Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: DigitalLogos on March 09, 2023, 03:20:03 PM
-
For the sake of objectivity, I've wanted to explore the issue surrounding NO orders and what the opposing sides seem to think. This isn't out of a desire to jump right back to the NO or run down to my local clown Mass, but rises from the questions I have with recognition of Eastern Orders which use completely different rites of Ordination and Espiscopacy than the West and the confusion of the other thread on the various claims of trad lines.
I watched this video from the SSPX and thought it posed a decent perspective compared to the sede perspective I've held to for the past couple years.
https://youtu.be/wlEsReiIMyc
-
Indirectly related, but one thing I noticed while looking into something else was that some consecrating bishops completely change the form from even what is called for in the NO. The surrounding prayers indicate the function of the priesthood, etc, but there was one example I found where the actual form itself is completely vague and doesn't really mean anything in particular, it was just 2 sentences along the lines of "fill the heart you created."
-
The down vote is very constructive. Good discussion. Whose idol did I offend?
-
Indirectly related, but one thing I noticed while looking into something else was that some consecrating bishops completely change the form from even what is called for in the NO. The surrounding prayers indicate the function of the priesthood, etc, but there was one example I found where the actual form itself is completely vague and doesn't really mean anything in particular, it was just 2 sentences along the lines of "fill the heart you created."
If you watch the video, the words used are actually not that vague and arguably more relevant than that of the original Episcopal prayer. Yet, it was admitted, there are those who could ad lib and leave it up to doubt. But from what I'm seeing it isn't as vague as sedevacantists make it out to be. And the priest even mentioned it wasn't that off the mark from Eastern Episcopal consecration prayers.
This leads me to something else: the argument from intention. I've heard that they may not be valid not only because of the formula used, but also because the bishop may not intend to consecrate for the Catholic Church but the Conciliar Church, therefore invalidating the rite that way. Yet, if that's the case, why would we then turn around and accept Eastern Orthodox Orders as valid? The surely do not intend to be part of the Catholic Church, as in union with Rome, yet their Orders are not brought into question. Yet the NO would be questioned for the same erroneous intent.
A side note I want to add is that while one can conclude that NO Orders are valid, that doesn't make them licit, as the SSPX contend. Much like you could have a valid NOM or EO liturgy which would be illicit. Secondly, to properly tackle this you have to look at it from the perspective of either the Popes being true or false. If you start from the presupposition they are false, then it raises more problems about the implementation of the new rite. Yet, if they are true Popes, then there really isn't much reason to reject the changes as that falls into the scope of a Pope's authority. At that point its all speculation on intent.
-
The "form" of the NO rite of consecration, came from the establishment of a patriarch NOT from the consecration of a bishop
-
If you watch the video, the words used are actually not that vague and arguably more relevant than that of the original Episcopal prayer. Yet, it was admitted, there are those who could ad lib and leave it up to doubt. But from what I'm seeing it isn't as vague as sedevacantists make it out to be. And the priest even mentioned it wasn't that off the mark from Eastern Episcopal consecration prayers.
This leads me to something else: the argument from intention. I've heard that they may not be valid not only because of the formula used, but also because the bishop may not intend to consecrate for the Catholic Church but the Conciliar Church, therefore invalidating the rite that way. Yet, if that's the case, why would we then turn around and accept Eastern Orthodox Orders as valid? The surely do not intend to be part of the Catholic Church, as in union with Rome, yet their Orders are not brought into question. Yet the NO would be questioned for the same erroneous intent.
A side note I want to add is that while one can conclude that NO Orders are valid, that doesn't make them licit, as the SSPX contend. Much like you could have a valid NOM or EO liturgy which would be illicit. Secondly, to properly tackle this you have to look at it from the perspective of either the Popes being true or false. If you start from the presupposition they are false, then it raises more problems about the implementation of the new rite. Yet, if they are true Popes, then there really isn't much reason to reject the changes as that falls into the scope of a Pope's authority. At that point its all speculation on intent.
I don't think there is a single Newchurch bishop, no matter how liberal he is, who makes a distinction between the pre-conciliar Church and the "Conciliar Church", rather, he sees them as one and the same thing, and when he consecrates, he intends to consecrate a Catholic bishop. Even if, arguendo, the rite itself could be seen as invalid or doubtful, the intention would not be.
-
I don't think there is a single Newchurch bishop, no matter how liberal he is, who makes a distinction between the pre-conciliar Church and the "Conciliar Church", rather, he sees them as one and the same thing, and when he consecrates, he intends to consecrate a Catholic bishop. Even if, arguendo, the rite itself could be seen as invalid or doubtful, the intention would not be.
My point exactly. They intend to create priests and bishops for the Catholic Church, just as the Eastern Orthodox intends to create priests and bishops for their idea of the Christian Church. So the question of intent is a moot point. This leaves speculation regarding the form of the rite itself. Which, again, the priest in the video notes that the prayer used (whether it is derived from the Eastern institution of a patriarch, or not) does not actually marr or obscure the intent to create a bishop. And the prayers of Episcopal consecration are not set in stone like the words of consecration in the Mass (again, changed in the NOM until Ratzinger corrected this, and a separate issue entirely). So, whether NO bishops are invalid is not as concrete as it may seem.
-
The "form" of the NO rite of consecration, came from the establishment of a patriarch NOT from the consecration of a bishop
Exactly.
http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/06/21/saved-by-context-the-68-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-2/
-
It sure is a minefield. The SSPX was once very clear in its advice:
"...one should not receive the sacraments in the new rites, but only in the traditional rites, which alone are worthy and certainly valid. Receiving the sacraments under a form that is even slightly doubtful is not allowed. An exception should be made, however, for the last riets, when in case of emergency it is impossible to summon in time a priest faithful to Tradition." - Taken from The Catechism of the Crisis in The Church by Fr Matthias Gaudron. He has a whole section dealing with the sacraments. the catechism of the crisis in church - Angelus Press (https://angeluspress.org/pages/search-results-page?q=the catechism of the crisis in church)
This old Eleison Comments may answer some of the questions posed:
Number CCCLVI (356) 10th May 2014
NEW ORDINATIONS - I
Should priests ordained with the new rite of Ordination of 1972 be conditionally re-ordained with the old and certainly valid rite of Ordination ? Catholic doctrine on the validity of sacraments is clear, but the sacramental rites of the Newchurch seem to have been designed to lead gradually to invalidity (see EC 121 of Oct 31, 2009). The « gradually » is the problem. How far along was that gradual process in any given case ? Perhaps God alone knows for sure. But let us begin with the clear doctrine.
One can say a Catholic sacrament involves five elements : Minister, Intention, Matter and Form are essential for validity, the Rite surrounding the Form can be important for validity by its sudden or gradual bearing on the Minister's Intention. For priestly Orders, the Minister has to be a validly consecrated bishop ; the Intention is his sacramental (not moral) intention, in ordaining, to do what the Church does ; the Matter is his laying of both hands on the head of the man to be ordained (women cannot be validly ordained to the priesthood of Christ) ; the Form is the crucial formula or series of words in the rite which express the conferring of the priesthood ; the Rite is all the other words surrounding that Form, and prescribed in the ceremonial rite of Ordination.
In a new rite Ordination, if both hands are laid on the head, the Matter is no problem. The new Form in Latin is, if anything, stronger for validity than the old Form in Latin (by the « et » instead of an « ut »), but vernacular translations need to be checked to make sure that they clearly express the grace of the priesthood to be conferred. Most of them surely do. Where real problems of validity arise is with the Minister and the Intention, because of the gradual erosion of Catholic Intention by the uncatholic new Rites.
For, as to the Intention, any bishop today ordaining a priest surely intends to do what today's Church does, well and good, but what is that in his mind ? What is a priest in the Newchurch ? Is not yesteryear's renewer of the Sacrifice of Calvary by the Real Presence being slowly but steadily replaced by today's co-ordinator of eucharistic picnics ? How far along is this process in any given diocese of the world ? Did this or that bishop have in mind a sacrificer or a picnicker as being what the Church does ? The ordaining bishop's outward behaviour will indicate his Intention, but God alone may know for sure. Certainly many new Rites of Mass incline towards the picnicker, and the new Rite of Ordination surrounding the Form can only help by its severely diminished catholic content to undermine gradually the sacramental Intention of an ordaining bishop.
And as to the Minister, if the ordaining bishop was himself consecrated bishop with the new rite of consecration, let us assume that the ambiguity of the new Form of consecration is lifted by the words immediately following, nevertheless doubts like those above as to the Intention of the bishop consecrating must arise: did he consider, and therefore have as his Intention, that today's Church consecrates makers of the Sacrifice, or of picnics ? Such questions can often lack clear answers.
In brief, were I Pope, I think I might require that all priests or bishops ordained or consecrated with the « renewed » rites should be conditionally re-ordained or re-consecrated, not because I would believe that none of them were true priests or bishops, on the contrary, but because when it comes to the sacraments all serious doubts must be removed, and that would be the simplest way of removing all possible doubts. Newchurch rot of the sacraments could not be left hanging around.
Kyrie eleison
Should a Newchurch priest be re-ordained, or not ?
Answer unsure, from gradual Newchurch rot.
© 2011-2014 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.
A non-exclusive license to print out, forward by email, and/or post this article to the Internet is granted to users who wish to do so provided that no changes are made to the content so reproduced or distributed, to include the retention of this notice with any and all reproductions of content as authorized hereby. Aside from this limited, non-exclusive license, no portion of this article may be reproduced in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby.
Permissions inquiries should be directed to editorial@dinoscopus.org (editorial@dinoscopus.org).
www.dinoscopus.org (http://www.dinoscopus.org/)
-
Secondly, to properly tackle this you have to look at it from the perspective of either the Popes being true or false. If you start from the presupposition they are false, then it raises more problems about the implementation of the new rite. Yet, if they are true Popes, then there really isn't much reason to reject the changes as that falls into the scope of a Pope's authority. At that point its all speculation on intent.
This is the crux
And it's very suspicious that Vigano and others are pushing this idea that Moscow is the Third Rome when we consider the rite was changed to accomodate the Orthodox and
John XXIII's relationship with them:
Bulgarian journalist named Stefano Karadgiov stated, "I knew Catholic priests who refused to go into an Orthodox Church even as tourists. Bishop Roncalli, on the contrary, always participated in Orthodox functions, arousing astonishment and perplexity in some Catholics. He never missed the great ceremonies which were celebrated in the principle Orthodox church in Sofia. He put himself in a corner and devoutly followed the rites. The Orthodox chants especially pleased him. (Emphasis mine)
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html
See the full text to see why he was a heretic (outside the Church and barred by Divine Law) BEFORE he was elected.
-
It sure is a minefield. The SSPX was once very clear in its advice:
"...one should not receive the sacraments in the new rites, but only in the traditional rites, which alone are worthy and certainly valid. Receiving the sacraments under a form that is even slightly doubtful is not allowed. An exception should be made, however, for the last riets, when in case of emergency it is impossible to summon in time a priest faithful to Tradition." - Taken from The Catechism of the Crisis in The Church by Fr Matthias Gaudron. He has a whole section dealing with the sacraments. the catechism of the crisis in church - Angelus Press (https://angeluspress.org/pages/search-results-page?q=the catechism of the crisis in church)
When did they say this?
-
I don't think there is a single Newchurch bishop, no matter how liberal he is, who makes a distinction between the pre-conciliar Church and the "Conciliar Church", rather, he sees them as one and the same thing, and when he consecrates, he intends to consecrate a Catholic bishop. Even if, arguendo, the rite itself could be seen as invalid or doubtful, the intention would not be.
It is very instructive (as always) to read Archbishop Lefebvre on this. He deals with it in chapters VI and VII in simple layman's terms in Open Letter to Confused Catholics. Perhaps the situation is worse than we imagine...
