I've been attending the TLM at an FSSP church every week for about 18 months now.It really is as songbird alluded, their priests' validity is, at best, doubtful. Although I tend to agree with you that it may be better than nothing, there is always that nagging reality that it may not be better than nothing due to their doubtful validity.
There isn't a single picture of Bergoglio to be found of him nor has he ever been mentioned
by name. Three FSSP priests have been in rotation and they are all very serious, very devout men
that have never shown any compromise with traditional doctrine from the pulpit.
On the other hand I have a close friend in a different state that attends an SSPX church
and the priest there routinely refers to Bergoglio as pope, has a picture of him in the foyer,
and even advocated taking the jab.
I was always under the impression that the FSSP was the lite version of the SSPX but it
seems this may vary from church to church, priest to priest.
I am no theologian and one shouldn't need to be in order to have access to valid sacraments.
We have been in uncharted waters for nearly 60 years and there is no definitive and clear stance
on where to go.
As I see it there are roughly 3 positions.
1. The broad recognize and resist groups that span everyone from Bishop Williamson/Fr Chazal to Bishop Fellay and
the SSPX to the Taylor Marshall/Michael Matt crowd.
2. The sede position of Bishop Sanborn(which I am most aligned with) but few have access to because their churches are so spread out.
3. The Dimond brothers, where everyone is a heretic and 15 daily decades of the rosary is our only recourse.
One more thing, we typically have two separate collections at my church, the first is a general collection, a portion of which goes to the conciliar dioceses, and the second that goes exclusively to the FSSP.
I know that I have made great strides spiritually by attending this church compared to where I was just a few years ago. If however there was a sede church across the street I wouldn't hesitate to go there instead.
So, the indult is better than nothing at this point.
It really is as songbird alluded, their priests' validity is, at best, doubtful. Although I tend to agree with you that it may be better than nothing, there is always that nagging reality that it may not be better than nothing due to their doubtful validity.I suppose my point is we have no conclusive idea who is a valid priest anymore. I've even seen arguments that Archbishop Lefebrve's ordination may be in question due to it being performed by an alleged freemason. Doesn't the fact that Fellay has accepted most of Vatican II place them in the same boat as the FSSP?
We need the Mass and the sacraments - hence we must have priests that are certainly valid, which is something impossible to be certain of with FSSP. For whatever anyone wants to say about the SSPX, between them and FSSP, the FSSP loses every time in the validity department - excepting of course those relatively few NO priests who converted to SSPX but have not been conditionally ordained.
You need to get ahold of yourself. You are very confused and need to do some calm prayer and research.Yes indeed I am confused and I'm simply pointing out why, because from my research it's evident that the whole of the resistance is splintered into ever increasing groups, opinions and theories.
I suppose my point is we have no conclusive idea who is a valid priest anymore..
I've even seen arguments that Archbishop Lefebrve's ordination may be in question due to it being performed by an alleged freemason. Doesn't the fact that Fellay has accepted most of Vatican II place them in the same boat as the FSSP?
.Thank you Yeti and everyone else for your responses. They have helped to give me some clarity and hopefully the person who began this thread as well.
This is not true. If a priest is descended from an unbroken line of bishops ordained and consecrated in the true rite, who had the knowledge to perform the ceremony correctly, then there is conclusive proof that he is a valid priest.
The argument against Abp. Lefebvre has been debunked numerous times, but without getting into the details, I think you need to make more distinctions between pre-Vatican 2 and post-Vatican 2 Catholicism. So, Abp. Lefebvre was ordained and consecrated during the normal times of the Church, and no one raised any doubt about his holy orders. Therefore, it is implausible for anyone to do so today, apart from the other reasons their arguments are absurd.
On the other hand, before Vatican 2 Pope Pius XII definitively settled the question of the matter and form of holy orders. He said what words needed to be said for a bishop to be consecrated validly, and what it had to contain. He used his supreme authority as pope to bind everyone to this. Then, not even 30 years later Paul VI comes along and throws that completely in the garbage, and rewrites the form entirely, in a formula that doesn't even contain the elements Pope Pius XII said it needed to have for validity.
Obviously such a travesty can have no presumption of validity. Besides, if you don't trust Paul VI for your Mass or other sacraments, why would you trust him for holy orders?
As far as the fruits of holiness, that is not evidence of the validity of a sacrament. The Church teaches what is necessary for the validity of a sacrament, and they are matter, form, intention, and (for most of them) a priest or bishop as the minister. If a sacrament doesn't meet those criteria correctly, as laid down by the Church, then it is doubtful or invalid. You can't argue that a sacrament lacking the proper matter, form, intention or minister must be valid because it appears to make people holy. Besides, you are not God and cannot read those people's hearts, so you really are not in a position to say how holy they are. If people there truly have have piety, it must be due to some other cause, such as praying the rosary, devotion to Our Lady, mortification, or other things.
It greatly saddens me if for the past 18 months I've simply been participating in a charade.
Well, I just checked on the SSPX website and their opinion is that the new rite of ordination is valid.
https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations-8 (https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations-8)
Am I missing something, or do the members of this forum know something the best theologians
from the SSPX also overlooked?
In other replies one reads that FSSP priests are required to offer the New Mass from time to time. I am unaware of any such stipulation. If it exists then there will be an official docuмent from a proper and legitimate ecclesiastical authority, but I’ve never seen such a docuмent cited. Just because one reads something on the interweb that agrees with what they want to believe, that doesn’t make it true, and if it’s not true it is a lie, and if it is a lie it is from Satan.The acceptance of the Novus Ordo in principle is required from the Roman authorities, who then leave the details of the priests' ministry to be decided by the local bishop. Each bishop draws up his own rules for the indulterer priest to follow.
Is she correct in her assertion that FSSP priests aren’t priests? She thinks so, and is therefore obliged to honor her conscience in how she lives. But nobody else on CI is obliged to accept her opinion.This is pure philosophical error called subjectivism. No, it’s not simply Songbird's “opinion”, as was already posted, Fr Chekada did a lengthy study of the matter (one of many priests who looked into the new rites) and they are “positively doubtful”. This means that there is factual evidence/reasons why the rite can be doubted, either due to words being changed or other liturgical flaws. Has nothing to do with anyones opinion.
I suppose my point is we have no conclusive idea who is a valid priest anymore. I've even seen arguments that Archbishop Lefebrve's ordination may be in question due to it being performed by an alleged freemason. Doesn't the fact that Fellay has accepted most of Vatican II place them in the same boat as the FSSP?Well, you have to ask, why. Why change the sacrament of ordination at all? The revisers had a reason for making changes, and particular reasons for each change they made.
I have no doubt that all this confusion is clearly a sign of the end times, yet when I look around at the devout children and adults at my church I have a hard time believing the man saying mass is a fraud, along with all the sacraments he is administering. If these good people are under such delusion wouldn't the Holy Spirit grant them discernment?
I doubt most of them know all the nuances of the old vs new rite of ordination. Even the "old" rite of ordination probably underwent countless modifications in the first thousand years of the church. The sad thing is, if this crisis
continues another 50 years we will still have no better grasp of what to do.
Well, I just checked on the SSPX website and their opinion is that the new rite of ordination is valid.Because their bishops are in the position of deciding for themselves whether to conditionally or re-ordain, they have to presume validity initially - this is what the Church has always done to defend and preserve her sacraments. To initially always presume invalidity, as many trads insist is always the correct path, is to defend and preserve nothing at all.
https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations-8 (https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations-8)
Am I missing something, or do the members of this forum know something the best theologians
from the SSPX also overlooked?
Well, I just checked on the SSPX website and their opinion is that the new rite of ordination is valid.In fact, Fr Calderon SSPX, regarded by Bishop Williamson as the best theologian of the Society, was asked by his superiors to study the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecrations, and he concluded thusly (I have had this entire study translated into English but am waiting on a good bishop to check the theology before posting):
https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations-8 (https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations-8)
Am I missing something, or do the members of this forum know something the best theologians
from the SSPX also overlooked?
I've been attending the TLM at an FSSP church every week for about 18 months now.Hello MV and welcome to the Forum.
There isn't a single picture of Bergoglio to be found of him nor has he ever been mentioned
by name. Three FSSP priests have been in rotation and they are all very serious, very devout men
that have never shown any compromise with traditional doctrine from the pulpit.
On the other hand I have a close friend in a different state that attends an SSPX church
and the priest there routinely refers to Bergoglio as pope, has a picture of him in the foyer,
and even advocated taking the jab.
I was always under the impression that the FSSP was the lite version of the SSPX but it
seems this may vary from church to church, priest to priest.
I am no theologian and one shouldn't need to be in order to have access to valid sacraments.
We have been in uncharted waters for nearly 60 years and there is no definitive and clear stance
on where to go.
As I see it there are roughly 3 positions.
1. The broad recognize and resist groups that span everyone from Bishop Williamson/Fr Chazal to Bishop Fellay and
the SSPX to the Taylor Marshall/Michael Matt crowd.
2. The sede position of Bishop Sanborn(which I am most aligned with) but few have access to because their churches are so spread out.
3. The Dimond brothers, where everyone is a heretic and 15 daily decades of the rosary is our only recourse.
One more thing, we typically have two separate collections at my church, the first is a general collection, a portion of which goes to the conciliar dioceses, and the second that goes exclusively to the FSSP.
I know that I have made great strides spiritually by attending this church compared to where I was just a few years ago. If however there was a sede church across the street I wouldn't hesitate to go there instead.
So, the indult is better than nothing at this point.
they have to presume validity initially - this is what the Church has always done to defend and preserve her sacraments.New rite sacraments are not from the Church, therefore there’s no requirement to presume validity. As you pointed out, they changed the words. Thus, we presume invalidity. Your conclusion is illogical.
New rite sacraments are not from the Church, therefore there’s no requirement to presume validity. As you pointed out, they changed the words. Thus, we presume invalidity. Your conclusion is illogical.No one ever said the NO sacraments are "from the Church," nor is validity dependent upon NO sacraments "coming from the Church."
For us faithful lay people, all we can do is what we do already, namely, determine that all NO ordinations are doubtful,Exactly. They are doubtful, thus conditional ordinations are to be used. That’s the entire reason why “conditional” sacramental formulas exist…for unclear circuмstances.
Exactly. They are doubtful, thus conditional ordinations are to be used. That’s the entire reason why “conditional” sacramental formulas exist…for unclear circuмstances.If this was a non negotiable for remnant Catholics, we wouldn't have to "unite the clans".
If the new rite was used, conditional ordination/consecration is required. It’s as simple as that.
The new-sspx has made it complicated because they want to be friends with new-rome, so they hold out the possibility that some new-rite priests/bishops aren’t doubtful. This is not so. If new rites are used, this is evidence enough of the need for a conditional re-do.
Hello everyone,I think that a huge reason why they have lasted is because I think most (not all) people who attend them, do so because they want to go to the TLM (for them the issue is primarily liturgical, not doctrinal). I question the future of these groups as Bergoglio (and no doubt future NO "popes") proceeds to try and eliminate the TLM in the Novus Ordo organization altogether. The question is whether these same folks will go to the SSPX or revert to the NO service.
I would like to know what are everyone's thoughts on how the FSSP/indult position has lasted so long? (i.e. their numbers are flourishing despite a mostly anti-traditional hierarchy).
My experience is limited with their priests but I have the same impression that their full intention is to save souls.
