When we asked the SSPX why he hasn't been conditionally ordained, their answer was that they looked into it and his ordination was valid and that we shouldn't worry about it but that never stopped parishioners and others from avoiding him.

Bartholemew:

Quote

When we asked the SSPX why he hasn't been conditionally ordained, their answer was that they looked into it and his ordination was valid and that we shouldn't worry about it but that never stopped parishioners and others from avoiding him.

We knew Fr. Voigt long before he became "traditional."  He's a good priest.  Sorry to hear that he's had so much trouble in the east from all those 'righteous' (sspx?) parishioners.  We have wanted him to come out here  to Idaho and help some of us out, but, alas, we are now associated with a number of trads who shy away from any priest who has had any kind of a history with with sspx.  They are served by a very elderly priest now.  This priest, though he be humble, good and kind, does not, apparently, quite pass muster doctrinally with the two Marian Corp priests who come into the area from time to time.  So the trads who meet with these out-of-towners refuse to attend a Mass served by this home grown independent elderly priest.  It is all very confusing and sad.

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Bartholemew

Quote from: Centroamerica

This should not be presented as some new policy that shows evidence of a deal.

We have plenty of priests who were allowed to offer Mass in SSPX chapels and ordained in the new rite. Fr. Hesse, Fr. Gruner, and Fr. Kramer are a few examples. The policy of investigating a pries's ordination and making a determination one way or another has been the SSPX's policy for decades.

I remember when Father Voigt was up in Syracuse for many years. He was known to everyone in the northeast as the "bad Novus Ordo priest" and everyone went out of their way to never go to any of his Masses. When we asked the SSPX why he hasn't been conditionally ordained, their answer was that they looked into it and his ordination was valid and that we shouldn't worry about it but that never stopped parishioners and others from avoiding him.

Once Father Voigt left the SSPX for the resistance, I heard that the first thing he did was get conditionally ordained and I heard that he had wanted to be conditionally ordained while he was being persecuted as a Novus Ordo priest who was with the Society but that they wouldn't approve it.

By "Novus Ordo priest with the Society", I am assuming that you mean a priest with the Society ordained in the new rite.  According to this terminology, Fr. Kramer is a Novus Ordo priest with the resistance. I think the terms you chose to use reflect a confusion in your position.

Conditional ordinations have never been a blanket policy of whoever was ordained in the novus ordo gets one.  It is a more complicated matter than that.  It is sinful to repeat a sacrament that is only received once.  So no matter where the priest comes from, an investigation into his ordination must take place and at least some reasonable doubt established before he can be ordained conditionally.  The only people demanding that a conditional ordination be done to all ordained in the new rite are those who deny the validity of the new rite, i.e. sedevacantists.  Archbishop Lefebvre never claimed that all new rite ordinations are invalid and neither has the SSPX.  Consequently, neither does the resistance. People who demand the universal conditional ordinations of all priests ordained in the new rite do not understand the true position of Archbishop Lefebvre or the Society he founded.

not trying to be obstreperous, but Lefevbre Smevbre.  Archbishop, while I believe a saint, was NOT the POPE nor is he the last word on all things Catholic.  He was sound, reasonable and a Holy man for sure, but I believe even He would take issue with an almost Cult of Personality status that has been erected around his every statement.  It is a FACT that he teetered on the fence of Sedevacantism as a theory while operating as a Practical (that is to say in "practice") Sedevacantist from 1974 on for the most part.  Also true that he felt in prudence that at the time a declaration of such was unnecessary and unwise, at the time.  What would he say today?  Don't know, couldn't say.  What does reason and the faith say, TODAY?  More questions than answers I'm afraid.  Archbishop's words are a most excellent GUIDE, bur that is it.  I don't think its much of a controversy to us folk that there are very serious questions about the rites of consecration of a Bishop and ordination of a priest.  Prima facia Pius XII laid down specifically what is inherent in the form of Bishop orders and that was CLEARLY changed.  Not sure if that is enough or more than enough, to create a doubt as to validity, but it could, probably does.  Prudence would indicate some value to a CONDITIONAL ordination/consecration, which by the way is a de facto NON-REPEATING of a Sacrament by its very nature.  Seems like a blanket policy would be a prudent idea to me.  Oh, and to the Archbishop as well, note that like us, he was human and could waver from time to time and did, especially if he was in talks with JPII.  

Remember the so-called "Nine"?  This wavering, certainly understandable if we recognize he very HUMAN Archbishop Lefevbre, was what the whole issue was at that time.    Not the propagandized Pius the Tenther conspiracy theory that they just wanted to steal the properties and declare Sede Vacante!

Quote from: Centroamerica

By "Novus Ordo priest with the Society", I am assuming that you mean a priest with the Society ordained in the new rite.  According to this terminology, Fr. Kramer is a Novus Ordo priest with the resistance. I think the terms you chose to use reflect a confusion in your position.

The only one that is confused is you, computer-cowboy.....