Here are a couple of excerpts:
SSPXAsia.com: Open Letter to Confused Catholics Index (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/index.htm)
1. From the end of Ch VI: The New Forms of Baptism, Marriage, Penance and Extreme Unction:
The third condition of a valid sacrament is a right intention. The bishop or priest must have the intention of doing what the Church wills to be done. Not even the Pope can change that. The priest's faith is not among the necessary elements. A priest or bishop may no longer have the faith; another may have it less; and another a faith that is not quite complete. That has no direct effect on the validity of the sacraments they administer, but may have an indirect one. One remembers Pope Leo XIII's decision that Anglican ordinations are invalid through a defect in the intention. Now it was because they had lost the faith, which is not only faith in God but in all the truths contained in the Creed, including "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church", that the Anglicans have not been able to do what the church wills. Are not priests who lose the faith in the same case? There are already priests who no longer wish to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist according to the Council of Trent's definition. "No", they say, "The Council of Trent was a long time ago. Since then we have had Vatican II. Now its's trans-signification, or trans-finalisation. Transubstantiation? The Real Presence of the Son of God under the appearances of bread and wine? Not in these days!" When a priest talks like this, he makes no valid consecration. There is no Mass or Communion...
2. From Ch VII: The New Priests:
Yet the situation is even more serious than it appears. The question has also to be asked, how many priests still have the faith? And even a further question, regarding some of the priests ordained in recent years: are they true priests at all? Put it another way, are their ordinations valid? The same doubt overhangs other sacraments. It applies to certain ordinations of bishops such as that which took place in Brussels in the summer of 1982 when the consecrating bishop said to the ordinand "Be an apostle like Gandhi, Helder Camara, and Mahomet!" Can we reconile these references, at least as regards Gandhi and Mahomet, with the evident intention of doing what the Church intends? Here is the order of service for a priestly ordination which took place at Toulouse a few years ago. A commentator starts off, introducing the ordinand by his christian-name C., with the words "He has decided to live more thoroughly his self-dedication to God and to man by consecrating himself entirely to the service of the Church in the working-class". C. has worked out his "pathway", that is to say, his seminary training, in a team. It is this team who present him to the bishop: "We request you to recognize and authenticate his application and ordain him priest." The bishop then asks him several questions purporting to be a definition of the priesthood: Do you wish to be ordained a priest "to be, with the believers, a Sign and a Witness of what Mankind is seeking, in its striving for Justice, for Brotherhood and for Peace", "to serve the people of God", "to recognize, in men's lives, the action of God in the ways they take, in their cultural patterns, in the choices open to them", "to celebrate the action of Christ and perform this service": do you wish "to share with me and with the body of bishops the responsibility that has been entrusted to us for the service of the Gospel?" The "matter" of the sacrament has been preserved in the laying on of hands which takes place next, and likewise the "form", namely the words of ordination. But we are obliged to point out that the intention is far from clear. Has the priest been ordained for the exclusive service of one social class and, first and foremost, to establish justice, fellowship and peace at a level which appears to be limited to the natural order only? The eucharistic celebration which follows, "the first mass" in effect, of the new priest was, in fact, on these lines...
-
When did they say this?
German original, 1997
Angelus Press First Printing 2010, Second Printing 2014, STILL AVAILABLE (!!!) digital and hardcopy.
An excellent study (Get it while you can perhaps???)
-
The "form" of the NO rite of consecration, came from the establishment of a patriarch NOT from the consecration of a bishop
Father Cekada did a great job of researching and demonstrating this. Claims by SSPX et al. that this resembles an Eastern Rite ritual are undermined by this fact. During the installation of a patriarch, the individual is already a bishop.
-
The down vote is very constructive. Good discussion. Whose idol did I offend?
DL, this was always going to happen. The discussion starts out having a dig at the Sedevacantists, with a smirk on the face. That's unfortunate, and it understandably antagonises certain people from the very outset. I haven't gone any further yet, but thanks for posting, I'm going to listen to the rest of it soon.
-
This is the crux
And it's very suspicious that Vigano and others are pushing this idea that Moscow is the Third Rome when we consider the rite was changed to accomodate the Orthodox and
John XXIII's relationship with them:
Bulgarian journalist named Stefano Karadgiov stated, "I knew Catholic priests who refused to go into an Orthodox Church even as tourists. Bishop Roncalli, on the contrary, always participated in Orthodox functions, arousing astonishment and perplexity in some Catholics. He never missed the great ceremonies which were celebrated in the principle Orthodox church in Sofia. He put himself in a corner and devoutly followed the rites. The Orthodox chants especially pleased him. (Emphasis mine)
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html
See the full text to see why he was a heretic (outside the Church and barred by Divine Law) BEFORE he was elected.
It's funny you mention the "Third Rome" theory, I've been reading Soloyev's "Russia and the Universal Church" in which he offers a scathing critique of these claims. Beyond that it's worth reading just for his critiques of Orthodoxy in general as a religion that lacks a social aspect like the Roman Church. He basically sees Orthodoxy as a form of piety, but not a living body as the Church is meant to be, it preserves many good things, but ultimately does nothing with them because it is not the true Church.
But yes, in the past week or two I've come to realize on my own that the modernizations and changes were also incorporated with the express intent of de-Latinizing the Church rather than simply to destroy Catholicism. It makes me wonder if it was an effort partially on the side of the Soviet-controlled Russian Orthodox church to undermine the West.
-
These two docuмents from Fr. Cekada are the ones that convinced me to avoid Novus Ordo ordained priests and bishops. I don't ever receive sacraments from them.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf
and
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf
They are a great read. I have never seem any decent response to these docuмents.
In my opinion, everybody who is interested in this subject should read them.
-
DL, this was always going to happen. The discussion starts out having a dig at the Sedevacantists, with a smirk on the face. That's unfortunate, and it understandably antagonises certain people from the very outset. I haven't gone any further yet, but thanks for posting, I'm going to listen to the rest of it soon.
Of course, it's important not to conflate concerns about the validity of the NO rites with sedevacantism, as there are a fair number of non-sedevacantists who hold the same doubts about the validity of their "Orders".
-
I did not find Fr. McFarland's video convincing for two reasons: his argument that one missing latin word is not enough to make invalid and for confusing consecrating a bishop vs. installing a bishop.
-
It's funny you mention the "Third Rome" theory, I've been reading Soloyev's "Russia and the Universal Church" in which he offers a scathing critique of these claims. Beyond that it's worth reading just for his critiques of Orthodoxy in general as a religion that lacks a social aspect like the Roman Church. He basically sees Orthodoxy as a form of piety, but not a living body as the Church is meant to be, it preserves many good things, but ultimately does nothing with them because it is not the true Church.
But yes, in the past week or two I've come to realize on my own that the modernizations and changes were also incorporated with the express intent of de-Latinizing the Church rather than simply to destroy Catholicism. It makes me wonder if it was an effort partially on the side of the Soviet-controlled Russian Orthodox church to undermine the West.
That's interesting!
There is a whole boat load of evidence for this.
Excerpts from a good essay on the history of this notion including Soloyev. It explains how the Russians see themselves as the "chosen people":
"The expression “Moscow is the Third Rome” is well known, even to children in Russian elementary schools.
The first mention of Moscow’s great fate occurs in a letter written by the Pskovian monk Philophei. In the first decades of the 16th century, he wrote several letters to the grand prince of Moscow that spoke of it as “the third Rome.” Here is the version that has survived to this day:
And so know this, Christ-lover and God-lover. All Christian kingdoms have come to their end and have come together in the single kingdom of our lord. This is in accordance with the prophetic books. This is the Roman kingdom: for two Romes have fallen, the third stands, but there will not be a fourth.”
"According to Ikonnikov, the apocalyptic phrase “there will not be a fourth” was an example of Russian messianic ideology, not a prophecy of the end of the world. "
The apogee of “the Third Rome”: the Russian idea
By the time Alexander III became Tsar, this doctrine became very influential. During his coronation banquet, the new emperor was praised as a protector of the Slavs, a continuer of the work of Constantine, and “the ruler of the Third Rome.” This idea profoundly influenced the idealistic philosophers of the end of the 19th century. Vladimir Soloviev in particular used this doctrine extensively in his works, using it to promote his calls for Christian universalism.
(Miser: New Age Social Kingship of "the Christ"??)
Soloviev’s central argument was his idea that Russia had a special calling in the work of unifying the East and the West to form a new organic whole, a new “world empire.”
(Miser: nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr??)
The doctrine of “the Third Rome” confirmed the historical roots of Russia’s special mission, and was, in effect, a metaphor of the “Russian idea.” Russia was not merely the third of the Romes, but it also personified the “third principle,” a selflessness that would allow it to unite the East and the West."
Philophei’s doctrine is very attractive in this sense. On the other hand, in the Western press, the doctrine is often cited as a historical context for “Russian messianism” and “post-Soviet expansionism.” Some Western political leaders have even found Putin’s policies to have roots in Philophei’s doctrine.
See full essay here:
https://nicholaskotar.com/2017/05/09/moscow-third-rome/
There is much more on this topic for those who want to research here:
at these search results:
https://twitter.com/search?q=2022moshiachnow%20russia&src=typed_query
https://twitter.com/search?q=2022moshiachnow%20ortho&src=typed_query&f=top
and at Fitzinfo.net
But I'll keep posting bit by bit here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/world-war-iii-chapter-2/holy-mother-russia/msg870456/#msg870456
-
Something needs to be clarified here, I don’t argue that the NO orders are *certainly* invalid, I personally think they are, minimally they are doubtful. As the adage goes, a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament.
-
Something needs to be clarified here, I don’t argue that the NO orders are *certainly* invalid, I personally think they are, minimally they are doubtful. As the adage goes, a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament.
To be more precise, we are talking about a positive doubt here, not a negative one.
-
German original, 1997
Angelus Press First Printing 2010, Second Printing 2014, STILL AVAILABLE (!!!) digital and hardcopy.
An excellent study (Get it while you can perhaps???)
Ok. That's what I suspected. The SSPX changed its tune when Ratzinger was elected pope in 2005. He was consecrated "Bishop" with the New Rite.
-
DL, this was always going to happen. The discussion starts out having a dig at the Sedevacantists, with a smirk on the face. That's unfortunate, and it understandably antagonises certain people from the very outset. I haven't gone any further yet, but thanks for posting, I'm going to listen to the rest of it soon.
Yes. It's surprising a sedevacantist would post it. But maybe DL is no longer sedevacantist or heading in that direction.
-
Of course, it's important not to conflate concerns about the validity of the NO rites with sedevacantism, as there are a fair number of non-sedevacantists who hold the same doubts about the validity of their "Orders".
Yes. I always thought the Resistance was included. But then you have the situation of Bishop Williamson telling that woman it was okay to go to the NO.
-
Yes. It's surprising a sedevacantist would post it. But maybe DL is no longer sedevacantist or heading in that direction.
(https://media.tenor.com/8mddYUccA9cAAAAC/wrong-drumpf.gif)
My desire to discuss the issue again doesn't mean I think Bergoglio is the Pope. It came up out of both the thread where Cornelius aired his grievances and my own concerns about Maronites.
As you also mentioned, this is not an issue exclusive to sedes either. Clearly there is an implicit doubt on the part of the SSPX and Resistance regarding NO orders as well, despite Fr. McFarland saying it isn't the case. And even more questionable in regard to his defense is WHY someone who sees Paul VI as totally legit would need to question the Rite at all.
And while we can, as sedes, point to Paul VI being a false Pope as reason to disregard the new Rites, we still cannot set aside that these were performed by legitimate Catholic bishops with the express intent to create more Catholic bishops, whether or not the prayer comes from the Eastern rite to make a patriarch, the prayer itself, as illustrated in Fr. McFarland's argument, is still sufficient to express this intention.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/8mddYUccA9cAAAAC/wrong-drumpf.gif)
My desire to discuss the issue again doesn't mean I think Bergoglio is the Pope. It came up out of both the thread where Cornelius aired his grievances and my own concerns about Maronites.
As you also mentioned, this is not an issue exclusive to sedes either. Clearly there is an implicit doubt on the part of the SSPX and Resistance regarding NO orders as well, despite Fr. McFarland saying it isn't the case. And even more questionable in regard to his defense is WHY someone who sees Paul VI as totally legit would need to question the Rite at all.
And while we can, as sedes, point to Paul VI being a false Pope as reason to disregard the new Rites, we still cannot set aside that these were performed by legitimate Catholic bishops with the express intent to create more Catholic bishops, whether or not the prayer comes from the Eastern rite to make a patriarch, the prayer itself, as illustrated in Fr. McFarland's argument, is still sufficient to express this intention.
OK, DL. I'll accept that I'm wrong...for now.
