Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Poll

New rite bishops' ordinations: Inherently invalid?

YES
13 (44.8%)
NO
16 (55.2%)

Total Members Voted: 23

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?  (Read 2591 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smedley Butler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1334
  • Reputation: +551/-1531
  • Gender: Male
NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
« on: July 27, 2018, 11:50:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Curious what people think....
    Logged

    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
    « Reply #1 on: July 27, 2018, 11:55:09 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • I voted no. 

    I don't hold traditio.com's position that all NO bishop ordinations are invalid. Hence, he calls them presbyters.

    I think the NO bishops' ordinations are like the NO Mass: deficient or displeasing to God, but valid with proper matter, form, and intent.


    t
    Logged

    Offline JezusDeKoning

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2940
    • Reputation: +1090/-2220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
    « Reply #2 on: July 27, 2018, 12:13:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • No valid bishops mean that there is no valid pope, nor has there been one since 1958 when Pope Pius XII went to his Eternal Reward - the sixtieth anniversary of which is coming in 2 and a half months. October 9th, 1958.

    The prospect of a six-decade-long interregnum is terrifying because it means that we have gone six decades without ordinary jurisdiction in the Latin Church. No Pope, no bishops, no priests.

    I'm personally unsure because of the length of time. In 2018, likely, no. But in 1978 or 1988 when a lot of these bishops, who after the Council turned out to be heretics, still exercised public ministry? And the post-Vatican II establishment is still somewhat new? 

    Entirely plausible.
    Logged
    Remember O most gracious Virgin Mary...

    Offline DLaurentius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 71
    • Reputation: +49/-10
    • Gender: Male
    • Male
    Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
    « Reply #3 on: July 27, 2018, 01:04:05 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • His Excellency Bishop Williamson wrote about the validity of Newrites (including consecrations) in his Eleison Comments #121. He states the following: 

    "Do not today’s Newrites of Mass and Episcopal Consecration correspond exactly to the Masonic plan as unveiled by the Cardinal? Ever since these Newrites were introduced in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, many serious Catholics have refused to believe that they could be used validly. Alas, they are not automatically invalid. How much simpler it would be, if they were. They are worse. Their sacramental Newform is Catholic enough to persuade many a celebrant that they can be validly used, but the Newrite and Newform are designed as a whole to be so ambiguous and so suggestive of a non-Catholic interpretation as to invalidate the sacrament over time by corrupting the catholic Intention of any celebrant who is either too “obedient,” or is not watching and praying enough. Newrites thus valid enough to get themselves accepted by nearly all Catholics in the short term, but ambiguous enough to invalidate the sacraments in the long term, constitute a trap satanically subtle."

    I agree with His Excellency. I think it is possible for Newrites to be valid if the celebrant has the correct intention, but the Newrites are designed to suggest non-Catholic beliefs that could lead the celebrant to have an incorrect intention and thereby invalidate the rites that he performs.


    Logged
    "Nam, etsi ambulavero in medio umbrae mortis, non timebo mala, quoniam tu mecuм es. Virga tua, et baculus tuus, ipsa me consolata sunt." - Psalmi 22:4

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10308
    • Reputation: +6219/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
    « Reply #4 on: July 27, 2018, 02:31:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Bishop Gallareta has written about these ordinations/consecrations and he says they are way more problematic.  His reasons are much more detailed than +W. 
    Logged

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +609/-55
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
    « Reply #5 on: July 27, 2018, 03:27:17 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • I would have preferred to see the question framed this way:

    "Do you believe there is positive and probable doubt regarding the validity of the FORM of the new episcopal rite of consecration?"

    To that question, I would vote yes.

    And since Catholics are not permitted to receive doubtful sacraments, it would mean we cannot avail ourselves of the sacraments of priests ordained by bishops consecrated in the new rite.

    About 10-15 years ago, a group called Rore Sanctifica gathered in Europe to study the matter, and concluded in the rite's invalidity.

    This provoked the SSPX (Fr. Gregoire Celier, himself a dubious character, and Fr. Calderon) to write in favor of validity, and shortly thereafter Avrille also did so.

    Regarding Avrille, the article was unremarkable, and below their normal acuмen.

    Not sure what Avrille's motive in writing was, but their article published in the Angelus followed upon some troubles between them and Menzingen, which itself went back to Bishop Fellay's 2000 - 2002 desire to strike a deal with Rome (i.e., Menzingen was already upset with Avrille for the latters' oppositional intransigence to a deal with modernist Rome, and the relationship between them and Menzingen continued to degenerate because of that issue).  

    I always wondered if this article was a half-hearted attempt by Avrille -not yet ready to break the chord with Menzingen- to win a little good will from them by writing something favorable about Rome (though I certainly do not intend to impugn Avrille's integrity).

    In any case, against Avrille and the SSPX Fathers Celier and Calderon are well-written articles by Fr. Anthony Cekada, which I personally find more compelling in concluding at least positive doubt (and in Fr. Cekada's opinion, invalidity per se).

    I am not sede-anything, and don't go as far as Fr. Cekada does, but I do believe -again, in my personal opinion- that he has done enough to establish positive and probable doubt.

    Consequently, I do not go anywhere near these questionable priests/bishops, unless necessity dictated I take the chance and play the odds.

    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10060
    • Reputation: +5256/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
    « Reply #6 on: July 27, 2018, 03:32:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: X on July 27, 2018, 03:27:17 PM
    I would have preferred to see the question framed this way:

    "Do you believe there is positive and probable doubt regarding the validity of the FORM of the new episcopal rite of consecration?"

    ....

    I am no sede-anything, and don't go so far as Fr. Cekada does, but I do believe -in my personal opinion- that he has done enough to establish positive and probable doubt.

    I would agree re: the wording of the OP's poll.  For those interested, here is Fr Cekada's original study re: the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration:

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf
    Logged
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +609/-55
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
    « Reply #7 on: July 27, 2018, 03:43:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • All Fr. Cekada's major writings on the new rite of episcopal consecration:

    http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/06/1968-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-valid-or-no/
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10060
    • Reputation: +5256/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
    « Reply #8 on: July 27, 2018, 03:51:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: X on July 27, 2018, 03:27:17 PM
    About 10-15 years ago, a group called Rore Sanctifica gathered in Europe to study the matter, and concluded in the rite's invalidity.

    This provoked the SSPX (Fr. Gregoire Celier, himself a dubious character, and Fr. Calderon) to write in favor of validity, and shortly thereafter Avrille also did so.

    Regarding Avrille, the article was unremarkable, and below their normal acuмen.

    Not sure what Avrille's motive in writing was, but their article published in the Angelus followed upon some troubles between them and Menzingen, which itself went back to Bishop Fellay's 2000 - 2002 desire to strike a deal with Rome (i.e., Menzingen was already upset with Avrille for the latters' oppositional intransigence to a deal with modernist Rome, and the relationship between them and Menzingen continued to degenerate because of that issue).  

    I always wondered if this article was a half-hearted attempt by Avrille -not yet ready to break the chord with Menzingen- to win a little good will from them by writing something favorable about Rome (though I certainly do not intend to impugn Avrille's integrity).

    These writings in favor of validity were done in 2005 if I'm not mistaken.  

    As a result, it is my opinion that the change in their conclusion from invalid to valid was due to the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger was the first pope to be consecrated in the New Rite.  If the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is doubtful/invalid, then the new Bishop of Rome is doubtful/invalid.
    Logged
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline Seraphina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2937
    • Reputation: +2052/-184
    • Gender: Female
    Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
    « Reply #9 on: July 27, 2018, 03:54:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: X on July 27, 2018, 03:27:17 PM
    Consequently, I do not go anywhere near these questionable priests/bishops, unless necessity dictated I take the chance and play the odds.
    Please elaborate upon what you mean by “necessity.”  Thanks!
    Logged

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +609/-55
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
    « Reply #10 on: July 27, 2018, 04:27:35 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on July 27, 2018, 03:51:42 PM
    These writings in favor of validity were done in 2005 if I'm not mistaken.  

    As a result, it is my opinion that the change in their conclusion from invalid to valid was due to the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger was the first pope to be consecrated in the New Rite.  If the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is doubtful/invalid, then the new Bishop of Rome is doubtful/invalid.
    Regarding the Dominicans: Plausible.

    Regarding BXVI: True, but one need not be  a bishop to be a Pope.
    Logged

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +609/-55
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
    « Reply #11 on: July 27, 2018, 04:29:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Seraphina on July 27, 2018, 03:54:24 PM
    Please elaborate upon what you mean by “necessity.”  Thanks!
    If I was dying on the side of the road and a conciliar priest was the only one who could hear my confession, I would confess to him, and play the doubt of his ordination against the certainty of my death.
    Logged

    Offline OHCA

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2833
    • Reputation: +1866/-111
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
    « Reply #12 on: July 27, 2018, 04:39:33 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: X on July 27, 2018, 04:27:35 PM
    Regarding the Dominicans: Plausible.

    Regarding BXVI: True, but one need not be  a bishop to be a Pope.
    .
    One need not be a bishop nor even a priest to be ELECTED Pope.  But if one is not, upon election he must be validly ordained and concecrated.
    Logged

    Offline OHCA

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2833
    • Reputation: +1866/-111
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
    « Reply #13 on: July 27, 2018, 04:41:44 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on July 27, 2018, 03:51:42 PM
    These writings in favor of validity were done in 2005 if I'm not mistaken.  

    As a result, it is my opinion that the change in their conclusion from invalid to valid was due to the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger was the first pope to be consecrated in the New Rite.  If the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is doubtful/invalid, then the new Bishop of Rome is doubtful/invalid.
    .
    Yes—on the fly theology of expediency.
    Logged

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +609/-55
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
    « Reply #14 on: July 27, 2018, 04:49:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: OHCA on July 27, 2018, 04:39:33 PM
    .
    One need not be a bishop nor even a priest to be ELECTED Pope.  But if one is not, upon election he must be validly ordained and concecrated.
    What would happen if he dies before he could be consecrated a bishop?
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2 3
    « previous next »