Author Topic: Question For The Doubtful Sacrament No Sacrament RR Folks  (Read 981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline OHCA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Reputation: +1839/-107
  • Gender: Male
Question For The Doubtful Sacrament No Sacrament RR Folks
« on: October 31, 2015, 12:42:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bergoglio was ordained post-1968 and wasn't concecrated until 1992.  I have inferred that many of you, as am I, troubled by even so much as a converted "priest?" who has not been conditionally ordained, saying even a single Mass as a visiting priest at an SSPX chapel.  How do you square that with accepting Bergoglio hook, line, & sinker?  A layman is a layman folks--whether it's some sinister old creep like Ambrose likely out scheming solely for personal grandeur & gain, or whether it's somebody at the other end of piety duped into submitting himself to an invalid rite--the person's status remains layman either way.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4726
    • Reputation: +2184/-1070
    • Gender: Female
    Question For The Doubtful Sacrament No Sacrament RR Folks
    « Reply #1 on: November 01, 2015, 07:54:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: OHCA
    Bergoglio was ordained post-1968 and wasn't concecrated until 1992.  I have inferred that many of you, as am I, troubled by even so much as a converted "priest?" who has not been conditionally ordained, saying even a single Mass as a visiting priest at an SSPX chapel.  How do you square that with accepting Bergoglio hook, line, & sinker?  A layman is a layman folks--whether it's some sinister old creep like Ambrose likely out scheming solely for personal grandeur & gain, or whether it's somebody at the other end of piety duped into submitting himself to an invalid rite--the person's status remains layman either way.


    I thought that the R&R/SSPX generally believed that the post VII sacraments are not invalid.
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17


    Offline clare

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2269
    • Reputation: +887/-34
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Question For The Doubtful Sacrament No Sacrament RR Folks
    « Reply #2 on: November 01, 2015, 09:14:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: 2Vermont
    I thought that the R&R/SSPX generally believed that the post VII sacraments are not invalid.

    I can only speak for myself, but I think the post-VII sacraments might be valid, probably are even, which I realise isn't good enough. But it's possible. I also think that, even if the rites are valid in themselves, they lend themselves to being invalid sometimes/often, in practice.

    Since apparently sedevacantist bishops also do conditional ordinations of NO priests, then it seems they don't rule out the faint possibility of them being valid sometimes either.

    Offline Arvinger

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 585
    • Reputation: +296/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Question For The Doubtful Sacrament No Sacrament RR Folks
    « Reply #3 on: November 02, 2015, 09:11:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: 2Vermont
    Quote from: OHCA
    Bergoglio was ordained post-1968 and wasn't concecrated until 1992.  I have inferred that many of you, as am I, troubled by even so much as a converted "priest?" who has not been conditionally ordained, saying even a single Mass as a visiting priest at an SSPX chapel.  How do you square that with accepting Bergoglio hook, line, & sinker?  A layman is a layman folks--whether it's some sinister old creep like Ambrose likely out scheming solely for personal grandeur & gain, or whether it's somebody at the other end of piety duped into submitting himself to an invalid rite--the person's status remains layman either way.


    I thought that the R&R/SSPX generally believed that the post VII sacraments are not invalid.


    Yes, they do believe they are valid - when Fr Cekada wrote his first article arguing for invalidity of the new rite of Episcopal Consecration two SSPX priests wrote responses arguing for the validity of the new rite (one of them was Fr Calderon I think).

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4726
    • Reputation: +2184/-1070
    • Gender: Female
    Question For The Doubtful Sacrament No Sacrament RR Folks
    « Reply #4 on: November 02, 2015, 05:00:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Arvinger
    Quote from: 2Vermont
    Quote from: OHCA
    Bergoglio was ordained post-1968 and wasn't concecrated until 1992.  I have inferred that many of you, as am I, troubled by even so much as a converted "priest?" who has not been conditionally ordained, saying even a single Mass as a visiting priest at an SSPX chapel.  How do you square that with accepting Bergoglio hook, line, & sinker?  A layman is a layman folks--whether it's some sinister old creep like Ambrose likely out scheming solely for personal grandeur & gain, or whether it's somebody at the other end of piety duped into submitting himself to an invalid rite--the person's status remains layman either way.


    I thought that the R&R/SSPX generally believed that the post VII sacraments are not invalid.


    Yes, they do believe they are valid - when Fr Cekada wrote his first article arguing for invalidity of the new rite of Episcopal Consecration two SSPX priests wrote responses arguing for the validity of the new rite (one of them was Fr Calderon I think).


