I thought this would make a good subject for a thread. What could be more important? If all the bishops consecrated using the  new rite of episcopal consecration, are not bishops, then all the priests that they ordain are not priests, whether ordained in the new rite or the old. Benedict XVI was consecrated a bishop using the new rite.

Anyway, to your earlier statement, which I suppose casted doubt on the validity of Archbishop Cordileone's consecration, there are plenty of excellent, detailed and thorough studies by the SSPX and others that show the new rites are valid.

From Article : Why the New Bishops Are Not True Bishops
http://www.novusordowatch.org/nobishops.pdf

"I completed the article on March 25,2006. I noticed later that this date was the
fifteenth anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre ’s death. This I considered providential, because the Archbishop himself had personally told me in the 1970s that he considered the new rite of episcopal consecration invalid"

"In the summer of 2005, a group of French traditionalists published the first
volume of Rore Sanctifica, a book-length dossier of docuмentation and commentary on the Paul VI Rite of Episcopal Consecration. (www.rore-sanctifica.org) The study, featuring on its cover side-by side
photos of Ratzinger and SSPX Superior General Mgr. Bernard Fellay, concluded
that the new rite was invalid. (Three additional volumes have appeared
since.)"

It's good to have this discussion out and in the open.

There's a link to the article now in the forum library.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Why-the-New-Rite-of-Episcopal-Consecration-is-Valid

Here's a past topic on Cathinfo, written by a former sedevacantist.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-1968-Rite-os-Episcopal-COnsecration-is-Valid

The historical considerations shown in the article should suffice for the question of validity, however imprudent the change. Because, it is practically quite similar to an Eastern rite from antiquity. Moreover, when you examine the whole 1968 rite, including the part which the principal consecrator says alone, you see that in the different parts, the functions of a Bishop are clearly mentioned. For example,

The following part of the prayer is recited by all the consecrating bishops, with hands joined:

So now pour out upon this chosen one the power that is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to his holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.

Then the principal consecrator continues alone.

Father, you know all hearts.  You have chosen your servant for the office of bishop. May he be a shepherd to your holy flock, and a high priest blameless in your sight, ministering to you night and day; may he always gain the blessing of your favor and offer the gifts of your holy Church.  Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to forgive sins as you have commanded, to assign ministries as you have decreed, and to loose every bond by the authority which you gave to your apostles. May he be pleasing to you by his gentleness and purity of heart, presenting a fragrant offering to you, through Jesus Christ, your Son, through whom glory and power and honor are yours with the Holy Spirit in your holy Church, now and for ever.  R.  Amen.

"I completed the article on March 25,2006. I noticed later that this date was the fifteenth anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre ’s death. This I considered providential, because the Archbishop himself had personally told me in the 1970s that he considered the new rite of episcopal consecration invalid"

Any more details or evidence of this? Did ABL ever state this in any of his writings?

Does anyone else ever get the feeling that this may just be above them? I do. I  mean, how many lay people really have the capacity to decipher cannon law and understand the issue completely and wholeheartedly? I don't mean to say we should be indifferent to the issue- not at all. But there are good people on both sides of the issue with points which often sound equally convincing sometimes.

I personally, after my limited research, believe the New Rite of Consecration to be Valid, per se. However, the doubt that arises when researching the intent that consecrators may have, as proved by their heretical statement (Just look at Mueller- he's nothing special if you think about it) is enough for me to stay away from all of those ordained and consecrated in the New Rite.

Quote from: Fr. C

"I completed the article on March 25,2006. I noticed later that this date was the fifteenth anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre ’s death. This I considered providential, because the Archbishop himself had personally told me in the 1970s that he considered the new rite of episcopal consecration invalid"

Any more details or evidence of this? Did ABL ever state this in any of his writings?

Archbishop Lefebvre considered the the new rites (mass, priestly ordination, bishop consecration) to be valid but illicit. That is my position at the current time as well since the new rite of episcopal consecration is similar, if not identical to St. Hippolytus' rite. However, it is illicit because this new rite commits the error of archaeologism as condemned by previous popes.

Also, most of these new bishops liberal and sinful.  Condoning, lying up sɛҳuąƖ abuse by clergy is a sin against God and it is not Catholic.  Closing down Catholic Schools and Churches is not Catholic.....

Valid or not, most aren't Catholic.  Most are evil liberal imposters who serve their own personal pleasures and gains instead of God.

They are nothing like Saint John Neumann Bishop of Philadelphia or Cardinal Mindszenty.

 

Quote from: Stubborn

Ahhh, but if this is true, and I'm not saying it is not true, but if it is true then Satan screwed up pretty bad no?

What I mean is, Satan values a valid sacrilege over an invalid one - seems logical that he would work to keep at least some clergy valid since invalid clergy cannot produce a valid sacrilege........least ways not one that I can think of at the moment.



 

That's what I struggle with as well.  Which is the greater benefit to Satan, to destroy the apostolic line of succession and the Mass or keep it intact enough to blaspheme Christ?  I can't come up with an answer.

Yes, there is a strong case to be made for both sides - either way, there is a strong case against the validity of New Order Orders and since there is really no way to prove validity one way or the other, there is sufficient reason to believe them doubtful at best.

As Fr. Wathen put it............
The Church forbids us to act under doubt where a question of morality or liceity exists in a case where the Mass or the Sacraments are concerned. In a word, one is bound in conscience to choose the safer course.

Safest course = avoid the NO completely.