“We must be patient. What is important is that there no longer be rejection in their hearts. Gradually, we must expect further steps, like concelebration.”Bishop Vitus Huonder is a novus ordo bishop right? This seems like it's going to have a big effect on the validity of the future SSPX clergy.
Or, apparently, the acceptance of conciliar ministration for critical functions and necessities of the SSPX apostolate:
When Francis sent retired Swiss Bishop Vitus Huonder to live with the SSPX at its boys school, the Society played it off as though Huonder was converting to Tradition, whereas my book “As We Are?” docuмented Huonder being sent by Francis to keep him abreast of, and further, SSPX reintegration.
It appears now that this stratagem has been so effective, and born so much conciliar fruit for Francis, that the SSPX’s German seminary schedule for Holy Week announces that +Huonder will be the one to celebrate the Holy Thursday Chrism Mass (and consequently be the one to consecrate SSPX holy oils)!
https://fsspx.today/chapel/zaitzkofen/#d-2023-04-06
Slowly, slowly, the deterioration of the SSPX progresses, as it slides into conciliarism.
Is this a Roman-Menzingen agreement to further condition the faithful (who have already accepted the ministration of Ecclesia Dei priests at African SSPX chapels) to accept conciliar episcopal consecration for their own future bishops?
Bishop Vitus Huonder is a novus ordo bishop right? This seems like it's going to have a big effect on the validity of the future SSPX clergy.
(https://i.imgur.com/FGdioW3.png)
This is a screenshot from 39 minutes 50 seconds into this docuмentary in French about Huonder. https://odysee.com/@adext:e/S2E8:c (https://odysee.com/@adext:e/S2E8:c)
Excellent. Archbishop Lefebvre: "All Sacraments from the Modernist bishops or priests are doubtful now."
So we have SSPX subjecting seminarians and the lay faithful to Sacraments that their founder declared "all doubtful now" in 1988.
Combine that letter (which pertains to intention) with this one (which pertains to form in the new rite of episcopal consecration) of +de Mallerais in 1998:
http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/
(https://i.imgur.com/Epvcyxj.png)
"Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s pamphlet “Le Drame Anglican.”After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of episcopal consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.As regards Mgr Lazo, it would be difficult for us to explain these things to him; the only solution is not to ask him to confirm or ordain.Yours very truly in Our Lord Jesus Christ,+Bernard Tissier de MalleraisPS: Another thought: Mgr Lazo has already confirmed “quite a few” [people] with us. Obviously, this is valid because “the Church supplies” (canon 209), because a simple priest can confirm with jurisdiction. And it is difficult to see how to make our doubt known to Mgr Lazo. So silence and discretion about this, please!
Do you have an english source for this?
Or, if you were referring to the principle significatio ex adiunctis, it is referenced in the index of Michael Davies’ Order of Melchizedek.
I foresaw Huonder's functioning as a “Society bishop” (because he celebrated some Pontifical High Masses), but not so soon, and not for consecrating holy oils, on which the validity of other Sacraments depend... I thought they would first let him administer Confirmations, then slowly let him take over more and more episcopal duties. This is serious and shocking.Oh dear I didn't consider confirmation. I was "confirmed" in the novus ordo so I don't believe my confirmation is valid and was hoping to get a conditional confirmation with the SSPX in the future, this is definitely going to be a big problem.
What's the point of the SSPX administering conditional Confirmations, if their Chrism is only a little “less doubtful” than oils from the Novus Ordo. Now those SSPX faithful “Confirmed” with oils from Huonder's “Chrism Mass” will need to receive conditional Confirmations from the Resistance or elsewhere.
The only thing we can expect from Menzingen, is that they will keep coming up with new ways to exceed our expectations in their further destruction of the SSPX.
Oh dear I didn't consider confirmation. I was "confirmed" in the novus ordo so I don't believe my confirmation is valid and was hoping to get a conditional confirmation with the SSPX in the future, this is definitely going to be a big problem.
I received conditional Confirmation from Bishop Williamson in 1989, and it was automatically granted for anyone requesting it, no questions asked. I'd suspect that now they'd give you the third degree to interrogate whether you might be some closet sedevacantist or something.I'm not in the US. There is only 1 traditional mass (sspx) option near me. Thank God the priests there are both old and ordained in the old rite. Other than that there is no one (from what I'm aware of).
Based on the letter Bishop Tissier wrote, perhaps you contact him and pay him a visit, and it sounds like he may be able to accommodate you in secret ... though I'm not 100% sure he's still in the US. Last time I heard he was in Chicago, but that may have changed. Or else you could find some other Traditional bishop of the SV variety, who would certainly accommodate you.
