"One can say a Catholic sacrament involves five elements : Minister, Intention, Matter and Form are essential for validity, the Rite surrounding the Form can be important for validity by its sudden or gradual bearing on the Minister's Intention. For priestly Orders, the Minister has to be a validly consecrated bishop ; the Intention is his sacramental (not moral) intention, in ordaining, to do what the Church does ; the Matter is his laying of both hands on the head of the man to be ordained (women cannot be validly ordained to the priesthood of Christ) ; the Form is the crucial formula or series of words in the rite which express the conferring of the priesthood ; the Rite is all the other words surrounding that Form, and prescribed in the ceremonial rite of Ordination.
In a new rite Ordination, if both hands are laid on the head, the Matter is no problem. The new Form in Latin is, if anything, stronger for validity than the old Form in Latin (by the « et » instead of an « ut »), but vernacular translations need to be checked to make sure that they clearly express the grace of the priesthood to be conferred. Most of them surely do." Bishop Williamson, 2009, EC 121
With all due respect to Bishop Williamson ... he got this wrong. Evidently you've got nothing but your argumetns "from authority". I can repost the opinions of a dozen other people who say otherwise. Nevertheless, Bishop Williamson made it quite clear that this was his opinion, but acknowledged that others may prudently arrive at a different conclusion. I have those class lectures I posted on my Substack, and in one of them he explains the apparent contradiction of his doing conditional ordinations while holding NO Rites to be valid. He distinguishes between his personal opinion, but realizes that others might in good faith come to the opposite conclusion, and he did not believe it right to brutalize their consciences and impose his opinion on them. THAT is the difference here, despiste your mendacious claims to the contrary. Bishop Williamson refused to impose his opinion on the faithful, whereas that's exactly what neo-SSPX are doing, and what the problem is. I have no problem with their OPINING that the Orders are valid, but I have a problem with their IMPOSING that opinion on the faithful.
You just ignore the actual arguments, of course, and keep reposting your crap. This reminds me of the clowns who keep resposting, say, St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus on Baptism of Desire, where everybody knows what their opinons were, just that some of us disagreed. At that the debate moves on to actually considering whether they were right or wrong and why.
But those who are of bad will and have ulterior motives, they never actually move on to that level of argument because ... well, they can't actually prevail at the level of reason.
1) the argument of the New Rite of Ordination can hardly be considered standalone anymore, since there are practically no active priests left who had been ordained in the New Rite of Ordination by a Bishop who had been consecrated in the Old / Traditional Rite. So it's almost a moot argument. When you look at what they did to the Episcopal Rite of Consecration, even SSPX admit that it's radically different.
2) Despite gratuitious assertions, no one has ever refuted the "ut" problem, which is very real. Instead they simply gaslight about the "two-letter word". Well, "is" is also a two-letter word, and "not" a 3-letter word, and yet their obvious significance from the standpoint of logic should be self-evident. Length of the words means nothing, so that when people throw that out there, it's a clear indication of bad will. In fact, if the word were SO trivial, then it's actually a strong argument for the opposite view, since WHY was this little, insignfiicant, two-letter word in their way. Did removing it somehow greatly modernize the meaning, making it oh-so-much-more "relevant to modern man"? "ut" indicates cause and effect. Removing the "ut" means that you're explicitly severing the cause-effect relationship between what comes before it (the cause) and what comes after it (the effect). When Pope Pius XII taught about the essential form in
Sacramentum Ordinis, he stated that two things were required, 1) invocation of the Holy Ghost, and 2) indication of the Sacramental effect of said invocation. That's precisely where the "ut" fits in, and while one might argue that the cause-effect is still "implied", that's not obvious, especially for someone who isn't imposting the prior meaning into it.
3) Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican Ordinations null due to the vitiated intention of the MISSAL (note, not the minister), where he states that the removal of all references to sacrifice indicate an attempt to be in conformity with the errors of the "reformers". EXACTLY THE SAME THING pertains to the Novus Ordo Rite, where every reference to the priest's power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been extirpated, with the express intention of no longer having the Rite classh with the self-same errors of the "reformers". Pope Leo XIII stated that due to this defective intention of the Missal, even IF the essential form had remained intact or been corrected, the Ordinal would STILL be invalid.
