Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: PereJoseph

Quote from: Caminus

That doesn't involve a question of validity.  And what should she care about the subjective intentions of either the laity or the priest?  Get to a TLM on Sunday, if that's all that is available, then go.  

I am just clarifying that, since she is a sedevacantist, she most likely does not believe that the man officiating at the venue in question is actually a priest and that we are not discussing the SSPX.

Well she should stop using her imagination to guide her spiritual life (I do not mean that in a derogatory manner) and start studying the theology of the sacraments if this is keeping her away from the Mass.

I cannot be sure without her confirmation, but I assume that it is precisely her study of the sacraments that leads her to believe that the 1968 episcopal consecration ceremony results in an invalid sacrament.

Quote

Traditional theologians have demonstrated that the new rites are intrinsically or per se valid.  

I do not believe this to be the case and won't simply take your word for it.  If you have the texts or links to the texts of these theologians that "demonstrate" (as you say) the per se validity of all of the new rites, especially the 1968 rite of episcopal consecration, I would like to read them.

I do not want to derail this thread, so if you do have the links or files, please start a new thread or else send them to me in a private message.

I have posted them somewhere on some thread but they're probably buried, I'll find them if Caminus dosn't get to it.

Then again, the SSPX is apparently letting priests in now who were ordained by bishops who were consecrated in the New Rite, and not redoing their ordinations.

I would ask any SSPX priest some questions about his background.  I am pretty sure I heard that Father Hawker with the SSPX in Arcadia / San Pedro is one of these priests who were taken in directly from the Novus Ordo, but my memory is foggy about the details.  But I'd definitely investigate if I were going to him.  He will surely tell you himself.

The problem is the SSPX, and this is another huge black mark for the SSPX and perfectly fits the plan of the usurpers, says that the New Rite of Consecration is valid.  If the SSPX begins letting in priests who are ordained by fake bishops, even their Masses will start to become doubtful.  I'm sure some of them already are; hence if you're going to SSPX you need to talk to the priest and make sure his ordination is legit.

Though the Code of Canon Law 1917 says you can avail yourself of an Orthodox priest when necessary... Not sure if that means you should go to an Orthodox mass if nothing else is available, or just that you can call an Orthodox priest if you're dying and need to confess and receive extreme unction.  

The Bolded part is true, the Church gives Jurisdiction to even Schismatics and Heretics so long as they are Priests when someone is in danger of death and needs to confess and for extreme unction.

For Caminus on request:

THE CASE OF ATTENDING THE TRADITIONAL MASS SAID UNDER THE "INDULT"

Despite all the efforts of the official hierarchy since 1969, a few bishops, many priests, and a great number of the faithful have remained attached to the two-thousand-year old traditional rite of Mass. Time passed but the problem remained. In order to resolve it, Pope John Paul II gave to the diocesan bishops the faculty of making use of an indult so as to allow priests to say and faithful to attend the Mass contained in the Roman Missal edited in 1962; the missal moreover used by the Society of St. Pius X. That was the indult promulgated by the Congregation for the Divine Worship on October 3, 1984,15 an indult we shall see hereafter, made unacceptable through the intention of its legislators and by the conditions of its application. The consecrations of June 30, 1988, occurring, Pope John Paul II made use of this with regards to the traditionalists.

Now, what about attending a Tridentine Mass celebrated under the indult?

First of all, it constitutes a danger for the faith of the faithful, a danger which comes from the priests themselves who are celebrating it. Because to obtain this indult from the official hierarchy, these priests must fulfill the following conditions: "That it should be very clear that these priests have nothing to do with those who place in doubt... the doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI, in 1970 and that their position should be without any ambiguity and publicly known." 15 Thus is it necessary that these priests prove publicly by their behavior, their words and writings, shorn of ambiguities, that they admit "the doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass. No question in any way whatsoever of criticizing the Protestant and definitely non-Catholic look of Pope Paul VI's New Mass.

Cardinal Mayer, former president of Ecclesia Dei placed in charge of re-integrating the Traditionalists in the Conciliar Church, added the following condition: these same priests "can obtain" this indult "on the condition that they be in normal juridical standing with their bishops or religious superiors." 16 One remembers that dozens of priests have been unjustly put out of their churches or their religious houses for the simple fact of continuing to say without change the Tridentine Mass, except for a good number of those who were favored by certain circuмstances (age, distance etc.). May we ask these indult favored priests at what cost or compromise with the integral Catholic Faith have they kept or obtained "normal legal relations" with the hierarchy? Compromise which, for example, could appear in the fact of giving hosts doubtfully consecrated during a previous conciliar Mass or even through the manner of celebrating the traditional Mass full of hesitations and mistakes, sometimes even cause of scandal.

