Author Topic: the validity of novus ordo rites and sacraments (Read 2877 times)

soulguard · « **on:** October 12, 2013, 02:14:29 PM »

There is a video of a Cannon Lawyer on youtube who says why the new rites and sacraments are valid. I am swayed by his argument. He says the novus ordo mass is a sacrilege yet valid for example.

This is the video.

If there is some flaw in his arguments can someone point them out to me. I have already read the dimond brothers opinion on this issue about ordination rites and sacraments, so I am looking for anything else, just to be sure.

Stubborn · « **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2013, 04:05:38 PM »

In a nutshell, all the NO sacraments are doubtful at best.

From Fr. Wathen's Who Shall Ascend? on the new Ordination Rite. What he says about the Sacrament of Holy Orders applies to all the NO sacraments. BTW, Fr. Wathen was one of the Dimonds enemies so if you ever look him up on their site, you will find many lies about him there.

Any way, here is the snip from his book:

It is not our purpose in these pages to decide whether the new ordination rite is invalid, though, as we shall see, the argument is substantial enough that we are bound to allow for this possibility. Furthermore, we must see the issue in the context of the total redefinition and reconstitution of the Church, such as was set in motion at the Council. In view of the fact that, since the Council, the priest's role has been in the process of being modified, as we said, to that of a Protestant presbyter, there is every reason to deduce that the new ordination rite sabotages the Sacrament of Holy Orders according to the explicit program and purposes of those now in power. (The reader is reminded that 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.)

By way of preface, we observe: The revisers had a reason for making changes, and particular reasons for each change they made. They cannot argue that their new formulas are identical to the old; that would be to admit that the changes mean nothing, and that, therefore, there was no reason to make them. To admit that they made changes for no reason whatsoever would be a sign of a most irreverent capriciousness and cynicism. Besides, such an explanation could only be regarded as a concealment. The new forms (Latin and English) must be seen to say something different from the old.

Furthermore, in view of what the other changes in the liturgical rites have connoted, we are compelled to be suspicious. 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?)

Matto · « **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2013, 04:14:48 PM »

Quote from: soulguard

He says the novus ordo mass is a sacrilege yet valid for example.

If the New Mass is a sacrilege (which I believe it is), does it matter if it is valid (I have doubts but do not have a firm opinion)? In any case we must stay away.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #3 on:** October 12, 2013, 04:19:23 PM »

I get a kick out of Canon Hesse, but it's a stretch to say they're all valid.

See, the problem is that in theory, the majority of the sacraments in the NO are probably valid. The problem is that the one sacrament that is almost a slam-dunk case for invalidity is the one that most of the others rely on: Holy Orders.

See, if the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is invalid (and it sure looks like it is) then it doesn't matter if confession, Eucharist and Extreme Unction are valid per the rubrics if the priest performing them was 'ordained' by someone who didn't have the power to ordain.

ETA: But more importantly, as Matto points out, if the New Mass is a sacrilege, the validity is irrelevant. You don't go, whether it's valid or not, because it's a sacrilege. Probably worse, in the case of the New Mass being valid, since then you've got a valid sacrilege (versus an invalid sacrilege).

2Vermont · « **Reply #4 on:** October 12, 2013, 05:34:16 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

See, the problem is that in theory, the majority of the sacraments in the NO are probably valid. The problem is that the one sacrament that is almost a slam-dunk case for invalidity is the one that most of the others rely on: Holy Orders.

See, if the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is invalid (and it sure looks like it is) then it doesn't matter if confession, Eucharist and Extreme Unction are valid per the rubrics if the priest performing them was 'ordained' by someone who didn't have the power to ordain.

This is what I've been struggling with. I don't think the New Rite of Priestly Ordination is invalid. The issue is the bishops' ordinations. The only priest in my diocese who offers the TLM is a VII Priest ordained by a VII bishop. So pretty much the TLM might as well be the NO.

VeraeFidei · « **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2013, 08:42:04 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I get a kick out of Canon Hesse, but it's a stretch to say they're all valid.

