Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: mcollier on January 02, 2019, 11:30:36 AM

Title: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 02, 2019, 11:30:36 AM
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 (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! 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Maria Regina on January 02, 2019, 11:38:06 AM
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 (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!
Look at the fruit of the new rite of episcopal consecrations.
Look at the fruit of the new rite of Priestly Orders.
Look at the corruption, pedophilia, homosexuality, and orgies that are taking place in Rome.
The fruit is corrupt and rotten.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 02, 2019, 12:44:35 PM
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! 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 01:04:11 PM
Quote
Wouldn't the principle of "ex opere operato" come into play regardless of the personal holiness/lack thereof of the ministers of the sacraments?
The old rites were formulated in such a way that if the minister followed the rubrics, their matter/form/intention was guaranteed, thus the validity was guaranteed.

The new rites' intention is no longer SPECIFICALLY part of the rubrics, therefore the validity is dependent upon the PERSONAL intention of the minister, which is a novel and dangerous situation, because no one can be 100% sure of the intention of anyone else.

Cardinal Ottaviani explains this dangerous situation in regards to the validity of the novus ordo's consecration, where he says that it may be "positively doubted" that the new consecration formula is valid because the intention of the Church is no longer specifically present in the canon and MUST be supplied by the minister alone.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 02, 2019, 01:15:32 PM
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! 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 01:23:31 PM
Quote
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?
No, there's no way to verify, which is why conditional re-ordination was used under +Lefebvre.  That changed when +Fellay came into power.


Quote
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?
They can't justify this sinful ommission, so they don't talk about it.  It's gravely sinful to attend mass offered by a dubious priest, therefore it's gravely sinful for the sspx to allow dubious priests to operate in their chapels.

But this is part of +Fellay/new-rome's plan...a subtle, back-door mix of tradition and modernism (and has been going on for a decade)...until the sspx makes a deal and sells their soul outright.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 02, 2019, 02:03:50 PM
Thank you. 

Do you have a citation for the Cardinal Ottaviani reference? The SSPX article says that new rite passed the review of the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani and that "Cardinal Ottaviani would never have allowed a rite of doubtful validity to pass review" (Validity of new rite of episcopal consecration, part II). They also taut Archbishop Lefebvre as having "never called in question the validity of the new rite of episcopal ordinations as published by Rome". (Part II) And that "If Archbishop Lefebvre had had a serious and positive doubt about the validity of the ordinations, he would not have failed to say so given the seriousness of the consequences." (Part II). 

Is this SSPX article pure propaganda? 

I have talked to people that were with the SSPX from the beginning that confirm what you say about the practice of the SSPX re: automatically conditionally re-ordaining NO priests every time they entered the Society. But then again, I hear of other cases were the practice of not always conditionally re-ordaining goes back even before Bp. Fellay...

I went from the Novus Ordo right to the resistance...so it really is important for me to better understand these issues...

Thank you for responding. I know for many of you this is probably a topic that has been beaten to death...but for me it will help me better understand the current crisis in the Church. 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 02, 2019, 02:04:55 PM
*tout
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 02:30:45 PM
The Ottaviani quote is regarding the consecration during Mass, not an episcopal consecration.  So, no, it does not directly relate to this topic.  Sorry for the confusion.  I was merely using it as an example of the "kind" of change that the novus ordo made to the sacraments - they corrupted the rubrics for the form of the sacrament so that it was entirely dependent upon the minister (since they knew that God would not allow them to make invalid sacraments).  Then, they corrupted the seminaries so that most of the "priests" and "bishops" are either

1) not trained properly and don't know the proper intention of the church,
2) are infiltrators/communists who won't have the proper intention, on purpose, or
3) they do have the proper intention of the Church, but they don't have the power to say the mass/provide sacraments because those who ordained them were of groups #1 and #2, which means they are "fake priests/bishops" even if they want to be real ones (and love Christ).

The freemasons/communists indirectly attacked the mass/sacraments this way since they knew that they could not directly invalidate them.

It's truly a mess.  The only way to fix it is to have a large-scale re-ordination/re-consecration ceremony.



Ottaviani Intervention

http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm (http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm)

Footnote:
29. As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula--the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of "doing what the Church does," validly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 02, 2019, 03:02:10 PM
I have talked to people that were with the SSPX from the beginning that confirm what you say about the practice of the SSPX re: automatically conditionally re-ordaining NO priests every time they entered the Society. But then again, I hear of other cases were the practice of not always conditionally re-ordaining goes back even before Bp. Fellay...
The SSPX do not and cannot "automatically" conditionally ordain (not "re-ordain") because like all sacraments, the sacrament of Holy Orders is presumed valid unless either proven otherwise, or such doubt warrants conditional ordination. They must be very careful because to conditionally ordain one who is already validly ordained is a sacrilege. That's just the way that works. If you ever get the chance, simply ask any SSPX priest about it, they will tell you that each case is investigated separately. I've asked quite a few SSPX priests over the last 30 years and they have all said this exact same thing.

Also consider that any priest who leaves the NO for tradition, their own validity is probably one of their own greatest, if not *the* greatest of all their concerns. They want to be sure themselves that they're really priests first and foremost. It would seem that every NO priest who leaves the NO for the SSPX would want to be conditionally ordained just to be sure - but that really is not the way that's supposed to work. The matter must be investigated on a case by case basis first.

Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 03:07:24 PM
Quote
The SSPX do not and cannot "automatically" conditionally ordain (not "re-ordain") because like all sacraments, the sacrament of Holy Orders is presumed valid unless either proven otherwise, or such doubt warrants conditional ordination. They must be very careful because to conditionally ordain one who is already validly ordained is a sacrilege.
If we lived in orthodox times, i'd agree with you.  But in the post-V2 world, where we have multiple modernists in the Church who OPENLY claim and boast of trying to change and corrupt ecclesiastical practices, there is more than enough evidence to cast doubt on EVERY new rite consecration/ordination.

The fact that the sspx tries to investigate each and every situation is both a waste of time and a symptom of their bi-polar treatment of new-rome, wherein they call new-rome modernist on monday and then for the rest of the week treat new-rome as the True Church.  The sspx officials hide behind this "potential sacrilege" excuse in an attempt to not "rock the boat" with new-rome officials.  I think it's much more politics than actual theological caution.

What's worse, committing 1 sacrilege by conditionally ordaining a priest who was actually a priest, or NOT conditionally ordaining him and allowing him to commit WEEKLY SACRILEGES, for the REST OF HIS LIFE, every time he says a fake mass?  The answer is to conditionally ordain and it's not even debatable.  We faithful have a RIGHT to CERTAINTY in our mass/sacraments.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 02, 2019, 03:25:10 PM
Stubborn: 

Thank you. I used the term "re-ordain" because that was how it was referred to in the SSPX article. 

I was actually hesitant to use the term, but went back to be sure I was referring to it correctly (but maybe I am mistaken and did not read it correctly). 

In any case, what you outline is exactly why I raise the question. Do you happen to know how the SSPX investigates each particular case? Pax Vobis lays out a fairly strong case for why ALL new rite ordinations/consecrations should be treated as doubtful. However, if there is some objective way for the SSPX (or anyone else of good faith) to investigate a particular case of ordination/consecration for validity, I am very interested in learning how this is done. 

Thank you both for responding to my questions. God bless. 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 02, 2019, 03:36:12 PM
What's worse, committing 1 sacrilege by conditionally ordaining a priest who was actually a priest, or NOT conditionally ordaining him and allowing him to commit WEEKLY SACRILEGES, for the REST OF HIS LIFE, every time he says a fake mass?  The answer is to conditionally ordain and it's not even debatable.  We faithful have a RIGHT to CERTAINTY in our mass/sacraments.
I pretty much agree with you, but it is the Church who makes the rules. Far as I'm concerned, all NO priests validity is at best, doubtful. From the SSPX priests I've discussed this with, they all say that this is the same view the SSPX holds and has always held.

The fact is, there actually are valid NO priests out there - most likely less and less every year, but that's the way it is. The Church simply forbids them from automatically conditionally ordaining the NO priests. They do however automatically re-train every NO priest, but they cannot automatically conditionally ordain - it's not allowed by Holy Mother the Church, never has been, never will be.

Remember, the devil prefers valid sacrileges over invalid ones - that means valid NO priests are out there, if for no other reason than to commit valid sacrileges.


 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 02, 2019, 03:37:45 PM
Stubborn: 

BTW, I have asked several priests myself about their ordinations and who consecrated them etc for this very reason. They usually respond emotionally and don't always seem armed with satisfactory answers. 

I imagine for many priests it could be a seriously troubling prospect and so they may try to find ways to convince themselves that all those Masses, Confessions, etc were valid so as to ease a very troubled conscience. 

Not sure. But its almost painful to ask a priest this question. 

Part of me feels like "who am I" to ask a priest such a question. It's tough. 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Maria Regina on January 02, 2019, 03:38:07 PM
Note that all the sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Confession, Communion, Matrimony, Holy Orders & Consecration of Bishops, and Holy Unction), prayers, and rites of the Roman Catholic Church have now been corrupted and made invalid by the influence of Freemasons in Rome.

Can anyone trust anything that has been corrupted by the ICEL and Rome?
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 02, 2019, 03:39:45 PM
I pretty much agree with you, but it is the Church who makes the rules. Far as I'm concerned, all NO priests validity is at best, doubtful. From the SSPX priests I've discussed this with, they all say that this is the same view the SSPX holds and has always held.

The fact is, there actually are valid NO priests out there - most likely less and less every year, but that's the way it is. The Church simply forbids them from automatically conditionally ordaining the NO priests. They do however automatically re-train every NO priest, but they cannot automatically conditionally ordain - it's not allowed by Holy Mother the Church, never has been, never will be.

Remember, the devil prefers valid sacrileges over invalid ones - that means valid NO priests are out there, if for no other reason than to commit valid sacrileges.


 
Yes, but how does the SSPX investigate a particular case? 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Miseremini on January 02, 2019, 03:41:56 PM
If form is so important for baptism why isn't it for holy orders?

Holy orders like baptism need form, matter and intent.
Comparing the two rites of ordination I see in the new rite the priest is not given the faculty to "offer sacrifice for the living and the dead" (the Mass) nor is he given the faculty to forgive sins.
So as I see it "form" is lacking.  (Also some bishops are now using vegetable oil instead of olive oil (matter) but lets just stick with form).
 
https://www.scribd.com/doc/15443209/Comparison-of-Old-and-New-Catholic-Rites-of-Ordination-to-the-Priesthood
 
 

In baptism if the form is deviated from there is no baptism so why wouldn't the same apply with Holy Orders? ::)
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Maria Regina on January 02, 2019, 03:46:20 PM
Note that all the sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Confession, Communion, Matrimony, Holy Orders & Consecration of Bishops, and Holy Unction), prayers, and rites of the Roman Catholic Church have now been corrupted and made invalid by the influence of Freemasons in Rome.

Can anyone trust anything that has been corrupted by the ICEL and Rome?
None of the Novus Ordo sacraments are valid precisely because the words have been changed to render these sacramental acts void and fruitless.

In my opinion, the SSPX's investigations are fake and a complete cover-up to ease the conscience of a NO Priest who wants to join the SSPX.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Maria Regina on January 02, 2019, 03:47:57 PM
If form is so important for baptism why isn't it for holy orders?

Holy orders like baptism need form, matter and intent.
Comparing the two rites of ordination I see in the new rite the priest is not given the faculty to "offer sacrifice for the living and the dead" (the Mass) nor is he given the faculty to forgive sins.
So as I see it "form" is lacking.  (Also some bishops are now using vegetable oil instead of olive oil (matter) but lets just stick with form).
 
https://www.scribd.com/doc/15443209/Comparison-of-Old-and-New-Catholic-Rites-of-Ordination-to-the-Priesthood
 
 

In baptism if the form is deviated from there is no baptism so why wouldn't the same apply with Holy Orders? ::)
Instead of Holy Chrism, bishops in the Novus Ordo can use a variety of different oils depending on the area in which they live.

For example, here in California and in Arizona, the bishops will often use Yucca Oil for confirmation.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 02, 2019, 03:53:36 PM
In any case, what you outline is exactly why I raise the question. Do you happen to know how the SSPX investigates each particular case? Pax Vobis lays out a fairly strong case for why ALL new rite ordinations/consecrations should be treated as doubtful. However, if there is some objective way for the SSPX (or anyone else of good faith) to investigate a particular case of ordination/consecration for validity, I am very interested in learning how this is done.
I only know what I've been told repeatedly by different SSPX priests. I think the last time I asked one of the SSPX priests was a year or two ago, and I asked because it was brought up here ion CI.

I can't remember the process they go through in their investigation, but next time I get the opportunity to discuss it with an SSPX priest, I will ask and post it while it is fresh in my mind.

I personally feel the same as most trads, namely, that many or most NO priests are not really priests at all. Thankfully I have no reason to really be concerned about it, so I do not go out of my way to concern myself with it. Fr. Wathen said something along the lines of - whether valid or not, the NO achieved their goal of adding to the chaos, simply by changing the Rite of Ordination. That's all it took.

Beyond that, it is up to the Church to safeguard the sacraments, She's thankfully been doing that for +2000 years, but in order to safeguard anything, you must first presume validity, otherwise She is safeguarding nothing, nothing at all by first presuming invalidity. Right? 


 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 02, 2019, 04:02:10 PM
Instead of Holy Chrism, bishops in the Novus Ordo can use a variety of different oils depending on the area in which they live.

For example, here in California and in Arizona, the bishops will often use Yucca Oil for confirmation.
The doubtful, or likely, the invalidity of all the NO sacraments is one of the many reasons we avoid all things NO for the terrible plague that it is.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 04:08:32 PM
Quote
Beyond that, it is up to the Church to safeguard the sacraments, She's thankfully been doing that for +2000 years, but in order to safeguard anything, you must first presume validity, otherwise She is safeguarding nothing, nothing at all by first presuming invalidity. Right? 
But new-rome isn't the Church, therefore they are not given the graces to safeguard anything.  Tradition (and only Tradition) is the safeguard of the Faith, currently.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 02, 2019, 04:09:18 PM
None of the Novus Ordo sacraments are valid precisely because the words have been changed to render these sacramental acts void and fruitless.
You cannot truthfully say they are positively invalid as if you actually know, because you don't actually know, because it is impossible to actually know that all NO sacraments are invalid.


Quote
In my opinion, the SSPX's investigations are fake and a complete cover-up to ease the conscience of a NO Priest who wants to join the SSPX.
I know of a few ex NO priests who joined the SSPX and were conditionally ordained. So while I often agree with your posts, and I know the SSPX upper management is hanging by a NO thread, I cannot agree with this one.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 02, 2019, 04:11:07 PM
Thank you all. I understand why its not a concern for many on CI. But for me, it's a big issue. Most of my family has not totally "bought in" to my views, so while they have attended the resistance chapel that I attend from time to time, they have comfortable going to the local diocesan Ecclesia Dei and/or FSSP. 

The SSPX locally has a Novus Ordo priest, so for my family...practically speaking the FSSP is closer and is basically offering the same thing. 

Sometimes I try to bridge the divide between my views and theirs in order to ease them towards a more solid Catholic "direction"...but sometimes I fear I am only confirming them in error. 

There seems to be a fine line between trying to help guide people towards something one feels in their conscience is the truth, versus stridently pushing everyone you know away and thereby losing any chance whatsoever of getting them to "come around". 

Besides...I always want to be careful of overlying on my own powers "to figure it all out". The more I read these posts though, the more grateful I am for the priests and bishops who do sacrifice so much to provide the sacraments and for all of the people who have helped me and my family along the way. 

Thank you all again for your responses. God bless. 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 02, 2019, 04:14:56 PM
But new-rome isn't the Church, therefore they are not given the graces to safeguard anything.  Tradition (and only Tradition) is the safeguard of the Faith, currently.
But Pax, even a prot baptism cannot be said to be automatically invalid. Automatically illicit, yes. Automatically sinful, yes. Same goes for ordinations, even when done by schismatics. Also, defending the sacraments is not new, it is a Church tradition, a tradition that only the Church will forever remain faithful to.  
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 02, 2019, 04:18:36 PM
Thank you all. I understand why its not a concern for many on CI. But for me, it's a big issue. Most of my family has not totally "bought in" to my views, so while they have attended the resistance chapel that I attend from time to time, they have comfortable going to the local diocesan Ecclesia Dei and/or FSSP.

The SSPX locally has a Novus Ordo priest, so for my family...practically speaking the FSSP is closer and is basically offering the same thing.
PM me the SSPX chapel location and priest's name, I will look it up and call them and ask for you if he's been conditionally ordained - and if not, why not. After you ask the same question a few times, it gets easier and easier to do.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 04:25:11 PM
Quote
You cannot truthfully say they are positively invalid as if you actually know, because you don't actually know, because it is impossible to actually know that all NO sacraments are invalid.
No one can say they are postively invalid or positively valid.  This is the issue - doubt.

Quote
But Pax, even a prot baptism cannot be said to be automatically invalid. Automatically illicit, yes. Automatically sinful, yes. Same goes for ordinations, even when done by schismatics. Also, defending the sacraments is not new, it is a Church tradition, a tradition that only the Church will forever remain faithful to.
If there is reason to doubt - and there is, since new-rome's new rites are systematically ambiguous - then conditional ordination is necessary.  One is not allowed to attend a doubtful mass or sacrament under pain of grave sin, per Canon Law.  Therefore, one is not allowed to attend a TLM by a doubtful priest, under pain of sin.

Quote
PM me the SSPX chapel location and priest's name, I will look it up and call them and ask for you if he's been conditionally ordained - and if not, why not.
This is a very charitable thing for you to do, but it's the sspx's fault that you have to do so.  This information should be publically posted for all to see.  Every catholic should demand to know that their priests are valid - with 100% certainty.  The fact that the sspx is scared to question new-rome's sacraments is a symptom of their political games and their lukewarm defense of Tradition.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: 2Vermont on January 02, 2019, 04:29:26 PM
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!
Isn't it coincidental that the SSPX changed their view on the NREC in 2005?  
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 04:38:17 PM
Quote
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?

Based on what i've read, he'd still be pope, even if not a bishop.  The election would still be valid (in theory).
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: 2Vermont on January 02, 2019, 04:40:09 PM
Based on what i've read, he'd still be pope, even if not a bishop.  The election would still be valid (in theory).
No, a man can be elected pope without Holy Orders, but he must be given full orders in order to be pope. Hence, "Bishop of Rome".
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 02, 2019, 04:54:43 PM
No one can say they are postively invalid or positively valid.  This is the issue - doubt.
If there is reason to doubt - and there is, since new-rome's new rites are systematically ambiguous - then conditional ordination is necessary.  One is not allowed to attend a doubtful mass or sacrament under pain of grave sin, per Canon Law.  Therefore, one is not allowed to attend a TLM by a doubtful priest, under pain of sin.
This is a very charitable thing for you to do, but it's the sspx's fault that you have to do so.  This information should be publically posted for all to see.  Every catholic should demand to know that their priests are valid - with 100% certainty.  The fact that the sspx is scared to question new-rome's sacraments is a symptom of their political games and their lukewarm defense of Tradition.
Two questions. One comment. 
Question number one. If I did not know this about it being a sin to attend a Mass of a doubtful priest and had been attending (not receiving communion) for the sake of family unity would that be a venial sin or not a sin at all because it is done for the sake of family unity (and so as not to send them over the cliff and completely lose the faith)? Kind of similar to the controversial question posed to +Bp. Williamson about attendance to the NO Mass (but now with respect to the TLM celebrated by a doubtful priest). Question two. Now that I know this, would it be a mortal sin or would the above extenuating family circumstances mitigate the culpability? (I have had trad priests say different things on this subject--so I am very confused). Since these are ostensibly Catholic sacraments wouldn't taking this position be schismatic? (Sorry probably more than two questions there...)
Comment. As for posting information publicly for all to see. Here it is: the priest is Msgr Byrnes of St. Judes near Philadelphia. I don't believe he was conditionally ordained. I could be mistaken, but I believe that is what he said to me a few years ago. He was a very friendly priest and I do not intend to create controversy, but as you said--the faithful have a right to know this (though I imagine this is common knowledge in the SSPX world). 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: 2Vermont on January 02, 2019, 04:59:13 PM
Monsignor Byrnes is New Rite.  There is an old thread out there about him.  I will search for it and edit this post.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/major-change-in-ridgefield-new-principle-for-padre-pio-academy/msg455503/#msg455503

Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Maria Regina on January 02, 2019, 07:44:57 PM
You cannot truthfully say they are positively invalid as if you actually know, because you don't actually know, because it is impossible to actually know that all NO sacraments are invalid.

I know of a few ex NO priests who joined the SSPX and were conditionally ordained. So while I often agree with your posts, and I know the SSPX upper management is hanging by a NO thread, I cannot agree with this one.
Case in point. Have you heard of Bishop John Elya of the Melkites?
He told me that he goes to every Novus Ordo consecration of a Roman Catholic bishop to which he is invited, and he has been invited to many. Bishop John is quite sure that he has been validly ordained and consecrated through the Eastern Catholic apostolic line of succession. Thus, to insure that Roman Catholic bishops have valid orders, he personally lays his hands on every bishop during their ordination.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 08:03:25 PM

Quote
Question number one. If I did not know this about it being a sin to attend a Mass of a doubtful priest and had been attending (not receiving communion) for the sake of family unity would that be a venial sin or not a sin at all because it is done for the sake of family unity (and so as not to send them over the cliff and completely lose the faith)? 

