Author Topic: Question For The Doubtful Sacrament No Sacrament RR Folks (Read 2026 times)

OHCA · « **on:** October 31, 2015, 12:42:11 PM »

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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #1 on:** November 01, 2015, 07:54:18 AM »

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.

clare · « **Reply #2 on:** November 01, 2015, 09:14:57 AM »

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.

Arvinger · « **Reply #3 on:** November 02, 2015, 09:11:40 AM »

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).

2Vermont · « **Reply #4 on:** November 02, 2015, 05:00:14 PM »

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: