Author Topic: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations (Read 7637 times)

RoughAshlar · « **Reply #90 on:** January 06, 2019, 06:50:07 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on January 06, 2019, 04:45:48 PM

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.

You are correct. Fr. Hesse really does sum it up quite clearly. God bless his soul.

Nadir · « **Reply #91 on:** January 06, 2019, 08:12:45 PM »

Quote from: Miseremini 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.

https://ordinariate.net/q-a

The Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter is a structure, similar to a diocese, that was created by the Vatican in 2012 for former Anglican communities and clergy seeking to become Catholic. Members of the Ordinariate are fully Roman Catholic, while retaining elements of Anglican heritage in their celebration of Mass and in the hospitality and ministries of their Catholic parishes.
.........
What is the process for an Anglican priest to become a Catholic priest?
Anglican clergy seeking to be ordained as Catholic priests must first complete an extensive process that includes background checks; approval by the head of the Ordinariate and by the Vatican; completion of an approved Ordinariate formation program; and an examination. Celibacy is the norm for the clergy. Permission has been given on a case-by-case basis by the Pope for former Anglican priests who are married to be ordained Catholic priests for the Ordinariate. If widowed, they may not remarry.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #92 on:** January 07, 2019, 11:30:34 AM »

Quote

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:

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.

The doubts about protestant Baptisms/marriage are small compared to those involving ordinations/consecrations. What i'm saying is that the investigative process is flawed because all doubts cannot be answered.

Quote

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.

1. Doubt 1 - Was the new-rite Bishop who performed the ordination, actually a bishop? This cannot be answered, nor does the sspx attempt to.
2. Doubt 2 - Was the new-rite of ordination followed by the Bishop and did he have a proper intention? This can probably be answered.
3. Doubt 3 - Did the ordained "priest" have the right intention? This can probably be answered.

I'm not advocating conditional ordination without investigation. I'm saying that since the investigative process can only answer 2 out of the 3 doubts, therefore, practically speaking, it's worthless. It can NEVER answer doubt #1, so even if doubts 2 and 3 are investigated and said to be valid, Doubt #1 still casts its dark shadow over the legitimacy of the "priest".

Since it's obvious that Doubt 1 can't be answered, and since Doubt 1 is serious, then it follows logically that the investigative process is inadequate and therefore, conditional ordination is necessary.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #93 on:** January 07, 2019, 12:47:16 PM »

I listened to about 30 minutes of Fr Hesse and I'm more confused now than before because he contradicts himself (in a way). First, he says that the new rites of ordination/consecration are valid because they say essentially the same thing as the old rite. Ok, that's fine. Secondly, he goes on to give all these examples of priests (including himself) who were ordained in the new rite and says they are priests. Ok, that's fine. But...he specifically mentions that all these priests (including himself) were ordained by OLD RITE bishops.

The contradictory part is he then explains that there are MANY (he said Rome is filled with them) new rite bishops who are "crack pots" who think they are bishops, but are not. So how are we to know who is/isn't a bishop in the new rite? How can he know they aren't bishops, if the new rite is valid? He doesn't explain this at all, and this is a problem.

Therefore, I must conclude that if there are many new rite bishops that aren't bishops at all, then the ordinations of priests TODAY are doubtful, since those bishops who ordained them are not bishops. And I'm back at square one - lots of doubt.

If the sspx has some way to find all this out, then I applaud them. As far as I can see, they don't give the details of their investigation process on the web (which they should...there's no reason it should be a secret. It should be a public investigation process since the ordination/consecration is a public process as well), then I guess their process is super secret. But that's unnecessary, since the faithful have a right to know what's going on.

mcollier · « **Reply #94 on:** January 07, 2019, 04:36:12 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 05, 2019, 10:11:22 PM

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.

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.

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.

