Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: ElwinRansom1970 on May 13, 2025, 08:34:08 PM
-
Suppose that the SSPX seeks a mandate from Rome for the consecration of a new bishop or several bishops. Now further suppose that the Dicastery for Bishops fully agrees to the SSPX request, including approval of all three names submitted in a terna (not merely one name) as candidates for the episcopate. In other words, Rome says absolutely "yes" to the request of the SSPX.
However, suppose that this request is accompanied with a note from the Dicastery stating that the episcopal consecration will take place at St. Peter's or another of the major basilicas in Rome and that the consecrators will be Leo XIV as primary consecrator and Msgr. Ilson de Jesus Montanari (Secretary for the Dicastery of Bishops, the prefect position being currently vacant) and Msgr. Joseph Maria Bonnemain (Bishop of Chur, Switzerland, the diocese in which Menzingen is located) as co-consecrators.
Does the SSPX accept this?
Would the SSPX faithful accept this?
Would YOU accept this?
-
The SSPX would accept it. Most of their parishioners would also accept it.
The question is, would Felay do his own consecration on the candidates later in order to quell any resistance from those who wouldn't accept the official consecration.
-
The question is, would Felay do his own consecration on the candidates later in order to quell any resistance from those who wouldn't accept the official consecration.
Fellay doesn’t have the balls to do this.
-
The question is, would Felay do his own consecration on the candidates later in order to quell any resistance from those who wouldn't accept the official consecration.
Not unless he wants to get "excommunicated" by the Novus Ordo hierarchy, which he has so-far done everything in his power to prevent.
-
Suppose that the SSPX seeks a mandate from Rome for the consecration of a new bishop or several bishops. Now further suppose that the Dicastery for Bishops fully agrees to the SSPX request, including approval of all three names submitted in a terna (not merely one name) as candidates for the episcopate. In other words, Rome says absolutely "yes" to the request of the SSPX.
However, suppose that this request is accompanied with a note from the Dicastery stating that the episcopal consecration will take place at St. Peter's or another of the major basilicas in Rome and that the consecrators will be Leo XIV as primary consecrator and Msgr. Ilson de Jesus Montanari (Secretary for the Dicastery of Bishops, the prefect position being currently vacant) and Msgr. Joseph Maria Bonnemain (Bishop of Chur, Switzerland, the diocese in which Menzingen is located) as co-consecrators.
Does the SSPX accept this?
Would the SSPX faithful accept this?
Would YOU accept this?
I’m an outsider looking in at this point, but I think this would essentially turn the SSPX into another FSSP.
-
I’m an outsider looking in at this point, but I think this would essentially turn the SSPX into another FSSP.
Yes, but they're already halfway there as it is.
As I mentioned in the context of the controversy over "Pope" Leo, the SSPX paradigm regarding the crisis has already aligned with that of FSSP.
There are two basic paradigms:
1) V2 represents a substantial rupture, and there's no "fixing" this crisis in the Church until it's rolled back, declared null, and sent packing along with the New Mass and all the post-V2 "papal" Magisterium.
2) Since V2, due to various bad actors mostly at lower levels, the Church has gotten too liberal and there are many Modernists in the hierarchy now, and while "95% Catholic" (per +Fellay ... the same line that Schneider takes), a few course corrections by the right conservative "pope" would change the trajectory of the Church back on the right course.
It's precisely because of this shift from #1 to #2 in SSPX that the Resistance parted ways and labeled SSPX the "neo-SSPX".
In the one paradigm there's no difference in kind between Catholic Church and Conciliar Church, but a difference in degrees, as in degrees of liberalism vs. degrees of conservatism.
-
If the scenario happened I cannot see the SSPX current leadership daring to cast doubt, in public, about the validity of the NREC.
-
They've been gradually acclamating the lay faithful to accepting NO "Holy Orders", by not conditionally reordaining priests coming over from the Conciliar Church before sending them out there.
Then they took some additional steps to boil that old frog by having Huonder "consecrate" those "holy oils". I'm convinced that the next step would have been to get Huonder to "ordain" some priests and possibly even "consecrate" some bishops for SSPX ... but God had other plans.
To me, the fact that Huonder suddenly took gravely ill just before Holy Week where he could simulate consecrating oils again might be reasonably taken as God's endorsement of the doubts people have about his orders and the oils ... as perhaps God did not want to subject the faithful to his oils.