Between ...
1) Pius XII teaching that essential form had to express Sacramental effect.
2) Conciliar Rite removing the explicit linking between the Holy Ghost and said effect.
3) Leo XIII declaring that the removal of all references to the priest's power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass invalidated the Anglican Ordinal.
4) Concilar Rite ... removing all references tot he priest's power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
with the above four, THERE'S CLEAR AND PRESENT POSTIIVE DOUBT regarding the New Rite of Ordination, even absent any reference to the problematic Rite of Episcopal Consecration.
So, the question remains ... SSPX ... what HARM would it to to confer conditional ordination, since the changes above, combined with the changes to the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, clearly suffice to establish at least prudent doubts about these Sacramental Rites?
In doing a Pros and Cons analysis, the Pro is obvious, that the faithful now can be morally certain that they're receiving valid Sacraments, and can assist at SSPX Masses with complete peace of soul (which is what Fr. Robinson claimed that video was all about). Instead of constantly priest-splaining the SSPX position, how about just providing peace of soul to the faithful by ... performing conditional ordination as a matter of routine?
So, what's are the Cons of performing conditional ordinations?
That they take an extra half hour of some bishop's time? Much more time goes into just producing these gaslighting videos.
See, there really isn't one.
SSPX DELIBERATELY conflate the fact that a repetition of RE-ADMINISTRATION of the "character" Sacraments would constitue sacrilege, and thereby set up a false premise for why they feel that they MUST engage in some rigorous investigation before they are even permitted to conditionally ordain. In doing so, Father Robinson actually muddled up the basic theological terms, by claiming that you can re-administer a character Sacrament only if there's positive doubt (then claiming there isn't any). Well, that's simply untrue. You can NEVER re-administer a character Sacrament. That is precisely why the CONDITIONAL form was developed, where there's no re-administration if the prior attempt had in fact been valid. But they try to pretend that this would be what happens, a sacrilegious repetition of the Sacrament. That's absolutely false.
As Canon Law states, any prudent doubt suffices to justify conditional administration fo the Sacraments. Now, if conditional administration were performed willy-nilly by some scrupulous individual with OCD neurosis on anybody that had a pulse, yes, that would constitute a grave disrespect for the Sacrament in a broader sense, but that is CLEARLY not what's going on here. We have an unprecedented Crisis in which various malefactors and bad agents have bastardized the Mass, turning it into the spitting image of a Prot-heretical service, and have undermined the Traditional Magisterium, etc. AND these same actors have tampered with the Rites intended to confer Holy Orders. So now we're to TRUST these same people not to have vitiated the Rites? Ridiculous. At the very least, the crisis itself, and then the fact that they changed these Rites, that ALONE suffices to establish a prudent doubt that would justify condtional ordination, i.e. at least PERMITTING conditional ordination. Now, most of us would argue that there's clear positive doubt as well, but let's put that aside for now.
Given that there's clearly at least some positive indication that might lead a reasonable Catholic to have prudent doubts about their validity, it's most certainly PERMITTED to confer conditional.
Then WHY NOT?
We know the answer to that one. At the end of the day, it's because it would jeoparidize if not completely scuttle the SSPX's attempts to move toward a regularization with Rome. "Oh, yes, that St. Wojtyla guy ... well, he may not have been a bishop."
So throw the souls of the faithful (if they're wrong) and at the very least their peace of conscience under the bus ... in ordert to get your niche in the Conciliar Pantheon alongside all the heresiarchs in that establishment. Perhaps SSPX could take up that niche right next to Bergoglio on the right and "Father" James Martin to their left. Just so they can assume that place of honor in the Pantheon of religious indifferentism and ecuмenism, they'll throw the loyal Traditional faithful under the proverbial bus.
Absolutely shame and disgrace!
Topic: Universal doubtful intention (Read 2718 times)