Yes, he was "consecrated" in the new rite. In fact, he was also "ordained" in the new rite, in 1971. So Huonder may not even be a priest, much less a bishop ... for those who have concerns about the new rites of orders.
It's getting worse and worse with neo-SSPX. Before going to an SSPX chapel, one now has to investigate whether any NO priest had been through there in recent days/weeks.
Does the Neo-SSPX do conditional confirmations anymore? I don't think they have for a very long time
Combine that letter (which pertains to intention) with this one (which pertains to form in the new rite of episcopal consecration) of +de Mallerais in 1998:
http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/
(https://i.imgur.com/Epvcyxj.png)
"Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s pamphlet “Le Drame Anglican.”After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of episcopal consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.As regards Mgr Lazo, it would be difficult for us to explain these things to him; the only solution is not to ask him to confirm or ordain.Yours very truly in Our Lord Jesus Christ,+Bernard Tissier de MalleraisPS: Another thought: Mgr Lazo has already confirmed “quite a few” [people] with us. Obviously, this is valid because “the Church supplies” (canon 209), because a simple priest can confirm with jurisdiction. And it is difficult to see how to make our doubt known to Mgr Lazo. So silence and discretion about this, please!
And what is the atmosphere at this point? Is it tense?
Oh very. No back-slapping. So I passed out the copies of the resolutions. So the first resolution was about the doubtfully ordained priest. So we wanted to talk about Fr. Philip Stark, S.J. who was a Jesuit, interestingly enough an erstwhile secretary to Thomas Merton, who had gone to work for Fr. Bolduc. We found out, through a letter from a layman, that Stark had been ordained in the new rite by Cardinal Sheehan in Baltimore. We had done a study some years before on the New Rite of Ordination, and Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of our views and that as far as we were concerned, he was doubtfully ordained. So the Archbishop tried to schmooze us and be diplomatic. “Well, it’s a very delicate question…it would be better if he got re-ordained…it would preserve the peace,” and so on. I pressed him, though and I asked if he was going to make it a policy to re-ordain, and he flatly said “No.” So that was that. So we moved on.
Source: https://www.truerestoration.org/an-interview-with-fr-anthony-cekada-regarding-archbishop-lefebvre-and-the-1983-split-with-the-sspx/
Oh dear I didn't consider confirmation. I was "confirmed" in the novus ordo so I don't believe my confirmation is valid and was hoping to get a conditional confirmation with the SSPX in the future, this is definitely going to be a big problem.It won't be possible, unfortunately.
If and I say if, Huonder was conditionally ordained and consecrated by the SSPX, it will still be in secret because I think when it comes to conditional ordinations and consecrations, the SSPX never publicly announces it.And there we have another important question:
And there we have another important question:
If ordinations and consecrations are public business, why hide it?
If you do a good thing of public interest, why keep it discreet? Why do we have to investigate, ask, and sometimes not get an answer about a conditional ordination?
An English translation of +de Mallerais’s letter can be found here:Thanks for this but my question was directed at OP. Sorry I should have used quotes.
http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/
Or, if you were referring to the principle significatio ex adiunctis, it is referenced in the index of Michael Davies’ Order of Melchizedek.
If you do a good thing of public interest, why keep it discreet? Why do we have to investigate, ask, and sometimes not get an answer about a conditional ordination?
There could be subject to reasons that we may not be privy to. One that I heard of regarding a Novus Ordo priest who received conditional ordination in the SSPX in secret was to avoid issues with the priest's superiors in the Novus Ordo.Wait, so this priest who got conditional ordination from the SSPX... remained in the NO? And if not, why would he care about issues with his "superiors in the NO"?
The part about Mgr Lazo indicates that the SSPX has not always insisted on conditional ordination or conditional consecration. There's also the case of Fr. Philip Stark who wasn't conditionally ordained when he came over from the Novus Ordo, as recalled by Fr. Cekada:Yes. As I said upthread (or maybe it was in another thread), many of the issues people speak of regarding the SSPX was already brought to ABL's attention by "The Nine" in 1983.
Politics. They don't want to give Rome the impression that they have any doubt about their Bogus Ordo "Sacraments". That would certainly scuttle any hopes of a practical agreement.
Wait, so this priest who got conditional ordination from the SSPX... remained in the NO? And if not, why would he care about issues with his "superiors in the NO"?
This makes no sense. There have been a number of NO priests who have come to sedevacantist bishops and seminaries to become true priests. And with no looking back.
Anyone have any pics/videos of the event?
I noticed the Zaitzkofen YouTube channel had no livestream of it, despite having livestreams of other services...