-
Doubts regarding the validity of the 1968 Ordination Rite (both that of priests and of bishops) was every bit equal to doubts regarding the 1969 Roman Missale when one looks back at what was expressed in the books, journals, and ephemera of traditionalists from the 1970s and 80s.
I am amused yet dismayed by trads who try to make the 1979-85 Archbishop Lefebvre normative whilst ignoring the 1974-78 & 1986-91 Lefebvre. This latter Lefebvre spoke and wrote some very spicy things that Trad, Inc. and the Neo-SSPX explicitly reject.
-
I don't mean to create any controversy by this question but as a fairly new traditional Catholic I
don't understand the main reasons why doubt is cast upon the validity of NO ordinations, specifically
with FSSP priests.
I get the reasons that Paul VI didn't have the right to change the mass but rites of ordination have doubtlessly
been changed countless times in the Church's history.
For example, when a Medici or Borgia pope or cardinal wanted to make a relative a bishop they probably got a slap on the back and said, "hey bro, you're a bishop now go see Luigi the tailor and have some nice vestments made." And that was it and nobody questioned it. These individuals never went to seminary, probably never said a mass, or cracked open a book on theology. This kind of nepotism went on for centuries. These positioned were filled for the sole purpose of consolidating the power, influence and wealth of various families.
-
The SSPX would probably have no qualms with this, as they had no qualms having a NO bishop consecrate the Holy Oils in Zaitzkofen in 2023.
From what I can tell, the large majority of sheeple in the SSPX would simply go along with it. They have their nice priest in their nice chapel with their nice music, and what's the big deal with Rome? I am fairly sure that the majority of them believe that the whole drama of tradition vs. Rome has been overblown in the first place.
As for myself, no, I would have nothing to do with that.
-
Yes, but they're already halfway there as it is.
As I mentioned in the context of the controversy over "Pope" Leo, the SSPX paradigm regarding the crisis has already aligned with that of FSSP.
There are two basic paradigms:
1) V2 represents a substantial rupture, and there's no "fixing" this crisis in the Church until it's rolled back, declared null, and sent packing along with the New Mass and all the post-V2 "papal" Magisterium.
2) Since V2, due to various bad actors mostly at lower levels, the Church has gotten too liberal and there are many Modernists in the hierarchy now, and while "95% Catholic" (per +Fellay ... the same line that Schneider takes), a few course corrections by the right conservative "pope" would change the trajectory of the Church back on the right course.
It's precisely because of this shift from #1 to #2 in SSPX that the Resistance parted ways and labeled SSPX the "neo-SSPX".
In the one paradigm there's no difference in kind between Catholic Church and Conciliar Church, but a difference in degrees, as in degrees of liberalism vs. degrees of conservatism.
I see your point, although as you know, Lefebvre himself went back and forth on some of these questions. But I get that the SSPX is already closer to the FSSP than the resistance and some other groups are
but permanently ensuring that all (not just a few) of their priests come from new rite episcopal orders would seem like a HUGE step towards indult status. Even more so if they are also regularized at the same time
i I guess the last step would be formally accepting the infallibility of V2 and that the new mass is licit
-
I don't mean to create any controversy by this question but as a fairly new traditional Catholic I
don't understand the main reasons why doubt is cast upon the validity of NO ordinations, specifically
with FSSP priests.
I get the reasons that Paul VI didn't have the right to change the mass but rites of ordination have doubtlessly
been changed countless times in the Church's history.
For example, when a Medici or Borgia pope or cardinal wanted to make a relative a bishop they probably got a slap on the back and said, "hey bro, you're a bishop now go see Luigi the tailor and have some nice vestments made." And that was it and nobody questioned it. These individuals never went to seminary, probably never said a mass, or cracked open a book on theology. This kind of nepotism went on for centuries. These positioned were filled for the sole purpose of consolidating the power, influence and wealth of various families.
No, incorrect to all that you have written here regarding historical practice.
How a man is ordained is something about which the Church has always been meticulous. Whilst there are and have been a variety of liturgicals rites for ordination, these all share common elements and similar wording in their forms.
Nepotism pertained to ecclesiastical offices and benefices (salaries and material goods). This is something quite different than entrance and advancement in the clerical state. Simony (buying sacraments) was an issue with ordination in certain places at particular times, but this is something very different from nepotism.
