.
I'm leaving this quote from
The great Fr. Girouard for comparison's sake:
From Video transcript:
Moreover, many times also we have to fear that the New Church has also taken away, not only the prayers and the ritual, but the power itself from the priesthood. I will give you one example... When I was in Winnipeg a few years ago, I looked at the website of the Archdiocese of Winnipeg. (And last year as well, when I was doing my sermons against the shenanigans of the Society, I have checked this up again last year and it was still there). The Archbishop of Winnipeg, Monsignor Weisgerber, in his website, gives his mission statement, like we did in our website. (But it's a very different kind of mission statement, you can believe! And he says that he is absolutely convinced, he has absolutely no doubt, he is absolutely convinced that there isn't a difference, he says even these words: “There isn't any difference whatsoever” between clerics and lay people. That is what he calls his pastoral vision, and I am quoting, "There isn't any difference whatsoever, between the clergy and the laity," and he explains why he believes that and he says: Because we have all been baptized with the same baptism, and we are, we all have the same priesthood in virtue of our baptism. And he says that the only difference there is between the clergy and the laity, is that the clergy has received some power of authority over the faithful. So the Bishop says: “I will ordain you, and you will receive an authority over that parish”. But there is no sacramental power, there is no sacramental difference between the clergy and the laity.
Now the big problem with this, because now it is clear that this is what he believes, which is a heresy, so this man is probably a heretic, is that when he performs an ordination, from time to time he does; in the last 10 years, I don't know, maybe 5 ordinations or something. I am not sure if he was asked to consecrate another Bishop, it is possible, he is an Archbishop, but I would have to verify. In any case, whether he consecrated other Bishops or whether he ordained priests, there is a serious and positive doubt about the validity of these consecrations and these ordinations. Because if himself does not believe that by the priesthood, by his ordination, he has received the sacerdotal character; if he does not believe that he received the power to forgive sin; if he does not believe that he received the power to consecrate the body and the blood of our Lord; if he does not believe that he has the power to bless people and things; we may fear that, when he performs these ceremonies of ordination, he may refuse to give such powers. We may believe, we may fear, that he would say to himself: “Well, I have heard that in the old times, (when he grew up, because he is 70 something), they used to say that as a priest you receive these powers, but those are, you know, magic,
things of the Middle Ages, and it is just a slight of the hand, it’s just a kind of a superstition. And, therefore, I'm not going to give that. It doesn't exist.” That's the big problem!
That is why we really have a positive doubt about the validity of his ordinations. Because of the possibility that he would refuse to give these powers because he doesn't believe in them. Now, how many of those Bishops in the world, how many of them share in that same unbelief? Where did he get that from? He got that unbelief from his studies, when he was a seminarian, of course. That's what he learned in the new seminaries. And so he is probably not the only one around who believes in these things! And even if he said such things in 2005, eight years ago, he has not been punished, nor disciplined by Rome!
So this is the New Church that Bishop Fellay, and those who follow him, wants us to join. To mingle with heretics, to mingle with people who perform ordinations that are doubtful! How many people, in the Church today, believe that they will receive the sacraments, and they are not receiving them, because their priest has not been validly ordained, or their Bishop? It is hard to know, probably many of them. So this the great masterpiece of Satan: To have a Church which seems to have a priesthood, but really doesn't. And there is no way to know for sure, and now they want us to go back! They want us to mingle and mix with them. And they are not, they are not saying what I say to you, they are not saying it today. That's what the Society should do, not trying to go back, not trying to be recognized by the Conciliar Church. We should stand up and say: “Look at what this Archbishop says. He is a heretic. What are you doing about this? You have to re-consecrate, you have to re-ordain your priests!”
Because for the faithful, it would be a grave sin for the faithful to receive a doubtful sacrament. It would be a grave sin against the First Commandment for somebody to go to a church, and having a doubt: “Is this priest really validly ordained? Is this holy host really consecrated?” To go and to receive communion there, that would be a mortal sin. If you have that doubt, and nevertheless, you say: “Well, it might not be valid, but I will receive it nevertheless!” That is a grave sin against the First Commandment. A grave sin against the honor and worship due to God, because you accept to receive, and to give your adoration, to something that may not be God. That's what moral theology says.
This is what the Society should tell the New Rome: “Look at what you have done to your people! Instead of doing good to them, instead of blessing them, of wishing them well you have taken away the blessings, you have taken away the protection from the medals, you have taken away the valid sacraments! And you, yourselves, because of that, you are on the road to hell!” This is what the Society should say!
We have to pray for the Society, that their leaders, at the moment of their death, may not be accused by God of participating, by their silence, in the sins of the Conciliar Church.
I permanently left the indult mass 15 years ago because I have doubt about the validity of the new ordination rite, and the most doubt about the validity of the new formula of episcopal consecrations (how bishops are made bishops). A priest can ONLY be ordained by a bishop, it does not matter if the priest is like in the FSSP, ordained with the traditional rite, they are not made priests by the ordination!
The fact that the XSSPX does not mention this, is actually a punishment from God upon the Novus Ordo clergy, just like ecuмenism is a punishment upon the non-Catholic religions. Although the XSSPX is in this case an instrument of God's wrath, they are not exempted from punishment from God.
"Most priest are lost and few bishops are saved, not because of what they do so much as what they fail to do". (St. John Chrysostom)
While I appreciate you quoting the transcript of
The great Fr.
Girouard here in your post, bowler, I'd like to distinguish
between your words and his, between the principles on which he
expounds and the principles to which you leap, between the facts
of his words and the subjective reality of your own.
My problem, essentially, lies in the following sentence of bowler,
which is not to be found in the doctrine of
The great Fr.
Girouard, in his words here quoted:
"A priest can ONLY be ordained by a bishop; it does not
matter if the priest is, like in the FSSP, ordained with the
traditional rite, they are not made priests by the ordination!" (Emphasis deleted, semicolon and comma added)
Now, I'm not sure if you are aware of the meaning of your words
here, bowler, but it seems to me that you intend to say IOW that:
A) Since the fullness of Holy Orders can only be obtained from
one who has been given the fullness of Holy Orders, so too one
cannot give the fullness of Holy Orders to someone else unless
he has first validly received it from another so validly ordained.
B) The fullness of Holy Orders consists in being consecrated
Bishop.
C) This fullness of Holy Orders, i.e., being a bishop, is necessary
for one to give priestly Ordination to a candidate for the
priesthood.
D) If one has not been made a bishop first, by a validly
consecrated bishop, such that one is therefore a bishop, one
cannot ordain a priest to Holy Orders, even though the degree
of Holy Orders thus being given is not the fullness of Holy
Orders, i.e., being made a bishop.
E) And furthermore, in the greater extreme, one cannot
consecrate a bishop someone else, unless such a one has
previously himself been consecrated bishop; neither can one
consecrate himself a bishop, that is, to the fullness of Holy
Orders; nor can one become a bishop by democratic election
of the people, like the protestants do with their so-called
bishops.
Are you okay with that, bowler?
Is that what you were trying to say?
Topic: Fr. Girouards video - about New Ritual and on the doubtful validity of (Read 10287 times)