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

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

Author Topic: Fr. Burfitt Corrects Fr. Johnson on Validity of Novus Ordo Priests  (Read 4733 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Burfitt Corrects Fr. Johnson on Validity of Novus Ordo Priests
« Reply #55 on: July 14, 2023, 01:37:33 PM »

Quote
We have our doubts, 

No, we aren't talking about PERSONAL doubt.  A positive doubt (as +Ottaviani mentioned for the new mass' consecration) is one that exists BASED ON FACTS.  A negative doubt = a personal doubt, because it's not based on proof but a feeling, or a very weak or misconstrued fact.  A positive doubt is the closest we can get to invalidity, except (or while waiting) for the Church to decide the matter 100%.  A positive doubt *should apply* to every Traditional Catholic alive because the problematic fact(s) in the situation have not been fixed.


Quote
but if it we were responsible for confirming without doubt they are valid priests, 

Since positive doubts exist (and have existed in history) this is why "conditional" sacramental prayers exist. 


Quote
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.
The investigation is quite simple - Were you consecrated/ordained in the new rite, yes or no?  If yes, then positive doubt exists.  If no, then the use of the True Rite means valid.


If positive doubt exists (due to V2's changes of the new rite formulas...i.e. fact based doubt), then you conditionally re-ordain.  It's called "conditional" because you are acting based on a positive doubt, which is NOT a sin.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Burfitt Corrects Fr. Johnson on Validity of Novus Ordo Priests
« Reply #56 on: July 14, 2023, 01:44:04 PM »

Quote
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,
Not trying to badger you, just make a point, in case it helps others.
1.  Only the Church can say that something is surely or 100% invalid.
2.  If something is doubtful, then it is, by definition, not 100% invalid.
3.  Something which is 'positively doubtful' could still be valid...we don't know...but the evidence points toward invalidity.
4.  Something which is 'positively doubtful' must be treated (according to Canon Law) as doubtful (except in emergency situations).
5.  A catholic is required to seek the most positive/valid sacraments/masses he can.  Thus, the NO is off-limits.
6.  Thus, conditional consecration/ordinations are used.  That's why they exist, for doubtful cases.
7.  If we knew something was 100% invalid, then 'conditional' formulas wouldn't be used.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Burfitt Corrects Fr. Johnson on Validity of Novus Ordo Priests
« Reply #57 on: July 14, 2023, 01:56:30 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 14, 2023, 01:37:33 PM
No, we aren't talking about PERSONAL doubt.  A positive doubt (as +Ottaviani mentioned for the new mass' consecration) is one that exists BASED ON FACTS.  A negative doubt = a personal doubt, because it's not based on proof but a feeling, or a very weak or misconstrued fact.  A positive doubt is the closest we can get to invalidity, except (or while waiting) for the Church to decide the matter 100%.  A positive doubt *should apply* to every Traditional Catholic alive because the problematic fact(s) in the situation have not been fixed.


Since positive doubts exist (and have existed in history) this is why "conditional" sacramental prayers exist. 

The investigation is quite simple - Were you consecrated/ordained in the new rite, yes or no?  If yes, then positive doubt exists.  If no, then the use of the True Rite means valid.


If positive doubt exists (due to V2's changes of the new rite formulas...i.e. fact based doubt), then you conditionally re-ordain.  It's called "conditional" because you are acting based on a positive doubt, which is NOT a sin.
No Pax, to administer even conditionally a sacrament without first investigating validity risks committing a sacrilege - if the sacrament was valid in the first place.
As +ABL said: "that we must do an inquisition, (a study of each case) to know what the situation really is... 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).”

Don't you know that to repeat a sacrament even conditionally, is a sacrilege if the first one was valid? That the only one who can issue the decree that all NO ordinations are invalid is a future pope? I don't get you.

You're saying all NO ordinations are always invalid, but not always, so just conditionally ordain them to be safe. Do you understand if you are wrong, and if bishops who think the same way are wrong and wrongfully go ahead and repeat the sacrament, sin? You see nothing wrong with this?
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Burfitt Corrects Fr. Johnson on Validity of Novus Ordo Priests
« Reply #58 on: July 14, 2023, 02:38:52 PM »
Quote
No Pax, to administer even conditionally a sacrament without first investigating validity risks committing a sacrilege - if the sacrament was valid in the first place.
There's no need to investigate a 'positive doubt'.  That's an oxymoron because a 'positive doubt' means it's already been investigated!  Only a 'negative doubt' needs to be investigated.

A 'negative doubt' is someone who has been arrested based on suspicion only and interrogated/investigated.
A 'positive doubt' is like a person who has been arrested and charged with a crime.  The cops already have evidence enough to charge them and setup a trial.
But the person can't be termed innocent/guilty (i.e. valid/invalid) until the Judge/Jury (i.e. Church) decides.
In the meantime, while we wait for the Church to decide, the only thing to do is to "conditionally" ordain/consecrate (i.e. post bail, wear an ankle bracelet, and go on probation).
In other words, the person is treated as "guilty" until the Church decides.  This is due to the evidence which supports is guilt.


Quote
As +ABL said: "that we must do an inquisition, (a study of each case) to know what the situation really is... 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).”
Yeah, this might have applied pre-2000s, with valid bishops alive.  But now, no.


Quote
Don't you know that to repeat a sacrament even conditionally, is a sacrilege if the first one was valid?
A conditional sacrament doesn't repeat anything.  That's why you're confused.

Quote
That the only one who can issue the decree that all NO ordinations are invalid is a future pope? I don't get you.
If tomorrow +Francis declared all new rite consecrations/ordinations invalid (let's assume he converted), then you wouldn't "conditionally" re-do anything.  You'd use the regular, non-conditional formula.

The conditional formulas exist PRECISELY for doubtful cases, wherein the Church has not decided and won't decide soon.  People can't wait around forever, thus, in Her wisdom, the Church created "conditional" formulas.

Quote
You're saying all NO ordinations are always invalid, but not always, so just conditionally ordain them to be safe. Do you understand if you are wrong, and if bishops who think the same way are wrong and wrongfully go ahead and repeat the sacrament, sin? You see nothing wrong with this?
A conditional formula, based on a positive doubt (i.e. evidence showing problems) is not a sin.  That's why the conditional formula exists!!  For doubtful cases!


Why is this so difficult?
Logged

Offline Meg

Re: Fr. Burfitt Corrects Fr. Johnson on Validity of Novus Ordo Priests
« Reply #59 on: July 14, 2023, 02:44:14 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 14, 2023, 02:38:52 PM
There's no need to investigate a 'positive doubt'.  That's an oxymoron because a 'positive doubt' means it's already been investigated!  Only a 'negative doubt' needs to be investigated.

A 'negative doubt' is someone who has been arrested based on suspicion only and interrogated/investigated.
A 'positive doubt' is like a person who has been arrested and charged with a crime.  The cops already have evidence enough to charge them and setup a trial.
But the person can't be termed innocent/guilty (i.e. valid/invalid) until the Judge/Jury (i.e. Church) decides.
In the meantime, while we wait for the Church to decide, the only thing to do is to "conditionally" ordain/consecrate (i.e. post bail, wear an ankle bracelet, and go on probation).
In other words, the person is treated as "guilty" until the Church decides.  This is due to the evidence which supports is guilt.

Yeah, this might have applied pre-2000s, with valid bishops alive.  But now, no.

A conditional sacrament doesn't repeat anything.  That's why you're confused.
If tomorrow +Francis declared all new rite consecrations/ordinations invalid (let's assume he converted), then you wouldn't "conditionally" re-do anything.  You'd use the regular, non-conditional formula.

The conditional formulas exist PRECISELY for doubtful cases, wherein the Church has not decided and won't decide soon.  People can't wait around forever, thus, in Her wisdom, the Church created "conditional" formulas.
A conditional formula, based on a positive doubt (i.e. evidence showing problems) is not a sin.  That's why the conditional formula exists!!  For doubtful cases!


Why is this so difficult?

In effect, you agree with Fr. Johnson, would that be right?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14
« previous next »