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

Author Topic: Question about New Rite of NO  (Read 16991 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
Re: Question about New Rite of NO
« Reply #105 on: May 07, 2019, 11:57:52 PM »
Are priests ever said to belong to the "high priesthood", or only bishops?


Re: Question about New Rite of NO
« Reply #106 on: May 08, 2019, 12:19:08 AM »
Such would seem impossible. Summus Sacerdos is a well known term in Apostolic Tradition practically identical to the Episcopacy. Every High Priest was a Priest, but every Priest was not a High Priest. Thus, the CE says "The Christian Priesthood: In the New Testament bishops and priests are, according to Catholic teaching, the sole bearers of the priesthood, the former enjoying the fullness of the priesthood (summus sacerdos s. primi ordinis), while the presbyters are simple priests (simplex sacerdos s. secundi ordinis). The deacon, on the other hand, is a mere attendant of the priest, with no priestly powers." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm

By analogy with the three grades of orders prefigured in ancient Israel that receive their complete fulfilment in the Catholic Church, Deacons are levites, Priests are simple Priests, and Bishops are High Priests. At least that is the way the Fathers explain it. And the "Supreme Priesthood" in the traditional rite is also a clear reference to the Episcopacy. I'll have to look it up in Latin later on. God bless.



Re: Question about New Rite of NO
« Reply #107 on: May 09, 2019, 05:41:48 AM »
The principle followed with respect to Priests from new Church that come to Tradition is this: (1) If the candidate himself has doubts about ordination that he would like to be resolved, and a (2) Traditional Catholic SSPX Bishop, after examining all the details of the case, decides and judges that conditional ordination is needed, then that is done.

Sometimes (1) As with Fr. Gregory Hesse, the Priest himself has no doubt. (2) A Traditional Catholic Bishop or Bishops examine the case and judge that conditional ordination, in this case, is not needed. And then the Priest simply begins offering the True Mass.

Laymen are not in the final analysis either capable or competent of passing judgment on such matters in such a way as to bind others to their personal opinion. If a layman has doubts, he has every right to seek out Traditional Catholic Bishops and Priests Consecrated or Ordained in the traditional rite. But not to presume to say that every Bishop in the new Church is invalid. That is practically heretical. As Fr. Marie has proven, it contradicts the Indefectibility and Apostolicity of the Roman Church for Her to be without valid Bishops. No wonder some who believe that false opinion, contradicting Bishops and Priests, are tempted to lapse into "Orthodox" schism.

When valid form and matter are used, presumption is for validity, not against it, unless some contrary intention is explicitly manifested in some special case. This is what will have to be judged later on. Telling Father RomanTheo he is not a valid Priest without knowing anything about the specific details of his case is a different kind of  presumption. It's almost like telling a married man he is not married.

Traditional Catholic Bishops will investigate carefully before deciding. Then, laity should abide by that judgment made by the Bishops.

When a person comes to Tradition, he will receive all the graces he had thus far been losing out on. The vast majority of Traditional Catholic Bishops and Priests have endorsed that study by Father Pierre Marie and apply its conclusion in practice. We should recognize their authority and do the same.

Edit: And yes, the term for High Priesthood that is used is summum sacerdotium in Latin. That can be verified in the SSPX study itself.

Re: Question about New Rite of NO
« Reply #108 on: May 10, 2019, 11:25:14 AM »
I concede the essential form by itself omits stating the office, but two sentences later, it is stated, unequivocally.
So now you know better than both Pope Pius XII and Paul VI what makes the sacrament valid?  Paul VI said the essential form is what gives it validity.
XavierSem, "the Spirit given by him to his holy apostles" is a reference to Spiritus principalis.  So how could Spiritus principalis not be an unequivocal term for the power of the episcopate but at the same time be an unequivocal term for BOTH the Holy Ghost AND the power of the episcopate?  You are quite the practitioner of mental gymnastics!

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Question about New Rite of NO
« Reply #109 on: May 10, 2019, 12:35:26 PM »
Quote
When valid form and matter are used, presumption is for validity, not against it,
Isn't this whole thread a debate on IF the form is valid?  That's why the sacrament cannot be presumed valid.