Also, I heard this rumor around. I would like to know your opinion as well.
Is it true that they are controlled opposition? (i.e. their chapels are intended to steal congregants from the nearby SSPX/other traditional congregations).
Thank you.
Exactly. They are doubtful, thus conditional ordinations are to be used. That’s the entire reason why “conditional” sacramental formulas exist…for unclear circuмstances.I agree, it is also MY OPINION that *all* NO priests should be re/conditionally ordained across the board and every time without fail. But that is only our opinion and in reality is up to whomever is tasked with doing the re/conditional ordinations. It simply is. You can slam the SSPX all day long for this, but in their initially presuming validity, they are doing what the Church has always done.
If the new rite was used, conditional ordination/consecration is required. It’s as simple as that.
The new-sspx has made it complicated because they want to be friends with new-rome, so they hold out the possibility that some new-rite priests/bishops aren’t doubtful. This is not so. If new rites are used, this is evidence enough of the need for a conditional re-do.
Stubborn, +ABL’s approach to investigate ordinations was logical because in the 70s-80s you still had valid novus ordo bishops who, even if they used the new rite of ordination, could validly ordain. The most problematic parts of the new rite are for episcopal consecrations. Thus, as time went on, the old, valid bishops all died.Is it the consensus here that Fellay has been a saboteur from the start or is he simply deluded by thinking compromises with the Vatican will lead to some restoration of tradition in the future?
For the last 20 yrs (at least), all New rite bishops are HIGHLY doubtful. Even if they ordain/consecrate others in the true rite, it’s also HIGHLY doubtful. There’s no need to investigate; they’re all doubtful.
The new-sspx’s policy is expired and illogical. But we know they are keeping it for nefarious and political reasons, to destroy Tradition by harboring more and more doubtful clerics. It’s evil and we cannot condone such actions.
Stubborn, +ABL’s approach to investigate ordinations was logical because in the 70s-80s you still had valid novus ordo bishops who, even if they used the new rite of ordination, could validly ordain. The most problematic parts of the new rite are for episcopal consecrations. Thus, as time went on, the old, valid bishops all died.Archbishop Lefebvre's main focus on the problem of invalid new rite sacraments was not regarding the form (which is almost certainly, though not definitely, valid), but regarding the intention. His question was: if a bishop teaches a new concept of the priesthood in all his preaching and teaching, a concept that is in contradiction with the Catholic concept, is he manifesting an intention to not do what the Church does when conferring Holy Orders?
For the last 20 yrs (at least), all New rite bishops are HIGHLY doubtful. Even if they ordain/consecrate others in the true rite, it’s also HIGHLY doubtful. There’s no need to investigate; they’re all doubtful.
The new-sspx’s policy is expired and illogical. But we know they are keeping it for nefarious and political reasons, to destroy Tradition by harboring more and more doubtful clerics. It’s evil and we cannot condone such actions.
Stubborn, +ABL’s approach to investigate ordinations was logical because in the 70s-80s you still had valid novus ordo bishops who, even if they used the new rite of ordination, could validly ordain. The most problematic parts of the new rite are for episcopal consecrations. Thus, as time went on, the old, valid bishops all died.As I said, I agree and think they should re-ordain every single NO priest that comes their way for no other reason than for the faithful's peace of mind in the matter - but that's very easy for me to insist upon because I am not the one risking committing a sacrilege - they are.
For the last 20 yrs (at least), all New rite bishops are HIGHLY doubtful. Even if they ordain/consecrate others in the true rite, it’s also HIGHLY doubtful. There’s no need to investigate; they’re all doubtful.
The new-sspx’s policy is expired and illogical. But we know they are keeping it for nefarious and political reasons, to destroy Tradition by harboring more and more doubtful clerics. It’s evil and we cannot condone such actions.
Archbishop Lefebvre's main focus on the problem of invalid new rite sacraments was not regarding the form (which is almost certainly, though not definitely, valid), but regarding the intention.1. The new rite form of consecration is NOT "most certainly valid". Quite the opposite.
His question was: if a bishop teaches a new concept of the priesthood in all his preaching and teaching, a concept that is in contradiction with the Catholic concept, is he manifesting an intention to not do what the Church does when conferring Holy Orders?Yes, +ABL had to contend with this question, because the bishops he was dealing with were valid; he just had to figure out if they were heretical.
but that's very easy for me to insist upon because I am not the one risking committing a sacrilege - they are.Stubborn, I and others have tried to explain this to you multiple times - that to conditionally ordain/consecrate due to the prior use of new rites, is not a sacrilege - but you won't listen. Whoever at the new-sspx told you this is basing this fairytale on the false assumption that new rite sacraments are from the Holy Ghost, and therefore, "from the Church". But they are not. So the assumption is of invalidity, not validity. Trent's/canon law's rules do not apply to V2. This tale is self-serving, for it helps the new-sspx further integrate into the conciliar revolution.
Stubborn, I and others have tried to explain this to you multiple times - that to conditionally ordain/consecrate due to the prior use of new rites, is not a sacrilege - but you won't listen.I won't listen because as much as I would love to agree, that idea is wrong per Trent's teaching that anathematizes repeating that sacrament, as well as Confirmation and Baptism, even conditionally - BECAUSE, whether we do or not, the Church always INITIALLY presumes validity.
I agree, it is also MY OPINION that *all* NO priests should be re/conditionally ordained across the board and every time without fail. But that is only our opinion and in reality is up to whomever is tasked with doing the re/conditional ordinations. It simply is. You can slam the SSPX all day long for this, but in their initially presuming validity, they are doing what the Church has always done.
the Church always INITIALLY presumes validity.This does not apply to V2, which changed the words of the sacraments.
This means before one can be re/conditionally ordained, the sacrament must be proven invalid or doubtful.V2 sacraments prove themselves as doubtful, because the words changed. This is all the doubt that is required.
This does not apply to V2, which changed the words of the sacraments.YOU say this does not apply, just as if you can. This is all the doubt that is required for us lay people, but for those tasked with actually re/conditionally ordaining, that is not all that is required. I know this isn't the case, but you come across as if a sacrilege is justified in this matter.
V2 sacraments prove themselves as doubtful, because the words changed. This is all the doubt that is required.
You're comparing apples (Traditional sacraments) and oranges (V2 sacraments) but you're falsely applying apple-rules to oranges. Doesn't work this way...except for the new-sspx, which wants to pretend that oranges are apples.What you don't understand, apparently at all, is the Church owns the 7 sacraments Pax. Period. They are all the Church's sacraments. None of them are the NO's, or prot's, or anyone else's. The sacraments are strictly the property of the Church - period.
V2's sacraments are "anti-Trent" as Ottaviani said. Trent's protections/guidelines don't apply.
You cannot say that, your knowledge of them being doubtful does not reward you with the authority to decide certain invalidity across the board.Canon Law says that a doubtful sacrament is treated as if it's invalid. Theoretically, we are not saying that ALL novus ordo sacraments are invalid. But PRACTICALLY, yes, canon law tells us we must treat them as such. If there is positive doubt (i.e. factual evidence which causes doubt) then canon law applies.
Canon Law says that a doubtful sacrament is treated as if it's invalid. Theoretically, we are not saying that ALL novus ordo sacraments are invalid. But PRACTICALLY, yes, canon law tells us we must treat them as such. If there is positive doubt (i.e. factual evidence which causes doubt) then canon law applies.
indiscriminately re/conditionally ordain every and any NO priest that come to them based on them being ordained NOBeing ordained in the NO is not an "indiscriminate" reason. Shame on you.
What is worth it, is spending what, a whole 10 - 20 minutes if that, looking into the individual's NO ordination to prove doubt/invalidity - and then go ahead with it.10-20 minutes of "investigation" is all you deem necessary? What, pray tell, would be the questions asked? What kind of investigation lasts only 20 minutes?
Being ordained in the NO is not an "indiscriminate" reason. Shame on you.Because the Church always initially presumes validity, yes it is.
10-20 minutes of "investigation" is all you deem necessary? What, pray tell, would be the questions asked? What kind of investigation lasts only 20 minutes?Q. Who ordained you and when?
Q. Who ordained you and when?So...because +Vigano is a non-bishop, having been consecrated in the new rite, then this ordination is doubtfully valid, right?
A. +Vigano 3 years ago
Didn't even take one minute.
Next one....A heretic bishop could still validly ordain. That's the part you're missing. The rite used is WAY more important than the bishop. A heretic bishop, using the old rite, can validly ordain/consecrate. That's why the +ABL slanders about his consecrating bishop, +Leinart, being a freemason, don't matter.
Q. Who ordained you and when
A. +Yahoo Heretic 20 years ago
Now the trad bishop needs to spend a few ( maybe 10 - 20) minutes to find out what he needs to know about that bishop. Sometimes the trad bishop, who has been through this plenty of times already, may already know what he needs to know and does not even need to spend another minute investigating.
Because the Church always initially presumes validity,You keep repeating this falsity. The Church only presumes validity for a) approved rites, b) which are properly performed, and c) having no positive doubts in their circuмstances.
Being ordained in the NO is not an "indiscriminate" reason. Shame on you.Perhaps it is not an indiscriminate reason now, so far into the crisis, with so much accuмulation of doubt from a series of new consecrations and new ordinations which could make it almost impossible to obtain certainty about validity. What Stubborn is surely referring to is the fact that with the ordination rite, Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly taught that the new rite did contain the essential form necessary for validity. So from this point of view, if it could be ascertained, as it often could at least in the early years, that everything else required for validity was present, then a competent judge, like Archbishop Lefebvre, could pronounce the ordination valid with certainty. That is the traditional SSPX belief, and it is the Resistance position, faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX of old.
10-20 minutes of "investigation" is all you deem necessary? What, pray tell, would be the questions asked? What kind of investigation lasts only 20 minutes?
What Stubborn is surely referring to is the fact that with the ordination rite, Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly taught that the new rite did contain the essential form necessary for validity.+ABL was right, for the period of the 70s/80s, when there were valid bishops in new-rome. But that’s all gone now. That view is outdated. They’re all dead.
+ABL was rightI'm glad we agree on that Pax.
So...because +Vigano is a non-bishop, having been consecrated in the new rite, then this ordination is doubtfully valid, right?
To me, yes, it is doubtfully valid, because I don't trust the NO to do anything right, but I cannot prove it valid/invalid or doubtful one way or the other. There are those who can, but I am not one of them and neither are you.
A heretic bishop could still validly ordain. That's the part you're missing. The rite used is WAY more important than the bishop. A heretic bishop, using the old rite, can validly ordain/consecrate. That's why the +ABL slanders about his consecrating bishop, +Leinart, being a freemason, don't matter.
Conversely, in the case above, no matter how orthodox the new-rite bishop is, no matter if he ordains using the True Rite, since his bishop-ness is in doubt, he cannot ordain (or, to put it better, canon law tells us we treat as invalid).
No, I am not missing that part. Per Fr. Hesse, +ABL, +Williamson and I think Fr. Schmidberger all said that an and old rite bishop who ordained priests in the new rite, and a new rite bishop who ordained priests in the old rite, were both validly ordained priests. According to your thinking, both are invalid ordinations.
You keep repeating this falsity.
The Church only presumes validity for a) approved rites, b) which are properly performed, and c) having no positive doubts in their circuмstances.
