Author Topic: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations (Read 7509 times)

Vintagewife3 · « **Reply #60 on:** January 04, 2019, 10:32:33 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 10:20:41 AM

No, baptism, marriage and (maybe) Confession are still ok. The others are problematic.
In the old rite, the intention of the priest was part of the prayers of the sacrament. In the new rite, the intention is not specifically said in the prayers, so the priest has to have the proper intention/mentality.
In a novus ordo mass, the priest HAS to supply the intention because the words have been changed into a narrative so that the priest is not speaking in the "1st person" when he says the consecration. Assuming he's a priest (which is a big assumption), if he has the proper intention, then the consecration would be valid.

However, even if he's a priest and even if the consecration is valid that doesn't mean the novus ordo is a complete Mass, nor does it mean it's a licit Mass, nor does it mean that it is moral and pleasing to God. It would mean that communion would be available to the laity, but the "service" itself would be sinful. Only God can make a judgement on who is/isn't guilty for attending this service, since it's a fake mass, and you can't commit a sin (i.e. go to a fake mass) in order to do a good (i.e. receive Our Lord in Holy Communion). That's why it's best to avoid the novus ordo altogether.

So, are you saying it is a sin go to a Novus Ordo mass? I’m trying to explain to my husband why we have to make the drive to the SSPX church. Which is why I’m asking maybe obvious, and simple questions. So can make a better argument.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #61 on:** January 04, 2019, 10:54:07 AM »

Yes, I believe it is a sin to attend the new mass for the following reasons.

1. The priest may not be validily ordained. Canon law does not allow attendance at a mass said by a doubtful priest.
2. The priest may not have proper intentions, depending on his probably poor seminary training. Canan law does not allow attendance at a doubtful mass, with a doubtful intention.
2a. Many "masses" are simply eucharistic "remembrances" or a "memorial" where transubstantation does not take place because the priest does not believe correctly.
3. Even if he's a priest and has a proper intention, so that the consecration is valid, this does NOT mean the mass itself (which is more than just the consecration) is valid.
3a. Many "masses" are just "eucharistic services" which do not offer God the sacrifice of Calvary, but only re-enact the Last Supper, which is not a complete mass.
4. The novus ordo's Offertory and Canon prayers are minimized and faulty. They lack the intentions as the True Mass, therefore the mass is not complete, which is a sin.
4a. The novus ordo's new theology of the mass is anti-catholic, anti-Council of Trent and sinful. The novus ordo is a protestant service with catholic "smells and bells".
5. The current liturgical law of the Church, Quo Primum, which Pope Benedict XVI said was still in force, does not allow catholics to attend any mass other than the 1962 liturgy/missal. So, all novus ordo masses are illegal and sinful.
6. The novus ordo liturugy is highly irreverent, sacrilegious and immoral. The liturgy does not promote prayer, silence and respect for God, therefore it is sinful.
6a. Examples: women altar girls, women eucharistic ministers, women in the sanctuary during mass, communion in the hand, priests making jokes, etc
6b. Example 2: Communion in the hand is an abominable sacrilege. One is not allowed to attend a mass where sacrilege takes place for such sins contaminate the entire ceremony.
7. The novus ordo's atmosphere promotes scandal and blasphemy by the laity's actions (i.e. improper dress, talking/laughing, dropping hosts on ground, etc). One is not allowed to attend masses/ceremonies where the atmosphere is blasphemous.

