Anyways, if the Resistance is going to be taken seriously, they should re-consider the importance they place on a subject like this. If Bishop Williamson takes the time to make the serious move of conditionally ordaining priests, regularly, then why would he (and I know it's not just him in favor of this) suggest others attend the sacraments of those who we can then assume may have doubtful orders?

That is a darn good question -- at first glance.

But let's turn your question on its head for a moment -- what is the alternative?

The SSPX isn't going to go out on a limb and declare tens of thousands of priests "non-priests" or whole swaths of the Church as "non-Catholic".

Conditionally ordaining priests makes some of the Faithful breathe easier. But can they really FORCE priests to take conditional ordination? Not really. Not unless they're willing to declare ex-Cathedra that the Novus Ordo Rite is invalid. Wait -- a pious union can't declare anything ex-Cathedra. They have no such power.

See the conundrum?

Likewise, they can't force their opinions or decisions on the Catholic faithful. It's not their place to "strike from the Catholic directory" a given chapel in California where a priest hasn't received conditional ordination.

Remember what the mission of the SSPX was: to form good, holy Catholic priests using the old tried-and-true methods (St. Thomas, traditional spirituality, etc.) and after the Crisis in the Church exploded, they added a an additional sub-mission to provide the Tridentine Mass and sacraments to the Catholic faithful around the world.

They are not the Pope; they can't tell every Catholic what to do, who to trust, or where to attend Mass. They're not even officially "in charge" of the Traditional movement. They are not a cult, nor a schismatic group.

Always remember: for the Papal Chair, there is no lifeboat. The SSPX can only be a lifeboat providing Mass and the Sacraments. They can't "fill in" for an absent or bad Pope.

And whatever the SSPX "was" is what the Resistance today strives to be.

Matthew - you do not have to(and I don't recommend it either) declare invalid any of the new rites in order to avoid/reject them; Catholics cannot approach sacraments based on probability.

Think about it -- if I could bind others (under pain of sin and heresy) to follow "what I personally think is best", that would be a recipe for chaos.

If you've been in the Trad world longer than 1 year, you must know that there are countless disagreements about what "safest", "most certain", "most prudent", and "best". Laymen and even clerics can't agree on the "safest path" so I guess it's up to each of us to decide for ourselves.

Good thing each layman can't declare a mass anathema or excommunication, or we'd all be in trouble!

And even if you exclude laymen -- what if each Bishop could do this? Bishop Sanborn would excommunicate all who accept "Una cuм" Masses, the SSPX bishops would excommunicate all Sedevacantists... see the problem?

Long story short, there is latitude for some range of legitimate opinions when it comes to what kind of lifeboat we ride out this Crisis in.

What I'm trying to say is that the leaders would be most culpable if they went out on a limb and said, "You can't go to Mass here" or, "Mr. Directory maintainer, please remove this Mass location from our directory." Each mortal sin that didn't get forgiven, every ounce of evil that resulted from the influx of Catholics without a weekly Mass option would all be on the heads of those who made that decision. Especially since they were acting as a pseudo-Pope and overstepping the bounds of their authority!

matthew - btw Perez does wear one of those negative ion bracelets.  I saw it in an interview.  I worked in a sports store that sold those, and they are super creepy devices.  They are like being around someone doing yoga, it is disturbing.  

That's just silly. Negative ions  and such related devices are a health, detox thing -- which has nothing to do with yoga. The only thing "creepy" here is a subtle attempt to αssαssιnαtҽ someone's character.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Adolphus

Well, in this case we are talking about something more serious than just an imperfection.  This is about the validity of the sacraments… and how reliable are those who recommend us to go to someone who might not be a priest.

In the context of a whole group of priests (many of whom are holy, well-trained, educated, give countless grace, have saved many souls, etc.), one priest ordained in the New Rite is an imperfection for the group.

Even if one priest was invalidly ordained, it wouldn't take away the good done by the rest of the group.

