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? 

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.

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? 


 

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.

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. 

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.

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?  

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".