A. The new rites of V2 are not "approved rites". Paul VI did not use his apostolic authority to create them. They are man-made, not from the Holy Ghost.
B. The only way to know if they were properly performed/ have proper intent, would be to be visibly present. No way anyone can know this.
C. Positive Doubts exist due to the very text of the rites themselves. They have the same flaws as the Anglican rites which were already condemned.
So, no, Trads do not presume validity.
Very simply Pax, you refuse to accept the Church, as the sole owner of all of the sacraments, always has and always must presume validity initially. Until such a time that a pope comes out as Pope Leo XIII did regarding the Anglicans, validity is presumed - or what reason did pope Leo XIII even bother?
This is easily exemplified using any of the sacraments, but let's take the sacrament of baptism for example. A prot who was baptized as a young child and has no knowledge of whether or not it was done correctly wants to become a Catholic and wants to be baptized in the Catholic Church.
The priest may not simply re/conditionally baptize as if the other baptism was automatically invalid or doubtful, under pain of sacrilege he must first prove invalidity or doubt - because validity is always presumed initially. This is not the least bit complicated Pax, and the same goes for all of the sacraments, including NO ordinations/consecrations. The ordaining bishop has got to be sure he is not repeating a sacrament that the Church forbids under pain of mortal sin from being repeated.
"+ABL, +Williamson and I think Fr. Schmidberger all said that an and old rite bishop who ordained priests in the new rite, and a new rite bishop who ordained priests in the old rite, were both validly ordained priests."First, there's this (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/sspx-official-position-re-validity-of-new-rite-of-episcopal-consecrations/msg638191/?topicseen#msg638191), a phone call I made to someone at SSPX about this issue.
What is this Stubborn? I challenge you to docuмent this.
@ 1:04 "...I have been ordained, unfortunately in the new rite of ordination, but thank God in Latin, everything strictly by the book and +ABL said that would be valid, +Fellay said it's valid and Fr. Franz Schmidberger who is my present superior in Austria says it's valid and +Williamson said there's no need for conditional ordination...." - Fr. HesseI will post the whole quote if I find the recording of him saying what I quoted him as saying. He's got quite a few recordings out there and it's on one of them, not sure which one tho.
https://youtu.be/lfJZv44xFHQ?t=62 (https://youtu.be/lfJZv44xFHQ?t=62)
To me, yes, (+Vigano's consecration) is doubtfully valid, because I don't trust the NO to do anything right,It's not a matter of trust; it's not a personal decision or feeling. It's a factual matter that the new rite of consecration has the same defects as the Anglican rites, which have already been declared invalid.
but I cannot prove it valid/invalidIt's near impossible to prove validity, and that's not the goal here.
or doubtful one way or the other.Yes, it is doubtful because the new rite has changes to the old rite. These changes to the consecration formula cause the doubt.
There are those who can, but I am not one of them and neither are you.We don't have to prove invalidity. All we have to prove is positive doubt. Is there factual evidence which causes one to doubt the validity? If yes, then you use the conditional formula.
No, I am not missing that part. Per Fr. Hesse, +ABL, +Williamson and I think Fr. Schmidberger all said that an and old rite bishop who ordained priests in the new rite,This could be valid. The new rite of ordination is not as problematic as the new rite of consecration. A fact that many in the new-sspx don't distinguish.
and a new rite bishop who ordained priests in the old rite, were both validly ordained priests.This is very probably invalid. The new rite of consecration is the problem.
Very simply Pax, you refuse to accept the Church, as the sole owner of all of the sacraments, always has and always must presume validity initially. Until such a time that a pope comes out as Pope Leo XIII did regarding the Anglicans, validity is presumed - or what reason did pope Leo XIII even bother?The V2 changes mirror the Anglican errors, which is why many Trad clerics say we can't presume validity. Why is this so difficult?
This is easily exemplified using any of the sacraments, but let's take the sacrament of baptism for example. A prot who was baptized as a young child and has no knowledge of whether or not it was done correctly wants to become a Catholic and wants to be baptized in the Catholic Church.Theologians say that marriage and baptism by protestants is *usually* but not always, valid. It's not a blanket presumption of validity.
The priest may not simply re/conditionally baptize as if the other baptism was automatically invalid or doubtful, under pain of sacrilege he must first prove invalidity or doubt - because validity is always presumed initially.
This is not the least bit complicated Pax, and the same goes for all of the sacraments, including NO ordinations/consecrations.
The ordaining bishop has got to be sure he is not repeating a sacrament that the Church forbids under pain of mortal sin from being repeated.A conditional sacramental formula does not "repeat" the sacrament. :facepalm:
This could be valid. The new rite of ordination is not as problematic as the new rite of consecration. A fact that many in the new-sspx don't distinguish.
This is very probably invalid. The new rite of consecration is the problem.
This is very probably invalid. The new rite of consecration is the problem.No, if anything, this is doubtful. +ABL and co said that was valid.
The V2 changes mirror the Anglican errors, which is why many Trad clerics say we can't presume validity. Why is this so difficult?I don't presume validity, I presume doubtful and do not go to them for anything, ever. I am also not the one who has to prove doubt lest I commit sacrilege administering the re/conditional ordination.
Theologians say that marriage and baptism by protestants is *usually* but not always, valid. It's not a blanket presumption of validity.Yes, it is. It has to be, otherwise as regards baptism, why bother to ask the convert if they were ever baptized? Simply go ahead and conditionally or just baptize them. I won't get into the sacrament of matrimony.
The only reason that baptisms/marriages by protestants are presumed valid is because they a) use the EXACT words of Catholic baptisms, and b) the essential vows of marriage are there. The novus ordo ordinations/consecrations CHANGED THE WORDS (just like the Anglicans). The presumption of validity is not there.You could not convince +ABL of this, nor +Williamson, nor most or all of the SSPX bishops and priests - who are not exactly idiots you know.
A conditional sacramental formula does not "repeat" the sacrament. (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif)Trent's catechism says that it's a sacrilege to even conditionally baptize without first due inquiry, and to do such a thing is an abuse of the sacrament - ask yourself why is it an abuse of the sacrament. The bold is what you are repeating, and what you repeat cannot be done without sacrilege....
Yes, it is. It has to be, otherwise as regards baptism, why bother to ask the convert if they were ever baptized? Simply go ahead and conditionally or just baptize them.You're oversimplifying it. This isn't the only question asked. The second question is, "What religion baptized you?" If the answer is Jehova Witness or some crazy Unitarian sect, then it's invalid.
You could not convince +ABL of this, nor +Williamson, nor most or all of the SSPX bishops and priests - who are not exactly idiots you know.Again, you're oversimplifying it.
Stubborn, I've tried to explain the principles on this issue, but you're either not listening, or I'm not explaining it properly. For some reason, you are using Trent to approve of V2, which is nonsense. This shows you don't understand, and are improperly applying, the theological principles.I am not using Trent to approve of V2. You've seen the quote from Trent's catechism, it's their teaching not mine.
Major - Trent: The conditional form of a [sacrament] is to be used only when after due inquiry doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous [sacrament].
Minor - V2's bishop consecration/priestly ordination have new/omitted words, which after 50+ years of study, give most Trad clerics doubts as to validity.
Minor 2 - Due inquiry is satisfied with confirming that the new rites were used, as these are not approved of by the Church, but from a V2 schismatic/masonic sect.
Conclusion - The conditional form can (and should be) used for V2's consecration/ordination rites, due to positive doubts from schism and infiltration by Masons.
+ABL could not and did not try to insist what you're insisting, instead, he consecrated certainly valid bishops to close the matter.?? Wasn't this a sacrilege, according to your interpretation.
it works differently for lay people than it does for bishops. We avoid the NOers and that's the end of it for us,Why are you allowed to ignore the Church/Trent and presume invalidity or entertain doubts?
the example of Pope Leo XIII, until all NO ordinations and consecrations are declared null or doubtful by a pope, all NO ordinations are presumed valid initially.So, according to you, the sspx leadership must presume validity but you, personally, are allowed to doubt them? This is makes zero sense.
You're oversimplifying it. This isn't the only question asked. The second question is, "What religion baptized you?" If the answer is Jehova Witness or some crazy Unitarian sect, then it's invalid.I am not oversimplifying anything, what I am telling you is how it has been since this crisis began and is what the Church has always done - and if anything should be more strictly applied during this crisis than before.
Again, you're oversimplifying it.
1. +ABL's comments should be taken in the time/age when he lived (i.e. there were still old rite, valid bishops, operating in the novus ordo).
2. +W argues that the new mass is valid and ok to attend. His theology is all over the map, and I can't trust him to make a non-emotional decision.
3. As we know now, most of the new-sspx leadership wants to be part of the V2 false church, which they've been working for DECADES (even before +ABL died) to infiltrate and change the sspx from within, into an indult community. They have EVERY reason to minimize the V2's changes to the new rites, since they want to minimize their treachery and heresy.
Let's look at the "Bishop" Huonder case, which the new-sspx treats like a valid bishop. He was ordained in 1971 (new rite = probably invalid), and then made a bishop in 1998 (again, even if he was a priest, his bishop status is doubtful). Same applies to +Vigano.
Would you advise a family member to receive confirmation from this "bishop"? Would you want to receive extreme unction using oils he "blessed"? You say you have personal doubts, but then keep repeating that +ABL, +W and the new-sspx say this guy is legit. Why the contradiction?
So, according to you, the sspx leadership must presume validity but you, personally, are allowed to doubt them? This is makes zero sense.Apparently, it would only make all the sense in the world if you were the one doing the ordination.
No, I would not go to nor would I or do I ever advise anyone to receive sacraments from anyone ordained or consecrated in the NO unless they were at some point, conditionally ordained in the old rite by a certainly valid bishop.Aren't you violating Trent, by not presuming validity? I don't get it.
I realize the Church always initially presumes validity of her sacraments no matter who uses them, and no matter who changes them into whatever they change them toChurch's sacraments = A.
Apparently, it would only make all the sense in the world if you were the one doing the ordination.Or, it would make sense if the sspx wants to be friends with new-rome.
Aren't you violating Trent, by not presuming validity? I don't get it.How could I, who cannot administer the sacrament, be violating Trent? I can't help that you don't get it, I've explained it over and over.
Or, it would make sense if the sspx wants to be friends with new-rome.I suppose it makes sense to everyone except those who do not understand why the always presumes validity initially.
How could I, who cannot administer the sacrament, be violating Trent?If Trent applies to priests/bishops, then it also applies to laity. :facepalm:
If Trent applies to priests/bishops, then it also applies to laity. :facepalm:It would if laity could administer the sacrament.:facepalm:
It would if laity could administer the sacrament.(https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif)So let me get this straight...when it comes to administering the sacraments (i.e. an action), clerics must assume V2 sacraments are legit and follow Trent. But the laity can mentally disagree (i.e. a thought) with the clerics (and with Trent)? And how does this promote church unity? This leads to chaos.
So let me get this straight...when it comes to administering the sacraments (i.e. an action), clerics must assume V2 sacraments are legit and follow Trent. But the laity can mentally disagree (i.e. a thought) with the clerics (and with Trent)? And how does this promote church unity? This leads to chaos.Your viewing this matter through the wrong lenses. Try to view it through the Church's.
You're basically preaching subjectivism, which is truth/facts can mean different things to different people. Clerics do one thing; laity do another. Crazy.
without due inquiry into the NO ordinationCould you give me a list of things which, if uncovered, would constitute doubt and require conditional ordination?