The problem with the 1968 ordination rite lies in changes in the essential form that alter what is being bestowed on the candidate as well as in changes to the ritual actions and language before and after the form, changes that fail to express a Catholic understanding of Holy Orders.
The form for the rite of priestly ordination has been changed so that what was once a cause leading to an effect is now merely two declaratory statements. This casts doubt on the validity.
The change in the form for episcopal ordination is far more radical, changing the whole wording and never indicating that the episcopacy is being bestowed. This form could be wholly invalid, needs to be treated as such (with all that implies), and may be one day definitively declared invalid by the Church.
-
Yes, but they're already halfway there as it is.
As I mentioned in the context of the controversy over "Pope" Leo, the SSPX paradigm regarding the crisis has already aligned with that of FSSP.
There are two basic paradigms:
1) V2 represents a substantial rupture, and there's no "fixing" this crisis in the Church until it's rolled back, declared null, and sent packing along with the New Mass and all the post-V2 "papal" Magisterium.
2) Since V2, due to various bad actors mostly at lower levels, the Church has gotten too liberal and there are many Modernists in the hierarchy now, and while "95% Catholic" (per +Fellay ... the same line that Schneider takes), a few course corrections by the right conservative "pope" would change the trajectory of the Church back on the right course.
It's precisely because of this shift from #1 to #2 in SSPX that the Resistance parted ways and labeled SSPX the "neo-SSPX".
In the one paradigm there's no difference in kind between Catholic Church and Conciliar Church, but a difference in degrees, as in degrees of liberalism vs. degrees of conservatism.
To a certain extent, the trajectory of the SSPX makes sense to me though. If you believe that Leo (and in a historical context JP2, Benedict, and Francis) are/were true popes then, even if you believe that resistance to evil command is justified, it makes sense that you would submit as much as you possibly can, without violating your conscience. People here see this as “betrayal” but in a way it kind of makes sense.
now, for the most part, it seems to me that the resistance perspective is that we aren’t actually sure these people are even popes. Maybe we “give the benefit of the doubt” and pray for them in the mass etc. but in practice it seems to come down to “a doubtful pope is no pope”. We don’t obey him at all because we aren’t certain he’s not actually a pope
on the other hand if you say that he’s certainly a pope but isn’t due any submission whatsoever… I don’t see how you don’t avoid just converting to Eastern Orthodoxy at that point.
-
To a certain extent, the trajectory of the SSPX makes sense to me though. If you believe that Leo (and in a historical context JP2, Benedict, and Francis) are/were true popes then, even if you believe that resistance to evil command is justified, it makes sense that you would submit as much as you possibly can, without violating your conscience.
Well, R&R hold that you should submit where you can. But the problem is whether you can chop it up in discrete pieces where you can submit to this, but not to that ... i.e. where some of it is OK / good, or whether the entire thing is polluted due to the corrupt Vatican II theological framework.
It's actually similar to the Vatican II claim about false religions that there can be discrete elements of truth within them.
Is that true?
"God exists." Is that true? OK, taken in complete isolation and out of context, yes, it's true.
How about now?
"God exists. God takes the appearance of a winged serpent and demands human sacrifice."
Is it true now? That "God exists"? No, because THAT God (as described) most certainly does not exist.
Once you start defining the terms, you can't really take isolated statements out of context and say "that's true".
-
Does the SSPX accept this?
Would the SSPX faithful accept this?
Would YOU accept this?
1: I believe they would.
2: At least 70% would, if not more.
3: Not a chance in Hell that I would accept this.
-
I'd say 90%+ of the SSPX laity and 95%+ of the priests (since they have all been pre-vetted as yes-men as a condition for ordination and would have been weeded out for any independent thinking ... leaving only the old-timers who haven't left yet either for Resistance, SV, or Motarian group).
But then the vast majority of these majorities wouldn't actually leave their chapel or position as priests unless they were directly affected, i.e. one of these new "priests" showed up to serve their chapel. That's ALREADY going on now, as NO presiders are brought in without conditional ordination, but even the faithful who don't approve will not leave until they're directly affected (one of those priests shows up on a Sunday at their chapel). So in a sense it's already going on ... and won't be anything new, which speaks to my point that they've already been being preconditioned to more-or-less accept this.