And yes, even if Fr. Pfeiffer or Fr. Hewko recommended that people attend that (invalidly ordained) priest's Mass, it would only be a "ding" on his prudence or good judgment. It wouldn't take away Fr. Pfeiffer's priesthood, invalidate his own sacraments, or nullify the countless good he's done over the years.

You need to keep things in perspective, and stop being such a perfectionist when it comes to which priests you support. Stop throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Is there NO item of judgment which isn't our business, or which should be left to God? People start off by making legitimate judgments (is this or that priest  defending the Faith and fighting modernism? Does this priest take his priesthood seriously? Can I trust him with my Faith?) and then "mission creep" occurs, until they're well into the range of being nosy and judging things in the private forum.

Msgr. Perez is not afraid to tackle the topic of Modernism, which is more than I can say for the CMRI priests I've known.  

Fr. Frederick Schell had 12 years training as a Jesuit and he chose Fr. Perez from a significant list of other priests to be his replacement at the end of his life.  Fr. Schell died in 2002, and it was Fr. Perez who administered last rites to him.  Who among us would dare judge the great pioneer and conservator of Sacred Tradition, Fr. Schell, in his judgment or appropriateness of Fr. Perez for his own priest and for the pastor of the hundreds of souls for whom Fr. Schell was their "Good Shepherd?"

We have a lot of problems these days and it seems to me we're SPINNING OUR WHEELS to dredge up controversy where the matters are above our pay grade.  Monsignor Perez is a credentialed theologian, trained in the Angelicuм in Rome under Cardinal Stickler, one of the most traditional clerics from before Vat.II.  You and I might not see every detail of these things as immaculate and above question, but really, folks, you have to choose your battles.

In the end, the Church will be all but extinguished, before Our Lady steps in to set things right, as she crushes the head of the infernal serpent.  It is in her Immaculate intercession where we must first cling without hint of question or doubts.  Our very survival is in her hands, hence, Help of Christians.

Quote

Quote

God will judge each and every priest, for each and every day of their priesthood. Let's leave some judgement to Him, shall we?

This sectarian, partisan spirit is probably the biggest problem in Traddieland. Even though I personally hate sports, I am tempted to suggest that many Trads get into sports so they can get the "team spirit" out of their system in a more healthy manner!

Hear hear! Great post Matthew!

When it comes to the matter of the validity of Orders within the SSPX and the Resistance, does anyone think that one of the first questions during the interview is not concentrated on the applicant's ordination? And if it's determined that the priest needs to be conditionally ordained or re-ordained, that there would be a reason they would not do it?

One would think.............

Quote

My guess is that when these NO priests wake up and actually make the commitment to leave the NO faith for the true faith, that they are probably the first ones to make sure about the validity of their ordination.
 

It would be great if this were the case.  And Bishop Williamson continues to provide such valid conditional re-ordination for priests who request it.  This is a good thing.  What harm could it do?  All that could result is the removal of doubt.  

The reluctance factor is held up, that any absolutions previously given by such a priest would need to be searched out and the penitent notified to tell his confessor that he might have received invalid absolution at some point in the past.  But I don't know what the implications would be -- how does a priest who heard anonymous confessions for a month or a year or whatever, find contact information of his erstwhile penitents?

Also, Msgr. Perez has proclaimed from the pulpit, that never has Rome judged any ordination of a Catholic priest in history to have been invalid.  (We're not talking about the Anglican ordinations condemnation of Pope Leo XIII.)  Maybe other members here know more about this statement's credibility?  

.

thank you Neil, I am just catching up on this thread.

Neil - The [Anglican] condemntation applies to the situation of the NO rites.  Read Fr. Jenkins article about the new ordination rite.  It is called "purging the priesthood", and it can be found at novus ordo watch.  

You mean like this?

The case of Apostolicae curae against the ..
.. validity of Anglican orders applies equally well to the new Ordinal of the Conciliar Church.  Mr. Davies states his case well, saying:

        "If the new Catholic rite, shorn of any mandatory prayer signifying
        the essential powers of the priesthood, is valid, then there seems
        to be no reason why the 1662 Anglican rite should not be valid too,
        and still less can there be any objection to the 1977 Anglican series
        3 Ordinal."(22)  

He appears to conclude that if Apostolicae curae is correct, then the new ordination ritual must be invalid;  and if the new ordination rite is valid, then Apostolicae curae -- a professedly definitive papal decision -- is wrong.