I think the video only adds to the confusion and doubts...and the condescending, anti-sedevacantist attitude. At this point in the game, considering that these orders could be valid (which is what your posting this video does) is problematic at best and dangerous at worst.
-
I've just watched the video right through. It is an abomination.
This is the Neo-SSPX through and through, an absolute disgrace. Never would you have seen this sort of presentation from the SSPX of old.
The lack of gravity in discussing such a serious matter and the constant sniggering at genuine concerns is appalling. We've just had a satanic revolution in the Church, everything from the liturgy, the sacraments, theology, church law, the catechism, everything has been mauled, and the best he can say is "Well, we could start with who brings it up, who challenges the validity of those ordinations... we find it particularly among the Sedevacantists..." That is just unbelievable! Why wouldn't this be an instant concern of every single Catholic, let alone priest, who understands what has happened in the Church? And don't worry about the Founder of the SSPX, the bishops he consecrated, and the theologians of the SSPX and friendly religious communities. This New Society is just unrecognisable from the one Archbishop Lefebvre founded.
His conclusion regarding the New Rites is simply "They are valid". Just like that, black and white!
Why, then, does the SSPX conditionally re-ordain some priests from the Conciliar Church, the compere asks? The answer: "It was more commonly done in decades past when not as much study had been done on the ordinations". Really? What study and by whom? The poor feeble minds of Archbishop Lefebvre and his bishops and theologians. The poor feeble minds of the Avrille Dominicans and Fr Calderon who acknowledge a doubt... and the wonderful progress in the knowledge of the New Accordist Society... Have Bishop Tissier and Fr Calderon changed their opinions? Do they no longer belong to the SSPX? Let's just pretend such inconvenient opinions don't exist in the SSPX, they may jeopardise an agreement with Rome.
At least they admit that they have changed.
His presentation completely omits one of the major reasons for concern about the validity of the new priests and bishops, and that is the new revolutionary theology of the priesthood and the Mass which, as ABL says, can affect the intention of the minister. He makes it sound as if invalidity would be an exception, and certainly never due to the rite itself.
See how they have changed:
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
Commentary (By Avrille Dominicans)
Archbishop Lefebvre relies on two principal arguments to assert that the new sacraments, especially ordinations, are henceforth questionable:
* the evolution of the rites;
* and the defect in intention.
The new rites of the sacraments promulgated by the conciliar Church, promulgated in the typical editions in Latin, are probably valid 1 (https://dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/#easy-footnote-bottom-1-2342). But that does not prevent numerous sacraments from being invalid in practice, for the two reasons quoted above.
Archbishop Lefebvre said that in his opinion a great number of new masses were invalid – while admitting the validity of the new rite in itself.
Bp Tissier de Mallerais, in his sermon from June 29, 2016 at Econe, spoke as follows concerning the rite of ordination for priests:
“Clearly, we cannot accept this faked new rite of ordination that leaves doubts concerning the validity of numerous ordinations done according to the new rite. Thus this new rite of ordination is not Catholic. And so we will of course faithfully continue to transmit the real and valid priesthood by the traditional priestly rite of ordination.”
In an article that appeared in Le Sel de la terre 54 on the subject of the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, after showing that the rite in itself is probably valid, we added:
“Due to the generalized disorder, both at the liturgical and dogmatic levels, we can have serious reasons to doubt the validity of certain episcopal ordinations.”
And we quoted the remarks of Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject of the episcopal consecration of Bp Daneels, auxiliary bishop of Brussels:
“Little booklets were published on the occasion of this consecration. For the public prayers, here is what was said and repeated by the crowd:
Be an apostle like Peter and Paul; be an apostle like the patron of this parish; be an apostle like Gandhi; be an apostle like Luther; be an apostle like (Martin) Luther King; be an apostle like Helder Camara; be an apostle like Romero.
Apostle like Luther, but what intention did the bishops have when they consecrated this bishop, Bp. Daneels2 (https://dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/#easy-footnote-bottom-2-2342)?”
“It is frightening…Was this bishop really consecrated? We can doubt it anyway. And if that is the intention of the consecrators, it is incomprehensible! The situation is even more serious than we thought3 (https://dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/#easy-footnote-bottom-3-2342).”
We could quote numerous examples of sacraments given in the conciliar Church that were certainly invalid: confirmations given without using holy oils; baptisms where one person pours the water, while another pronounces the words, etc4 (https://dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/#easy-footnote-bottom-4-2342).
This is why the position of Archbishop Lefebvre in the letter that we have quoted here, appears wise: because of the particular importance of the sacrament of ordination, it is necessary to conditionally re-ordain the priests who come from the conciliar Church to the Traditional one.
-
I've just watched the video right through. It is an abomination.
This is the Neo-SSPX through and through, an absolute disgrace. Never would you have seen this sort of presentation from the SSPX of old.
The lack of gravity in discussing such a serious matter and the constant sniggering at genuine concerns is appalling. We've just had a satanic revolution in the Church, everything from the liturgy, the sacraments, theology, church law, the catechism, everything has been mauled, and the best he can say is "Well, we could start with who brings it up, who challenges the validity of those ordinations... we find it particularly among the Sedevacantists..." That is just unbelievable! Why wouldn't this be an instant concern of every single Catholic, let alone priest, who understands what has happened in the Church? And don't worry about the Founder of the SSPX, the bishops he consecrated, and the theologians of the SSPX and friendly religious communities. This New Society is just unrecognisable from the one Archbishop Lefebvre founded.
His conclusion regarding the New Rites is simply "They are valid". Just like that, black and white!
Why, then, does the SSPX conditionally re-ordain some priests from the Conciliar Church, the compere asks? The answer: "It was more commonly done in decades past when not as much study had been done on the ordinations". Really? What study and by whom? The poor feeble minds of Archbishop Lefebvre and his bishops and theologians. The poor feeble minds of the Avrille Dominicans and Fr Calderon who acknowledge a doubt... and the wonderful progress in the knowledge of the New Accordist Society... Have Bishop Tissier and Fr Calderon changed their opinions? Do they no longer belong to the SSPX? Let's just pretend such inconvenient opinions don't exist in the SSPX, they may jeopardise an agreement with Rome.
At least they admit that they have changed.
His presentation completely omits one of the major reasons for concern about the validity of the new priests and bishops, and that is the new revolutionary theology of the priesthood and the Mass which, as ABL says, can affect the intention of the minister. He makes it sound as if invalidity would be an exception, and certainly never due to the rite itself.
See how they have changed:
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
Commentary (By Avrille Dominicans)
Archbishop Lefebvre relies on two principal arguments to assert that the new sacraments, especially ordinations, are henceforth questionable:
* the evolution of the rites;
* and the defect in intention.
The new rites of the sacraments promulgated by the conciliar Church, promulgated in the typical editions in Latin, are probably valid 1 (https://dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/#easy-footnote-bottom-1-2342). But that does not prevent numerous sacraments from being invalid in practice, for the two reasons quoted above.
Archbishop Lefebvre said that in his opinion a great number of new masses were invalid – while admitting the validity of the new rite in itself.
Bp Tissier de Mallerais, in his sermon from June 29, 2016 at Econe, spoke as follows concerning the rite of ordination for priests:
“Clearly, we cannot accept this faked new rite of ordination that leaves doubts concerning the validity of numerous ordinations done according to the new rite. Thus this new rite of ordination is not Catholic. And so we will of course faithfully continue to transmit the real and valid priesthood by the traditional priestly rite of ordination.”
In an article that appeared in Le Sel de la terre 54 on the subject of the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, after showing that the rite in itself is probably valid, we added:
“Due to the generalized disorder, both at the liturgical and dogmatic levels, we can have serious reasons to doubt the validity of certain episcopal ordinations.”
And we quoted the remarks of Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject of the episcopal consecration of Bp Daneels, auxiliary bishop of Brussels:
“Little booklets were published on the occasion of this consecration. For the public prayers, here is what was said and repeated by the crowd:
Be an apostle like Peter and Paul; be an apostle like the patron of this parish; be an apostle like Gandhi; be an apostle like Luther; be an apostle like (Martin) Luther King; be an apostle like Helder Camara; be an apostle like Romero.
Apostle like Luther, but what intention did the bishops have when they consecrated this bishop, Bp. Daneels2 (https://dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/#easy-footnote-bottom-2-2342)?”
“It is frightening…Was this bishop really consecrated? We can doubt it anyway. And if that is the intention of the consecrators, it is incomprehensible! The situation is even more serious than we thought3 (https://dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/#easy-footnote-bottom-3-2342).”
We could quote numerous examples of sacraments given in the conciliar Church that were certainly invalid: confirmations given without using holy oils; baptisms where one person pours the water, while another pronounces the words, etc4 (https://dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/#easy-footnote-bottom-4-2342).
This is why the position of Archbishop Lefebvre in the letter that we have quoted here, appears wise: because of the particular importance of the sacrament of ordination, it is necessary to conditionally re-ordain the priests who come from the conciliar Church to the Traditional one.
Great point, didn't ArchB Lefebvre risk excommunication to consecrate bishops in the old rite? He must have had some concerns about the new rite.
-
I've just watched the video right through. It is an abomination.
This is the Neo-SSPX through and through, an absolute disgrace. Never would you have seen this sort of presentation from the SSPX of old.
The lack of gravity in discussing such a serious matter and the constant sniggering at genuine concerns is appalling. We've just had a satanic revolution in the Church, everything from the liturgy, the sacraments, theology, church law, the catechism, everything has been mauled, and the best he can say is "Well, we could start with who brings it up, who challenges the validity of those ordinations... we find it particularly among the Sedevacantists..." That is just unbelievable! Why wouldn't this be an instant concern of every single Catholic, let alone priest, who understands what has happened in the Church? And don't worry about the Founder of the SSPX, the bishops he consecrated, and the theologians of the SSPX and friendly religious communities. This New Society is just unrecognisable from the one Archbishop Lefebvre founded.
His conclusion regarding the New Rites is simply "They are valid". Just like that, black and white!
Why, then, does the SSPX conditionally re-ordain some priests from the Conciliar Church, the compere asks? The answer: "It was more commonly done in decades past when not as much study had been done on the ordinations". Really? What study and by whom? The poor feeble minds of Archbishop Lefebvre and his bishops and theologians. The poor feeble minds of the Avrille Dominicans and Fr Calderon who acknowledge a doubt... and the wonderful progress in the knowledge of the New Accordist Society... Have Bishop Tissier and Fr Calderon changed their opinions? Do they no longer belong to the SSPX? Let's just pretend such inconvenient opinions don't exist in the SSPX, they may jeopardise an agreement with Rome.
At least they admit that they have changed.
His presentation completely omits one of the major reasons for concern about the validity of the new priests and bishops, and that is the new revolutionary theology of the priesthood and the Mass which, as ABL says, can affect the intention of the minister. He makes it sound as if invalidity would be an exception, and certainly never due to the rite itself.
Yes. Loved the sniggering.
As for the second bolded, this goes back to my other post about their timely change in position in 2005 when New Rite consecrated Ratzinger was elected "pope". That was when a new "study" was done by Fr. Pierre-Marie .. which Fr Cekada responded to here:
Microsoft Word - NuEpConObjex (traditionalmass.org) (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf)
-
OK, DL. I'll accept that I'm wrong...for now.
For now?
I think the video only adds to the confusion and doubts...and the condescending, anti-sedevacantist attitude. At this point in the game, considering that these orders could be valid (which is what your posting this video does) is problematic at best and dangerous at worst.
Perhaps, even if they are, it still doesn't change the position of either R&Rs or sedes as the NO basically become like the EO schismatics for other issues regarding the Faith.
-
DL, I'll give you my two cents on the issue.
Fr. Cekada famously wrote a paper, and then a few followups, where he argued that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration (NREC) was invalid and null because it failed to univocally express that the recipient of the sacrament was receiving the power of orders and the grace of the Holy Ghost. According to Pius XII's Sacramentum Ordinis, the essential formula of episcopal consecration must univocally express that the recipient is receiving the power of order and the grace of the Holy Ghost. Fr. Pierre Marie O.P. wrote a politically motivated rebuttal shortly thereafter (politically motivated in my opinion at least, since at this time Ratzinger, consecrated according to the NREC, had become elected and the SSPX had eyes on reconciliation with Rome). Although politically motivated, he offers what is probably the best defense of the NREC to date.