-
... leaving only the old-timers who haven't left yet either for Resistance, SV, or Motarian group.
Motarian group.
Focusing on that, I find it interesting that, although immersed in V2 theology at Wigratzbad or Denton, these days a significant number of FSSP priests (or putative priests) are theologically and politically further to the Right than their SSPX counterparts.
-
No, incorrect to all that you have written here regarding historical practice.
How a man is ordained is something about which the Church has always been meticulous. Whilst there are and have been a variety of liturgicals rites for ordination, these all share common elements and similar wording in their forms.
Nepotism pertained to ecclesiastical offices and benefices (salaries and material goods). This is something quite different than entrance and advancement in the clerical state. Simony (buying sacraments) was an issue with ordination in certain places at particular times, but this is something very different from nepotism.
The problem with the 1968 ordination rite lies in changes in the essential form that alter what is being bestowed on the candidate as well as in changes to the ritual actions and language before and after the form, changes that fail to express a Catholic understanding of Holy Orders.
The form for the rite of priestly ordination has been changed so that what was once a cause leading to an effect is now merely two declaratory statements. This casts doubt on the validity.
The change in the form for episcopal ordination is far more radical, changing the whole wording and never indicating that the episcopacy is being bestowed. This form could be wholly invalid, needs to be treated as such (with all that implies), and may be one day definitively declared invalid by the Church.
The SSPX does a good job of explaining the rites such that there's little doubt left, if any. Bp. Williamson doesn't doubt them, he's just willing to conditionally ordain to put the mind of the faithful at ease. I still doubt the intentions, that the intention may be to cause invalidity at least long enough that future deceived generations don't really have Holy Orders even though they think they do. I think the doubt exists sufficiently that it is not work risking invalidity for the sake of politics. At the same time, it is only a doubt for me, and I am not convinced that the whole conciliar church is invalid. I don't know to what extent these things are possible, or what God may allow and how, just that I want no part of the conciliar church.
If they did go through with it, that sends a message to people that the indult and conciliar Church are valid, so why risk being schismatic or whatever by playing this R&R game, and suffer attending distant little chapels with little to no community life?
I think word would spread around such that many would either go to mass at the Resistance or Sedes, or if they stay, it is for convenience sake only, while they remain watchful for who says Mass there.
-
The SSPX does a good job of explaining the rites such that there's little doubt left, if any.
No they don't. They explain them away and there's only "little doubt" left if you're wanting to accept their explanation in the first place. It's not even close to being convincing.
-
Bp. Williamson doesn't doubt them, he's just willing to conditionally ordain to put the mind of the faithful at ease.
Not quite. He says that he PERSONALLY doesn't doubt them but can see why others might, so he distinguishes his personal non-doubt from an objective non-doubt. In other words, by not conditionally ordaining, he'd effectively be imposing his conclusions on other people's consciences. So it isn't just to pacify a bunch of people with negative doubts.
-
I still doubt the intentions ...
You've got this exactly ass backwards, as you do most things. As per the teaching of Pope Leo XIII himself in Apostolicae Curae, that's the one thing that CANNOT be doubted (absent clear evidence to the contrary), since the Church always presumes correct intention. What's at issue is she intention of the Rite. If the Rite expresses the Catholic intention, then it's valid. If the Rite does not, it's not valid ... and no amount of intending or wishing it to be valid can remedy this situation. You can't "wish it into" validity by "intending really really hard". Just a bunch of hogwash SSPX have been selling and which you're buying because you want to buy it ... as you do regarding a lot of subjects. Nor is the Rite "ambiguous", as a Rite must UNEQUIVOCALLY express the Sacramental intention (as per every Sacramental theologian), and there's no scenario in which a Rite does not do this unequivocally and then some minister can intend it into validity, supplying by their internal forum intention that which is lacking in the external.
SSPX have reversed a lot of the terms and created a soup of nonsensical gibberish to produce they outcome they wanted.
-
Motarian group.
Focusing on that, I find it interesting that, although immersed in V2 theology at Wigratzbad or Denton, these days a significant number of FSSP priests (or putative priests) are theologically and politically further to the Right than their SSPX counterparts.
I've made the same remarks. You see more sermons (judging from what's online) denouncing various evils of the Conciliar Church from FSSP priests than from SSPX ... and then more FSSP priests spoke out about the COVID jab and other societal and political evils than those in SSPX.
