Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Nishant Xavier on January 04, 2020, 04:18:54 AM
-
Here's "je ne regrette rien" Fr.Cekada "we resisted +ABL to his face" http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdf)
One of the main issues for them was their claim that +ABL already allowed Priests in the new rite to work with the Society. Fr. Cekada: "I then tried to pin the archbishop down on the issue of conditional ordination for priests ordained in the new rite. He began by trying to placate us, saying he was fundamentally in agreement, the situation was lamentable, it would be “better” if Fr. Stark would be re-ordained, etc. But when I pressed him to give a clear answer, the archbishop said he would not make this a policy." Why should sedes be allowed to enforce their heterodox theology on +ABL and the Society? +ABL, if anything, was far too gracious with them. In 1982, +ABL arrived at the conclusion that the new rite, based on the connection to Eastern rites, was almost certainly valid, as even Cekada admitted. +ABL mainly pointed to defect of intention that can arise at times. Neither Fr. Gregory Hesse nor Bp. Salvador Lazo was ordained or consecrated again, showing the Society did not deem the new rite to always be per se invalid.
Father Cekada says, on his website, "By 1982, however, once [Archbishop] Lefebvre undertaken another of his periodic bouts of negotiation with the Vatican, he changed his position, apparently under the impression that Paul VI form was used in the Eastern Rites, and therefore unquestionably valid." It remains to show +ABL's "impression" was right.
let's look at the consecratory prayer in the new rite in full: "Prayer of Consecration
26. Next the principal consecrator, with his hands extended over the bishop-elect, sings the prayer of consecration or says it aloud:
God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all consolation, you dwell in heaven, yet look with compassion on all that is humble. You know all things before they came to be; by your gracious word you have established the plan of your Church.
From the beginning you chose the descendants of Abraham to be your holy nation. You established rulers and priests, and did not leave your sanctuary without ministers to serve you. From the creation of the world you have been pleased to be glorified by those whom you have chosen.
The following part of the prayer is recited by all the consecrating bishops, with hands joined:
So now pour out upon this chosen one the power that is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to his holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.
Then the principal consecrator continues alone.
Father, you know all hearts. You have chosen your servant for the office of bishop. May he be a shepherd to your holy flock, and a high priest blameless in your sight, ministering to you night and day; may he always gain the blessing of your favor and offer the gifts of your holy Church. Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to forgive sins as you have commanded, to assign ministries as you have decreed, and to loose every bond by the authority which you gave to your apostles. May he be pleasing to you by his gentleness and purity of heart, presenting a fragrant offering to you, through Jesus Christ, your Son, through whom glory and power and honor are yours with the Holy Spirit in your holy Church, now and for ever. R. Amen."
Consider two things, even leaving aside that Principal or Governing Spirit is almost certainly in itself a reference to the Episcopacy here, (1) first, the prayer of consecration asks for the Spirit given to Our Lord Jesus Christ, and it is beyond any doubt that Our Lord Jesus was a High Priest; (2) second, it says this is the same Spirit given to the Apostles, and likewise it is de fide that the Apostles were not merely simple Priests, but high Priests [Tradition often calls the bishop, "summus sacerdos"] or Bishops. See for e.g. in the CE, "Tertullian (On Baptism 17) calls the bishop the "summus sacerdos", under whom are the "presbyteri et diaconi"; and Cyprian (Ep. lxi, 3) speaks of the "presbyteri cuм episcopo sacerdotali honore conjuncti", i.e. the priests united by sacerdotal dignity with the bishop (see BISHOP)." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm)
Finally, the SSPX Study: "Let us note in passing that these two rites [the Coptic and West Syrian] are perfectly Catholic ... To assure ourselves of the validity of Pope Paul VI’s rite, it will suffice for us to place side by side the new consecratory prayer and the two Eastern rites in question. The validity of these two rites can in no wise be called into question, otherwise the Coptic Church (Catholic as well as Orthodox) and the Syrian Church (which includes the Maronites) would have neither bishops nor priests, nor would they ever have had them. We have prepared a four-column comparison (refer Table 3: Four-column comparison of 1968 edition with Hippolytus text, Coptic and Maronite Rites) with, in order from left to right, Pope Paul VI’s new consecratory prayer,[77] the Latin version of the Apostolic Tradition [i.e., “of Hippolytus”—Ed.],[78] the Coptic rite, and the Syrian rite. For the latter two texts we have used the Denzinger translation.[79] With the four prayers transcribed into the same language, the comparison is made easy." From: https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations-4 (https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations-4)
Therefore, to say that the new rite is invalid, is to say that Jesus Christ was not a High Priest; to say it is "perhaps" invalid, is to say that the Apostles were "perhaps" not Bishops, but merely simple Priests. To say the Eastern rites used long ago were invalid, is to say Eastern Churches in communion with Rome a long time ago defected even then; to say that the Roman Church, for 50 years, has used invalid rites of episcopal consecration, such that no remaining residential bishops in the local arch-diocese of Rome are valid Bishops, which would mean the local Church of Rome as a particular Church is not Apostolic any longer, is to say the Church defected.
