanted to know is the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the validity of this particular rite on his last years.

I have never seem any docuмentation suggesting that he thought that the rite itself was doubtful or invalid.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 14
« previous next »