Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: CatholicInAmerica on June 02, 2019, 03:22:12 PM
-
can we make a list of all the valid bishops left in the world (ordained and consecrated in old rite by a valid old rite bishop)? Also, which eastern Catholics are still valid?
For the list, if you know, put the bishops group (ex: SSPX, SSPX resistance, CMRI, eastern rite). If you are unsure of their group put what episcopal line they are part of ex:thuc, Byzantine rite.
I’ll start the list:
Bishop Clarence Kelly, SSPV
Bishop Joseph Santay, CSPV
Bishop James Carroll, CSPV
Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX
Bishop Alfonso De Galarreta, SSPX
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX
Bishop Richard Williamson, Resistance
WHEN POSTING VALID BISHOPS, COPY AND PASTE THE PREVIOUS LIST AND ADD THE VALID ONES WITH FIRST NAME LAST NAME, ORGANIZATION OR EPISCOPAL LINE.
-
All the Eastern Rite bishops are valid.
-
All the Eastern Rite bishops are valid.
Really? They didn’t change ordination rites?
-
SSPX Bishops consecrated +Rangel (now deceased), who in turn consecrated +Rifan.
+Williamson has consecrated 3.
Several Thuc lines are certainly valid --
+Guerard des Lauriers
+McKenna
+Sanborn
+Neville
+Carmona/+Zamora
those consecrated by them, such as +Pivarunas and +Dolan
all the the original Palmar de Troya consecrands are valid (gets sketchy after that)
-
Really? They didn’t change ordination rites?
No, they did not ... with the possible exception of the Maronites (would have to do some digging there).
-
And any of these who were consecrated before the Rite changed --
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html)
-
And any of these who were consecrated before the Rite changed --
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html)
+Radavero went schismatic but then validly consecrated +Cantor and two others for some Gallican-schismatic church.
+Milingo went nuts and consecrated some people. Not sure on his date, though, whether it was before or after the Rite changed (he was consecrated sometime in 1969)
-
SSPX Bishops consecrated +Rangel (now deceased), who in turn consecrated +Rifan.
+Williamson has consecrated 3.
Several Thuc lines are certainly valid --
+Guerard des Lauriers
+McKenna
+Sanborn
+Neville
+Carmona/+Zamora
those consecrated by them
all the the original Palmar de Troya consecrants are valid (gets sketchy after that)
Who are the 3 consecrated by Williamson? Also, the reason for this list is so someone can know where their mass is valid, and where they can receive catholic sacraments. the Palmar de Troya people aren’t catholic so I wouldn’t want to include them.
-
Use this list and then copy, paste, and add the current valid bishops of the world:
Bishop Clarence Kelly, SSPV
Bishop Joseph Santay, CSPV
Bishop James Carroll, CSPV
Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX
Bishop Alfonso De Galarreta, SSPX
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX
Bishop Richard Williamson, Resistance
-
Who are the 3 consecrated by Williamson? Also, the reason for this list is so someone can know where their mass is valid, and where they can receive catholic sacraments. the Palmar de Troya people aren’t catholic so I wouldn’t want to include them.
+Faure and +Zendejas. I can't remember the third (was there a third?) Lots of Resistance folks here on CI who could confirm.
-
+Faure and +Zendejas. I can't remember the third (was there a third?) Lots of Resistance folks here on CI who could confirm.
Mendez line:
Bishop Clarence Kelly, SSPV
Bishop Joseph Santay, CSPV
Bishop James Carroll, CSPV
Lefebvre line:
Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX
Bishop Alfonso De Galarreta, SSPX
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX
Bishop Richard Williamson, Resistance
Bishop Jean-Michel Faure, Resistance
Bishop Gerardo Zendejas, Resistance
Bishop Aquino, Resistance
Thuc line:
Bishop Donald Sanborn
Bishop Daniel Dolan
Bishop Joseph Selway
Bishop Pivarunas, CMRI
Bishop Robert Neville
-
Use this list and then copy, paste, and add the current valid bishops of the world:
Bishop Clarence Kelly, SSPV
Bishop Joseph Santay, CSPV
Bishop James Carroll, CSPV
Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX
Bishop Alfonso De Galarreta, SSPX
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX
Bishop Richard Williamson, Resistance
You can add them in from what I posted.
add
+Jean-Michel Faure, Resistance
+Gerardo Zendejas, Resistance
+Donald Sanborn, ?