-
Here's the link for it, and it shows the new rite and the Eastern Catholic Coptic rite, for e.g., hardly differ: http://sspx.org/en/table-3-validity-new-episcopal-consecrations (http://sspx.org/en/table-3-validity-new-episcopal-consecrations)
Validity of new episcopal consecrations
Table 3: Four-column comparison of 1968 edition with Hippolytus text, Coptic and Maronite Rites
I. 1968 EDITION, Pontificale Romanum, 1968 typical edition
II. HIPPOLYTUS, La Tradition Apostolique d’Hippolyte, Don Botte (2nd ed.)
III. COPTIC RITE, Rite Copte, Dz., Ritus Orientalium, t.2, p.23
IV. MARONITE RITE Consecration du Patriarche Maronite, Dz., Ritus Orientalium, t.2, p.220
In Latin:
I. Deus et Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi, Pater misericordiarum et Deus totius consolationis, qui in excelsis habitas et humilia respicis, qui cognoscis omnia antequam nascantur, tu qui dedisti in Ecclesia tua normas per verbum gratiae tuae, qui praedestinasti ex principio genus iustorum ab Abraham, qui constituisti principes et sacerdotes, et sanctuarium tuum sine ministerio non dereliquisti, cui ab initio mundi placuit in his quos elegisti glorificari:
Et nunc effunde super hunc electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio tuo Iesu Christo, quem ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui.
Da, cordium cognitor Pater, huic servo tuo, quem elegisti ad Episcopatum, ut pascat gregem sanctum tuum, et summum sacerdotium tibi exhibeat sine reprehensione,serviens tibi nocte et die, ut incessanter vultum tuum propitium reddat, et offerat dona sanctae Ecclesiae tuae; da ut virtute Spiritus summi sacerdotii habeat potestatem dimittendi peccata secundum mandatum tuum; ut distribuat munera secundum praeceptum tuum et solvat omne vinculum secundum potestatem quam dedisti Apostolis; placeat tibi in mansuetudine et mundo corde, offerens tibi odorem suavitatis, per Filium tuum Iesum Christum, per quem tibi gloria et potentia et honor, cuм Spiritu Sancto in sancta Ecclesia et nunc et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
In English:
O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort, Who dwellest on high but regardest the humble, Who knowest all things before they come to pass, Thou hast established the plan of thy Church. By Thy gracious word, Thou hast chosen the descendants of Abraham to be Thy holy people from the beginning, Thou hast established princes and priests, and didst not leave Thy sanctuary without ministers to serve Thee, Who, from the beginning of the world wast pleased to be glorified in these whom Thou hast chosen:
And now pour forth on this chosen one that power which is from Thee, the governing Spirit, Whom Thou gavest to Thy beloved Son Jesus Christ, Whom He gave to the holy Apostles, Who founded the Church in every place as Thy sanctuary, unto the glory and unceasing praise of Thy name.
