Author Topic: Validly of New Bishop Consecrations (Read 2044 times)

SerpKerp · « **on:** June 04, 2014, 05:20:23 PM »

I know SGG and Company have written articles on this and said they are invalid. Most Sedevacantists agree they are invalid. SSPX holds them as valid, and most Sedevacantists think that he SSPX are lying when doing so.

Can anyone give me any articles written, by others on the issue weather Pro or Con not written by Father Cekada or Bishop Sanborn?

PG · « **Reply #1 on:** June 04, 2014, 05:33:11 PM »

From my research, I find that only sedevacantists hold them to be "invalid". There is a doubt about them in the resistance. That doubt should materialize into a change of policy(conditional ordinations), but that is still in the works. Bp. Tissier expressed doubt about the new rite of consecration. There is a big difference in the consequences that follow if you believe that they are "invalid" rather than "doubtful". If they are only "doubtful", you leave the door open for a lot more solutions to our problems. If they are "invalid", you are on the road to electing your own pope.

SerpKerp · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2014, 05:43:45 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

From my research, I find that only sedevacantists hold them to be "invalid". There is a doubt about them in the resistance. That doubt should materialize into a change of policy(conditional ordinations), but that is still in the works. Bp. Tissier expressed doubt about the new rite of consecration. There is a big difference in the consequences that follow if you believe that they are "invalid" rather than "doubtful". If they are only "doubtful", you leave the door open for a lot more solutions to our problems. If they are "invalid", you are on the road to electing your own pope.

Their Validity actually seems far more important than the question of the Pope to me. As extinction of the whole Latin Rite to only 4 lineages seems far more critical.

PG · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2014, 08:19:46 PM »

The validity question is more important. I would recommend that you read through the threads found in the crisis in the church and the sspx resistance subforums that pertain to this question. There is a lot of food there for thought.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #4 on:** June 04, 2014, 09:22:24 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

From my research, I find that only sedevacantists hold them to be "invalid". There is a doubt about them in the resistance. That doubt should materialize into a change of policy(conditional ordinations), but that is still in the works. Bp. Tissier expressed doubt about the new rite of consecration. There is a big difference in the consequences that follow if you believe that they are "invalid" rather than "doubtful". If they are only "doubtful", you leave the door open for a lot more solutions to our problems. If they are "invalid", you are on the road to electing your own pope.

The effects of both positions are the same as we await an official ruling. A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament, and the Catholic Church cannot give doubtful OR invalid sacraments.

I don't know where you get the "invalid bishops=conclavism" idea. That's a non-sequitur.

2Vermont · « **Reply #5 on:** June 05, 2014, 04:33:22 AM »

Eh, I don't think most sedevacantists believe they are surely invalid. It is my understanding that most sedevacantists believe they are positively doubtful.

Of course, I believe the difference between those beliefs is like the difference between 100% and 99.9% sure. Not much.

PG · « **Reply #6 on:** June 05, 2014, 09:48:12 PM »

2vermont - I did not use the word "most". And, there really are no R&R or Plenists that hold them to be invalid. So, that leaves the vacantists to speak of(like cekada and sanborn).

umblehay anmay · « **Reply #7 on:** June 05, 2014, 09:50:32 PM »

What difference does it make as long as the person receiving sacraments from them have the true "DESIRE" ?

Emerentiana · « **Reply #8 on:** June 05, 2014, 10:19:26 PM »

Quote from: umblehay anmay

What difference does it make as long as the person receiving sacraments from them have the true "DESIRE" ?

The Sacraments of the Church require proper matter, form and intention.

The form for the Sacrament of Holy Orders was changed in 1968. The form for the other sacraments was also changed at that time.

The SSPX did believe that the Novus Ordo consecrations were invalid. There was an article to that effect in their Angelus Publication. They have since switched their stand.