There is a danger too for the Faith, that comes from the proximity of the faithful who attend exclusively these indult Masses, because they also have to fulfill the conditions of not placing in doubt the "doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass.15 Characteristically, these type of faithful, unfortunately too often, are concerned with reconciling in thought and in action the truth with heresy, Tradition with the conciliar spirit.

Secondly from the very nature of the indult: an indult is "a concession from the authority which dispenses its subjects from the obligation of keeping a law." 17 "The indult is an exception. It can always be withdrawn. It confirms the general rule" 18 which is the New Mass, the conciliar liturgy. Because, to use a special permission, is this not to recognize and legitimize ipso facto the general law, that is to say the legal suppression of the two thousand year-old traditional rite?

Indeed, to obtain the indult of 1984, one must fulfill the following conditions: "that it should be quite clear that those priests and those faithful have nothing to do with those who place in question the legitimacy of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970." 15 Furthermore "this concession... should be utilized without prejudice to the observance of the liturgical reform (of Pope Paul VI) in the life of ecclesiastical communities" 15 of the Conciliar Church.

Therefore no question of them advertising for the universal usage of the Traditional Mass. They must be made to recognize that this Tridentine Mass was validly, legally and legitimately abrogated or forbidden. No question either or calling the worth, always actual, of the words of the Pope St. Pius V: "by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity, that for the singing or the reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal (that is to say, the Tridentine Mass), may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used." 19 [cf. this article for more on this topic:  THE LEGITMACY OF QUO PRIMUM TODAY]

The third point to tackle is this: to attend the "indult" Mass is at least to approve implicitly and to encourage the work of the destruction of Catholic Tradition undertaken by the official hierarchy. To prove this assertion, let us look first of all at the intentions of some of those responsible, to see some precise facts.

In the first place the intention of Pope John Paul II himself, using this indult to favor the winning over of "traditional Catholics" to conciliar Rome: "The Holy See has granted... the faculty of using the liturgical books in use in 1962... It is very evident that, far from seeking to put a brake on the application of the reform (of the New Mass) undertaken after the Council (by Pope Paul VI), this concession is destined to facilitate the ecclesial communion (that is to say their reinstatement in the Conciliar Church) of people who feel themselves attached to these liturgical forms." 20

What now of the intentions and hopes of Cardinal Mayer, former president of the Ecclesia Dei Commission? "There are grounds," he said, "to hope that, with the concerted efforts on the part of all concerned a substantial number of priests and seminarians will find the strength to renounce a 'state of mind' which until now was full of prejudices, of accusations and of disinformation... We have good reason to believe that the charity with which the priests coming from Archbishop Lefebvre and returning into the Church will be received, will contribute greatly to the fulfillment of this hope that, following them, numerous faithful whom they had served up till then, would also return into the ecclesial communion (with the Conciliar Church) through their mediation. Sometimes a temporary solution may be necessary, such as allowing them the possibility of celebrating the Holy Mass" 21 of Pope St. Pius V.

In the hands of the official hierarchy, the Tridentine Mass serves therefore as a temporary means and bait to attract the traditional priests and people and to destroy at the same time the work of Catholic restoration, started by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer and their priests. Means and bait to attract the traditional Catholics now considered as schismatics because they are no longer considered as "being in communion" with the present-day Rome, of liberal and modernist tendency. It is to be further noted that the Commission Ecclesia Dei could be generous for a time in the concessions granted to priests —a question of making them bite at the bait. But if through their "mediation" more or less conscious, their faithful do not return into the conciliar fold, it is to be anticipated that they will be judged as useless instruments and will find themselves either in the obligation to fulfill other conditions to keep that permission, or even to simply see the aforesaid permission withdrawn.

Let us now move on to some illustrating facts: having received the permission to celebrate the Tridentine Rite, the Fraternity of St. Peter now see themselves threatened to accept giving communion in the hand 22 and saying the Mass of 1965 22 having already accepted by one of their superiors, "all the docuмents of the Vatican II Council." 23 Hundreds of priests, seminarians and faithful have been lured with the Tridentine Rite and now are made to forcibly return to the ranks and the spirit of the Council. This work of destruction continues by the approval of Indult Masses close to our important Mass centers... A good method to empty these last ones or at least to prevent them from developing. "That is why, what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate from us the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors." 18 To attempt to restore the traditional Mass without considering the historical context of the crisis of the Faith is to become a blind instrument in the hands of the conciliar hierarchy.