-
Right. The intention of the priest/bishop DOES NOT MATTER. What matters are the WORDS of the rite. The WORDS of the rite = the Church's intention. The Church's intention is all that matters.
The new rite changed the WORDS, therefore the intention (of the words) changed. Therefore there's doubt.
The new-sspx/indulters want to concentrate on the PERSONAL intentions of the priest/bishop. This is bad theology and is irrelevant.
-
Does the SSPX accept this?
Would the SSPX faithful accept this?
Would YOU accept this?
1: I believe they would.
2: At least 70% would, if not more.
3: Not a chance in Hell that I would accept this.
I agree with your 2 and 3, and I tend to agree with your #1, yet, were it to come to that, it's hard to believe the SSPX would accept it considering +ABL did the consecrating of his bishops to insure future valid priestly ordinations for his SSPX.
But we can't forget that at the same time, +ABL himself asked repeatedly for a NO bishop from the V2 church to consecrate his bishops - and the pope refused to give him one, but he would have accepted had he been given one, so there's that.
-
I suspect the SSPX hierarchy would accept if the consecrations were in the traditional formula. If I'm just throwing numbers out, 80% of the priests and 60-70% of the laity would as well. I do think there are many more resistance-minded and sedevacantist mass attendees at society chapels than some may assume, being there out of necessity rather than ecclesiological accord with the Society.
I would not accept, and if the chapel I go to got a priest of dubious orders I would have to go to an Eastern liturgy or travel an extra 2 hours to a non-Society chapel
-
SsPX trains NO lay priests in Denver. I heard quite a few members of St. Isidore left and go the CMRI.
-
Right. The intention of the priest/bishop DOES NOT MATTER. What matters are the WORDS of the rite. The WORDS of the rite = the Church's intention. The Church's intention is all that matters.
The new rite changed the WORDS, therefore the intention (of the words) changed. Therefore there's doubt.
The new-sspx/indulters want to concentrate on the PERSONAL intentions of the priest/bishop. This is bad theology and is irrelevant.
Yes, Pope Leo XIII made this very clear in Apostolicae Curae.
33. With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.
So it's not the intention of the minister (which is by its nature internal) ... and which is presumed if the Catholic Rite is used ... but the intention of the Rite that's in question. If the Rite is changed with the "manifest intention ... of rejecting what the Church does", then this invalidates the intention of the Rite, regardless of what the minister intends in the internal forum.
Earlier, he wrote about the intention of the Rite, i.e. the reason it was composed ... and his words could hauntingly be applied verbatim to the Conciliar Rites:
30. For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circuмstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it necessary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying”, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.
How is this not exactly what Montini et al did? They associated with abettors from the heterodox sects (the Prot ministers helping to write the NOM, anyone?), using the pretextt of returning to the primitive form (check!), they corrupted the Rite to "suit the errors of the reformers" (again check!) No only is there no clear mention of sacrifice, preisthood, etc. ... but every trace of these things which had been in the Catholic Rite was deliberately removed and struck out. These words of Leo XIII are prophetic and could have been applied verbatim to the NOM.
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images/090_PaulVIandProts.jpg)
31. In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost”, no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words “for the office and work of a priest or bishop”, and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.
32. Many of the more shrewd Anglican interpreters of the Ordinal have perceived the force of this argument, and they openly urge it against those who take the Ordinal in a new sense, and vainly attach to the Orders conferred thereby a value and efficacy which they do not possess. By this same argument is refuted the contention of those who think that the prayer, “Almighty God, giver of all good Things”, which is found at the beginning of the ritual action, might suffice as a legitimate “form” of Orders, even in the hypothesis that it might be held to be sufficient in a Catholic rite approved by the Church.
So not only did changes they tried to introduce later not rescue the Rite, since it was vitiated in its Origins (due to the initial intention of removing Catholic elements to appease the heretical sects), but Leo XIII absolutely and expliciltly rejects the argument (first bolded section above) that it CAN BE UNDERSTOOD AND INTERPRETED IN A SOUND AND ORTHODOX SENSE. In other words, it's ambiguous and CAN be understood in a Catholic sense ... the very position of SSPX, where then with the proper "internal" intention that nobody, not even the Church, can even know about, it could be rendered invalid.
