Author Topic: What does Bishop Williamson say about the validity of Novus Ordo orders? (Read 5183 times)

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #10 on:** January 26, 2021, 02:02:50 AM »

Here's the SSPX study showing the New Rite of Consecration is valid. Iirc, His Excellency Bishop Williamson endorsed this SSPX study. It was done by the Avrille Dominicans, and both Bp. Williamson and those Dominicans were with the Society at the time. This was during the Papacy of Pope Benedict XVI.

"
Why the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid
Introduction
This comprehensive study was compiled to settle a debate that has been circulating in traditional Catholic circles. Some writers have examined the new rite of episcopal consecration and concluded that it must be invalid. Since this would cause manifest problems if it were true and due to the heightened awareness of such a theory, we present a study of this question concluding that it is valid."
https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations

I believe the New rites in general (true for Baptism, Holy Orders, the new Mass etc) are Valid but Inferior, i.e. they confer the essential sacramental effect, but less Grace, and much more weakly. Thus, to take Baptism, for instance, so long as the words "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" are said when the water is poured on the head, the Sacrament will be valid, but when the exorcisms etc are abolished, the Power of the Sacrament will be reduced, and the Grace conferred will be less. Likewise, in the Priestly Rite, the essential form remains largely unchanged (except, as was noted, for the word "ut"), but, as Michael Davies docuмents in Order of Melchizedek, many of the Prayers surrounding the essential form have been removed from the traditional rite in the new rite, especially those relating to the essential Powers of the Priesthood, to absolve sins in persona Christi, and to offer Sacrifice for the living and the dead. Hence, I believe they confer the Priesthood validly, but less Priestly Graces.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #11 on:** January 26, 2021, 07:03:59 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on January 26, 2021, 02:02:50 AM

Here's the SSPX study showing the New Rite of Consecration is valid. Iirc, His Excellency Bishop Williamson endorsed this SSPX study. It was done by the Avrille Dominicans, and both Bp. Williamson and those Dominicans were with the Society at the time. This was during the Papacy of Pope Benedict XVI.

"
Why the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid
Introduction
This comprehensive study was compiled to settle a debate that has been circulating in traditional Catholic circles. Some writers have examined the new rite of episcopal consecration and concluded that it must be invalid. Since this would cause manifest problems if it were true and due to the heightened awareness of such a theory, we present a study of this question concluding that it is valid."
https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations

I believe the New rites in general (true for Baptism, Holy Orders, the new Mass etc) are Valid but Inferior, i.e. they confer the essential sacramental effect, but less Grace, and much more weakly. Thus, to take Baptism, for instance, so long as the words "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" are said when the water is poured on the head, the Sacrament will be valid, but when the exorcisms etc are abolished, the Power of the Sacrament will be reduced, and the Grace conferred will be less. Likewise, in the Priestly Rite, the essential form remains largely unchanged (except, as was noted, for the word "ut"), but, as Michael Davies docuмents in Order of Melchizedek, many of the Prayers surrounding the essential form have been removed from the traditional rite in the new rite, especially those relating to the essential Powers of the Priesthood, to absolve sins in persona Christi, and to offer Sacrifice for the living and the dead. Hence, I believe they confer the Priesthood validly, but less Priestly Graces.

Thanks for the article. Again, this is the kind of information (or even assurance) that I was looking for.

I do have to wonder, though --- and this may be addressed in the article (haven't read it yet, give me a break, we slept in, I just woke up!) --- whether it would be theoretically possible for the new rite of episcopal consecration to be valid, but for the new rite of priestly ordination to be invalid. (I refer to "valid" and "invalid" in and of themselves, as distinct from "intention" which can be loosey-goosey in post-V2 times.) The removal of "ut" concerns me --- I mean, what was the point? Why remove just one word? I have to suspect that this one word may have been removed with malevolent intent. To use a secular analogy, if you go in and tweak one little bit of computer code, you can bollix up the whole program. And there's the apocryphal story of Czech workers forced to build nαzι aircraft, and they would spit pieces of chewed-up cellophane into the molten metal to weaken it structurally. Again, that's possibly apocryphal, but the point should be clear.

Quite obviously, if --- just for the sake of argument --- a priest had been invalidly ordained, and were later consecrated as a bishop in the new rite, then he would not be a bishop, because you have to be a priest, to become a bishop. Or am I garbling something here?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #12 on:** January 26, 2021, 07:10:46 AM »

Here’s an SSPX bishop declaring the form of the new rite of episcopal consecration doubtful.

Of course, this was pre-ralliement (1998).

Once the ralliement was underway, and ramped up under BXVI, the SSPX began reforming its positions (episcopal consecrations, abortive ναccιnєs, etc.):

http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/

“Bp. Tissier on Bishops Ordained in the New Rite

As I pointed out at the beginning of Absolutely Null and Utterly Void, Abp. Lefebvre personally told me in the mid-70s that he regarded the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration as invalid because of a change in its essential sacramental form (=the one necessary phrase in a rite that makes it “work”).

By 1982, however, once Lefebvre undertaken another of his periodic bouts of negotiation with the Vatican, he changed his position, apparently under the impression that Paul VI form was used in the Eastern Rites, and therefore unquestionably valid. (The basis for his impression, it seems, was a “study” by Fr. Franz Schmidberger, who favored reconciling with John Paul II. According to a seminarian who later asked to read the study, it turned out to be nothing more than a single page in a folder!)

Surprisingly, it seems that no one in the traditionalist movement had attempted to analyze the new rite in any great detail until Rama Coomaraswamy published his own study in the early 1990s. This focused on the phrase spiritus principalis in the essential form. What did it mean? Was it sufficient to signify the order of bishop, and thus effect the sacrament? Dr. Coomaraswamy concluded that it was not.

