It's been about 50 years since the new rite was introduced and about 60 years since the death of Pope Pius XII. These questions are directed to sedevacantists who believe (1) the new rite is per se invalid, and (2) Pope Pius XII was the last Pope.

(1) Now, regarding the first point, Fr. Pierre Marie writes (this was back in 2005), "For the 37 years that have elapsed since this rite was promulgated, most of the Roman Rite bishops of the Catholic Church have been ordained with it. There is certainly not a single resident bishop (a bishop having the power of jurisdiction) who was ordained before 1968. Consequently, if the new rite is invalid, the Roman Church is deprived of a hierarchy, which would seem contrary to the promises of Christ (“the gates of hell shall not prevail against her”).

How will those who believe the new rite is invalid answer this? Is it possible that the Roman Church has no more residential Bishops?

Also, a Bishop is generally not Consecrated before 35 years of age. This is expressly provided for in the new Code of Canon Law (378 §1/4). The Bishop is also expected according to the same code to resign his office at age 75. (Can. 401 §1) And that is what is practiced in the mainstream Church. At any rate, Scripture gives a man's average lifespan as around 70-80 years (Psa 89:10). So, doesn't it seem to follow from this that there could not have been an invalid rite in use for more than 35-45 years, let alone 50+ years? Have sedevacantists ever officially addressed Fr. Marie's argument? I don't think Fr. Cekada did so. Please post the source if he has. Thanks.

(2) The second question comes Cardinals and Residential Bishops. If there have been no Popes for 60 years, all the Cardinals would have died out long ago. Archbishop Lefebvre himself often used the argument - then the electors required would be permanently uncertain, and there would be no way to elect a Pope, which would suggest sedevacantism is not the correct explanation of the crisis. How will sedes answer this argument? Secondly, just as only a Pope can appoint Cardinals or incardinate them into the Roman Church, so also only he can appoint residential Bishops to office or place them over their own particular diocese. For the same reason (consecrated around 35, resigning around 75), wouldn't it seem there are no Bishops in office left? Is that compatible with Apostolicity?

(1) Now, regarding the first point, Fr. Pierre Marie writes (this was back in 2005), "For the 37 years that have elapsed since this rite was promulgated, most of the Roman Rite bishops of the Catholic Church have been ordained with it. There is certainly not a single resident bishop (a bishop having the power of jurisdiction) who was ordained before 1968. Consequently, if the new rite is invalid, the Roman Church is deprived of a hierarchy, which would seem contrary to the promises of Christ (“the gates of hell shall not prevail against her”).

How will those who believe the new rite is invalid answer this? Is it possible that the Roman Church has no more residential Bishops?

False.  No one disputes the validity of the Easter Rite holy orders.

No Trad who has studied these questions with any reasonableness says that ALL the new ordinations/episcopal consecrations are invalid.  Likewise, not ALL new mass consecrations are invalid.  But, there are significant doubts for each of them.  And since there is no way to know (by exterior actions/language) which ones are valid or not (since the new rites/mass’ validity depends on the minister’s private intention), thus we MUST avoid all doubtful sacraments/masses, per Canon Law, or we commit grave sin.  

Exactly.  What's been asserted is positive doubt and not certain invalidity.

Although personally I think there are invalid NO priests and bishops running around out there, I agree with the Church, and presume validity unless proven otherwise. This is more scary than starting out presuming they're all invalid, and is another very good reason to stay completely away from all things Novus Ordo.

The NO in and of itself warrants everyone to avoid and condemn it for what it is whether or not they have valid clergy, but add in the fact that you can't tell whether a NO priest/bishop is really a priest or bishop, and there is no reason to ever go there and every reason to avoid it altogether.

Valid or not, best to stay away completely no matter what.

Well, ok. There have been some, especially sedes, who reject the rite totally and say the Bishops are not true Bishops, that the alleged empty tabernacle is even more important than the alleged empty See (which would be true if it were really so) etc.

The sedes (and all Trads) are correct in rejecting the new rite.  Canon Law does not allow a catholic, under grave penalty of sin, to attend/receive a doubtful mass or sacrament.  Ergo, you must reject the new mass/rites because they are positively doubtful AND they are performed by postively doubtful priests/bishops.  This is why Traditional Catholicism exists and is the ONLY reason we can exist, both legally and morally.

The sedes are also correct that, due to positive doubt, the new rite Bishops and priests are not true bishops/priests because of uncertainty.  Further, because of the systematic quasi-heresies which they accept in V2 and the quasi-heretical new liturgy, they are also lacking in spiritual jurisdiction because they have incurred ecclesiastical penalties due to their acceptance of non-orthodox and quasi-heretical beliefs.  (This applies to the "conservative" ones, like the FSSP or others.  The liberal bishops/priests who support gαy unions and abortion and whatever else, openly, have excommunicated themselves already...at least spiritually.  They should be ignored and openly rebuked for their apostasy).

