Hello I have a couple of things I have been thinking about and I will pose them here hoping to get some help in understanding them.

1. How does or at what point does a bishop (or group of them) lose their apostolic succession?  I am here thinking more groups like Anglicans/Lutherans, not so much the question of the new ordination rite.  As I understand it, even if one is a heretic, he would not neccesarily lose apostolic succession as long as he intends to do as the Church does.  Is this correct? So the first generation of Anglicans/Lutheran Bishops still had valid succession but they failed to transfer it to the next generation??


2. I have a question understanding BOD/BOB/Invincible Ignorance and the Limbo of the Infants.  As I understand Limbo, unbaptized babies/aborted babies have to go to Limbo because although they never sinned personally, they still have the stain of Original Sin and so cannot see the beatific vision.  I guess my question is, in light of the teachings of BoD/BoB or especially invincible ignorance, why wouldn't babies fall into one of those categories? Surely they would have an implicit desire for baptism or really, who could be more invincibly ignorant than a new soul that was aborted/miscarried and didn't even have a chance?  What say the theologians on this question??  Why do babies have to go to Limbo, but others that lived a bit longer could (potentially) get a pass via these 'extraordinary' ways into the Church??

Thank you in advance,

Luke

a new rite for conferring Holy Orders was publicly introduced under Edward VI, the true Sacrament of Order as instituted by Christ lapsed, and with it the hierarchical succession.[/i]

I guess I hesitate to even bring this up buuut... Is this situation of  a new rite for conferring Holy Orders was publicly introduced under Edward VI anything like the situation with the 1968 new rite of ordination for bishops.  As I understand it, like the new mass, it was entirely new as well, not just a modification/update of the traditional rite. Ugh. What a mess this post Vat II crisis is...

Luke

Quote from: Stubborn

a new rite for conferring Holy Orders was publicly introduced under Edward VI, the true Sacrament of Order as instituted by Christ lapsed, and with it the hierarchical succession.[/i]

I guess I hesitate to even bring this up buuut... Is this situation of  a new rite for conferring Holy Orders was publicly introduced under Edward VI anything like the situation with the 1968 new rite of ordination for bishops.  As I understand it, like the new mass, it was entirely new as well, not just a modification/update of the traditional rite. Ugh. What a mess this post Vat II crisis is...

Luke

In a word, the new ordination rite of the NO, *IMO*, produces clergy whose validity is, at best, doubtful. I do not believe there is any way to know with certainty one way or the other simply because, there is no way to prove validity / invalidity. That being said, IMO, we are perfectly justified to be extremely suspicious of everything NO - best to avoid the NO completely, including it's priests.  

It's like this - if the ordinations are invalid, then there are laymen masquerading as priests, this would no doubt please Satan very much - but OTOH, if the ordinations *are* valid, then it would seem please Satan even more to have valid sacrileges all over the place vs invalid ones.



Snip from: Who Shall Ascend?:

..........By way of preface, we observe: The revisers had a reason for making changes, and particular reasons for each change they made.

They cannot argue that their new formulas are identical to the old; that would be to admit that the changes mean nothing, and that, therefore, there was no reason to make them. To admit that they made changes for no reason whatsoever would be a sign of a most irreverent capriciousness and cynicism. Besides, such an explanation could only be regarded as a concealment.

The new forms (Latin and English) must be seen to say something different from the old. Furthermore, in view of what the other changes in the liturgical rites have connoted, we are compelled to be suspicious. We should rather say, we have every reason to look for an effort at neuterizing this sacramental rite, because those in charge of the new rites have shown themselves untrustworthy, or, more accurately, determinedly subversive. The new form could not be an improvement on the old. How can one method or set of words ordain someone better than another? The alteration of the form can only have had the intention of either negating this purpose, or, at the very least, of creating a doubt as to its efficacy. (As if it needs to be said: They could not have added something to the form by taking words away. And what could they have wanted to add to the power of Orders? Why did they touch the form at all?)..............



 

Luker the Lutherans and Anglicans have invalid orders because they don't have the same intention in their "sacrament" (which they deny is a sacrament)

The Apostolic succession doesn't refer to valid orders but to the jurisdiction that requires unity with the successor of Peter.

So the "orthodox" have valid priests and bishops but do not have apostolic succession.

It baffles me why somebody down-thumbed this.  Did Tele say something erroneous?

Okay, I think I am getting it now.  Validity and succession are separate things.  Like in the example of the Eastern Orthodox clergy versus Anglican clergy.  Since Anglicans/Lutherans deny that Holy Orders is a sacrament, they lost the validity of their orders.  But since the Orthodox continue to hold Holy Orders as a sacrament their orders are valid but of course they are not in communion with the pope so have lost the Apostolic Succession. :scratchchin:

 Thanks for all the help! Does anyone have an answer for my second question BoD/BoB and Limbo??  :thinking:  :confused1:

Luke

2. I have a question understanding BOD/BOB/Invincible Ignorance and the Limbo of the Infants.  As I understand Limbo, unbaptized babies/aborted babies have to go to Limbo because although they never sinned personally, they still have the stain of Original Sin and so cannot see the beatific vision.  I guess my question is, in light of the teachings of BoD/BoB or especially invincible ignorance, why wouldn't babies fall into one of those categories? Surely they would have an implicit desire for baptism or really, who could be more invincibly ignorant than a new soul that was aborted/miscarried and didn't even have a chance?  What say the theologians on this question??  Why do babies have to go to Limbo, but others that lived a bit longer could (potentially) get a pass via these 'extraordinary' ways into the Church??