So in the context of this Rite that was intended to reject the clear sense of the Catholic Church regarding the Rite (second bolded section), any argument that this or that section COULD suffice to legitimately express the Catholic meaning is rejected due to the overall context of the Rite.
So, the Rite, the reason it was composed, where Catholic elements were removed, etc. rendered the intention of the Rite invalid and not salvageable by someone who would impose some Catholic interpretation onto some ambiguous element within it. That overall context vitiates any ambiguous sections that could be Catholicized by the right intention.
You'd think the SSPXers had never read Apostolicae Curae, one of the most comprehensive explanations of Catholic theology available regarding the validity of Rites and stamped by Magisterial authority.
-
Headline: Leo XIII declares Leo XIV to Not Be a Valid Priest
-
Headline: Leo XIII declares Leo XIV to Not Be a Valid Priest
:laugh1: Sad but true.
-
No they don't. They explain them away and there's only "little doubt" left if you're wanting to accept their explanation in the first place. It's not even close to being convincing.
A good example of this is a SSPX video, few years ago from Fr. McFarland, doubting how a single word like "ut" could invalidate the Rite of Ordinations.
-
Recently, my friend asked +Fellay about getting conditionally confirmed, and +Fellay abruptly brushed him off…
-
A good example of this is a SSPX video, few years ago from Fr. McFarland, doubting how a single word like "ut" could invalidate the Rite of Ordinations.
Yes, see, they always emphasize that it's just a tiny two-letter word. Apart from not understanding how important a word that is, if it's so small and insignificant, then why did they go to the trouble of removing it? Eh? Does removing "so that" (=ut) "modernize" the translation so much and make it more meaningful and relevant to the faithful? Hogwash. So the fact that they removed such a small word actually makes it more suspicious ... if you believe, as many of us do, that wicked infiltrators are behind this crisis.
"So that" speaks to cause and effect, and it's incredibly important.
[Paraphrased]
Old: May the Holy Ghost come down upon him to (ut) make him a priest.
New: May the Holy Ghost come donw upon him. Make him a priest.
So, Pius XII wrote that the essentialy form for Orders had to invoke the Holy Ghost and express the Sacramental effect (of that invocation), namely, conferring the priesthood.
In the new form, you invoke the Holy Ghost to come down on him. OK. For what? To make him a priest or to make him a good priest or to give him the property dispositions to receive the priesthood, etc.? Just about every Sacrament and many prayrers invoke the Holy Ghost, since He can have many effects. While you could claim that it's implied, is that really the case or are you reading that connection into it? Recall that the Sacramental forms must be unequivocal in their expression.
But, apart from that ... (which IMO suffices to create positive doubt) ... how many priests are there still active who had not been "ordained" by bishops who had not been "consecrated" in the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration? Very, very few anymore.
-
Recently, my friend asked +Fellay about getting conditionally confirmed, and +Fellay abruptly brushed him off…
Disgraceful.
At that point, I would have asked him a followup question: "Do you believe that you're an accomplice in Fr. Abbet's pederastic predations for having stationed him at a boys' school after he admitted to having assaulted boys, and then he assulted more boys there? Should you be in jail? Are you still here in the US just so you can avoid prosecution elsewhere?"
I've noticed that since Voris went down ... they've been trying to scrub the content off the Internet ... Thankfully we have Wayback Machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240304010635/https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/spotlight-hes-a-good-liar
-
So, with the charges against +Fellay ... here's my problem.
Church Militant said it was done to protect the reputation of SSPX.
Uhm, no ... that doesn't come close to explainig this case. You have Fr. Abbet whom the SSPX found guilty of predations against young boys (and to which he himself admitted). WHY WOULD YOU EVER TRANSFER HIM TO LIVING AT A BOARDING SCHOOL FOR YOUNG BOYS WITH READY ACCESS TO THE BOYS? Nothing comes close to explain this other than the most sinister conspiracy theory. Protect SSPX? How does this protect SSPX? You could have transferred Abbet anywhere to do that, since he was already out of the news. In fact, this puts the SSPX at HUGE RISK if he acted up again and it got found out that you transferred him there.
This raises huge alarm bells that +Fellay is part of the sodomite mafia. The conclusion is inexcapable, as there's no other explanation for having done this ... EXCEPT possibly if +Fellay were being blackmailed and told to do this by someone who wanted to discredit the SSPX, but then you should rather accept a death sentence than subject these boys to the crimes ... unless you have no faith.