The SSPX article attempts to carefully build the case that the new rite is identical to (and not in any artificial way) the Coptic and Western Syrian Rites of episcopal consecration. It also attempts to claim that the new rite is not like the Anglican Rite and does not share in the problems that it had. It goes on to make the claim that the new rite (as published by the Vatican) is valid and because it is a rite of the Church that intention must be determined by the externals.
The only exception they make is with translations and adaptations which they clearly say can have defective intention and thus render the sacrament invalid or at least doubtfully valid.
At several points, they make the claim that conditional ordination is still a prudent precaution (I would have to go back and read the article more closely to pick out if they say in every case, many cases, or just some cases).
Here is a link to their article: http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations
What do you think of the arguments they present in this article?
Are they valid arguments? Are they sound/truthful?
Thank you again for all the comments. God bless.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #95 on:** January 07, 2019, 07:19:08 PM »

Quote

The SSPX article attempts to carefully build the case that the new rite is identical to (and not in any artificial way) the Coptic and Western Syrian Rites of episcopal consecration. It also attempts to claim that the new rite is not like the Anglican Rite and does not share in the problems that it had. It goes on to make the claim that the new rite (as published by the Vatican) is valid and because it is a rite of the Church that intention must be determined by the externals.

The sspx can make the claim that the new rite is similar to the Coptic/Syrian rite all they want, but the problem is that Pope Pius XII spent a GREAT deal of time/energy to define SPECIFICALLY the EXACT words necessary for ordination. And the new rite does not follow Pius XII's formula. So, since Pius XII declared that the Latin Rite MUST use this formula, then if the new rite doesn't, then it's invalid.

Fr Hesse says clearly that the new rite doesn't follow Pius XII's formula, and the sspx obviously admits this since they try to compare it to the other rites.

To bypass this problem, Fr Hesse makes the following (contradictory, in my opinion) claims:
1. Paul VI's new rites were INTENDED to make priests and intended to be valid, therefore they are, even if he didn't follow Pius XII.
a. Comment: ?? Words matter. If something is changed, after a previous pope said an exact formula must be used, I find this problematic.

2. Similar to the sspx, Fr Hesse argues that the "essence" of the prayers are similar to the old rite and similar to the Western/Coptic/Eastern rites, therefore they are valid because the form is catholic.
a. Comment: Again, they are side-stepping the problematic change of the ordination formula, and arguing the change doesn't matter. If this is the case, then why did Pope Pius XII spend so much time/energy to research and layout EXACTLY the formula that must be used (for the Latin Rite only)? It seems rather impulsive and imprudent to brush aside a specific order of a previous pope.

3. Fr Hesse then contradicts himself when he says that Pope Pius XII's formula only applies to the latin rite and since Paul VI's changes and V2's changes are NOT the latin rite, but a NEW, schismatic rite that Pius XII's rules don't apply.
a. Comment: SAY WHAT?! THIS MAKES NO SENSE, because earlier (in pt 1 above) he argued that Paul VI's intention for the new rite to make priests was important. You can't have it both ways, Fr Hesse. Either Paul VI's new rites are part of the latin rite or they're not. Paul VI INTENDED for the new rites to be part of the Latin Rite, therefore he had to follow Pius XII's rules/decision. Since the new rites don't follow Pius XII's rules, they are invalid, by definition - or at least sinful. (I can't say they aren't valid - I'm not an expert. But certainly, they are illegal).

4. Fr Hesse then says that because the new rites are NOT the latin rite, then we just have to look at the essence of the prayers (and compare to the Coptic/Syrian) rites to make sure they get the formula "in general".
a. Comment: So I guess this means that a schismatic rite has a LOWER threshold to meet, sacramentaly, than the actual Latin rite? I don't know - this makes no sense. This is like saying that a protestant baptism which takes 1 minute to say the valid, biblical formula is just as good as the full, liturgical rite of the Church, which includes the exorcisms and additional blessings.

Quote

The only exception they make is with translations and adaptations which they clearly say can have defective intention and thus render the sacrament invalid or at least doubtfully valid. At several points, they make the claim that conditional ordination is still a prudent precaution (I would have to go back and read the article more closely to pick out if they say in every case, many cases, or just some cases).
Here is a link to their article: http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations

What do you think of the arguments they present in this article?
Are they valid arguments? Are they sound/truthful?
Thank you again for all the comments. God bless.

