I was able to find two issues, December 2005 and January 2006, where they assert that the new rites of episcopal consecration are valid. Is this what you are referring to?
In 2008, the SSPX took the position that Novus ordo ordination rites were valid.
They spent two issues in the Angelus magazine to make their point. Not sure if Bishop Williamson objected at this time?
Bp. Fellay needed to remove this obstacle from his campaign to be in union with newChurch.
This was a marked change and could be said to be the beginning of the Resistance movement.
It's my understanding that it was 2005. The same year Ratzinger, consecrated in the New Rite, was elected.
In 2008, the SSPX took the position that Novus ordo ordination rites were valid.
They spent two issues in the Angelus magazine to make their point. Not sure if Bishop Williamson objected at this time?
Bp. Fellay needed to remove this obstacle from his campaign to be in union with newChurch.
This was a marked change and could be said to be the beginning of the Resistance movement.
In all of this mess of the past 50+ years, one thing that troubles me and won't go away, is whether the orders of priest and bishop in the Novus Ordo are valid, whether in the Latin editio typica, or in the vernacular. Needless to say, this matters. No bishops, no priests, no sacraments, no Mass. And I still don't get why one word --- "ut" --- got omitted from the rite of priestly ordination. It's almost as though someone was trying to make the sacrament doubtfully valid.I don't know exactly what +Williamson has to say, but I do know that in the past, both he and +Lefebvre said the NO ordination of at least one priest, Fr. Hesse, was valid.
I am probably being lazy at this point, by not doing the research myself, but what does Bishop Williamson have to say about this matter?
I don't know exactly what +Williamson has to say, but I do know that in the past, both he and +Lefebvre said the NO ordination of at least one priest, Fr. Hesse, was valid.Thanks so much. This is precisely what I was looking for. I did take a look at your comment in the other thread (which I did not know existed) and can see that much has to do with intention --- in a nutshell, the new rites can be understood as either conferring valid orders, or not conferring valid orders --- and this is to be contrasted with the pre-Vatican II understanding that the traditional rites have proper intention "hard-coded into them".
In one of his talks posted on YouTube, Fr. Hesse is quoted as saying: "...I have been ordained, unfortunately in the New Rite of Ordination, but thank God in Latin, everything strictly by the book and +ABL said that would be valid, +Fellay said it's valid and Fr. Franz Schmidberger who is my present superior in Austria says it's valid and +Williamson said there's no need for conditional ordination...."
In previous discussion on the matter, I called the SSPX and posted what the man told me here (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/sspx-official-position-re-validity-of-new-rite-of-episcopal-consecrations/msg638191/?topicseen#msg638191).
Read Chapter 15 in Who Shall Ascend? (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/who-shall-ascend-fr-wathen/) (also attached below) where Fr. Wathen touches on the subject, here is a snip....
"...It is not our purpose in these pages to decide whether the new ordination rite is invalid, though, as we shall see, the argument is substantial enough that we are bound to allow for this possibility. Furthermore, we must see the issue in the context of the total redefinition and reconstitution of the Church, such as was set in motion at the Council. In view of the fact that, since the Council, the priest's role has been in the process of being modified, as we said, to that of a Protestant presbyter, there is every reason to deduce that the new ordination rite sabotages the Sacrament of Holy Orders according to
the explicit program and purposes of those now in power. (The reader is reminded that the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful.)..."
Thanks so much. This is precisely what I was looking for. I did take a look at your comment in the other thread (which I did not know existed) and can see that much has to do with intention --- in a nutshell, the new rites can be understood as either conferring valid orders, or not conferring valid orders --- and this is to be contrasted with the pre-Vatican II understanding that the traditional rites have proper intention "hard-coded into them".This is interesting given the fact that sooooo many marriages are declared null these days due to lack of proper intention.
This is interesting given the fact that sooooo many marriages are declared null these days due to lack of proper intention.It's the ol' "had my fingers crossed behind my back" routine eh?
So both sacraments were seriously weakened by the same kind of loophole.
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.Thanks for the article. Again, this is the kind of information (or even assurance) that I was looking for.
"
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.
