You don't have to participate in the anonymous forum? I personally like it as I can express my honest thoughts.

So ---- are you saying your other posts are dishonest?

"How they act as if the Crisis in the Church is over."

It seems to me that the SSPX has given up fighting against modernism and the Masonic, religion of man propagated throughout the world using the Catholic structure.  
They seem content preaching virtuous sermons, distributing the sacraments and not making waves.  

When we think about our Lord being crucified for always condemning the lies and errors of the church leaders of His time.  He made waves.  
Is the servant above his Master?

.....
First of all, the point is NOT the priesthood ordinations, but the bishop consecrations. Invalid bishops -> invalid priests.

Here is a PDF of the episcopal consecrations:

https://de.scribd.com/doc/15442729/Comparison-of-Old-and-New-Consecration-Rites

The important part is on page 25 and 26:

.....

What does Pius XII say?
The form is the words determining the application of the matter, by which the sacramental effects are univocally signified -- namely the power of Orders and the grace of the Holy Spirit." In other words the words of the form must specify what power of orders is given and that the grace of the Holy Ghost is given.

Yes, the Episcopal Rite does call on the "governing spirit" (page 25). But that alone doesn't make it valid because you need to say WHAT you are intending the Holy Spirit to do (Fulfil in thy priest... ). BOTH have to be invoked to be valid, and this is in EVERY rite, even the Eastern. So the "it's a new rite, you can't apply SO to it" argument from Fr. Hesse doesn't count.

1. Does the New Rite call on the Holy Spirit?

- "bless him [the elected] with spiritual power" (that's not the Holy Spirit)
- "pour out thy holy blessing" (not the Holy Spirit either)
- "by thy gracious word, bless him" (not the Holy Spirit again)
- "From the beginning of the Church you have chosen ministers" (Protestant understanding of "bishop" as administrator)
- "pour out the governing spirit" (page 25 - okay let's presume this means Holy Spirit)

Let's presume "yes".

2. Now, what powers do they call on the "governing spirit" for? What should the Holy Spirit do?

- "Through the power of the spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood" - (okay let's presume they somehow mean the Holy Spirit, okay let's go...)
- "grant him the power to forgive sins" (the bishop-elect, if he is a valid priest, already has this power, useless and confusing prayer)
- "grant him the power to assign ministries" (that's not the intention to make a Catholic bishop, but a Protestant minister)
- "grant him the power to loose every bond given by the apostles etc." (that's not the proper power of a bishop either!)

So, the New Rite, while maybe, calling on the "power of the spirit" as Holy Spirit, it completely misses the essential: to define WHAT you're calling on the Holy Spirit for (if you're calling him at all)! It mentions the word "office of bishop", yes, but Anglicans have "bishops" too, with invalid orders. So the word alone doesn't make it valid.

The best argument against this is "the context form can supplement", but in the New Rite, that makes it even worse, since the entire explanation of "what is the purpose of a bishop" (present in the Old Rite) or even the interrogation "are you even Catholic" for the bishop is abolished. The only thing that is left in in terms of duties of a bishop is "obeying the pope" (obviously they had to leave that in, can't miss a psychological jab against those 1988 schismatics).

If the new rite just said "God please pour out the Holy Spirit to consecrate this guy a bishop, so that he has the power to ordain priests to continue the sacrifice of Christ" - it may be very colloquial, but still definitely valid. The best explanation is that they are mentioning the "high priesthood", but that's just a regular priest in the context of the Old Testament. A "high priest" is not a bishop in the Old Testament. So even the best-case interpretation fails.

Throughout the entire rite, they refer to the bishop as a "guide of the flock", "guardian" and "minister-appointer". Then they, for some reason mention "loosening bonds" and "assigning ministries" as one of the bishops core tasks, which any Catholic would understand that a regular priest already has this power.

If someone is spazzing out about the Thuc bishops being definitely invalid because of some rumored "withheld intention" to Guerard des Lauriers, but at the same time accepting Novus Ordo "ministers" as definitely valid because some liberal SSPX priest said "well they're calling on the Holy Spirit, so it must be valid" - then we've hit hyprocrisy central.

Fr. Hesse only defended the new Rite of priesthood ordination (which only has two sentences changed and none of the essential form). So yes, Fr. Hesse was a valid priest, as he was ordained by an Old-Rite bishop with the correct intention. But here, we are not talking about "ut" and "et", we are talking about a rite, where 100% of the prayers are completely rewritten and the bishop is consistently mentioned as having the power to "appoint people" (Protestant intention).



The strongest pro-NO argument ist 3.1. - "Summi Sacerdotii" (high priesthood) appears in the Catechism of the Council of Trent as a synonym for "high priest / bishop".

I've read through what each and all had to say since Sunday and while, I will touch upon one or two aspects of your arguments in later posts, Balwin the IV's post is the most deserving of consideration.

Your premise is as follows: "First of all, the point is NOT the priesthood ordinations, but the bishop consecrations. Invalid bishops -> invalid priests."

Ok, so let us unpack this: Is the new Episcopal Rite invalid?

The SSPX teach that it IS valid because it closely resembles the Eastern Church Rite which is valid and because it does contain the two essential elements as Pope Pius XII specified.

Now, you agree that the Holy Ghost is being evoked in the new Rite. "So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit" is a accepted term used by the Eastern Rite Church and it is immediately qualified in the Rite by the following definition: "...the spirit given by (Christ) to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple...".

What you do query is whether the second essential element is present. Yet it seems clear to me that it is: "upon this chosen one" which in other places makes clear means 'bishop-elect'. For example "My brother, are you resolved by the grace of the Holy Spirit to discharge to the end of your life the office the apostles entrusted to us (bishops), which we now pass on to you by the laying on the hands?" and "You have chosen your servant  for the office of bishop" and "through the Spirit who who gives the grace of the High priesthood." All of these examples including "so now pour out upon this chosen one" are found within the Preface (the Consecration prayer).