You can and should read the paper for yourself, and see if you find it convincing. If you've just doubted N.O. holy orders because "that's what trads do," give Fr. Cekada's arguments, and also Fr. Pierre Marie's rebuttal, a fair shake. I won't summarize everything for you, I'll just focus on the main point. The main point is that the NREC essential form does not univocally express the episcopal candidate's reception of the power of order and jurisdiction. And as such, Fr. argues it is simply invalid. Here is the essential form in question:
.
“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”
.
In fact, Fr. Cekada argues that it is not even clear what at all is being expressed in this essential form, because the "governing spirit" (spiritus principalis in Latin) is perfectly ambiguous in both Latin and English. But even if we could be sure what the "governing spirit" is, the problem is that it is plainly only one thing, while Pius XII defined two things (the power of order and jurisdiction) must be expressed in the essential form. So disambiguating the "governing spirit"-- say, by looking at the surrounding material in the preface, as many have done-- does not solve the problem.
.
Moreover, remember that essential forms are, well, essential. You could get everything about the surrounding ceremonies of baptism right but if you don't actually pour water on the head of the candidate and say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" you don't baptize. Same with every sacrament. Pointing to other parts of the ceremony that apparently vindicate the meaning of the form is a vain exercise if the form is substantially deficient, as I think the form of the NREC is.
.
Long story short, I find Fr. Cekada's case compelling enough to cast legitimate, positive doubt on the integrity of the NREC. I have read the various follow-up rebuttals, and have not found them compelling enough to redeem that doubt.
-
DL, I'll give you my two cents on the issue.
Fr. Cekada famously wrote a paper, and then a few followups, where he argued that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration (NREC) was invalid and null because it failed to univocally express that the recipient of the sacrament was receiving the power of orders and the grace of the Holy Ghost. According to Pius XII's Sacramentum Ordinis, the essential formula of episcopal consecration must univocally express that the recipient is receiving the power of order and the grace of the Holy Ghost. Fr. Pierre Marie O.P. wrote a politically motivated rebuttal shortly thereafter (politically motivated in my opinion at least, since at this time Ratzinger, consecrated according to the NREC, had become elected and the SSPX had eyes on reconciliation with Rome). Although politically motivated, he offers what is probably the best defense of the NREC to date.
You can and should read the paper for yourself, and see if you find it convincing. If you've just doubted N.O. holy orders because "that's what trads do," give Fr. Cekada's arguments, and also Fr. Pierre Marie's rebuttal, a fair shake. I won't summarize everything for you, I'll just focus on the main point. The main point is that the NREC essential form does not univocally express the episcopal candidate's reception of the power of order and jurisdiction. And as such, Fr. argues it is simply invalid. Here is the essential form in question:
.
.
In fact, Fr. Cekada argues that it is not even clear what at all is being expressed in this essential form, because the "governing spirit" (spiritus principalis in Latin) is perfectly ambiguous in both Latin and English. But even if we could be sure what the "governing spirit" is, the problem is that it is plainly only one thing, while Pius XII defined two things (the power of order and jurisdiction) must be expressed in the essential form. So disambiguating the "governing spirit"-- say, by looking at the surrounding material in the preface, as many have done-- does not solve the problem.
.
Moreover, remember that essential forms are, well, essential. You could get everything about the surrounding ceremonies of baptism right but if you don't actually pour water on the head of the candidate and say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" you don't baptize. Same with every sacrament. Pointing to other parts of the ceremony that apparently vindicate the meaning of the form is a vain exercise if the form is substantially deficient, as I think the form of the NREC is.
.
Long story short, I find Fr. Cekada's case compelling enough to cast legitimate, positive doubt on the integrity of the NREC. I have read the various follow-up rebuttals, and have not found them compelling enough to redeem that doubt.
I've read his work, that's why I hold the position of them being doubtful. But I also hold some of what the late Rev. Father says with a "grain of salt" after seeing the rotten fruits of his "grain of incense" dogma.
-
Fair enough. That's why I say look at the actual arguments, rather than the credibility of the author. I agree that the Grain of Incense work is mostly rhetorical, not argumentative. Regardless of its "fruits," it's just not a good argument.
I think the main weakness in Fr. Cekada's argument against the NREC is in his conclusion that the NREC is certainly invalid. It is arguable that he proves its certain invalidity, but I think it is certain that he proves it doubtful. But in claiming to have proven it certainly invalid, he opens his position up to arguments that merely make the NREC look better (and then rhetorical strategies are used to close the gap between the NREC being "not as bad" as Father says, and it being actually and certainly valid). I think if he were content proving that its validity is doubtful, it would have been more difficult for other authors to follow up with any rebuttal at all. You know, I am sure, that for purposes of moral behavior there is no difference between a doubtful and an invalid sacrament. Both are to be avoided, and if received, both are to be re-done (either conditionally or absolutely).
I recommend reading not just what Fr. Cekada has to say, but what his opponents have to say. And then what he has to say in return, and so on.
-
I forgot to say--
Although it has been customary for non-sede trads to hold the NREC in doubt, I think the question of its validity is very difficult to separate from the question of Paul VI's papacy. If Paul VI's papacy was legitimate, a perfectly valid argument would just be to appeal to the disciplinary infallibility of the Church and conclude that the NREC is valid simply by virtue of being approved and imposed by the Pope on a universal class of people.
If Paul VI wasn't the Pope of the Catholic Church, no such assurances exist.
-
I forgot to say--
Although it has been customary for non-sede trads to hold the NREC in doubt, I think the question of its validity is very difficult to separate from the question of Paul VI's papacy. If Paul VI's papacy was legitimate, a perfectly valid argument would just be to appeal to the disciplinary infallibility of the Church and conclude that the NREC is valid simply by virtue of being approved and imposed by the Pope on a universal class of people.
If Paul VI wasn't the Pope of the Catholic Church, no such assurances exist.
Yes, I agree with this and it is a much clearer way of saying what I was trying to. If he isn't the Pope, then the issues surrounding the NO still stand, valid priests or no
Fair enough. That's why I say look at the actual arguments, rather than the credibility of the author. I agree that the Grain of Incense work is mostly rhetorical, not argumentative. Regardless of its "fruits," it's just not a good argument.
I think the main weakness in Fr. Cekada's argument against the NREC is in his conclusion that the NREC is certainly invalid. It is arguable that he proves its certain invalidity, but I think it is certain that he proves it doubtful. But in claiming to have proven it certainly invalid, he opens his position up to arguments that merely make the NREC look better (and then rhetorical strategies are used to close the gap between the NREC being "not as bad" as Father says, and it being actually and certainly valid). I think if he were content proving that its validity is doubtful, it would have been more difficult for other authors to follow up with any rebuttal at all. You know, I am sure, that for purposes of moral behavior there is no difference between a doubtful and an invalid sacrament. Both are to be avoided, and if received, both are to be re-done (either conditionally or absolutely).
I recommend reading not just what Fr. Cekada has to say, but what his opponents have to say. And then what he has to say in return, and so on.
Yes, exactly. That's why I say "doubtful" because absolute certainty only comes when the Church Herself pronounces it. It may be theologically certain, though.
-
I did not watch the video you linked to. Was there anything in it new to the argument? Anything specific about it that you find a compelling counter-argument to a doubtful position on the NREC?
-
I think the main weakness in Fr. Cekada's argument against the NREC is in his conclusion that the NREC is certainly invalid. It is arguable that he proves its certain invalidity, but I think it is certain that he proves it doubtful. But in claiming to have proven it certainly invalid, he opens his position up to arguments that merely make the NREC look better (and then rhetorical strategies are used to close the gap between the NREC being "not as bad" as Father says, and it being actually and certainly valid). I think if he were content proving that its validity is doubtful, it would have been more difficult for other authors to follow up with any rebuttal at all. You know, I am sure, that for purposes of moral behavior there is no difference between a doubtful and an invalid sacrament. Both are to be avoided, and if received, both are to be re-done (either conditionally or absolutely).
I recommend reading not just what Fr. Cekada has to say, but what his opponents have to say. And then what he has to say in return, and so on.
You are probably right in that saying it is certainly doubtful would have been the safer route. However, it's pretty clear based on the essential form that it goes beyond positive doubt (at least with the NREC).
-
www.traditio.com Holy orders changed in 1968, validity is no longer after this time. Where does the "authority" come from for Holy Orders? Rome, does the pope still have authority or did he lose this authority for his fruits tell us heresy. Pope, did he have Holy orders? No, they were of the new rite. Does not look good. Question, how does SSPX have authority for making priest? Rome? Does not look good.
-
Snickering :trollface:
"Well if they were invalid the whole hierarchy would be invalid and we know that can't happen..hehehehehe. Because that would mean the gates of Hell have prevailed..hehehehehe." :trollface::trollface:
Sure, a valid pope, the successor of Peter,
the actual Vicar of Christ,
can set up a demon in the Vatican for public worship
but that doesn't mean the gates of Hell have prevailed. riiiight.
I think it's called the GREAT apostasy for a reason, as in LARGE, VAST, GIGANTIC.
The Church can survive without a pope but the Church cannot survive without the Catholic Faith.
I can't determine a valid ordination rite from an invalid one
but I do know the First Commandment.
-
I forgot to say--
Although it has been customary for non-sede trads to hold the NREC in doubt, I think the question of its validity is very difficult to separate from the question of Paul VI's papacy. If Paul VI's papacy was legitimate, a perfectly valid argument would just be to appeal to the disciplinary infallibility of the Church and conclude that the NREC is valid simply by virtue of being approved and imposed by the Pope on a universal class of people.
If Paul VI wasn't the Pope of the Catholic Church, no such assurances exist.
I think that argument is flawed and very easily countered, Mithrandylan, by the fact that a legitimate Pope is not free to impose illegitimate laws. He is not a law unto himself, he is the Vicar Of Christ. He has no power to revolutionise the Sacraments. This is no organic development along the lines described by St Vincent of Lerins. As The First Vatican Council taught in the Constitution Pastor Aeternus "The Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter, not, that by his revelation, they might make known new doctrine, but that by his assistance they might guard... the deposit of faith". That is why, all these years, most Traditionalists of the R&R persuasion, including ABL and his Society, have held doubts about the rite, without denying the legitimacy of the Pope.
-
I think that argument is flawed and very easily countered, Mithrandylan, by the fact that a legitimate Pope is not free to impose illegitimate laws. He is not a law unto himself, he is the Vicar Of Christ. He has no power to revolutionise the Sacraments. This is no organic development along the lines described by St Vincent of Lerins. As The First Vatican Council taught in the Constitution Pastor Aeternus "The Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter, not, that by his revelation, they might make known new doctrine, but that by his assistance they might guard... the deposit of faith". That is why, all these years, most Traditionalists of the R&R persuasion, including ABL and his Society, have held doubts about the rite, without denying the legitimacy of the Pope.
That is the same as the false notion that a pope cannot ban the Latin Mass.
This was well disputed here:
https://novusordowatch.org/2023/03/can-francis-ban-latin-mass-marshall-gaspers-2/
Throughout their presentation, both Marshall and Gaspers give the impression that they do not really believe that the Papacy is a divine institution, for
they think it must be kept in check, in the last analysis, by the faithful themselves so it doesn’t go off the rails
— an absurd idea, considering what traditional Catholic doctrine says about the Papacy (https://novusordowatch.org/the-catholic-papacy/) as the unshakeable bulwark of Catholic truth.
-
I think that argument is flawed and very easily countered, Mithrandylan, by the fact that a legitimate Pope is not free to impose illegitimate laws. He is not a law unto himself, he is the Vicar Of Christ. He has no power to revolutionise the Sacraments. This is no organic development along the lines described by St Vincent of Lerins. As The First Vatican Council taught in the Constitution Pastor Aeternus "The Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter, not, that by his revelation, they might make known new doctrine, but that by his assistance they might guard... the deposit of faith". That is why, all these years, most Traditionalists of the R&R persuasion, including ABL and his Society, have held doubts about the rite, without denying the legitimacy of the Pope.
