Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Seek the Truth on June 07, 2015, 07:29:11 PM
-
Just received e-mail below from Msgr Byrnes.
Msgr Byrnes was ordained on November 15, 1986, by Cardinal O'Connor at Saint Patrick's Cathedral in New York City and has been in Ridgefield, CT, for approximately two years. Msgr. Byrnes has not been conditionally ordained since the SSPX has stated that Msgr's ordination was valid. I was personally told by two priests in Ridgefield that there is nothing to question as the SSPX's own investigation into the ordination confirmed that the matter, form, and intent were all valid and that I should not question this.
Why would the SSPX allow a Novus Order trained and ordained priest to be a principal?
Dear Parents,
Last Thursday I received a call from our District Superior Fr. Wegner, informing me that I am to be the principal of St. Padre Pio Academy beginning with the new school year.
Fr. Sulzen has kept me in the loop about the desire for all of you to have a meeting with the principal regarding some concerns you have about the high school program for next year, and I know that there has been some difficulty in getting a meeting date because of vacation schedules and that the date currently set for the meeting is in July, a date later than most would prefer.
Given everyone’s desire to meet as soon as possible, I am proposing having our meeting this Tuesday evening (9 June) at 7:30 PM in Jogues Hall. Please let me know as soon as possible if this will work for you. If the majority cannot make this day, we will stick with the date in July. I realize that this is rather short notice, but I hope this date will work for everyone, or at least most.
I look forward to working with all of you during the coming school year.
God bless,
Msgr. Byrnes
-
I think it is insane that the SSPX does not conditionally ordain all Novus Ordo priests who come over to the SSPX. I know of people at my chapel (including me) who would walk out if this man came to say Mass there (which may very well happen because sometimes priests from Ridgefield say Mass at my chapel) because of doubts about his ordination. I would guess that this is common. I guess it is more important not to offend Rome than to reassure those many SSPX faithful who have doubts about Novus Ordo orders.
I know that this man is traditional for a Novus Ordo priest but he is still a Novus Ordo priest. He should have to go to seminary for a few years so he could learn all the things they no longer teach in Novus Ordo seminaries and be trained to be a real priest and then conditionally ordained and then become principal.
-
John Joseph Cardinal O’Connor was consecrated as a bishop in the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration in 1979.
I'm have no doubt that Msgr. Byrnes's ordination followed the requirements of matter and form. I also have no doubt that Cardinal O'Connor even had the proper intention.
The only problem is that he was not a validly consecrated bishop when he ordained Byrnes who remains a layman. Does anyone really believe there is not already an agreement between the SSPX and the Conciliar church that just hasn't yet been publicized?
-
He was a principal for many years at another school. Monsignor has experience and he is a Holy Catholic Priest as well.
When I was on a retreat, he was one of our Priests. All the priests, including Monsignor Byrnes did a great job with our retreat. We really learned a lot about our Catholic faith.
We need to pray for our Catholic priests. Our prayers are with Monsignor Byrnes and the priests up in Ridgefield.
You are truly blessed by God to have a Catholic school, retreat house and Catholic Church.
Most of us don't have that.
When you attend that meeting with Monsignor Byrnes, you should all be kind and charitable.
You all should thank God for what you have.
-
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.
-
One should be more concerned with the priests who have been coming out of Winona over the last ten years.
-
Does the SSPX even do conditional ordinations anymore? I'm not aware of any. What if a N.O. priest requested it, would he receive it?
-
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.
On the other hand, what is going on in Ridgefield IS revolutionary. There are real problems in Ridgefield, and the recent exodus from that chapel is proof of that. About 300 parishioners have left. Many teachers and students have quit the school. This priory was in such disarray that Bishop Fellay himself had to fly in and try to hold things together.
But here's the interesting part -- they're not all leaving for the Resistance. About 1/3 of them went to the Indult -- another 1/3 went to the local Sedevacantist chapel. And 1/3 went to the Resistance, currently served by Fr. Zendejas.
Of course, the SSPX firmly blames Fr. Zendejas, even though the problem is with Ridgefield.
Regarding the defectors to the Indult, I can understand their logic. "So you want me to drive all the way to Ridgefield where I'll be hearing the Tridentine Mass of a Novus Ordo-ordained priest? I have an Indult (said by a Novus Ordo-trained and ordained priest) closer to me; I'll go to that one instead, but thank you kindly for your offer."