Fr. Wm. Jenkins does an honest and detailed job of taking a hard look at the whole situation, and gives a lot of pertinent facts along with an objective assessment of the early work of Michael Davies regarding the "matter, form and intention" question of priestly ordination.  (I have to qualify it with "early" because in his later years, Davies capitulated, even going so far as to re-publish his earlier works, as new editions in which he had personally removed much of his more traditionally solid sticking points, so as to appease Newchurch -- not unlike what +F is presently up to.)

With all his cross analysis of these matters, I have to wonder if Fr. Jenkins had had a lay audience in mind to the exclusion of more informed readers.  For example, even while he touches several times upon the principle of purpose, cause and effect, and necessary consequence, it appears that he fairly 'beats around the bush' in regards to teleology (a word he seems afraid to employ), even while the subject would appear to be hanging like a renown tapestry on the wall of his mind all the while -- a sort of token backdrop or furnishing not to be used, but nonetheless present if not for more than a kind of flaccid trapping.

I really wish he would have explored the question of "Why or for what good purpose were the episcopal consecration and sacerdotal ordination rites changed?"  He never even goes there.

Nonetheless, Rev. Jenkins provides much food for thought in a broad perspective.

Regarding the matter of moral certainty,

Both of these respected theologians speak of the need for the sacraments
to be "morally certain."  According to the Redemptori£t moral theologian Joseph
Aertnys, "moral certainty" arises from the common and customary practice and
the general natural inclinations of men.

Thus for example, one is morally certain that a mother will not deliberately
poison her children.(35)  But with the new rite of ordination, there is no common
and customary practice of the Church in its favor;  it is something new which has
purposely excluded all that was common and customary practice of the Church
in the ordination of priests.

One may try to parallel the example of the mother and her children, by arguing
that the hierarchy of the Church would not deliberately give poisonous (invalid)
sacramental rites to the faithful.  Yet we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
 
Finally, the re-iteration of a sacramental rite is to be done even though there are
many more probable reasons favoring the validity of its first administration.  

I am reminded of a question that arose when new rubrics came out from Rome to change the way bishops are supposed to incense the altar during a particular liturgical situation, as I recall it was the Offertory during a Pontifical High Mass, or whatever the NovusOrdo Newmass transplant is called that displaces it.  Bishops wrote to the Vatican asking for guidelines on what to do, because they didn't want to do it "improperly."  They were looking to Rome to tell them what would be "proper."  You see, in the past, rubrics for such things were very specific on how to hold the thurifer, whom to incense first, second, third, how many times to swing the thurifer, which hand to use, how to move around the sanctuary, and so on.  

Rome's answer to them is most enlightening.  Rome said that they could now do anything they wanted to do, JUST BE SURE THAT YOU DO NOT DO IT THE WAY WE USED TO DO IT.  

Pardon my French, but I have a very hard time imagining satanists coming up with a rule like that for their most solemn ceremonies.  They would be TERRIFIED of not doing something just right, for fear of the consequences.

.

Quote from: s2srea

Anyways, if the Resistance is going to be taken seriously, they should re-consider the importance they place on a subject like this. If Bishop Williamson takes the time to make the serious move of conditionally ordaining priests, regularly, then why would he (and I know it's not just him in favor of this) suggest others attend the sacraments of those who we can then assume may have doubtful orders?

That is a darn good question -- at first glance.

But let's turn your question on its head for a moment -- what is the alternative?

The SSPX isn't going to go out on a limb and declare tens of thousands of priests "non-priests" or whole swaths of the Church as "non-Catholic".

Conditionally ordaining priests makes some of the Faithful breathe easier. But can they really FORCE priests to take conditional ordination? Not really. Not unless they're willing to declare ex-Cathedra that the Novus Ordo Rite is invalid. Wait -- a pious union can't declare anything ex-Cathedra. They have no such power.