This "free to" or "not free" to is completely missing the mark and does nothing to address the core disagreement. What's under dispute is whether the Holy Spirit protects a Pope from teaching grave and substantial error to the Universal Church and from promulgating a Rite of Mass that's harmfult to souls and displeasing to God. Whether or not he has the "right" to do so is absolutely irrelevant.
And that quote from Pastor Aeternus is a complete butchery of the intent of the passage, which is doing nothing more than distinguishing the role of the Magisterium from the Deposit of Revelation ... and has nothing to do with what you're claiming it means. It does not mean, "He has no right to teach error, and therefore we are free to reject the Magisterium we have decided to be in error." It simply means that the teachings of the Magisterium are not an extension of Divine Revelation but is a safeguarding, clarification, and explanation of the Deposit of Revelation that was received once and ceased with the death of the last apostle.
-
You are probably right in that saying it is certainly doubtful would have been the safer route. However, it's pretty clear based on the essential form that it goes beyond positive doubt (at least with the NREC).
I agree that NREC is almost certainly invalid. So, even if you hold out some hope that the butchery of priestly ordination is valid, the number of priests ordained by bishops who had been consecrated before NREC is rapidly dwindling as time goes on.
To me, the fact that the ordination only made what appears to be a "trivial" change, in so far as it removes a single two-letter word in Latin, and since I believe that enemy infiltrators are behind these destructive changes, this only increases my suspicion that this was done on purpose with the intent to invalidate. WHY BOTHER with this little word at all? It's not as though its omission somehow "modernizes" the rite and brings some "fresh perspective" to it. Pius XII when writing about the essential forms of these rites describes the essence of the form as invoking the Holy Spirit with a specific effect in mind, i.e. that they must invoke the Holy Spirit and call out the effect of that invocation, i.e. for the Holy Spirit to do [whatever].
Old Rite. Renew in them the spirit of holiness (the Holy Spirit) SO THAT (the "ut") they might become priests. Invoking the Holy Spirit to be sent in order to make the men priests.
New Rite. Renew in them the spirit of holiness. May they become priests. This is not requesting that the Holy Spirit come down on them to make them priests. It's two separate requests. May the Holy Spirit come down on them. May they become priests (addressed generally to God as a prayer). There's no linkage between the action of the Holy Spirit being that which has the effect of making them priests. Holy Spirit is involved in every Sacrament, and in the general state of a soul being in a state of sanctifying grace.
"May they receive the Holy Spirit so that the Holy Spirit might make them priests."
vs.
"May they receive the Holy Spirit. May they become priests (through some unspecified mechanism)."
This severs the concept that Pius XII called out as essential to the validity, the invocation of the Holy Spirit to a specified effect.
-
This "free to" or "not free" to is completely missing the mark and does nothing to address the core disagreement. What's under dispute is whether the Holy Spirit protects a Pope from teaching grave and substantial error to the Universal Church and from promulgating a Rite of Mass that's harmfult to souls and displeasing to God. Whether or not he has the "right" to do so is absolutely irrelevant.
And that quote from Pastor Aeternus is a complete butchery of the intent of the passage, which is doing nothing more than distinguishing the role of the Magisterium from the Deposit of Revelation ... and has nothing to do with what you're claiming it means. It does not mean, "He has no right to teach error, and therefore we are free to reject the Magisterium we have decided to be in error." It simply means that the teachings of the Magisterium are not an extension of Divine Revelation but is a safeguarding, clarification, and explanation of the Deposit of Revelation that was received once and ceased with the death of the last apostle.
Well Ladislaus, I think you are missing the mark and the understanding of the Papacy, and I think you would do well to listen to the great Churchman that God raised up to lead us in this crisis in Archbishop Lefebvre. I prefer his explanation to yours, it sounds more Catholic to me, it makes more sense. The First Vatican Council defined very clearly when the Holy Ghost protects a Pope from "teaching grave and substantial error to the Universal Church", but you want to add to the doctrine, you want to enhance the dogma.
-
I agree that NREC is almost certainly invalid. So, even if you hold out some hope that the butchery of priestly ordination is valid, the number of priests ordained by bishops who had been consecrated before NREC is rapidly dwindling as time goes on.
To me, the fact that the ordination only made what appears to be a "trivial" change, in so far as it removes a single two-letter word in Latin, and since I believe that enemy infiltrators are behind these destructive changes, this only increases my suspicion that this was done on purpose with the intent to invalidate. WHY BOTHER with this little word at all? It's not as though its omission somehow "modernizes" the rite and brings some "fresh perspective" to it. Pius XII when writing about the essential forms of these rites describes the essence of the form as invoking the Holy Spirit with a specific effect in mind, i.e. that they must invoke the Holy Spirit and call out the effect of that invocation, i.e. for the Holy Spirit to do [whatever].
Old Rite. Renew in them the spirit of holiness (the Holy Spirit) SO THAT (the "ut") they might become priests. Invoking the Holy Spirit to be sent in order to make the men priests.
New Rite. Renew in them the spirit of holiness. May they become priests. This is not requesting that the Holy Spirit come down on them to make them priests. It's two separate requests. May the Holy Spirit come down on them. May they become priests (addressed generally to God as a prayer). There's no linkage between the action of the Holy Spirit being that which has the effect of making them priests. Holy Spirit is involved in every Sacrament, and in the general state of a soul being in a state of sanctifying grace.
"May they receive the Holy Spirit so that the Holy Spirit might make them priests."
vs.
"May they receive the Holy Spirit. May they become priests (through some unspecified mechanism)."
This severs the concept that Pius XII called out as essential to the validity, the invocation of the Holy Spirit to a specified effect.
Archbishop Lefebvre, I think, would be better placed to make a correct judgement. In him we have a prelate clearly raised up by God to lead us in this crisis. He was very well aware of the revolution taking place. He opposed it in the Council and afterwards, obviously. He trained in Rome, was a doctor of theology and philosophy, taught in seminaries most of his life, conferred the priesthood more often than most bishops. He was absolutely certain of the validity of the new rite of ordination of priests. He did not always conditionally re-ordain. Interstingly, Bishop Williamson in his EC that I posted on the first page of this thread says this: The new Form in Latin is, if anything, stronger for validity than the old Form in Latin (by the « et » instead of an « ut »), but vernacular translations need to be checked to make sure that they clearly express the grace of the priesthood to be conferred.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre, I think, would be better placed to make a correct judgement. In him we have a prelate clearly raised up by God to lead us in this crisis. He was very well aware of the revolution taking place. He opposed it in the Council and afterwards, obviously. He trained in Rome, was a doctor of theology and philosophy, taught in seminaries most of his life, conferred the priesthood more often than most bishops. He was absolutely certain of the validity of the new rite of ordination of priests. He did not always conditionally re-ordain. Interstingly, Bishop Williamson in his EC that I posted on the first page of this thread says this: The new Form in Latin is, if anything, stronger for validity than the old Form in Latin (by the « et » instead of an « ut »), but vernacular translations need to be checked to make sure that they clearly express the grace of the priesthood to be conferred.
I find it interesting that a trend has developed in the R&R crowd. They tend to justify the R&R position by lowering the authority and the scope of infallibility of the Pope and the Papacy, while simultaneously increasing the “authority” (he was a retired bishop) of Archbishop Lefebvre. Remember, no matter how good of a person he was, he was not and never was infallible and he did make mistakes and wavered on certain issues throughout his years.
-
I find it interesting that a trend has developed in the R&R crowd. They tend to justify the R&R position by lowering the authority and the scope of infallibility of the Pope and the Papacy, while simultaneously increasing the “authority” (he was a retired bishop) of Archbishop Lefebvre. Remember, no matter how good of a person he was, he was not and never was infallible and he did make mistakes and wavered on certain issues throughout his years.
Archbishop Lefebvre followed what Vatican I taught on Infallibility, he did not lower it. He was not infallible, just faithful. Any infallibility came from his fidelity to Church teaching. You want to make the Church say something about Infallibility that She doesn't. You really must read the docuмents again, it is so clear. Read all the manuals after the Council which explain it, same thing. This should not even be a debate.
-
I agree that NREC is almost certainly invalid. So, even if you hold out some hope that the butchery of priestly ordination is valid, the number of priests ordained by bishops who had been consecrated before NREC is rapidly dwindling as time goes on.
To me, the fact that the ordination only made what appears to be a "trivial" change, in so far as it removes a single two-letter word in Latin, and since I believe that enemy infiltrators are behind these destructive changes, this only increases my suspicion that this was done on purpose with the intent to invalidate. WHY BOTHER with this little word at all? It's not as though its omission somehow "modernizes" the rite and brings some "fresh perspective" to it. Pius XII when writing about the essential forms of these rites describes the essence of the form as invoking the Holy Spirit with a specific effect in mind, i.e. that they must invoke the Holy Spirit and call out the effect of that invocation, i.e. for the Holy Spirit to do [whatever].
Old Rite. Renew in them the spirit of holiness (the Holy Spirit) SO THAT (the "ut") they might become priests. Invoking the Holy Spirit to be sent in order to make the men priests.
New Rite. Renew in them the spirit of holiness. May they become priests. This is not requesting that the Holy Spirit come down on them to make them priests. It's two separate requests. May the Holy Spirit come down on them. May they become priests (addressed generally to God as a prayer). There's no linkage between the action of the Holy Spirit being that which has the effect of making them priests. Holy Spirit is involved in every Sacrament, and in the general state of a soul being in a state of sanctifying grace.
"May they receive the Holy Spirit so that the Holy Spirit might make them priests."
vs.
"May they receive the Holy Spirit. May they become priests (through some unspecified mechanism)."
This severs the concept that Pius XII called out as essential to the validity, the invocation of the Holy Spirit to a specified effect.
Yes, I recall your mentioning this in the past. I would add that they must have known that they didn't need to change it at all since invalidating Episcopal Consecrations would already create invalid priests.
-
I think that argument is flawed and very easily countered, Mithrandylan, by the fact that a legitimate Pope is not free to impose illegitimate laws. He is not a law unto himself, he is the Vicar Of Christ. He has no power to revolutionise the Sacraments. This is no organic development along the lines described by St Vincent of Lerins. As The First Vatican Council taught in the Constitution Pastor Aeternus "The Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter, not, that by his revelation, they might make known new doctrine, but that by his assistance they might guard... the deposit of faith". That is why, all these years, most Traditionalists of the R&R persuasion, including ABL and his Society, have held doubts about the rite, without denying the legitimacy of the Pope.
.
There is such a thing as the disciplinary infallibility of the Church. It refers to the Church being protected from imposing something inherently defective on the universal church. A strictly invalid rite of making bishops would be, in my opinion, a plain violation of the Church's disciplinary infallibility. It is related to the Pope inasmuch as all infallibility ultimately springs from the pope. The absence of a pope is a sufficient theological explanation for how we get strictly invalid rites of sacraments.
.
-
To Miser Peccator: Prophecy has it, that the Sacrifice of the Mass (continual Precious Blood in all the sacraments) will come to an end, for 3 and a half years. No one said that why Christ found "Church" would fail. But what we see, is not HIS CHRUCH but that of man.
Prophecy has it, that Rome will return to paganism, and it certainly appears that way, by the fruits.
There are no Holy Orders in New Order. Christ instituted the sacraments and man can not change or renew a Truth, that which is infallible.
It will take God to put His kingdom back on earth again.
-
.
There is such a thing as the disciplinary infallibility of the Church. It refers to the Church being protected from imposing something inherently defective on the universal church. A strictly invalid rite of making bishops would be, in my opinion, a plain violation of the Church's disciplinary infallibility. It is related to the Pope inasmuch as all infallibility ultimately springs from the pope. The absence of a pope is a sufficient theological explanation for how we get strictly invalid rites of sacraments.
.
Thanks Mith. Yes, I know where you are coming from.
The issue is this: Doctrinal Infallibility of the Pope/Church has been clearly defined by the Church. What you term disciplinary infallibility has not. This is what I see as the problem all too often with many Catholics of the sedevacantist persuasion: taking teachings that are not infallible and drawing conclusions that are therefore not certain which have extreme consequences: 1. The Pope is infallible in matters of discipline which affect the liturgical practice of the Church (problem: not clearly defined). 2. But the New Mass and new rites of sacraments are invalid (if such were the case). 3. Therefore the Pope cannot be a true Pope. The conclusion is not valid, because the major premise is not Catholic doctrine.
