Author Topic: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations (Read 7683 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #75 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #76 on:** January 05, 2019, 02:08:39 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 05, 2019, 01:37:19 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.

mcollier · « **Reply #77 on:** January 05, 2019, 02:46:27 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on January 05, 2019, 01:24:12 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.

clarkaim · « **Reply #78 on:** January 05, 2019, 10:08:01 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on January 02, 2019, 03:02:10 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!!

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #79 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.

clarkaim · « **Reply #80 on:** January 05, 2019, 10:16:58 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 03:07:24 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?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #81 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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #82 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, 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 circuмstances, there is no sacrilege in reiterating conditionally a priestly ordination, as Archbishop Lefebvre himself did many times.

Stubborn · « **Reply #83 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #84 on:** January 06, 2019, 10:28:24 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 05, 2019, 10:20:45 PM

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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #85 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #86 on:** January 06, 2019, 02:49:21 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 06, 2019, 02:29:09 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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #87 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.

Miseremini · « **Reply #88 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #89 on:** January 06, 2019, 04:45:48 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 06, 2019, 03:41:21 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.

Author Topic: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations (Read 7683 times)

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

mcollier

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

clarkaim

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

clarkaim

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

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

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

Miseremini

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