Author Topic: Validity of NO orders (Read 5614 times)

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2023, 09:09:49 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on March 09, 2023, 08:09:19 PM

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.

Giovanni Berto · « **Reply #16 on:** March 09, 2023, 09:15:15 PM »

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** March 09, 2023, 09:24:58 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 09, 2023, 08:55:54 PM

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".

Comrade · « **Reply #18 on:** March 09, 2023, 09:57:44 PM »

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.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #19 on:** March 09, 2023, 10:45:53 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on March 09, 2023, 09:09:49 PM

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 16^th 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:

Quote

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 19^th 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

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #20 on:** March 10, 2023, 01:05:44 AM »

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.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #21 on:** March 10, 2023, 01:30:29 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on March 10, 2023, 01:05:44 AM

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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #22 on:** March 10, 2023, 06:02:43 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 09, 2023, 08:35:21 PM

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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #23 on:** March 10, 2023, 06:05:15 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 09, 2023, 08:55:54 PM

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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #24 on:** March 10, 2023, 06:20:52 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 09, 2023, 09:24:58 PM

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.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #25 on:** March 10, 2023, 06:56:31 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on March 10, 2023, 06:05:15 AM

Yes. It's surprising a sedevacantist would post it. But maybe DL is no longer sedevacantist or heading in that direction.

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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #26 on:** March 10, 2023, 07:06:00 AM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on March 10, 2023, 06:56:31 AM

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.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #27 on:** March 10, 2023, 07:08:25 AM »

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.  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?”
“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.”
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.
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.

Durango77 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 10, 2023, 07:15:18 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 10, 2023, 07:08:25 AM

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. 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?”
“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.”
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.
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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #29 on:** March 10, 2023, 07:17:36 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 10, 2023, 07:08:25 AM

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)

Author Topic: Validity of NO orders (Read 5614 times)

DigitalLogos

Re: Validity of NO orders

Giovanni Berto

Re: Validity of NO orders

Ladislaus

Re: Validity of NO orders

Comrade

Re: Validity of NO orders

Miser Peccator

Re: Validity of NO orders

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Validity of NO orders

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Validity of NO orders

2Vermont

Re: Validity of NO orders

2Vermont

Re: Validity of NO orders

2Vermont

Re: Validity of NO orders

DigitalLogos

Re: Validity of NO orders

2Vermont

Re: Validity of NO orders

Plenus Venter

Re: Validity of NO orders

Durango77

Re: Validity of NO orders

2Vermont

Re: Validity of NO orders