Canon law applies firstly to clerics, because it is ecclesiastical law which they must abide by.  It only applies to laymen indirectly, in the sense that clerics are suppose to rule based on the law.  Laymen have no obligation to study or know canon law, generally speaking, so your obligation to know the fine details are small.  My opinion is, you didn't know, so don't worry about the past; worry about the present and future and educate yourself.



Quote
Kind of similar to the controversial question posed to +Bp. Williamson about attendance to the NO Mass (but now with respect to the TLM celebrated by a doubtful priest). 

I don't want to get into that controversy (because that horse has been beaten to death) but i'll just say 1) the end does not justify the means and 2) Christ told us "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me."  (Matt 10:37)

Our obligation to God outweighs any other obligation, family included.



Quote
Question two. Now that I know this, would it be a mortal sin or would the above extenuating family circumstances mitigate the culpability? (I have had trad priests say different things on this subject--so I am very confused). Since these are ostensibly Catholic sacraments wouldn't taking this position be schismatic? (Sorry probably more than two questions there...)

My position is that one has the obligation to attend mass/sacraments from a 100% certain priest.  If one is not available within 1-2 hours drive, then maybe this guy is all you have?  If you have other options, i'd take the more certain route.  It's your catholic duty to give God the best you can.

Family circumstances do not change your obligations and religious duties.  When you are at your judgement before God, your family won't be there.



Quote
Comment. As for posting information publicly for all to see. Here it is: the priest is Msgr Byrnes of St. Judes near Philadelphia. I don't believe he was conditionally ordained. I could be mistaken, but I believe that is what he said to me a few years ago. He was a very friendly priest and I do not intend to create controversy, but as you said--the faithful have a right to know this (though I imagine this is common knowledge in the SSPX world). 
I cannot say for sure he's not a priest, nor can I say for sure he is one.  Even the priest himself cannot say he's one for sure, because how does he know the intentions of the "bishops" who "ordained" him?  It's truly a mess, exactly as satan wants.  My view is they aren't 100% priests until ordained in the old rite.  But that's my personal opinion only; I can't and won't push that view on anyone else.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Emitte Lucem Tuam on January 02, 2019, 08:09:40 PM
How about the validity of Episcopal / Anglican consecrations / priestly ordinations within that particular sect?  Pretty cut and dry when compared to the “Novus Ordo Sect” ordinations” and “consecrations”.  Absolutely null and void.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: poche on January 03, 2019, 05:36:04 AM
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 (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!
If the SSPX recognizes the validity of the new rite then who am I to argue with them? 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 03, 2019, 07:22:05 AM
No one can say they are postively invalid or positively valid.  This is the issue - doubt.
Yes, doubt, is the reason we avoid NO priests, and it is the same reason why they cannot be *automatically* conditionally ordained.

If you were an SSPX bishop and a defecting NO priest wanted conditional ordination, you could not automatically do that without risking committing a serious mortal sin, that of sacrilege - for both you and the NO priest.

You would need to first investigate his prior ordination to see if indeed he has to be conditionally ordained. That's just the way it works, and it works like this even if the last 10,000 defecting NO priests in a row all had to be conditionally ordained, until the Church comes out and says the NO Orders are null and void after the manner of Pope Leo XIII, as he did with the Anglicans, their prior Ordinations must be investigated in an effort to determine whether or not they may be conditionally ordained.

Yes, since the NO took over, we all *must* doubt the validity of the NO clergy, but it's a whole nother story when it comes to conditionally ordaining them - before any conditional or re-ordinations can be done, that prior ordination must be investigated.  
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 03, 2019, 07:37:26 AM
I re-read the SSPX article. 

When I got to the last page, I think if you read it carefully it basically is saying exactly what Pax Vobis is saying, but they have just tried to downplay the emphasis. 

Also, another question (more for curiosity sake) are priests/bishops of the Eastern Rites (i.e. Byzantine Catholic Church) valid per se? 

In an emergency (or even just to receive the sacraments more frequently) can one go to an Eastern Rite Church for the sacraments if an otherwise 100% certainly validly ordained Roman Rite clergymen is about a half-day's drive away? 

Also, I was reading the Catechism of the Council of Trent last night...I am not so sure the pope can be the Successor of Peter and not be a validly consecrated bishop. 

For whatever its worth, I agree this issue is a complete mess and is probably as important as the issues with the New Mass and the question re: the occupant of the Chair of Peter...yet not as many people really focus in on this question. More "mainstream" Catholics need to wake-up to the issues involved here. 

Thank you. God bless.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 03, 2019, 07:40:18 AM
Monsignor Byrnes is New Rite.  There is an old thread out there about him.  I will search for it and edit this post.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/major-change-in-ridgefield-new-principle-for-padre-pio-academy/msg455503/#msg455503
Here is the OP from your link:

Quote
Just received e-mail below from Msgr Byrnes.

Msgr Byrnes was ordained on November 15, 1986, by Cardinal O'Connor at Saint Patrick's Cathedral in New York City and has been in Ridgefield, CT, for approximately two years. Msgr. Byrnes has not been conditionally ordained since the SSPX has stated that Msgr's ordination was valid. I was personally told by two priests in Ridgefield that there is nothing to question as the SSPX's own investigation into the ordination confirmed that the matter, form, and intent were all valid and that I should not question this.

Why would the SSPX allow a Novus Order trained and ordained priest to be a principal?

I will still call and see if I can find out how they determined he did not need conditional ordination.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 03, 2019, 07:50:10 AM
Thank you Stubborn! 

Its the how part that I think we are all questioning. 

If they somehow have a method for investigating and verifying the validity of a particular Novus Ordo ordination--great, but it would really help put people's minds at ease if they could clearly explain the criteria for making that determination. 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 03, 2019, 07:52:25 AM
I re-read the SSPX article.

When I got to the last page, I think if you read it carefully it basically is saying exactly what Pax Vobis is saying, but they have just tried to downplay the emphasis.

Also, another question (more for curiosity sake) are priests/bishops of the Eastern Rites (i.e. Byzantine Catholic Church) valid per se?

In an emergency (or even just to receive the sacraments more frequently) can one go to an Eastern Rite Church for the sacraments if an otherwise 100% certainly validly ordained Roman Rite clergymen is about a half-day's drive away?

Also, I was reading the Catechism of the Council of Trent last night...I am not so sure the pope can be the Successor of Peter and not be a validly consecrated bishop.

For whatever its worth, I agree this issue is a complete mess and is probably as important as the issues with the New Mass and the question re: the occupant of the Chair of Peter...yet not as many people really focus in on this question. More "mainstream" Catholics need to wake-up to the issues involved here.

Thank you. God bless.
First, I encourage you to forget about the status of the pope and entirely avoid any and all discussion on that subject. His status has nothing to do with your eternity, absolutely nothing. As a Catholic, it is your duty to pray for him every day - beyond that, fugetaboutit.

Next, pray and remain faithful, and remain faithful to the TLM and God will provide it for you, you will never need to worry about Eastern Rites, status of popes or priests etc., you will be provided everything you need to work out your salvation without being sidetracked with erronious and potentially harmful concerns. 

If I were you however, I would be concerned about Msgr. Byrnes and until that concern is taken care of, avoid him completely. If that means avoid him for the rest of your life - so be it.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 03, 2019, 07:58:00 AM
Thank you Stubborn!

Its the how part that I think we are all questioning.

If they somehow have a method for investigating and verifying the validity of a particular Novus Ordo ordination--great, but it would really help put people's minds at ease if they could clearly explain the criteria for making that determination.
Yes, I will call in a bit, but I know it's not all that big of a mystery, particularly to priests themselves lol. In most instances, I imagine that they have the means to investigate their own ordinations, to find out if the proper matter/form/intentions were used or not. After reading the link from 2V, it looks like SSPX bought off on his NO ordination, but I will see if I can pry a little deeper. Never hurts to ask. 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 03, 2019, 08:22:59 AM
Quote
If you were an SSPX bishop and a defecting NO priest wanted conditional ordination, you could not automatically do that without risking committing a serious mortal sin, that of sacrilege - for both you and the NO priest.

You would need to first investigate his prior ordination to see if indeed he has to be conditionally ordained.
Well, I'd argue that the reason that "conditional" ordination exists is to handle the exact situation we're in.  The only investigation that is needed is to find out

1) Were the bishops who performed the ordination consecrated bishops from the old rite?
1a) If made bishops in the old rite, then they were valid bishops.  Move on to question 2.
1b) If made bishops from new rite, then they were "probably" not valid bishops.  Conditional ordination should happen.

2) A valid bishop performed the ordination.  What ordination rite was used for the priest, old or new?
2a) If old ordination rite was used, then a valid priest.  Investigation over.
2b) If new ordination rite was used, then "probably" not a valid priest.  Conditional ordination should happen.

This is the only investigation that could happen anyway.  What's the sspx going to do, call in witnesses and ask them about watching the ceremony and if they remember certain latin phrases?


Quote
until the Church comes out and says the NO Orders are null and void after the manner of Pope Leo XIII, as he did with the Anglicans, their prior Ordinations must be investigated in an effort to determine whether or not they may be conditionally ordained.
If the Church came out tomorrow and said the new rite was absolutely invalid, then all the novus ordo "priests" would be ORDAINED, not CONDITIONALLY ordained.  Conditional ordination is for cases when you don't know or are unsure about all the details.  The anglican rite is absolutely invalid, so they were never bishops/priests to begin with.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 03, 2019, 09:42:44 AM
Well, I'd argue that the reason that "conditional" ordination exists is to handle the exact situation we're in.  The only investigation that is needed is to find out

1) Were the bishops who performed the ordination consecrated bishops from the old rite?
1a) If made bishops in the old rite, then they were valid bishops.  Move on to question 2.
1b) If made bishops from new rite, then they were "probably" not valid bishops.  Conditional ordination should happen.

2) A valid bishop performed the ordination.  What ordination rite was used for the priest, old or new?
2a) If old ordination rite was used, then a valid priest.  Investigation over.
2b) If new ordination rite was used, then "probably" not a valid priest.  Conditional ordination should happen.

This is the only investigation that could happen anyway.  What's the sspx going to do, call in witnesses and ask them about watching the ceremony and if they remember certain latin phrases?
I don't know what the SSPX do, but I'm going to try like heck to find out and will post it when I do. All I know now is that all NO priests get put through training - I cannot say for sure what that training even is - just the TLM or does it include going back through seminary? Who knows? Obviously no one here knows, all they seem to "know" is that all NO ordinations are invalid, as if that is something they could know. And yes, the SSPX should broadcast such info so that it is common knowledge.



