Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on February 02, 2024, 11:02:35 PM
-
CONSECRATIONS’ VALIDITY
February 3, 2024
ELEISON COMMENTS DCCCLXIV (864)
Be it bishops or women, is your life-style hollow?
First, get things straight with God – the rest will follow.
Amidst Traditional Catholics there has recently been disputed again the question of whether Catholic bishops’ Consecrations performed with the new rite fabricated by Pope Paul VI following on Vatican II are valid as Consecrations, or not. In other words, can we be sure that a priest who has undergone the new rite of Consecration is himself truly a bishop? The question is of immense importance, because upon valid bishops depends the very survival of the Catholic Church and of souls being able to get to Heaven, because souls absolutely need priests and sacraments to die in that state of sanctifying grace without which they they gravely risk falling into Hell.
Broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought on the question. The huge majority of Catholics, down to and including the Newsociety of St Pius X, as reoriented in 2012 by the successors of Archbishop Lefebvre at the head of the Society which he first oriented in 1970 to defend Faith and Church against the ravages of the Conciliar revolution, see no problem. Of course Vatican II (1962–1965) was not such a disaster, they say, that God allowed His enemies to gain so much power inside the Church that they could succeed in tampering seriously with the very wellsprings of its future, the rite of consecration of its future leaders. The mere idea is ridiculous! Vatican II was bad, but it cannot have been that bad. Alas, it was!
Just look at the fruits, which show infallibly what is at work. Between 20 years before and 20 years after the Council, a mass of Catholic hospitals, schools, convents, seminaries, priories, monasteries – all closed down or turned over for the keeping of apples (Ps. 78, 1). Have there ever been at any one time so many vocations abandoned, or so few new vocations arising, as in the period after Vatican II? Why? Surely because, for instance, the mass of citizens today are persuaded that a social worker is more useful than a priest. Where there is no Faith, at least as it used to be understood before the Council, the bishop and the priest are at a discount for what they properly are, and all that is left for them is to do a bad imitation of somebody who they are not at all, like a social worker. And who should be preaching that Faith? Bishops and priests! How brilliantly with Vatican II the Devil turned the churchmen’s minds inside out and upside down! Maybe the new rite of Consecration has, somehow, been a problem for the bishops after all . . .
Fr. Alvaro Calderon is one of the Society’s best theologians, stationed at the Society’s priestly seminary in Argentina. Over ten years ago he wrote a tract on this question of the validity of the new rite of bishops’ Consecration. He concludes that it is “very probably valid,” but not certainly. However, since valid bishops are absolutely essential to the life and survival of the Church, then that shadow of doubt involved is still that too much doubt, and all Catholic bishops consecrated only with the new rite should consent to being reconsecrated conditionally also with the old rite, with its old, certainly valid, sacramental Form. Likewise, he says, all priests ordained only with the Conciliar rite of ordination should seek conditional re-ordination with the traditional rite to repair any serious defects in their Conciliar priesthood.
And where does Fr Calderon say that this shadow of a doubt lies? He says the intention of the new rite is not to make regal authoritative bishops, with a divine authority behind them immediately over the sheep, true thunderclouds of God; but rather a diocesan facilitator, a nice man, a democratic administrator, ready to obey to the letter the local Sister Snap-dragon who rules all cocks in the roost for miles around, and who is dreaming of the day when she can at last celebrate what tatters remain of the Holy Mass. Boys, keep the women in their place, because they are unbearable when they are out of control! God first!
Kyrie eleison.
-
CONSECRATIONS’ VALIDITY
February 3, 2024
ELEISON COMMENTS DCCCLXIV (864)
Be it bishops or women, is your life-style hollow?
First, get things straight with God – the rest will follow.
Amidst Traditional Catholics there has recently been disputed again the question of whether Catholic bishops’ Consecrations performed with the new rite fabricated by Pope Paul VI following on Vatican II are valid as Consecrations, or not. In other words, can we be sure that a priest who has undergone the new rite of Consecration is himself truly a bishop? The question is of immense importance, because upon valid bishops depends the very survival of the Catholic Church and of souls being able to get to Heaven, because souls absolutely need priests and sacraments to die in that state of sanctifying grace without which they they gravely risk falling into Hell.
Broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought on the question. The huge majority of Catholics, down to and including the Newsociety of St Pius X, as reoriented in 2012 by the successors of Archbishop Lefebvre at the head of the Society which he first oriented in 1970 to defend Faith and Church against the ravages of the Conciliar revolution, see no problem. Of course Vatican II (1962–1965) was not such a disaster, they say, that God allowed His enemies to gain so much power inside the Church that they could succeed in tampering seriously with the very wellsprings of its future, the rite of consecration of its future leaders. The mere idea is ridiculous! Vatican II was bad, but it cannot have been that bad. Alas, it was!
Just look at the fruits, which show infallibly what is at work. Between 20 years before and 20 years after the Council, a mass of Catholic hospitals, schools, convents, seminaries, priories, monasteries – all closed down or turned over for the keeping of apples (Ps. 78, 1). Have there ever been at any one time so many vocations abandoned, or so few new vocations arising, as in the period after Vatican II? Why? Surely because, for instance, the mass of citizens today are persuaded that a social worker is more useful than a priest. Where there is no Faith, at least as it used to be understood before the Council, the bishop and the priest are at a discount for what they properly are, and all that is left for them is to do a bad imitation of somebody who they are not at all, like a social worker. And who should be preaching that Faith? Bishops and priests! How brilliantly with Vatican II the Devil turned the churchmen’s minds inside out and upside down! Maybe the new rite of Consecration has, somehow, been a problem for the bishops after all . . .
Fr. Alvaro Calderon is one of the Society’s best theologians, stationed at the Society’s priestly seminary in Argentina. Over ten years ago he wrote a tract on this question of the validity of the new rite of bishops’ Consecration. He concludes that it is “very probably valid,” but not certainly. However, since valid bishops are absolutely essential to the life and survival of the Church, then that shadow of doubt involved is still that too much doubt, and all Catholic bishops consecrated only with the new rite should consent to being reconsecrated conditionally also with the old rite, with its old, certainly valid, sacramental Form. Likewise, he says, all priests ordained only with the Conciliar rite of ordination should seek conditional re-ordination with the traditional rite to repair any serious defects in their Conciliar priesthood.
And where does Fr Calderon say that this shadow of a doubt lies? He says the intention of the new rite is not to make regal authoritative bishops, with a divine authority behind them immediately over the sheep, true thunderclouds of God; but rather a diocesan facilitator, a nice man, a democratic administrator, ready to obey to the letter the local Sister Snap-dragon who rules all cocks in the roost for miles around, and who is dreaming of the day when she can at last celebrate what tatters remain of the Holy Mass. Boys, keep the women in their place, because they are unbearable when they are out of control! God first!
Kyrie eleison.
Don't have time to read right now but skimmed the last paragraph. I am going to assume that the commonly given example of an eastern bishop being made a patriarch which is mistakenly thought to be someone made a bishop was ignored?
-
Don't have time to read right now but skimmed the last paragraph. I am going to assume that the commonly given example of an eastern bishop being made a patriarch which is mistakenly thought to be someone made a bishop was ignored?
Be patient, I will soon post Fr Calderon's full study and you will read his reply to this objection. No, it was not ignored, it was addressed!
-
Be patient, I will soon post Fr Calderon's full study and you will read his reply to this objection. No, it was not ignored, it was addressed!
It read the OP and did not see it addressed. I know Fr Calderon's study was posted recently (not sure if it was the full thing) but I don't think he mentioned that the eastern example used for the new rite was to make a patriarch not a bishop.
-
I read the OP and did not see it addressed. I know Fr Calderon's study was posted recently (not sure if it was the full thing) but I don't think he mentioned that the eastern example used for the new rite was to make a patriarch not a bishop.
It seems that Bishop Williamson (and Fr Calderon) is focusing on the intention of the New Rite:
And where does Fr Calderon say that this shadow of a doubt lies? He says the intention of the new rite is not to make regal authoritative bishops, with a divine authority behind them....