The SSPX could always conditionally consecrate Huonder in the traditional rite, and keep it secret, preserving such things as a video of it, and notarized affidavits signed by witnesses, so that then Huonder could continue a traditional line of apostolic succession. That might not even trigger latae sententiae excommunication, in that in the eyes of Newchurch, he's already a bishop, and thus cannot receive a consecration that he already possesses. Then, when all of this mess is over, his traditional orders could be unveiled.
Better not say that too loudly, as Newchurch might suspect that the SSPX would do such a thing.
The SSPX could always conditionally consecrate Huonder in the traditional rite, and keep it secret, preserving such things as a video of it, and notarized affidavits signed by witnesses, so that then Huonder could continue a traditional line of apostolic succession. That might not even trigger latae sententiae excommunication, in that in the eyes of Newchurch, he's already a bishop, and thus cannot receive a consecration that he already possesses. Then, when all of this mess is over, his traditional orders could be unveiled.I'm never a fan of 'secret' ordinations / consecrations.
Better not say that too loudly, as Newchurch might suspect that the SSPX would do such a thing.
I'm never a fan of 'secret' ordinations / consecrations..
Just reading in my missal that the Holy Oils consecrated at Holy Thursday are also used in the consecrations of bishops. Interesting. Fake bishops consecrating fake oil for more fake bishops. Not sure if it is the matter, however.It only affects Confirmation and Extreme Unction as it pertains to the validity of the sacrament (i.e., matter).
Confirmed: https://gloria.tv/post/fadN1c73FDoz3DHz8pBzmH62p
From the Non Possumus Resistance Blog (Brazil):Nightmare tier scenario.
https://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2023/04/el-obispo-dudoso-huonder-consagrara-los.html
[DeepL.com translation from Spanish:]
BISHOP (?) HUONDER WILL CONSECRATE (?) THE OILS FOR THE NEO-FSSPX THIS HOLY THURSDAY
The Neo-FSSPX officially informs that here: https://fsspx.today/chapel/zaitzkofen/#d-2023-04-06
Vitus Huonder was ordained priest in 1971 according to the new rites and consecrated bishop, also according to the new rites, in 2007, without being known that the Fraternity has ordained and consecrated him under condition; so it is doubtful his quality of priest and bishop.
On the other hand, the unanimity of moralists teaches that one must be tutiorist with regard to the validity of the sacraments, that is to say, that in case of doubt, it is obligatory to abide by the most certain sentence in order to avoid invalidity.
By having holy oils consecrated, then, by a doubtful minister, the Neo-FSSPX will, in turn, render doubtful the confirmations and extreme unctions conferred using those oils.
"But nothing has changed in the FSSPX."
Nightmare tier scenario..
Yes, the SSPX still does conditional confirmations.Not for me they didn't - I had to seek out Bishop Williamson and get conditionally confirmed during one of his visits to the states. SSPX had no response to my inquiries.
My first question is this:I also see it this way. They are merely repeating (what I consider) the errors of Abp. Lefebvre regarding the validity of the new sacraments.
Has the SSPX ever performed a conditional ordination specifically on the basis of having positive doubt about the validity of the new form (rather than intention)?
They have certainly never conditionally consecrated a bishop (on that basis, or any other).
If these are both facts, then they cannot be accused of changing or contradicting previous policy or praxis, with regard to form.
If the SSPX was listing before, it has now just run aground.If you can not get a straight answer if a priest was conditionally ordained or not, you will surely never know where the Holy(?) Oils come from.
I know there are good priests and pious faithful in the SSPX orbit but when you have debacles the size of Post Falls and Huonder, free standing alters, and Protestant resembling churches, and you kick out +Williamson, you really have to 'wonder' what team they're playing for. Now you can't even die in peace.
Do the oils Huonder worked on cover just Europe?
I also see it this way. They are merely repeating (what I consider) the errors of Abp. Lefebvre regarding the validity of the new sacraments.
This issue was raised by "the nine" in the now distant 80s, as somebody mentioned before, and Abp. Lefebvre never gave a satisfatory answer. He simply carried on accepting novus ordo priests.
The change seems to be that they were more inclined to conditionally ordain, probably on the basis of probable doubtful intention. Now, apparently, they presume that the intention is not questionable, unless some exterior element suggests it.
This is a change in praxis.
Confirmation will probably be the next step in this process.
I don't see any change in praxis.Sure, but, as I heard, since Benedict XVI became "Pope", they concluded that the novus ordo orders were almost always surely valid and conditional ordinations became history.
Baptisms: NO baptisms are presumed to be valid unless there is actual proof otherwise. Usually those baptized in the NO receives the complementing ceremonies. This is different from a conditional baptism.
Confirmation: Conditional confirmations are still given, usually based on doubts on the type of oil used in the NO.