WHAT FINAL CONCLUSION CAN WE DRAW FROM ALL THIS?

That the precept of attending Sunday Mass is obligatory for all Catholics who have reached the age of reason (seven years old) but that some may be excused particularly those who are only near Masses "of Pope Paul VI" or to traditional Masses said under the "Indult." Why? Firstly, because of the danger for the faith coming either from the priests who celebrate or from the faithful who attend them; secondly, legitimization is given to the new liturgy and finally an approval more or less implicit of the work of destruction of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Tradition.

http://www.sspx.org/motu_proprio/attendance_at_the_indult_vanes.htm

Here is my situation exactly: I am in the far northeastern part of my (very big) city.

The closest sede TLM is over the river in NJ. Can't get there by buses, and have no one to drive me.

Next to that, the closest sede Mass is in upstate PA...I'm told its 3 hours by car, but again, I have no car and can't drive anyway.

After that is the SSPX Mass which I would go to, except its about 2-3 hrs away by train and buses, and through some dangerous areas.

That leaves two diocesan TLMs, at least one of which is known to distribute hosts "consecrated" at that morning's previous NO's. That TLM is 20 mins away by bus.

The last one is 1.5 hrs away by train and bus, and is diocesan. Not sure if they use hosts from the NO of that morning or not, but still, its part of newchurch.

Now there are several Eastern schismatic churches within walking distance, but I can only use them if I'm dying and need the Last Rites.

Even the closest Byzantine Catholic parish is far away! The only option I have (I think) that might be workable is a Ukrainian Catholic parish downtown (1 hr away), its all in Ukrainian but at least the consecration is without question (but aren't they also part of the newchurch?)

@LordPhan:

If I am guessing the correct 'big city' of her origin, West Caldwell is two hours from her. It's an hour from ME, and I live in NJ. Even though I have a car, it's a strain to get there because I only work a few hours a week and cannot afford gas when it's over $3 a gallon here and my car only gets 17 MPG.

@Caminus:

You can't prove that I'm wrong, so you just say, 'Oh, be quiet'? How childish. It has been proven that the Novus Mass, whether in Latin or the vernacular, is questionable because the Words of Consecration have been changed. 'For ALL' does NOT mean the same thing as 'FOR MANY', which were the Words Our Lord used.

As to the validity of the ordinations of Novus presiders, just saying 'be quiet' is not enough. The Rite of Ordination has been changed and no longer reflects a power to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, ergo, it is not the Ordination of a valid Roman Catholic priest, but rather a minister of a 'service'.

Ratzinger is a heretic. YOU 'be quiet'.

St. Anthony of Padua, hammer of heretics, terror of Hell, pray for us.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

The SSPX studies all ordinations to see if they are valid. If they determined it was valid why do you not believe them? The SSPX are well educated in such matters and sometimes even employ the Benedictines and Domincans who are allied with us(and are independant of the Concillar church) to study such matters.

I agree Raoul takes his bias against the SSPX too far; but, I mean, look where he's come from (his road to tradition). I think the thing that is fearful, for me, is if there is a question about about the new Rite- would it be so bad to do the conditional ordination for safety's sake?

@LordPhan:

If I am guessing the correct 'big city' of her origin, West Caldwell is two hours from her. It's an hour from ME, and I live in NJ. Even though I have a car, it's a strain to get there because I only work a few hours a week and cannot afford gas when it's over $3 a gallon here and my car only gets 17 MPG.

@Caminus:

You can't prove that I'm wrong, so you just say, 'Oh, be quiet'? How childish. It has been proven that the Novus Mass, whether in Latin or the vernacular, is questionable because the Words of Consecration have been changed. 'For ALL' does NOT mean the same thing as 'FOR MANY', which were the Words Our Lord used.

As to the validity of the ordinations of Novus presiders, just saying 'be quiet' is not enough. The Rite of Ordination has been changed and no longer reflects a power to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, ergo, it is not the Ordination of a valid Roman Catholic priest, but rather a minister of a 'service'.

Ratzinger is a heretic. YOU 'be quiet'.

St. Anthony of Padua, hammer of heretics, terror of Hell, pray for us.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

That's all I can say to one who approaches these matters in an irrational, emotinal manner.  You've told yourself this enough times, therefore it has become a certainty for you in your own mind, thus the bold declarations as if we are dealing with indisputable fact.  You just don't know what you're talking about so it would be wise for you to be quiet.