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

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: SSPX on why they don’t conditionally ordain  (Read 706 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online HeidtXtreme

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Reputation: +29/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • The raddest trad lad earth ever had
SSPX on why they don’t conditionally ordain
« on: Yesterday at 03:41:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • I haven’t watched it yet but they are doubling down on not conditionally ordaining Novus Ordo priests.
    Logged

    Offline Godefroy

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 629
    • Reputation: +664/-66
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on why they don’t conditionally ordain
    « Reply #1 on: Yesterday at 05:10:48 PM »
  • Thanks!6
  • No Thanks!0
    • This is my comment:

    The original episcopal and sacercotal ordinations were perfect. The only reason anyone changes something that's perfect, is to render it imperfect. No need to be a great theologian to work this one out.

    We all know the cabal behind the new rites and therefore avoid masses said by any SSPX priest not conditionally reordained.

    If the SSPX priests are not conditioanally reordained, why should we go to their masses and not an indult mass ?
    Logged

    Offline Crayolcold

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 101
    • Reputation: +89/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on why they don’t conditionally ordain
    « Reply #2 on: Yesterday at 06:31:54 PM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
    • Father Robinson is either ignorant or simply lying about Bishop Tissier's position. It takes two seconds for anyone to look up his sermon. Robinson claim that Tissier was not saying the new rite is invalid. Rather Robinson claims that Tissier is saying simply that the SSPX does not use the new rite because it is less reverent or something like that? That is just a lie. You decide what Bishop Tissier's thoughts towards the new rite of ordination were. This is taken from the SSPX Great Britain web page:

    "Now my dear faithful that prayer, this rite of transmitting the power to forgive sin, was simply deleted from the new rite of ordination. There is no trace of it. So this new rite of ordination is not Catholic. And so we will of course continue faithfully transmitting the real and valid priesthood – made valid by the traditional rite of ordination."

    Father Paul Robinson also makes the most retarded argument I think I have ever heard:

    "Yeah Archbishop Lefebvre said the new rite was doubtful... well if he said they were doubtful that means he thinks some of them are valid"

    what? Is this guy really the guy running the priestly training program for the SSPX?

    The only way you can make the SSPX position work is by strawmanning, sidestepping, or just outright lying about the Truth. That is shameful and the SSPX will have to answer to God for it. Stop playing games with the sacraments which people rely on to receive sanctifying grace. How many more souls will the SSPX risk just to hold fast to their "principles"?

    "This is just the truth..." What is also the truth is that Church cannot promulgate rites that are deficient or harmful. Yet, the SSPX claims that the new Mass is objectively harmful to your faith and that you cannot attend under pain of mortal sin. How can the Church alter the Mass (the center of all Catholic life) so much, and in such a bad way, to the point that the SSPX tells you that you are forbidden to attend? The Church cannot do that. "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema." You are not interested in the truth. The host here, Andrew, has quite a large stake in whether or not Novus Ordo priests are valid, seeing as he sends his children to a school where they are receiving "sacraments" from a novus ordo "priest".

    So yeah, give me a break that you are telling us "just the truth" as if you are not biased.
    Logged
    Pray for me

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1556
    • Reputation: +1273/-100
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on why they don’t conditionally ordain
    « Reply #3 on: Yesterday at 07:29:48 PM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
    • Just the opening remarks are sufficient to understand the evil of this presentation. 
    I'm only in the introduction, 50 second mark, and the opening remarks telling us what we are in for: 
    "the real dangers of overreacting to uncertainty"
    What can that possibly mean in the context of this topic?
    You have an uncertain priest, that is, a doubtful priest, and you overreact by conditionally reordaining him so that his orders are not doubtful, and there are real dangers associated with that... are these people Catholic anymore? Are they enemies in the SSPX? Or are they just idiots?
    Logged

    Offline Giovanni Berto

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1365
    • Reputation: +1108/-83
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on why they don’t conditionally ordain
    « Reply #4 on: Yesterday at 08:26:49 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Crayolcold on Yesterday at 06:31:54 PM
    "Yeah Archbishop Lefebvre said the new rite was doubtful... well if he said they were doubtful that means he thinks some of them are valid"
    Does he actually say it in the video? I wonder what kind of theology they are teaching at the seminar.

