CathInfo.com

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.

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?

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.

Thanks for the research, Stubborn!  Let us know what you find out.  It's certainly a complicated affair.