    Yes...which just so happened to coincide with the first "pope" consecrated a bishop in the New Rite (Benedict XVI).   :scratchchin:  
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17


    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1542
    • Reputation: +659/-105
    • Gender: Male
    Question For The Doubtful Sacrament No Sacrament RR Folks
    « Reply #5 on: November 02, 2015, 11:23:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: 2Vermont
    Quote from: Arvinger
    Quote from: 2Vermont
    Quote from: OHCA
    Bergoglio was ordained post-1968 and wasn't concecrated until 1992.  I have inferred that many of you, as am I, troubled by even so much as a converted "priest?" who has not been conditionally ordained, saying even a single Mass as a visiting priest at an SSPX chapel.  How do you square that with accepting Bergoglio hook, line, & sinker?  A layman is a layman folks--whether it's some sinister old creep like Ambrose likely out scheming solely for personal grandeur & gain, or whether it's somebody at the other end of piety duped into submitting himself to an invalid rite--the person's status remains layman either way.


    I thought that the R&R/SSPX generally believed that the post VII sacraments are not invalid.


    Yes, they do believe they are valid - when Fr Cekada wrote his first article arguing for invalidity of the new rite of Episcopal Consecration two SSPX priests wrote responses arguing for the validity of the new rite (one of them was Fr Calderon I think).


    Yes...which just so happened to coincide with the first "pope" consecrated a bishop in the New Rite (Benedict XVI).   :scratchchin:  




    Fr hesse can shed some light.

    The point is this:

    1. The New Sacrament of ordination, given the way they are changed is an act of schism by the Pope.

    2. Therefore they ought to be judged in the same way the Church judges schismatic sacraments.

    3. Given that the form of the New sacraments is more explicit than the Old form (ironically), they are therefore most certainly valid.

    Compare the forms:

    Latin Roman Rite:

    ["Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing."]

    Novus Ordo Schismatic Rite:

     "And now pour forth on this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit, whom you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ, whom be gave to the holy Apostles, who founded the Church in every place as your sanctuary, unto the glory and unending praise of your name."

    notice the governing spirit makes explicit reference to the power of jurisdiction.

    So, treated as a separate rite of schismatics, it is most certainly valid, especially since what everyone is saying up to that point is: "We are going to make a bishop."
    'Take care not to resemble the multitude whose knowledge of God's will only condemns them to more severe punishment.'

    -St. John of Avila

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4726
    • Reputation: +2184/-1070
    • Gender: Female
    Question For The Doubtful Sacrament No Sacrament RR Folks
    « Reply #6 on: November 03, 2015, 04:21:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It seems Fr Hesse is the go-to person for some folk but for me he made no sense.  He left me with more questions than answers.  

    After the research I have done in the past, I have come to the conclusion that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is doubtful at best and therefore those consecrated with the New Rite are to be avoided.  

    Regardless, I don't think this thread was meant to get into the nitty gritty of whether the New Rite is valid.  
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

    Offline Arvinger

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 585
    • Reputation: +296/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Question For The Doubtful Sacrament No Sacrament RR Folks
    « Reply #7 on: November 03, 2015, 11:33:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Gregory I

    Novus Ordo Schismatic Rite:

     "And now pour forth on this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit, whom you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ, whom be gave to the holy Apostles, who founded the Church in every place as your sanctuary, unto the glory and unending praise of your name."

    notice the governing spirit makes explicit reference to the power of jurisdiction.


    That is actually what Fr Cekada questioned, according to him the expression ''governing Spirit'' does not uequivocally signify the priesthood and power of Episcopacy.

    Quote from: Fr Cekada
    Question: Does the new sacramental form univocally signify the sacramental effects — the power of Order (the episcopacy) and the grace of the Holy Ghost?

    These are the criteria Pius XII laid down for the sacramental form. Here again is the new form of Paul VI to which we will apply them:
    “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit
    given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

    The form does seem to signify the grace of the Holy Ghost. But “governing Spirit”? Lutheran, Methodist and Mormon bishops also govern. Can such a term univocally signify the power of Order conferred — the fullness
    of the priesthood? The expression governing Spirit — Spiritus principalis
    in Latin — is at the heart of the dispute over the validity of the new rite, for if it does not signify the fullness of the priesthood that constitutes the episcopacy, the sacrament is invalid.


    While I do not claim that the new rite is invalid, there is certainly enough ground for a positive doubt about it.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16