CathInfo.com

Really? Do you have a reference for this, Rum? I guess he would have preferred the Archbishop had chosen a few more prudent turncoats so they could have remained united amongst themselves... As one of the SSPX priests told us when the Resistance was starting: we need to stay united, that way we have more strength. Talk about Vatican IIb. "Stay in the Church and fight from within"! History repeats.

See here, beginning at 1:32:43 -



PS: As long as you are watching this conference, back up a few minutes to 1:25:28 - 1:30:00 for some critical history (especially from 1:27:50, which has come true since then).

The author confuses defect of form and defect of intention. The SSPX have never claimed any of the New Rites are defective per se. Any conditional re-ordinations done in the past were due to defect of intention, which were done on a case by case basis and usually involved something the minister had said or done that may give a positive doubt regarding his intention.

Bp. Tissier de Mallerais no longer holds the episcopal consecration form is invalid. Indeed, implicit in his private letter (which was based on a rushed reading of Cosmaraswany's booklet), is that he would also have to conclude that the old Abyssinian/Coptic rites must be invalid since they used the same form – something the Church has never said even when dealing with Anglican Orders (Anglicans used this in their defense). Rather, the form doesn’t become invalid but indeterminate and the correct intention is provided ex adjunctis.

Another error Bp. TdM makes is in his claim that the power to confirm is supplied to a simple priest. Firstly, the Church has never defined what power is delegated by the pope; it could be one of order, or jurisdiction, or some order/jurisdiction hybrid, or some other unknown third power. But the supplementary principle will only supply jurisdiction. Secondly, if a delegated power of the pope can be supplied then why not the delegated power to ordain? There are at least three instances in medieval times where three different popes have delegated power to simple priests to ordain to the diaconate and priesthood. It is now generally accepted that a priest is the extraordinary minister of ordination.

Great post, but I do have some questions:

1) Regarding +de Mallerais' present position on the NREC:

Has he stated that he no longer harbors any doubts, or are you making this argument on his behalf (i.e., based upon the implicit contradiction which arises from his presumed acceptance of the Abyssinian/Coptic rites)?   

I ask because it is possible -however unlikely- that he could still harbor doubts on the NREC, not realizing the implications/contradiction regarding the Abyssinian/Coptic rites.

In any case, your point is a good one.


2) Regarding the ex adiunctis argument:

Someone here (Ladislaus?) made the argument that Michael Davies'/+Williamson's ex adiunctis argument would rob the rite of any "essential form," thereby making it unessential. 

The obvious argument against this is that either:

A) the Church would not endorse such a principle were that truly the case

or

B) It is not integral to the validity of a sacramental rite that there actually be any essential form.

I recall Fr. Thierry Gaudray thundering in the Winona seminary that JP II's then-recent recognition of the Nestorian Anaphora (which he said had no explicit form of cosecration) was perhaps the most serious error in the post-conciliar disaster until that point.

Anyway, do you have any sources which can help clarify what the Church teaches in this regard?


3) Regarding +de Mallerais' alleged error (I say "alleged" out of respect for him) that the power to confirm is supplied to a simple priest:

I'm inclined to agree this is erroneous, based on a recent thread regarding Fr. Arrizaga.  If the NREC is valid, this is not a concrete problem, but if itis not, there would be implications for +Lazo's confirmations.

The reason the matter is not settled for me is that in a Nov/2022 interview with +Williamson in which he explained the ex adiunctis argument in relation to the NREC, he said that even the use of that principle does not remove all doubt regarding form.  Also, because Fr. Calderon still expresses his doubts on the matter (and a theologian of his caliber would certainly not be oblivious of the ex adiunctis argument/principle).



4) Regarding a supposed delegated power of a priest to ordain:

I am aware of the examples regarding these Roman delegations (which also arose in the recent Arrizaga confirmations thread), but I was also under the impression that, since they were quickly revoked/recalled after protest (at least as regards the Bul in England. See here: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15152.0 ), they could not easily be used as solid precedents for supposing priests were extraordinary ministers of ordination.

Can you provide more information in this regard?  The notion that "it is generally accepted that a priest is the extraordinary minister of ordination" is a new one to me (although I do know they can be delegated to confer minor orders and the subdiaconate).

Thanks in advance!

Bp. Tissier de Mallerais no longer holds the episcopal consecration form is invalid. Indeed, implicit in his private letter (which was based on a rushed reading of Cosmaraswany's booklet), is that he would also have to conclude that the old Abyssinian/Coptic rites must be invalid since they used the same form – something the Church has never said even when dealing with Anglican Orders (Anglicans used this in their defense). Rather, the form doesn’t become invalid but indeterminate and the correct intention is provided ex adjunctis.

Just to briefly comment that Fr. Cekada destroyed these errors about eastern rites using the new form. If you haven't read Cekada you haven't studied the issue, simple as.

Now to what I think is the crux of this ex adjunctis argument.

Is it necessary to say the adjunctis for the validity of the rite? Yes or no.

If your answer is yes you actually believe the whole rite is the form which is false.

If your answer is no then you imply the rite is actually invalid since an optional component is essential for validity.

Where is the fault in the logic?