I suppose it makes sense to everyone except those who do not understand why the always presumes validity initially.Stubborn, this idea of yours that Trent is teaching that the fabricated sacramental rites of the New Church should be presumed to be valid until Rome declares them invalid is mistaken. Trent teaches no such thing.
Bishop Tissier also wrote a lengthy article questioning the new rites of consecration/ordination.Really? Can you point me to that one Pax?
…The Fraternity uses all available means today, in light of the situation in the Church, to transmit to all priests of the Church this truth of the priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the reality of Christ, Priest and King, to communicate this to the whole Church.
This nature of the priest as mediator seems to me to be very simply illustrated in the priestly ordination ceremony.
By the anointing of the priest’s hands, by the tradition of the chalice and the paten, and by the second imposition of the hands accompanied with the power to absolve sins. Now these three rites are accomplished at the end of the ordination when the ordinands are already priests by the silent imposition of the bishop’s hands and the consecratory preface. They are already priests. Nevertheless, the Church insists, through these three secondary rites, on specifying the nature of the priest’s power.
First of all, the anointing of the hands, so beautiful, so meaningful. The priest is no longer a man like others, he is a consecrated man because he receives the anointing of his hands. Anointing the two hands of the ordinand, of the ordained, the priest [bishop] pronounces these words: “Consecrate and sanctify, O Lord, these hands by this unction and our blessing so that whatsoever they shall bless and consecrate be consecrated and made holy, in the name of the Lord.” From now on, dear candidates to the priesthood, you will work wonders, you will consecrate and sanctify. Consecrating at mass, of course, holding the chalice that will become the chalice of the Precious Blood, and holding the paten that will become the paten holding Our Lord Jesus Christ, His immolated Body. Thus, you will consecrate the Holy Eucharist, you will renew sacramentally the sacrifice of the Cross. And you will sanctify souls through your hands, through all the blessings of the Church, through baptism, and through the Holy Communion you will give.
But, dear faithful, this marvelous anointing of the priest’s hands was tampered with [truqué] by the Conciliar Church 46 years ago. Paul VI instituted other words, which say nothing of consecration or sanctification. That is why we preciously safeguard the treasure of these ordination prayers.
The second rite is the rite of presenting the young priest with the chalice and the paten, with these very clear words: “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God.” These words you will not find in the other parts of the ordination. Nowhere. It is in this secondary rite that you will ultimately find specified what this priesthood is you are going to receive. “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God,” and it continues, “and to celebrate masses for the living as well as for the dead, in the name of the Lord.” To celebrate masses, this is quite clear, for the living as well as for the dead.
Not only a sacrifice of praise for the living, but also the sacrifice of expiation and propitiation for the souls in purgatory, who are no longer spoken of in the Church today. Your priesthood is a priesthood having effects for eternity, not only on earth but in Heaven for admitting in souls, and in purgatory for the deliverance of souls.
Archbishop Lefebvre would tell us: “The priest is a man of eternity, who lives not only in time, but whose priesthood has eternal effects.”
But this prayer, once again, was tampered with by the Conciliar Church—the new ordination rite where the bishop presents the chalice and the paten, with the wine and the host, yes, simply saying: “Receive the gifts of the faithful, to offer them to God.” So, what does that mean? You are receiving the gifts of the faithful to offer them to God? Is that all? We are not receiving the gifts of the faithful, we are receiving the gift of God, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ sacrificed on the Cross, to offer Him anew to God the Father. This is the truth! Obviously, we cannot accept this new, tampered with ordination rite, which casts doubts on the validity of numerous ordinations [done] according to the new rite.
And finally, the third beautiful rite—secondary, it is true, but still so important—the power to absolve sins. The priest [bishop] says to the ordinand, as he spreads open his chasuble to signify he shall thenceforth be able to exercise his priesthood and all of his priestly functions: “Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou shalt forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins thou shalt retain, they are retained.” These beautiful words of Our Lord to the Apostles on Easter, on Easter evening, what could be more beautiful? To express this power, which the young priests have already received by the silent imposition of hands and the preface, this is true, but expressing it in an explicit manner, that the priest has the power to forgive sins. You will say but only God can forgive sins. Exactly—the priest is the instrument of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins.
But, dear faithful, this prayer, this rite of transmitting the power to forgive sins, was simply suppressed in the new rite of ordination. It is no longer mentioned. So this new rite of ordination is not Catholic. And so we shall continue, of course, to faithfully transmit the real and valid priesthood through the traditional rite of priestly ordination.
(Source: “Sermon de Mgr Tissier de Mallerais le 29 juin 2016 à Ecône: qu’en est-il de la validité du nouveau rite d’ordination?” (http://laportelatine.org/mediatheque/sermonsecrits/tissier_160629_econe/tissier_160629_econe.php), La Porte Latine; translation by Novus Ordo Watch.)
Assertion 3: The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.
By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.
The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. “This law, considering all the circuмstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.
Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.
The Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circuмstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.
Proof:
1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ’s doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.
2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism” [Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei, error n. 78; Denz. 1578 (http://patristica.net/denzinger/#n1500)].
Corollary
The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals. But it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that all the historical facts which are recorded here and there in the lessons of the Roman Breviary, or all the explanations of scriptural passages which are used in the homilies of the Breviary must be taken as infallibly true. As far as the former are concerned, those particular facts are not an object of infallibility since they have no necessary connection with revelation. As for the latter, the Church orders their recitation not because they are certainly true, but because they are edifying.
(Mgr. Gerard van Noort, Dogmatic Theology II: Christ’s Church (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000J30R6K/interregnumnow-20) [Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1957], nn. 91-92; italics given; underlining added.)
Besides, the Council of Trent hurled an anathema at the view that the Church can give evil in the ceremonies of her Masses: “If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session 22 (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Council/Trent/Twenty_Second_Session,_Canons.html), Canon VII).Novusordowatch, for all the good they do, often twist the truth and draw false conclusions.
The invalidity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, therefore, is one of the definitive proofs by means of which all Catholics can know that the Vatican II Church is not the Roman Catholic Church, for the simple reason that it cannot be, as it has thereby demonstrated. This is Catholic theology.
Could you give me a list of things which, if uncovered, would constitute doubt and require conditional ordination?If I was the ordaining bishop, I could probably rattle off a list of things that constitute doubt, but because I'm only one of the faithful, I can only say if something obvious happened, like the NO bishop ad libbing parts or the whole ceremony.
What things would NOT constitute doubt?
You claim above that ABL, BW, Fr Schmidberger and Canon Hesse "all said" that a new rite bishop ordains valid priests. In response to my request you provided two pieces of evidence. 1. Fr Hesse's ordination. You provide a quote from Fr Hesse where he evidently says that ABL, Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson and Fr Schmidberger all said that his ordination was valid and there was no need for him to be 're-ordained".As I posted:
Are you aware that Fr Hesse was ordained by an old-rite bishop, Cardinal Sabattani, who was consecrated in 1965? So that in no way relates to the validity of the NREC but only the new rite of priestly ordination. 2. You provided a link to your phone conversation with 'Brent' from the Angelus press in 2019 who told you what the process is with the neo-SSPX investigating ordinations of new priests coming to Tradition. Further comment is superfluous.
Novusordowatch, for all the good they do, often twist the truth and draw false conclusions.I love Fr. Hesse's arguments, but if you consider Fr. Cekada book Work of Human Hands, the point by point systematic destruction of Tradition by Modernist cannot be disputed. It's not a minor thing and how Tradition should judge the changes is clear. You can't be liberal with these grave matters.
The Council of Trent also anathematised the idea that the Pope could change the rites of administration of the sacraments. It is just not what Christ gave him power to do. If he tries, it doesn't make him not Pope, or it doesn't make the Church no longer the Church, it simply means he is acting illegitimately and should not be followed. Hear the first minute of this video of Canon Hesse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYXC6DCgIA&t=93s
I love Fr. Hesse's arguments ...
If he tries, it doesn't make him not Pope, or it doesn't make the Church no longer the Church ...
I don't. They're incredibly weak. Legitimate Popes are protected by the Holy Spirit from wrecking the Church. Those who deny this are basically some combination of Old Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. Archbishop Lefebvre affirmed this basic Catholic truth also, and it's a very basic Catholic truth ... but this is hidden by modern Old Catholic R&R.I believe the parallel Fr. Hesse sets up is similar to the Anglican schismatics. So with the passage of time and their persistent in the brake with Tradition, doing what the Church intends to do comes into question. Therfore it is prudent to correct any deficiencies.
Legitimate Popes are protected by the Holy Spirit from wrecking the Church.The kernel of the sedevacantist error.
The kernel of the sedevacantist error.And there you go, the victim becomes the perp! Incredible
A pious and understandable instinct to think this way, in fact the first instinct of the Archbishop himself. Unfortunately not taught by the Church anywhere, ever.
Bishop Tissier was not here questioning the validity of the essential form of the new rite of priestly ordinationHe said it was "not catholic". :confused:
Again, the principle is that all sacraments, being the Church's, must initially be presumed valid because they all belong to the Church. Only the Church can declare otherwise.Trent also condemns the idea that sacraments can be corrupted/changed. So, please don't be that guy who just parrots 1 principle only.
If I was the ordaining bishop, I could probably rattle off a list of things that constitute doubt, but because I'm only one of the faithful,Thanks for admitting you don't know.
The kernel of the sedevacantist error.Yes, St Robert Bellarmine even speaks specifically about what the Catholic should do faced with a Pope who WANTS to destroy the Church.
A pious and understandable instinct to think this way, in fact the first instinct of the Archbishop himself. Unfortunately not taught by the Church anywhere, ever.
Matter form and intention or not, It begs the question, are the menAbsolutely Gunter. As Archbishop Lefebvre said, we have a strict duty to separate ourselves from this danger to the Faith.
of the new order incapable of
of making judgments on these things? Does persistent error cloud judgment? And using Fr. Hesse's reasoning, who would seek unity with a schismatic sect?
It's not about whether a putative Pope "tried". He didn't just try. He did in fact destroy the Mass, in the sense that he imposed it on the faithful. But true popes are protected by the Holy Spirit from destroying the Mass. Ergo, these guys posing as Popes are not actually Popes but are usurpers and destroyers. Wake up. Masons / Communists / Jєωs have been trying for centuries to get "their man" on the See of Peter and they finally succeeded (as God has allowed).False logic, Lad, anyone can see that. Can the Pope be a mason, a communist, a satanist? The Pope did something illegitimate and should not have been followed. Those who knew better did not succuмb to false obedience. The fact that many elect were deceived does not change the reality. You like to label true Catholics 'Old Catholics', but it is you who make a mockery of the Church's infallible definition of papal infallibility and make this charism extend way beyond the limits defined by the Vatican Council. So come, gentlemen, no more mention of this S word. This is an R word forum.
I believe the parallel Fr. Hesse sets up is similar to the Anglican schismatics. So with the passage of time and their persistent in the brake with Tradition, doing what the Church intends to do comes into question. Therfore it is prudent to correct any deficiencies.The analogy is true, only in regards to intent. It is deficient in comparing actions. Fr Hesse does not go far enough in describing V2's revolution.