I don't think you will find in any discussion of the Church's jurisdictional/disciplinary authority that the Pope may, with infallible authority, revolutionise the sacraments.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not infallible, I grant you that. But just stop and think for a moment who he was. It is inconceivable that this eminent prelate and theologian did not understand the Catholic doctrine of the Papacy. Doctrinal and Jurisdictional Authority. Direct and Indirect objects of Infallibility. If the matter were as simple and clear cut as some Sedevacantists hold, it would have been a very simple decision for the Archbishop to make. But it's not that simple, because it is not an infallible teaching of the Church in the way the Sedes present it.
Perhaps the following passage from St Robert Bellarmine is relevant:
On The Roman Pontiff, Bk IV, Ch XV: A Question is Proposed, Whether the Supreme Pontiff has Jurisdiction that is Truly Coercive, so that he can Make Laws which Oblige in Conscience... So far we have proven that the Supreme Pontiff is a judge of controversies which arise in the Church and that he is certain and infallible in his judgment. Now follows the Third question: Whether the Supreme Pontiff can compel the faithful to believe or do that which he has judged... it must be noted that we do not speak of the Pope as a temporal prince... now we only treat of the Pontiff as he is the Pontiff of the whole Catholic Church. Moreover, we ask whether he may have true power over all the faithful in spiritual matters... so also the Pope can make Ecclesiastical laws truly obliging in conscience as well as punish transgressors with spiritual penalties at least, such as excommunication, suspension, interdict, irregularity, etc... At present we are only discussing the Ecclesiastical, whose end is eternal life. Secondly, it must be noted that we are only treating on just laws. Unjust laws are not properly called laws... Moreover, four conditions are required for a law to be just. 1) On the side of the end, that it is ordained to the common good... 2) On the side of the agent, that it should be from one having authority... 3) On the side of the matter, that it should not forbid virtue, nor command a vice. 4) On the side of form, that a law should be clearly promulgated and constituted in a measure and order due to it so that a law would preserve that proportion in the distribution of honours and imposition of burdens which subjects have in rank toward the common good. For if the Pontiff would command that boys as well as grown men, the strong and the weak, healthy and sick should fast during Lent, the law would be unjust. Likewise, if he would establish that only the rich and nobles could be admitted to the Episcopacy, but not the poor or commoners even if they be otherwise more learned and better, it would be absolutely unjust...But even if an unjust law is not a law and from its force does not oblige in conscience, nevertheless, a distinction must be made concerning laws. For unjust laws by reason of the matter, that is, they are contrary to divine, natural or even positive law, do not only not oblige, but they even ought to not be observed in any way, according to what we read in Acts V: "It is proper to obey God more than men." Jerome, Augustine and Bernard also teach that... St Robert goes on to say that unjust laws on the side of the end/agent/form should sometimes be observed if required to avoid scandal.
A Pope can promulgate an unjust law that should not be followed. Will it be claimed that this is not the case when it comes to the sacraments? On what infallible authority? Can the Pope mangle the formula of a sacrament that has come down from apostolic times, such a flagrant abuse of his charge? If he were to do so, would he by that fact lose the Papacy, or rather, should he be resisted, and his law not observed? Or does it just prove he never was the Pope in the first place? It's a bit like the heresy question, but please let's not start on that again... We simply don't have definitive Church teaching on these complicated questions, so we ought not to pontificate.
You say, "The absence of a pope is a sufficient theological explanation for how we get strictly invalid rites of sacraments." I say, maybe, but not necessarily. A better and more prudent explanation could be the presence of a true Pope promulgating an illegitimate, unjust law "contrary to divine, natural or even positive law" that does "not only not oblige, but... even ought to not be observed in any way, according to what we read in Acts V: It is proper to obey God more than men".
-
So Plentus, would you say that since the Church has never solemnly defined that she can only publish and impose valid sacramental rites, we must leave open the possibility that she can publish and impose invalid sacramental rites?
-
So Plentus, would you say that since the Church has never solemnly defined that she can only publish and impose valid sacramental rites, we must leave open the possibility that she can publish and impose invalid sacramental rites?
I know at least two doctors of the Church, St. Alphonsus Ligouri and St. Frances De Sales, who taught that the sacrifice of the Mass would cease during the time of the Antichrist, which occurs during the period when the abomination of desolation is set up.
We had a period of about 40 years where the sacrifice "ceased" in almost every Catholic Church that celebrated the Novus Ordo in vernacular translations which substituted the words of man - "for all" - in place of the words of God - "for many" - in the false attempt at consecrating the wine into the Blood of Our Lord of at Mass.
So, while Sedes will argue that the "Church" didn't "publish and impose invalid sacramental rites," they certainly were imposed and celebrated in Catholic Churches where hitherto the true Mass was celebrated, and therefore "ceased" in those thousands of churches. The cessation was not imposed by secular authorities but by the hierarchy, legitimate or illegitimate, of the Church.
So, I say it's not only a "possibility" that the Church did this, she did. Just as if, say, Obama were an illegitimate president of the United States - by lacking true citizenship as required by the Constitution - but during his "presidency" ordered the bombing of some foreign nation. It would still be the United States, having elected an installed an "illegitimate" president in the White house and given him control over its military, and its military that did the bombing, would it not?
-
So, while Sedes will argue that the "Church" didn't "publish and impose invalid sacramental rites," they certainly were imposed and celebrated in Catholic Churches where hitherto the true Mass was celebrated, and therefore "ceased" in those thousands of churches. The cessation was not imposed by secular authorities but by the hierarchy, legitimate or illegitimate, of the Church.
So, I say it's not only a "possibility" that the Church did this, she did.
This doesn't make much sense to me. If the "hierarchy" were "illegitimate" then how is it that "the Church" did this? No, it's not possible for the Church, i.e. for a LEGITIMATE pope, to promulgate invalid or even doubtful rite for the Sacraments. That would be tantamount to a defection of the Church. In fact, this consideration, that a legitimate pope could not promulgate invalid Sacraments, is what led Michael Davies to conclude the NO rites to be valid ... despite otherwise having been inclined to doubt them. But all this begs the question that the NO papal claimants are legitimate.
These questions about the validity of the new rites does in fact contribute to a feedback loop that leads people towards SVism. If you hold the MAJOR that it's not possible for a legitimate pope to impose invalid rite, the more doubts you have about the rites, the more you also have to doubt the legitimacy of the papal claimants. An implicit acceptance of this MAJOR is what drives a lot of R&R folks to reject any disputes regarding the validity of the new rites.
MAJOR: Legitimate pope cannot promulgate invalid rites.
MINOR: NO rites are invalid.
CONCLUSION: Popes who promulgated them and continue to endorse them are not legitimate.
So you can question the MAJOR (as you and others have done) or you reject the Minor ... to avoid the SV position. So the "anything but SVism" mindset is driving people to reject either the MAJOR or the MINOR above.
For me, this is where this particular argument stands:
MAJOR: Legitimate pope cannot promulgate invalid rites.
MINOR: NO rites are doubful.
CONCLUSION: Legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is doubtful.
But this is one aspect of the doubt about their legitimacy, when taken together with other considerations, it's almost morally certain that the V2 papal claimans have not been legitimate popes.
-
The new Form in Latin is, if anything, stronger for validity than the old Form in Latin (by the « et » instead of an « ut »), but vernacular translations need to be checked to make sure that they clearly express the grace of the priesthood to be conferred.
No, "et" is not "stronger". "ut" clearly indicates that the ordination is the Sacramental effect from the invocation of the Holy Ghost. Without it, these are two separate prayers. "May the Holy Ghost descend upon him. May he become a priest." (paraphrased). Traditional Rite has it, "May the Holy Ghost descend upon him in order to make him a priest." Those are significantly different prayers. You could argue that this is implied in the newer version, but I submit that it's implied only because someone who's familiar with the Traditional predecessor of this prayer would READ this into it. But if you knew nothing about the former version, you could clearly read this as invoking the Holy Ghost to PREPARE the individual for reception of the priesthood, and then asking for it to be conferred. They are logically different constructs and therefore suffice to introduce at least a positive doubt.
You seem to be just making this up that "et" is "stronger for validity". Clearly the "ut" in Latin means something, a cause and effect relationship, which is simply not explicitly there in the new rite.
I pray for A to cause B.
I pray for A. I pray for B.
Logically two different things. Ergo, positive doubt. It's morally certain that this introduces positive doubt.
-
No, "et" is not "stronger". "ut" clearly indicates that the ordination is the Sacramental effect from the invocation of the Holy Ghost. Without it, these are two separate prayers. "May the Holy Ghost descend upon him. May he become a priest." (paraphrased). Traditional Rite has it, "May the Holy Ghost descend upon him in order to make him a priest." Those are significantly different prayers. You could argue that this is implied in the newer version, but I submit that it's implied only because someone who's familiar with the Traditional predecessor of this prayer would READ this into it. But if you knew nothing about the former version, you could clearly read this as invoking the Holy Ghost to PREPARE the individual for reception of the priesthood, and then asking for it to be conferred. They are logically different constructs and therefore suffice to introduce at least a positive doubt.
You seem to be just making this up that "et" is "stronger for validity". Clearly the "ut" in Latin means something, a cause and effect relationship, which is simply not explicitly there in the new rite.
I pray for A to cause B.
I pray for A. I pray for B.
Logically two different things. Ergo, positive doubt. It's morally certain that this introduces positive doubt.
100% agree lad. Even if +Williamson honestly believed the quote you replied to, why would he say it? Does he want people to go to NO priests? Why not just conditionally ordain (and re train the priest while you’re at it)? Who cares if the NREC and NRPO are valid? At the end of the day I personally believed that in a death situation, every Trad who “accepts” the NO orders would 100% rather have a traditional priest absolve them instead of a NO “priest”. Novus ordo orders now adays are just doubt compounded upon doubt.
-
This doesn't make much sense to me. If the "hierarchy" were "illegitimate" then how is it that "the Church" did this? No, it's not possible for the Church, i.e. for a LEGITIMATE pope, to promulgate invalid or even doubtful rite for the Sacraments. That would be tantamount to a defection of the Church. In fact, this consideration, that a legitimate pope could not promulgate invalid Sacraments, is what led Michael Davies to conclude the NO rites to be valid ... despite otherwise having been inclined to doubt them. But all this begs the question that the NO papal claimants are legitimate.
These questions about the validity of the new rites does in fact contribute to a feedback loop that leads people towards SVism. If you hold the MAJOR that it's not possible for a legitimate pope to impose invalid rite, the more doubts you have about the rites, the more you also have to doubt the legitimacy of the papal claimants. An implicit acceptance of this MAJOR is what drives a lot of R&R folks to reject any disputes regarding the validity of the new rites.
MAJOR: Legitimate pope cannot promulgate invalid rites.
MINOR: NO rites are invalid.
CONCLUSION: Popes who promulgated them and continue to endorse them are not legitimate.
So you can question the MAJOR (as you and others have done) or you reject the Minor ... to avoid the SV position. So the "anything but SVism" mindset is driving people to reject either the MAJOR or the MINOR above.
For me, this is where this particular argument stands:
MAJOR: Legitimate pope cannot promulgate invalid rites.
MINOR: NO rites are doubful.
CONCLUSION: Legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is doubtful.
But this is one aspect of the doubt about their legitimacy, when taken together with other considerations, it's almost morally certain that the V2 papal claimans have not been legitimate popes.
You have the same problem. Actually, you have the problem, and I don't, since I am not arguing that the Church is now still indefectible in the sense taught by pre-V2 theologians: either that was never the true in their sense (Stubborn's view), or b) it was the true sense until the consummation of the age, when the divine commission of preaching the Gospel to the world has been fulfilled, and the necessity of a Church with a hierarchy that was a "governing body" has ceased.
As I said, you have the same problem: the Church defecting. This is because not only does indefectibility encompass a hierarchy teaching universally, and providing the means of sanctification, without error, but it also encompasses the necessity of a hierarchy, a living "governing body." You limit the indefectibility of the Church to teaching/sanctifying, but divorce it from its essential attribute of governing, having a governing body.
So the major that destroys your position is this:
MAJOR: the indefectibility of the Church requires a hierarchy, a governing body.
The rest, of course, follows - you have no governing body, and "your" Church has defected as well as "mine."