(http://www.fathercekada.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Tissier-New-Rite.jpg)
(http://www.fathercekada.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Tissier-New-Rite.jpg)
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!
Thanks for the article. Again, this is the kind of information (or even assurance) that I was looking for.Just admit it, you're a slacker :laugh1:
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 :laugh1: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 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.
It's the ol' "had my fingers crossed behind my back" routine eh?
My marriage of 25 years was declared null for such frivolous reasons.
I don't know exactly what +Williamson has to say, but I do know that in the past, both he and +Lefebvre said the NO ordination of at least one priest, Fr. Hesse, was valid.One must keep in mind that Fr Hesse was ordained by a bishop who was consecrated in the Old Rite. The bigger issue has always been the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.
I don't know exactly what +Williamson has to say, but I do know that in the past, both he and +Lefebvre said the NO ordination of at least one priest, Fr. Hesse, was valid.
In one of his talks posted on YouTube, Fr. Hesse is quoted as saying: "...I have been ordained, unfortunately in the New Rite of Ordination, but thank God in Latin, everything strictly by the book and +ABL said that would be valid, +Fellay said it's valid and Fr. Franz Schmidberger who is my present superior in Austria says it's valid and +Williamson said there's no need for conditional ordination...."
In previous discussion on the matter, I called the SSPX and posted what the man told me here (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/sspx-official-position-re-validity-of-new-rite-of-episcopal-consecrations/msg638191/?topicseen#msg638191).
Read Chapter 15 in Who Shall Ascend? (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/who-shall-ascend-fr-wathen/) (also attached below) where Fr. Wathen touches on the subject, here is a snip....
"...It is not our purpose in these pages to decide whether the new ordination rite is invalid, though, as we shall see, the argument is substantial enough that we are bound to allow for this possibility. Furthermore, we must see the issue in the context of the total redefinition and reconstitution of the Church, such as was set in motion at the Council. In view of the fact that, since the Council, the priest's role has been in the process of being modified, as we said, to that of a Protestant presbyter, there is every reason to deduce that the new ordination rite sabotages the Sacrament of Holy Orders according to
the explicit program and purposes of those now in power. (The reader is reminded that the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful.)..."
In all of this mess of the past 50+ years, one thing that troubles me and won't go away, is whether the orders of priest and bishop in the Novus Ordo are valid, whether in the Latin editio typica, or in the vernacular. Needless to say, this matters.
If a priest -- or layman -- has a choice between "certain" and "doubtful", one is OBLIGATED to choose the "certain". It would be sinful to go with a doubtful matter, minister, etc. when a certain one was available.
I was able to find two issues, December 2005 and January 2006, where they assert that the new rites of episcopal consecration are valid. Is this what you are referring to?
Fr. Hesse is quoted as saying: "...I have been ordained, unfortunately in the New Rite of Ordination, but thank God in Latin, everything strictly by the book and +ABL said that would be valid, +Fellay said it's valid and Fr. Franz Schmidberger who is my present superior in Austria says it's valid and +Williamson said there's no need for conditional ordination...."
The bigger issue has always been the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.
Who decides what issue is "bigger"? If there is ANY issue AT ALL with ANY of the "sacraments", the ENTIRE game is OVER. As if it is acceptable to doubt the validity of Sacraments properly instituted by Holy Mother Church??!?! What is Her raison d'etre if not the sanctification and salvation of souls, accomplished with the infallible, perfect, spotless and holy assistance of the Holy Ghost Himself??@?#!!!!Chill out Gladdy. I was comparing the changes in the NREC to the New Rite of ordination. Without valid bishops there are no valid priests. Obviously, as a sede, I don't think any of these sacraments are certainly valid.
IF there is ANY doubt about ANY of the NO "sacraments" -- and such doubt is part of the very essence of ALL within Traddieland, regardless of their take on the most rotten men in history to claim the See of Peter -- the ONLY logical conclusion is that such must have NOT come from Our Mother but from an impostor. Oddly enough, we all agree that it is incomprehensibly incongruous for Our Mother to savagely devour Her own children -- yet, that is exactly what has been happening day in, day out for more than 55 years, according to some.