Thanks Pax, but as you can clearly read, Bishop Tissier was not here questioning the validity of the essential form of the new rite of priestly ordination, he was in fact firmly asserting it, the corruption/absence of the ceremonies he describes being traditionally performed "when the ordinands are already priests", something we agree on. He is rather decrying the emptying out of the signification, the impoverishment and corruption of the rite, and alluding to the impact this might have on the ordaining bishop's Catholic intention.PV, the setting of “character” of the Holy Order can be validly accomplished, but the “powers” specific to each different Holy Order are applied/unlocked later in the ceremony.
PV, the setting of “character” of the Holy Order can be validly accomplished, but the “powers” specific to each different Holy Order are applied/unlocked later in the ceremony.What are the wording changes that convey the new powers as opposed to traditional powers.
If the words specifying the essential characteristics of the “power” changes, then the ordinand has different powers from those of a traditionally-ordained Catholic Priest. This person is, at best, a new kind of “priest” with defective “powers.” He cannot do those things which he has not been given the “power” to do.
See Aquinas’s discussion on the difference between “grace,” “character,” and “powers,” in the Summa Theologiae.
What are the wording changes that convey the new powers as opposed to traditional powers.Bishop Tissier goes through the main ones in his sermon:
PV, the setting of “character” of the Holy Order can be validly accomplished, but the “powers” specific to each different Holy Order are applied/unlocked later in the ceremony.Hi Angelus, thank you for the comment. Let me clarify: are you saying that if there is a true bishop ordaining, who has the intention to do what the Church does, makes use of correct matter and the essential form of the sacrament, that is not sufficient to produce a priest?
If the words specifying the essential characteristics of the “power” changes, then the ordinand has different powers from those of a traditionally-ordained Catholic Priest. This person is, at best, a new kind of “priest” with defective “powers.” He cannot do those things which he has not been given the “power” to do.
See Aquinas’s discussion on the difference between “grace,” “character,” and “powers,” in the Summa Theologiae.
Plenus Venter: did you ever read the True Story of the vatican Council, by Cardinal Manning. The Infallibility dogma was brought forward for all the 300 years of misinterpretations and the years of Luther. It was a mess. It was thought, Holy Ghost will protect pope/church. But the word "might" was used in the 1hour and a half of reading/defining at Vatican I. Might the pope take his divine office, might he ask for the Holy Ghost, might he. For if he decides not to, he can lose his authority. Example: Did Pope Pius XI consecrate Russia, as God commanded through Our Lady in 1929. No, he did not. Hm? That is serious. Did he lose his authority?Hey songbird. I've read a bit on the Vatican Council, but you know, I don't think I've read Cardinal Manning. I was always meaning to and I will track that down now, thank you for reminding me!... so much to read! Have you read Bishop Vincent Gasser's Relatio to the Council on Infallibility? I highly recommend it.
It is noted: That Our Lady told Lucia at TUY, Spain, 1929, that the hour was now, to do the consecration. Then it is said, that Our Lady said, Pope Pius XI did not consecrate, half measure. He will be like King Louis who was asked to consecrate France. He did not, he lost his throne and was beheaded.
Pope can lose authority, and did the church lose her head. yes, she did.
I am wondering if anyone knows if there have been any revisions to the new rite of ordinations/consecrations, or do they continue to use the same NO rite of PPVI of 1968?The typical edition of the Paul VI ordinale remains the same. The ICEL translation has gone through two versions. The second version brought the form for presbyteral ordination closer to the Latin of the typical edition.
The typical edition of the Paul VI ordinale remains the same. The ICEL translation has gone through two versions. The second version brought the form for presbyteral ordination closer to the Latin of the typical edition.Thanks Elwin!
My opinion on the Novus Ordo rites of ordination for Latin typical edition:
- Rite of diaconal ordination - possibly valid
- Rite of presbyteral ordination - possibly valid
- Rite of episcopal consecration - doubtfully valid (leaning towards invalid)
The below video Fr. Hesse begins talking about an and old rite bishop who ordained him in the new rite, and a new rite bishop who ordained priests in the old rite. Then you can jump to about the 7:48 mark for a few minutes.Fr. Hesse was ordained? in 1981 by an old rite Bishop using new ordo. If this rite is schismatic as Fr. Hesse says, is the schism merely a departure from Tradition but valid, or can the schismatic changes be sscrutinized as to the intent of the heretical authors?
https://youtu.be/Ur1OlGrTU7s
Either way Fr. Hesse was brilliant.
Well, I think he gave off airs of being brilliant, due to his deameanor and tone, but some of his theological conclusions seem strange and convoluted ... somehow off.Probably the American wine talking. Nothing like the motherland lol.
Fr Hesse is certainly NOT impartial on the matter, being he was part of the novus ordo for years. An old rite Bishop ordaining in the new rite is much, much more safe than a new rite "bishop" ordaining in the old rite. Again, the most problematic issue is the new rite consecration of bishops. If such are invalid (and there's a high doubt they are), then whether they ordain in the old/new rite doesn't matter.None of us are impartial. You certainly aren't impartial yourself Pax.
Hi Angelus, thank you for the comment. Let me clarify: are you saying that if there is a true bishop ordaining, who has the intention to do what the Church does, makes use of correct matter and the essential form of the sacrament, that is not sufficient to produce a priest?PV, in that case the ordinand would definitely have “the character,” the indelible mark.
You certainly aren't impartial yourself Pax.I'm not a cleric, and a WISH the Church were not so complicated and I WISH that new rites were 'morally certain' to be valid. Life would be SO MUCH EASIER. But the evidence is overwhelming that new rites are probably invalid.
PV, in that case the ordinand would definitely have “the character,” the indelible mark.Ah, Angelus, I fear you are confusing the issue. If you have a true bishop intending to do what the Church does, pronouncing the essential form for the sacrament of ordination of a priest plus the required matter, then you really do have a priest. It really is that simple. What is required for a valid sacrament? A valid minister, correct matter, form and intention. Nothing more, nothing less. That is for validity. That is what we are dealing with here.
But Aquinas says that there are two other things that occur in the sacrament of Holy Orders, properly accomplished: 1) an increase in sanctifying grace, and 2) the “powers” specific to the particular level of Order.
A deacon receives the “character” but different “powers“ than a priest. Reference must be made to the full Rite to determine what “powers” an ordinand is granted by the Bishop.
Again, Aquinas explains this in the section on Holy Orders in the ST.
What the NewChurch has done is convince everyone that all that matters is the validity of the indelible “character.” That is not true. So taking advantage of the ignorance, the New Church has created a set of parallel, defective, counterfeit levels of Holy Order. What the NewChurch call a “priest” and “bishop” are bad, not because they aren’t “valid.” Instead, the new “orders” are bad because the don’t effect the same “powers” as the traditional counterparts.
I'm not a cleric, and a WISH the Church were not so complicated and I WISH that new rites were 'morally certain' to be valid. Life would be SO MUCH EASIER. But the evidence is overwhelming that new rites are probably invalid.Pax, all I can tell you is to listen to what Fr. Hesse says around the 50 minute mark, 10 - 15 minutes of your time should be plenty. I don't have time to transcribe what he says there, but if you take the few minutes to listen, I am pretty sure you will understand why the things you've been saying are incorrect.
Pax, all I can tell you is to listen to what Fr. Hesse says around the 50 minute mark, 10 - 15 minutes of your time should be plenty. I don't have time to transcribe what he says there, but if you take the few minutes to listen, I am pretty sure you will understand why the things you've been saying are incorrect.So, I've listened to this talk by Fr. Hesse and if I'm to understand correctly he claims the new rite ordinations ARE valid. This runs contrary to a lot of the opinions offered throughout this thread.
If you have a true bishop intending to do what the Church does, pronouncing the essential form for the sacrament of ordination of a priest plus the required matter, then you really do have a priest.A true Bishop cannot “intend to do what the Church does” if he uses a faulty rite. The Church’s intention is WRITTEN into the rite. The Bishop's “personal” intention is irrelevant. A heretic, agnostic, fallen-away true bishop can ordain validly. Why? Because they only intention that matters is the Church’s, which is part of the rite/prayers.
Now, if Fr Hesse, who probably forgot more about canon law than any of us here will ever know, believesUhhh…because this problem is a doctrinal/theological one, not solvable by canon law. Fr Hesse is not an expert in the sacramental field.
the orders of FSSP priests are valid, why should I require any more proof?
Fr. Hesse mentioned he checked with Bishop Fellay, Fr. Schmidberger, Bishop Williamson, and Bishop Tissier about getting reordained and he claimed that all of them rejected the request.That’s because Fr Hesse was allegedly ordained by a true rite bishop. So there’s way less of a problem.
It's also significant that at 55.18 onwards, Fr. Hesse mentioned he checked with Bishop Fellay, Fr. Schmidberger, Bishop Williamson, and Bishop Tissier about getting reordained and he claimed that all of them rejected the request.
So, I've listened to this talk by Fr. Hesse and if I'm to understand correctly he claims the new rite ordinations ARE valid. This runs contrary to a lot of the opinions offered throughout this thread.I'm sorry, but this is the dumbest and saddest thing I've read all day. You would risk your soul on the fallible opinion of the most biased "priest" to ever speak on the matter?!
Now, if Fr Hesse, who probably forgot more about canon law than any of us here will ever know, believes
the orders of FSSP priests are valid, why should I require any more proof?
This is a sacramentological question with an easy answer. If there's doubt about the validity the sacrament must be treated as invalid. The very existence of this thread is proof of the existence of reasonable doubts (caused by changes in the texts).Thank you for the sanity check. I thought I was going crazy. The new-sspx view of this subject does lead to crazy town.
Cekada spells it out simply and in great detail.
A true Bishop cannot “intend to do what the Church does” if he uses a faulty rite. The Church’s intention is WRITTEN into the rite. The Bishop's “personal” intention is irrelevant. A heretic, agnostic, fallen-away true bishop can ordain validly. Why? Because they only intention that matters is the Church’s, which is part of the rite/prayers.I agree, Pax, that the rite and the context of the rite is of importance when it comes to the intention. Fr Calderon has a bit to say about that in his study on the NREC. However, your statement that the personal intention of the Bishop is irrelevant is a serious theological error. The minister must have at least the intention to do what the Church does, and that means something more than just performing the action. If he follows a Catholic rite, it is presumed he has this intention, giving us moral certitude that the sacrament is valid, but it is possible in spite of this for him to have a defect of intention. His personal, internal intention really does matter:
The minister must have at least the intention to do what the Church does, and that means something more than just performing the action. If he follows a Catholic rite, it is presumed he has this intentionYou are correct but I meant it’s irrelevant for this discussion. Old rite bishop, performing old rite sacraments…the best scenario we can hope for.
I've attached extensive proof of the invalidity of the new rite of episcopal consecration and here's why the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination is as invaild as the Anglican rite: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/new-rite-of-ordination-invalid/LOL, no bias at all with those sources. :laugh1::laugh1:
insisting on automatic doubt=invalidity:confused: That's not what we're saying at all. If you think the above, it explains why this conversation has been a chaotic mess.
:confused: That's not what we're saying at all. If you think the above, it explains why this conversation has been a chaotic mess.Pax Vobis: (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/thoughts-on-the-fssp-indult/msg914184/#msg914184)
A Church that can promulgate for the entire Roman rite an ordination ritual that is of doubtful validity, or, as in the case of the ordinations of bishops, definitely invalid, is most certainly not the Roman Catholic Church, for in this matter the Church is infallible through the special assistance of the Holy Ghost:
A Church that can promulgate for the entire Roman rite an ordination ritual that is of doubtful validity, or, as in the case of the ordinations of bishops, an ordination ritual that is of doubtful validity, or, as in the case of the ordinations of bishops, definitely invalid, is most certainly not the Roman Catholic Church, for in this matter the Church is infallible through the special assistance of the Holy Ghost:Yes and no. It's not that simple.