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Bartholemew

Quote from: Centroamerica

By "Novus Ordo priest with the Society", I am assuming that you mean a priest with the Society ordained in the new rite.  According to this terminology, Fr. Kramer is a Novus Ordo priest with the resistance. I think the terms you chose to use reflect a confusion in your position.

The only one that is confused is you, computer-cowboy.....

Well, I didn't call you any names.  I made a point and you didn't like it, and so now I am a cowboy.  Very well.

You fool yourself into thinking that you're making "religious points" but what you're really doing is insulting people... I see it in a lot of your posts......You are what is known as a "theological know-it-all".... My advice is for you stop all your snide and cynical comments to people while you hide behind your keyboard and pontificate....

Quote from: clarkaim

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Bartholemew

Quote from: Centroamerica

This should not be presented as some new policy that shows evidence of a deal.

We have plenty of priests who were allowed to offer Mass in SSPX chapels and ordained in the new rite. Fr. Hesse, Fr. Gruner, and Fr. Kramer are a few examples. The policy of investigating a pries's ordination and making a determination one way or another has been the SSPX's policy for decades.

I remember when Father Voigt was up in Syracuse for many years. He was known to everyone in the northeast as the "bad Novus Ordo priest" and everyone went out of their way to never go to any of his Masses. When we asked the SSPX why he hasn't been conditionally ordained, their answer was that they looked into it and his ordination was valid and that we shouldn't worry about it but that never stopped parishioners and others from avoiding him.

Once Father Voigt left the SSPX for the resistance, I heard that the first thing he did was get conditionally ordained and I heard that he had wanted to be conditionally ordained while he was being persecuted as a Novus Ordo priest who was with the Society but that they wouldn't approve it.

By "Novus Ordo priest with the Society", I am assuming that you mean a priest with the Society ordained in the new rite.  According to this terminology, Fr. Kramer is a Novus Ordo priest with the resistance. I think the terms you chose to use reflect a confusion in your position.

Conditional ordinations have never been a blanket policy of whoever was ordained in the novus ordo gets one.  It is a more complicated matter than that.  It is sinful to repeat a sacrament that is only received once.  So no matter where the priest comes from, an investigation into his ordination must take place and at least some reasonable doubt established before he can be ordained conditionally.  The only people demanding that a conditional ordination be done to all ordained in the new rite are those who deny the validity of the new rite, i.e. sedevacantists.  Archbishop Lefebvre never claimed that all new rite ordinations are invalid and neither has the SSPX.  Consequently, neither does the resistance. People who demand the universal conditional ordinations of all priests ordained in the new rite do not understand the true position of Archbishop Lefebvre or the Society he founded.

not trying to be obstreperous, but Lefevbre Smevbre.  Archbishop, while I believe a saint, was NOT the POPE nor is he the last word on all things Catholic.  He was sound, reasonable and a Holy man for sure, but I believe even He would take issue with an almost Cult of Personality status that has been erected around his every statement.  It is a FACT that he teetered on the fence of Sedevacantism as a theory while operating as a Practical (that is to say in "practice") Sedevacantist from 1974 on for the most part.  Also true that he felt in prudence that at the time a declaration of such was unnecessary and unwise, at the time.  What would he say today?  Don't know, couldn't say.  What does reason and the faith say, TODAY?  More questions than answers I'm afraid.  Archbishop's words are a most excellent GUIDE, bur that is it.  I don't think its much of a controversy to us folk that there are very serious questions about the rites of consecration of a Bishop and ordination of a priest.  Prima facia Pius XII laid down specifically what is inherent in the form of Bishop orders and that was CLEARLY changed.  Not sure if that is enough or more than enough, to create a doubt as to validity, but it could, probably does.  Prudence would indicate some value to a CONDITIONAL ordination/consecration, which by the way is a de facto NON-REPEATING of a Sacrament by its very nature.  Seems like a blanket policy would be a prudent idea to me.  Oh, and to the Archbishop as well, note that like us, he was human and could waver from time to time and did, especially if he was in talks with JPII.  

Remember the so-called "Nine"?  This wavering, certainly understandable if we recognize he very HUMAN Archbishop Lefevbre, was what the whole issue was at that time.    Not the propagandized Pius the Tenther conspiracy theory that they just wanted to steal the properties and declare Sede Vacante!

The point was that groups that emerge as being the only true spiritual sons of Archbishop Lefebvre and explicitly saying that they are carrying on the true position of Archbishop Lefebvre, and then immediately begin attacking on such unfounded reasons in complete ignorance of everything they stand for have got to be taken for what they are, more confusion in already dark times.

Nobody was really concerned with what you think of Archbishop Lefebvre or what your ideas are about the best policies.  That was a very typical sedevacantist response which enters into an argument missing all points and not really seeming to even understand what the subject of discussion is while wanting to dictate to everyone else.  It only gives the impression of someone who just wants to promote his or her own individual thesis, while attacking the founder of the largest anti-modernist force in the Church, without seeming to even make any contextual sense in the process.