Quote
If the Church came out tomorrow and said the new rite was absolutely invalid, then all the novus ordo "priests" would be ORDAINED, not CONDITIONALLY ordained.  Conditional ordination is for cases when you don't know or are unsure about all the details.  The anglican rite is absolutely invalid, so they were never bishops/priests to begin with.
Yes, what you say is certainly true - but the point I was attempting to make, is that the Church has not come out and made any such declaration. If or until that happens - and - if that never happens, each NO ordination is stuck with being investigated on a case by case basis before any conditional ordination can be done. Thems the rules.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 03, 2019, 10:41:57 AM
Thanks for the research, Stubborn!  Let us know what you find out.  It's certainly a complicated affair.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 03, 2019, 12:46:02 PM
Ok, I just now got off the phone call with a man named Brent at Angelus Press - we had a very enjoyable conversation about many different issues regarding the NO, the state of the Church and world, always enjoy conversations with other trads about the crisis - but we did speak at length about the ordination situation - if all you want is an end summary, then here it is; trust the SSPX, they do what they can to make sure there are no concerns about the validity of any SSPX priest.


I will try to put it all in order. I did take notes....

First, each case is looked into separately, always on a case by case basis.

The SSPX takes the Church's position that the presumption is the New Rite of Ordination is valid.

The SSPX do exhaustive interviews with the defectors - this interview between the SSPX and defectors is the main thing the SSPX use to base their decision as to whether conditional ordination is or might be needed. Much pertinent information is garnered during these interviews.

During the interview, they determine whether proper matter and form were used during the NO ordination, but the primary concern is if the priest and / or bishop had the proper intention. Most often, it is this "proper intention" problem that determines whether or not the priest gets conditionally ordained.

Quite often it is the defecting priest himself that, through his own investigation determines that he needs to be conditionally ordained or re-ordained - and based on that, he gets conditionally ordained.

If it is determined that proper NO form/matter/intention occurred, then there is no conditional ordination.

All or nearly all defecting priests have, to some extent, studied the traditional faith and Mass prior to their defecting.
Nearly all defectors first went to either FSSP, ICK or some other trad organization before landing at the SSPX.

All defectors go through trad training - what that training is comprised of is dependent upon the needs of individual priest, there is no hard, fast rule for this. Again, it is done on a case by case basis. Some NO seminaries these defectors attended are known to be more problematic then others and most often, defecting priests have attended more than one, often two to five different NO seminaries.


Well, for whatever it's worth, that's about everything he said.






 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 03, 2019, 01:31:29 PM
Quote
During the interview, they determine whether proper matter and form were used during the NO ordination, but the primary concern is if the priest and / or bishop had the proper intention. Most often, it is this "proper intention" problem that determines whether or not the priest gets conditionally ordained.
Great info, Stubborn!  THANK YOU SO MUCH!

To continue the discussion, I would argue that it is impossible to 1) determine the "intentions" of the Bishops, since intention is in the internal forum and who can know what another man's is thinking?  2)  I would also say that the MORE problematic issue is it is impossible to determine if the new-rite Bishops were even Bishops, since their consecration is dubious for the same intention reasons as the new-rite of ordination.

It's a double-level of doubtful-intention madness.  The bishops are doubtful bishops and these doubtful bishops are ordaining doubtful priests!

In short, I wish the sspx would just conditionally ordain everyone; there's more risk of having a fake priest than there is of ordaining someone twice.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Ladislaus on January 03, 2019, 01:37:04 PM
1) determine the "intentions" of the Bishops, since intention is in the internal forum and who can know what another man's is thinking?

Agreed.  If they hold the Rite to be valid, the proper intention must be presumed in the external forum, since the person DID what the Church does by following the Rite.

This is tantamount to saying that if a priest had been ordained, say, in 1956, but his bishop was a Modernist, that the priest should be conditionally ordained.

Unfortunately, the SSPX has always been a theological hot mess due to their defense of R&R.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: 2Vermont on January 03, 2019, 04:23:15 PM
Here is the OP from your link:

I will still call and see if I can find out how they determined he did not need conditional ordination.
The bigger problem is not whether he was ordained in the New Rite, but that he was ordained by a man who was consecrated in the New Rite.  Cardinal O'Connor was a New Rite bishop.  Since his consecration is doubtful, his ordinations are doubtful at best.  
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 04, 2019, 04:08:08 AM
Agreed.  If they hold the Rite to be valid, the proper intention must be presumed in the external forum, since the person DID what the Church does by following the Rite.

This is tantamount to saying that if a priest had been ordained, say, in 1956, but his bishop was a Modernist, that the priest should be conditionally ordained.

Unfortunately, the SSPX has always been a theological hot mess due to their defense of R&R.
So, now I am a little confused. Is valid intention of a sacrament based on the external forum or internal forum? I often hear that something along the lines of (forgive me if I butcher this): "it does not matter what the minister's private intention might be as long as he does what the Church does since he is demonstrating manifest intention to DO as the Church does". 
Does this view of valid intention only apply to rites where the form is so clear and unambiguous that it negates whatever private intention a minister might harbor contrary to the Chruch's intention? (For instance, in the TLM the prayers are so clear/unambiguous that praying them the minister undeniably demonstrates intention to do as the Church has always done--no matter how much he might privately harbor a desire to do otherwise, whereas with the Novus Ordo Missae it is not so clear, therefore, the internal forum becomes sole basis for determining the validity of the sacrament? 
Or put another way, since the new rites are open to interpretation, intention is no longer something that can be based on the external forum, but rather the internal forum--which makes it virtually impossible for anyone to determine which sacrament is valid and which one is not (except let's say Baptism, etc..)? 
Thank you. God bless. 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 05:41:14 AM

Quote
Or put another way, since the new rites are open to interpretation, intention is no longer something that can be based on the external forum, but rather the internal forum--which makes it virtually impossible for anyone to determine which sacrament is valid and which one is not (except let's say Baptism, etc..)? 
Yes, this is my understanding.  The new rites, just like V2, are too ambiguous.  
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 04, 2019, 06:42:42 AM
During the interview, they determine whether proper matter and form were used during the NO ordination, but the primary concern is if the priest and / or bishop had the proper intention. Most often, it is this "proper intention" problem of the priest that determines whether or not the priest gets conditionally ordained.
I fixed it.

They seek to determine if the priest himself had the proper intention, Brent said that many NO priests did not have the proper intention at their ordination - that's due mainly to the way they were trained in their seminary - "some seminaries are known to be more problematic than others."

The only way to determine the intention of the bishop who performed the ordination is if he said or did something outwardly that was obvious to all that he had an improper intention. So they are mainly finding out about the priest's intention, not the bishop's.

As I said in the OP, "trust the SSPX, they do what they can to make sure there are no concerns about the validity of any SSPX priest."

And,  "The SSPX takes the Church's position that the presumption is the New Rite of Ordination is valid."

Because the NO Rite of Ordination's validity is presumed, the proper intention of the bishop is presumed - unless, like I said, the bishop said or did something obvious during the ceremony that showed he had improper intentions.  *That* is doing what they can.

And because they presume validity of the NO Rite, they presume the NO bishop who was consecrated in the NO Rite who is doing the ordination, is also valid.







Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 09:08:38 AM
Well, that's like 5 presumptions, any of which, if wrong, invalidate the priest.  That's way more convoluted than I thought.  Their approach to this scenario makes ZERO sense, except from a political/friendly agenda towards new-rome.  Just conditionally ordain these guys and have 100% certainty.  Anything less is grossly imprudent and spiritually negligent.

p.s. The intention of the "wanna be" priest is the least of the concern in all of this.  The main concern is the bishop's intention and if he was even a bishop to begin with!
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 04, 2019, 09:10:16 AM
Well, that's like 5 presumptions, any of which, if wrong, invalidate the priest.  That's way more convoluted than I thought.  Their approach to this scenario makes ZERO sense, except from a political/friendly agenda towards new-rome.  Just conditionally ordain these guys and have 100% certainty.  Anything less is grossly imprudent and spiritually negligent.
It only makes sense when "The SSPX takes the Church's position that the presumption is the New Rite of Ordination is valid."
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 09:14:52 AM
Quote
It only makes sense when "The SSPX takes the Church's position that the presumption is the New Rite of Ordination is valid."
And they also assume that the new rite of consecration is valid too.

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.  So their whole 'dog and pony' show about "investigating" these novus ordo priests is an outright lie!  Because if all they do is investigate the priest's intention, their investigate is meaningless!  They just want to calm the people, as they slowly introduce more and more novus ordo, liberalized priests into their ranks.

Add this to the list of '101 reasons why you should avoid the sspx'.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Vintagewife3 on January 04, 2019, 09:27:20 AM
Since they’ve changed the words to all sacraments would I be right in thinking all baptized in the NO would be invalid? 


It was my understanding that intention to played into the validity of Sacraments. If the priest intentions are honestly to have turned the bread and water into the body, and blood of Our Lord. Do the words still render it an invalid consecration?
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 04, 2019, 09:32:14 AM
And they also assume that the new rite of consecration is valid too.

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.  So their whole 'dog and pony' show about "investigating" these novus ordo priests is an outright lie!  Because if all they do is investigate the priest's intention, their investigate is meaningless!  They just want to calm the people, as they slowly introduce more and more novus ordo, liberalized priests into their ranks.

Add this to the list of '101 reasons why you should avoid the sspx'.
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.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 10:11:26 AM
Quote
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.
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.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 04, 2019, 10:18:36 AM
Since they’ve changed the words to all sacraments would I be right in thinking all baptized in the NO would be invalid?
No, that idea is altogether wrong.

Catholics should know what is needed for a valid baptism and that in an emergency, literally anyone is able to validly baptize, provided they use water, sprinkle it or pour it on the body, preferably the forehead, while at the same time saying the right words. If they were to see the wrong words or matter used, then they can say that *that* baptism was invalid and needs to be redone correctly.

Because the sacraments belong to Holy Mother the Church, all sacraments that are done in the conciliar church, which is to say that all sacraments that are done outside of the Church, are indeed automatically illicit, that is sinful, but not automatically invalid.

Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 10:20:41 AM
Quote
Since they’ve changed the words to all sacraments would I be right in thinking all baptized in the NO would be invalid? 
No, baptism, marriage and (maybe) Confession are still ok.  The others are problematic.

Quote
It was my understanding that intention played into the validity of Sacraments.
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.

Quote
If the priest intentions are honestly to have turned the bread and water into the body, and blood of Our Lord. Do the words still render it an invalid consecration?
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.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Vintagewife3 on January 04, 2019, 10:32:33 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.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis 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/ (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/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/19960806lack-of-reverence-in-the-conciliar-church/)

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

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

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



2.  Cardinal Ottaviani's "Intervention"
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm (http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm)
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Vintagewife3 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.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stanley N on January 04, 2019, 11:17:02 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?
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis 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 (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...
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: 2Vermont on January 04, 2019, 04:01:29 PM
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.  
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: 2Vermont on January 04, 2019, 04:03:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stanley N on January 04, 2019, 09:38:41 PM
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sspx-bp-tissier-reignites-debate-over-validity-of-novus-ordo-ordinations/msg516038/#msg516038 (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.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis 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.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stanley N on January 05, 2019, 12:36:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 05, 2019, 03:42:40 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 Cum 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.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: 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.)
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 05, 2019, 01:21:32 PM
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.





Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 05, 2019, 01:24:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 05, 2019, 01:37:19 PM
Quote
if doubt still remains after being investigated, then the priest gets conditional ordination
Obviously, yes.  But my point is, the sspx can NEVER do an investigation which is thorough enough to clear all doubts, so they should conditionally ordain everyone from the NO.  The reason they can’t be certain is because the priests ordination depends on 3 things, 1-2 of which (bishop’s Old-rite status and the bishop’s intention) are outside the knowledge of the NO priest.  

The sspx is simply investigating 1-2 of the 3 doubts (they can NEVER be sure of the bishop’s intention) and making a decision.  This lack of being able to investigate all 3 doubts necessitates a conditional ordination, in my opinion.  

You can’t say “Well, only 1 of 3 doubts remains.  That’s good enough for us.”  No way that’s good enough.  
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 05, 2019, 02:08:39 PM
Obviously, yes.  But my point is, the sspx can NEVER do an investigation which is thorough enough to clear all doubts, so they should conditionally ordain everyone from the NO.  The reason they can’t be certain is because the priests ordination depends on 3 things, 1-2 of which (bishop’s Old-rite status and the bishop’s intention) are outside the knowledge of the NO priest.  

The sspx is simply investigating 1-2 of the 3 doubts (they can NEVER be sure of the bishop’s intention) and making a decision.  This lack of being able to investigate all 3 doubts necessitates a conditional ordination, in my opinion.  

You can’t say “Well, only 1 of 3 doubts remains.  That’s good enough for us.”  No way that’s good enough.  
No one can automatically conditionally ordain everyone from the NO, because there is doubt, not certain invalidity. You have got to accept this.

You don't seem to care at all whether sacrilege might be committed, you seem to think that's just the price for peace of mind so to you, it would be worth it, but the Church most certainly does not think that way Pax, seems you're perfectly fine with gambling one of the things that Holy Mother made a sacrilege. For that, I do not understand you.

As the guy I spoke with said - "the SSPX do what they can", but if/when that does not suffice, then the only thing to do is your own investigation - which, as I said, is exactly what I would do if I was in that position.

And I do agree with you that the SSPX - or anyone for that matter - "can NEVER do an investigation which is thorough enough to clear all doubts", but when there is doubt, automatic conditional ordination is *not* the solution for the simple reason that it is not allowed by the Church. I mean all the SSPX can do is what they can do.

Being that, like the Church, they presume validity, then unless there was something already known, I doubt they even look into the bishop's validity, then again, for all we know, they do.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 05, 2019, 02:46:27 PM
I am happily ignorant of all things "Coptic / Syrian / Byzantine / Etc." Rites. I've never had any reason to even look into them.
Actually, I think this may be a critical question since the new rite of episcopal consecration is somewhat of a misnomer. It's not new. It's from the 3rd century Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. 
It has been used and is currently used by the valid unbroken apostolic line of succession found in the Coptic and Western Syrian Rites (Maronite). 
As the SSPX article states, "The Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it". 
I think the SSPX article sufficiently demonstrates that the new rite has valid form and matter...the question comes down to intention. 
If the intention is not the intention of the Church, then the Coptic and Western Syrian Rite's have a problem (which as I understand it, has never been held by the Church). 
So the earlier question cannot be just brushed aside. It's important to all of us in the Latin Rite seeking the truth re the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration. It is not just an issue concerning the Eastern Rites. 
In fact, it's possible to say this whole thread may now hinge on this question. I tend to favor Pax Vobis' initial line of reasoning, however, it is potentially running into a major problem here. Because if the Coptic and Western Syrian Rite's have a valid intention, and if intention is judged externally, then the SSPX position (on this particular topic notwithstanding other topics) may be correct after all. 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: clarkaim on January 05, 2019, 10:08:01 PM
The SSPX do not and cannot "automatically" conditionally ordain (not "re-ordain") because like all sacraments, the sacrament of Holy Orders is presumed valid unless either proven otherwise, or such doubt warrants conditional ordination. They must be very careful because to conditionally ordain one who is already validly ordained is a sacrilege. That's just the way that works. If you ever get the chance, simply ask any SSPX priest about it, they will tell you that each case is investigated separately. I've asked quite a few SSPX priests over the last 30 years and they have all said this exact same thing.

Also consider that any priest who leaves the NO for tradition, their own validity is probably one of their own greatest, if not *the* greatest of all their concerns. They want to be sure themselves that they're really priests first and foremost. It would seem that every NO priest who leaves the NO for the SSPX would want to be conditionally ordained just to be sure - but that really is not the way that's supposed to work. The matter must be investigated on a case by case basis first.


AT BEST the only thing that could be determined by a so-called "investigation" would be intent.  You are left with a VERY POSITIVE doubt if they use the "new rite" as it is clearly, consciously, and intently DIFFERENT from what Pius XII declared in Sacramentum Ordinis ( was than not written by Guerard des Lauriers, his confessor and subsequent Thuc bishop?). so since you may have intent, you may have matter, you certainly have a doubt as to form.  I say conditionally ordain, as did AB lefvebre until he wavered on politics again (he was human after all, and CLEARLY NOT graced with infallibility, so ABL? who cares.  Pius the 12th spoke, as head of the Church, on ALL 7 SACRAMENTS.     ROMA LOCUTUS EX, CAUSA FINITIS EST.  why are we even still having this discussion?   Go away bad dream!!
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 05, 2019, 10:11:22 PM
Quote
Actually, I think this may be a critical question since the new rite of episcopal consecration is somewhat of a misnomer. It's not new. It's from the 3rd century Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. 
I've never heard this.  In fact, what I've heard (and what was posted earlier in this thread) is that the new rites of consecration/ordination resemble the anglican rites, which were eventually deemed invalid.


Quote
It has been used and is currently used by the valid unbroken apostolic line of succession found in the Coptic and Western Syrian Rites (Maronite). 
As the SSPX article states, "The Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it". 
I think the SSPX article sufficiently demonstrates that the new rite has valid form and matter...the question comes down to intention. 

The sspx is comparing apples-oranges because in the old rite the intention was made explicit in the language of the sacrament.  This is why the Church presumes that the sacraments are valid in the old rites - because the INTERNAL intention of the bishop/priest DOES NOT MATTER - since the intention is spelled out and made clear.

In the new rites, the intention is ambiguous, therefore, for it to be valid the bishop and priest MUST SUPPLY the INTERNAL intention (which is impossible to judge, investigate or know for certain).  In other words, the intention of the Church is not part of the prayers, it's only in the mind of the participants in the ceremony.  In other words, the "intention of the Church" is not outwardly expressed; but only inwardly.  How can anyone ever judge/investigate this?  You can't.


Quote
If the intention is not the intention of the Church, then the Coptic and Western Syrian Rite's have a problem (which as I understand it, has never been held by the Church). 
So the earlier question cannot be just brushed aside. It's important to all of us in the Latin Rite seeking the truth re the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration. It is not just an issue concerning the Eastern Rites. 
In fact, it's possible to say this whole thread may now hinge on this question. I tend to favor Pax Vobis' initial line of reasoning, however, it is potentially running into a major problem here. Because if the Coptic and Western Syrian Rite's have a valid intention, and if intention is judged externally, then the SSPX position (on this particular topic notwithstanding other topics) may be correct after all. 
I'd venture to guess that the Coptic/Syrian rites spell out the intention of the sacrament.  We know for certain that the new rites do not.  When someone says that the Coptic/Syrian rites are "similar" to the new rites, what do they mean?  It has a similar ceremony?  It has similar liturgical movements?  We'd have to do a side-by-side comparison of the 2 rites to see.  My bet is that the new rites aren't very similar, in essentials.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: clarkaim on January 05, 2019, 10:16:58 PM
If we lived in orthodox times, i'd agree with you.  But in the post-V2 world, where we have multiple modernists in the Church who OPENLY claim and boast of trying to change and corrupt ecclesiastical practices, there is more than enough evidence to cast doubt on EVERY new rite consecration/ordination.

The fact that the sspx tries to investigate each and every situation is both a waste of time and a symptom of their bi-polar treatment of new-rome, wherein they call new-rome modernist on monday and then for the rest of the week treat new-rome as the True Church.  The sspx officials hide behind this "potential sacrilege" excuse in an attempt to not "rock the boat" with new-rome officials.  I think it's much more politics than actual theological caution.

What's worse, committing 1 sacrilege by conditionally ordaining a priest who was actually a priest, or NOT conditionally ordaining him and allowing him to commit WEEKLY SACRILEGES, for the REST OF HIS LIFE, every time he says a fake mass?  The answer is to conditionally ordain and it's not even debatable.  We faithful have a RIGHT to CERTAINTY in our mass/sacraments.
:DTne notion of a conditional ordination being sacriligeouis is kind of like your uncle the Rabbi, joining the NSDAP? it's kind of a non-sequiter isn't it?
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 05, 2019, 10:20:45 PM
Quote
And I do agree with you that the SSPX - or anyone for that matter - "can NEVER do an investigation which is thorough enough to clear all doubts", but when there is doubt, automatic conditional ordination is *not* the solution for the simple reason that it is not allowed by the Church. 
Your original posts asserted that the Church does not allow re-ordination without investigation, under pain of sin.  I agree with this logic, because you can't just re-ordain anyone, for any reason, without investigating.  To do so, would be to declare the person's original ordination as invalid, without a shred of evidence.  And that view is too extreme and has no proof.

But CONDITIONAL ordination, when doubts are present to the extent they are with the new rites, is NOT the same thing as re-ordination.  You are confusing the Church's precaution against re-ordination and applying it to conditional ordination, which exists entirely for situations where there is doubt, however small.




Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 05, 2019, 10:34:36 PM
Here is from the sspx's own website.  They clearly state that to conditionally ordain, just like conditional baptism, is not a sacrilege, or close to it.  In fact, the practice before Vatican 2 was to conditionally baptize all converts who came into the Faith.

http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained


4) When a doubt arises in the administration of a sacrament that cannot be repeated, it is possible and even obligatory to reiterate the sacrament “sub conditione,” that is under the condition that it was invalid the first time.

