Author Topic: Validity of NO orders (Read 5612 times)

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.

Cornelius · « **Reply #1 on:** March 09, 2023, 04:42:32 PM »

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."

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #2 on:** March 09, 2023, 06:22:39 PM »

The down vote is very constructive. Good discussion. Whose idol did I offend?

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #3 on:** March 09, 2023, 06:27:52 PM »

Quote from: Cornelius on March 09, 2023, 04:42:32 PM

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.

CatholicInAmerica · « **Reply #4 on:** March 09, 2023, 06:38:12 PM »

The "form" of the NO rite of consecration, came from the establishment of a patriarch NOT from the consecration of a bishop

SimpleMan · « **Reply #5 on:** March 09, 2023, 07:43:38 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on March 09, 2023, 06:27:52 PM

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.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #6 on:** March 09, 2023, 07:52:17 PM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on March 09, 2023, 07:43:38 PM

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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #7 on:** March 09, 2023, 07:53:55 PM »

Quote from: CatholicInAmerica on March 09, 2023, 06:38:12 PM

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/

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #8 on:** March 09, 2023, 08:00:07 PM »

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

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.

www.dinoscopus.org

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #9 on:** March 09, 2023, 08:09:19 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on March 09, 2023, 06:27:52 PM

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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #10 on:** March 09, 2023, 08:18:11 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 09, 2023, 08:00:07 PM

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

When did they say this?

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #11 on:** March 09, 2023, 08:31:27 PM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on March 09, 2023, 07:43:38 PM

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

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...

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #12 on:** March 09, 2023, 08:35:21 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on March 09, 2023, 08:18:11 PM

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???)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2023, 08:46:12 PM »

Quote from: CatholicInAmerica on March 09, 2023, 06:38:12 PM

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.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2023, 08:55:54 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on March 09, 2023, 06:22:39 PM

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.

Author Topic: Validity of NO orders (Read 5612 times)

DigitalLogos

Validity of NO orders

Cornelius

Re: Validity of NO orders

DigitalLogos

Re: Validity of NO orders

DigitalLogos

Re: Validity of NO orders

CatholicInAmerica

Re: Validity of NO orders

SimpleMan

Re: Validity of NO orders

DigitalLogos

Re: Validity of NO orders

2Vermont

Re: Validity of NO orders

Plenus Venter

Re: Validity of NO orders

Miser Peccator

Re: Validity of NO orders

2Vermont

Re: Validity of NO orders

Plenus Venter

Re: Validity of NO orders

Plenus Venter

Re: Validity of NO orders

Ladislaus

Re: Validity of NO orders

Plenus Venter

Re: Validity of NO orders