See, the problem is that in theory, the majority of the sacraments in the NO are probably valid. The problem is that the one sacrament that is almost a slam-dunk case for invalidity is the one that most of the others rely on: Holy Orders.

See, if the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is invalid (and it sure looks like it is) then it doesn't matter if confession, Eucharist and Extreme Unction are valid per the rubrics if the priest performing them was 'ordained' by someone who didn't have the power to ordain.

ETA: But more importantly, as Matto points out, if the New Mass is a sacrilege, the validity is irrelevant. You don't go, whether it's valid or not, because it's a sacrilege. Probably worse, in the case of the New Mass being valid, since then you've got a valid sacrilege (versus an invalid sacrilege).

It is not completely irrelevant, though I understand your point. Take, for example, a trad priest who left the NO but was never conditionally ordained. There is no ongoing issue of sacrilege if the Masses are valid, but whether or not he is a true priest is of course vital.

Fr./Msgr. Perez at OLHC in California is a good example. He was ordained in the traditional rite by Alfons Cardinal Stickler, but Cardinal Stickler was consecrated Bishop in the new rite.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #6 on:** October 12, 2013, 09:05:42 PM »

Quote from: VeraeFidei

Quote from: Mithrandylan
I get a kick out of Canon Hesse, but it's a stretch to say they're all valid.

See, the problem is that in theory, the majority of the sacraments in the NO are probably valid. The problem is that the one sacrament that is almost a slam-dunk case for invalidity is the one that most of the others rely on: Holy Orders.

See, if the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is invalid (and it sure looks like it is) then it doesn't matter if confession, Eucharist and Extreme Unction are valid per the rubrics if the priest performing them was 'ordained' by someone who didn't have the power to ordain.

ETA: But more importantly, as Matto points out, if the New Mass is a sacrilege, the validity is irrelevant. You don't go, whether it's valid or not, because it's a sacrilege. Probably worse, in the case of the New Mass being valid, since then you've got a valid sacrilege (versus an invalid sacrilege).

It is not completely irrelevant, though I understand your point. Take, for example, a trad priest who left the NO but was never conditionally ordained. There is no ongoing issue of sacrilege if the Masses are valid, but whether or not he is a true priest is of course vital.

Fr./Msgr. Perez at OLHC in California is a good example. He was ordained in the traditional rite by Alfons Cardinal Stickler, but Cardinal Stickler was consecrated Bishop in the new rite.

Hi VF, nice to see you. When I said [its] irrelevant, I was referring to the validity of the Novus Ordo mass. If the NO mass is sacrilegious, then whether or not the consecration occurs is irrelevant, because the sacrilege is sufficient reason to stay away, completely irrespective of the validity. Discerning the validity of the NO becomes an exercise in academia, as there is cause enough to avoid it without even considering the validity.

2Vermont · « **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2013, 10:24:11 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I get a kick out of Canon Hesse, but it's a stretch to say they're all valid.

See, the problem is that in theory, the majority of the sacraments in the NO are probably valid. The problem is that the one sacrament that is almost a slam-dunk case for invalidity is the one that most of the others rely on: Holy Orders.

See, if the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is invalid (and it sure looks like it is) then it doesn't matter if confession, Eucharist and Extreme Unction are valid per the rubrics if the priest performing them was 'ordained' by someone who didn't have the power to ordain.

ETA: But more importantly, as Matto points out, if the New Mass is a sacrilege, the validity is irrelevant. You don't go, whether it's valid or not, because it's a sacrilege. Probably worse, in the case of the New Mass being valid, since then you've got a valid sacrilege (versus an invalid sacrilege).

I didn't watch the video posted but if it is the same one I watched with Fr Hesse about a couple of months ago he does not say that all of the VII sacraments are valid. I'm pretty sure he states that with the change in the words of the consecration of the wine ("for all" vs "for the many"), the VII Eucharist is not valid in English. Of course, the words have been since changed since his presentation, but one has to question the intention of changing it in the first place (at least that's where my head goes).

I tend to think Fr Hesse is another one who might be a SV if he were alive
today (he died in 2006).