The sspx doesn't list out their process/investigation in detail so there's nothing to comment on. Anyone would need the details of what they do to make a decision.

2Vermont · « **Reply #96 on:** January 07, 2019, 07:44:22 PM »

One should read Fr Cekada' s investigation into the 1968 Paul VI rites, "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void" at traditionalmass.org.

Cantarella · « **Reply #97 on:** January 07, 2019, 10:42:14 PM »

"If these new rites were promulgated by the true Authority of the Church, it would be impossible for them not to be in conformity with the Faith (or invalid), since they would be guaranteed by the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost. However, if these new rites essentially are not in conformity with the Catholic Faith, they could not possible have been created by the true Authority of the Church, because this Authority cannot give the Church an evil Law (Denz. 1578, nor a contemptible Rite (Denz. 856). Therefore, in the practical order, they (Novus Ordo Sacraments, regarding Orders, Eucharist, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction ) must be considered invalid".

https://www.holyredeemerchapel.org/blank-2

Stubborn · « **Reply #98 on:** January 08, 2019, 05:12:53 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on January 07, 2019, 10:42:14 PM

"If these new rites were promulgated by the true Authority of the Church, it would be impossible for them not to be in conformity with the Faith (or invalid), since they would be guaranteed by the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost. However, if these new rites essentially are not in conformity with the Catholic Faith, they could not possible have been created by the true Authority of the Church, because this Authority cannot give the Church an evil Law (Denz. 1578, nor a contemptible Rite (Denz. 856). Therefore, in the practical order, they (Novus Ordo Sacraments, regarding Orders, Eucharist, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction ) must be considered invalid".

https://www.holyredeemerchapel.org/blank-2

I was wondering when the sede's would chime in lol.

Quote the doctrine being defined in an ordination ceremony. Infallibility is only promised to the pope when, speaking ex cathedra, he defines a doctrine. You can read that in V1, it's quite explicit.

The Sede problem is that they attribute infallibility where it does not exist, then cry invalidity when that non-existent infallibility is breached.

The Church owns, not nothing, the Church owns the sacraments, they are strictly Her property. She alone, through one of Her popes can claim them to be "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void" but as of yet has not done so, regardless of what Fr. Cekada's corrupted theological wizardry have convinced so many to wrongly believe. They are not his and he does not have any more authority than you or I to make such a declaration - and one day, he will find that out, sadly, apparently the hard way.

Validity must be presumed before it can be done over. There is no way around this.

We, us people, you and I and the rest of us, we all - must avoid all things NO due to, among other things, the doubt of validity of NO sacraments, but if we were charged with the redoing of the sacrament, we MUST presume validity until proven otherwise. It's not all that complicated.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #99 on:** January 08, 2019, 08:56:12 AM »

Hi Stubborn,
Just want to say I appreciate your points on the ordinations debate. Thanks for posting the Fr Hesse video. Maybe I'm too hard on the sspx (in this area)...they've just frustrated me so much over the last year with all their changes and slow, steady walk towards rome. So I can't lump EVERYTHING they do into the "modernization" bucket; that's just wrong and that's me being intellectually lazy. Sorry about that. And then, I enjoy playing devil's advocate in order to challenge the other side (in this case, you) but I don't mean it personally, just want to find the best answer possible.

I suppose the answer is that the new rites are valid (if followed correctly, which the sspx tries to investigate properly). I still don't trust the training/knowledge/doctrine of former novus ordo priests, but that's another issue...