Thus it is that both moral certitude as to the administration of the sacrament is acquired and the sacrilege of simulating a sacrament that has already been administered is avoided. This is frequently spoken of in the rubrics of the Roman Ritual (http://sspx.org/en/media/books/roman-ritual-3-volumes-2139), for example in the case of adult converts from heresy in whom there is a positive doubt as to the validity of baptism, or even foundlings who “should be baptized conditionally, unless there is a certainty from due investigation that they have already been baptized.” The condition is thus expressed: “if you are not baptized....” In fact, the custom before Vatican II was to baptize all adult converts from Protestantism, it being impossible to guarantee with moral certitude the form, or intention, or simultaneity of matter and form necessary for certain validity. Likewise, it is the custom to administer conditionally the sacrament of Confirmation to those confirmed in the new rite, in the frequent case that a valid form and intention cannot be established with certitude.

Under similar circumstances, there is no sacrilege in reiterating conditionally a priestly ordination, as Archbishop Lefebvre (http://sspx.org/en/faq-page/who-was-archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-faq2) himself did many times.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 06, 2019, 10:02:47 AM
This is an excellent video from Fr. Hesse on the validity and invalidity of the NO sacraments. Whoever is interested in this discussion we are having, it is well worth listening to the whole thing, but if you only want to listen to about 15 minutes that deals pretty much directly the subject that we are discussing, start at 51:20. If you start from this area, he speaks of the SSPX's SG's and Bishops that would not re or conditionally ordain him.

Otherwise, if I did this right, I started the video right at the pertinent part @ 56:40, just listen for the next 7 seconds, this is what the Church has always taught:
 
https://youtu.be/2gPX7XEBdUQ?t=3400


Here is a quote from Trent's catechism below, it is a teaching is regard to conditional of Baptism, which also applies to Confirmation and Holy Orders. If I understand you correctly, you would have the SSPX cause very great injury to the sacrament, automatically abusing it as a rule, with the idea of automatic conditional ordination:

"In this connection, however, there are some matters, in which, to the very great injury of the Sacrament, abuses
are of almost daily occurrence, and which therefore demand the diligent attention of pastors. For there are not
wanting those who think that no sin is committed if they indiscriminately administer conditional Baptism.

Hence if an infant be brought to them, they think that no inquiry need be made as to whether it was previously
baptised, but proceed immediately to baptise the child. Nay more, although they be well aware that the Sacrament was administered at home, they do not hesitate to repeat its administration in the Church conditionally, making use of the solemn ceremonies of the Church.

This certainly they cannot do without sacrilege and without incurring what theologians call an irregularity.
According to the authority of Pope Alexander the conditional form of Baptism is to be used only when after due
inquiry doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous Baptism.

In no other case is it ever lawful to administer Baptism a second time, even conditionally.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 06, 2019, 10:28:24 AM
Your original posts asserted that the Church does not allow re-ordination without investigation, under pain of sin.  I agree with this logic, because you can't just re-ordain anyone, for any reason, without investigating.  To do so, would be to declare the person's original ordination as invalid, without a shred of evidence.  And that view is too extreme and has no proof.

But CONDITIONAL ordination, when doubts are present to the extent they are with the new rites, is NOT the same thing as re-ordination.  You are confusing the Church's precaution against re-ordination and applying it to conditional ordination, which exists entirely for situations where there is doubt, however small.
Actually, when there is doubt, validity is still first presumed. Fr. Hesse uses the sacrament of Matrimony as a good example to apply in this situation. If one of the spouses doubts that their own marriage is doubtful - as many who were married within the SSPX have actually done - they must not separate or go off and marry someone else on that account. The Church always first presumes sacramental validity - always. I urge you to listen to 15 minutes of what Fr. Hesse says, starting at about 51:20.

What you are doing Pax, is creating positive doubt 100% of the time where there is no positive doubt at all, then making conditional ordination, automatic due to this non-existent positive doubt. All the while paying no mind whatsoever to the fact that it is a teaching of the Church that without due inquiry into the NO ordination, conditional ordination is forbidden by the Church. "This certainly cannot be done without sacrilege" says Trent's catechism.

Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 06, 2019, 02:29:09 PM
No, I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the sspx’s stance.  They admit that an investigation is necessary (which I agree with...and which presupposes positive doubt) but said investigation is limited (which is what I find problematic, since such positive doubt cannot be fully allayed).  Ergo, the investigation is a “best guess”, which I find to be negligent.  

I’m not blaming the sspx, because they didn’t create the situation, BUT, being that +Lefebvre used to conditionally ordain moreso that the current sspx leadership, I ask myself what reasons does the current sspx have to trust the new rites now, vs 20 yrs ago, when nowadays there are even FEWER old rite bishops alive?

The main hypocrisy of the sspx is in the change in their investigative process.  They are more accepting now of new rites than they used to be.  This is just more modernism and compromise because the facts should dictate they be less accepting of the new rites, not more. 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 06, 2019, 02:49:21 PM
I’m not blaming the sspx, because they didn’t create the situation, BUT, being that +Lefebvre used to conditionally ordain moreso that the current sspx leadership, I ask myself what reasons does the current sspx have to trust the new rites now, vs 20 yrs ago, when nowadays there are even FEWER old rite bishops alive?
See, I don't see that +ABL used to conditionally ordain more than they do now. Nearly everything Brent told me is pretty much the same story numerous different SSPX priests have told me over the last 30-40 years.

In fact, back in the early days of the SSPX, most defecting NO priests were ordained in the old rite, not the new, so in most cases back then, there was no doubt, and even then, there were very few defectors - most defectors were simply coming back to what they had left, and again, even then there were only a very few as far as I know.

It is also true that the new rite was still relatively new back then and there were only very few defectors who were young and ordained in the new rite. To most priests and laypeople outside of the SSPX, the SSPX was in schism, apostates and  disobedient radicals who were scorned, slandered and ran from - much worse than today, so I don't know if there were even a half a dozen young defectors in the SSPX's first 25 years.

Add to that, the confusion and chaos of those earlier years certainly would have made most trads insist that whatever the NO did, was certainly doubtful at best, whether or not it really actually was. I myself still carry this train of thought, I guess I always will, but when it comes to the validity of the NO ordination rite, all that takes a back seat to the constant teaching of the Church that validity is presumed, not presumed invalid.

Because that is the starting point, and because it is a sacrilege to automatically conditionally ordain, read: indiscriminately conditionally ordain, then automatic conditional ordaining is not permitted, it's not even an option.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 06, 2019, 03:41:21 PM
Quote
the constant teaching of the Church that validity is presumed, not presumed invalid.
Validity should be presumed of the old rites.  The new rites are closer to the Anglican rite, which the Church has said is 100% invalid.  So the automatic presumption doesn’t apply to the new rites, in my, admittedly untrained, opinion.   But others who are trained have said the changes to the new rites are Anglican-esque.  This can’t be ignored. 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Miseremini on January 06, 2019, 04:09:53 PM
Don't mean to detract from this thread, but, when some Anglican's joined Rome, were they ordained by Rome?
After all Rome had always said they were invalid. ::)
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 06, 2019, 04:45:48 PM
Validity should be presumed of the old rites.  The new rites are closer to the Anglican rite, which the Church has said is 100% invalid.  So the automatic presumption doesn’t apply to the new rites, in my, admittedly untrained, opinion.   But others who are trained have said the changes to the new rites are Anglican-esque.  This can’t be ignored.
If you listen to that Youtube I posted, Fr. Hesse explains there is a difference between validity and illicit. Schismatics can and often do administer valid sacraments. So you cannot base your argument on the state of the NO, which is heretical, apostate, schismatic and whatever else they are - they're not Catholic, but they still can administer sacraments that are valid. Just the same as invalidity can happen using the old rite. We cannot claim sacraments are certainly invalid when what they are, is certainly illicit, which, the NO sacrament are certainly illicit.

And no, the new rite's sacraments are not closer to the Anglican's, so that argument is no good either. Listen to the 15 minutes of the Youtube, better to listen to the whole thing, but at least spend less than 15 minutes and see if you don't find yourself in agreement with Fr. Hesse's explanation. He explains it very clearly.

I believe he is correct when he says that the important parts needed for validity of the new rite remain present in the new rite, and that mainly, invalidity happens when the NO bishop "ad libs". Beyond that, he basically says that whatever changed in the new rite does not affect validity at all. He explains this if you listen to the video. 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: RoughAshlar on January 06, 2019, 06:50:07 PM
If you listen to that Youtube I posted, Fr. Hesse explains there is a difference between validity and illicit. Schismatics can and often do administer valid sacraments. So you cannot base your argument on the state of the NO, which is heretical, apostate, schismatic and whatever else they are - they're not Catholic, but they still can administer sacraments that are valid. Just the same as invalidity can happen using the old rite. We cannot claim sacraments are certainly invalid when what they are, is certainly illicit, which, the NO sacrament are certainly illicit.

And no, the new rite's sacraments are not closer to the Anglican's, so that argument is no good either. Listen to the 15 minutes of the Youtube, better to listen to the whole thing, but at least spend less than 15 minutes and see if you don't find yourself in agreement with Fr. Hesse's explanation. He explains it very clearly.

I believe he is correct when he says that the important parts needed for validity of the new rite remain present in the new rite, and that mainly, invalidity happens when the NO bishop "ad libs". Beyond that, he basically says that whatever changed in the new rite does not affect validity at all. He explains this if you listen to the video.
You are correct. Fr. Hesse really does sum it up quite clearly. God bless his soul.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Nadir on January 06, 2019, 08:12:45 PM
Don't mean to detract from this thread, but, when some Anglican's joined Rome, were they ordained by Rome?
After all Rome had always said they were invalid. ::)
https://ordinariate.net/q-a


The Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter is a structure, similar to a diocese, that was created by the Vatican in 2012 for former Anglican communities and clergy seeking to become Catholic. Members of the Ordinariate are fully Roman Catholic, while retaining elements of Anglican heritage in their celebration of Mass and in the hospitality and ministries of their Catholic parishes. 
.........
What is the process for an Anglican priest to become a Catholic priest?
Anglican clergy seeking to be ordained as Catholic priests must first complete an extensive process that includes background checks; approval by the head of the Ordinariate and by the Vatican; completion of an approved Ordinariate formation program; and an examination. Celibacy is the norm for the clergy. Permission has been given on a case-by-case basis by the Pope for former Anglican priests who are married to be ordained Catholic priests for the Ordinariate. If widowed, they may not remarry.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 07, 2019, 11:30:34 AM
Quote
you would have the SSPX cause very great injury to the sacrament, automatically abusing it as a rule, with the idea of automatic conditional ordination:

According to the authority of Pope Alexander the conditional form of Baptism is to be used only when after due
inquiry doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous Baptism.
The doubts about protestant Baptisms/marriage are small compared to those involving ordinations/consecrations.  What i'm saying is that the investigative process is flawed because all doubts cannot be answered.


