So, XavierSem, could you explain why you opted for SSPX vs. FSSP? I'm not seeing it.
Well, Mr. Ladislaus, I don't have to justify my choice to anyone; but let me explain. I believe the SSPX is the best Fraternity for Catholic Tradition by far - doesn't mean I think the FSSP, the ICK and other Indult groups are bad or non-Catholic, I don't. The SSPX has a special role to play in Church Restoration. As of Spring 2017, beside others not mentioned, the Society had Priests : 612 Seminarians : 204 Pre-seminarians : 36 SSPX Brothers : 116 working around the world and around the clock for the salvation of souls worldwide. Why should I choose any other Fraternity? It's not a case of good or bad, but of the SSPX being better and the best.
Stats from:
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/recent-numbers-sspx Then there are many holy Nuns, Sisters, Brides of Christ, working with and helping the Society.
http://archives.sspx.org/chapel_news/2012/sspx_sisters_10-2012/sspx_sisters_10-2012.htm The real question is, why would you not want to unite with these works and prayers and contribute your own help and support toward continuing this manifest work of God, blessed and fostered by divine Providence from day one until today?
All the Faithful can contribute toward Church Restoration, by prayers and sacrifices, by fulfilling the duties of one's own state of life, being united in prayer and in spirit, without division and schism, to our Sisters, Monks, Priests and Bishops, and through them, to Rome, which is now and always the head of the Church.
On the Validity and relative weakness of new rites: For an example - the New Rite of Priestly Ordination, as docuмented in Michael Davies' Order of Melchizedek, and widely known, many prayers pertaining to the "integrity" of the rite have been removed, but the essential form is almost entirely intact, except for a single word "ut" or that, which doesn't affect the meaning. Catholic Theology is that the essential form confects the Sacrament, when matter and intention are present. Now, every single omitted prayer causes a loss of grace - and when we're speaking of 100s of thousands of Priests worldwide, this is a huge loss of grace and a catastrophe for the Church. The likely result would be that we would have Priests who don't know what Priests are suppposed to do, and experience of the last several decades confirms that. It doesn't mean that they aren't Priests, it means they sadly lost ample graces on the day of their ordination that they would otherwise have received.
I don't know how many of you have read the very well-docuмented and widely researched study published by Fr. Pierre Marie of the SSPX on the New rite of episcopal consecration - of course we won't use this rite, it will be in the traditional rite, when 2 new Bishops are Consecrated; but it shows Bp. Huonder is a valid Bishop. Before that study, yes, there were divergent opinions even among SSPX Priests, because the matter was not yet firmly decided. After that, almost any SSPX Priest you speak to will tell you it is valid. Fr. Marie shows that (1) the new rite is essentially found in a work attributed to St. Hippolytus called Apostolic Tradition, authored in the 3rd century; (2) is used in two Eastern rites, (3) signifies clearly the Order of Episcopacy, by speaking of the Principal Spirit Christ gave to His Apostles - which is obviously episcopal authority, since no one doubts the Apostles were Bishops etc. What Rome tried to do was try to mix western and eastern rites to create some kind of synthetic new rite for ecuмenism which would allegedly bring the East closer to Rome. It didn't work and there's no reason to adopt that.
Fr. Marie also says there would be hardly any valid residential Roman-rite Bishop even then if it was invalid, all of which is plainly contrary to indefectibility.
So we stick with the traditional rites, which we know by Faith, reason and experience are more powerful. Similarly, in Baptism, if someone just like that omits everything else in the powerful traditional rite, and only uses the essential form, the rite will be valid, but abundant graces will be lost, and have to be supplied later. You have even chief exorcists of the Vatican themselves that say the new rite of exorcism is terribly, terribly, weak in comparison to the old; though a good exorcist Priest would still be able, with difficulty, to obtain some kind of deliverance from demons using it, he would be much wiser to use the traditional rite, and would obtain much better effects against demons in his exorcisms. Similarly, a Priest who offers the Tridentine Mass will, for e.g. deliver more souls from Purgatory.
Also, you missed the point completely with Bp. Williamson's view on Eucharistic Miracles: if you agree with Bp. Williamson, that there have been miracles, then it necessarily follows that both the new rite of Priestly Ordination (because only Priests can confect the Sacrament) and the new rite of Mass are at least valid.
And if you contest them, well, I can show you 19th century books written by Fr. Mueller on the Eucharist, where he docuмents many historical Eucharistic miracles; it is clear Father considers them proof of the Real Presence against Protestants and heretics, and of the Divinity of Christ and the Supernatural against modernists and agnostics. There was one in the lifetime of Pope St. Gregory the Great, after which a formerly doubting woman never doubted the Real Presence again. Eucharistic miracles have continued, you can either consider what they may have to show you, or ignore them just as you choose. Theology teaches God alone can be the efficient cause of an act of Transubstantiation. To Transubstantiate is more than even to Create. In Creation, something is created from nothing. In Transubstantiation, the Substance of the bread ceases to exist after, usually, the Body of Christ begins to inhere in the accidents of bread. And as only God can create, only God can bring about the effect of Transubstantiation. Therefore, docuмented examples of Transubstantiation visibly taking place in Eucharistic miracles can only come from God.
In eucharistic miracles, the accidents don't remain. Of course, the TLM is always a miracle, a hidden miracle of God's Infinite love for us. In Lanciano, many centuries ago transubstantiation happened visibly. God sometimes gives miracles to strengthen weak faith.
Finally, according to Fr. G-L, citing St. Thomas, if a Priest only said those words, "Hoc est enim Corpus Meum - This is My Body", and "Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei - This is the Chalice of My Blood", he would consecrate the Body and Blood of the Lord, though of course he is not ordinarily allowed to do it just like that. The reason given is that, as God created, by saying "Fiat Lux - Let there be light", and instantly there was light, so also when Christ says, This is My Body, by His Priest, it instantly becomes His Body. And when likewise, This is the Chalice of My Blood, the wine is instantly turned into Blood in the Chalice. References later if needed.
Topic: Bp. Huonder to consecrate 2 Bishops for SSPX (Read 22070 times)