Grant, Father, knower of all hearts, that this Thy servant, whom Thou hast chosen for the office of Bishop, might shepherd Thy holy flock, and may he fulfill before Thee, without reproach, the ministry of the High Priesthood, serving Thee by night and day, that he may without ceasing obtain Thy favor and present gifts to Thy holy Church; grant that, by the power of the Spirit of the High Priesthood, he may have the power of forgiving sins according to Thy command; that he might distribute gifts according to Thy instruction and loosen every bond according to the power which Thou didst give to the Apostles; may he please Thee in mildness and purity of heart, offering to Thee an odor of sweetness, through Thy Son Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory and power and honor, with the Holy Spirit in the holy Church both now and forever. Amen.
-
Against the absurd claim that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is merely like the Maronite Rite of Enthronement of an Archbishop:
The rite expressly says, "You have chosen your servant for the office of bishop. May he be a shepherd to your holy flock, and a high priest blameless in your sight, ministering to you night and day; may he always gain the blessing of your favor and offer the gifts of your holy Church. Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood", this is not a rite of enthronement. The Maronite rite of enthronement in a particular case is linked to here, and it's hardly a few lines long, and very different, “Sit as a bishop on the chair of the Eparchy of Our Lady of Lebanon of Los Angeles in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=6099&page=8 (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=6099&page=8) As can be seen there, the person was made a Bishop at the same time he was enthroned, but the rite of consecration is very different and precedes the enthronement; the consecration formula would be the preceding prayer, "Grant him, O Lord, by this anointing the joy of Your Holy Spirit and empower him with that power You granted to Your Apostles so that he may offer sacrifices and offerings, distribute Your Divine Mysteries to the faithful, and walk before You with a living faith and pure heart all the days of his life.” It's very clear, from this, that when Apostles are mentioned, it is a reference to the Episcopacy. And here's the Coptic rite: https://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/7_priesthood.html (https://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/7_priesthood.html)
" The Patriarch places his hand on the chosen candidate and prays:
O existing Master and Lord God the Pantocrator �. Pour now the power of Your Holy Spirit Whom You granted to Your Holy Apostles in Your Name. Grant this same grace to Your servant (�..) whom You choose as a bishop to shepherd Your Holy flock and become a servant for You without blame and supplicate to Your goodness day and night, and gather the number of the saved, and offer oblations in the Holy Churches. Yes O Father the Pantocrator grant him through Your Christ, the unity of Your Holy Spirit to have the authority to forgive sins as a commandment of Your Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord, make the choir by his authority of priesthood, loosen all the church ties, make the new houses, churches, sanctify the altars, and pleases You by meekness and humbleness of heart as he offers you blamelessly and without blemish, a holy unbloody sacrifice of the New Covenant�." The rite of "seating" follows next and has nothing in common with this. So the study made by Fr. Pierre Marie is quite correct in its conclusions; Fr. Cekada's attacks on it are unwarranted and do not stand.
There's no doubt the new sacramental rites are weakened, just like the new exorcism rite is. But to say they are invalid is totally wrong.
The 2005 study of Fr. Pierre Marie has settled the issue for the vast majority of Society Priests (I can't say for certain about those now with the "resistance") including e.g. Fr. Peter Scott, who wrote about it in 2007.
"The very erudite article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., published in The Angelus (December 2005 & January 2006), establishes that the form is in itself valid. Although radically different from the traditional Latin form, and although only similar, but not identical, to the forms used in the Eastern Rites, it is in itself valid, the meaning designating sufficiently clearly the Catholic episcopacy." https://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained (https://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained) An expression like "Spirit Who gives the Grace of High Priesthood" for e.g. is a sufficient designation of the Catholic Episcopacy.
