Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)  (Read 7745 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46864
  • Reputation: +27735/-5150
  • Gender: Male
Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2024, 07:08:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1566
    • Reputation: +1282/-100
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
    « Reply #16 on: February 03, 2024, 09:43:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Texana on February 03, 2024, 12:17:39 PM
    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?
    Logged

    Offline Texana

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +212/-58
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
    « Reply #17 on: February 05, 2024, 07:19:13 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 03, 2024, 09:43:53 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46864
    • Reputation: +27735/-5150
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
    « Reply #18 on: February 05, 2024, 07:33:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 03, 2024, 09:43:53 PM
    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".
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46864
    • Reputation: +27735/-5150
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
    « Reply #19 on: February 05, 2024, 07:36:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46864
    • Reputation: +27735/-5150
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
    « Reply #20 on: February 05, 2024, 08:55:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 05, 2024, 07:36:34 AM
    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".
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12375
    • Reputation: +7858/-2433
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
    « Reply #21 on: February 05, 2024, 10:23:48 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.  
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46864
    • Reputation: +27735/-5150
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
    « Reply #22 on: February 05, 2024, 10:44:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 05, 2024, 10:23:48 AM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12375
    • Reputation: +7858/-2433
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
    « Reply #23 on: February 05, 2024, 11:05:00 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    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. 
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46864
    • Reputation: +27735/-5150
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
    « Reply #24 on: February 05, 2024, 11:25:55 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 05, 2024, 11:05:00 AM
    “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.
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1566
    • Reputation: +1282/-100
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
    « Reply #25 on: February 06, 2024, 03:56:51 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 05, 2024, 07:33:50 AM
    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".




    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12375
    • Reputation: +7858/-2433
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
    « Reply #26 on: February 06, 2024, 08:48:39 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    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.


    Quote
    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).
    Logged

    Offline Texana

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +212/-58
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
    « Reply #27 on: February 06, 2024, 09:10:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 06, 2024, 03:56:51 AM
    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".


    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.
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1566
    • Reputation: +1282/-100
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
    « Reply #28 on: February 06, 2024, 06:52:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Texana on February 06, 2024, 09:10:25 AM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Texana

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +212/-58
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Consecrations Validity (no. 864)
    « Reply #29 on: February 06, 2024, 07:38:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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"? 

    Logged
    Pages: 1 [2]
    « previous next »