It doesn't sound like the form of the New Rite comes into play.
-
It seems that Bishop Williamson (and Fr Calderon) is focusing on the intention of the New Rite:
And where does Fr Calderon say that this shadow of a doubt lies? He says the intention of the new rite is not to make regal authoritative bishops, with a divine authority behind them....
It doesn't sound like the form of the New Rite comes into play.
The problem I have is that there are those who say the new rite is valid by comparing it to an similar eastern rite, the issue is that this eastern rite was not making a bishop, but someone who was already a bishop into a patriarch, so there is no precedent. This point would weaken the argument for the validity of the new rite.
-
The problem I have is that there are those who say the new rite is valid by comparing it to an similar eastern rite, the issue is that this eastern rite was not making a bishop, but someone who was already a bishop into a patriarch, so there is no precedent. This point would weaken the argument for the validity of the new rite.
I know what you are referring to and I agree. Based on PV's post above, it appears that Fr Calderon objects to this argument in his 2014 study. My post was pointing out that the issue for them appears to be the "intention", not the words/form of the rite.
-
Don't have time to read right now but skimmed the last paragraph. I am going to assume that the commonly given example of an eastern bishop being made a patriarch which is mistakenly thought to be someone made a bishop was ignored?
I'm not sure what the issue is. Bishop Williamson concludes that the New Rites have enough positive doubt about them to commend conditional consecration and conditional ordination. He didn't go into the details.
Since the previous Eleison Comments were about +Vigano, I can see where this is going ;)
-
I know what you are referring to and I agree. Based on PV's post above, it appears that Fr Calderon objects to this argument in his 2014 study. My post was pointing out that the issue for them appears to be the "intention", not the words/form of the rite.
Not necessarily internal intention, but the intention of the Rite itself ... as per Pope Leo XIII on the Anglican Orders. If it were a matter of internal intention, the decision whether to conditionally consecrate/ordain would depend on inquiry into who performed the Rite and whether he was orthodox and therefore had the correct internal intention.
Prescinding from the essential form, the intention of the Rite may be defective, again, as per Pope Leo XIII, so invalidity ex adjunctis to the essential form.
-
Not necessarily internal intention, but the intention of the Rite itself ... as per Pope Leo XIII on the Anglican Orders. If it were a matter of internal intention, the decision whether to conditionally consecrate/ordain would depend on inquiry into who performed the Rite and whether he was orthodox and therefore had the correct internal intention.
And, of course, if internal intention were the concern, conditional consecration of +Vigano would imply that Wojtyla's personal intention in consecrating a bishop would be suspect. :laugh1:
-
Bishop Williamson:
Likewise, ... all priests ordained only with the Conciliar rite of ordination should seek conditional re-ordination with the traditional rite to repair any serious defects in their Conciliar priesthood.
Bottom line right here, so no need to quibble about the details. Whether they're outright invalid or just positively doubtful doesn't matter in the practical order.
-
Here's Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 33:
With this inherent defect of "form" is joined the defect of "intention" which is equally essential to the Sacrament. 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. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.
-
Will any of that prove to be a hindrance for producing miracles in the New Order Missae?
-
Bishop Williamson:
Bottom line right here, so no need to quibble about the details. Whether they're outright invalid or just positively doubtful doesn't matter in the practical order.
Dear Ladislaus,
Yes, since the Bishop of Rome is the Pope, neither Fr. Ratzinger nor Mr. Bergoglio is the Pope ... at the most, pope- elect. The Crisis situation corrects itself. We are all Sedevacantists now; just some of us do not know it.
-
Will any of that prove to be a hindrance for producing miracles in the New Order Missae?
Dear MiracleOfTheSun,
Do not worry, the Devil will take care of that. One cannot come to a conclusion by mixing something that can be explained on the intellectual (humanly accessible) level, with supernatural or preternatural events.