**All of the above is based on objective facts and Church law. This does not mean I judge any novus ordo catholic laymen who is trying to figure out their path, amidst the choas of our day. I do not judge ANYONE guilty of mortal sin, I'm only giving out the reasons why these actions are sinful. God alone will judge the hearts of men and He will lessen the guilt of these sins for different people, based on many different factors. It's just our job as Catholics to educate people so that the offenses and injustices to God and His Mass are stopped.**

Required reading:
1. Fr James Wathen - "The Great Sacrilege"
http://fatherwathen.com/product/the-great-sacrilege/

Required Listening
**See the above site for free audio sermons you can listen to about the dangers of the new mass and the new catechism. (see below for sermons on our present topic)
http://fatherwathen.com/product/19770417-why-catholics-may-not-go-to-the-new-mass/

http://fatherwathen.com/product/19960806lack-of-reverence-in-the-conciliar-church/

http://fatherwathen.com/product/19821003-the-mass-through-history/

http://fatherwathen.com/product/19770710-the-brainwashing-of-modern-catholics/

http://fatherwathen.com/product/19830710-the-insidious-heresy-of-liberal-catholicism/

2. Cardinal Ottaviani's "Intervention"
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm

Vintagewife3 · « **Reply #62 on:** January 04, 2019, 11:09:52 AM »

Pax, thank you for the detailed answer, and study material. I know what I’ll be doing during nap time.

Stanley N · « **Reply #63 on:** January 04, 2019, 11:17:02 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 09:14:52 AM

Again, anyone who can read can see the problems with the changes to the new rite(s). The only reason to assume they are valid is due to political reasons.

It couldn't possibly be theological? Not even a tiny chance?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #64 on:** January 04, 2019, 11:25:37 AM »

Quote

It couldn't possibly be theological? Not even a tiny chance?

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sspx-bp-tissier-reignites-debate-over-validity-of-novus-ordo-ordinations/msg516038/#msg516038
Bishop Tissier publically chastises the new rites just 2 years ago, yet the neo-sspx still assumes the new rites are valid? That makes no sense, theologically speaking. The only reason for the contradiction is due to politics...

2Vermont · « **Reply #65 on:** January 04, 2019, 04:01:29 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on January 04, 2019, 09:32:14 AM

As for me, if I were to ever find myself concerned about this situation, I would do my own indepth interview and investigation.

Either way, they cannot automatically conditionally ordain every NO defecting priest that shows up at their door, that's not allowed. The presumption *must* start out that the sacrament is valid, tis the rule of the Church. I can't imagine a Church teaching that teaches invalidity must be presumed initially.

Except they pick and choose what they will accept from New Rome.

2Vermont · « **Reply #66 on:** January 04, 2019, 04:03:30 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 10:11:26 AM

You're viewing this from an orthodox viewpoint, which assumes that the Church, as a system, is running normally. But post V2, it is not orthodox and it is not running normally. One has to assume the worst case in our V2 times. If not, then let's assume the novus ordo is valid and all the sacraments are valid, there is no emergency situation, and the entire Traditionalist movement is not needed and schismatic.

The Traditionalist movement exists ENTIRELY because we cannot be sure of the validity (and morality) of the new mass and sacraments. This includes the bishops/priests. So, yes, it is ABSOLUTELY allowed (in my opinion and in the opinion of many other current lay/cleric theologians) that we SHOULD assume the new orders are invalid.

Exactly.

Stanley N · « **Reply #67 on:** January 04, 2019, 09:38:41 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 11:25:37 AM

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sspx-bp-tissier-reignites-debate-over-validity-of-novus-ordo-ordinations/msg516038/#msg516038
Bishop Tissier publically chastises the new rites just 2 years ago, yet the neo-sspx still assumes the new rites are valid? That makes no sense, theologically speaking. The only reason for the contradiction is due to politics...

Is it so difficult to grasp that a rite might be valid even though it express some doctrines less well than another rite? or that it implicitly contains heresies? Or that it even explicitly contains heresy? And yet is valid?

I remember an apparently upstanding traditional parent trying to advise me to teach my kids that the NO was invalid, or otherwise they would have no reason not to go. But that'a a silly argument. Some quasi-traditional groups have valid orders yet teach crazy nonsense - clearly there's a more fundamental reason to consider.