Are you sure about this principle? The books will tell you otherwise. If valid form and matter is used, even minimally, valid intention is presumed unless something to the contrary is manifested.

Each new-rite sacrament was changed in a different way.  Some changed a lot, some didn't.  The Church's rule that valid intention is presumed was based on the old rites, which prayers were explicit and clear on the intention.  The new-rites are not explicit and sometimes the ambiguous language does NOT make it clear the intention of the prayer, therefore, the minister HAS to provide the intention mentally as he performs the rite.

Thus, for instance, the Holy Office said Protestants baptize validly when they use the baptismal formula, even by having all kinds of wrong opinions on the sacrament itself, as we know to be true.

You can't compare the simplistic sacramental formula of baptism with the more complex prayers/intentions/rites of Holy Orders or the Mass.  Baptism is so simple that it's hard to invalidate - you either say the words and pour the water, or you don't.  Holy Orders and Holy Mass are much more complex.

Cardinal Ottaviani said that one may positively doubt the validity of the new mass because the new canon does not manifest the Church's intention for the mass, and this intention must be supplied by the priest.  Because the intention is of the internal forum and no longer explicit and part of the public prayers, there is positive doubt.  Cardinal Ottaviani was one of the highest theologians in rome in the 60s.  I don't know how anyone can disregard his opinion (...and, mind you, he was NOT referring to the mis-translation of "for all".  This is a totally separate invalidity issue).

Even Fr. Cekada has written articles about this: intention is presumed when valid form and matter are used. So, if you want to say the new rite is always objectively and positively doubtful, you must show that its form has positive doubt. And beside doubt or the level of certitude we can have about validity, objectively speaking, one of these two is true: (1) the rite is valid, or (2) the rite is  not valid. Whether we know it or not is secondary.

Depends on which sacraments you're talking about.  Some sacraments are doubtful, some are not.  Baptism is probably ok, as are marriages and maybe Penance.  The new mass is positively doubtful as is Holy Orders.  I haven't researched the other sacraments as much as if I have doubts about the priests and the mass, that's enough to stay away.

Your either or principle doesn't work for the new rite because the changes made by the Modernists were to exactly create the situation we are in - i.e. doubt.  The new rites are, for the most part, dependent upon the minister's intention, which necessarily creates doubt because of their faulty seminary training, their quasi-heretical beliefs, their lack of orthodox belief on many central Catholic issues.  Catholics have the RIGHT TO KNOW if their mass/sacraments are valid.  If they do not know, Canon Law says they cannot go.

Unless absolutely necessary, avoid the New Mass. It's not invalid, because you are right, most Pius XII-era bishops are either over 100 years old or dead, but it is a defective, Protestantized liturgy for the most part*.


*for the most part, meaning that there are some excellent younger priests who are sound in Catholic doctrine and praxis and do their best, in the face of liberalized and feminized congregations, to make the Novus Ordo a modicuм more Catholic. They would be better served in traditionalist organizations, though, i.e. Fr. Michael Oswalt.

Yes, Stanley, this is Archbishop Lefebvre, from Michael Davies' Apologia: "And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith. Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate Triumph. Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its Priests, Brothers, Sisters, and Oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid." https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm

And this is the article I was talking about, from Salza and Siscoe, whose recent book True or False Pope btw was approved and authorized for publication by SSPX Bishops and Priests including, I think, Bp. Fellay and Fr. Laisney. I know Fr. Therasian Xavier also wrote a positive review of it: “The answer here is similar to the preceding. Prior to the election, there is a moral certainty that all these conditions required in the person are actually met. After the fact of the election and its acceptance, the fulfillment of these conditions is known with the certainty of a theological conclusion, since they have, per se, a logical implication with a truth that is certain, and certified by faith. (…) the truth that is defined and accepted by the Church is not that this man is baptized or ordained, etc., but that this man is truly pope. (…) That he is baptized and meets the other requirements [i.e., that he is not a public heretic] … is inferred as a consequence; (…) the truth that this man has been ordained, and has the power of order (that is, of the priesthood or episcopate), is certain in the same way as the truth that he is baptized is certain; namely, not as a truth immediately de fide, but as a theological conclusion necessarily connected with the truth that he is the Pope and the rule of faith in the Church."
https://gloria.tv/article/PydgSw3mJAWF2w9rLGgxGBa4h

Therefore, since it is certain by the fact of universal acceptance that Pope Benedict XVI is Pope, it follows that the new rite of episcopal consecration cannot be per se invalid. And since Pope Francis was elected and accepted as Pope after that, the same follows for the new rite of ordination - it cannot be per se invalid. That is all.