+Fellay ... please explain.
-
Recently, my friend asked +Fellay about getting conditionally confirmed, and +Fellay abruptly brushed him off…
He probably only does conditional sacraments if the docuмentation is missing. I don't know what he'd say if a NO priest asked for conditional ordination.
-
I don't know what he'd say if a NO priest asked for conditional ordination.
They don't do those anymore. I knew a few who converted from the Novus Ordo and even wanted it, but SSPX refused. One of them has since joined the Resistance.
It would seem my friend's conditional baptism would be enough for +Fellay to be willing to do a conditional confirmation of him.
-
SsPX trains NO lay priests in Denver. I heard quite a few members of St. Isidore left and go the CMRI.
What is a NO lay priest?
-
Yes, Pope Leo XIII made this very clear in Apostolicae Curae.
So it's not the intention of the minister (which is by its nature internal) ... and which is presumed if the Catholic Rite is used ... but the intention of the Rite that's in question. If the Rite is changed with the "manifest intention ... of rejecting what the Church does", then this invalidates the intention of the Rite, regardless of what the minister intends in the internal forum.
Earlier, he wrote about the intention of the Rite, i.e. the reason it was composed ... and his words could hauntingly be applied verbatim to the Conciliar Rites:
How is this not exactly what Montini et al did? They associated with abettors from the heterodox sects (the Prot ministers helping to write the NOM, anyone?), using the pretextt of returning to the primitive form (check!), they corrupted the Rite to "suit the errors of the reformers" (again check!) No only is there no clear mention of sacrifice, preisthood, etc. ... but every trace of these things which had been in the Catholic Rite was deliberately removed and struck out. These words of Leo XIII are prophetic and could have been applied verbatim to the NOM.
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images/090_PaulVIandProts.jpg)
So not only did changes they tried to introduce later not rescue the Rite, since it was vitiated in its Origins (due to the initial intention of removing Catholic elements to appease the heretical sects), but Leo XIII absolutely and expliciltly rejects the argument (first bolded section above) that it CAN BE UNDERSTOOD AND INTERPRETED IN A SOUND AND ORTHODOX SENSE. In other words, it's ambiguous and CAN be understood in a Catholic sense ... the very position of SSPX, where then with the proper "internal" intention that nobody, not even the Church, can even know about, it could be rendered invalid.
So in the context of this Rite that was intended to reject the clear sense of the Catholic Church regarding the Rite (second bolded section), any argument that this or that section COULD suffice to legitimately express the Catholic meaning is rejected due to the overall context of the Rite.
So, the Rite, the reason it was composed, where Catholic elements were removed, etc. rendered the intention of the Rite invalid and not salvageable by someone who would impose some Catholic interpretation onto some ambiguous element within it. That overall context vitiates any ambiguous sections that could be Catholicized by the right intention.
You'd think the SSPXers had never read Apostolicae Curae, one of the most comprehensive explanations of Catholic theology available regarding the validity of Rites and stamped by Magisterial authority.
Thanks for all this.
How would you go about explaining how the new rite is included under this condemnation by Leo XIII considering it was put into practice by what the world considered to be the pope, and not some schismatics? For the sake of argument assume he was a legit pope.
-
pope Leo Xlll gave us the prayer to St Michael
-
Thanks for all this.
How would you go about explaining how the new rite is included under this condemnation by Leo XIII considering it was put into practice by what the world considered to be the pope, and not some schismatics? For the sake of argument assume he was a legit pope.
Well, see, if he were a legitimate Pope, then I was accept that the Rite is valid because a legitimate Pope cannot produce an invalid or even doubtful Rite of Mass. That's the Michael Davies position, and I agree with the principle, just not the assumed premise that Montini was a legit pope (at least freely exercising his papal authority).
If Montini was a legitimate Pope, the case is closed and the NOM is valid ... and no need for conditional anything (unless a particular vernarcular language has some issues with the translation, which wouldn't necessarily be protected by the Holy Ghost).
-
Isn't that what the SSPX and Resistance think? Err on the side of caution that they are legit Popes, but avoid the probably valid NO because of the bad fruits?
-
What is a NO lay priest?
I do not considered NO priests as valid. They are essentially layman. They have the title but not much different than any of us laymen.