-
In 1982, +ABL arrived at the conclusion that the new rite, based on the connection to Eastern rites, was almost certainly valid, as even Cekada admitted. +ABL mainly pointed to defect of intention that can arise at times.
One of of the few errors of ABL was an incorrect understanding of what is required for "the intention to do what the Church does." He mistakenly believed the minister of the sacrament had to intend the sacramental effect, which is why he doubted the validity of the new rites. The Holy Office under Pius IX clarified on at least two occasions that even if the minister publicly denies the sacramental effect (for example, that baptism washes away original sin by infusing grace into the soul), it will not corrupt the intention to do what the Church does, and will not invalidate the sacrament. The requisite intention is nothing more than intending to perform the ceremony, or intending to perform the sacred act.
God, in His Wisdom, instituted the sacraments in such a way that the weakness, errors, and bad will of man almost never render the sacraments null, without a deliberate intention to do so.
The Church's standard teaching is graphically expressed by Bellarmine: "There is no need to intend to do what the Roman Church does; but what the true Church does, whichever it is, or what Christ instituted, or what Christians do: for they amount to the same. You ask: What if someone intends to do what some particular or false church does, which he thinks the true one, like that of Geneva, and intends not to do what the Roman church does? I answer: even that is sufficient. For the one who intends to do what the church of Geneva does, intends to do what the universal church does. For he intends to do what such a church does, because he thinks it to be a member of the true universal church: although he is wrong in his discernment of the true church. For the mistake of the minister does not take away the efficacy of the sacrament: only a defectus intentionis does that." Cardinal Franzelin gives an extreme case: a daft priest who didn't want to confer grace when he baptised but actually believed that by baptising he would consign someone to the Devil - there was a seventeenth century rumour about this in Marseilles. Non tamen, he writes, sacramenti virtutem et efficaciam impediret. He qotes Aquinas in support. In nineteenth century, the Holy Office declared that Methodist missionaries in Oceania who explicitly denied in the course of the Baptism service itself that Baptism regenerates, did not thereby invalidate the Sacrament. Heresy or even total Unbelief is, in the traditional Theology of the Western Church, NOT the same as a Defect of Intention. Defect of Intention means a deliberate intention not to confer the Sacrament at all, NOT a mistake about what the Sacrament is or confers. Bishop Williamson's theology, despite his extravagant desire to be Traditional, is NOT the teaching of Catholic Christendom. Pope Leo XIII reiterated this truth in his Bull Apostolicae curae in the section which begins "De mente vel intentione ...". http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2017/01/intention.html (http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2017/01/intention.html)
-
XavierSem is just a kid that "discovered" the Latin Mass and loves it's beauty, and he believes whatever "tradition" is OK with the Vatican II church, that's about it. If one wants to know about the new ordination rite and the new formula for consecrating bishops, see the thread:
Advice for Novus Ordo Priests in SSPX Chapels (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/advice-for-novus-ordo-priests-in-sspx-chapels/) https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/advice-for-novus-ordo-priests-in-sspx-chapels/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/advice-for-novus-ordo-priests-in-sspx-chapels/)
Here's some snippets:
"Innocent XI condemned the position that 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."
NOTE: This "aversion" seems absent today in the SSPX, given the presence of Bishop Huonder in an SSPX school, African District officials loading their chapels with ICK priests, and directing their faithful to a diocesan bi-ritual priest, etc.
[font=",serif]Since there have been changes to the Rites by the Novus Ordo, and since the Novus Ordo cannot be trusted (given all the other error and mischief they have perpetrated), that alone rises to the standard of creating sufficient doubt for conditional ordination. Negative doubt is like "What if the priest forgot to say a word when I was baptized?" No reason to believe this other than a nervous "what if". But with the NO Rite of Ordination, "Modernists are running the show, and they changed the essential form of the Rite. Some people have argued that these changes cause issues." THAT IS ALL YOU NEED. That is positive doubt, something concrete you can point to. ….I believe there's positive doubt with regard to the Rite itself, and , and a lot of reasonable/intelligent/well-educated people have concluded that there is. [/font][/color]
From Sean Johnson:
At the non-theological level:
I avoid priests ordained in the new rite of priestly ordination (and even more so, those ordained according to the traditional rite by bishops consecrated in the new rite of episcopal consecration).