LOL, no bias at all with those sources. :laugh1::laugh1:Everyone trying to be a Catholic is affected by this issue or biased in some sense, however, "Fr." Hesse is uniquely impartial on this issue because the validity of his own orders is directly at stake.
Everyone trying to be a Catholic is affected by this issue or biased in some sense, however, "Fr." Hesse is uniquely impartial on this issue because the validity of his own orders is directly at stake.Well, he unbiasedly explained, clearly, why *he believes* the NO ordination rite is valid when it is done by the book.
An ulterior motive can be construed for pretty much anyone from the Society being unable to dialogue with a 'pope' that isn't even a bishop to sedevacantists looking for another proof of the invalidity of the antipopes, however, as I said, Hesse is pretty much the only person who has a whole another level of bias.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to his arguments, but, as I tried to point out to MV, following him merely on his own authority is ludicrous.
In any case, to anyone of good will it's clear there is nothing to be gained by trusting in the validity of the new rites and everything to be lost. Literally everything.
An ulterior motive can be construed for pretty much anyone from the Society being unable to dialogue with a 'pope' that isn't even a bishop to sedevacantists looking for another proof of the invalidity of the antipopes, however, as I said, Hesse is pretty much the only person who has a whole another level of bias.Exactly.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to his arguments, but, as I tried to point out to MV, following him merely on his own authority is ludicrous.Yes.
In any case, to anyone of good will it's clear there is nothing to be gained by trusting in the validity of the new rites and everything to be lost. Literally everything.Right.
Well, he unbiasedly explained, clearly, why *he believes* the NO ordination rite is valid when it is done by the book.Has +Sanborn examined Fr. Hesse arguments? Fr. Hesse makes the point that the new rites cut off. What are the implications?
He explained how the NO rite is worded even more clearly than the old rite. He explained why the Church always initially presumes validity; "when there is doubt, the Church always sides with the sacrament." He explained the sacrament is valid when done by the book using himself as example when he said; "I was validly ordained in a schismatic church." He compared this to the valid orders in the schismatic Orthodox church.
He had no bias in that recording because what he did was quote numerous popes showing what the Church has always taught in the matter. He even touched on the whole "ut" issue two or three times I think.
And there is still those among us who preach NO invalidity and also that it's perfectly acceptable in an emergency to have a NO priest give NO last rites when the only priest available is a NO priest. So there's that.
Well, he unbiasedly explained, clearly, why *he believes* the NO ordination rite is valid when it is done by the book.But that's only half the story, because his ordaining bishop was a valid bishop.
He explained how the NO rite is worded even more clearly than the old rite. He explained why the Church always initially presumes validity; "when there is doubt, the Church always sides with the sacrament." He explained the sacrament is valid when done by the book using himself as example when he said; "I was validly ordained in a schismatic church." He compared this to the valid orders in the schismatic Orthodox church.
He had no bias in that recording because what he did was quote numerous popes showing what the Church has always taught in the matter. He even touched on the whole "ut" issue two or three times I think.Plenty of people disagree with him.
And there is still those among us who preach NO invalidity and also that it's perfectly acceptable in an emergency to have a NO priest give NO last rites when the only priest available is a NO priest. So there's that.This doesn't confirm anything about the validity question. It simply uses canon law's allowance of *possible* validity, in extreme circuмstances. Would one rather confess to a doubtful priest or not confess at all? Only God knows the validity answer anyways.
"I was validly ordained in a schismatic church."I agree with Fr Hesse that V2 is a schismatic church. Stubborn, here's where your defending of the new-sspx's view is incorrect.
I agree with Fr Hesse that V2 is a schismatic church. Stubborn, here's where your defending of the new-sspx's view is incorrect.I'm not defending the new-sspx's view of anything, so this is where you are incorrect.
Similar to Fr Wathen's stance on the new mass, he says the validity question is beyond his capability and authority to answer. Which is true. But even if it's valid, Fr Wathen says the new mass is illicit (i.e. mortally sinful) and immoral (i.e. gravely sacrilegious). In other words, Fr says the new mass is schismatic (i.e. illegal, heretical) and immoral.
Fr Hesse's arguments are very similar. Even if the new rites are valid (which is debatable), they are schismatic/illegal and heretical/immoral, having gutted the orthodox ideals of the true rites (as +Tissier explained).
Conclusion - for the new-sspx to allow and advocate for the acceptance of schismatic & heretical rites is a gross display of anti-catholic thinking and a contrary-to-canon-law support of gravely illicit activity.
The new-sspx can't spin this any other way. They are wrong in supporting a schismatic "sacrament" (and same applies for the new mass).
If you understood that the sacraments belong to the Church and they are Church's to defend and preserve, you would understand that it is for this reason She *necessarily must always initially* presume validityFalse. The novus ordo sacraments are not from the Church. They are "a different usage" of the Latin Rite (to quote Benedict from the 2007 motu). The V2 sacraments were not promulgated using Apostolic Authority, nor do they apply to the whole Latin Church, nor is there any requirement to use/accept them.
SSPX accepts the NO rite as valid when done by the book because they must,They tell people they "must" because their logical fallacy of assuming that V2 sacraments were promulgated correctly and morally.
they do not have the authority to do otherwise.Yes, they do, per canon law. As Fr Hesse says, the V2 sacraments/church is schismatic. Legitimately promulgated sacraments can't be illicit/schismatic. This is an oxymoron.
False. The novus ordo sacraments are not from the Church. They are "a different usage" of the Latin Rite (to quote Benedict from the 2007 motu). The V2 sacraments were not promulgated using Apostolic Authority, nor do they apply to the whole Latin Church, nor is there any requirement to use/accept them.
They tell people they "must" because their logical fallacy of assuming that V2 sacraments were promulgated correctly and morally.
Yes, they do, per canon law. As Fr Hesse says, the V2 sacraments/church is schismatic. Legitimately promulgated sacraments can't be illicit/schismatic. This is an oxymoron.
Fr. Hesse did believe that the NO sacraments are valid but illicit.The problem is, that people like you, and other indulters, and the new-sspx just gloss over the issue of illicitness/schism as if it's not a grave, mortal sin.
The problem is, that people like you, and other indulters, and the new-sspx just gloss over the issue of illicitness/schism as if it's not a grave, mortal sin.
"Oh well, it's valid, so it's ok". Meanwhile, canon law has multiple, multiple condemnations of using/attending illicit sacraments/masses. Not to mention, Quo Primum (directly from Pope St Pius V...which Benedict said was still in force) condemns the use of any rites not originating from his missal (i.e. Tridentine/true rite).
So, we circle back again to the problems with the indult and the new rites of consecration/ordination. Many people think they are valid; many say they are very doubtful. Even if everyone agreed they are valid, they are certainly illicit/schismatic. And to attend, use, condone or support illicit rites is a grave mortal sin (except in danger of death). And to attend/use/support "priests" and "bishops" with illicit orders is similarly a mortal sin.
Yeah, the problem is with people like me, who don't agree with you, and never will. Oh well.You're biased because you're an indult attendee. You're also just parroting Fr Hesse's opinion, which means you have none of your own.
You're biased because you're an indult attendee. You're also just parroting Fr Hesse's opinion, which means you have none of your own.
False. The novus ordo sacraments are not from the Church. They are "a different usage" of the Latin Rite (to quote Benedict from the 2007 motu). The V2 sacraments were not promulgated using Apostolic Authority, nor do they apply to the whole Latin Church, nor is there any requirement to use/accept them.All sacraments belong to the Church, the NO sect abuses them. Per Fr. Hesse, the difference between the formulas in the old and new rite do not invalidate the sacraments used in the new rite.
They tell people they "must" because their logical fallacy of assuming that V2 sacraments were promulgated correctly and morally.No, they must because the Church Herself does, necessarily so.
Yes, they do, per canon law. As Fr Hesse says, the V2 sacraments/church is schismatic. Legitimately promulgated sacraments can't be illicit/schismatic. This is an oxymoron.I don't know where you came up with this one, but it's a doozy - and that is not what Fr. Hesse says at all. Fr. Hesse said valid sacrament in a schismatic church. Illicit sacraments do not always mean doubtful or invalid sacraments. When there is doubt, the Church sides with the sacraments, not against them as you want the Church to do to her own sacraments.
If the novus ordo sacraments are (truly) "The Church's" then there wouldn't be any doubts in the first place.There are doubts because they're used in a schismatic church, NO priests whether or not valid are schismatic and heretical, and the ordinations are not always done by the book. Either way, when there is doubt the Church always sides with the sacrament, not against her own sacraments. Even you must admit that to side against her own sacraments is the exact wrong way to defend and preserve her own sacraments.
Per Fr. Hesse, the difference between the formulas in the old and new rite do not invalidate the sacraments used in the new rite.Many, many Trad clerics disagree. Fr Hesse isn't (or didn't start off as) a Trad priest. He's obviously going to shill for V2. It's appalling that you can't see the bias here.
When there is doubt, the Church sides with the sacramentsNo, this is contrary to canon law.
Fr Hesse isn't (or didn't start off as) a Trad priest.
Neither did +Vigano. But that's not a problem for you, is it?:laugh1: I've said repeatedly (and have others who support +Vigano) that he's a valid priest (i.e. old rite) but he needs to be conditionally consecrated a bishop.
:laugh1: I've said repeatedly (and have others who support +Vigano) that he's a valid priest (i.e. old rite) but he needs to be conditionally consecrated a bishop.
Meg, go read THE WHOLE thread and get back to us when you're caught up.
So.....would that be a no....Fr. Hesse is not a valid priest?Meg, Archbishop Vigano was ordained priest in March of 1968, three months before the new rite of ordination was introduced. It is his episcopal consecration in 1982 at the hands of Pope JPII that is in doubt. Fr Hesse on the other hand was ordained in the new rite but by a validly consecrated bishop from the old rite.
It's not a difficult question, is it? You present yourself as an authority on everything relating to the Catholic Faith, so it shouldn't be a difficult question for you.
Meg, Archbishop Vigano was ordained priest in March of 1968, three months before the new rite of ordination was introduced. It is his episcopal consecration in 1982 at the hands of Pope JPII that is in doubt. Fr Hesse on the other hand was ordained in the new rite but by a validly consecrated bishop from the old rite.
So.....would that be a no....Fr. Hesse is not a valid priest?
It's not a difficult question, is it? You present yourself as an authority on everything relating to the Catholic Faith, so it shouldn't be a difficult question for you.
Right, and JP2 Wojtyla was validly consecrated in the Old Rite also, though that doesn't factor in here. I knew a priest who was ordained by Wojtyla in the New Rite and then was conditionally ordained by Bishop Williamson.And this priest has been a member of the FSSP for 3 decades now if he be the same priest of whom I believe you are referring.
Right, and JP2 Wojtyla was validly consecrated in the Old Rite also, though that doesn't factor in here. I knew a priest who was ordained by Wojtyla in the New Rite and then was conditionally ordained by Bishop Williamson.I think I'd want to be ordained again if that were me too! I think there is enough positive doubt from all that JPII did that he could have an intention contrary to that of the Church... I'm not sure how theological that is, but I think I recall Bishop Williamson saying something to the effect that the concerns of the faithful may be enough to justify conditionally repeating the ordination.
