Author Topic: Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay (Read 20151 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #5 on:** July 04, 2015, 08:33:15 AM »

The idea that simply because the council happened and exists, in no way confirms its legitimacy or validity.
That is the thinking of a non-thinker. It is likely to be the source of the SSPX prudential theology.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #6 on:** July 04, 2015, 01:18:06 PM »

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

If anyone would translate this whole study by Fr. Calderon, it would be to the great benefit of the whole Resistance in treating Conciliar consecrations, and consequently ordinations and confirmations made by bishops consecrated in the new rite.

Here, download this PDF. It deals with the matter from a thorough perspective and is written by a Dominican of Avrillé Fr. Pierre Marie, O.P., and is from the Angelus. I would recommend it.

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf

edit:

My mistake, this only deals with validity. The question of illicitness is not mentioned.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #7 on:** July 04, 2015, 01:59:22 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
In the first minute of this video (2009) you can see the extent of +Fellay's sacramental theology. ABL should have tested him before making him a bishop, or even a priest. With what he believes, he could not possibly object to the N.O. Mass. He must think the words of consecration are magic words. Listen carefully to the first minute. It is truly an embarrassment.

This video is divided in many 15 min. sections.

Actually, what +Fellay said is not new, I remember not long after Fr. Anthony Ward was ordained that he told a similar story that +Fellay tells in the opening minute of that video - that was back in 1972 or so. Fr. said he learned it from his seminary professor, which is probably the same story all the seminarians were taught back then.

The jist was, to err on the side of caution, validity was presumed.

To think that a priest, with the wrong intention (mad at his bishop), most likely the wrong form and matter can "consecrate all the bread in the bakery" or "all the wine in the cellar", outside of the Sacrifice of the Mass, is simply madness. An SSPX seminary professor told me once that ABL ordained the first few priests before they had finished the training because he wanted to send them out. They were supposed to come back to finish but never did. Is that true? Did these first priests become teachers later without finishing their own training? I'm asking.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #8 on:** July 04, 2015, 03:38:56 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: PapalSupremacy
If anyone would translate this whole study by Fr. Calderon, it would be to the great benefit of the whole Resistance in treating Conciliar consecrations, and consequently ordinations and confirmations made by bishops consecrated in the new rite.

Here, download this PDF. It deals with the matter from a thorough perspective and is written by a Dominican of Avrillé Fr. Pierre Marie, O.P., and is from the Angelus. I would recommend it.

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf

I am aware of that study, but this new one by Fr. Calderon reaches a different conclusion, and that is its importance - that the new rite of episcopal consecration is "probably valid", which in sacramental theology would be no different than saying "doubtful", because Catholics may only administer and receive "certainly valid" rites. Fr. Calderon says that because there is no certainty the priests coming from the NO should be conditionally ordained in the traditional rite.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #9 on:** July 04, 2015, 03:57:49 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
In the first minute of this video (2009) you can see the extent of +Fellay's sacramental theology. ABL should have tested him before making him a bishop, or even a priest. With what he believes, he could not possibly object to the N.O. Mass. He must think the words of consecration are magic words. Listen carefully to the first minute. It is truly an embarrassment.

This video is divided in many 15 min. sections.

Actually, what +Fellay said is not new, I remember not long after Fr. Anthony Ward was ordained that he told a similar story that +Fellay tells in the opening minute of that video - that was back in 1972 or so. Fr. said he learned it from his seminary professor, which is probably the same story all the seminarians were taught back then.

The jist was, to err on the side of caution, validity was presumed.

To think that a priest, with the wrong intention (mad at his bishop), most likely the wrong form and matter can "consecrate all the bread in the bakery" or "all the wine in the cellar", outside of the Sacrifice of the Mass, is simply madness.

Leavened wheat bread is still valid matter, and so is any wine without added sugar or other additives. The valid form we all know, and the valid intention of doing what the Church does, theologians say, is very easy to have.
So yes, a priest who wanted to spite his bishop would be able to consecrate a whole bakery, or even a whole wine cellar (it would be a sacrilege), and if externally he followed the form, validity indeed would be presumed for obvious reasons (erring on the side of caution).