Edit: Yes it is the same one. And like the OP I originally agreed with him, but I was still left with questions. Not everything he said made sense.

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #8 on:** October 14, 2013, 03:25:11 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Mithrandylan
I get a kick out of Canon Hesse, but it's a stretch to say they're all valid.

See, the problem is that in theory, the majority of the sacraments in the NO are probably valid. The problem is that the one sacrament that is almost a slam-dunk case for invalidity is the one that most of the others rely on: Holy Orders.

See, if the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is invalid (and it sure looks like it is) then it doesn't matter if confession, Eucharist and Extreme Unction are valid per the rubrics if the priest performing them was 'ordained' by someone who didn't have the power to ordain.

ETA: But more importantly, as Matto points out, if the New Mass is a sacrilege, the validity is irrelevant. You don't go, whether it's valid or not, because it's a sacrilege. Probably worse, in the case of the New Mass being valid, since then you've got a valid sacrilege (versus an invalid sacrilege).

I didn't watch the video posted but if it is the same one I watched with Fr Hesse about a couple of months ago he does not say that all of the VII sacraments are valid. I'm pretty sure he states that with the change in the words of the consecration of the wine ("for all" vs "for the many"), the VII Eucharist is not valid in English. Of course, the words have been since changed since his presentation, but one has to question the intention of changing it in the first place (at least that's where my head goes).

I tend to think Fr Hesse is another one who might be a SV if he were alive
today (he died in 2006).

Edit: Yes it is the same one. And like the OP I originally agreed with him, but I was still left with questions. Not everything he said made sense.

I don't think he would ever be a SV'ist given the talks that he has given on the topic. Although he was definitely a Catholic, but not a priest sadly enough. As far as I am aware he never got conditionally re-ordained since he had convinced himself that he does not need it since he got ordained in the traditional Rite by a "Cardinal" that he thought constituted one of the few cases of a valid Bishop in the Novus Ordo.

Yes, there are problems when you accept false premises, even though Hesse has said a lot of good things he does definitely fall under the category of the unfortunate souls that followed the logical conclusions of the sedeplenist thesis. Hesse was actually pretty critical to my becoming a SV'ist because it was only after I had listened to him saying what I believe that I realized just how bad it was theologically. Sometimes the best criticism can come from someone who voices your opinion and you give it a second thought.

Pray for his soul, Requiescat in pace. Amen.

2Vermont · « **Reply #9 on:** October 14, 2013, 04:22:17 AM »

Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher

I don't think he would ever be a SV'ist given the talks that he has given on the topic. Although he was definitely a Catholic, but not a priest sadly enough. As far as I am aware he never got conditionally re-ordained since he had convinced himself that he does not need it since he got ordained in the traditional Rite by a "Cardinal" that he thought constituted one of the few cases of a valid Bishop in the Novus Ordo.

I certainly admit that you are more knowledgeable on these matters, but my impression of his talks in the one video was that he had strong issues with JPII. Yes, he was a sedeplenist, but I tend to think that after seeing the crisis continued with BXVI and now Francis that he may have changed course.

I have to say that one of the things he said in that video that was an eye-brow raiser for me was when he asserted he "KNEW" he was a priest. Basically, in the end, his conclusion about his priesthood was based on his feelings. He also seemed to push that VII was a schismatic sect much like the Orthodox which meant he was a priest much like the Orthodox priests. So, basically, even though he celebrated the TLM, he was still a schismatic priest. Yeah, I was still confused after listening to/watching his video.

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #10 on:** October 14, 2013, 04:45:29 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher
I don't think he would ever be a SV'ist given the talks that he has given on the topic. Although he was definitely a Catholic, but not a priest sadly enough. As far as I am aware he never got conditionally re-ordained since he had convinced himself that he does not need it since he got ordained in the traditional Rite by a "Cardinal" that he thought constituted one of the few cases of a valid Bishop in the Novus Ordo.

I certainly admit that you are more knowledgeable on these matters, but my impression of his talks in the one video was that he had strong issues with JPII. Yes, he was a sedeplenist, but I tend to think that after seeing the crisis continued with BXVI and now Francis that he may have changed course.

