Author Topic: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations (Read 7501 times)

mcollier · « **Reply #30 on:** January 02, 2019, 04:54:43 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 04:25:11 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 circuмstances 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).

2Vermont · « **Reply #31 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

Maria Regina · « **Reply #32 on:** January 02, 2019, 07:44:57 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on January 02, 2019, 04:09:18 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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #33 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 circuмstances 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 circuмstances 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.

Emitte Lucem Tuam · « **Reply #34 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.

poche · « **Reply #35 on:** January 03, 2019, 05:36:04 AM »

Quote from: 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).

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?

Stubborn · « **Reply #36 on:** January 03, 2019, 07:22:05 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 04:25:11 PM

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.

mcollier · « **Reply #37 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #38 on:** January 03, 2019, 07:40:18 AM »

Quote from: 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

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.

mcollier · « **Reply #39 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #40 on:** January 03, 2019, 07:52:25 AM »

Quote from: 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.

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #41 on:** January 03, 2019, 07:58:00 AM »

Quote from: 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.

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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #42 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #43 on:** January 03, 2019, 09:42:44 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 03, 2019, 08:22:59 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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #44 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.

Author Topic: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations (Read 7501 times)

mcollier

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

2Vermont

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

Maria Regina

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

Pax Vobis

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

Emitte Lucem Tuam

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

poche

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

Stubborn

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

mcollier

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

Stubborn

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

mcollier

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

Stubborn

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

Stubborn

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

Pax Vobis

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

Stubborn

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

Pax Vobis

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