Ordinations: As mentioned previously, this has been the continued practice even when +Lefebvre was still around. Conditional ordination only if there is serious doubt on the part of the NO priest requesting it, unless something is publicly and obviously invalid (such as the Pfeifferite line).
From what I have read in this forum, conditional ordinations were much more common before 2005. Nowadays they are almost nonexistent.
Something has changed.
Conditional ordination only if there is serious doubt on the part of the NO priest requesting it, unless something is publicly and obviously invalid…
Note Trento’s inclusion of the word “serious,” above.
Another Palmar de Troya like setup maybe required to break the utter stranglehold the SSPX has on Tradition.
It's only interest is self sustenance.
https://fsspx.de/de/news-events/news/was-lehrt-die-bisch%C3%B6fliche-liturgie-der-%C3%B6lweihe-am-gr%C3%BCndonnerstag-%C3%BCber-dasWow indeed, yet they are willing to risk dubious rites on the faithful....
They cut 'Bp.' Huonder out of all/most of the pics, wow
Err..what? Palmar de Troya? Seriously? :laugh2:My thoughts exactly. When I read this my first reaction was “what the actual...?”.
The SSPX could always conditionally consecrate Huonder in the traditional rite, and keep it secret, preserving such things as a video of it, and notarized affidavits signed by witnesses, so that then Huonder could continue a traditional line of apostolic succession. That might not even trigger latae sententiae excommunication, in that in the eyes of Newchurch, he's already a bishop, and thus cannot receive a consecration that he already possesses. Then, when all of this mess is over, his traditional orders could be unveiled.I hope and pray that is what happened but I doubt it. Conditional ordinations were the norm but not so much anymore. I don't know what our children will end up with unless something changes soon. Prayers, fasting and sacrifice!
Better not say that too loudly, as Newchurch might suspect that the SSPX would do such a thing.
https://fsspx.de/de/news-events/news/was-lehrt-die-bisch%C3%B6fliche-liturgie-der-%C3%B6lweihe-am-gr%C3%BCndonnerstag-%C3%BCber-dasWhat else have they "cut out" or tried to hide or left secret?
They cut 'Bp.' Huonder out of all/most of the pics, wow
Here is the video; it's now official.Video is gone now.
Former Novus Ordo Diocesan Bishop Celebrates Chrism Mass in PiusX Seminary – gloria.tv (https://gloria.tv/post/fadN1c73FDoz3DHz8pBzmH62p)
https://novusordowatch.org/2023/04/fsspx-holy-oils-vitus-huonder-invalid-last-rites/https://novusordowatch.org/2016/07/tissier-invalidity-novus-ordo-ordinations/
Does anyone have the original 30-40 pages written by Bishop Tissier we Mallerais?
What is this work you are refererring to?He talked about the invalidity of the new rite.
The SSPX are very uncomfortable about this. If there was no doubt as to his validity, they would be very public about having a new bishop. All my comments here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVJW_TeNcO4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVJW_TeNcO4) were removed in under 5 minutesI noticed comments kept disappearing
https://fsspx.de/de/news-events/news/was-lehrt-die-bisch%C3%B6fliche-liturgie-der-%C3%B6lweihe-am-gr%C3%BCndonnerstag-%C3%BCber-dasThis is simply ridiculous.
They cut 'Bp.' Huonder out of all/most of the pics, wow
Video is gone now.
This type of speculation does not help resolve this issue. For such a serious matter, it would be morally wrong for the SSPX to give the impression that the Huonder is legit and push his "ministry" upon the faithful, all in the name of human respect. Real men cannot make competent decisions based on wishful thinking, especially when it comes to the Sacraments.
In the mid-1990s when Fr. Morgan was superior in the Philippines, Mgr Lazo was allowed to function as a bishop, doing confirmations, and partaking of ordinations in Econe as a a bishop. The crux of the matter is whether or not praxis has changed.
+Lazo publicly rejected Roman modernism, and modernist Rome, whereas +Huonder was sent by modernist Rome to help reintegrate the SSPX into modernist Rome.True, Bishop Lazo did repudiate vatican 2 and the new mass, but he was still consecrated a bishop in the new rite; I don't think confirmations would be valid if a bishop is doubtfully consecrated, but validly ordained as a priest. This does open the question about the episcopacy; why is it that when a priest is given the delegation by his bishop to confirm, it's valid, but when he isn't given a delegation it's invalid? On the other hand, eastern rite priests have always been able to validly confirm.
The two contrast sharply.
As regards Fr. Morgan allowing +Lazo to “partake of ordinations,” what exactly does this mean? If you are suggesting +Lazo ordained SSPX priests, please supply the proof. Were it true, which I very much doubt, those priests would be under the same cloud as all conciliar ordained priests.
