Quote from: Judith 15 Ten
Has the New Rite of ordination and/or episcopal consecration of the Novus Ordo changed within the past 12 years?
Back in 2007, before SSPX's courtship with Rome, they taught there is no positive doubt for Novus Ordo ordinations & consecrations. http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained
I trust the SSPX's stance during this period (and before) because they were experts in Divine Liturgy, rituals, and rites. Nobody knew more about it than them.
Even Father Wathen's book, The Great Sacrilege, posits that the Novus Ordo missae and service was still valid, which made it that much more of an offense to the Lord God, because He's physically present during the sacrilege taking place.
The Book of Daniel prophesied the Continual Sacrifice (the Divine Sacrifice of the Mass) being taken away.
Many trad Catholics know that the current Novus Ordo service, and since 1969, is either 1) a prelude to the abomination of desolation where it eventually becomes invalid - the Divine Sacrifice ceases, or 2) the Novus Ordo has been invalid and it's the abomination of desolation since the first day it was instituted in 1969.
I currently subscribe to camp 1, not 2, but I'm suspecting we might be in 2 or very close to it, which is why I presented my above thesis, "has the new rite [...] changed in the past 12 years?" There are several reasons why I've belonged to camp 1. Firstly, I subscribe to the branch of privationism (sedeprivationism) where the only way Novus Ordo "bishops" and the so-called "pope" materially hold their offices is if the rite of ordinations and consecrations that made them priests and "bishops", respectively, are still valid. Without validity of these Rites, they cannot even materially hold their offices, much less their purported holy orders. In order to possess, at the very least, material offices, they must first possess holy orders. My understanding is that most privationism rejects the validity of the Novus Ordo Rites, therefore, according to them, the Novus Ordo priests are not valid priests but, somehow, if these "poser priests", the "bishops" (who are supposed to be priests), and the so-called "pope" (who is supposed to be a priest) converted to the Faith, then they would all formally hold their offices and holy orders. That doesn't make sense, if they were never valid priests in the first place.
Secondly, the timeline that is stated in the Bible about the abomination of desolation doesn't match the 50 years of the Novus Ordo. The NO far exceeds that timeline, so I logically conclude that for a great duration of the NO, it has been valid, albeit still illicit and a sacrilege, hence, a PRELUDE to the coming abomination of desolation / Divine Sacrifice being taken away.
Now, there has been such a radical acceleration of apostasy spoken by Francis the Destroyer in his casual speech (which is still intended to teach people) and Church functions with Faithless religions, albeit, he hasn't attempted to do it from the Seat of Peter, ex cathedra.
I'm just wondering if this Antichrist spirit exhibited by Francis the Destroyer has been coincided with a change in the Novus Ordo Rite within within the past 12 years? If the answer is "yes", then I strongly consider that the NO rites are now invalid and their "Mass" is now ceased, hence, the public emergence of Antichrist is very close, and Apocalyptic events will be more frequent and intense.
Just a couple points of clarification here:
1) 2007 was not before the “SSPX’s courtship with Rome” (as you put it). That “courtship” goes back to almost immediately after the Archbishop’s death (with Bishop Tissier noting in his famous Biography that the French District Superior was making overtures and entertaining discussions about regularization way back in 1992), and of course things really picked up in this regard with the “discrete but not secret” GREC meetings in the mid-1990’s.
I only mention this because, if your criterion or standard is to trust the SSPX positions prior to suspected politicization of those positions based on the Society’s pursuit of a canonical Agreement, then you will have to go back quite a bit further than 2007.
2) I presume your reference to 2007 is based on the Angelus article of the Avrille Dominicans, which concluded in the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration.
What is less commonly known about the background to that article are the following:
A) the contrary conclusion of the Rore Sanctifica;
B) The festering dispute between Avrille and Menzingen going back to 2001;
C) The relevance of the recent election of BXVI:
Avrille has been having troubles with Menzingen ever since the Campos affair.
Bishop Fellay was keen to get a deal already at that time, but was obstructed by objections from Bishop Williamson and Avrille (with the latter declaring they would oppose any such deal).
This led to some internal strife with a number of friars who eventually in scandalous fashion abandoned the convent at Avrille and appealed to Menzingen for assistance, creating a quiet struggle and contest for control over these friars (Google “Steffeshausen Foundation” for this history).
So there were, by 2007 (ie., the time of the appearance of the Angelus article), already two distinct sources of friction between Avrille and Menzingen: the deal with Rome, and Menzingen giving aid to friars who canonically should not have even been allowed to wear the habit after 90 days away from the convent (incidentally, so strict are the Dominicans in this regard even until the present day, that Fr. Reginald, O.P., on loan from Avrille to Bishop Zendejas in the USA, wears a simple black cassock rather than the Dominican habit).
Amidst this hidden strife, a group of French laymen formed a think tank to study the issue of the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration (an issue which was now pressing since the election of BXVI in 2005: The first Pope to be consecrated in the new Rite.).
The name of this group, which numbered many influential intelligentia among its members, called itself the Rore Sanctifica, and their study, which made waves in Europe at the time, concluded in the invalidity of the new Rite.
This was very problematic to the SSPX’s long reconciliation process: It could not afford to allow the Pope to think it questioned the legitimacy of his episcopacy (else how could he be Bishop of Rome?).
At this time, Fr. Pierre-Marie of Avrille had penned a confusing article in response to the Rore Sanctifica arguing for the validity of the new Rite, and it was this article which was translated for the Angelus in 2007.
Had Avrille caved in to pressure from the Society and written a partisan article to maintain good relations (something they held onto until 2014)?
What is sure is that the article is far from persuasive, and more or less paints an analogy between the form of the new Rite and that of the Rastern rites, as the basis of its argument (an argument several other well-known articles have refuted).
3) Meanwhile, at least as late as 1998, Bishop Tissier flatly declared the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration to be invalid, when he wrote:
“Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s ‘Le Drame Anglican.’ After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of Episcopal Consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.”
He then gives his reasons, which you can read from His Excellency’s original handwritten letter here:http://www.fathercekada.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Tissier-New-Rite.jpg