-
Matt:
On the other hand, what is going on in Ridgefield IS revolutionary. There are real problems in Ridgefield, and the recent exodus from that chapel is proof of that. About 300 parishioners have left. Many teachers and students have quit the school. This priory was in such disarray that Bishop Fellay himself had to fly in and try to hold things together.
But here's the interesting part -- they're not all leaving for the Resistance. About 1/3 of them went to the Indult -- another 1/3 went to the local Sedevacantist chapel. And 1/3 went to the Resistance, currently served by Fr. Zendejas.
Personally, I had no idea this was going on in Ridgefield. But I don't think it is "revolutionary " in the classic definition of the word. A revolution, in short, is defined as a "forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system." What's going on there seems more like 'anarchy,' than revolution. Yes, they have thrown off the religious order of the sspx, but have not agreed in any way about what should replace it. It is more like every man to his own tent. :facepalm:
-
Matt: On the other hand, what is going on in Ridgefield IS revolutionary. There are real problems in Ridgefield, and the recent exodus from that chapel is proof of that. About 300 parishioners have left. Many teachers and students have quit the school. This priory was in such disarray that Bishop Fellay himself had to fly in and try to hold things together.
But here's the interesting part -- they're not all leaving for the Resistance. About 1/3 of them went to the Indult -- another 1/3 went to the local Sedevacantist chapel. And 1/3 went to the Resistance, currently served by Fr. Zendejas.
Personally, I had no idea this was going on in Ridgefield. But I don't think it is "revolutionary " in the classic definition of the word. A revolution, in short, is defined as a "forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system." What's going on there seems more like 'anarchy,' than revolution. Yes, they have thrown off the religious order of the sspx, but have not agreed in any way about what should replace it. It is more like every man to his own tent. :facepalm:
Yeah, I had no idea about the situation there. I was only making a point about the conditional ordinations. As far as I know, that policy has not changed and has been the same. The only people who make a big deal about it are those who put the quotations around Father when they speak about Fr. Gruner or Fr. Kramer, who were probably the ones who put all the down thumbs on my comment staing the fact of the matter.
-
But here's the interesting part -- they're not all leaving for the Resistance. About 1/3 of them went to the Indult -- another 1/3 went to the local Sedevacantist chapel. And 1/3 went to the Resistance, currently served by Fr. Zendejas.
Of course, the SSPX firmly blames Fr. Zendejas, even though the problem is with Ridgefield.
Regarding the defectors to the Indult, I can understand their logic. "So you want me to drive all the way to Ridgefield where I'll be hearing the Tridentine Mass of a Novus Ordo-ordained priest? I have an Indult (said by a Novus Ordo-trained and ordained priest) closer to me; I'll go to that one instead, but thank you kindly for your offer."
Are you sure the Diocesan priest is NO-ordained? There are still a lot of pre-NO priests around. They are getting old but they are still here. That might explain the people going to the Diocese. But of course given that the SSPX accepts the theoretical validity of the Conciliar sacraments that would certainly work against any claim on the loyality of their followers as you have just pointed out.
-
I would be curious to know why 1/3 went to the SV chapel. I'm wondering if they could no longer stomach Francis. That's what caused me to leave the SSPX chapel in Woburn, MA and start going to the CMRI chapel in the neighboring town. They had that goofy photo of Francis over the entrance to the SSPX chapel and I felt like it was distracting me with bad thoughts. I'm so happy not to have to say that I "recognize" that guy. Francis does not speak with the voice of my Shepherd. I don't know who that guy is but I know he is not my Shepherd. And to be frank (ha!), he was not the shepherd of anyone at the SSPX chapel either. They "recognized" him but they didn't follow him. Thanks be to Our Lord and Our Lady!
-
CM:
I don't know who that guy is but I know he is not my Shepherd. And to be frank (ha!), he was not the shepherd of anyone at the SSPX chapel either. They "recognized" him but they didn't follow him. Thanks be to Our Lord and Our Lady!
This is the problem,of course. CM is just one voice from among maybe 10s of thousands of traditional Catholics who say in essence: 'This guy is not my Shepherd. We are told to "recognize" him, but he is not my shepherd.'
The good bishop publishes numbers of ECs trying to prop up the "recognition" thesis, but sales are going down. Then the 'I-told-you-so' sedes move in parroting their annoying shibboleths. Folks get irritated and tell them to move off. It is never ending.