As far as +Huonder performing confirmation, it does not resolve doubts about the validity of his consecration (per +Tissier’s letter expressing them, and acknowledging even a simple priest can perform them in necessity), which is yet another difference between the two: Hounder was ordained in the new rite; +Lazo in the old (ie., Huonder’s confirmations would remain doubtful, where +Lazo’s would not).
Neither does any of your post dispel doubts regarding the oils, which can only be consecrated by a bishop.
Finally, one must be allowed to wonder: If +Lazo had lived in the 2010’s, and said the same things of modernist Rome he said in the late ‘90’s, would the Society still have collaborated with him? Given the persona non grata posture they have taken toward +Vigano, one must be allowed to doubt it.
True, Bishop Lazo did repudiate vatican 2 and the new mass, but he was still consecrated a bishop in the new rite; I don't think confirmations would be valid if a bishop is doubtfully consecrated, but validly ordained as a priest. This does open the question about the episcopacy; why is it that when a priest is given the delegation by his bishop to confirm, it's valid, but when he isn't given a delegation it's invalid? On the other hand, eastern rite priests have always been able to validly confirm.
There would be no doubt regarding the validity of confirmations administered by a certainly validly ordained priest who received delegation from his bishop.Did New Rite Bishop Lazo ordain priests? If so, there certainly would be doubts as to the validity of those priests. And given this most recent news, how would we ever know for sure?
The salient point here is that the SSPX didn’t use +Lazo in such a capacity which would engender doubts, in light of his consecration in the new rite (as it is now using +Huonder).
Did New Rite Bishop Lazo ordain priests? If so, there certainly would be doubts as to the validity of those priests.
I have never heard that he did, but Trento’s ambiguous post could be read as suggesting he did.
I have requested proof, if this is what he is claiming.
Supposing he did (which again would be highly doubtful, particularly in light of +de Mallerais’ doubts expressed in the published letter on the issue of +Lazo and the NREC), yes, all the same doubts would apply to his ordinations.
But again, Trento’s unsupported and ambiguous statement is the first time I’ve seen this claim made (which unless he can substantiate it, is to be rapidly discarded):
”That which is alleged without proof, can be dismissed without proof.”
I didn't claim that he personally ordained SSPX priests. But when he was in Econe for the annual priestly ordinations in June, he was indeed dressed as a bishop and laid his hands on them. I'm quite certain he did confirmations, as attested by +Tissier's note above and in pictures available on the Internet.
I didn't claim that he personally ordained SSPX priests. But when he was in Econe for the annual priestly ordinations in June, he was indeed dressed as a bishop and laid his hands on them. I'm quite certain he did confirmations, as attested by +Tissier's note above and in pictures available on the Internet.All the PRIESTS present at the ceremony participate in the laying on of hands:
All the PRIESTS present at the ceremony participate in the laying on of hands:
Watch from 3:15
Priests for Tomorrow - Part 6 - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwlYeiy82s)
Obviously! But what I said was Mgr Lazo laid hands dressed as a bishop. Is this considered "putting lipstick on a pig" as another obnoxious commenter said earlier?Yes, doesn't look good in hindsight, does it?
(https://i.imgur.com/ZTkjGIw.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/v7D7sNe.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/mFFR0AX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/svecvHj.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/tobMhR1.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/cnifnVn.png)
It would be interesting to have Bishop Williamson's perspective on this. Is it something that was discussed among the Society bishops and superiors, or was it some kind of oversight? Perhaps Sean will address the issue in his next interview with BW?
Yes, the SSPX probably threatened Gloria Tv to take the video down. The video has serious ramifications, and it probably upset the SSPX money train.Both the German and English SSPX sites have no record of it, except for a general article teaching what happens at such a mass referencing "the bishop". They aren't even denying that it was him or that some other bishop consecrated the oils. Just nothing.
Some comments here, beginning at 25:53-Thanks Sean.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ae-NfFCx008
Well played SSPX. Well played.
There are actually people who are now questioning whether he ever did do the consecration of the oils. Because there is no evidence. What morons.
Well played SSPX. Well played.
Thanks Sean.
Good to hear that again.
It is unfortunate that His Excellency doesn't draw the necessary conclusion, like Fr Calderon in the material you provided, that such a doubt cannot be tolerated when it comes to the administration of the sacraments. I think perhaps his aging brain got lost in his philosophizing and went off on a bit of a tangent.
It would be interesting to know what the talk was among the SSPX bishops and superiors in relation to Mgr Lazo, or was it completely overlooked?
If the SSPX hasn’t already received a canonical approval (possibly, but not certainly implicit in the Argentine recognition) “in pectore,” which would explain many things (eg., using ICK priests to staff its African chapels, acquiescing in the COVID19 shot, sending the 2018 General Chapter results to Rome for ratification, having Huonder consecrate holy oils, receive jurisdiction for confessions, General refusal to attack V2 from the pulpit, etc.), this further extension and progression of Huonder’s activity within the SSPX may have set the table for it.
Recall the pitch marketed by the SSPX that Huonder just wanted to retire there (whereas we docuмented his being sent by Francis expressly to report on and help the Society’s progress toward conciliar reintegration).
To gradually progress from wanting a nice place to sleep, to consecrating holy oils is quite the expansion. Rome must be pleased. And if holy oils fly without protest, why not bishops?
A priest in Winona when I was there during and after the Campos capitulation told me that Rome had quietly sanated their marriages, unannounced. Given that the Protocol signed, then rejected by Lefebvre also included a provision proposed by Rome to sanate SSPX marriages “ad cautelam” (ie., just in case), I can’t shake the thought that something similar has been done with the Society.
It would be unprovable and unknowable, barring an admission, of course, but would explain many puzzling things (like those mentioned above).
Rome had quietly sanated their marriages, unannounced. Given that the Protocol signed, then rejected by Lefebvre also included a provision proposed by Rome to sanate SSPX marriages “ad cautelam” (ie., just in case), I can’t shake the thought that something similar has been done with the Society.What does sanate mean?
What does sanate mean?
Thanks Sean.
Good to hear that again.
It is unfortunate that His Excellency doesn't draw the necessary conclusion, like Fr Calderon in the material you provided, that such a doubt cannot be tolerated when it comes to the administration of the sacraments. I think perhaps his aging brain got lost in his philosophizing and went off on a bit of a tangent.
It would be interesting to know what the talk was among the SSPX bishops and superiors in relation to Mgr Lazo, or was it completely overlooked?
So is my understanding correct that +Williamson is accepting the validity of Mgr Huonder's orders while some Resistance priests and lay folks do not?
So is my understanding correct that +Williamson is accepting the validity of Mgr Huonder's orders while some Resistance priests and lay folks do not?Sorry, Trento, I didn't mean to imply that. It is as Sean says. But he did take a bit of prompting from the interviewer!
(https://i.imgur.com/zNFM1fR.jpg)This is just so grave!
The Non Possumus Blog obtained this suppressed pic of Bishop (?) Huonder consecrating (?) the holy oils, assisted by Fathers Jeindl and Schreiber (SSPX).
http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2023/04/non-possumus-tuvo-acceso-una-de-las.html?m=1
This is just so grave!
Will there be no resistance from anyone within the SSPX? Has anyone heard anything from an SSPX pulpit even, condemning this?
When is it not okay to keep silence when the Faith and sacraments are under attack?
This is the beginning of introducing doubts into the sacraments of the SSPX on a grand scale (if not the refusal to conditionally re-ordain NO priests).
Where are the courageous bishops and priests in the SSPX - for many of them know the gravity of what is happening here - who will stand up like Bishop de Castro Mayer at the episcopal consecrations in 1988?: St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is no obligation to make a public profession of Faith in every circuмstance, but when the Faith is in danger it is urgent to profess it, even at the risk of one's life... It is sorrowful to see the lamentable blindness of so many confreres in the episcopacy and the priesthood, who do not see or who do not wish to see the present crisis, nor the necessity to resist the modernism momentarily ruling, in order to be faithful to the mission which God has confided to us.
To everyone in the SSPX, priest and laymen, reading this, I beg of you, for the love of God, to take action and stand up against this attack on Tradition.
Actually why is this considered alarming now even though priests and bishops who have not been conditionally ordained were working with the SSPX long back even when the Archbishop was still alive and didn't make it a general policy to conditionally ordain all NO clergy? Did the SSPX innovate on this or is the Resistance getting closer to the position of "The Nine"?Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX have never considered the New Rite of Priestly Ordination to be invalid. It is the intention of the ordaining bishop, and the validity of his consecration, that may be called into question. If the ordination was performed by a true bishop whose intention was not in doubt, then conditionally re-ordaining would not only be not necessary but forbidden by the Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX have never considered the New Rite of Priestly Ordination to be invalid. It is the intention of the ordaining bishop, and the validity of his consecration, that may be called into question. If the ordination was performed by a true bishop whose intention was not in doubt, then conditionally re-ordaining would not only be not necessary but forbidden by the Church.
This doesn't answer the question. Unless the ordaining cleric explicitly states he doesn't intend to ordain or consecrate and follows the text of the official rites faithfully, the sacrament is considered valid.You have provided one of the answers: "follows the text of the official rites faithfully" - improvisation is well known in the New Church. The ordaining minister may not be a validly consecrated bishop. The matter and form may not be adhered to. Translation into the vernacular may be an issue. The new revolutionary theology may pervert the intention, which may not be so well guaranteed by the new un-Catholic rite.
The presumption of valid sacraments only applies to orthodox rites, not the modernist Frankenstein V2 creations.
Fr. Pierre-Marie, OP of the Avrille Dominicans (now aligned with the Resistance) wrote the following article :Ah, here we go again. Note the date: Fall of 2005. Just after Ratzinger, a new-rite bishop, was elected.
https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations
I do not know if he has ever retracted this article.
Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX have never considered the New Rite of Priestly Ordination to be invalid. It is the intention of the ordaining bishop, and the validity of his consecration, that may be called into question. If the ordination was performed by a true bishop whose intention was not in doubt, then conditionally re-ordaining would not only be not necessary but forbidden by the Church.Why would the NREC be at least doubtful, but the NRPO be certainly valid?
Fr. Pierre-Marie, OP of the Avrille Dominicans (now aligned with the Resistance) wrote the following article :
https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations
I do not know if he has ever retracted this article.
Ah, here we go again. Note the date: Fall of 2005. Just after Ratzinger, a new-rite bishop, was elected.
Granted, your explanation may be possible, but does he ever refer to such an article or say that he is attempting to refute it with his study? That's typically what happens in such a situation. It's been many years since I read his study (and Fr Cekada's refutation of it), so I don't recall. Also, can you provide a link to the Rore Sanctifca article?
Upon the election of BXVI, Rore Sanctifica (sedevacantists in Europe) wrote an article denying the validity of BXVI. The SSPX and allies sought to refute that argument, sensing in it the damage it could cause to simple souls (or simply because they were not persuaded of the arguments, or both). According to this explanation, that the article of Fr. Pierre Marie, et al, defending the NREC transpired within the immediate context of BXVI's election is the cause, yes, but that it transpired within the greater context of the ralliement is incidental.
Granted, your explanation may be possible, but does he ever refer to such an article or say that he is attempting to refute it with his study? That's typically what happens in such a situation. It's been many years since I read his study (and Fr Cekada's refutation of it), so I don't recall. Also, can you provide a link to the Rore Sanctifca article?
In other words, as the article of Fr. Pierre Marie (and those of Fr's. Celier and Calderon) transpires within the context of the SSPX ralliement to Rome, were the motivations and conclusions suspect? Stated differently, would the same conclusions have been reached, had the studies taken place while +Lefebvre were still alive (i.e., pre-ralliement)?A charitable and impartial analysis. Good work.
Let's stick with the first question:
Playing devil's advocate, one could say that it is not merely the timing of Fr. Pierre-Marie's article which is suspicious, but one could also wonder, given the behind the scenes drama then taking place between the SSPX and Avrille for several years already (read The Steffeshausen Memorandum for more details), whether Avrille was strongarmed by Menzingen into defending the validity of the NREC (e.g., Was Avrille -already at odds with +Fellay over the ralliement since 2001- worried about losing odinations, financial support, and its very survival if it were to distance itself from Menzingen on this point? This theory could be bolstered by recalling in 2014 how difficult was their break with Menzingen, how discreet their support for the Resistance initially was, and how Avrille did not join the Resistance until Menzingen broke ties: It was not Avrille who declared its allegiance with the Resistance, but Menzingen who told Avrille to get lost.
The obvious problem with this theory is that it rests upon completely rash foundations: To attribute dishonorable motives, even while more honorable and probable explanations exist (such as the following) is unsatisfactory.
For example, another reading of the events of the time, and motivations for the article, is this one:
Upon the elecction of BXVI, Rore Sanctifica (sedevacantists in Europe) wrote an article denying the validity of BXVI. The SSPX and allies sought to refute that argument, sensing in it the damage it could cause to simple souls (or simply because they were not persuaded of the arguments, or both). According to this explaation, that the article of Fr. Pierre Marie, et al, defending the NREC transpired within the immediate context of BXVI's election is the cause, yes, but that it transpired within the greater context of the ralliement is incidental.
The overarching problem here, is that the SSPX lost the trust and moral high ground it once had when it reoriented itself toward a practical accord (just as +de Galarreta said would happen beforehand at Albano in late 2011, in his Reflections on a Roman Proposal).
My own personal position is that the arguments of Fr. Pierre Marie, et al in favor of the validdity of the NREC are sincere, and that, while the election of BXVI certainly sparked the debate anew, the ralliement was probably incidental to their conclusions, howsoever much it may have garnered favor in Rome.
Whether these arguments in favor of the validity of the NREC are correct or not is another matter, and one in which I am not competent to address. What I am competent to note are the past statements of +de Mallerais expressing doubt, which seems not to be dealt with, the doubts raised by Fr. Calderon's study, and the color these two elements give to yielding an easy assent to the certain validity of the NREC. That the changes transspire amidst the post-conciliar revolution colors the rite still further.
A charitable and impartial analysis. Good work.
However, I must disagree that a doubtful form of consecration could ever be used. (The fact the NREC is certainly invalid aside.)
Have you any authorities which support your view of employing doubtful forms of sacraments?
Also, what could possibly prevent someone from uttering at least the one sentence form of the old rite?
I was thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas’s maxim that necessity dispenses with the law.In danger of death, the circuмstances definitely change the approach. I don't think I have ever came across a defense " not to receive" last rites if there is positive doubt. As if you sinned by allowing yourself to receive doubtful sacraments during a time of danger. Of course, if I survived to live another day, i would seek another confession.
So for example, although I don’t receive sacraments from conciliar clergy, if I was in a state of mortal sin, got in a car accident, was dying on the side of the road, and a conciliar priest pulled over to hear my confession, I would most certainly confess to him:
If I don’t, I will certainly be damned, but if I do, I might be saved.
(https://i.imgur.com/zNFM1fR.jpg)Apparently,y it's also now on the German FSSPX site (not sure which one came first):
The Non Possumus Blog obtained this suppressed pic of Bishop (?) Huonder consecrating (?) the holy oils, assisted by Fathers Jeindl and Schreiber (SSPX).
http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2023/04/non-possumus-tuvo-acceso-una-de-las.html?m=1
No time right now, but here's a lead regarding Rore Sanctifica, which might provide some search info (but it will all be French):That looks like a personal file. It doesn't give me anything.
file:///C:/Users/Sean/Downloads/Rore%20Sanctifica.org%20-%20Contact.pdf
“We must be patient. What is important is that there no longer be rejection in their hearts. Gradually, we must expect further steps, like concelebration.” (Fr. Cottier, on his conquest of Campos)
Or, apparently, the acceptance of conciliar ministration for critical functions and necessities of the SSPX apostolate:
When Francis sent retired Swiss Bishop Vitus Huonder to live with the SSPX at its boys school, the Society played it off as though Huonder was converting to Tradition, whereas my book “As We Are?” docuмented Huonder being sent by Francis to keep him abreast of, and further, SSPX reintegration.
It appears now that this stratagem has been so effective, and born so much conciliar fruit for Francis, that the SSPX’s German seminary schedule for Holy Week announces that +Huonder will be the one to celebrate the Holy Thursday Chrism Mass (and consequently be the one to consecrate SSPX holy oils)!
https://fsspx.today/chapel/zaitzkofen/#d-2023-04-06
Slowly, slowly, the deterioration of the SSPX progresses, as it slides into conciliarism.
Is this a Roman-Menzingen agreement to further condition the faithful (who have already accepted the ministration of Ecclesia Dei priests at African SSPX chapels) to accept conciliar episcopal consecration for their own future bishops?
Huonder/SSPX Movie Trailer
https://youtu.be/s-UWYRoHggU
SSPX pledging good behavior to Francis:Oh my goodness.... Sadly... But yes!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8CBqjZX6FjE&pp=ygUjZ2V0IHlvdXIgbWluZCByaWdodCBjb29sIGhhbmQgbHVrZSA%3D
Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX have never considered the New Rite of Priestly Ordination to be invalid. It is the intention of the ordaining bishop, and the validity of his consecration, that may be called into question. If the ordination was performed by a true bishop whose intention was not in doubt, then conditionally re-ordaining would not only be not necessary but forbidden by the Church.
Before this happened, I told the SSPX priest that celebrates mass at the mission I attend to that I wished to receive confirmation as soon as possible.
Just this week, he contacted me saying that he was going to send me the calendar of confirmation visits because it is unlikely that the bishops will visit the city I live in so I'll probably have to travel. But now I'm wondering whether they are going to use the oils "consecrated" by Huonder.
Does anybody have an idea where the oils used for confirmation in Mexico come from? Or does every bishop carry his "own" oil? I do not know yet which bishop is going to visit.
It has been said on some other thread on this board that the Huonder (Un)Holy Oils will be used only in Europe.I remember reading this too but now I can't find where.
Why not just get confirmed by +Zendejas?I don't know how to contact Bp. Zendejas and I don't think the Resistance has a mission in the city where I live in.
I don't know how to contact Bp. Zendejas and I don't think the Resistance has a mission in the city where I live in.