See the conundrum?

Likewise, they can't force their opinions or decisions on the Catholic faithful. It's not their place to "strike from the Catholic directory" a given chapel in California where a priest hasn't received conditional ordination.

Remember what the mission of the SSPX was: to form good, holy Catholic priests using the old tried-and-true methods (St. Thomas, traditional spirituality, etc.) and after the Crisis in the Church exploded, they added a an additional sub-mission to provide the Tridentine Mass and sacraments to the Catholic faithful around the world.

They are not the Pope; they can't tell every Catholic what to do, who to trust, or where to attend Mass. They're not even officially "in charge" of the Traditional movement. They are not a cult, nor a schismatic group.

Always remember: for the Papal Chair, there is no lifeboat. The SSPX can only be a lifeboat providing Mass and the Sacraments. They can't "fill in" for an absent or bad Pope.

And whatever the SSPX "was" is what the Resistance today strives to be.

It seems to me that Msgr. Perez has essentially the same intentions as those you describe, Matthew, for the Resistance.  However, it also seems to me that he has an additional one, and that is a pressing desire to keep Catholicism together, as a pastor who strives to keep peace among the flock.  You don't want various sheep brawling with other various sheep.  

He strives to keep on good terms with the SSPX in Arcadia and Los Gatos and Colton, sending his parishioners to Confirmations given by +TdM on May 25th this year, and encouraging the gentlemen to go to the men's retreats in Los Gatos and the ladies to go to the women's retreats, and the children to go to the children's summer camp programs there.  In the same breath I ought to say that when Bishop Williamson is en route from London to Post Falls, he manages to make a quick stop-over in Garden Grove to accept the message from Msgr. that his parishioners really appreciate His Excellency's presence and thank him for his solid stand in Tradition, and to offer Mass, and to preach a sermon.  

(Without making it seem like the rest of us don't really know how to speak ENGLISH.  HAHAHA)

Matthew - you do not have to (and I don't recommend it either) declare invalid any of the new rites in order to avoid/reject them;  Catholics cannot approach sacraments based on probability.

Try telling that to a soldier dying on the battlefield and the only priest at hand is a Greek or Coptic or Russian or Armenian Orthodox priest. Or maybe there's also a NovusOrdo pres*byter.

Or perhaps an Anglican Use Catholic Rite priest!  

Quote from: + PG +

Matthew - you do not have to (and I don't recommend it either) declare invalid any of the new rites in order to avoid/reject them; Catholics cannot approach sacraments based on probability.

That is something you need to tell the individual lay Catholics involved -- not the so-called superiors. It is up to each of them to go with the more certain option, etc.

Once again, we have a confusion between --

  Moral certainty that gives ME a justification for a course of action
       and
  The right to bind the conscience of OTHERS to take that same course of action.

It doesn't matter how certain you think you are. Whether you're Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Perez, s2srea or Matthew -- it's just an opinion. You can't bind others.

We have the certainty of Faith that the Catholic Faith is the one true religion. When someone ignores our pleadings to join the Faith, they are a heretic. The same is not true when someone rejects our opinions about which we are only morally certain.

If God made another revelation (about what to do in this Crisis) then it might be different. But such is not the case.

These are important points to keep in mind when assessing your options and making your own personal decisions regarding where to go to Mass and whom to call when you need Extreme Unction, etc.  

However, there is another perspective, and you, Matthew, can appreciate this as the forum owner here.  When you have a position of influence that can possibly have an effect on the unity of the Catholics who are affected by what you say or do, you might want to consider the outcome:  What can I do to help promote Catholic unity in the Church, even if in my own, small way?

Great Popes have gone to great lengths to promote unity in truth, by making laws, by writing encyclicals, by excommunicating heretics, by dogmatic definition, and more.

What can CathInfo do in that same vein?

Think about it -- if I could bind others (under pain of sin and heresy) to follow "what I personally think is best", that would be a recipe for chaos.