I have to say that one of the things he said in that video that was an eye-brow raiser for me was when he asserted he "KNEW" he was a priest. Basically, in the end, his conclusion about his priesthood was based on his feelings. He also seemed to push that VII was a schismatic sect much like the Orthodox which meant he was a priest much like the Orthodox priests. So, basically, even though he celebrated the TLM, he was still a schismatic priest. Yeah, I was still confused after listening to/watching his video.

Yes I enjoyed listening to all of his talks, because he is much more serious when dealing with these matters. Instead of ignoring the big elephant in the room he actually attempted to answer it, even if briefly. It shows certainly good will, that this is what the faithful are thinking and he gave it an honest attempt to show forth his evidence. Since it deals with matters of theology, then he is free to criticism based on his evidence shown forth.

I know that one of my friends in the seminary holds the position of Hesse (on many things, the only exception being that my friend actually believes the new Rites are invalid) and it is the reason why currently right now he is not a SV'ist (although he is as close as it can get, he has all the good foundation to be one). He completely totally rejects the new SSPX of +Fellay, although since they have not as of yet joined the schismatic Conciliar Church he will go to their seminary. Hesse is definitely a heavyweight sedeplenist in my eyes, because he actually calls them schismatic, apostate etc... Many that listen to this talks have become SV'ist, because he leads them logically to SV'ism and there is no turning back at that point. Some will clearly see that the reason why he is not a SV'ist is quite weak, but that is why it is a good thing to show the talk to sedeplenists. That will get them MUCH closer to SV'ism then any other sedeplenist material out there. Trust me, everyone that I have given them Hesse material start having SV'ist "tendencies."

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** October 14, 2013, 06:11:58 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: VeraeFidei
Quote from: Mithrandylan
I get a kick out of Canon Hesse, but it's a stretch to say they're all valid.

See, the problem is that in theory, the majority of the sacraments in the NO are probably valid. The problem is that the one sacrament that is almost a slam-dunk case for invalidity is the one that most of the others rely on: Holy Orders.

See, if the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is invalid (and it sure looks like it is) then it doesn't matter if confession, Eucharist and Extreme Unction are valid per the rubrics if the priest performing them was 'ordained' by someone who didn't have the power to ordain.

ETA: But more importantly, as Matto points out, if the New Mass is a sacrilege, the validity is irrelevant. You don't go, whether it's valid or not, because it's a sacrilege. Probably worse, in the case of the New Mass being valid, since then you've got a valid sacrilege (versus an invalid sacrilege).

It is not completely irrelevant, though I understand your point. Take, for example, a trad priest who left the NO but was never conditionally ordained. There is no ongoing issue of sacrilege if the Masses are valid, but whether or not he is a true priest is of course vital.

Fr./Msgr. Perez at OLHC in California is a good example. He was ordained in the traditional rite by Alfons Cardinal Stickler, but Cardinal Stickler was consecrated Bishop in the new rite.

Hi VF, nice to see you. When I said it's irrelevant, I was referring to the validity of the Novus Ordo mass. If the NO mass is sacrilegious, then whether or not the consecration occurs is irrelevant, because the sacrilege is sufficient reason to stay away, completely irrespective of the validity. Discerning the validity of the NO becomes an exercise in academia, as there is cause enough to avoid it without even considering the validity.

Whether the NovusOrdo 'consecration' effects transubstantiation
or not cannot be 'irrelevant', objectively speaking, for that is like
saying that the Blessed Sacrament is irrelevant.

It seems to me what you are attempting to say here is that in
regards to the decision of whether or not one should attend a
NovusOrdo Newmass, it is sufficient to see that it is irreverent
(not reverent, not respectful, not holy, in effect) and as such is a
SACRILEGE. And none of us (humans on earth) should be having
any part in a sacrilege. We should stay far away, and the farther
the better! However, I would caution that this is a decision left
to the individual, for there may be different answers for different
people.