I did take a look at your comment in the other thread (which I did not know existed) and can see that much has to do with intention --- in a nutshell, the new rites can be understood as either conferring valid orders, or not conferring valid orders...
Chill out Gladdy. I was comparing the changes in the NREC to the New Rite of ordination. Without valid bishops there are no valid priests. Obviously, as a sede, I don't think any of these sacraments are certainly valid.
By the way, do you approach any of the traditional clergy's sacraments?
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.
Oddly, the combined value of the opinions of ABL, Fellay and Schmidz (and Williamson or whoever else you want to insert/add here) is...ZERO.I agree to a point. However, because the Church always initially presumes validity, it is a sin to conditionally ordain without certainty of invalidity or positive doubt, which means each case has to be investigated separately by those competent to do so.
The only responsible thing to do (or to have done) is to conditionally re-ordain. The stakes are WAY too high, both for the priests/bishops involved and ALL who approach them for the Sacraments. The safer course is obvious and must be (should have been) followed in order to remove all possible doubt.
LOL! So, according to Gladdy, "the combined value of the opinions of (+)ABL, (+)Fellay and (+)Schmidz [Fr. Schmidberger] (and (+)Williamson or whoever else you want to insert/add here) is...ZERO". Whereas your private judgment supposedly is infallibly binding and infinitely valuable? Typical sede-vacantist rubbish.
There have been docuмented Eucharistic Miracles in Masses offered by Priests ordained in the new rite. This fact alone shows that the new rite is not always invalid, contrary to sedevacantist polemicists...
You absurdly and arbitrarily deem the rite to be entirely invalid... [I did nothing of the kind...]
LOL! So, according to Gladdy, "the combined value of the opinions of (+)ABL, (+)Fellay and (+)Schmidz [Fr. Schmidberger] (and (+)Williamson or whoever else you want to insert/add here) is...ZERO". Whereas your private judgment supposedly is infallibly binding and infinitely valuable? Typical sede-vacantist rubbish.Says the poster who routinely uses his private judgment yet still professes submission to his pope.
There have been docuмented Eucharistic Miracles in Masses offered by Priests ordained in the new rite. This fact alone shows that the new rite is not always invalid, contrary to sedevacantist polemicists.
Second, the study showed the new rite is derived from two Eastern Rites (specifically, the Coptic and the West Syrian), the validity of which is evidently not subject to doubt. Fr. Pierre Marie is careful to distinguish the prudence of the reform (was it a good idea?) with per se validity. You've made no reasonable rebuttals to the same, nor have you even given the slightest indication that you read the study and understood the reasons for its conclusions.
Yes, I agree and it is dogmatically true that the Church cannot give anything intrinsically evil; just as it is dogmatically true that St. Peter must have Perpetual Successors; that is for certain. Yet, there is also a human side to the issue, and the ideas of churchmen may not always be perfectly prudent; no rite approved by the Church can be sacrilegious or heretical. But different rites can be more or less good, according to the care taken, on the human side, in promulgating them.
Do you really not understood the difference between observing the entire ceremony of Baptism and saying only the words "I baptize you ...". You absurdly and arbitrarily deem the rite to be entirely invalid, yet claim others cannot legitimately deduce, by reason illumined by the Faith, that it is certainly valid but only objectively inferior, in conferring Grace.
SimpleMan, sure, there's no hurry. Take your time and go through the study at your leisure. To answer your question; yes, if the rite of ordination to the Priesthood were invalid, the new Bishops would not be true Bishops either. But most traditional Priests don't consider the new rite of ordination to be invalid. For some of the above reasons, I agree with that.
God Bless.
LOL! So, according to Gladdy, "the combined value of the opinions of (+)ABL, (+)Fellay and (+)Schmidz [Fr. Schmidberger] (and (+)Williamson or whoever else you want to insert/add here) is...ZERO". Whereas your private judgment supposedly is infallibly binding and infinitely valuable? Typical sede-vacantist rubbish.
There have been docuмented Eucharistic Miracles in Masses offered by Priests ordained in the new rite. This fact alone shows that the new rite is not always invalid, contrary to sedevacantist polemicists.