We all agree that the New Rite is not a patch on the Old Rite; that not only is it missing many beautiful prayers and ceremonies but it lacks the clarity of the Old rite and is so stripped down it appears almost more Protestant than Catholic.

 However, the Church is her great wisdom, has a safety net to dispel certain doubt: From the very beginning Christ said to his bishops "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18). What this means is that the Church has the God-given authority to alter and change the matter and form, and it is Her and Her alone, that determines what constitutes as a valid or invalid form. Writes Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis (No.4): "...that which the Church has established, she can also change and abrogate" keeping in mind, as the council of Trent qualifies, that the substance laid down in scripture by Christ, is always to be maintained within these changes. (This scriptural, pre-determined, substance, of course, applies only to Baptism and the Holy Eucharist). For the other five Sacraments, Christ has left it to the supreme authority of His Church to decide which words and signs would effect the sacramental grace.

This brings us to the most important element of this issue: the authority of the Church. The words of the form (the substance) mean exactly what the ETERNAL Church means them to mean regardless of how you, I or a modernist understands them. In other words, in terms of validity, the authority of the Catholic Church ensures that any ambiguity in the official form will always mean what it has always been intended to mean in a Catholic sense and understanding.

This is the core reason Pope Leo XIII ruled against the Angelica Rites - their very religion did not recognize the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore their ambiguity did not confirm to any Catholic sense; it was not covered by this safety net.

Because of Christ's promise to protect His Church, the Freemasons who infiltrated did not have the power to change the validity of the Mass or the Sacraments but they did secure the power to 'sabotage' them and make then appear less Catholic in order to lead the faithful into either loosing their understanding of the true faith or doubting their validity which was the next best thing. It was a master plan.

I have read the 2016 sermon by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais - which was very good - so I will comment on that when I have more time.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNL4TMnYgU2-tLd3-W_28HCiH8jELfrz/view?usp=drive_link

above is the last issue of the St Louis de Montfort Seminary in France (issue 24).
the issue includes a letter from Abp Lefebvre which directly contradicts the neo SSPX stance on this topic.

Yes, and the Archbishop himself makes the point there that ...

These are all subjects of doubt and difficult to verify, unless one writes to the
diocesan chanceries to ask what matter and form are used for the Sacrament
of Confirmation.

... which is what I'm also saying, that the difficulty of verifying (aka "investigating") these cases suffices to permit conditional Sacraments.  If there's a prudent doubt, such as what the Archbishop laid out, where NO "bishops" tinker with the form and also the matter (not necessarily using olive oil), where that combined with the difficulty of investigating each case ... he just did it as requested, no questions asked.  He said, as also quoted in this newletter, that the parents may investigate if they so choose, but the SSPX have enough to do without having to undertake this kind of burden, to investigate each and every case.

Reason #3443 to avoid the Indult.

Another reason:
If you are in a SHARED FACILITY (a church used for Novus Ordo and Tridentine Masses) those devout Tridentine/Latin Mass Catholics will be stepping on Sacred Particles during their glorious Tridentine Mass, if the janitor hasn't been through, since the last Novus Ordo Mass!
But do you consider that the Novus Ordo Mass is completely invalid? Great. Then you're receiving a cookie instead of Our Lord when the priest distributes communion from the Novus Ordo-consecrated wafers in the tabernacle.

Either way, you're cooked.
If you're going to go Indult (assuming you don't have an issue with the New Rite of Consecration/Ordination), you AT LEAST have to limit yourself to locations where the Latin Mass community has "its own" chapel/church -- where no Novus Ordo Mass is said.

Oh, 100% ... but the point is that we're close to getting the SAME POINT with neo-SSPX.  Traditional Catholics were told to avoid the Indult not only for this reason, but also because you'd start getting contaminated with Modernism.  Now we have SSPX priests denying the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, teaching that Vatican II is 95% Catholic, and the rest can be reconciled with Traditional with the right "hermeneutic", etc.  AND, even on the front of trampling consecrated particles of the Blessed Sacrament, we hear more and more about the SSPX holding events (e.g. confirmations, wedding, etc.) in Novus Ordo church buildings.

So I point the neo-SSPX gaslighting trolls to this post here.  Matthew is NOT a sedevacantist, and he too appears to have some questions about the validity of NO Orders and/or Masses.  Then, at one point, good old Sean Johnson was so HOSTILE to sedevacantism that he demanded a few times that Matthew ban all SVs, and then at another time he accused me of unnatural vice for simply quoting Archbishop Lefebvre (without comment) where the Archbishop said that SV might be true ... and yet the entire time Sean remained adamant in his doubts about the NO Orders.  You had the one SSPX priest who was caught on video saying the same thing from the pulpit, and my own R&R independent priest says they're outright invalid.  At one point when another "priest" tried to take "communion" to one of the members of his chapel in the hospital, Father reprimanded the putative priest and told him not to bring those cookies to his faithful.  That incident was related to me by the "priest" who had actually been on the receiving end of those comments.

But that has been part of the latest SSPX propaganda and gaslighting campaign, trying to make this seem like it's something concocted by those wicked sedevacantists, just out of thin air, with our resident troll Borat here claiming it was the Dimond Brothers in particular (since they're even more hated by the average Traditional Catholic than even sedevacantists in general) ... even though the Dimond Brothers were still in diapers when the first (non-sedevacantist) Traditional Catholics began questioning the validity of those Orders.  Despite having been corrected on this matter repeatedly, Borat continuest to repeat the false assetion ... clearly indicating bad will.