I avoid the NO because it endangers the faith. The sermons are iffy, and without even talking about abuses, the liturgy expresses doctrine weakly, and implicitly or explicitly has some heresies.

I think we can all agree with that.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #68 on:** January 04, 2019, 10:28:42 PM »

Quote

Is it so difficult to grasp that a rite might be valid even though it express some doctrines less well than another rite?

Now you're avoiding the point I made, which is that +Tissier has theological problems with the new rite, yet the new-sspx assumes it's valid, which is a contradiction. You need to admit this is a contradiction on a theology basis and the (probable) explanation is that they want to be friendly with rome, for political reasons.

Yes, the new rites might be valid, they might not be. This is the problem - doubt. No one knows. One cannot attend a mass by a doubtful priest without committing a grave sin because a catholic has a duty to attend valid sacraments and masses, per canon law, and also due to the 3rd commandment.

The old rites, however, have no doubts associated with them, so conditionally ordaining priests in them is the only prudent decision. And attending masses said by VALID priests using VALID rites (i.e. TLM liturgy) is the only way to save your soul. God will judge people on the effort they made to go to CERTAIN masses/sacraments. Without a serious excuse, to go to doubtful services is wrong and a lukewarm offering to God.

Stanley N · « **Reply #69 on:** January 05, 2019, 12:36:26 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 10:28:42 PM

Now you're avoiding the point I made, which is that +Tissier has theological problems with the new rite, yet the new-sspx assumes it's valid, which is a contradiction. You need to admit this is a contradiction on a theology basis and the (probable) explanation is that they want to be friendly with rome, for political reasons.

No, I didn't avoid it, I thought I answered it.

I think we can safely say most trads have theological problems with the NO.

+Tisser talks about three things in the TLM ordination missing in the NO. After each he says, this is why we cannot accept the new rite. After talking about one of those things, he says that "we cannot accept this rigged new rite of ordination that raises doubts on the validity of numerous ordinations in the new rite". (my translation)

Quote

Nous ne pouvons pas, évidemment, accepter ce nouveau rite d’ordination truqué qui fait peser des doutes sur la validité de nombreuses ordinations selon le nouveau rite.

http://laportelatine.org/mediatheque/sermonsecrits/tissier_160629_econe/tissier_160629_econe.php

He says "numerous" and not "all". This is not inconsistent with the view that the rite itself is valid, but instances could be invalid. Which is apparently what the SSPX actually thinks, since they presume the rite is valid and then investigate individual cases as the need arises.

But finally, this is just one line from a sermon, not a theological treatise. Even if he did disagree with the official stand, differences of opinion within the organization could be viewed as a sign of a healthy org.

Stubborn · « **Reply #70 on:** January 05, 2019, 03:42:40 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 10:11:26 AM

You're viewing this from an orthodox viewpoint, which assumes that the Church, as a system, is running normally. But post V2, it is not orthodox and it is not running normally. One has to assume the worst case in our V2 times. If not, then let's assume the novus ordo is valid and all the sacraments are valid, there is no emergency situation, and the entire Traditionalist movement is not needed and schismatic.

This is not so, my orthodox viewpoint is based on the Church's teaching that it is a sacrilege to repeat the sacrament automatically, that is, without first investigating each and every situation individually. I have no illusions that the Church is in a crisis, certainly not running normally. That whole line of thinking is entirely off the rails Pax.

Because it's the NO we're talking about and the Rite was changed to a NO Rite, it means that all NO ordinations are doubtful, not invalid.

If / when the Church ever recovers from this crisis and makes the declaration that all NO ordinations were invalid, She would then need to declare that all NO priests need to be re-ordained according to the old rite, but until or unless that happens, no trad group can rightfully take it upon themselves to make that declaration.

For all we know, once She recovers from this crisis, the Church may declare another cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio on all NO clergy and defrock and excommunicate them all, ruling that they can never be priests at all rather than let them be re-ordained back into the fold to contaminate it again. Far as I'm concerned, that would serve them right, but here's you saying to re-ordain them so they can infiltrate the SSPX. See what I am getting at here?