And I haven't even mentioned "visibility," which is also arguably, at least, another component part of the necessary governing body, according to some major, reliable theologians.
-
You have the same problem. Actually, you have the problem, and I don't, since I am not arguing that the Church is now still indefectible in the sense taught by pre-V2 theologians: either that was never the true in their sense (Stubborn's view), or b) it was the true sense until the consummation of the age, when the divine commission of preaching the Gospel to the world has been fulfilled, and the necessity of a Church with a hierarchy that was a "governing body" has ceased.
As I said, you have the same problem: the Church defecting. This is because not only does indefectibility encompass a hierarchy teaching universally, and providing the means of sanctification, without error, but it also encompasses the necessity of a hierarchy, a living "governing body." You limit the indefectibility of the Church to teaching/sanctifying, but divorce it from its essential attribute of governing, having a governing body.
So the major that destroys your position is this:
MAJOR: the indefectibility of the Church requires a hierarchy, a governing body.
The rest, of course, follows - you have no governing body, and "your" Church has defected as well as "mine."
And I haven't even mentioned "visibility," which is also arguably, at least, another component part of the necessary governing body, according to some major, reliable theologians.
You are making it seem as if the answer to the crisis is just a binary of options. You are excluding the possibility that you are incorrect and excluding that the answer has not yet been found. Ridiculous approach in my opinion, being that this crisis is unprecedented and even the top theologians disagreed on what would happen in the case of heretical popes.
-
As I said, you have the same problem: the Church defecting. This is because not only does indefectibility encompass a hierarchy teaching universally, and providing the means of sanctification, without error, but it also encompasses the necessity of a hierarchy, a living "governing body." You limit the indefectibility of the Church to teaching/sanctifying, but divorce it from its essential attribute of governing, having a governing body.
Not even close. You reject the indefectibility of the Church. Period. And your nonsense about the Church not having a "governing body" has been refuted over and over again. Your view of the Church as capable of promulgating evil and misleading the faithful is blasphemous and you've repeatedly been exposed as promoting Old Catholicism. Papacy is protected by the Holy Spirit from harming and endangering souls.
-
No, "et" is not "stronger". "ut" clearly indicates that the ordination is the Sacramental effect from the invocation of the Holy Ghost. Without it, these are two separate prayers. "May the Holy Ghost descend upon him. May he become a priest." (paraphrased). Traditional Rite has it, "May the Holy Ghost descend upon him in order to make him a priest." Those are significantly different prayers. You could argue that this is implied in the newer version, but I submit that it's implied only because someone who's familiar with the Traditional predecessor of this prayer would READ this into it. But if you knew nothing about the former version, you could clearly read this as invoking the Holy Ghost to PREPARE the individual for reception of the priesthood, and then asking for it to be conferred. They are logically different constructs and therefore suffice to introduce at least a positive doubt.
You seem to be just making this up that "et" is "stronger for validity". Clearly the "ut" in Latin means something, a cause and effect relationship, which is simply not explicitly there in the new rite.
I pray for A to cause B.
I pray for A. I pray for B.
Logically two different things. Ergo, positive doubt. It's morally certain that this introduces positive doubt.
N.B. as well that at the time the new form was introduced, those who drafted it certainly knew their Ecclesiastical Latin and thus were well aware of the implications of these changes (as they also had to have been aware with regard to revisions in the Liturgy and translations of Scripture.) In contrast, if the present occupants of the Vatican were to feign grammatical or semantic incompetence as they re-revise some consequential docuмent, that lamentable excuse might still be plausible.
-
N.B. as well that at the time the new form was introduced, those who drafted it certainly knew their Ecclesiastical Latin and thus were well aware of the implications of these changes (as they also had to have been aware with regard to revisions in the Liturgy and translations of Scripture.) In contrast, if the present occupants of the Vatican were to feign grammatical or semantic incompetence as they re-revise some consequential docuмent, that lamentable excuse might still be plausible.
Let’s also not forget the HORRENDOUS (intentional) English mistranslation of “Pro Multi” as “for all”:facepalm:
-
No, "et" is not "stronger". "ut" clearly indicates that the ordination is the Sacramental effect from the invocation of the Holy Ghost. Without it, these are two separate prayers. "May the Holy Ghost descend upon him. May he become a priest." (paraphrased). Traditional Rite has it, "May the Holy Ghost descend upon him in order to make him a priest." Those are significantly different prayers. You could argue that this is implied in the newer version, but I submit that it's implied only because someone who's familiar with the Traditional predecessor of this prayer would READ this into it. But if you knew nothing about the former version, you could clearly read this as invoking the Holy Ghost to PREPARE the individual for reception of the priesthood, and then asking for it to be conferred. They are logically different constructs and therefore suffice to introduce at least a positive doubt.
You seem to be just making this up that "et" is "stronger for validity". Clearly the "ut" in Latin means something, a cause and effect relationship, which is simply not explicitly there in the new rite.
I pray for A to cause B.
I pray for A. I pray for B.
Logically two different things. Ergo, positive doubt. It's morally certain that this introduces positive doubt.
I also do not understand the thinking that, after hundreds of years, the Church thought it even needed to make the form "stronger". Why?
-
And your nonsense about the Church not having a "governing body" has been refuted over and over again.
Easily said, but never done, by you.
I’ll be incommunicado for the rest of the day, so you have hours to try.
But you’re just a smoke machine, and when your smoke clears, there’ll likely just be an empty stage.
-
So Plentus, would you say that since the Church has never solemnly defined that she can only publish and impose valid sacramental rites, we must leave open the possibility that she can publish and impose invalid sacramental rites?
Without pretending to be a theologian, what I would say is that sacramental rites are not invented by the Church. They are part of Tradition. Any attempt by the Church to publish and impose invalid sacramental rites would be so clearly contrary to Her mission, so evidently an illegitimate act/law that they ought to be resisted by Catholics. There is no teaching of the Church that a Pope could not attempt such a thing, nor that attempting such a thing could then be judged by the faithful as no longer being Pope. We ought not to make our own dogmas.
-
Without pretending to be a theologian, what I would say is that sacramental rites are not invented by the Church. They are part of Tradition. Any attempt by the Church to publish and impose invalid sacramental rites would be so clearly contrary to Her mission, so evidently an illegitimate act/law that they ought to be resisted by Catholics. There is no teaching of the Church that a Pope could not attempt such a thing, nor that attempting such a thing could then be judged by the faithful as no longer being Pope. We ought not to make our own dogmas.
It’s NOT making your “own dogmas”, it’s calling using your God given brain and making logical conclusions AFTER following the teachings of the Church and consulting Her theologians. We are simply applying what the Church teaches to our given situation *without* binding someone else’s conscience.
-
It’s NOT making your “own dogmas”, it’s calling using your God given brain and making logical conclusions AFTER following the teachings of the Church and consulting Her theologians. We are simply applying what the Church teaches to our given situation *without* binding someone else’s conscience.
I would say Sedevacantism does not follow the teachings of the Church. It consults theologians, true, but it then takes an interpretation of a theological opinion (among many) as dogma, or as Fr Kramer puts it on the other thread "definitive magisterial teaching". And if it is such, then it certainly is binding on the Catholic conscience. That is why Sedevacantists tell me to 'return to the Church'. The reply is: when did I leave it? It doesn't seem to have a consistent or logical answer. It is wrong to depose the Pope authoritatively on the basis of a (perceived) theological opinion, whether you argue from the point of heresy, ecclesiology, infallibility, election, it's always the same. As Fr Chazal says in Contra Cekadam regarding the deposition of the heretic Pope: "The practical behaviour of Catholics does not depend in any way on an opinion. What you say as a private person is not a dogma... and before Vatican II no dogma on this intricate, controversial and until then academic question had ever been formulated. On the contrary, with the exception of the time of Gratian, the constant unanimity was that there is no unanimity on this question."
-
"Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not simply to be obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of the Faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or the divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over, ignored." - Cardinal Torquemada (Turrecremata) OP (1388-1468), Summa de Ecclesia
He clearly held that a Pope could command things against Holy Scripture, the articles of Faith, truths of the Sacraments, commands of natural or divine law. The Catholic response: to refuse obedience to such commands, not depose the Pope.
His is also the second opinion of the famous five opinions presented by Bellarmine on whether the heretical Pope can be deposed: "The Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law". It would seem then, that he must hold that a Pope could command such things as mentioned above without necessarily being even an internal heretic.
From Wikipedia:
Torquemada has been described as the most articulate papal apologist of the fifteenth century. The medieval papacy's supremacy was challenged both by Hussites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussites) (early Protestants) and by conciliarists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conciliarist) (who held that an ecuмenical council (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuмenical_council) of the Church had more authority than a pope). The Council of Basel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Basel) had attempted to depose Pope Eugenius IV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Eugenius_IV). Torquemada attacked both these positions in his Summa de ecclesia (1453).[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Torquemada_(cardinal)#cite_note-FOOTNOTEIzbicki2014-9)
Torquemada promoted reform of religious houses of his order and of monasteries. In 1456, the new Pope Callixtus III (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callixtus_III), aka Alfonso de Borja, gave him, in commendam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_commendam), the position of Abbot of the monastery of Santa Scolastica in Subiaco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subiaco,_Lazio).[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Torquemada_(cardinal)#cite_note-10) This connection may explain his interest in the importation of printing into Rome. The cardinal wrote extensively on behalf of papal primacy. Most notably, his Summa de ecclesia defended the Church against the Hussites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussites) and the Roman pontiff against conciliarism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conciliarism).
-
I would say Sedevacantism does not follow the teachings of the Church. It consults theologians, true, but it then takes an interpretation of a theological opinion (among many) as dogma, or as Fr Kramer puts it on the other thread "definitive magisterial teaching". And if it is such, then it certainly is binding on the Catholic conscience. That is why Sedevacantists tell me to 'return to the Church'. The reply is: when did I leave it? It doesn't seem to have a consistent or logical answer. It is wrong to depose the Pope authoritatively on the basis of a (perceived) theological opinion, whether you argue from the point of heresy, ecclesiology, infallibility, election, it's always the same. As Fr Chazal says in Contra Cekadam regarding the deposition of the heretic Pope: "The practical behaviour of Catholics does not depend in any way on an opinion. What you say as a private person is not a dogma... and before Vatican II no dogma on this intricate, controversial and until then academic question had ever been formulated. On the contrary, with the exception of the time of Gratian, the constant unanimity was that there is no unanimity on this question."
QvD just said he (and many sedevacantists) aren't making it a dogma (ie. binding others' consciences). They are making conclusions based on theological opinion (primarily that of St Robert Bellarmine). Why are you continuing to push the line of thought that we're making it dogma and also suggesting that it's not really based on theological opinion (merely "perceived")?
Also, you say there are many opinions. Isn't your position based on another theological opinion? Do you hold that sedevacantists are out of the Church like others on this forum have done? And if so, wouldn't that be hypocritical of you since your position is only based on an opinion as well?
-
Without pretending to be a theologian, what I would say is that sacramental rites are not invented by the Church. They are part of Tradition. Any attempt by the Church to publish and impose invalid sacramental rites would be so clearly contrary to Her mission, so evidently an illegitimate act/law that they ought to be resisted by Catholics. There is no teaching of the Church that a Pope could not attempt such a thing, nor that attempting such a thing could then be judged by the faithful as no longer being Pope. We ought not to make our own dogmas.
.
Then would you say that it is part of Tradition for the Church to have no opinion on the integrity of the sacramental rites she imposes?
-
There is no teaching of the Church that a Pope could not attempt such a thing ....
I you believe this to be the case, then you've lost the Catholic faith. If the Church cannot be trusted as a guarantor of valid Sacraments and true doctrine, then the existence of a Church and of a hierarchy is utterly meaningless. Now Plenus here and Stubborn are empowered to be the sherrifs and enforces of Sacramental validity and sound doctrine, and not the Catholic hierarchy. This is so preposterous that I have no words.
This is THE essential role of the Church, to guarantee and safeguard not only true doctrine but all that pertains to the salvation and sanctification of souls (first and foremost, providing valid Sacraments).
This is Catholicism 101 and what distinguishes Catholicism from the Prots and the Eastern Orthodox and the Old Catholics, who ALL claim (along with many R&R now) that the Church had become corrupt and departed from the Deposit of Revelation, from sound doctrine, and from true moral standards.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.