-
This has been added to Bishop Williamson's Wikipedia page:
(https://i.ibb.co/WtbRXG2/vigano.png)
Footnotes for the sources above, 113 and 114 are as follows:
https://www.editorialedomani.it/politica/mondo/vigano-supera-a-destra-i-lefebvriani-il-fronte-tradizionalista-si-divide-dopo-fiducia-supplicans-qs2wob63
https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica/vigan-vescovo-ribelle-riconsacrato-lefebvriano-cresce-2267257.html
-
Dear Ladislaus,
Yes, since the Bishop of Rome is the Pope, neither Fr. Ratzinger nor Mr. Bergoglio is the Pope ... at the most, pope- elect. The Crisis situation corrects itself. We are all Sedevacantists now; just some of us do not know it.
Texana, that 'logic' does not square with the conclusion of Fr Calderon, that Bishop Williamson is presenting, that the new rite is very probably valid. That aside, consider this teaching of St Robert Bellarmine in his work On The Church: "...we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true bishops and pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church". Interesting, hey?
-
Texana, that 'logic' does not square with the conclusion of Fr Calderon, that Bishop Williamson is presenting, that the new rite is very probably valid. That aside, consider this teaching of St Robert Bellarmine in his work On The Church: "...we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true bishops and pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church". Interesting, hey?
Dear Plenus Venter,
For St. Robert Bellarmine and his time, the bishop and pastors were true bishops and pastors because the Sacrament of Holy Order had not been altered by Paul VI.
"Very probably valid" does not equal AOK in sacramental theology. Doubtful sacraments equal no sacraments.
-
Texana, that 'logic' does not square with the conclusion of Fr Calderon, that Bishop Williamson is presenting, that the new rite is very probably valid. That aside, consider this teaching of St Robert Bellarmine in his work On The Church: "...we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true bishops and pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church". Interesting, hey?
You you can hold the material office after election, but you can't exercise the office unless your a BISHOP. You have to be a bishop to be the bishop of Rome. Only bishops can exercise teaching authority, for instance, since only they are even part of the Ecclesia Docens. No layman can teach the Church. For some other aspects of jurisdiction, the clerical state suffices, such as for making appointments. This speaks to Bishop Guerard des Laurier's Thesis and the material/formal distinction. That quote is clearly lifted out of context, because no one can be "our true bishops" unless they have the "character of order".
-
Right, the "very probably valid" term is nonsense and has no theological meaning. Question is entirely whether there remains positive doubt regarding validity despite the "very probably" on the other side, whatever that means.
-
Right, the "very probably valid" term is nonsense and has no theological meaning. Question is entirely whether there remains positive doubt regarding validity despite the "very probably" on the other side, whatever that means.
Is the probably SO "very" that there remains only negative doubt on the other side of the issue, or is it not quite THAT "very" so that positive doubt still remains? Based on Bishop Williamson's analysis, it sounds like it's the latter ... that's his interpretation of the corollary to "very probably".
-
Simple logic says that if the issue is so complex that there have been multiple, multiple Trad studies on the matter, with various conclusions, that positive doubt exists. If the doubt was simple and negative, then there wouldn’t be this much time involved to figure it out.
-
Simple logic says that if the issue is so complex that there have been multiple, multiple Trad studies on the matter, with various conclusions, that positive doubt exists. If the doubt was simple and negative, then there wouldn’t be this much time involved to figure it out.
Right, exactly, and that's a line there between subjective and objective. While I might do my own "study" and conclude that there's no positive doubt, there are enough reasonable and well-educated Traditional Catholics out there who do believe there's a doubt, which then in my mind creates a situation of objective positive doubt ... despite my own personal conclusions. If based on my own personal judgment that there's no doubt, if I then forced priests onto the faithful who didn't share my convictions, that would be tantamount to imposing my conclusion on their consciences, which is tantamount to usurping an authority that only the Church has.
This also figures into the consideration about how it's generally considered a sacrilege to conditionally consecrate/ordain someone in cases where there's no positive doubt. There again, it's not merely subjective where I MYSELF would commit a sacrilege because I MYSELF believed there was no positive doubt. Instead, consecrations/ordinations are public events and not my own personal Liturgy, and the objective positive doubt held by others who might be working with these clergy suffices as justification even if I don't agree with them. Besides, how much of a "sacrilege" can it be if one uses the conditional form, "If you are not a priest, I ordain you ..."? This means that if the man is already a priest, no ordination takes place, and there's no sacrilege against the Sacrament. Consequently, I'm not sure I understand how this could ever be a sacrilege. Now, if I went around conditionally ordaining every priest I saw because "what if the bishop got the essential form wrong in ordaining him?", yeah, that pattern of behavior would probably rise to the level of sacrilege in general or as a whole, rather than for each individual incident.
-
Now, if I went around conditionally ordaining every priest I saw because "what if the bishop got the essential form wrong in ordaining him?", yeah, that pattern of behavior would probably rise to the level of sacrilege in general or as a whole,
Yes. I’m sure there were historical cases of some scrupulous/ocd bishops who were conditionally ordaining anyone and everyone and causing scandal.
If there ever a time in history where positive doubt abounds, it’s now. “Infiltrator heretics changed the wording of the sacraments” — this is enough positive doubt right here. It’s more than an isolated incident. It’s systemic doubt.
And the fact that +W conditionally consecrates/ordains clerics (as did +ABL) confirms that positive doubt exists. He just doesn’t want to admit such because of sedevacantism.
-
“Infiltrator heretics changed the wording of the sacraments” — this is enough positive doubt right here.
THIS ^^^. We don't need the 50-page "studies" on the subject.
-
You you can hold the material office after election, but you can't exercise the office unless you're a BISHOP... That quote is clearly lifted out of context, because no one can be "our true bishops" unless they have the "character of order".
I don't believe the context significantly changes the meaning of the words in relation to the claim of Texana that I was addressing: that we are all sedevacantists even if we don't know it, because of a doubt concerning the validity of the NREC.
It is in the book on The Church Militant, the chapter on Secret Infidels.
This is part of St Robert's response to the last objection that we can't know what body of men constitutes the real Church, "even if secret heretics pertain to the Church", because... "the Church cannot exist without bishops and priests, as Jerome teaches. But who knows for certain who might be true bishops and priests since that depends upon the intention of the one ordaining and upon an invisible character..."
St Robert responds that two things are to be considered with respect to bishops, 1. that they hold the place of Christ, and 2. that they might have the power of order and jurisdiction. Considered in the first mode, he says, "...we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true bishops and pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church. Since they are for the Church, they cannot be against it". Considered in the second manner, he says, "we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be bishops, although it is certain , with infallible certitude, that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church. For this purpose, to hold the church is certain and clearly visible in so far as the heads and members, the first consideration suffices".
(https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/eleison-comments-consecrations-validity-(no-864)/16/?action=reporttm;msg=926322)
-
Considered in the second manner, he says, "we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be bishops, although it is certain , with infallible certitude, that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church.
In these times of crisis, God gave us the Traditional chapels, all around the world, with valid priests and Bishops. To say that all/most of the priests/bishops part of new-rome are doubtful does not mean the Church is empty of clerics. The actual church = Tradition.
For this purpose, to hold the church is certain and clearly visible in so far as the heads and members, the first consideration suffices".
The true, visible Church (both materially and spiritually) is Traditionalism. All those part of new-rome only hold material/govt offices, generally speaking. Sure, there may be some valid bishops/priests part of new-rome but they are probably material heretics (at least).
-
I don't believe the context significantly changes the meaning of the words in relation to the claim of Texana that I was addressing: that we are all sedevacantists even if we don't know it, because of a doubt concerning the validity of the NREC.
It is in the book on The Church Militant, the chapter on Secret Infidels.
This is part of St Robert's response to the last objection that we can't know what body of men constitutes the real Church, "even if secret heretics pertain to the Church", because... "the Church cannot exist without bishops and priests, as Jerome teaches. But who knows for certain who might be true bishops and priests since that depends upon the intention of the one ordaining and upon an invisible character..."
St Robert responds that two things are to be considered with respect to bishops, 1. that they hold the place of Christ, and 2. that they might have the power of order and jurisdiction. Considered in the first mode, he says, "...we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true bishops and pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church. Since they are for the Church, they cannot be against it". Considered in the second manner, he says, "we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be bishops, although it is certain , with infallible certitude, that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church. For this purpose, to hold the church is certain and clearly visible in so far as the heads and members, the first consideration suffices".
(https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/eleison-comments-consecrations-validity-(no-864)/16/?action=reporttm;msg=926322)
Dear Plenus Venter,
St. Robert Bellarmine did not envision a Church composed of men without Holy Orders who are outside of the line of Apostolic Succession.
God has not deserted His Church! Look at the line of Apostolic Succession continued by the consecrations administered by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, Archbishop Ngo Diem Thuc. This is where Christ's true Latin Rite Church is.
Sedevacantism happens---you don't choose it. You are made sedevacantist by the death of a Pontiff, by his resignation, or his manifest apostasy, schism, or heresy.
-
Dear Plenus Venter,
St. Robert Bellarmine did not envision a Church composed of men without Holy Orders who are outside of the line of Apostolic Succession.
God has not deserted His Church! Look at the line of Apostolic Succession continued by the consecrations administered by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, Archbishop Ngo Diem Thuc. This is where Christ's true Latin Rite Church is.
Sedevacantism happens---you don't choose it. You are made sedevacantist by the death of a Pontiff, by his resignation, or his manifest apostasy, schism, or heresy.
Texana, please try to follow the logic. We are on a thread here about Bishop Williamson's comments on Fr Calderon's study on the NREC.
The first point is that Fr Calderon concludes that the new rite is very probably valid, that does not support your comment about a Church composed of men without Holy Orders. You might prefer another study, but the comment you made that I responded to was in relation to this study. Please keep the logic.
Secondly, understand what St Robert Bellarmine is saying: we cannot have infallible certitude that this bishop or that has the character of order, but in spite of this - even if he lacks that character - he truly is our bishop and pastor if he is accepted as such by the Church. That does not support your original comment that we are all sedevacantist whether we know it or not because the Pope cannot be Pope if he lacks the character of order ("since the Bishop of Rome is the Pope, neither Fr. Ratzinger nor Mr. Bergoglio is the Pope"). Surely you can admit that? On this point, St Robert's doctrine is against your statement.
Fr Calderon's study supports the likelihood that the Pope does have the character of order. St Robert Bellarmine's work supports the position that even if he does not, he is our Pope nonetheless if he is held as such by the Church. Keep in mind, we are only dealing here with the validity of episcopal consecration, not other issues relating to sedevacantism. Just the validity of episcopal consecration - your original comment that I responded to. Keep the logic.
That is the only point I am making in direct response to your false claim that we are all sedevacantist, know it or not, because Pope Francis is not validly ordained or consecrated. It is false to say that he certainly does not have valid orders. It is false to say, even if he does not have the character of order, that he is certainly not Pope on that account.
This is not the place, obviously, to rehash all the arguments about sedevacantism, what constitutes manifest heresy, how the Pope falls from office, the multitude of theological opinions etc. That is not the point of my post. You judge that sedevacantism 'happened', I judge that it has 'not happened' along with all the other Resistance supporters on this forum. No, we are not sedevacantists, please know it very clearly!
Of course we agree that we ought to avoid the novelties and adhere to Tradition. And of course we agree with Bishop Williamson and Fr Calderon, that newbishops and newpriests consecrated by such newbishops need to have their ordinations rectified before they can minister to the faithful in Tradition.
-
Dear Plenus Venter,
Finally, Bishop Williamson has made it very clear that, in agreement with Fr. Calderon, there is a lack of proper intention in both the novus ordo ordination to the priesthood and the novus ordo consecration of a bishop. Therefore, logically, Mr. Bergoglio is not even a priest.
In sacramental theology, certainty is the only standard, not "likelihood" or "probability".
A democratic vote of acceptance does not supply the indelible mark on a man's soul. The Church is not a democracy. What is the number required for acceptance, and who decides who is accepted? Are they the same men whose ordinations and consecrations are "very probably valid"?