+Daniel Dolan, ?
+Robert Neville, ?
+Fernando Rifan, Society of St. John Vianney (Campos)
I leave out the Novus Ordites remaining and the various schismatics, as well as the very long list of Eastern Rite bishops. I also pass over the deceased Tridentine Rite bishops.
-
You beat me to it, but mine add some first names.
+Selway is +Joseph Selway
If you want to put the line in parentheses, you could put (+Lefebvre line) and (+Mendez-Gonzalez line) for the +Kelly group.
-
There are probably some other Thuc bishops who are unquestionably valid. I just don't know the entire list.
-
can we make a list of all the valid bishops left in the world (ordained and consecrated in old rite by a valid old rite bishop)? Also, which eastern Catholics are still valid?
For the list, if you know, put the bishops group (ex: SSPX, SSPX resistance, CMRI, eastern rite). If you are unsure of their group put what episcopal line they are part of ex:thuc, Byzantine rite.
I’ll start the list:
Bishop Clarence Kelly, SSPV
Bishop Joseph Santay, CSPV
Bishop James Carroll, CSPV
Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX
Bishop Alfonso De Galarreta, SSPX
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX
Bishop Richard Williamson, Resistance
WHEN POSTING VALID BISHOPS, COPY AND PASTE THE PREVIOUS LIST AND ADD THE VALID ONES WITH FIRST NAME LAST NAME, ORGANIZATION OR EPISCOPAL LINE.
Mendez line:
Bishop Clarence Kelly, SSPV
Bishop Joseph Santay, CSPV
Bishop James Carroll, CSPV
Lefebvre line:
Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX
Bishop Alfonso De Galarreta, SSPX
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX
Bishop Richard Williamson, Resistance
Bishop Jean-Michel Faure, Resistance
Bishop Gerardo Zendejas, Resistance
Bishop Aquino, Resistance
Bishop Fernando rifan
Thuc line:
Bishop Donald Sanborn
Bishop Daniel Dolan
Bishop Joseph Selway
Bishop Pivarunas, CMRI
Bishop Robert Neville
-
+Faure and +Zendejas. I can't remember the third (was there a third?) Lots of Resistance folks here on CI who could confirm.
Ladislaus,
If you don’t mind me asking, where do you receive the Sacraments?
-
+Faure and +Zendejas. I can't remember the third (was there a third?) Lots of Resistance folks here on CI who could confirm.
Bishop Thomas Aquinas I believe
-
Why wouldn't the "regular" Catholic bishops also be valid?
-
All the Thuc consecrations are doubtful.
Kelly as well.
In fact, I can’t think of any sede bishops whose consecrations aren’t disputed and doubtful.
-
Why wouldn't the "regular" Catholic bishops also be valid?
The validity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is doubted by many.
-
All the Thuc consecrations are doubtful.
Kelly as well.
In fact, I can’t think of any sede bishops whose consecrations aren’t disputed and doubtful.
I agree about the thuc bishops, but why Bishop Kelly?
-
I agree about the thuc bishops, but why Bishop Kelly?
You're obviously swayed by the SSPV propaganda against the Thuc bishops.
Read +Sanborn's article demonstrating that all of the criticisms that the SSPV have against the Thuc line apply equally to Mendez-Gonzalez. Mendez had just suffered a stroke and only recognized his own close relatives intermittently shortly thereafter. It was in this kind of mental state that he performed the consecrations.
Thuc acted very imprudently and was easily manipulated, but he showed zero signs of this kind of mental incapacity.
+Sanborn had Mendez vist him in Michigan and decided he didn't want to have anything to do with him because of his strange behavior and strong Modernist tendencies. It's something that the SSPV like to hide, trying to spin it that Mendez was some defender of orthodoxy and Traditional Catholicism.
-
All the Thuc consecrations are doubtful.
Kelly as well.
In fact, I can’t think of any sede bishops whose consecrations aren’t disputed and doubtful.
And then there are those who dispute the validity of the +Lefebvre line. Just because someone disputes something, usually for political reasons, that does not mean that the doubts are legitimate.
Just to put it in perspective, +Kelly was in the habit of disputing the validity of +Williamson and +Dolan. He would conditionally re-do confirmations that had been performed by these men. Why? Because +Lefebvre sometimes performed the ordination of priests while laying on only one hand instead of the two prescribed by the Rituale Romanum.
-
http://www.geocities.ws/orthopapism/mendez.html (http://www.geocities.ws/orthopapism/mendez.html)
-
You're obviously swayed by the SSPV propaganda against the Thuc bishops.
Read +Sanborn's article demonstrating that all of the criticisms that the SSPV have against the Thuc line apply equally to Mendez-Gonzalez. Mendez had just suffered a stroke and only recognized his own close relatives intermittently shortly thereafter. It was in this kind of mental state that he performed the consecrations.
Thuc acted very imprudently and was easily manipulated, but he showed zero signs of this kind of mental incapacity.
+Sanborn had Mendez vist him in Michigan and decided he didn't want to have anything to do with him because of his strange behavior and strong Modernist tendencies. It's something that the SSPV like to hide, trying to spin it that Mendez was some defender of orthodoxy and Traditional Catholicism.
Yes. I am surprised that CatholicinAmerica listed the Thuc bishops at all.
-
You're obviously swayed by the SSPV propaganda against the Thuc bishops.
Read +Sanborn's article demonstrating that all of the criticisms that the SSPV have against the Thuc line apply equally to Mendez-Gonzalez. Mendez had just suffered a stroke and only recognized his own close relatives intermittently shortly thereafter. It was in this kind of mental state that he performed the consecrations.
Thuc acted very imprudently and was easily manipulated, but he showed zero signs of this kind of mental incapacity.
+Sanborn had Mendez vist him in Michigan and decided he didn't want to have anything to do with him because of his strange behavior and strong Modernist tendencies. It's something that the SSPV like to hide, trying to spin it that Mendez was some defender of orthodoxy and Traditional Catholicism.
:applause: :applause: :applause:
-
You're obviously swayed by the SSPV propaganda against the Thuc bishops.
Read +Sanborn's article demonstrating that all of the criticisms that the SSPV have against the Thuc line apply equally to Mendez-Gonzalez. Mendez had just suffered a stroke and only recognized his own close relatives intermittently shortly thereafter. It was in this kind of mental state that he performed the consecrations.
Thuc acted very imprudently and was easily manipulated, but he showed zero signs of this kind of mental incapacity.
+Sanborn had Mendez vist him in Michigan and decided he didn't want to have anything to do with him because of his strange behavior and strong Modernist tendencies. It's something that the SSPV like to hide, trying to spin it that Mendez was some defender of orthodoxy and Traditional Catholicism.
Well put, but to be clear, I believe that the Mendez line is valid as I see no positive doubt.
-
All the Thuc consecrations are doubtful.
Kelly as well.
In fact, I can’t think of any sede bishops whose consecrations aren’t disputed and doubtful.
Please state your reasons why you believe that the Thuc and Mendez lines are doubtful. BTW: holding the sedevacantist position is not a reason for doubt.
-
Yes. I am surprised that CatholicinAmerica listed the Thuc bishops at all.
I put them in their own category. I wasn’t making the list for myself per se, it was for anyone on this website. I now realize the thuc category would probably be too large to count because of the old catholic cooks and Palmar de Troya line
-
You're obviously swayed by the SSPV propaganda against the Thuc bishops.
Read +Sanborn's article demonstrating that all of the criticisms that the SSPV have against the Thuc line apply equally to Mendez-Gonzalez. Mendez had just suffered a stroke and only recognized his own close relatives intermittently shortly thereafter. It was in this kind of mental state that he performed the consecrations.
Thuc acted very imprudently and was easily manipulated, but he showed zero signs of this kind of mental incapacity.
+Sanborn had Mendez vist him in Michigan and decided he didn't want to have anything to do with him because of his strange behavior and strong Modernist tendencies. It's something that the SSPV like to hide, trying to spin it that Mendez was some defender of orthodoxy and Traditional Catholicism.