Even though Abp. Lefebvre had changed his position to favor validity and even though a bishop ordained in the new rite, Mgr. Salvador Lazo Lazo, had worked with the Society and confirmed under its auspices, some in the organization were now willing to consider the possibility that the new rite was doubtful or invalid — i.e. that it did not therefore make real bishops.

Someone passed Dr. Coomaraswamy’s study along to Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, who was then residing at SSPX headquarters in Menzingen Switzerland. In a August 12, 1998 letter, the bishop replied:

Quote

Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s pamphlet “Le Drame Anglican.”

After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of episcopal consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.

The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.

As regards Mgr Lazo, it would be difficult for us to explain these things to him; the only solution is not to ask him to confirm or ordain.

Yours very truly in Our Lord Jesus Christ,

+Bernard Tissier de Mallerais

PS: Another thought: Mgr Lazo has already confirmed “quite a few” [people] with us. Obviously, this is valid because “the Church supplies” (canon 209), because a simple priest can confirm with jurisdiction. And it is difficult to see how to make our doubt known to Mgr Lazo. So silence and discretion about this, please!

Bp. Tissier’s letter was finally published in December, 2000, several months after Mgr Lazo’s death.

Here, once again, the conclusion is clear: Bp. Tissier believed that the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration was doubtful – which means that in the practical order, one must treat it as invalid.”

Stubborn · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2021, 07:22:13 AM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on January 26, 2021, 07:03:59 AM

Thanks for the article. Again, this is the kind of information (or even assurance) that I was looking for.

I do have to wonder, though --- and this may be addressed in the article (haven't read it yet, give me a break, we slept in, I just woke up!) --- whether it would be theoretically possible for the new rite of episcopal consecration to be valid, but for the new rite of priestly ordination to be invalid. (I refer to "valid" and "invalid" in and of themselves, as distinct from "intention" which can be loosey-goosey in post-V2 times.) The removal of "ut" concerns me --- I mean, what was the point? Why remove just one word? I have to suspect that this one word may have been removed with malevolent intent. To use a secular analogy, if you go in and tweak one little bit of computer code, you can bollix up the whole program. And there's the apocryphal story of Czech workers forced to build nαzι aircraft, and they would spit pieces of chewed-up cellophane into the molten metal to weaken it structurally. Again, that's possibly apocryphal, but the point should be clear.

Quite obviously, if --- just for the sake of argument --- a priest had been invalidly ordained, and were later consecrated as a bishop in the new rite, then he would not be a bishop, because you have to be a priest, to become a bishop. Or am I garbling something here?

Just admit it, you're a slacker

But the removal of one word, "ut", is not the show stopper nor what makes the NO ordinations questionable, rather, this is more a matter of what the NO priest has become, both in practice and in the mind of the Conciliar Church. Which is why it is more a question of not merely the consecrator's intention, but the intention of the New Rite itself.

As Fr. said in Ch. 15 you should download and read: "...The Conciliar priest more and more is the "presbyter," whom
traditional Protestant commentators see in the pages of the New Testament, and whom the fashioners of the new Conciliar rites have envisioned.

In the Liturgy, he is only the "president," or the presider at the Eucharistic Meal. He is one with little or no authority or special
power, and the coordinator of parochial activities. In the confessional, he is a counsellor, and a sympathetic ear-and the eraser of vestigial Catholic consciences..." He goes on into a little more detail, but I think you get the drift.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2021, 07:42:48 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on January 26, 2021, 07:22:13 AM

Just admit it, you're a slacker

But the removal of one word, "ut", is not the show stopper nor what makes the NO ordinations questionable, rather, this is more a matter of what the NO priest has become, both in practice and in the mind of the Conciliar Church. Which is why it is more a question of not merely the consecrator's intention, but the intention of the New Rite itself.

As Fr. said in Ch. 15 you should download and read: "...The Conciliar priest more and more is the "presbyter," whom
traditional Protestant commentators see in the pages of the New Testament, and whom the fashioners of the new Conciliar rites have envisioned.

In the Liturgy, he is only the "president," or the presider at the Eucharistic Meal. He is one with little or no authority or special
power, and the coordinator of parochial activities. In the confessional, he is a counsellor, and a sympathetic ear-and the eraser of vestigial Catholic consciences..." He goes on into a little more detail, but I think you get the drift.

After 40 years of busting my b***s first in university, then in the secular world of work (much of this in a hostile employment situation tinged with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and middle-managed by females, surely a devil's brew if there ever were one, trapped with no way out other than retirement), I think I've earned a little slack, and add to that, I have taken up a "second career" of being a full-time stay-at-home dad and homeschooler in all subjects, as well as providing 24-hour-on-call care for my disabled parents. I had been up and down all night helping my father, who can no longer walk or talk, with various needs of nature. So I get sleep when I can.

But no offense taken, I've been called worse

, you're good. But I still think the removal of "ut" was bogus, probably not invalidating, but at the very least, yet one more example of how the post-conciliar maniacs just had to put their little "Kilroy was here" on everything they possibly could. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" --- it wasn't "broke" before, but boy-oh-boy, it sure is "broke" now!

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: What does Bishop Williamson say about the validity of Novus Ordo orders? (Read 5183 times)

Nishant Xavier

Re: What does Bishop Williamson say about the validity of Novus Ordo orders?

SimpleMan

Re: What does Bishop Williamson say about the validity of Novus Ordo orders?

SeanJohnson

Re: What does Bishop Williamson say about the validity of Novus Ordo orders?

Stubborn

Re: What does Bishop Williamson say about the validity of Novus Ordo orders?

SimpleMan

Re: What does Bishop Williamson say about the validity of Novus Ordo orders?