Au contraire, dear Fr. Gleize: The fundamental question at the root of doubts concerning sacramental validity and Msgr. Huonder is whether he is a bishop at all, due to ambiguities in the form of the new rite of episcopal consecration. Fr. Gleize does not want to enter into that conversation, but he must, for as his brother priest, Fr. de Lacoste has discussed in his own article in the very same edition of Courrier de Rome, sacramental validity requires in addition to the valid form, matter, and intention a valid minister..
It just blows my mind that the SSPX considers a sacramental form of Holy Orders written by modernists to be self-evidently valid. :facepalm:
A bit of Trad 101 --Yes, and in addition to catholic morality, canon law requires the same approach. And Quo Primum 100% forbids attendance at any rites which don't come from the Traditional tree.
TL;DR (short version): Catholic morality does not permit us to be risk-takers when it comes to what Mass we will attend, or other important matters touching on our Faith and our salvation. On the contrary, we are commanded to be extremely risk-averse and conservative -- taking the safest path.
Now I'll admit that some Trads today are more "sure than they ought to be" when it comes to the validity of the New Rite of Ordination -- or the Novus Ordo Missae for that matter. But that is beside the point.This means they aren't true Trads.
That is the state of the SSPX today. The girdling has been done 100%. The organization is fully doomed. Just a matter of time before all the chapels/policies/etc. fully reflect the fundamental shift that HAS TAKEN PLACE (past tense).I can attest to the truth of this statement. The new "SSPX" chapel in Front Royal is unrecognizable as a Society chapel besides the priests being member of the SSPX. It is the most chaotic hot mess I have encountered since leaving the Novus Ordo. Women without veils, immodesty in dress and BEHAVIOR, lack of decorum, nursing and changing babies in the pews, talking, cell phones, screaming bratty children that do not get taken out, congregation singing at inappropriate times...the list goes on. It is truly a sad state of affairs and could be corrected and the people could be taught by the priests, but they are not, and that is what is so heartbreaking. I'm not sure why the situation has been allowed to continue but I can only deduce that it is because these young SSPX priests are being told to not say anything for fear of offending the newbies. And, it is not rare that novus ordo "priests" are seen at the chapel, which no one blinks at but rather thinks is wonderful. There is an older retired diocesan priest who was also at the ordinations and did the prayer over the new ordinands.
If the new SSPX has no problem with the Novus Ordo priests, and is now including them in their ceremonies, it sure does make their supplied jurisdiction look like a farce.
The FACT is that these things are at least DOUBTFUL, and there is a Catholic principle that one is not even ALLOWED to go with a doubtful path when a certain path exists. That goes for the liquid used at Baptism, your Mass, your priest, and everything else. We must always choose the more certain.
It's my understanding that one can't approach doubtful Sacraments even if a certain path does NOT exist ... except in danger of death, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.What you said agrees with Callan and McHugh's Moral Theology:
One wonders how Fr. Johnson will now fare after stating from the pulpit that the Bogus Ordo rite of Ordination is not valid. Will it even raise any eyebrows?Dear MiracleOfTheSun,
https://t.co/Pey7UWphut?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Escreen-name%3ANovusOrdoWatch%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c14
Dear MiracleOfTheSun,
THANK YOU!! Please pray that Fr. Johnson continues to speak the truth..
It's my understanding that one can't approach doubtful Sacraments even if a certain path does NOT exist ... except in danger of death, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. There's some debate, of course, about whether there's positive or negative doubt about various scenarios.
"Among other consequences, the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes may have prompted, here and there, members of the clergy of the of the official (or so-called "conciliar") Church to turn to the Society of Saint Pius X. In some cases, priests (and even a bishop, in the person of the Ordinary emeritus of Chur, Mgr Vitus Huonder) have even decided to offer their cooperation the apostolate of the Society. [Umm, no, he was ordered there by Francis -SJ]Where is the source to prove Pope France ordered him there? I don't doubt it, I just can't find it, and it should be added to the wikipedia page on Huonder.
Just like if you girdle a tree (cut completely around the bark), the tree is dead. At least it's a POINT OF NO RETURN. The tree will continue to LOOK alive for a while: it will have soft, supple branches and leaves for months later, but no more sap can flow above the girdling point, where the cut was made. So it's "set in stone" or a done-deed that the tree is dead. It's just a matter of time before the death FULLY manifests itself.Many Trees including the Giant Redwoods are liable to grow back from the roots and stump. It depends on what kind of a tree the SSPX is.
With a chicken, death takes minutes after the "point of no return" (e.g., removing its head). With a tree, it takes months. The SSPX might take years (Rome wasn't built in a day -- and neither was it destroyed in a day!)
That is the state of the SSPX today. The girdling has been done 100%. The organization is fully doomed. Just a matter of time before all the chapels/policies/etc. fully reflect the fundamental shift that HAS TAKEN PLACE (past tense).
A bit of Trad 101 --
One of the foundational principles that Trads have held to SINCE THE BEGINNING is the following:
When you have a doubtful Mass/priest and a certainly valid one, you are OBLIGATED to go with the more certain one.
And, the Novus Ordo (and new ordination) are at least SUSPECT/dangerous/doubtful.
Now I'll admit that some Trads today are more "sure than they ought to be" when it comes to the validity of the New Rite of Ordination -- or the Novus Ordo Missae for that matter. But that is beside the point.
The FACT is that these things are at least DOUBTFUL, and there is a Catholic principle that one is not even ALLOWED to go with a doubtful path when a certain path exists. That goes for the liquid used at Baptism, your Mass, your priest, and everything else. We must always choose the more certain.
TL;DR (short version): Catholic morality does not permit us to be risk-takers when it comes to what Mass we will attend, or other important matters touching on our Faith and our salvation. On the contrary, we are commanded to be extremely risk-averse and conservative -- taking the safest path.
It's my understanding that one can't approach doubtful Sacraments even if a certain path does NOT exist ... except in danger of death, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. There's some debate, of course, about whether there's positive or negative doubt about various scenarios.How does this relate to the Fr Stark and other supposed not conditionally ordained NO convert priests working in the SSPX when ABL was alive?
Where is the source to prove Pope France ordered him there? I don't doubt it, I just can't find it, and it should be added to the wikipedia page on Huonder.Fr MacDonald on Bishop Huonder - SSPX Resistance Sermons - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-sermons/fr-macdonald-on-bishop-huonder/)
Many Trees including the Giant Redwoods are liable to grow back from the roots and stump. It depends on what kind of a tree the SSPX is.
How does this relate to the Fr Stark and other supposed not conditionally ordained NO convert priests working in the SSPX when ABL was alive?