For example, when one has the consistent experience that by
making himself present at such blasphemous services he gradually
loses his faith, and try as he may to be constant and diligent, his
belief CONSISTENTLY suffers, and he is left with diminishing concern
for everything regarding religion, to the point where he then stops
going to Mass and stops saying his prayers: such a one should not
go to the NovusOrdo Newmass, even if it is "reverent." And the
reason is, he knows that doing so is to put his faith in danger, and
our faith is our most precious possession. But such a one should
not hesitate to encourage others who can themselves go, making
it known to them to always remain vigilant and to keep in mind
that they may come to a point when they too must stop going when
they find their faith is in danger.

I cannot imagine how anyone could have found their faith to be
in danger, though, if they were to be standing at the foot of the
Cross with Our Lady and the Apostle whom Jesus loved, and the
holy St. Mary Magdalene. For there is the mystery of faith, the
Most Precious Blood of Our Lord.

Another way of looking at it is, that supposing what if the Newmass
DOES have a valid consecration? Or, more particularly, even if, in
some specific cases it is not valid, let's consider the cases where
it IS valid. In those valid cases, the fact that the liturgy and ritual
that surround it is not reverent, that means the Real Presence of
Our Lord is there, being blasphemed! While there may be someone
in attendance who really does believe in the truth of Our Lord there,
and it may not be the priest at the altar to whom this applies, still,
the objective truth is, God is being 'held up to ridicule' essentially.

Well, God was being held up to ridicule at His Crucifixion, too.

I know very diligent Catholics who attend such Newmasses, and they
go for this very purpose: They go because if they don't go, then
maybe Our Lord will be all alone there with no one to adore Him, and
that would not be right.

Why did Our Lady stand at the foot of the Cross the whole time?
Her unwavering faith is an example to us all. She was there, in part,
to teach St. John that he should be there. She was there to teach
the Church that Catholics should be there. And if Catholics are
anything, they are the children of Blessed Mary. She was there to
teach her children how to be faithful. And her lesson endures for
all time, until they shall see the coming of the Son of man in
a cloud, with great power and majesty (cf. Lk. xxii. 27).

s2srea · « **Reply #12 on:** October 14, 2013, 06:19:46 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

I know very diligent Catholics who attend such Newmasses, and they
go for this very purpose: They go because if they don't go, then
maybe Our Lord will be all alone there with no one to adore Him, and
that would not be right.

That's the argument? Really? Do you think this is a valid argument? That is embarrassing.

Well, if that's the case- sign me up for the next black mass, so that our Lord isn't alone there too.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** October 14, 2013, 06:37:09 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Neil Obstat

I know very diligent Catholics who attend such Newmasses, and they
go for this very purpose: They go because if they don't go, then
maybe Our Lord will be all alone there with no one to adore Him, and
that would not be right.

That's the argument? Really? Do you think this is a valid argument? That is embarrassing.

Well, if that's the case- sign me up for the next black mass, so that our Lord isn't alone there too.

I'm sorry, I don't know of any of those. You'll have to ask someone
else. If you're embarrassed, then you shouldn't even go there, my
friend.

But in regards to giving advice to others, you have to be careful, so
as not to scandalize or to turn them away from religion. Too many
people today are easily frightened by things. Some people, or rather
the majority of people, are frightened by logic.

s2srea · « **Reply #14 on:** October 14, 2013, 06:49:55 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: s2srea
That's the argument? Really? Do you think this is a valid argument? That is embarrassing.

Well, if that's the case- sign me up for the next black mass, so that our Lord isn't alone there too.

I'm sorry, I don't know of any of those. You'll have to ask someone
else. If you're embarrassed, then you shouldn't even go there, my
friend.

But in regards to giving advice to others, you have to be careful, so
as not to scandalize or to turn them away from religion. Too many
people today are easily frightened by things. Some people, or rather
the majority of people, are frightened by logic.

Neil- did you really believe I meant I was embarrassed after reading my comment, or were you 'playing dumb'? If you did, re-read my words.

And that we need to be careful, I agree with; that is why I do not caution good-willed catholics to receive sacraments from those who may have doubtful validity, such as those priests who receive ordination from New-Rite bishops. I'm not keeping them away from religions; I am encouraging them to get the True Religion.