    Such a ridiculous affirmation. These men don't respect the priesthood that they have received. You don't become a priest to act like an idiot like this.
    Logged

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1168
    • Reputation: +492/-95
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on why they don’t conditionally ordain
    « Reply #5 on: Yesterday at 09:22:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: HeidtXtreme on Yesterday at 03:41:18 PM
    I haven’t watched it yet but they are doubling down on not conditionally ordaining Novus Ordo priests.


    Timestamp 17:40: "the man in the pew" should be comfortable saying that "the responsibility for these decisions" rest on those "who have been willing to step forward."

    This is incorrect. The Council of Trent Session 7 provides the following Canon:

    ------
    CANON XIII.-If anyone saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
    ------

    The "received" rites refer to those that have been passed down from time immemorial. Note Trent did not say "received" OR "approved" rites. The rites must be BOTH "received" AND "approved." The only rites that are BOTH "received" AND "approved" are the traditional rites. And those rites cannot "be changed." And those who say those "received" rites can "be changed" are anathematized. The Council of Trent has already made this "decision" almost 500 years ago. 

    But Fr. Paul Robinson wants you to believe that Bp. Fellay can say that the received rites of the Catholic Church, used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be changed into other new ones. Bp. Fellay and Fr. Robinson say this exact thing that the Council of Trent says brings anathema upon the person who says those things. And Fr. Paul Robinson says that "those willing to step forward" have "the responsibility for these decisions." In other words, the current priest and bishops can make the "decisions" to ignore a Canon of the Council of Trent.

    Go ahead. Take a side. Council of Trent or the SSPX. Their positions are irreconcilable.


    Logged

    Offline OABrownson1876

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 707
    • Reputation: +579/-27
    • Gender: Male
      • The Orestes Brownson Society
    Re: SSPX on why they don’t conditionally ordain
    « Reply #6 on: Yesterday at 09:28:32 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • What pathetic rubbish this nonsense is.  Bishop Williamson was in favor of conditional ordination, even if to do so would be only to placate the conscience of the faithful.  There is a serious question as to the validity of both the new rites of ordination and episcopal consecration.  And Fr. Robinson had to sneak in the New Mass, saying "we believe it is valid."  I guess he speaks for all the priests in the Society nowadays.  The New Mass is questionably valid, but this has nothing to do with its morality.  It is sacrilegious, not just "bad" as Fr. Robinson suggests.  These "traditional" priests will have a terrible judgment for allowing these "questionable" priests to operate within the Society. 
    Logged
    Bryan Shepherd, M.A. Phil.
    PO Box 17248
    2312 S. Preston
    Louisville, Ky. 40217; email:letsgobryan@protonmail.com. substack: bryanshepherd.substack.com
    website: www.orestesbrownson.org. Rumble: rumble.com/user/Orestes76

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14752
    • Reputation: +6087/-907
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX on why they don’t conditionally ordain
    « Reply #7 on: Today at 05:24:39 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Godefroy on Yesterday at 05:10:48 PM
    This is my comment:

    The original episcopal and sacercotal ordinations were perfect. The only reason anyone changes something that's perfect, is to render it imperfect. No need to be a great theologian to work this one out.
    As Fr. Wathen states: "...the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful..."

    Apparently what the SSPX is ignoring is...

    "...We should rather say, we have every reason to look for an effort at neuterizing this sacramental rite, because those in charge of the new rites have shown themselves untrustworthy,  or, more accurately, determinedly subversive. The new form could not be an improvement on the old. How can one method or set of words ordain someone better than another? The alteration of the form can only have had the intention of either negating this purpose, or, at the very least, of creating a doubt as to its efficacy. (As if it needs to be said: They could not have added something to the form by taking words away. And what could they have wanted to add to the power of Orders? Why did they touch the form at all?)"
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »