CathInfo.com

Good morning, 

What do you think of the SSPX current official position re: the validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations? (See link to their article here: http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations). 

In their article they state that due to the duration of time that has elapsed since the promulgation of the new rite, if the new rite were invalid per se then we would have been left without a Catholic hierarchy which would be a violation of Our Lord's promise "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18 ) 

This particular argument seems reasonable to me. Generally speaking the article the SSPX published seems well thought through and reasonable to me--but I am not expert on this subject either. This is probably one of the first articles I have read on the subject other than a few EC's from Bp. Williamson on the subject. 

Which raises another question. Do they four bishops (+Williamson, +Faure, +Aquino, +Zendejas) have a current position on this subject ("official" or unofficial)?

Thank you in advance for your comments. God bless! 

Maria Regina: 

I hear you. The fruits have been rotten to the core. 

However, that does not necessarily mean that the new rite of episcopal consecration is invalid. Does it? 

Wouldn't the principle of "ex opere operato" come into play regardless of the personal holiness/lack thereof of the ministers of the sacraments? That is to say, as long as valid form, matter, and intention are present (which the article attempts to address one by one at least with regard to the version published by the Vatican)? 

In addition, if the new rite wasn't valid per se, then wouldn't the Church be deprived of a hierarchy? And would that violate the promise of Mt 16:18? Or is that a misreading of MT 16:18? 

Doesn't Our Lady of Fatima suggest that we will have an intact hierarchy as well? 

So, therefore, since the new rite was promulgated nearly 51 years ago, aren't we somewhat forced to accept the validity by virtue of MT 16:18 or by Fatima? 

If I am on the wrong track, feel free to blast this post right out of the water. I really don't know the answer and don't pretend to be an expert in any way. But I am interested in what others have to say on this subject. 

Last question. I have been told that a layman can be elected pope. Ok, but isn't the pope also the bishop of Rome? So wouldn't he have to be consecrated around the same time he is coronated to assume the Chair of Peter? Since Pope Benedict XVI was consecrated in the new rite, would that cast his pontificate into doubt if the new rite were doubtful? 

Thank you! 

Thank you Pax Vobis. 

I feared something like this. I believe Bishop Williamson has an EC that says the same. 

So is there any way to objectively verify if a particular bishop was validly consecrated in the new rite? Whether the new rite was used strictly as published by the Vatican or some other translation or adaptation was used? 

How exactly does the SSPX justify having Novus Ordo priests in their chapels unless there are objective criteria for verifying if they were validly ordained? 

Thank you!