Don’t want anything to do with them, whether they are in SSPX chapels or elsewhere.
It’s like buying a bottle of milk at the store, and you discover the tamper-resistant seal is broken: Maybe the milk is ok, or maybe it has been tampered with in a way that makes it harmful to drink.
Why take the risk? I’ll grab another bottle where I don’t have to worry.
I’m just not drinking that dicey milk.
What’s the point of modifying a certainly valid sacramental formula, except to make it less certainly valid? If you move away from “certainly valid” formulae, all that is left are “less certainly valid” formulae.
[font=",serif] [/font][/color]
Let me put it this way, if every single Novus ordo priest is validly ordained it has no effect on those people that had doubts and would not go to mass with them. If however, the Novus Ordo priests was not a valid priest, then it would have an effect on those that went to mass with him, and again no effect on those that didn't. In other words, whether the milk container with the broken safety seal was poisoned or not, it had no effect on Sean Johnson because he didn't drink it. The poisoned milk only affected those that drank it.
-
If one wants to know about the new ordination rite and the new formula for consecrating bishops...
LOL. Is that your "non-theological level" of response? The Consecration formula was mentioned in the OP. You obviously have not studied it in any level of detail. Why don't you show us the research you have done on the rite otherwise? Nor did you attempt to answer the fact that the Church of Rome, as a particular local Church, needs at least some valid Bishops. Otherwise, She has defected and is not even an Apostolic Church any longer, which is heretical for a supposed Roman Catholic to say. Are you a Roman Catholic?
These things were mentioned by Fr. Pierre Marie in his study some 10 years ago. They are even more true now. Did you actually read that study for yourself, or did you just take for granted that the claim of some random sede about that study was correct?
-
Fr. Calderon (SSPX): SiSiNoNo No. 267 in November of 2014 and may be found online here (https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/270396261/Consagraciones-Episcopales-de-Pablo-VI-P-Calderon?ad_group=xxc1xx&campaign=VigLink&medium=affiliate&source=hp_affiliate&campaign=VigLink&ad_group=xxc1xx&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate).
"If we consider the matter, form and intention of the new rite of episcopal consecration in the context of the rite and in the circuмstances of its institution, it seems to us that it is most probably valid, because it not only means what it should mean, but that most of its elements are taken from rites received by the Church (32).
But we also believe that there is no certainty of its validity (the italicized Spanish words are no hay certezade su validez), because it suffers from two major defects, which we could classify as one [canonical] and the other theological.
- Canonical defect. For this reason: above, the institution of this new rite cannot be considered legitimate.
- Theological defect. The novus ordo is not the same but only similar to other rites accepted by the Church. Although certainly these rites, on the one hand, are not very precise in their concepts; and on the other hand, the differences introduced by the novus ordo follow tendencies of bad doctrine. All this makes theological judgment, always difficult in these matters, even more difficult.
Now, in a matter of the utmost importance for the life of the Church, as is the validity of the episcopate, it becomes necessary to have absolute certainty. Therefore, to be able to accept this rite with peace of conscience, it would be necessary not to have only the sentence of theologians, but the sentence of the infallible Magisterium.
As for the practical attitude to sustain in the face of the new episcopal consecrations, it seems to us that the one that had supported the Fraternity until now is justified:
1. The very probable validity of the rite seems to us to make it morally acceptable to occasionally attend Mass (traditional rite) celebrated by an ordained priest or bishop the Church is not to be consecrated in the new rite, or even to receive communion in it; it seems to us acceptable, in case of necessity, to receive the acquittal from them; treat them as priests and bishops and not as lay people in disguise; we find it acceptable to allow them to celebrate in our own houses. For the shadows that float over the validity of his priesthood are but shadows, and in all those activities our responsibility for the priesthood exercised is not compromised. And the remote risk of a communion or an absolution being invalidated is not so serious.
