Author Topic: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations  (Read 4295 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mcollier

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 76
  • Reputation: +33/-1
  • Gender: Male
Good morning, 

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

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

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

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

Thank you in advance for your comments. God bless! 

Offline Maria Regina

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3165
  • Reputation: +761/-161
  • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Good morning,

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

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

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

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

    Thank you in advance for your comments. God bless!
    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.
    Lord have mercy.


    Offline mcollier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 76
    • Reputation: +33/-1
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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! 

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4792
    • Reputation: +2831/-1298
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline mcollier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 76
    • Reputation: +33/-1
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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! 


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4792
    • Reputation: +2831/-1298
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline mcollier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 76
    • Reputation: +33/-1
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 

    Offline mcollier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 76
    • Reputation: +33/-1
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • *tout


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4792
    • Reputation: +2831/-1298
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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

    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.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9615
    • Reputation: +3802/-886
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4792
    • Reputation: +2831/-1298
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
    « Reply #10 on: January 02, 2019, 03:07:24 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline mcollier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 76
    • Reputation: +33/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
    « Reply #11 on: January 02, 2019, 03:25:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9615
    • Reputation: +3802/-886
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
    « Reply #12 on: January 02, 2019, 03:36:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


     
    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline mcollier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 76
    • Reputation: +33/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
    « Reply #13 on: January 02, 2019, 03:37:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 

    Offline Maria Regina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3165
    • Reputation: +761/-161
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations
    « Reply #14 on: January 02, 2019, 03:38:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?
    Lord have mercy.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16