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #100 on:** January 10, 2019, 09:06:30 PM »

Quote from: mcollier on January 02, 2019, 11:30:36 AM

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 )

Is that the only objection to admitting the invalidity of the new rite? I ask because the term "Catholic hierarchy" is ambiguous. You can distinguish between the ecclesiastical hierarchy which includes all men in the clerical state (i.e. who received first tonsure) and the jurisdictional hierarchy which includes only the clergy who possess an office which has ordinary jurisdiction attached to it. i.e. the ordinaries. Many traditionalists (clergy and laity alike) have an unsupportable opinion that the "gates of hell" will have prevailed if there isn't at least one ordinary in existence at all times. However, you will not be able to find any pre-Vatican II Catholic theology manual which makes that specific claim. It is a new claim which only came into vogue after Vatican II. On the contrary both Msgr Joseph Clifford Fenton and Msgr Van Noort both implied that it was possible for the ordinaries to be wiped out. Van Noort went so far as to say that the entire Catholic Church could conceivably be reduced to only the Pope and the few surviving clergy and laity of the Roman See. Presumably, there would have to be at least one surviving bishop at all times because otherwise the Church would be lacking the means to accomplish her mission. But as soon as a new pope is elected, he receives ordinary and universal jurisdiction directly from Our Lord. So there is no need for an ordinary to exist at all times. Also, Fr. O'Reilly warned that we should never put limitations on the depths to which Our Lord could plunge the Church. Who would have believed that God could be crucified?

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #101 on:** January 10, 2019, 09:18:18 PM »

I should point out that if Paul VI was a true pope then the new rites are not only valid but they are holy. That's how we know it is the Catholic Church - One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. But if the new rites are unholy as the SSPX would have us believe, then how can they be from the Catholic Church? And how can Paul VI be a true pope? The pedo stuff can be attributed to individual bad actors. But the new rites were officially promulgated by the purported pope of the Catholic Church. Either the Catholic Church is false or he is a false pope. I choose to believe he is a false pope.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #102 on:** January 10, 2019, 09:28:01 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 01:04:11 PM

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.

The doubt about intention is an interesting topic but the new rites are already off the rails even before you get to the intention of the priest/bishop. They changed the meanings of the rites so they have already introduced a doubt about validity even before considering the intention. Even if you make the claim that it is only ambiguous and not clearly a new meaning, we are already in trouble because the ambiguity casts doubt on the meaning of the ceremony. But I don't think there is any ambiguity at all. The Novus Ordo clergy are very clear about the change in meaning by their words and actions. Pope Leo XIII never bothered to investigate the intentions of the Anglican clergy. He determined that the ceremonies themselves were sufficient evidence of invalidity. And arguably the Anglican rites are closer to the traditional Catholic rites than the Novus Ordo sects rites.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #103 on:** January 10, 2019, 09:45:39 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on January 02, 2019, 04:29:26 PM

Isn't it coincidental that the SSPX changed their view on the NREC in 2005?

But it seems to have been a half-hearted change. The change was made public in an article by the Dominicans of Avrille. If you read it, the first half (or more) lays out the horrors of the new rite. Including how it doesn't even meet the minimal requirements for validity laid out by Pope Pius XII in 1940s. And then the conclusion of the article can be summed up as, "...so despite all of that crap the new rite is valid". I read that article when I was still going to the local SSPX chapel and I was happily accepting the R&R position. But that article convinced me that the new rite was invalid. How is that possible? I had no preconceptions about it before hand. I was aware that some people thought it might be invalid but I had been going to the diocesan Latin Mass before the SSPX so I thought it was valid. And then I read that article and my conclusion was it was invalid. Whoever wrote that article had some serious doubts of his own which he was not admitting publicly.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #104 on:** January 10, 2019, 09:59:55 PM »

Quote from: mcollier on January 05, 2019, 02:46:27 PM

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.

Are we talking about the 2005 Angelus article? Because in that article it is pointed out that the new rite is based on faulty research by Dom Bott. He thought it was a consecration rite but it is actually an installation ceremony. It is not the same as the Coptic rite. And even if it was, it does not meet the minimal requirements for validity specified by Pope Pius XII. You can read that in the 2005 article as well.

Author Topic: SSPX official position re: validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations (Read 7637 times)

RoughAshlar

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

Nadir

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

mcollier

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

2Vermont

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

Cantarella

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

Clemens Maria

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

Clemens Maria

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

Clemens Maria

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

Clemens Maria

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

Clemens Maria

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