Sanborn wrote Mendez a letter saying he thanks him for the ordination of two priest. The argument that Mendez was in a faulty mental state is unfounded and unprovable. Why would Bishop jelly get doubtfully consecrated if he was so against the doubtful thuc bishops. The mental state of thuc can be questioned however because of his entering of John Paul II name during the consecration, his changing stance on Rome, and his previous actions such as consecration a known homo. I really am not trying to debate right now I just want to make this list.
-
Please state your reasons why you believe that the Thuc and Mendez lines are doubtful. BTW: holding the sedevacantist position is not a reason for doubt.
Aside from the diminished mental capacity which must surely have come and gone for Archbishop Thuc (erratically consecrating anyone and everything along the entire spectrum of sects), there is this from Rome which also seems to evince some doubt:
"3) Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html)
That paragraph implies doubt about the validity of Thuc's consecrations: It announcec his "bishops" will not be recognized as bishops, and the "whatever about the validity of orders" statement evinces it is something too tangled for Rome to decipher.
Also noticeable is that Rome did not issue a similar promulgation in the case of the Lefebvre bishops, whose consecrations were unambiguously recognized as valid by the same Pope, using very different language.
Basically, Rome views them as Anglicans, and that itself suffices for positive and probable doubt regarding their validity.
-
And then there are those who dispute the validity of the +Lefebvre line. Just because someone disputes something, usually for political reasons, that does not mean that the doubts are legitimate.
Just to put it in perspective, +Kelly was in the habit of disputing the validity of +Williamson and +Dolan. He would conditionally re-do confirmations that had been performed by these men. Why? Because +Lefebvre sometimes performed the ordination of priests while laying on only one hand instead of the two prescribed by the Rituale Romanum.
I’m sure you agree that the one hand thing has been adequately refuted by Father Cekada. The +Lefebvre line also has the supposed taint of the “Cardinal Lienart being a freemason” nonsense. I’ve noticed that most of the people who like to attack the validly of certain orders, do so for ulterior reasons and ignore basic principles of sacramental theology.
-
I’m sure you agree that the one hand thing has been adequately refuted by Father Cekada. The +Lefebvre line also has the supposed taint of the “Cardinal Lienart being a freemason” nonsense. I’ve noticed that most of the people who like to attack the validly of certain orders, do so for ulterior reasons and ignore basic principles of sacramental theology.
See my response above
-
See my response above
That’s a terrible reason to doubt their validity. You are a donatist. “The pope views them as Anglican’s” well the “pope” views Muslims as Catholics so
-
That’s a terrible reason to doubt their validity. You are a donatist. “The pope views them as Anglican’s” well the “pope” views Muslims as Catholics so
I shouldn’t call you a Donatism, rather: you are close to being a donatist
-
I shouldn’t call you a Donatism, rather: you are close to being a donatist
I guess you thought saying something stupid was better than saying nothing at all?
-
I guess you thought saying something stupid was better than saying nothing at all?
Well it really wasn’t stupid because the reason you give to doubt their validity sounds like Donatism. Do you understand the difference of validity and licitness?
-
Well it really wasn’t stupid because the reason you give to doubt their validity sounds like Donatism. Do you understand the difference of validity and licitness?
No, I have never heard of that distinction. Could you please explain it to me, because I sense that if only I could grasp that difference, I would immediately become sedevacantist.
-
"3) Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html)
That paragraph implies doubt about the validity of Thuc's consecrations: It announcec his "bishops" will not be recognized as bishops, and the "whatever about the validity of orders" statement evinces it is something too tangled for Rome to decipher.
Also noticeable is that Rome did not issue a similar promulgation in the case of the Lefebvre bishops, whose consecrations were unambiguously recognized as valid by the same Pope, using very different language.
Basically, Rome views them as Anglicans, and that itself suffices for positive and probable doubt regarding their validity.
Not so....According to JPII’s papal nuncio, Pio Laghi, in a letter to Father Berry dated September 28, 1988, he wrote: “In response to your inquiry of September 23, 1988, the episcopal ordination of Guerard des Lauriers, while valid, was gravely illicit.”