Quote
and because it is a sacrilege to automatically conditionally ordain, read: indiscriminately conditionally ordain, then automatic conditional ordaining is not permitted, it's not even an option.
1.  Doubt 1 - Was the new-rite Bishop who performed the ordination, actually a bishop?  This cannot be answered, nor does the sspx attempt to.
2.  Doubt 2 - Was the new-rite of ordination followed by the Bishop and did he have a proper intention?  This can probably be answered.
3.  Doubt 3 - Did the ordained "priest" have the right intention?  This can probably be answered.

I'm not advocating conditional ordination without investigation.  I'm saying that since the investigative process can only answer 2 out of the 3 doubts, therefore, practically speaking, it's worthless.  It can NEVER answer doubt #1, so even if doubts 2 and 3 are investigated and said to be valid, Doubt #1 still casts its dark shadow over the legitimacy of the "priest".

Since it's obvious that Doubt 1 can't be answered, and since Doubt 1 is serious, then it follows logically that the investigative process is inadequate and therefore, conditional ordination is necessary.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 07, 2019, 12:47:16 PM
I listened to about 30 minutes of Fr Hesse and I'm more confused now than before because he contradicts himself (in a way).  First, he says that the new rites of ordination/consecration are valid because they say essentially the same thing as the old rite.  Ok, that's fine.  Secondly, he goes on to give all these examples of priests (including himself) who were ordained in the new rite and says they are priests.  Ok, that's fine.  But...he specifically mentions that all these priests (including himself) were ordained by OLD RITE bishops.

The contradictory part is he then explains that there are MANY (he said Rome is filled with them) new rite bishops who are "crack pots" who think they are bishops, but are not.  So how are we to know who is/isn't a bishop in the new rite?  How can he know they aren't bishops, if the new rite is valid?  He doesn't explain this at all, and this is a problem.

Therefore, I must conclude that if there are many new rite bishops that aren't bishops at all, then the ordinations of priests TODAY are doubtful, since those bishops who ordained them are not bishops.  And I'm back at square one - lots of doubt.

If the sspx has some way to find all this out, then I applaud them.  As far as I can see, they don't give the details of their investigation process on the web (which they should...there's no reason it should be a secret.  It should be a public investigation process since the ordination/consecration is a public process as well), then I guess their process is super secret.  But that's unnecessary, since the faithful have a right to know what's going on.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: mcollier on January 07, 2019, 04:36:12 PM
I've never heard this.  In fact, what I've heard (and what was posted earlier in this thread) is that the new rites of consecration/ordination resemble the anglican rites, which were eventually deemed invalid.


The sspx is comparing apples-oranges because in the old rite the intention was made explicit in the language of the sacrament.  This is why the Church presumes that the sacraments are valid in the old rites - because the INTERNAL intention of the bishop/priest DOES NOT MATTER - since the intention is spelled out and made clear.

In the new rites, the intention is ambiguous, therefore, for it to be valid the bishop and priest MUST SUPPLY the INTERNAL intention (which is impossible to judge, investigate or know for certain).  In other words, the intention of the Church is not part of the prayers, it's only in the mind of the participants in the ceremony.  In other words, the "intention of the Church" is not outwardly expressed; but only inwardly.  How can anyone ever judge/investigate this?  You can't.

I'd venture to guess that the Coptic/Syrian rites spell out the intention of the sacrament.  We know for certain that the new rites do not.  When someone says that the Coptic/Syrian rites are "similar" to the new rites, what do they mean?  It has a similar ceremony?  It has similar liturgical movements?  We'd have to do a side-by-side comparison of the 2 rites to see.  My bet is that the new rites aren't very similar, in essentials.
The SSPX article attempts to carefully build the case that the new rite is identical to (and not in any artificial way) the Coptic and Western Syrian Rites of episcopal consecration. It also attempts to claim that the new rite is not like the Anglican Rite and does not share in the problems that it had. It goes on to make the claim that the new rite (as published by the Vatican) is valid and because it is a rite of the Church that intention must be determined by the externals. 
The only exception they make is with translations and adaptations which they clearly say can have defective intention and thus render the sacrament invalid or at least doubtfully valid. 
At several points, they make the claim that conditional ordination is still a prudent precaution (I would have to go back and read the article more closely to pick out if they say in every case, many cases, or just some cases). 
Here is a link to their article: http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations (http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations)
What do you think of the arguments they present in this article? 
Are they valid arguments? Are they sound/truthful? 
Thank you again for all the comments. God bless. 
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 07, 2019, 07:19:08 PM
Quote
The SSPX article attempts to carefully build the case that the new rite is identical to (and not in any artificial way) the Coptic and Western Syrian Rites of episcopal consecration. It also attempts to claim that the new rite is not like the Anglican Rite and does not share in the problems that it had. It goes on to make the claim that the new rite (as published by the Vatican) is valid and because it is a rite of the Church that intention must be determined by the externals.

The sspx can make the claim that the new rite is similar to the Coptic/Syrian rite all they want, but the problem is that Pope Pius XII spent a GREAT deal of time/energy to define SPECIFICALLY the EXACT words necessary for ordination.  And the new rite does not follow Pius XII's formula.  So, since Pius XII declared that the Latin Rite MUST use this formula, then if the new rite doesn't, then it's invalid.

Fr Hesse says clearly that the new rite doesn't follow Pius XII's formula, and the sspx obviously admits this since they try to compare it to the other rites.

To bypass this problem, Fr Hesse makes the following (contradictory, in my opinion) claims:
1.  Paul VI's new rites were INTENDED to make priests and intended to be valid, therefore they are, even if he didn't follow Pius XII.  
   a.  Comment:  ??  Words matter.  If something is changed, after a previous pope said an exact formula must be used, I find this problematic.

2.  Similar to the sspx, Fr Hesse argues that the "essence" of the prayers are similar to the old rite and similar to the Western/Coptic/Eastern rites, therefore they are valid because the form is catholic.
   a.  Comment:  Again, they are side-stepping the problematic change of the ordination formula, and arguing the change doesn't matter.  If this is the case, then why did Pope Pius XII spend so much time/energy to research and layout EXACTLY the formula that must be used (for the Latin Rite only)?  It seems rather impulsive and imprudent to brush aside a specific order of a previous pope.

3.  Fr Hesse then contradicts himself when he says that Pope Pius XII's formula only applies to the latin rite and since Paul VI's changes and V2's changes are NOT the latin rite, but a NEW, schismatic rite that Pius XII's rules don't apply.
   a.  Comment:  SAY WHAT?!  THIS MAKES NO SENSE, because earlier (in pt 1 above) he argued that Paul VI's intention for the new rite to make priests was important.  You can't have it both ways, Fr Hesse.  Either Paul VI's new rites are part of the latin rite or they're not.  Paul VI INTENDED for the new rites to be part of the Latin Rite, therefore he had to follow Pius XII's rules/decision.  Since the new rites don't follow Pius XII's rules, they are invalid, by definition - or at least sinful.  (I can't say they aren't valid - I'm not an expert.  But certainly, they are illegal).

4.  Fr Hesse then says that because the new rites are NOT the latin rite, then we just have to look at the essence of the prayers (and compare to the Coptic/Syrian) rites to make sure they get the formula "in general".
  a.  Comment:  So I guess this means that a schismatic rite has a LOWER threshold to meet, sacramentaly, than the actual Latin rite?  I don't know - this makes no sense.  This is like saying that a protestant baptism which takes 1 minute to say the valid, biblical formula is just as good as the full, liturgical rite of the Church, which includes the exorcisms and additional blessings.



Quote
The only exception they make is with translations and adaptations which they clearly say can have defective intention and thus render the sacrament invalid or at least doubtfully valid.  At several points, they make the claim that conditional ordination is still a prudent precaution (I would have to go back and read the article more closely to pick out if they say in every case, many cases, or just some cases).
Here is a link to their article: http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations

What do you think of the arguments they present in this article?
Are they valid arguments? Are they sound/truthful?
Thank you again for all the comments. God bless.
The sspx doesn't list out their process/investigation in detail so there's nothing to comment on.  Anyone would need the details of what they do to make a decision.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: 2Vermont on January 07, 2019, 07:44:22 PM
One should read Fr Cekada' s investigation into the 1968 Paul VI rites, "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void" at traditionalmass.org.  
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Cantarella on January 07, 2019, 10:42:14 PM
"If these new rites were promulgated by the true Authority of the Church, it would be impossible for them not to be in conformity with the Faith (or invalid), since they would be guaranteed by the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost. However, if these new rites essentially are not in conformity with the Catholic Faith, they could not possible have been created by the true Authority of the Church, because this Authority cannot give the Church an evil Law (Denz. 1578, nor a contemptible Rite (Denz. 856). Therefore, in the practical order, they (Novus Ordo Sacraments, regarding Orders, Eucharist, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction ) must be considered invalid".


https://www.holyredeemerchapel.org/blank-2
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 08, 2019, 05:12:53 AM
"If these new rites were promulgated by the true Authority of the Church, it would be impossible for them not to be in conformity with the Faith (or invalid), since they would be guaranteed by the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost. However, if these new rites essentially are not in conformity with the Catholic Faith, they could not possible have been created by the true Authority of the Church, because this Authority cannot give the Church an evil Law (Denz. 1578, nor a contemptible Rite (Denz. 856). Therefore, in the practical order, they (Novus Ordo Sacraments, regarding Orders, Eucharist, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction ) must be considered invalid".


https://www.holyredeemerchapel.org/blank-2
:facepalm: I was wondering when the sede's would chime in lol.

Quote the doctrine being defined in an ordination ceremony. Infallibility is only promised to the pope when, speaking ex cathedra, he defines a doctrine. You can read that in V1, it's quite explicit.

The Sede problem is that they attribute infallibility where it does not exist, then cry invalidity when that non-existent infallibility is breached.

The Church owns, not nothing, the Church owns the sacraments, they are strictly Her property. She alone, through one of Her popes can claim them to be "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void" but as of yet has not done so, regardless of what Fr. Cekada's corrupted theological wizardry have convinced so many to wrongly believe. They are not his and he does not have any more authority than you or I to make such a declaration - and one day, he will find that out, sadly, apparently the hard way.

Validity must be presumed before it can be done over. There is no way around this.

We, us people, you and I and the rest of us, we all - must avoid all things NO due to, among other things, the doubt of validity of NO sacraments, but if we were charged with the redoing of the sacrament, we MUST presume validity until proven otherwise. It's not all that complicated.  


Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2019, 08:56:12 AM
Hi Stubborn,
Just want to say I appreciate your points on the ordinations debate.  Thanks for posting the Fr Hesse video.  Maybe I'm too hard on the sspx (in this area)...they've just frustrated me so much over the last year with all their changes and slow, steady walk towards rome.  So I can't lump EVERYTHING they do into the "modernization" bucket; that's just wrong and that's me being intellectually lazy.  Sorry about that.  And then, I enjoy playing devil's advocate in order to challenge the other side (in this case, you) but I don't mean it personally, just want to find the best answer possible.

