Author Topic: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult? (Read 27837 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #15 on:** November 25, 2023, 04:25:17 PM »

Quote from: MonsieurValentine on November 25, 2023, 02:38:48 PM

It greatly saddens me if for the past 18 months I've simply been participating in a charade.

Yes, but then many of us were in the Novus Ordo for years. As Our Lord said, those who look back are unworthy of Him. Thank Him for the grace of moving along.

At the same time, you may have gotten lucky (or, rather, blessed). There are a handful of FSSP / Indults / Motu locations that are served by valid priests. There are some who left the SSPX, an one or two priests here or there still who were ordained before the new rite came out.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** November 25, 2023, 04:27:09 PM »

Quote from: MonsieurValentine on November 25, 2023, 04:23:49 PM

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

Am I missing something, or do the members of this forum know something the best theologians
from the SSPX also overlooked?

SSPX have no "theologians", and their position on the matter has largely been politically driven, a case of "begging the question" because invalid episcopal consecration leads inexorably toward sedevacantism. Not a few priests, many of their best and brightest, actually left the SSPX largely on account of their acceptance of Conciliar "Holy Orders".

Be careful to be intellectually honest here and not be driven by your attempt to rationalize away the regret you expressed in your previous post about living a charade, which of course is to greatly oversimplify the matter. God put you there for a reason.

Here you have Father Cekada, formerly of SSPX, now deceased, God rest his soul, who was one of those left in the early 1980s largely due to this question.

http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/06/1968-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-valid-or-no/

And here's the thing you have to remember. If there's any "positive" doubt about the validity of Sacraments, we are required to avoid them except in danger of death, and the burden of proof here is on those who hold that they're valid. Father Cekada does not have to prove irrefutably that they're INVALID, and his arguments clearly rise to the level of at least establishing positive doubt.

moneil · « **Reply #17 on:** November 25, 2023, 07:11:32 PM »

I should know better than to become involved in this conversation J, yet there is some misinformation in the replies that the OP deserves to know about.

In replies #2 and #3 the poster takes it upon herself to declare that the Holy Orders of FSSP and diocesan priests who celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Missal are invalid. I must assume then that SHE has somehow declared herself to be a “pope-res” (?), as only someone who is acknowledged as the Vicar of Christ on earth is allowed to make such a declaration. However, such authority is denied her gender by both Holy Tradition and First Corinthians Chapter 14, Verses 34-35, and other ecclesiastical declarations. 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.

Seraphina · « **Reply #18 on:** November 25, 2023, 08:16:09 PM »

It’s one thing to decide for oneself and for those over whom one has authority where is the best place, the best manner of living out one’s life as a Catholic. That’s obligatory in conscience. It’s another matter to extend that decision as binding in conscience to all Catholics including those on this forum. Share what you believe to be true, and why, concerning the crises in the Church, but be sure it’s out of love of Truth and in charity’s for the souls of others. Be aware that not one of us for sure has THE right answer on these issues for the very reason that there IS a crisis of authority.
I don’t know if Francis is a pope. I don’t know if he’s even a priest, for that matter. I do know with 100% certainty that Songbird is not pope! 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. Let’s remember that everyone, unless born and raised in the most conservative (for lack of a better word) Traditional Catholic home, is in a different place in his spiritual journey. Even those raised in tradition are on a spiritual journey. Perhaps you grew up home alone, were lay-baptized by your parents, and have never received any other actual Sacraments because a real priest is rarer than finding hen’s teeth? Perhaps your parents married without a priest before two witnesses, the Dimond brothers, themselves. Now, you've come to recognize otherwise?
Let’s be careful to judge righteous judgement, not to be rash, dismissive, or lacking in humility or knowledge. When certainty is lacking, judge by looking for the fruit, and by encouragement in charity to all.

NIFH · « **Reply #19 on:** November 25, 2023, 08:30:07 PM »

Quote from: moneil on November 25, 2023, 07:11:32 PM

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.

Somehow, most of these bishops require the indulterers to celebrate the Novus Ordo once a year, almost as if the Romans quietly direct each of them to include that rule.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #20 on:** November 25, 2023, 09:10:28 PM »

Quote

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.

Canon Law clearly lays out rules for dealing with doubtful priests and other sacraments/masses/ceremonies. It’s not the first time in history such questions have come up. Canon Law states we are bound, under penalty of sin, to avoid positively doubtful situations and treat them as invalid. Only exception is in danger of death.

So yes, for 99% of indult priests who didn’t come from the sspx, we must treat them as invalid. That’s the law. Not opinion.

Stubborn · « **Reply #21 on:** November 26, 2023, 04:36:41 AM »

Quote from: MonsieurValentine on November 25, 2023, 09:33:55 AM

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?
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, 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.

The new form [of ordination / consecration] could not be an improvement on the old. How can one method or set of words ordain someone better than another?

The alteration of the form can only have had the intention of either negating this purpose, or, at the very least, of creating a doubt as to its efficacy. (As if it needs to be said: They could not have added something to the form by
taking words away. And what could they have wanted to add to the power of Orders? Why did they touch the form at all?) - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?

Quote from: MonsieurValentine on November 25, 2023, 04:23:49 PM

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

Am I missing something, or do the members of this forum know something the best theologians
from the SSPX also overlooked?

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.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #22 on:** November 26, 2023, 05:29:31 AM »

Quote from: MonsieurValentine on November 25, 2023, 04:23:49 PM

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

Am I missing something, or do the members of this forum know something the best theologians
from the SSPX also overlooked?

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):

CONCLUSION
If we consider the matter, form and intention of the new rite of Episcopal Consecration in the context of the rite and in the circuмstances of its institution, it seems to us that it is very probably valid, because not only does it signify what it should signify, but most of its elements are taken from rites received by the Church (32).
But we also believe that there is no certainty of its validity, because it suffers from two important defects, which we could classify as one canonical and the other theological:
- Canonical defect. From what has been said above, the institution of this new rite cannot be considered legitimate.
- Theological defect. The novus ordo is not the same as, but only similar to, other rites accepted by the Church. Although certainly valid, these rites, on the one hand, are not very precise in their concepts; and on the other hand, the differences introduced by the novus ordo follow tendencies of bad doctrine. All this makes theological judgment, which is always difficult in these matters, even more difficult. Now, in a matter of the utmost importance for the life of the Church, such as the validity of the episcopate, it is necessary to have absolute certainty. Therefore, in order to be able to accept this rite with peace of conscience, it would be necessary to count not only on the judgement of theologians, but also on the infallible judgement of the Magisterium.
As for the practical attitude to be taken with regard to the new Episcopal Consecrations, the one that the Society has maintained up to now seems to us to be justified:
1. The very probable validity of the rite seems to us to make it morally acceptable to occasionally assist at the Mass (traditional rite) celebrated by a priest or a bishop ordained or consecrated in the new rite, and even to receive Communion therein; it seems to us acceptable, in case of necessity, to receive absolution from them; to treat them as priests and bishops and not as laymen in costume; it seems to us acceptable to allow them to celebrate in our own houses. For the shadows that hover over the validity of their priesthood are but shadows and in all these activities our responsibility is not engaged concerning their exercise of the priesthood. And the remote risk that one communion or one absolution may be invalid is not so serious.
2. But the positive and objective defects from which this rite suffers, which prevent our having certainty of its validity, it seems to us - until there is a Roman judgement, for which many things would have to change - justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests ordained by New Bishops and, if necessary, the conditional reconsecration of these bishops. Such doubts cannot be tolerated at the very root of the Sacraments (33).
Father Alvaro Calderon

Evidently, Fr Calderon's superiors didn't like the answer they received and so you won't find this study on the SSPX websites. Note also, there is more to validity of an ordination than the rite itself. The new rites of ordination and consecration, even if they are valid, do not guarantee the intention as the old rites did. With the radical changes in the theology of the Mass and priesthood after Vatican II impacting upon the intention, plus the tampering with the matter and even improvising with the form, validity of ordinations and sacraments has become a bit of a minefield. Hence this letter of Archbishop Lefebvre:

Ecône, 28 oct. 1988
Very dear Mr. Wilson,
thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.
All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.
We are in the time of great apostasy.
We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics. It is necessary everywhere in the world.
Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!
We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.
I pray for you and your lovely family.
Devotly in Jesus and Mary.
Marcel Lefebvre

https://dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/

So, MonsieurValentine, I wouldn't say members of this forum consider themselves superior to the theologians of the SSPX, but rather the best theologians of the SSPX are being silenced, as is their founder, when it comes to these important issues. They are inconvenient. A little in the same way the best doctors and scientists were censored during the COVID farce... The revolutionaries have their end in view, both in Church and world, and nothing must be allowed to stand in the way.

2Vermont · « **Reply #23 on:** November 26, 2023, 06:31:34 AM »

Quote from: MonsieurValentine on November 25, 2023, 08:06:10 AM

I've been attending the TLM at an FSSP church every week for about 18 months now.
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.

Hello MV and welcome to the Forum.

I noticed that you did not mention the CMRI when speaking of the sedevacantist position. Is it possible one of their chapels/priests are within a reasonable distance? Keep in mind that many of us travel long distances to get to undoubtedly, true sacraments. It may mean it happens less frequently, but it can be done. Here is the CMRI directory:

CMRI Directory of Traditional Latin Masses (U.S.) – CMRI: Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #24 on:** November 26, 2023, 07:34:11 AM »

Quote

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #25 on:** November 26, 2023, 09:47:29 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on November 26, 2023, 07:34:11 AM

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."

Simply ask yourself; "Exactly what are those things being defended and preserved when she automatically presumes invalidity?" The answer is, of course, nothing at all is being defended or preserved. This is true no matter how badly you wish it were otherwise Pax.

We lay people are not tasked with determining validity with certainty, however, if we were tasked with re/conditionally ordaining NO priests then yes, we would be the ones responsible for determining validity, but we're not - the SSPX bishops are - they're the ones who actually need to determine validity/invalidity/doubt before re/conditionally ordaining anyone.

For us faithful lay people, all we can do is what we do already, namely, determine that all NO ordinations are doubtful, and on that account alone we avoid all things NO always. The FSSP is a branch of the NO, which is all the reason we need to stay away from the FSSP always.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #26 on:** November 26, 2023, 10:25:36 AM »

Quote

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.

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.

Gunter · « **Reply #27 on:** November 26, 2023, 11:17:58 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on November 26, 2023, 10:25:36 AM

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 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.

If this was a non negotiable for remnant Catholics, we wouldn't have to "unite the clans".

Soubirous · « **Reply #28 on:** November 26, 2023, 01:20:16 PM »

For lurking newbies:

There are two sets of specifics implied or referenced in various posts already. These are obvious to fluent regulars but possibly confusing to folks beginning to find their way past the realization that TLM vs. NOM only scratches the surface.

Please note, the terms "priest" and "bishop", "ordained" and "consecrated" are used below only as labels for discussion, not assuming or implying anything further.

I. There are two groups of priests covered by the subject line of this thread:

A. Diocesan priests ordained in the new rite by bishops consecrated in the new rite.
>>> These priests may occasionally use the Vetus Ordo Mass as a parish sideline and possibly the traditional forms of other Sacraments too (Traditionis custodes aside).

B. Priests of the so-called Ecclesia Dei groups ordained in the Old Rite by bishops themselves consecrated (and probably ordained too) in the new rite. (Newbies, note that the Vatican has never allowed these groups to have their own bishops. For history, look up the 1988 Econe consecrations.)
>>> These priests, according to their own societies' stated charisms, use the Old Rite for Mass and Sacraments (annual "pinch of incense" aside). These priests are, to use secular terms as analogies, not really employees but sort of like guest workers or subcontractors of the local bishop wherever they happen to be assigned.

II. There are two Sacraments of Holy Order involved:

A. Old Rite vs. new rite ordination of priests: the 1968 changes are the issue.
B. Old Rite vs. new rite consecration of bishops: now it gets into Apostolic Succession. The bishop really has to be a bishop for the priest to really be a priest.

Dear regulars, someone will probably have a correction, but the intent here is entry-level delineation, nothing more.

2Vermont · « **Reply #29 on:** November 26, 2023, 01:24:27 PM »

Quote from: LVCIVS on November 24, 2023, 07:40:56 PM

Hello everyone,

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.

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.

Author Topic: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult? (Read 27837 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?

Ladislaus

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?

moneil

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?

Seraphina

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?

NIFH

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?

Pax Vobis

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?

Stubborn

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?

Plenus Venter

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?

2Vermont

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?

Pax Vobis

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?

Stubborn

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?

Pax Vobis

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?

Gunter

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?

Soubirous

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?

2Vermont

Re: Thoughts on the FSSP, Indult?