When it comes to Novus Ordo sacraments, another problem is the Holy Oils used.  Those sacraments which depend on proper, valid Holy Oils suffer because of a change Paul VI made.  He allowed vegetable oils to be used in place of olive oil.  

Ihsv, yes, each of the four have to be considered, (1) Matter, (2) Form, (3) Minister (4) Intention. The argument is simply, if the new rites are always invalid, the Church of Rome has defected, with no valid episcopal lineage, and no residential Bishop, which is impossible. Therefore, the form of the new rite, when used with proper intention, and accompanying matter (the oils for Sacraments like Confirmation etc) are certainly not (even more than moral certainty, this is certainty closely connected with truths of Faith, as John of St. Thomas explains) per se invalid.

This solid theoretical conclusion affects the praxis the Society follows in receiving Bishops from the mainstream Church who come over to the Society. The background is closely investigated for any defects of matter and of intention, keeping in mind the principles established earlier. If none are found after a careful investigation from the Episcopal authorities of the Society, the Bishop is welcomed. Laymen wish to protest this today, but imho, it's safe and sure to follow the judgment of the Superior General on such matters. A statement of St. Ignatius of Antioch, concerning the Bishop's role in administering and guaranteeing the validity of the Sacraments in such matters, could be applied here, "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop ... whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."

This is why Traditional Catholicism exists and is the ONLY reason we can exist, both legally and morally.

No, this is false. Summorum Pontificuм and Universae Ecclesiae disagree with you. Every Bishop and Priest has the right to use all the traditional rites. I've already explained using the analogy of Baptism how a rite can be weakened (theologians distinguish integrity and essence) without compromising validity. This weakening leads to a massive loss of grace and that loss of grace is sufficient reason not to use the new rites, but “without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of Priestly formation under the guidance of the never-changing Magisterium, convinced as we are that we cannot possibly render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to posterity.” (Bp. Fellay), we can legitimately continue to use all the traditional rites, since they give greater glory to God, and obtain for us super-abundantly the grace and sanctification we need to save our souls, and that the Church and the world desperately need more abundantly. Protestants may baptize wrongly (i.e. by omitting the ceremonies that accompany the essential form, as when it is rightly administered in the Catholic Church, by Traditional Priests), but we will not. Neither need we deny the validity of their Baptism to do so.

You claim other rites are different, but that is not true - Catholic Sacramental Theology is that each and every Sacrament is validly conferred by the essential form - even Abp. Lefebvre wrote above, "- that the Sacrifice and the Sacrament are effected by the words of the Consecration alone, and not also by those which either precede or follow them." Abp. Lefebvre once gave the example of Cardinal Mindszenty who once said Holy Mass in Prison with little more than the Words of Consecration. Btw, Greek Orthodox wrongly believe Transubstantiation takes place during some of the prayers that precede the Consecration (some of those errors that had now begun to spread in Rome, and Archbishop Lefebvre was controverting that above) but this error of fact does not invalidate their Sacrament and Sacrifice when an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy is celebrated. That's what the Church has ever held.

I've given you dogmatic reasons why the new rite cannot be invalid. You can choose to believe them or not just as you wish, it's up to you, Pax Vobis. If all Eastern Orthodox rites were in fact invalid (they are not), this would not affect the indefectibility of the Catholic Church. If the new rites are per se invalid (which Abp. Lefebvre, see above, said he would not so much as tolerate the Priests of the SSPX professing, as docuмented earlier), then the Church of Rome has no valid episcopal lineage, and no residential Bishop, which is heretical. It is dogmatically certain, then, a Truth closely connected to truths of faith, that the new rites cannot be per se invalid.

The Truth of God's existence will objectively be absolutely certain irrespective of whether agnostics doubt it or not. The Truth of Christ's Resurrection will objectively be absolutely certain irrespective of whether modernists doubt it or not. The Truth of the new rites minimal validity is also objectively certain, because of its necessary connection to Church dogmas like Apostolicity and Indefectibility, irrespective of whether explicit sedes or implicit sedes (people who don't realize they hold to premises that logically, but wrongly, lead to sedevacantism; that is, they need to revise their erroneous premise that led to a false conclusion) doubt it or not.

It's not invalid, because you are right, most Pius XII-era bishops are either over 100 years old or dead ...

Could you elaborate on this please?  This is not a convincing argument to me.  I think I know where you're coming from, but I don't want to put words in your mouth (or keyboard).