-
Sanborn wrote Mendez a letter saying he thanks him for the ordination of two priest. The argument that Mendez was in a faulty mental state is unfounded and unprovable. Why would Bishop jelly get doubtfully consecrated if he was so against the doubtful thuc bishops. The mental state of thuc can be questioned however because of his entering of John Paul II name during the consecration, his changing stance on Rome, and his previous actions such as consecration a known homo. I really am not trying to debate right now I just want to make this list.
Bishop Jelly....lol
-
Aside from the diminished mental capacity which must surely have come and gone for Archbishop Thuc (erratically consecrating anyone and everything along the entire spectrum of sects), there is this from Rome which also seems to evince some doubt:
You are way off here. Aside, from the fact that the Archbishop was trusting his confrères, and I admit he impudently did so, this is not the evidence needed to prove he did not have the mental capacity to confer holy orders. To prove invalidity from “diminished mental capacity”, the bar is substantially higher.
-
Bishop Jelly....lol
:laugh2: I saw that too!
-
Not so....According to JPII’s papal nuncio, Pio Laghi, in a letter to Father Berry dated September 28, 1988, he wrote: “In response to your inquiry of September 23, 1988, the episcopal ordination of Guerard des Lauriers, while valid, was gravely illicit.”
Could you please supply the Letter?
-
I would suggest the following modification:
Lefebvre line:
Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX
Bishop Alfonso De Galarreta, SSPX
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX
Bishop Richard Williamson, SSPX/ Resistance (As he was consecrated in the SSPX 1st)
Bishop Jean-Michel Faure, Resistance/ SAJM (as he resisted 1st, before starting SAJM)
Bishop Gerardo Zendejas, SAJM (as he was consecrated as a member of the SAJM)
Bishop Aquino, Resistance/ Benedictine
-
Could you please supply the Letter?
It was referenced in Father Cekada’s paper defending the Thuc line. To me, the conciliar church’s opinion on the matter is worthless anyway.
-
It was referenced in Father Cekada’s paper defending the Thuc line. To me, the conciliar church’s opinion on the matter is worthless anyway.
Yes, according to them, the men consecrated in the Paul VI Rite are certainly valid bishops.
-
It was referenced in Father Cekada’s paper defending the Thuc line. To me, the conciliar church’s opinion on the matter is worthless anyway.
I am aware of the Fr. Cekada reference.
I am trying to validate it.
Can you please produce the alleged letter?
-
I am aware of the Fr. Cekada reference.
I am trying to validate it.
Can you please produce the alleged letter?
Why is this letter so important to you?
-
Why is this letter so important to you?
Why are you so threatened by my request?
-
Ladislaus,
If you don’t mind me asking, where do you receive the Sacraments?
MOSTLY at the chapel of an old Independent priest ordained pre Vatican II.
-
Well put, but to be clear, I believe that the Mendez line is valid as I see no positive doubt.
I consider the Mendez line valid also, but I believe +Sanborn's argument was largely an ad hominem, demonstrate that Father Kelly's arguments against the Thuc line apply even MORE to the Mendez line.
-
Sanborn wrote Mendez a letter saying he thanks him for the ordination of two priest. The argument that Mendez was in a faulty mental state is unfounded and unprovable. Why would Bishop jelly get doubtfully consecrated if he was so against the doubtful thuc bishops. The mental state of thuc can be questioned however because of his entering of John Paul II name during the consecration, his changing stance on Rome, and his previous actions such as consecration a known homo. I really am not trying to debate right now I just want to make this list.
Garbage. +Sanborn's argument was ad hominem -- see the previous post. Those arguments about making poor judgments and decision are garbage and have no bearing on the mental state required for validity.
-
I consider the Mendez line valid also, but I believe +Sanborn's argument was largely an ad hominem, demonstrate that Father Kelly's arguments against the Thuc line apply even MORE to the Mendez line.
Are either of these lines *certainly* valid though?
Seems to me that anything in the Lefebvre line, or the Eastern Rites, is safer.
-
I’m sure you agree that the one hand thing has been adequately refuted by Father Cekada.