At least historically, so we are told, the popes of the Arian period were orthodox Catholics. It was just most of the bishops and priests whom you had to avoid. Now we have popes, bishops and priest alike who have gone off the reservation. They're all rotten.
-
On the other hand, what is going on in Ridgefield IS revolutionary. There are real problems in Ridgefield, and the recent exodus from that chapel is proof of that. About 300 parishioners have left. Many teachers and students have quit the school. This priory was in such disarray that Bishop Fellay himself had to fly in and try to hold things together.
What is going on in Ridgefield? Why is it in disarray?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Bartholemew:
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.
-
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!
-
Bartholemew: 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.
That wouldn't happen to be the priest who was tossed out of a neighboring diocese, would it?
-
That wouldn't happen to be the priest who was tossed out of a neighboring diocese, would it?
No, this priest has not been "tossed out" of any diocese that we know of. And we know him and his history pretty well.
-
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.
-
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.....
-
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.
-
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....
-
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....
Actually, I don't hide. Most people know who I am, where I live and attend Mass, and after this year's episcopal consecration and the online publication of photos with the bishops, many also know what I look like.
I've been called all kinds of names and so forth, but "hiding" isn't really anywhere in my personal profile.
I use a keyboard to type words and convey thoughts. You use a keyboard to write your messages here. Many writers use and have used keyboards and typewriters. There is nothing cowardice necessarily in the act of using a typewriter or keyboard.
-
.
-
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.
Dude!! Just responding to the notion of a prudent policy for CONDITIONAL ordination. But ey thanks for the ad hominem.
-
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.
Then again, hadn't most of the active bishops at that time been previously consecrated under the Old Rite? It is my understanding that ABL had doubts about the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration (along with the SSPX). It wasn't until 2005 when the SSPX revisited the issue and decided that it was now valid (coincidentally this happened at the same time Benedict was elected Pope, the first pope to have been consecrated with the New Rite..things that make you go hmmmmmmm).
-
I would like to throw up another interesting point on the academy. WHY IS IT NAMED PADRE PIO ACADEMY? I for one accept that Padre Pio is a saint, but the SSPX has a policy not to accept these post 62 canonisations because of the changes to the form. If anybody wants to debate this let them go ahead.
In Christo
Ark.
-
I would like to throw up another interesting point on the academy. WHY IS IT NAMED PADRE PIO ACADEMY? I for one accept that Padre Pio is a saint, but the SSPX has a policy not to accept these post 62 canonisations because of the changes to the form. If anybody wants to debate this let them go ahead.
In Christo
Ark.
They don't? Is that docuмented somewhere?
-
I think it is insane that the SSPX does not conditionally ordain all Novus Ordo priests who come over to the SSPX. I know of people at my chapel (including me) who would walk out if this man came to say Mass there (which may very well happen because sometimes priests from Ridgefield say Mass at my chapel) because of doubts about his ordination. I would guess that this is common. I guess it is more important not to offend Rome than to reassure those many SSPX faithful who have doubts about Novus Ordo orders.
I know that this man is traditional for a Novus Ordo priest but he is still a Novus Ordo priest. He should have to go to seminary for a few years so he could learn all the things they no longer teach in Novus Ordo seminaries and be trained to be a real priest and then conditionally ordained and then become principal.
I would just like to say that I once researched the ordination of Fr Sulzen in order to find out whether I could go to his chapel and receive the Sacrament of Confession. He was ordained (and the bishop who ordained him was consecrated) with the Old Rites.
-
I would like to throw up another interesting point on the academy. WHY IS IT NAMED PADRE PIO ACADEMY? I for one accept that Padre Pio is a saint, but the SSPX has a policy not to accept these post 62 canonisations because of the changes to the form. If anybody wants to debate this let them go ahead.
In Christo
Ark.
There is nothing wrong with giving Padre Pio's name to an academy. It would be wrong to call it St. Padre Pio or to name a church for him since it is not allowed to say a Mass in his honor as a saint. Since the changes in 1983 to the canonization process all saints "so-called" since that time are suspect. They include John XXIII, J.P. II, Jose Escriva, soon P. Paul VI, and on and on. You can't accept one without accepting them all. From what I know about Padre Pio I can't imagine that he would care to be included with many on the list since 1983. We know he's in heaven for sure and that is enough.