-
What is a NO lay priest?
Novus Ordo Missae, or New Order of Mass, 1969 AD.
N.O. for short. NO is shorter!
"N.O. lay priest" probably means that a specific "priest" is really only a layman. SSPX accepts the N.O. priests as valid.
The first part was posted by Plenus Venter on March 7, 2024; proofread by + Williamson I do recall.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/fr-calderon's-2014-study-on-the-new-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-in-english/
"...But we also believe that there is no certainty of its validity, because it suffers from two important defects, which we could classify as one canonical and the other theological:
- Canonical defect. From what has been said above, the institution of this new rite cannot be considered legitimate.
- Theological defect. The novus ordo is not the same as, but only similar to, other rites accepted by the Church. Although certainly valid, these rites, on the one hand, are not very precise in their concepts; and on the other hand, the differences introduced by the novus ordo follow tendencies of bad doctrine. All this makes theological judgment, which is always difficult in these matters, even more difficult. Now, in a matter of the utmost importance for the life of the Church, such as the validity of the episcopate, it is necessary to have absolute certainty. Therefore, in order to be able to accept this rite with peace of conscience, it would be necessary to count not only on the judgement of theologians, but also on the infallible judgement of the Magisterium.
As for the practical attitude to be taken with regard to the new Episcopal Consecrations, the one that the Society has maintained up to now seems to us to be justified:
1. The very probable validity of the rite seems to us to make it morally acceptable to occasionally assist at the Mass (traditional rite) celebrated by a priest or a bishop ordained or consecrated in the new rite, and even to receive Communion therein; it seems to us acceptable, in case of necessity, to receive absolution from them; to treat them as priests and bishops and not as laymen in costume; it seems to us acceptable to allow them to celebrate in our own houses. For the shadows that hover over the validity of their priesthood are but shadows and in all these activities our responsibility is not engaged concerning their exercise of the priesthood. And the remote risk that one communion or one absolution may be invalid is not so serious.
2. But the positive and objective defects from which this rite suffers, which prevent our having certainty of its validity, it seems to us - until there is a Roman judgement, for which many things would have to change - justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests ordained by New Bishops and, if necessary, the conditional reconsecration of these bishops. Such doubts cannot be tolerated at the very root of the Sacraments (33).
Father Alvaro Calderon..."
******
The second Part, N.O. In the spirit of Vatican II is accepted as an extension of Modernism/Liberalism, etc.
I posted this last year.
Novus Ordo church has a damning trail of novelties, experiments, and material heresies.
1. New Doctrine on Indulgences 1967
2. Rite of Ordination , esp. for the priesthood 1968
3. Tweaks of the Calendar 1969
4. Elimination of Ember days
5. A new mass to boot! Oh N.O. ! Essentially the Altar was replaced with a table 1969
6. New holy Vegetable oils 1970
7. The rite of Baptism has removed the Exorcisms 1969
8. Priests wearing shorts, nuns wear slacks.
9. Updated Rite of Marriage altered the ends of the Sacrament -
not to mention the ease of getting annulments ($ 10K ) 1969
10. Major changes in the Breviary, and when it must be prayed 1970
11. Why not change Confirmation too? 1971
12. Extreme Unction? Let's call it Sacrament of the Sick 1972
13. New rite of Penance 1973
14. Vat. II echo - Code of Canon Law 1983
15. Canonization procedures shortened 1983
16. Profession of Faith / Oath of Fidelity 1989
17. Changes to the Way of the Cross, 15 Stations 1991
18. Modernized Catechism 1992
19. Clergy now required to don worthy ecclesiastical dress,... "according to legitimate local customs" ?? 1993
20. Experiment with altar Girls 1994
21. Updated rite of Exorcism 1998
22. Adapted Martyrology 2001
23. Addition to Our Lady's Rosary ( 5 Luminous Mysteries !!!!!)2002
24. World Youth Days and New Evangelization
25. New Bible Translation, where an evil four letter word all but disappeared: H E L L. 2002
26. Ordinary and Extraordinary Masses ?? 2007
27. Altered the French "Our Father" 2018
28. New "Rejoice O Virgin Mary", Introduction of profane songs / music.
29. Iconoclastic attitude
The real list is longer.
*Based in part on The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, by Fr Matthias Gaudron 2010