2Vermont · « **Reply #9 on:** June 06, 2014, 04:18:18 AM »

Quote from: + PG +

2vermont - I did not use the word "most". And, there really are no R&R or Plenists that hold them to be invalid. So, that leaves the vacantists to speak of(like cekada and sanborn).

Then you really shouldn't post something along the effects that based on your research only sedevacantists believe this as if all believe the way your "research" tells you. It is misleading.

Besides, my post was in response to the whole thread, not just your post. If I am responding to a particular poster I usually quote them.

SerpKerp · « **Reply #10 on:** June 06, 2014, 10:05:43 AM »

Quote from: umblehay anmay

What difference does it make as long as the person receiving sacraments from them have the true "DESIRE" ?

sanctifying grace?

Nishant · « **Reply #11 on:** June 06, 2014, 11:08:14 AM »

Although I did not agree with its conclusion, I respect Fr. Cekada's study, it was well researched. Fr. Pierre Marie published the Society's study at around the same time, and it came to the opposite conclusion, that the Conciliar rite, although inundated with the heterodox stench of the reform, is in fact valid, as seen both by comparison with ancient Eastern rites (most notably the Coptic and the West Syrian), as well as the basic principles of sacramental theology. Fr. Peter Scott provides this summary,

Quote

"A negative doubt is to be despised. This axiom is accepted by all moral theologians. A negative doubt is a doubt that is not based upon any reason. It is the question “what if” that we frequently ask for no reason at all. Such a doubt cannot weaken moral certitude and is not reasonable. (Cf. Prummer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, I, §328)...

The matter and the form of the Latin rite of priestly ordination introduced by Pope Paul VI in 1968 are not subject to positive doubt. They are, in effect, practically identical to those defined by Pope Pius XII in 1947 in Sacramentum Ordinis ...

The question of episcopal consecration in the 1968 rite promulgated by Paul VI is even more delicate. The difficulty lies in the complete change of the wording of the form of episcopal consecration. The very erudite article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., published in The Angelus (December 2005 & January 2006), establishes that the form is in itself valid. Although radically different from the traditional Latin form, and although only similar, but not identical, to the forms used in the Eastern rites, it is in itself valid, the meaning designating sufficiently clearly the Catholic episcopacy. For the form of Holy Orders is variable and changeable, this being one of the sacraments established only in general terms. The substance is consequently retained for as long as the words have essentially the same meaning. However, this does not mean that this new rite of episcopal ordination is valid in every concrete case, for this could depend upon the translation, modifications (now that the principle of change has been accepted), and eventual defect of intention.

Cantarella · « **Reply #12 on:** June 06, 2014, 11:53:54 AM »

Thank you much for the attached file, Nishant :reading:

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #13 on:** June 06, 2014, 04:34:32 PM »

edit.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #14 on:** June 06, 2014, 04:39:13 PM »

Nishant,

(sorry, I couldn't get the quotes right-- this is in response to your recent reply)

Quote from: Sacramentum Ordinis no 4

Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.

The form must univocally signify TWO things. That is, it must clearly express to separate gifts received by the recipient of the orders: the power of order and the Grace of the Holy Ghost. I'm merely summarizing the paragraph I just quoted.

Hence, the traditional rite of consecration:

Quote from: Traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration

"Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing."

This form signifies both orders and the grace of the Holy Ghost. It signifies them as two distinct gifts received. In other words, it univocally expresses them, which is what Pius XII demanded and defined for validity.

But the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration:

Quote from: NREC

"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."

This is not univocal. Nor are two separate and distinct gifts being received by the one who is supposed to be consecrated. He is merely having "that power..." poured onto him. Only one "thing" is being received by the recipient, and it isn't even clear what that one thing is. But even if it were clear that what is being "poured out" is the Holy Ghost or the Power of Order, the problem remains that only one thing is being bestowed on the recipient-- not two. And what is being poured out cannot signify BOTH the power of order and the Holy Ghost, since then it is not univocal.