Thank you in advance,

Luke

Notice the believers in BOD (99% of them believe an adult who has no desire to be a Catholic, can be saved!) have not touched this very good question of yours.

The Council of Florence defined dogmatically that no one can be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, and yet these people believe that people are saved by doing practically nothing, comparatively speaking. I mean, what more can a man do that to shed his blood for Christ? For the BODer shedding blood for Christ is nothing, but "making an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire" (Abp. Lefebvre) will save a person who has no desire to be a Catholic or shed a tear for Christ!

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Notice the believers in BOD (99% of them believe an adult who has no desire to be a Catholic, can be saved!)

I hope that more than 1 percent of the believers in BOD believe in it the same way as St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas believed in it.

Luker the Lutherans and Anglicans have invalid orders because they don't have the same intention in their "sacrament" (which they deny is a sacrament)

The Apostolic succession doesn't refer to valid orders but to the jurisdiction that requires unity with the successor of Peter.

So the "orthodox" have valid priests and bishops but do not have apostolic succession.

That is not true there was always High Church Anglicans in the COE. In the COE there has always been those that believed in the power of the priesthood, so that despite them having the best of intentions it would be impossible to have a valid sacrament since the form was defective (this is the same thing that happens with the Novus Ordo sacraments). The problem is that they had  both defect of form AND intention as I will prove down in the quotes.  

I think this is an important quotes from Apostolicae Curae from H.H. Leo XIII: "The consideration of the excellency of the Christian priesthood moved Anglican (Conciliarist) writers in this matter, desirous as they were that their own people should not lack the twofold power over the Body of Christ. Catholic writers were impelled by a wish to smooth the way for the return of Anglicans (Conciliarist) to holy unity. Both, indeed, thought that in view of studies brought up to the level of recent research, and of new docuмents rescued from oblivion, it was not inopportune to reexamine the question by our authority. "

"It has, therefore, pleased Us to graciously permit the cause to be reexamined, so that, through the extreme care taken in the new examination, all doubt, or even shadow of doubt, should be removed for the future. " [Ohh Blessed day when we shall have the new rites examined by lawful authority! So that once and for all the question is settled. ]

"For if by any chance doubt should remain as to the true sense in which these pontifical docuмents are to be understood, the principle holds good that "Custom is the best interpreter of law." Since in the Church it has ever been a constant and established rule that it is sacrilegious to repeat the Sacrament of Order, it never could have come to pass that the Apostolic See should have silently acquiesced in and tolerated such a custom. But not only did the Apostolic See tolerate this practice, but approved and sanctioned it as often as any particular case arose which called for its judgment in the matter. " This is especially interesting for those who believe the New Rites to be valid, but continue to conditionally re-ordain. Thus custom which is dictated by what are your actions is the best way to know what is theologically certain. Why is it that +ABL do the consecration of the 4 Bishops? He really thought they were invalid plain and simple, and it is sad to see how the SSPX is being duplicitous on this point. They say one thing and do another, this is a practice that fails completely by what the Apostolic see used to practice. Remember that this was ESSENTIAL in his finding out if it was valid, now in the future if there ever is another true Pope who has not lost his office through heresy. I don't know when that will happen because I can't see into the future.

"...still more important is it to note that the judgment of the pontiff applies universally to all Anglican ordinations, because, although it refers to a particular case, it is not based upon any reason special to that case, but upon the defect of form, which defect equally affects all these ordinations, so much so, that when similar cases subsequently came up for decision, the same decree of Clement XI was quoted as the norm. "

"Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between "the law of believing and the law of praying", under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers." This could literally be thrown directly to condemn the "reform of the reform.
____________

In my long experience, the 99% is accurate. They only quote St's Thomas & Alphonsus as a smoke screen.

Yes it can be proven that the theology behind implicit BOD is a smoke screen for Universal salvation. The favorite response of all time I have heard, "You don't think that God is some sort of bureaucrat? That can't undo his own decrees..."

This is so blasphemous I don't even know where to start. "Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not..." God's decrees are eternal and changeless.

I believe in EXPLICIT BOD, that means that NO Jєω ever will be saved that does not explicitly confess the Trinity and the essential truths of the Catholic faith, also desiring the saving waters of baptism. This is what many of the Saints and Doctors believed, it is also that FOR A VERY VERY long time was a tolerated opinion and so that it could be said to be from the ordinary teaching magisterium of the Church. It is located in Canon Law in several good catechisms etc... So that suffices for me, however, I do not think that those that don't believe in BOD are heretics, I think they are mistaken and if it was not for the modern mess of Father Feeney's case this would have been resolved if he would have attempted to defend the Dogma, but he chickened out.

We would have a whole lot more material to discuss here if he would have gone to Rome and do his best to defend EENS. He never did so we have an excommunication that is very much based on his not appearing along with some other rough condemnations.

Now yes there are many traditional priest that believe some sort of rough equivalent to this statement: "Salvation outside of the Church would be like jumping out of the plane without a parachute at 10,000 feet in the air. Is it possible for them to be saved? Yes, but it is completely improbable." I would say about 90% of traditionalist both SSPX and Sedevacantist fall under this sort of belief.

This is a good way of putting their theological outlook of the possibility of Salvation outside of the Church, because it eliminates for them the charge of Universalist salvation. This is because they say that it is highly improbable but through some deep mystery which we cannot understand they can be saved somehow even without belief in the Trinity. This is semi-pelagian because it admits that through good works one can please God, but the scriptures tells us quite differently. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." So that it is both good works and faith that lead to eternal salvation.