Absolutely. I actually sent Father Cekada a copy (when this accusation first surfaced) of the page in the Rituale Romanum where only the right hand was used for ordinations ... for a couple of centuries in the Roman Rite (if I recall the 11th and 12th centuries), and one hand has always been used in the Eastern Rites. That argument was nonsense, just like all the nonsense against the Thuc consecrations. HANDS plural in the Romanum is actually a reference to the fact that other bishops and even priests would lay on hands.
-
Are either of these lines *certainly* valid though?
Seems to me that anything in the Lefebvre line, or the Eastern Rites, is safer.
There are many types of "certainty". Church presumes the Sacraments to be valid unless there is positive doubt against them (given certain conditions apply, and not the ones simply invented by +Kelly).
-
Absolutely. I actually sent Father Cekada a copy (when this accusation first surfaced) of the page in the Rituale Romanum where only the right hand was used for ordinations ... for a couple of centuries in the Roman Rite (if I recall the 11th and 12th centuries), and one hand has always been used in the Eastern Rites. That argument was nonsense, just like all the nonsense against the Thuc consecrations. HANDS plural in the Romanum is actually a reference to the fact that other bishops and even priests would lay on hands.
If you could post the reference I would appreciate it. When I debated this in the past with a certain bishop, I showed him what Regatillo and Cappello say on the subject and he basically ignored it. Regatillo goes so far as to say that he knows a bishop who went to the Holy Office on an ad limina visit and asked the question because he himself did some ordinations with one hand. The HO replied that they get that question often and that ordinations with one hand are valid. The bishop I was debating replied with: ‘who is this unknown bishop’?!
Ridiculous.
-
I consider the Mendez line valid also, but I believe +Sanborn's argument was largely an ad hominem, demonstrate that Father Kelly's arguments against the Thuc line apply even MORE to the Mendez line.
How very true, I’ve said the same for years.
-
Why are you so threatened by my request?
No offense, but I think your argument has no merit because the opinion of the conciliar church is worthless in my eye. I just pointed out the reference because of your claim.
-
No offense, but I think your argument has no merit because the opinion of the conciliar church is worthless in my eye. I just pointed out the reference because of your claim.
That's because you are a solipsist who believes he can unilaterally declare the church empty. But then if the Church is empty, what good does it do you or Fr. Cekada to quote a non-Catholic from a letter of unproven existence?
-
That's because you are a solipsist who believes he can unilaterally declare the church empty. But then if the Church is empty, what good does it do you or Fr. Cekada to quote a non-Catholic from a letter of unproven existence?
I don't think the Vatican is saying the thuc consecrations are certainly invalid, but just that they're doubtful. But I could be wrong.
With regards Ladislaus' comment, I have a hard time believing that fringe bishops who may or may not actually be straight in the head, and have no oversight, are what the Church has in mind when she says we presume the validity of ordinations. And I find it strange that such would be presumed in a case like Thuc, but not for Novus Ordo ordinations.
-
I don't think the Vatican is saying the thuc consecrations are certainly invalid, but just that they're doubtful. But I could be wrong.
With regards Ladislaus' comment, I have a hard time believing that fringe bishops who may or may not actually be straight in the head, and have no oversight, are what the Church has in mind when she says we presume the validity of ordinations. And I find it strange that such would be presumed in a case like Thuc, but not for Novus Ordo ordinations.
That the Vatican doubts the validity is precisely my position.
-
That the Vatican doubts the validity is precisely my position.
The thing I meant to add here is that I doubt the Vatican cares particularly much. Its not like the Thuc line is, in a grand sense, a numerically significant group like the EOs are, nor are they generally people who are willing to reconcile with the Vatican as regular SSPX might be.
-
I read the Vatican not as expressing any type of doubt but of not having an opinion, "regardless of whether it's valid, it's illicit" or "it doesn't really matter because they're not authorized". Now, the Vatican probably would not doubt a Lutheran "ordination", or that of a Baptist preacher, so their opinion one way or another is worthless.
-
Are either of these lines *certainly* valid though?
Seems to me that anything in the Lefebvre line, or the Eastern Rites, is safer.
