Author Topic: Is Francis the Pope? (Read 8819 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #50 on:** January 01, 2020, 05:53:18 PM »

Quote from: Don Paolo on January 01, 2020, 04:34:59 PM

I don't want to mention the researcher's name without his permission. He found the books containing the docuмentary evidence in the Anselmianum library.

That's understandable. But if someone could post copies from the books, that would be great. I did the same type of research at one point. When Bishop Kelly was going around saying that some of the ordinations done by +Lefebvre were invalid because he only laid one hand on the ordinand instead of the two indicated in the rubrics, I went to The Catholic University of America library and found medieval texts in which the rubric for priestly ordination specified only one hand, dextram. It appeared that the modern reference to the plural was a reference to both the co-ordaining bishops as well as all the priests who also laid their hands on the ordinands.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #51 on:** January 01, 2020, 06:50:50 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 01, 2020, 05:53:18 PM

That's understandable. But if someone could post copies from the books, that would be great. I did the same type of research at one point. When Bishop Kelly was going around saying that some of the ordinations done by +Lefebvre were invalid because he only laid one hand on the ordinand instead of the two indicated in the rubrics, I went to The Catholic University of America library and found medieval texts in which the rubric for priestly ordination specified only one hand, dextram. It appeared that the modern reference to the plural was a reference to both the co-ordaining bishops as well as all the priests who also laid their hands on the ordinands.

Lad, you should publish those findings. Did you present them to Bishop Kelly?
I found that a sufficient argument against the “one hand Dan” nonsense was Pope Pius XII’s sacramentum ordinis where he declares: “In order that there may be no occasion for doubt, We command that in conferring each Order the imposition of hands be done by physically touching the head of the person to be ordained, although a moral contact also is sufficient for the valid conferring of the Sacrament.”

Father Cekada also did an admirable job destroying their ridiculous argument.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #52 on:** January 01, 2020, 07:26:41 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on January 01, 2020, 06:50:50 PM

Lad, you should publish those findings. Did you present them to Bishop Kelly?
I found that a sufficient argument against the “one hand Dan” nonsense was Pope Pius XII’s sacramentum ordinis where he declares: “In order that there may be no occasion for doubt, We command that in conferring each Order the imposition of hands be done by physically touching the head of the person to be ordained, although a moral contact also is sufficient for the valid conferring of the Sacrament.”

Father Cekada also did an admirable job destroying their ridiculous argument.

I sent my docuмents to Father Cekada regarding the silly one-hand issue ... since he was at the time actively working on his own rebuttal. Not sure what, if anything, he ever did with them.

Mr G · « **Reply #53 on:** January 02, 2020, 10:29:53 AM »

Quote from: Don Paolo on December 29, 2019, 10:27:15 AM

In the last analysis, what matters is not what Michael Davies was thinking, but only the sacramental doctrine of the Church. The new rite of ordination uses an unquestionably valid centuries old sacramental form that was eventually discarded in favour of the one form which became standard throughout the Latin Patriarchate. It is not defective. Therefore, the new rite does not suffer a "defect of form" as did Parker's Anglican rite, which destroyed the validity of Anglican orders, as Leo XII taught in Apostolicæ Curæ.

Yes, looking back, it appears the SSPX would have agreed; as they never had any issue with the matter and form of the new rite of ordination, but they did with the intention (which they qualify):

http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1998/December/Priestly-Ordinations-New-Vs-Old-Rite.htm
On June 18, 1968, Pope Paul VI promulgated a new rite for the priestly ordination.

The matter and the form of the sacrament [1] remained almost the same as in the rite promulgated by Pope Pius XII in November 1948. There are only two small changes in the form, which do not however affect the meaning of the sacrament; in fact, they specify it better.
The novelty and danger of the new rite consists especially in the abolition of the two ceremonies by which the bishop clearly explains the powers of the Catholic priest:

      The abolition of this precision in the new rite of the priestly ordination (even if the rite remains valid in itself by the unchanged matter and form) makes the doctrine expressed by the new rite dangerously close to the Protestant doctrine. This is not surprising since the end of all the liturgical reforms after the Vatican II Council was ecuмenism.

            Something else, which is also not surprising, alas, is that now, many new priests do not know anymore what the priesthood is. Consequently, this leads to all priestly problems, such as married priests (at least 70,000 priests have abandoned their priesthood since the last Council).

           And do the bishops themselves know well what a priest is? We hope so, because with this new rite, some bishops could have an intention opposite to the intention of the Church when they ordain priests, and in that case the ordination would be invalid, or at least doubtful.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #54 on:** January 02, 2020, 10:46:22 AM »

Quote from: Mr G on January 02, 2020, 10:29:53 AM

Yes, looking back, it appears the SSPX would have agreed; as they never had any issue with the matter and form of the new rite of ordination, but they did with the intention (which they qualify):

http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1998/December/Priestly-Ordinations-New-Vs-Old-Rite.htm
On June 18, 1968, Pope Paul VI promulgated a new rite for the priestly ordination.

The matter and the form of the sacrament [1] remained almost the same as in the rite promulgated by Pope Pius XII in November 1948. There are only two small changes in the form, which do not however affect the meaning of the sacrament; in fact, they specify it better.
The novelty and danger of the new rite consists especially in the abolition of the two ceremonies by which the bishop clearly explains the powers of the Catholic priest:

The abolition of this precision in the new rite of the priestly ordination (even if the rite remains valid in itself by the unchanged matter and form) makes the doctrine expressed by the new rite dangerously close to the Protestant doctrine. This is not surprising since the end of all the liturgical reforms after the Vatican II Council was ecuмenism.

Something else, which is also not surprising, alas, is that now, many new priests do not know anymore what the priesthood is. Consequently, this leads to all priestly problems, such as married priests (at least 70,000 priests have abandoned their priesthood since the last Council).

And do the bishops themselves know well what a priest is? We hope so, because with this new rite, some bishops could have an intention opposite to the intention of the Church when they ordain priests, and in that case the ordination would be invalid, or at least doubtful.

Would be interesting to know what changes Pius XII made in 1948 (and why).

That was the same year Bugnini took charge of tinkering with the Mass.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is Francis the Pope? (Read 8819 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Is Francis the Pope?

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Is Francis the Pope?

Ladislaus

Re: Is Francis the Pope?

Mr G

Re: Is Francis the Pope?

SeanJohnson

Re: Is Francis the Pope?