Watch to see if the SSPX changes their stance on this subject as it will be indicative of a change of policy to please the Romans.
-
I would just like to say that I once researched the ordination of Fr Sulzen in order to find out whether I could go to his chapel and receive the Sacrament of Confession. He was ordained (and the bishop who ordained him was consecrated) with the Old Rites.
Father Carl Sulzen?
-
I would like to throw up another interesting point on the academy. WHY IS IT NAMED PADRE PIO ACADEMY? I for one accept that Padre Pio is a saint, but the SSPX has a policy not to accept these post 62 canonisations because of the changes to the form. If anybody wants to debate this let them go ahead.
In Christo
Ark.
They don't? Is that docuмented somewhere?
Not everything is docuмented. When we were discussing a name for our chapel we wanted St. Andre (the miracle worker of Canada) but it was nixed because he was canonized in the new rite.
Brother St. Andre is definitely a saint (he died in the 1930's) but we were over ruled anyway.
-
I would just like to say that I once researched the ordination of Fr Sulzen in order to find out whether I could go to his chapel and receive the Sacrament of Confession. He was ordained (and the bishop who ordained him was consecrated) with the Old Rites.
Father Sulzen has said Mass at my chapel a few times. He heard my confession once. I remember thinking that he gave me good advice during my confession. I believe he was always an SSPX priest so there should be no doubts about his ordination.
-
I would just like to say that I once researched the ordination of Fr Sulzen in order to find out whether I could go to his chapel and receive the Sacrament of Confession. He was ordained (and the bishop who ordained him was consecrated) with the Old Rites.
Father Sulzen has said Mass at my chapel a few times. He heard my confession once. I remember thinking that he gave me good advice during my confession. I believe he was always an SSPX priest so there should be no doubts about his ordination.
Fr. Sulzen was ordained in 1998 by Bishop de Galarreta.
http://stas.org/sites/sspx/files/v070_sum1998.pdf
(Incidentally, there is an interview of Bishop Williamson in this issue)
-
I would just like to say that I once researched the ordination of Fr Sulzen in order to find out whether I could go to his chapel and receive the Sacrament of Confession. He was ordained (and the bishop who ordained him was consecrated) with the Old Rites.
Father Carl Sulzen?
Yes.
-
I would just like to say that I once researched the ordination of Fr Sulzen in order to find out whether I could go to his chapel and receive the Sacrament of Confession. He was ordained (and the bishop who ordained him was consecrated) with the Old Rites.
Father Sulzen has said Mass at my chapel a few times. He heard my confession once. I remember thinking that he gave me good advice during my confession. I believe he was always an SSPX priest so there should be no doubts about his ordination.
Fr. Sulzen was ordained in 1998 by Bishop de Galarreta.
http://stas.org/sites/sspx/files/v070_sum1998.pdf
(Incidentally, there is an interview of Bishop Williamson in this issue)
I noticed another priest mentioned in this issue. Unless I missed it, do we know if this Fr Crane was ordained by an Old Rite Bishop and was ordained in the Old Rite?
-
I would like to throw up another interesting point on the academy. WHY IS IT NAMED PADRE PIO ACADEMY? I for one accept that Padre Pio is a saint, but the SSPX has a policy not to accept these post 62 canonisations because of the changes to the form. If anybody wants to debate this let them go ahead.
In Christo
Ark.
There is nothing wrong with giving Padre Pio's name to an academy. It would be wrong to call it St. Padre Pio or to name a church for him since it is not allowed to say a Mass in his honor as a saint. Since the changes in 1983 to the canonization process all saints "so-called" since that time are suspect. They include John XXIII, J.P. II, Jose Escriva, soon P. Paul VI, and on and on. You can't accept one without accepting them all. From what I know about Padre Pio I can't imagine that he would care to be included with many on the list since 1983. We know he's in heaven for sure and that is enough.
Watch to see if the SSPX changes their stance on this subject as it will be indicative of a change of policy to please the Romans.
It's actually called St Padre Pio Academy though.....
-
I would just like to say that I once researched the ordination of Fr Sulzen in order to find out whether I could go to his chapel and receive the Sacrament of Confession. He was ordained (and the bishop who ordained him was consecrated) with the Old Rites.