You have to be a bit careful in the Eastern Rite. Every once in a while you'll find a Novus Ordo priest who switched Rites without getting re-ordained, and then gets consecrated a Bishop. If he's a doubtful priest, then he'd be a doubtful bishop. "Whatever about the validity" = "whatever you want to say about the validity". Would be nice to see the Latin, but I don't really care enough about what this Vatican has to say to take the time to find it.
whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination
-
I read the Vatican not as expressing any type of doubt but of not having an opinion, "regardless of whether it's valid, it's illicit" or "it doesn't really matter because they're not authorized". Now, the Vatican probably would not doubt a Lutheran "ordination", or that of a Baptist preacher, so their opinion one way or another is worthless.
If you reread the announcement, the Vatican firstly discusses liceity, then passing to validity, states, “whatever about the validity,” and proceeds to announce it does not recognize the “ordinations.”
In other words, Rome is not still discussing liceity, or limiting/directing its non-recognition to not recognizing their jurisdiction, but to not recognizing the ordination (consecration) itself.
It is as though with the dismissive phrase “whatever about the validity,” Rome considers the matter too complex and murky to render a certain opinion/judgment, and therefore simply proceeds to announce it will not recognize them as bishops.
But if that is a correct reading of Rome’s announcement, it is the same thing as saying “we consider the matter doubtful, or capable of question.”
-
If you could post the reference I would appreciate it.
Sorry, but I don't have it anymore. I dug through the old books' collections at The Catholic University of American and went backwards through Rituale Romanums. In the 11th and 12th centuries the rubrics clearly stated that the bishop should impose the right hand on the ordinand. I sent Father Cekada photocopies of the relevant pages.
-
If you reread the announcement, the Vatican firstly discusses liceity, then passing to validity, states, “whatever about the validity,” and proceeds to announce it does not recognize the “ordinations.”
In other words, Rome is not still discussing liceity, or limiting/directing its non-recognition to not recognizing their jurisdiction, but to not recognizing the ordination (consecration) itself.
It is as though with the dismissive phrase “whatever about the validity,” Rome considers the matter too complex and murky to render a certain opinion/judgment, and therefore simply proceeds to announce it will not recognize them as bishops.
But if that is a correct reading of Rome’s announcement, it is the same thing as saying “we consider the matter doubtful, or capable of question.”
I think the way it's expressed clearly means negative vs. positive doubt at best. Again, if there's a Latin version we could perhaps eliminate any ambiguity that could be due to translation.
-
I read the Vatican not as expressing any type of doubt but of not having an opinion, "regardless of whether it's valid, it's illicit" or "it doesn't really matter because they're not authorized". Now, the Vatican probably would not doubt a Lutheran "ordination", or that of a Baptist preacher, so their opinion one way or another is worthless.
Exactly. And I'm a bit perplexed why anyone who regularly questions the Vatican (especially with respect to the current rite of episcopal consecration) would look to the Vatican to determine whether a Catholic bishop consecrated in the Old Rite is valid.
-
Sorry, but I don't have it anymore. I dug through the old books' collections at The Catholic University of American and went backwards through Rituale Romanums. In the 11th and 12th centuries the rubrics clearly stated that the bishop should impose the right hand on the ordinand. I sent Father Cekada photocopies of the relevant pages.
I’ll ask Father Cekada if he still has it, but thank you anyway. What a shame that some traditionalist organizations do so little research in sacramental theology and when they are proven wrong, they simply ignore it.
-
I read the Vatican not as expressing any type of doubt but of not having an opinion, "regardless of whether it's valid, it's illicit" or "it doesn't really matter because they're not authorized". Now, the Vatican probably would not doubt a Lutheran "ordination", or that of a Baptist preacher, so their opinion one way or another is worthless.
I have a hard time believing that. Oh, I could see Francis saying something fluffy "Don't judge" without even pretending to be official, but I have a hard time believing any official vatican docuмent, even now, would suggest that those ministers are actually valid or that they can transubstantiate on their altars. If you have any evidence that the Vatican actually wouldn't deny such a thing, I'd like to see it/
EDIT: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/ (http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/) according to this article, John Paul II did not even allow debate on the validity of Anglican orders, as recently as 1998.