Don't address me as Gladdy, you kewl-aid-guzzling chump. ALL of our opinions are private, Jackuss Maximuss, from the long-dead ABL to you and me. He's been dead THIRTY YEARS. Get over it!What is your position then?
I am not actually SV, but Your Ignorance just went ahead a presumed...shocking.
Please quote my words that claim NO Baptism is invalid? Your reading comprehension is lacking, but was likely affected by your undisciplined emotions as you read my words, the vast majority of which you clearly misunderstood.
If you ever want to have a calm, rational exchange, I am here. Godspeed.
What is your position then?
Gladius Veritatis, are you a sedeprivationist? I am speaking of the principle by which we can know one rite is inferior to the other. There is a portion of every sacramental rite essential to validity; the rest, as Fr. G-L explains, belongs to the "integrity". If prayers that compose the integrity of the rite are removed, we can legitimately conclude, I would argue, that such rites are objectively inferior.
Vatican II and the NOM were done on purpose by enemies of the Catholic Church.
+?Vigano has finally come to realize this.
Removal of the "ut" is incredibly significant and there was no other reason to do it other than with the malicious intent to invalidate the Sacrament.
Wherever the bishop appears let the congregation be present; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptise or to hold an "agape" without the bishop; but whatever he approve, this is also pleasing to God, that everything which you do may be secure and valid.1
Reason has a role in examining and investigating what has gone wrong in the last 50 years. But Faith is a greater light than reason, and the truths of Faith are more certain than the judgments of reason. If an apparent judgment of reason contradicts a certain truth of Faith, it is the former that is mistaken, not the latter. We will disagree, I suppose, till we have a holy Pope who will settle it.
Our Lady in Quito, Who prophesied these times, spoke of the "Prelate who will restore the spirit of Her Priests", a statement which in its plain sense itself suggests the Priests are not invalid, but have lost their spirit; which, in due time, will be restored by the Holy Pope.
Our Lady in Quito, Who prophesied these times, spoke of the "Prelate who will restore the spirit of Her Priests", a statement which in its plain sense itself suggests the Priests are not invalid, but have lost their spirit; which, in due time, will be restored by the Holy Pope.
Here's a link docuмenting five Eucharistic Miracles. https://www.churchpop.com/2015/06/28/5-extraordinary-eucharistic-miracles-with-pictures/ Four, I believe, were in the traditional Mass (earlier centuries) and one was with a Priest ordained in the new rite.
Transubstantiation is a Miracle requiring the Power of God Himself. The devil can no more transubstantiate than he can create.
I read an article recently which ruled out +Lefebvre as the "prelate" prophesied by Our Lady at Quito ... since he didn't meet some of the prophesied requirements to be said prelate.Uh, he has been dead for 30 years yet what Our Lady of Good Success prophesied is at least 10 years from fulfillment, The requirement he failed to meet is still being ALIVE!!!
Uh, he has been dead for 30 years yet what Our Lady of Good Success prophesied is at least 10 years from fulfillment, The requirement he failed to meet is still being ALIVE!!!
The Catholic Church likes certainty. Especially when it comes to that normal conduit of grace, Holy Orders.If a poor workingman, maybe a kitchen porter, is unaware through no fault of his own, say on account of relentless work, I could see no fault, but anyone who has the leisure to read on the matter has no excuse. Yet Matt Talbot, a dockworker and porter who barely had two coins to rub together managed to be better read than frankly most priests. This was a man who shared his strike pay with other workers during the 1913 Lockout. The SSPX chapel is usually certain. If a man still has a concern, it is easy enough to check whether a priest has good orders. There also in many places good priests following Bp Williamson, although the Mass might be offered in a good room in a house or hired hall or a refurbished farm shed, it is so little against perishing hereafter.
If a priest -- or layman -- has a choice between "certain" and "doubtful", one is OBLIGATED to choose the "certain". It would be sinful to go with a doubtful matter, minister, etc. when a certain one was available.
This principle is one of the pillars and foundations of the whole Traditional Movement.