Father Sulzen has said Mass at my chapel a few times. He heard my confession once. I remember thinking that he gave me good advice during my confession. I believe he was always an SSPX priest so there should be no doubts about his ordination.
Fr. Sulzen was ordained in 1998 by Bishop de Galarreta.
http://stas.org/sites/sspx/files/v070_sum1998.pdf
(Incidentally, there is an interview of Bishop Williamson in this issue)
I noticed another priest mentioned in this issue. Unless I missed it, do we know if this Fr Crane was ordained by an Old Rite Bishop and was ordained in the Old Rite?
Both Fathers Sulzen and Crane were ordained in the SSPX. They were in the same year at Winona.
In fact, the pdf linked here shows their SSPX ordinations. Are you missing something here?
-
I would just like to say that I once researched the ordination of Fr Sulzen in order to find out whether I could go to his chapel and receive the Sacrament of Confession. He was ordained (and the bishop who ordained him was consecrated) with the Old Rites.
Father Sulzen has said Mass at my chapel a few times. He heard my confession once. I remember thinking that he gave me good advice during my confession. I believe he was always an SSPX priest so there should be no doubts about his ordination.
Fr. Sulzen was ordained in 1998 by Bishop de Galarreta.
http://stas.org/sites/sspx/files/v070_sum1998.pdf
(Incidentally, there is an interview of Bishop Williamson in this issue)
I noticed another priest mentioned in this issue. Unless I missed it, do we know if this Fr Crane was ordained by an Old Rite Bishop and was ordained in the Old Rite?
Both Fathers Sulzen and Crane were ordained in the SSPX. They were in the same year at Winona.
In fact, the pdf linked here shows their SSPX ordinations. Are you missing something here?
Probably...lol. Sorry. Thanks for clarifying and good to know.
-
I would like to throw up another interesting point on the academy. WHY IS IT NAMED PADRE PIO ACADEMY? I for one accept that Padre Pio is a saint, but the SSPX has a policy not to accept these post 62 canonisations because of the changes to the form. If anybody wants to debate this let them go ahead.
In Christo
Ark.
There is nothing wrong with giving Padre Pio's name to an academy. It would be wrong to call it St. Padre Pio or to name a church for him since it is not allowed to say a Mass in his honor as a saint. Since the changes in 1983 to the canonization process all saints "so-called" since that time are suspect. They include John XXIII, J.P. II, Jose Escriva, soon P. Paul VI, and on and on. You can't accept one without accepting them all. From what I know about Padre Pio I can't imagine that he would care to be included with many on the list since 1983. We know he's in heaven for sure and that is enough.
Watch to see if the SSPX changes their stance on this subject as it will be indicative of a change of policy to please the Romans.
It's actually called St Padre Pio Academy though.....
I know people have begun to call it that and the Society has evidently not corrected it as they would have done (and did) in the past. It would be informative to know if the decision to start using "St." came from the people or from the priests there.
-
That would be interesting. I wonder when there was a name change if any. If it happened in 2012, that might be a clue.
-
:really-mad2: to the mad down-thumber! :fryingpan:
Might as well get out the pom-poms for 2Vermont! :rahrah: :rahrah: :cheers:
-
:really-mad2: to the mad down-thumber! :fryingpan:
Might as well get out the pom-poms for 2Vermont! :rahrah: :rahrah: :cheers:
Ha. I was a bit surprised by it. It must be a NSSPXer.
You do know that any reference to down thumbing results in more down-thumbing though, right?
-
That would be interesting. I wonder when there was a name change if any. If it happened in 2012, that might be a clue.
Father Zendejas founded Padre Pio Academy. He was transferred out in 2009 so it was changed sometime after that.
-
Ha. I was a bit surprised by it. It must be a NSSPXer.
You do know that any reference to down thumbing results in more down-thumbing though, right?
It's a big risk, eh?
I look to the reputation score as an indicator of a poster's credibility as a traditional Catholic. I don't need to keep mine up as I know myself for what I am. :rolleyes:
-
Leaving aside the question of the new canonizations (and I do believe Padre Pio is a Saint) "St. Padre Pio" isn't even technically correct. The formal name is "Saint Pio of Pietrelcina".
-
Leaving aside the question of the new canonizations (and I do believe Padre Pio is a Saint) "St. Padre Pio" isn't even technically correct. The formal name is "Saint Pio of Pietrelcina".
You are correct.