If you've been in the Trad world longer than 1 year, you must know that there are countless disagreements about what "safest", "most certain", "most prudent", and "best". Laymen and even clerics can't agree on the "safest path" so I guess it's up to each of us to decide for ourselves.

And if you read the Crisis forum, that's pretty much ALL you'll see.

Good thing each layman can't declare a mass anathema or excommunication, or we'd all be in trouble!

Or perhaps we'd all be in the Crisis forum.  HAHAHAHA

And even if you exclude laymen -- what if each Bishop could do this? Bishop Sanborn would excommunicate all who accept "Una cuм" Masses, the SSPX bishops would excommunicate all Sedevacantists... see the problem?

Long story short, there is latitude for some range of legitimate opinions when it comes to what kind of lifeboat we ride out this Crisis in.

What I'm trying to say is that the leaders would be most culpable if they went out on a limb and said, "You can't go to Mass here" or, "Mr. Directory maintainer, please remove this Mass location from our directory." Each mortal sin that didn't get forgiven, every ounce of evil that resulted from the influx of Catholics without a weekly Mass option would all be on the heads of those who made that decision. Especially since they were acting as a pseudo-Pope and overstepping the bounds of their authority!

Matthew, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post (and PM , I assume).

Quote from: s2srea

If Bishop Williamson takes the time to make the serious move of conditionally ordaining priests, regularly, then why would he (and I know it's not just him in favor of this) suggest others attend the sacraments of those who we can then assume may have doubtful orders?

That is a darn good question -- at first glance.

But let's turn your question on its head for a moment -- what is the alternative?

The SSPX isn't going to go out on a limb and declare tens of thousands of priests "non-priests" or whole swaths of the Church as "non-Catholic".

Conditionally ordaining priests makes some of the Faithful breathe easier. But can they really FORCE priests to take conditional ordination? Not really. Not unless they're willing to declare ex-Cathedra that the Novus Ordo Rite is invalid. Wait -- a pious union can't declare anything ex-Cathedra. They have no such power.

So, I think you're presenting a false dichotemy here. There is more than the one alternative you present of simply 'accepting the new rites as completely valid' than going around and "tens of thousands of priests "non-priests" or whole swaths of the Church as "non-Catholic""

How about, treating those priests ordained in the New Rite with extreme caution. There's no need to go around declaring them as non-priests; but I doubt that BW simply conditionally ordained so many priests over the years for trads to "breathe easier". Conditional ordination is no joke. There must be prudence when working with such men.

See the conundrum?

Likewise, they can't force their opinions or decisions on the Catholic faithful. It's not their place to "strike from the Catholic directory" a given chapel in California where a priest hasn't received conditional ordination.

Why wouldn't it be? They strike from their directory places which would be dangerous for other reasons. Are doubtful sacraments not dangerous? And if they're not doubtful, then why the conditional ordination?

See the conundrum on my end?

Also, the SSPX has been quick to attack the CMRI for the 'doubtfulness' of the Thuc Line as a reason for not attending.

Remember what the mission of the SSPX was: to form good, holy Catholic priests using the old tried-and-true methods (St. Thomas, traditional spirituality, etc.) and after the Crisis in the Church exploded, they added a an additional sub-mission to provide the Tridentine Mass and sacraments to the Catholic faithful around the world.

Yes, but just as ABL's understanding of the Crisis evolved, so did his positions and reaction it. He certainly didn't set out to Consecrate the four bishops. He did so once he saw the gravity of the situation at the time. If the doubtfulness of New Rite priests develops over time- once the New Rites are more clearly analyzed by those who have the competency to do so or if the situation in the Church with the current bishops calls doubt to the ordinations- then why shouldn't our reaction to them also change?

Also: would it not benefit the priest's who ordination is in question if the seriousness of his situation is made known to him? The alternative is unacceptable: let him continue on with air of doubt concerning his Holy Orders, as we can see has happened with Fr Perez, and, hence, all of those priests who come to him for advice from the New Order.