I suppose the answer is that the new rites are valid (if followed correctly, which the sspx tries to investigate properly).  I still don't trust the training/knowledge/doctrine of former novus ordo priests, but that's another issue...
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Clemens Maria on January 10, 2019, 09:06:30 PM
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 )
Is that the only objection to admitting the invalidity of the new rite?  I ask because the term "Catholic hierarchy" is ambiguous.  You can distinguish between the ecclesiastical hierarchy which includes all men in the clerical state (i.e. who received first tonsure) and the jurisdictional hierarchy which includes only the clergy who possess an office which has ordinary jurisdiction attached to it.  i.e. the ordinaries.  Many traditionalists (clergy and laity alike) have an unsupportable opinion that the "gates of hell" will have prevailed if there isn't at least one ordinary in existence at all times.  However, you will not be able to find any pre-Vatican II Catholic theology manual which makes that specific claim.  It is a new claim which only came into vogue after Vatican II.  On the contrary both Msgr Joseph Clifford Fenton and Msgr Van Noort both implied that it was possible for the ordinaries to be wiped out.  Van Noort went so far as to say that the entire Catholic Church could conceivably be reduced to only the Pope and the few surviving clergy and laity of the Roman See.  Presumably, there would have to be at least one surviving bishop at all times because otherwise the Church would be lacking the means to accomplish her mission.  But as soon as a new pope is elected, he receives ordinary and universal jurisdiction directly from Our Lord.  So there is no need for an ordinary to exist at all times.  Also, Fr. O'Reilly warned that we should never put limitations on the depths to which Our Lord could plunge the Church.  Who would have believed that God could be crucified?
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Clemens Maria on January 10, 2019, 09:18:18 PM
I should point out that if Paul VI was a true pope then the new rites are not only valid but they are holy.  That's how we know it is the Catholic Church - One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.  But if the new rites are unholy as the SSPX would have us believe, then how can they be from the Catholic Church?  And how can Paul VI be a true pope?  The pedo stuff can be attributed to individual bad actors.  But the new rites were officially promulgated by the purported pope of the Catholic Church.  Either the Catholic Church is false or he is a false pope.  I choose to believe he is a false pope.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Clemens Maria on January 10, 2019, 09:28:01 PM
The old rites were formulated in such a way that if the minister followed the rubrics, their matter/form/intention was guaranteed, thus the validity was guaranteed.

The new rites' intention is no longer SPECIFICALLY part of the rubrics, therefore the validity is dependent upon the PERSONAL intention of the minister, which is a novel and dangerous situation, because no one can be 100% sure of the intention of anyone else.

Cardinal Ottaviani explains this dangerous situation in regards to the validity of the novus ordo's consecration, where he says that it may be "positively doubted" that the new consecration formula is valid because the intention of the Church is no longer specifically present in the canon and MUST be supplied by the minister alone.
The doubt about intention is an interesting topic but the new rites are already off the rails even before you get to the intention of the priest/bishop.  They changed the meanings of the rites so they have already introduced a doubt about validity even before considering the intention.  Even if you make the claim that it is only ambiguous and not clearly a new meaning, we are already in trouble because the ambiguity casts doubt on the meaning of the ceremony.  But I don't think there is any ambiguity at all.  The Novus Ordo clergy are very clear about the change in meaning by their words and actions.  Pope Leo XIII never bothered to investigate the intentions of the Anglican clergy.  He determined that the ceremonies themselves were sufficient evidence of invalidity.  And arguably the Anglican rites are closer to the traditional Catholic rites than the Novus Ordo sects rites.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Clemens Maria on January 10, 2019, 09:45:39 PM
Isn't it coincidental that the SSPX changed their view on the NREC in 2005?  
But it seems to have been a half-hearted change.  The change was made public in an article by the Dominicans of Avrille.  If you read it, the first half (or more) lays out the horrors of the new rite.  Including how it doesn't even meet the minimal requirements for validity laid out by Pope Pius XII in 1940s.  And then the conclusion of the article can be summed up as, "...so despite all of that crap the new rite is valid".  I read that article when I was still going to the local SSPX chapel and I was happily accepting the R&R position.  But that article convinced me that the new rite was invalid.  How is that possible?  I had no preconceptions about it before hand.  I was aware that some people thought it might be invalid but I had been going to the diocesan Latin Mass before the SSPX so I thought it was valid.  And then I read that article and my conclusion was it was invalid.  Whoever wrote that article had some serious doubts of his own which he was not admitting publicly.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Clemens Maria on January 10, 2019, 09:59:55 PM
Actually, I think this may be a critical question since the new rite of episcopal consecration is somewhat of a misnomer. It's not new. It's from the 3rd century Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus.
It has been used and is currently used by the valid unbroken apostolic line of succession found in the Coptic and Western Syrian Rites (Maronite).
As the SSPX article states, "The Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it".
I think the SSPX article sufficiently demonstrates that the new rite has valid form and matter...the question comes down to intention.
If the intention is not the intention of the Church, then the Coptic and Western Syrian Rite's have a problem (which as I understand it, has never been held by the Church).
So the earlier question cannot be just brushed aside. It's important to all of us in the Latin Rite seeking the truth re the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration. It is not just an issue concerning the Eastern Rites.
In fact, it's possible to say this whole thread may now hinge on this question. I tend to favor Pax Vobis' initial line of reasoning, however, it is potentially running into a major problem here. Because if the Coptic and Western Syrian Rite's have a valid intention, and if intention is judged externally, then the SSPX position (on this particular topic notwithstanding other topics) may be correct after all.
Are we talking about the 2005 Angelus article?  Because in that article it is pointed out that the new rite is based on faulty research by Dom Bott.  He thought it was a consecration rite but it is actually an installation ceremony.  It is not the same as the Coptic rite.  And even if it was, it does not meet the minimal requirements for validity specified by Pope Pius XII.  You can read that in the 2005 article as well.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Clemens Maria on January 10, 2019, 10:03:24 PM
Validity should be presumed of the old rites.  The new rites are closer to the Anglican rite, which the Church has said is 100% invalid.  So the automatic presumption doesn’t apply to the new rites, in my, admittedly untrained, opinion.   But others who are trained have said the changes to the new rites are Anglican-esque.  This can’t be ignored.
Bishop Pivarunas (CMRI) ordains former Novus Ordo priests unconditionally.  Makes sense.  Even before Pope Leo officially declared the Anglican rite invalid, Catholic clergy everywhere already assumed it was invalid and acted accordingly.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Cantarella on January 10, 2019, 10:18:28 PM
:facepalm: I was wondering when the sede's would chime in lol.

Quote the doctrine being defined in an ordination ceremony. Infallibility is only promised to the pope when, speaking ex cathedra, he defines a doctrine. You can read that in V1, it's quite explicit.

The Sede problem is that they attribute infallibility where it does not exist, then cry invalidity when that non-existent infallibility is breached.


This is not about Church infallible definitions, but more concerns the Church indefectibility. It really is a matter of common sense. Holy Mother Church cannot give us invalid, false, evil Sacraments for our spiritual nourishment. That would be inconsistent with Our Lord's promises, and a complete defection of the Church's Sacred mission. "The indefectibility of the Roman Catholic Church is the teaching that it will endure to the end of the world and never become corrupt in faith, authority, morals, or sacraments.  In other words, the Roman Catholic Church will always be the proper representation of Christianity even though its members may err".

If you want to wholly reject the Novus Ordo Sacraments, then you need to also wholly reject the Authority (in the monarchical Catholic Church, hinges upon no one but the Pope) which promulgated them. Otherwise, there is no consistency but only ambivalence, which is the problem with the SSPX.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: Stubborn on January 11, 2019, 05:32:18 AM
This is not about Church infallible definitions, but more concerns the Church indefectibility. It really is a matter of common sense. Holy Mother Church cannot give us invalid, false, evil Sacraments for our spiritual nourishment. That would be inconsistent with Our Lord's promises, and a complete defection of the Church's Sacred mission. "The indefectibility of the Roman Catholic Church is the teaching that it will endure to the end of the world and never become corrupt in faith, authority, morals, or sacraments.  In other words, the Roman Catholic Church will always be the proper representation of Christianity even though its members may err".
I don't imagine that anyone could possibly disagree with you here, Holy Mother Church most certainly cannot give us invalid, false, evil Sacraments for our spiritual nourishment. Our Lord gave us the sacraments, that's how we know they are true, Holy Mother the Church is the keeper of the same sacraments that were given to the Church by Our Lord. Thankfully, the pope is not the Church.


Quote
If you want to wholly reject the Novus Ordo Sacraments, then you need to also wholly reject the Authority (in the monarchical Catholic Church, hinges upon no one but the Pope) which promulgated them. Otherwise, there is no consistency but only ambivalence, which is the problem with the SSPX.
But of course, again, I cannot imagine that anyone could possibly disagree with you here either. The popes' authority does not extend to changing the sacraments. I would have to listen to Fr. Hesse again to find out which pope said that there is an oath that popes take, saying that if he were to change the sacraments, that "Almighty God will not have mercy on me" or words to that effect. But it's not as if he can't do it. He can do it alright, and imo, he is paying for it.

Of the many problems with the SSPX, I believe at it's core is it's dilution of the dogma EENS.
Title: Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
Post by: clarkaim on January 22, 2019, 06:39:27 PM
They must be very careful because to conditionally ordain one who is already validly ordained is a sacrilege. That's just the way that works.

this is wrong on just about every level.  To Ordain would be sacriligeous in this situation, but in fact, that is the point of CONDITIONALLY ordain, so as to NOT commit a sacrilege.  The condition is the operative word here.



If you ever get the chance, simply ask any SSPX priest about it, they will tell you that each case is investigated separately. I've asked quite a few SSPX priests over the last 30 years and they have all said this exact same thing.

What else would/could they say? SSPX'ers are NOTHING if not party-liners.   AS to "investigations" at best, if they discover the new rite is used, there lies the positive doubt, as the Church has spoken, not twenty years prior, in a Papal encyclycal, SACRAMENTUM, ORDINIS on ALL the forms henceforth to be used.  if those forms aren't used, there is doubt.  Case Closed.    Hey Mr. Manson? are you an evil cult leader who ordered a bunch of your Hippy followers to kill some people and start a race war?  Me?  No it wasn't me, just some guy that looks like me.   Okay Kowalski let him go, he's innocent.  I asked him and he said so. 

Also consider that any priest who leaves the NO for tradition, their own validity is probably one of their own greatest, if not *the* greatest of all their concerns. They want to be sure themselves that they're really priests first and foremost. It would seem that every NO priest who leaves the NO for the SSPX would want to be conditionally ordained just to be sure - but that really is not the way that's supposed to work. The matter must be investigated on a case by case basis first.