2. But the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent one from being certain of its validity, it seems to us that - until there is a Roman sentence, for which they would have to change many things - justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional re-consecration of these bishops. Such uncertainties cannot be suffered at the very root of the sacraments (33).
- Father Alvaro Calderón
-
One of of the few errors of ABL was an incorrect understanding of what is required for "the intention to do what the Church does." He mistakenly believed the minister of the sacrament had to intend the sacramental effect, which is why he doubted the validity of the new rites. The Holy Office under Pius IX clarified on at least two occasions that even if the minister publicly denies the sacramental effect (for example, that baptism washes away original sin by infusing grace into the soul), it will not corrupt the intention to do what the Church does, and will not invalidate the sacrament. The requisite intention is nothing more than intending to perform the ceremony, or intending to perform the sacred act.
This part is quite correct. I have made this point many times, and yet the "intention" argument persisted for many years in the SSPX and is still very popular in R&R circles, including the Resistance.
-
1. The very probable validity of the rite seems to us to make it morally acceptable to occasionally attend Mass (traditional rite) celebrated by an ordained priest or bishop the Church is not to be consecrated in the new rite, or even to receive communion in it; it seems to us acceptable, in case of necessity, to receive the acquittal from them; treat them as priests and bishops and not as lay people in disguise; we find it acceptable to allow them to celebrate in our own houses. For the shadows that float over the validity of his priesthood are but shadows, and in all those activities our responsibility for the priesthood exercised is not compromised. And the remote risk of a communion or an absolution being invalidated is not so serious.
2. But the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent one from being certain of its validity, it seems to us that - until there is a Roman sentence, for which they would have to change many things - justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional re-consecration of these bishops. Such uncertainties cannot be suffered at the very root of the sacraments (33).
- Father Alvaro Calderón
And ... he admits here the positive doubt regarding the validity of the Rite itself. There is in fact clearly positive doubt.
Yet #1 does not seem entirely correct ... except for the part where it's permitted "in case of necessity." I agree that it's OK to give them respect, e.g. call them "Father", and even to attend a Mass, but the Catholic teaching has been the "tutiorist" approach, as cited by Last Trad above, which states that only in necessity can one receive the Sacraments from a priest of doubtful validity.
He seems to be waffling between trying to characterize the doubt as positive ("the positive and objective defects that the rite suffers, which prevent one from being certain of its validity") and negative "mere ... shadows that float over the validity". So he's kindof wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Either the doubt is positive doubt or it is not.
-
2. But the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers,
Hi Sean,
Do you have a link to the article in English? The excerpt you posted didn't provide any positive defects or probably doubts against validity. Fr. Calderon said there are positive and objective doubts, but if I need to know what they are to comment on them.
-
Xavier sem, the argument of the NREC (New Rite of Episcopal Consecration) being an older Eastern rite has been defeated on this site before. The fact of the matter is that the form of the Easter rites is over 200 words and the new form is in the 50s or 60s. Lad was the one who made the post that I read.
-
Bishop de Mallerais for sure and I believe Galaretta have both publically declared the New Rite to be doubtful. I have known over a dozen SSPX priests and all of called into doubt the validity. Some quite recently (last 6 months) in fact have stated this.
For Xavier to be making these statements as if it is some unified, blanket stance of SSPX priests (or bishops for that matter) is ludicrous. It is most certainly not.
-
For Xavier to be making these statements as if it is some unified, blanket stance of SSPX priests (or bishops for that matter) is ludicrous. It is most certainly not.
Xavier presents his own position as that of the SSPX, due to wishful thinking.
-
Therefore, to say that the new rite is invalid, is to say that Jesus Christ was not a High Priest
.
What a bizarre thing to say. Are these your words or is this a quote from the articles you're linking to?