Promulgating invalid Sacraments would constitute a defection of the Church in the very essence of her mission.
And your assertion that the Church loses the hierarchy when an Antipope usurps the papacy is absurd, as this has happened many times throughout Church history, nor is the hierarchy lost during any interregnum. But if legitimate popes could promulgate invalid Sacraments, the Church would effectively be defunct.
-
I you believe this to be the case, then you've lost the Catholic faith. If the Church cannot be trusted as a guarantor of valid Sacraments and true doctrine, then the existence of a Church and of a hierarchy is utterly meaningless. Now Plenus here and Stubborn are empowered to be the sherrifs and enforces of Sacramental validity and sound doctrine, and not the Catholic hierarchy. This is so preposterous that I have no words.
This is THE essential role of the Church, to guarantee and safeguard not only true doctrine but all that pertains to the salvation and sanctification of souls (first and foremost, providing valid Sacraments).
This is Catholicism 101 and what distinguishes Catholicism from the Prots and the Eastern Orthodox and the Old Catholics, who ALL claim (along with many R&R now) that the Church had become corrupt and departed from the Deposit of Revelation, from sound doctrine, and from true moral standards.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
Promulgating invalid Sacraments would constitute a defection of the Church in the very essence of her mission.
And your assertion that the Church loses the hierarchy when an Antipope usurps the papacy is absurd, as this has happened many times throughout Church history, nor is the hierarchy lost during any interregnum. But if legitimate popes could promulgate invalid Sacraments, the Church would effectively be defunct.
beautifully worded!!!! Thank you!
-
And your assertion that the Church loses the hierarchy when an Antipope usurps the papacy is absurd, as this has happened many times throughout Church history, nor is the hierarchy lost during any interregnum.
Ladislaus,
I suppose this is your cowardly way of addressing my challenge to you in this thread, i.e. by slipping the response to my challenge - such as it is - in a post to Plenus Venter, wherein you also do your usual bluster about someone lacking the Catholic faith, being a heretic, etc. You have all the trademarks of what you are here, a bully. The bully of CI, who pounds on those he believes he has the advantage over, and backs down when challenged by someone who confronts him directly. Showing your true colors with PV here as usual.
My claim is not - is it PV's even? - that the Church has lost its hierarchy because of an antipope. And the only similarity the current crisis has to an interregnum is the lack of a pope (if one assumes, as Sedes do, that Francis is not pope). In neither case does the Church experience the loss of an essential attribute of hierarchy, the power of jurisdiction. In neither case does the Church defect, as it does if it loses all hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction.
I can support my position with Salaverri's Sacrae Theologia Summa, On the Church of Christ, with the first draft of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church prepared in large part by Cardinal Franzelin in preparation for Vatican I (he was papal theologian to the Council), and other authorities.
But I'll tell you what: since you cited the CE, simply go read the article on the Church closely - both the sections on jurisdiction and indefectibility (the part on apostolicity would do well also). You know where it is, since you're always citing it. Pay attention to it's discussion of "hierarchy" in the article. Then go look up "hierarchy" in the CE, and it's discussion of the power of jurisdiction, as an essential component of the hierarchy, and what it entails.
Then you can simply concede that you're wrong, and we can close this out. If not, I'll go through the trouble of quoting the material and showing you up to be the blowhard bully you are.
DR
-
I you believe this to be the case, then you've lost the Catholic faith. If the Church cannot be trusted as a guarantor of valid Sacraments and true doctrine, then the existence of a Church and of a hierarchy is utterly meaningless. Now Plenus here and Stubborn are empowered to be the sherrifs and enforces of Sacramental validity and sound doctrine, and not the Catholic hierarchy. This is so preposterous that I have no words.
This is THE essential role of the Church, to guarantee and safeguard not only true doctrine but all that pertains to the salvation and sanctification of souls (first and foremost, providing valid Sacraments).
This is Catholicism 101 and what distinguishes Catholicism from the Prots and the Eastern Orthodox and the Old Catholics, who ALL claim (along with many R&R now) that the Church had become corrupt and departed from the Deposit of Revelation, from sound doctrine, and from true moral standards.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
Quote
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.Promulgating invalid Sacraments would constitute a defection of the Church in the very essence of her mission.
And your assertion that the Church loses the hierarchy when an Antipope usurps the papacy is absurd, as this has happened many times throughout Church history, nor is the hierarchy lost during any interregnum. But if legitimate popes could promulgate invalid Sacraments, the Church would effectively be defunct.
Ladislaus,
What an idiot! There it is; you cited it yourself. The defection of the Church if it loses "either" the hierarchy or the sacraments. You do know what "either" means, right? And don't quibble absurdly by saying, "it only says the loss of the sacraments would be a defection." The context is clear: if the Church were to lose "either," it would not be the "dispense(r) to men (of) the treasures of grace," which is the whole purpose of valid sacraments.
So there it is - now just go to the entry on "hierarchy" in the CE.
And you actually cite this as support for your position, while being blind to how it supports my view: the loss of either the sacraments (the power of sanctifying), or the teaching of the true Gospel (the power of teaching), or the jurisdiction (the power of the teachers having authority to rule and govern), would constitute a defection of the Church.
Moron.
DR
-
I have been rereading this thread and one thought stands out. Concerning Fr. Cekada's commentary on the New Rite, the employ of the words "spiritus principalis," is vague in and of itself. Lucifer is a spiritus principalis if you consider what St. Thomas said, that he was a prince of the Dominions. Every angel is a 'spiritus.' We know that most of the changes in the Church were masonically orchestrated. The argument can be made that spiritus principalis may or may not signify God.
-
.
Then would you say that it is part of Tradition for the Church to have no opinion on the integrity of the sacramental rites she imposes?
Not at all, but the Pope has no power to mangle them. We already have the Sacramental rites from the Church, from Tradition, and their integrity and validity are guaranteed. Were the Pope to attempt to revolutionise them (as he did) we ought not to follow, not to listen, not to obey, as Torquemada says. The idea that we could then declare such a Pope a non-Pope, where is that dogma?
-
I you believe this to be the case, then you've lost the Catholic faith. If the Church cannot be trusted as a guarantor of valid Sacraments and true doctrine, then the existence of a Church and of a hierarchy is utterly meaningless. Now Plenus here and Stubborn are empowered to be the sherrifs and enforces of Sacramental validity and sound doctrine, and not the Catholic hierarchy. This is so preposterous that I have no words.
This is THE essential role of the Church, to guarantee and safeguard not only true doctrine but all that pertains to the salvation and sanctification of souls (first and foremost, providing valid Sacraments).
This is Catholicism 101 and what distinguishes Catholicism from the Prots and the Eastern Orthodox and the Old Catholics, who ALL claim (along with many R&R now) that the Church had become corrupt and departed from the Deposit of Revelation, from sound doctrine, and from true moral standards.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
Promulgating invalid Sacraments would constitute a defection of the Church in the very essence of her mission.
And your assertion that the Church loses the hierarchy when an Antipope usurps the papacy is absurd, as this has happened many times throughout Church history, nor is the hierarchy lost during any interregnum. But if legitimate popes could promulgate invalid Sacraments, the Church would effectively be defunct.
Your quote from the Catholic Encyclopaedia is spot on Ladislaus. The Church continues as She always has (and yes, even with a Pope) in spite of the illegitimate commands and promulgations from the Pope and many of Her Shepherds, who ought not to be followed: were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of the Faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or the divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over, ignored." - Cardinal Torquemada (Turrecremata) OP (1388-1468), Summa de Ecclesia
-
QvD just said he (and many sedevacantists) aren't making it a dogma (ie. binding others' consciences). They are making conclusions based on theological opinion (primarily that of St Robert Bellarmine). Why are you continuing to push the line of thought that we're making it dogma and also suggesting that it's not really based on theological opinion (merely "perceived")?
Also, you say there are many opinions. Isn't your position based on another theological opinion? Do you hold that sedevacantists are out of the Church like others on this forum have done? And if so, wouldn't that be hypocritical of you since your position is only based on an opinion as well?
No, 2V, I do not hold SVs to be out of the Church, because of the profound confusion, everyone is trying their best to navigate the crisis and stay Catholic. The Shepherd is struck and the sheep truly are scattered: Sedevacantism, Resistance, SSPX, ICK, FSSP, Conciliar...
Why I used the word 'perceived' is that St Robert Bellarmine's opinion as used by SVs to justify their opinion is completely misrepresented, which has recently been discussed heatedly (as usual) in other threads. Please don't reignite that debate. If you really do want to discuss it, I'll join you in another thread and we can go through his teaching step by step, but I think it has been done to death.
If you are taking it as certain Catholic teaching that Francis is not Pope, and making it the basis of your actions, then you are making it 'dogma'. If it is certain, then it does bind Catholic consciences, whatever anyone may say. If it is not certain, then it should not be affirmed. You cannot depose a Pope on an opinion, it is that simple. As St Robert Bellarmine says: "they object the Papist bishops have left the true faith, therefore they are no longer bishops...I respond...we cannot depose catholic bishops...unless they are legitimately judged and condemned; for in every controversy, the condition of the one possessing it is better" (On The Church, Bk IV, Ch VIII, The Fifth Mark: Apostolic Succession). Fr Chazal says it eloquently in Contra Cekadam: "The practical behaviour of Catholics does not depend in any way on an opinion. What you say as a private person is not a dogma... and before Vatican II no dogma on this intricate, controversial and until then academic question had ever been formulated. On the contrary, with the exception of the time of Gratian, the constant unanimity was that there is no unanimity on this question."
So, no, my position is not based on a theological opinion. It is based on common sense and the natural law as much as on Catholic teaching as expressed above by St Robert and Fr Chazal. If there are contrary opinions among theologians and the Church has not settled the matter, then we are obliged, in the practical order, to reserve our judgement and leave the matter for the Church to settle.
It is a very serious question, in my opinion. While I certainly do not hold SVs outside of the Church, there is real danger, especially for future generations, that schism will result. If there is no Pope and no hierarchy, where will the next Pope come from? What if Sts Peter and Paul do not come down from Heaven to designate? Will a future Pope be accepted by the SVs? By some, no doubt, but almost certainly a new schism will result.
The other very grave concern is that many SVs stop attending Mass and frequenting the sacraments for no other reason than the priest says 'una cuм'. Not only do they not pray for a Pope who needs prayers more than ever, but they fail in their religious obligations. They bring up their family right beside a church, yet those poor children may never see the inside of a church, let alone attend daily Mass and visits to the Blessed Sacrament. All because of an 'una cuм'. Now you say you are not a 'dogmatic sedevacantist' so I presume that would not be your case. But it is the case with some of my family. That is a tragedy. That is not Catholic. That is a danger to souls. That is a deception of the devil.
Then, if you look at every Sedevacantist group, all of them exist because someone has made a dogmatic decision that the Pope cannot be Pope, and has taken positive action to 'save' the Church precisely because this was held to be an essential truth. It has always taken the form of a priest, convinced of this notion, who has approached a bishop to have himself consecrated in order to 'save' the Church. That in itself is enough for me. That is the Church turned upside down. It is a strange conception of how Divine Providence would work. Fr Pfeiffer shares this same bizarre concept without perhaps the SV doctrine.
-
I have been rereading this thread and one thought stands out. Concerning Fr. Cekada's commentary on the New Rite, the employ of the words "spiritus principalis," is vague in and of itself. Lucifer is a spiritus principalis if you consider what St. Thomas said, that he was a prince of the Dominions. Every angel is a 'spiritus.' We know that most of the changes in the Church were masonically orchestrated. The argument can be made that spiritus principalis may or may not signify God.
OAB, I have not studied this issue closely, but I think Fr Pierre-Marie demonstrates in his study that a Benedictine from the early 20th Century, made a comparison with Eastern Rites and discovered this very same wording in two of their rites. I'm not here making any statement about validity, or what these rites were, just that these very same words are found in Eastern Catholic liturgies. Do you know anything about this and whether or not it is true? I plan to study it further when I get more time.
-
OAB, I have not studied this issue closely,
:laugh1: Understatement of the year
-
:laugh1: Understatement of the year
Well, it is only March after all. You might outdo me yet!