Being doubtful means that some are valid - that's just reality. The Church made it a sacrilege to ordain twice - period. Being sacrilegious to re-ordain is part of tradition, and that is what condemns the idea of automatic re-ordinations.

It would actually be better that the SSPX simply not take any NO priests at all, rather than risk sacrilege by the automatic ordaining of even one NO priest whose first ordination was actually valid.

mcollier · « **Reply #71 on:** January 05, 2019, 10:57:00 AM »

Ok. So I am favoring the line of argumentation Pax Vobis has laid out, but I do have at least one more question ?

Do the consecratory prayers of the Coptic Rite and Western Syrian Rite (Maronite) render their episcopal lines to the same level of doubt as the Novus Ordo line due to intention no longer being manifest/clear/explicit and thereby forcing one to refer to the intent of the minister in the internal forum? (Which is humanly impossible to do.)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #72 on:** January 05, 2019, 11:08:22 AM »

Stubborn,
You’re mixing up terms and situations. If we agree that the new rites are DOUBTFUL, then that is why CONDITIONAL ordinations exist - for doubtful situations.

If the future Church decides that the new rites are totally INVALID, then a re-ordination takes place, ....not a conditional one.

To conditionally ordain is not the same thing as a re-ordination from scratch.

I think we agree, we’re just getting confused with terms.

Stubborn · « **Reply #73 on:** January 05, 2019, 01:21:32 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 05, 2019, 11:08:22 AM

Stubborn,
You’re mixing up terms and situations. If we agree that the new rites are DOUBTFUL, then that is why CONDITIONAL ordinations exist - for doubtful situations.

If the future Church decides that the new rites are totally INVALID, then a re-ordination takes place, ....not a conditional one.

To conditionally ordain is not the same thing as a re-ordination from scratch.

I think we agree, we’re just getting confused with terms.

Yes, that's what I said, note:

"If / when the Church ever recovers from this crisis and makes the declaration that all NO ordinations were invalid, She would then need to declare that all NO priests need to be re-ordained according to the old rite..."

So I am not mixing anything up. The fact is, if they were to automatically do ordinations, it could only be due to the certainty of invalidity of the first ordinations, hence they would be re-ordaining, not ordaining conditionally.

Because there are doubts, automatic ordinations cannot happen, rather, because there are doubts, each case has got to be individually investigated, if doubt still remains after being investigated, then the priest gets conditional ordination. If they find the first ordination was certainly invalid, then the priest gets re-ordained. If they find the first ordination valid, then they can neither re or conditionally ordain.

If the first ordination is valid, but "just to be safe" they were to conditionally ordain anyway, then they commit a sacrilege. Sorry Pax, but that's always been and still is the teaching of the Church.

Stubborn · « **Reply #74 on:** January 05, 2019, 01:24:12 PM »

Quote from: mcollier on January 05, 2019, 10:57:00 AM

Ok. So I am favoring the line of argumentation Pax Vobis has laid out, but I do have at least one more question ?

Do the consecratory prayers of the Coptic Rite and Western Syrian Rite (Maronite) render their episcopal lines to the same level of doubt as the Novus Ordo line due to intention no longer being manifest/clear/explicit and thereby forcing one to refer to the intent of the minister in the internal forum? (Which is humanly impossible to do.)

I am happily ignorant of all things "Coptic / Syrian / Byzantine / Etc." Rites. I've never had any reason to even look into them.

Author Topic: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations (Read 7509 times)

Vintagewife3

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

Pax Vobis

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

Vintagewife3

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

Stanley N

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

Pax Vobis

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

2Vermont

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

2Vermont

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

Stanley N

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

Pax Vobis

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

Stanley N

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

Stubborn

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

mcollier

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

Pax Vobis

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

Stubborn

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations

Stubborn

Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations