Could someone explain what the qualifications of WJ Morgan are?
It is true that ABL and the Society have practiced conditional re-ordination
of some priests who have come into the Society from the outside, after
having been ordained in the new rite.
It is also true that they have done so in the past after having examined
the particulars of each case and after having decided one way or the other.
Some of the priests who were previously ordained with the new rite have
been accepted as they are without conditional re-ordination. I don't have
a list of those, but I have heard that they exist. Perhaps someone else
knows.
There are other factors. One such factor is, when a priest has been
practicing for a while, hearing Confessions and giving absolution, saying
Mass and distributing Communion, bringing viaticuм to the sick and even
Extreme Unction, and of course providing Baptism and Matrimony (those
two are not really in question for a priest is not strictly required), he has
a history and a track record, so to speak. Now, if his ordination would
suddenly come into question, then the validity of all those sacraments
would be up for grabs. That is to say, that someone would need to hunt
down every person who received absolution from him in the past, and
they would need to make a new, general confession of all the sins from
which they had been absolved by this priest whose ordination has been
deemed invalid.
Have you ever heard of that happening?
Now, that is the matter of sacramental theology in practice - where the
rubber meets the road. So flip those pages and come up with the goods.
We have today the highly questionable practice of admitting all the
Anglican 'priests' into the bosom of the Roman Church without even so
much as an abjuration of error. This would have been unconscionable
before Vat.II except for consideration by such figures as Pierre Teilhard
de Chardin, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, Edward
Schillebeeckx, Annibale Bugnini and, yes, Joseph Ratzinger. 'Nuf said.
What is being done about the Anglican erstwhile absolutions these had
given before their transmogrification or whatever-they-want-to-call-it?
Or, did they not give any? Are they giving them now? Are they valid?
What's up with that?
IABM.*
But even in the SSPX - when a new incoming priest is conditionally re-
ordained, is he supposed to go and seek out the people he had absolved
in the past and inform them that they need to "come clean" so to speak,
because he has? That's what the manuals prescribe. Has it happened?
Now, I know that one of the bedrock principles of the CMRI is that any
priest whose ordination comes from the new rite, or whose bishop was
consecrated in the new rite, has an invalid ordination. Curiously,
they do
not have the jurisdiction to make that judgment, but they make it
nonetheless, and they talk it up, but when you go toe-to-toe with them,
they back down. They know they cannot pronounce this dogmatically
because they don't have the authority to do that. But they can raise the
theological question okay. It's a fine line to balance on.
It can make for a bit of ugliness when groups of Catholics get together
and do not agree on principles. But it doesn't have to. These are not
simple times, and it would be best for everyone to avoid unnecessary
conflicts. There are much bigger issues to cope with.
There is more.
A bishop is
absolutely necessary for giving holy orders to a priest.
True or False?
You might have to think about that. Then again, perhaps thinking alone
won't help. There are some things that require outside knowledge
coming in, and without that, the conclusion cannot be arrived at.
There is more.
Please find an example in the entire history of the Church when a man
who has been acting as a priest, having been ordained previously by a
cleric with apostolic succession and the faculties of conferring priestly
ordination, has been found invalidly ordained by an authoritative
tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church.
Any time you're ready...........................
(pendulum clock)
*It's A Big Mess