I would hold that Fr. Hesse is a doubtfully-ordained priest.With due respect to Ladislaus, I would hold that Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier and Fr Schmidberger of old (I just can't bring myself to say Bp F...) can be taken as sure guides given to us by the Good Lord in this crisis who would not have put the salvation of souls in danger in such a certain manner, especially ABL, the prelate given a special mission from God for leading the flock in this crisis.
With due respect to Ladislaus, I would hold that Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier and Fr Schmidberger of old (I just can't bring myself to say Bp F...) can be taken as sure guides given to us by the Good Lord in this crisis who would not have put the salvation of souls in danger in such a certain manner, especially ABL, the prelate given a special mission from God for leading the flock in this crisis.What you hold is pious wishes regarding these prelates and priest but not in any way binding truth on any Catholic. One could argue the same about Fr. Leonard Feeney and Sister Catherine Goddard Clarke, Archbishop Thuc and Bishop des Lauriers, or Father Cekada and Bishop Sanborn and such argument would be of the same value.
With due respect to Ladislaus, I would hold thatThe difference is that Ladislaus’ opinion is based on facts, while yours is based on emotion.
You need to get ahold of yourself. You are very confused and need to do some calm prayer and research.Agree: find and read books on VII. There's no substitute for your own research. But it is all out there. You don't have to be a theologian, you can be a layman with limited time, but get 1 or 2 good ones at least and s-t-u-d-y them. To paraphrase Bp Williamson, 'Thinking hurts, but, my dear, God wants you to think and you'd better think if you want to save your soul.'
Archbishop Lefebvre and his line of bishops/priests is 100% valid with no danger or doubt. That whole "Lienart was a Freemason" was a stupid argument when they trotted it out the 1st time, as well as the 1000th time. It's a false argument made up by sedevacantists and other enemies, with the aim of eliminating the competition. The SSPX was a huge organization, very Catholic, and blessed by God for decades, one of the primary bulwarks of Tradition (the Traditional Movement). Look at the fruits. A good tree can only bear good fruit.
There were co-consecrators at +ABL's consecration. And by going through the ceremony, the consecrator intends to "do what the Church does". You see, the problem with the Novus Ordo Mass is that the liturgy ITSELF is ambiguous, suggesting it's just a meal and/or the People are the ones who consecrate/offer the Sacrifice, so if the priest doesn't explicitly know and intend to consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus -- due to his seminary training -- then one can reasonably worry that it didn't happen. That's what's great about the Traditional Mass -- the ceremony itself is un-ambiguous.
As for why that providential, God-blessed SSPX "fell" -- I'll give you the same reason I'd give for how the Catholic Church (a.k.a. Bride of Christ, the Church founded by God Himself) could have "problems" starting in the 1960's. God allows these crises in order to test the Faithful, to bring good out of evil, and allow his Elect to practice virtue. If the Bride of Christ could go into this kind of Crisis, you better believe the SSPX is fair game!
There is some doubt about the new Rite of Ordination and Consecration. No, there were not any such doubts before Vatican II. Nothing substantial was done to the Ordination Rite, just like nothing was done to the Faith or the Mass which affected its fundamental dogmas or premises. You need to read some books on the Crisis, what happened at Vatican II, what they systematically changed. That will enlighten you immensely.
Don't give up the Faith. The devil is playing with your mind right now. Go read some *books* on the Crisis in the Church that started at Vatican II. Angelus Press had several good books on the topic, and they still do.
The difference is that Ladislaus’ opinion is based on facts, while yours is based on emotion.Ha ha! Classic Pax. Yours is based on delusion! Does it not occur to you that Archbishop Lefebvre, the prelate prepared by Almighty God from all eternity for this special mission in His Church - just pause for a moment and consider what that means - might have a better understanding of the FACTS of sacramental theology than Ladisalaus or you? That is fact, not emotion. The Good Lord does not expect every member of the faithful to be a theologian. There is no reason to doubt the Archbishop's judgement, and I strongly recommend you read Fr Calderon's study on the NREC, which hopefully will be posted soon, to educate yourself better on this subject.
There is no reason to doubt the Archbishop's judgement, and I strongly recommend you read Fr Calderon's study on the NREC, which hopefully will be posted soon, to educate yourself better on this subject.So your argument is that all other Trad clerics are wrong and there is 0% doubt with the new rites?
Many, many Trad clerics disagree. Fr Hesse isn't (or didn't start off as) a Trad priest. He's obviously going to shill for V2. It's appalling that you can't see the bias here.He had more reason than anyone to get to the truth of the matter, to prove himself valid or invalid. You make him out to be a type of enemy or infiltrator. A shill for V2? Now you're really reaching. Listen to the video before you make any more such absurd comments.
No, this is contrary to canon law.You are so far off base on this I will just leave it at that. :fryingpan:
Once you change a sacrament, it's no longer from the Church.
A. Major - The Church presumes validity for sacraments which are a) approved, b) by Apostolic Authority, c) under pain of sin, d) for the entire Church.
B. Minor - V2 sacraments do not fulfill the conditions for either a, b, c or d.
C. Minor 2 - The only sacraments which are true are the rites coming from Pope St Pius V and Quo Primum. These fulfill all conditions for a, b, c, d.
D. Minor 3 - The Church only has 1 rite in the Latin Church. She cannot and does not have 2 rites at the same time.
E. Conclusion - The Church does not presume validity for sacraments She didn't approve; V2 sacraments are not true sacraments, but in name-only.
Ha ha! Classic Pax. Yours is based on delusion! Does it not occur to you that Archbishop Lefebvre, the prelate prepared by Almighty God from all eternity for this special mission in His Church - just pause for a moment and consider what that means - might have a better understanding of the FACTS of sacramental theology than Ladisalaus or you? That is fact, not emotion. The Good Lord does not expect every member of the faithful to be a theologian. There is no reason to doubt the Archbishop's judgement, and I strongly recommend you read Fr Calderon's study on the NREC, which hopefully will be posted soon, to educate yourself better on this subject.
What you hold is pious wishes regarding these prelates and priest but not in any way binding truth on any Catholic. One could argue the same about Fr. Leonard Feeney and Sister Catherine Goddard Clarke, Archbishop Thuc and Bishop des Lauriers, or Father Cekada and Bishop Sanborn and such argument would be of the same value.Sorry, I missed this comment Elwin. For clarification, what I hold about extraordinary mission only applies to ABL, I was only citing the others as confirming his teaching in relation to Fr Hesse. A pious wish in no way binding truth on Catholics? In the sense that it is not a dogma of Faith, yes. Yet truth binds every human being, let alone Catholics. You don't have to believe in Fatima. You don't have to wear the scapular. You don't have to pray the Rosary. Be careful! To argue the clerics you cite as having an extraordinary mission in the Church in the same way seems to me a self-evident distortion of the truth... I am sure I have read some theology on this teaching of the extraordinary mission, can anyone help me out with that?
Does it not occur to you that Archbishop Lefebvre, the prelate prepared by Almighty God from all eternity for this special mission in His Church - just pause for a moment and consider what that means - might have a better understanding of the FACTS of sacramental theology than Ladisalaus or you?
Sadly, you write as though the Archbishop was infallible. :facepalm:More as if he was the leader of a cult. I have never seen any posters here write about/describe ABL like Plenus Venter does.
Ha ha! Classic Pax. Yours is based on delusion! Does it not occur to you that Archbishop Lefebvre, the prelate prepared by Almighty God from all eternity for this special mission in His Church - just pause for a moment and consider what that means - might have a better understanding of the FACTS of sacramental theology than Ladisalaus or you? That is fact, not emotion. The Good Lord does not expect every member of the faithful to be a theologian. There is no reason to doubt the Archbishop's judgement, and I strongly recommend you read Fr Calderon's study on the NREC, which hopefully will be posted soon, to educate yourself better on this subject.
I did pause and considered what you wrote here and it actually laid bare one of the major fallacies of the R&R postion. Instead of arguing about the strength of the “Archbishop’s judgment”, you should be arguing that the Church is infallible when She institutes Her sacraments for Her faithful. Isn’t that a novel idea?
In other words, if the Church actually did promulgate the NO missae and the 1968 sacraments, there shouldn’t be any confusion nor dissension, we should all be going to the NO “mass” on Saturday night at 5:15pm sharp! ;)
He had more reason than anyone to get to the truth of the matter, to prove himself valid or invalid.Fr Hesse is a horrible example to use, because he was ordained by an old rite bishop. That's not the current situation in the world; all old rite bishops in new-rome are dead.
Does it not occur to you that Archbishop Lefebvre, ....might have a better understanding of the FACTS of sacramental theology than Ladisalaus or you?+ABL is also a bad example to use because, as i've explained 3-4x now, when he was alive, there were still old rite bishops operating in new-dioceses and in new-rome.
Fr Hesse is a horrible example to use, because he was ordained by an old rite bishop. That's not the current situation in the world; all old rite bishops in new-rome are dead.
Fr Hesse is a horrible example to use, because he was ordained by an old rite bishop. That's not the current situation in the world; all old rite bishops in new-rome are dead.:facepalm:
Stubborn, is the following a sacrament? Do we presume validity for it?Dumb question. If you listened to the video you would know.
"I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Rock, and the Son, the paper, and the Holy Ghost, the scissors."
The below video Fr. Hesse begins talking about an and old rite bishop who ordained him in the new rite, and a new rite bishop who ordained priests in the old rite. Then you can jump to about the 7:48 mark for a few minutes.The first 9 minutes, Fr talks about the matter of the sacrament (i.e. laying of hands) which even the Anglicans do. But this does not suffice for validity. So minute 1 - 9 is irrelevant.
At the same time, I know for fact a couple cases where priest had been ordained by an "old rite bishop" in the new rite of ordination and where the SSPX conferred conditional ordination on the priest.Of course, some of those 'old rite bishops' in the early days after Vatican II, were the most modernist, progressive liturgical innovators! There were downright scandals coming from some of these true bishops!
More as if he was the leader of a cult. I have never seen any posters here write about/describe ABL like Plenus Venter does.Thank you, 2V, that is a great compliment, even though you don't mean it as such. Yes, I am a great, great admirer of Archbishop Lefebvre. Yes, I even follow him as a leader of a cult. That is the cult of Catholic Tradition, the true Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ, which is essentially Tradition. That he was established by Our Lord as a de facto leader of His flock when His Vicar was struck by the modernist scourge is clear to all those sheep who know the voice of the Master. Of course he is not infallible, but such a bishop so clearly raised up by God to save the Church in this crisis ought not to be opposed without grave reason. I am yet to see one.
Of course, some of those 'old rite bishops' in the early days after Vatican II, were the most modernist, progressive liturgical innovators!This is absolutely irrelevant to the validity of orders and the sacramental rite.
Fr Hesse is a horrible example to use, because he was ordained by an old rite bishop. That's not the current situation in the world; all old rite bishops in new-rome are dead.
And when did the Church institute Her sacraments? Yes, that is a novel idea.
you should be arguing that the Church is infallible when She institutes Her sacraments for Her faithful. Isn’t that a novel idea?
In other words, if the Church actually did promulgate the NO missae and the 1968 sacraments, there shouldn’t be any confusion nor dissension, we should all be going to the NO “mass” on Saturday night at 5:15pm sharp! ;)
I am not getting into this fight, but I just wanted to make this little correction: there are some who are still alive. The old Archbishop of my area is still alive at 96 years old. He was quite lucid the last time I've seen him. He was ordained in 1949 and consecrated in 1966.Wow, GB! What is his name?
In a few more years, your affirmation will be true, but it is just not true yet.
The old Archbishop of my area is still alive at 96 years old.Yeah but is he ordaining people? No, so it’s beside the point.
This is absolutely irrelevant to the validity of orders and the sacramental rite.Firstly, it is relevant to the comment made by Ladislaus. Secondly, it is relevant to the validity of orders and the sacramental rite, because if the new rite is valid as the SSPX holds, but you have the ordaining bishop clowning around with it, then that potentially affects the matter, the form and the intention, as indeed it appeared to in some cases.
Yeah but is he ordaining people? No, so it’s beside the point.If only Fr Pfeiffer had known!!!
Sorry, I missed this comment Elwin. For clarification, what I hold about extraordinary mission only applies to ABL, I was only citing the others as confirming his teaching in relation to Fr Hesse. A pious wish in no way binding truth on Catholics? In the sense that it is not a dogma of Faith, yes. Yet truth binds every human being, let alone Catholics. You don't have to believe in Fatima. You don't have to wear the scapular. You don't have to pray the Rosary. Be careful! To argue the clerics you cite as having an extraordinary mission in the Church in the same way seems to me a self-evident distortion of the truth... I am sure I have read some theology on this teaching of the extraordinary mission, can anyone help me out with that?
PV,
I haven’t been following the argument, but doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales, says extraordinary mission needs to be established by miracles as proof. I believe it’s chapter 3 of the first book, Mission, in his great book, The Catholic Controversy.
Does that help?
DR
Well, I’m not aware of the Archbishop performing any miracles, so I guess it doesn’t help you, or any of those others either.Excellent, thanks Decem, I'll check it out. No, no miracles me thinks.
If only Fr Pfeiffer had known!!!https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy/church-mission.html#CHAPTER_III
https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy/church-mission.html#CHAPTER_IIIGreat stuff Decem! I'll pull my copy off the bookshelf, can't stand these screens!
Wow, GB! What is his name?
Either way, the argument of comparing liturgies against one another (i.e. Greek vs Coptic, or Russian vs Ambrosian) is only a matter the Church can resolve. We have the infallible rules of Pope Pius XII on the form of the sacrament, and to brush this off and say, "well, it doesn't apply in this case" is extremely bold and not in a good way.Pax, I am glad, and you too should be glad, that we are not bishops responsible for ordaining NO priests or consecrating NO bishops. Other than that, I could TLDR a reply to your post, but see no point in it.
Well, I’m not aware of the Archbishop performing any miracles, so I guess it doesn’t help you, or any of those others either.I've also read that those with ordinary mission must accept those as having an extraordinary mission (ie. not just miracles). Extraordinary mission isn't determined by those who are not those with ordinary mission. That would mean acceptance is necessary by the current Novus Ordo hierarchy. Unless the Traditional bishops can show they actually are the ones with ordinary mission.
I've also read that those with ordinary mission must accept those as having an extraordinary mission (ie. not just miracles). Extraordinary mission isn't determined by those who are not those with ordinary mission. That would mean acceptance is necessary by the current Novus Ordo hierarchy. Unless the Traditional bishops can show they actually are the ones with ordinary mission.
Here is part of it:
I say, in the second place, that never must an extraordinary mission be received when disowned by the ordinary authority which is the Church of Our Lord. For (1.) we are obliged to obey our ordinary pastors under pain of being heathens and publicans (Matt. xviii. 17): - how then can we place ourselves under other discipline than theirs? Extraordinaries would come in vain, since we should be obliged to refuse to listen to them, in the case that they were, as I have said, disowned by the ordinaries. (II.) God is not the author of dissention, but of union and peace (I Cor. xiv. 33), principally amongst his disciples and Church ministers; as Our Lord clearly shows in the holy prayer he made to his Father in the last days of His mortal life. (John xvii.)How then should he authorise two sorts of pastors, the one extraordinary, the other ordinary? As to the ordinary- it certainly is authorised, and as to the extraordinary we are supposing it to be; there would then be two different churches, which is contrary to the Most pure word of Our Lord, who has but one sole spouse, one sole dove, one sole perfect one (Cant. vi.) And how could that be a united flock which should be led by two shepherds, unknown to each other, into different pastures, with different calls and folds, and each of them expecting to have the whole. Thus would it be with the Church under a variety of pastors ordinary and extraordinary, dragged hither and thither into various sects. Or is Our Lord divided (I Cor. i. 13) either in himself or in his body, which is the Church?-no, in good truth. On the contrary, there is but one Lord, who has composed his mystic body with a goodly variety of members, a body compacted and fitly joined together by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part (Eph. iv. 16).Therefore to try to make in the Church this division of ordinary and extraordinary members is to ruin and destroy it. We must then return to what we said, that an extraordinary vocation is never legitimate where it is disapproved of by the ordinary.
I say, thirdly, that the authority of the extraordinary mission never destroys the ordinary, and is never given to overthrow it. Witness all the Prophets, who never set up altar against altar, never overthrew the priesthood of Aaron, never abolished the constitutions of the ѕуηαgσgυє.
I've also read that those with ordinary mission must accept those as having an extraordinary mission (ie. not just miracles). Extraordinary mission isn't determined by those who are not those with ordinary mission. That would mean acceptance is necessary by the current Novus Ordo hierarchy. Unless the Traditional bishops can show they actually are the ones with ordinary mission.
Here is part of it:
I say, in the second place, that never must an extraordinary mission be received when disowned by the ordinary authority which is the Church of Our Lord. For (1.) we are obliged to obey our ordinary pastors under pain of being heathens and publicans (Matt. xviii. 17): - how then can we place ourselves under other discipline than theirs? Extraordinaries would come in vain, since we should be obliged to refuse to listen to them, in the case that they were, as I have said, disowned by the ordinaries. (II.) God is not the author of dissention, but of union and peace (I Cor. xiv. 33), principally amongst his disciples and Church ministers; as Our Lord clearly shows in the holy prayer he made to his Father in the last days of His mortal life. (John xvii.)How then should he authorise two sorts of pastors, the one extraordinary, the other ordinary? As to the ordinary- it certainly is authorised, and as to the extraordinary we are supposing it to be; there would then be two different churches, which is contrary to the Most pure word of Our Lord, who has but one sole spouse, one sole dove, one sole perfect one (Cant. vi.) And how could that be a united flock which should be led by two shepherds, unknown to each other, into different pastures, with different calls and folds, and each of them expecting to have the whole. Thus would it be with the Church under a variety of pastors ordinary and extraordinary, dragged hither and thither into various sects. Or is Our Lord divided (I Cor. i. 13) either in himself or in his body, which is the Church?-no, in good truth. On the contrary, there is but one Lord, who has composed his mystic body with a goodly variety of members, a body compacted and fitly joined together by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part (Eph. iv. 16).Therefore to try to make in the Church this division of ordinary and extraordinary members is to ruin and destroy it. We must then return to what we said, that an extraordinary vocation is never legitimate where it is disapproved of by the ordinary.
We must then return to what we said, that an extraordinary vocation is never legitimate where it is disapproved of by the ordinary.
Actually, Vermont, doesn't St. Francis say the opposite:I don't see that as the opposite. The last sentence you highlighted summarizes what he has been saying. He is stating that the ordinary must approve. Otherwise, it is illegitimate.
We must then return to what we said, that an extraordinary vocation is never legitimate where it is disapproved of by the ordinary.
I don't see that as the opposite. The last sentence you highlighted summarizes what he has been saying. He is stating that the ordinary must approve. Otherwise, it is illegitimate.
The issue is....the NO hierarchy are supposedly the "ordinaries" with ordinary mission. They certainly do not accept any of the Traditional groups as having extraordinary mission.
(3.) And in effect where will you ever show me a legitimate extraordinary vocation which has not been received by the ordinary authority. S. Paul was extraordinarily called -but was he not approved and authorised by the ordinary once and again? (Acts ix. 13). And the Mission received from the ordinary authority is called a mission by the Holy Spirit (ibid. xiii. 4.). The Mission of S John Baptist cannot properly be called extraordinary because he taught nothing contrary to the Mosaic Church, and because he was of the priestly race. All the same, his doctrine being unusual was approved by the ordinary teaching Office of the Jєωιѕн Church in the high embassy which was sent to him by the priests and Levites (John i. 19), the tenor of which implies the great esteem and reputation in which he was with them; and the very Pharisees who were seated an the chair of Moses,- did they not come to communicate in his baptism quite openly and unhesitatingly? This truly was to receive his mission in good earnest. Did not Our Lord, who was the Master, will to be received by Simeon, who was a priest, as appears from his blessing Our Lady and Joseph; by Zachary the priest; and by S. John? And for his passion, which was the principal fulfilment of his Mission,-did he not will to have the prophetic testimony of him who was High Priest at that time.
The principle remains that validity is presumed initially.You can hide behind this principle as much as you want, but your interpretation of it is woefully simplistic. Fr Hesse admitted that the V2 rites directly FAIL at fulfilling Pius XII's infallible decree.
The principle remains that validity is presumed initially. Listen to 30 seconds, from 56:10 to 56:43.(https://youtu.be/Ur1OlGrTU7s?t=3369)Fr Hesse reduces the factual doubts about the new rite to personal doubt - "I never had any personal doubts about my ordination." :facepalm:
https://youtu.be/Ur1OlGrTU7s?t=3369 (https://youtu.be/Ur1OlGrTU7s?t=3369)
(https://youtu.be/Ur1OlGrTU7s?t=3369)Fr Hesse reduces the factual doubts about the new rite to personal doubt - "I never had any personal doubts about my ordination." :facepalm:
A personal doubt is called a 'negative doubt' because it's based on feelings. A positive doubt is based on facts/evidence. His personal doubts are irrelevant to the matter because no one can ever know with exact certainty.
Fr Hesse at the 56 min mark then makes more logical errors. He says "The Church, in doubt, is usually in favor of validity." ....but...then he quotes canon law which says "Only if you have POSITIVE and REASONABLE doubt is validity not presumed."
Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner.
There is positive/reasonable doubts about the V2 rites, thus, as Fr Hesse says, canon law does NOT presume validity.
These rites directly contradict Pius XII's infallible decree on the necessary form/prayer, in order to be valid. This is positive/reasonable doubt.
I strongly recommend you read Fr Calderon's study on the NREC, which hopefully will be posted soon, to educate yourself better on this subject.Has this been posted yet? Also, does his study represent what the Resistance believes about the NREC?
Has this been posted yet? Also, does his study represent what the Resistance believes about the NREC?Hey 2V. I'm biting at the bit to post this study which I had translated maybe six months ago. I asked Bishop Williamson to check the theology for me before posting. He told me he was heavily occupied, as indeed I know he is, but that he would check over the work when he could... alas, I'm still waiting. My plan is that if it has not been done by New Year, I will suggest to BW that if he is too busy we could submit the translation to the Dominicans for posting on their website, and they will then check the theology. I will post it on Cathinfo please God before too long. I find it a very interesting and instructive study.