Great stuff, Angelus. 

In any case, as I've repeatedly stated, I cannot definitively judge who's right.  I opine that +Williamson is wrong on this matter.  Ultimately only the Church can decide the matter, with the degree of authority required to impose the decision on consciences.  That's the bottom line, and Bishop Williamson agrees with ME on that point, not with YOU.  He clearly state that there was no reason to withhold conditional ordination precisely because many intelligent, sincere, and  orthodox Catholics have come to the opposite conclusion.

But we don't have to prove that we're right, as the threshold for our position is very low ... merely to explain who there's something we can point to (positive) that can cause doubt.  You can hop up and down all day lot in your "skirt" claiming the contrary ... and repost the same things over and over again, but none of that can meet the standard of proof, which is moral certainty to the point or exclusing all positive or even prudent doubt.

With all due respect to his Lordship, as a bishop of the Catholic Church, Bishop Williamson's job was not to pander to the fears of the faithful, but to uphold the teachings and policies of the Church. The Church is not a democracy. Without doubt,His Lordship was an incredibly gifted and intelligent man, but, judging by this, as an example, he never quite lost his Protestant outlook: each and everyone can reach their own conclusions on the matter - what he called "The Golden Rule" if you remember. Now, I fully understand the fears that some fellow Catholics have - I shared them myself at one point - and while I challenge some of what you write - especially your unfounded attacks on the SSPX in this area, I am not mocking the doubts you have; Vatican II caused an avalanche of hurt and confusion that knocked the best of us side-ways. However, I will say that my doubts quickly dissolved once I began to educate myself and re-look at the subject objectively. I'm a broad strokes thinker - not so ready with dates and figures - but usually quick to get the gist and sense of a position as a whole. This was my starting point: Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, His Kingdom that rests upon the Papacy. For me, the promise is clear: no matter how hard the masonic infiltrators try, their attempts to destroy the Church will be thwarted by the hand of God who is always in control. The dogmatic belief that the Church disappeared (no more real bishops, priests or sacraments) in 1958 or 1965 flys in the face of that promise. The SSPX - the first traditional movement - is not the Church. But is a rudder and a constant reminder, maintained by Christ through Archbishop Lefebvre, of the Church's former glory. You query my horse in the race, well this is it.

Boru,

You (and others) have missed a critical piece of what Bp. Williamson discussed in the quote you provided.

My intention was not to present an over-all analysis but to highlight that the Old SSPX did not give the Sede-vacantist 'ut' theory any credence.

However, you have raised a relevant point which I shall respond to once I have read it and considered it against works of authority on this subject.  Thank you for posting.

My intention was not to present an over-all analysis but to highlight that the Old SSPX did not give the Sede-vacantist 'ut' theory any credence.

However, you have raised a relevant point which I shall respond to once I have read it and considered it against works of authority on this subject.  Thank you for posting.

I love how you post an out-of-context +W quote, but you ignore the more complex analysis of Fr Scott and +Tissier, who were against the new rites.  

And you continue to LIE that the old-sspx accepted the new rites. 

My intention was not to present an over-all analysis but to highlight that the Old SSPX did not give the Sede-vacantist 'ut' theory any credence.

However, you have raised a relevant point which I shall respond to once I have read it and considered it against works of authority on this subject.  Thank you for posting.

So, you're just doubling down on your lies now, despite having been corrected, claiming that it's a "Sedevacantist theory".  Fr. Paul Robinson, acting as if was an  authority on the matter, but was probably in diapers when this went down, referred to the SVs in the early 1980s.  In point of fact "The Nine" were not all SVs, and SVism had very little to do witht he split ... but one of their key points was in fact Mr. Stark's non-ordination.  I could cite the names of R&R Priests who have been loyal to SSPX for decades, who categorically hold that the New Rites are invalid (not just doubtful).  There was also that one SSPX priest who said exactly that from the pulpit a few months ago.

Then, again, you continue the crap about minimizing the case as if it were just about the "ut", and at the same time dismissing it out of hand ... without once having attempted a refutation of the solid arguments for why the "ut" is highl significant.

As I said, this individual has some personal stake in the matter, and has engaged in this campaign of hurling bovine excrement on some mission ... while being incapable of actually refuting any of the arguments being made.

Here's the best way to look at it.

What's the worst thing that can happen with either opinion if you happen to be wrong?

WORST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IF YOU'RE WRONG WITH --

PRO VADLIDITY POSITION:  -- if you happen to be wrong, then souls are being deprived of the Sacrament, and possibly even being lost, since perhaps some were unable to make a perfect act of contrition, but could have nevertheless been restored to a state of grace and ultimately saved through Sacramental absolution, for which imperfect contrition suffices.  That's to say nothing of troubling the consciences of many lay faithful, who could otherwise simply assist at Mass in peace with the moral certainty of receiving valid Sacraments.

PRO POSITIVE DOUBT POSITION: -- you administer a conditional ordination that fails to have any effect.  No, you do not commit sacrilege, since the Sacrament would not have been re-administered.  Given the chaos in the Church and the crisis, and a motivation to at least appease the consciences of the faithful, I'm sure that God would not be offended by the action, and might actually be pleased (even if you're wrong), since you're bringing about peace of soul among the faithful.  Some bishop might have "wasted" 30 minutes having to administer the conditional ordination.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN MORE OF A NO-BRAINER HERE AS TO THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION.  THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEST.

So, it's precisely for this reason that the SSPX have engaged in the duplicity of conflating the notion that the re-administration of a "character" Sacrament would entail a sacrilege, and effectively turning the tables so that someone who has a doubt about validity would almost have to prove with certainty the existence of positive doubt and then gratuitouslyi denying that this requirement has been met (even if it clearly has), when it's quite the other way around, that those defending validity must prove that there's no prudent doubt ... when clearly they cannot, since there most certainly is.

Ah, yes, wait ... I almost forgot.

If it's true that the Bogus Ordo Sacraments are invalid, or even doubtful, to say so would jeopardize their rapprochement with the Conciliar heretics.  And NOW we get to the real motivation for their position.  On top of that, they and those who "agree" with them also want to appease and quiet their troubled and guilty consciences in case the negative consequences of the "PRO VALIDITY POSITION" above just so happen to be true.

Of course, Borat here refuses to address this critical point.

If the poeple arguing positive doubt are wrong ... big deal, no harm, no foul, with SSPX desperately trying to conflate "conditional" ordination with RE-ordination, which it most certainly is not, in an attempt to exaggerate the gravity of being wrong about positive doubt.

If, however, the pro-validity crowed are wrong, there will be (literal) hell to pay for those pushing that crap.

So ... almost no consequences vs. extremely grave consequences, yeah, I think one should rather error on the side of the no-harm-done conditional ordination.

But SSPX cling with white knuckles to ther validity theory ... and that's ABSOLUTELY and UNDENIABLY only because they're in bed with the Modernists more and more.

He also covers why the New Episcopal Consecration is also valid - which I found extremely enlightening because I never knew it resembles the VALID rite of the Catholic Eastern Church (Coptic), including the usage of the word 'governing spirit', and that this in itself renders the New Episcopal Consecration valid. There is also an explicit reference to the office of bishop; the intended sacrament. Worth considering.

Well, he's 100% wrong and I'll explain why.

First of all, the point is NOT the priesthood ordinations, but the bishop consecrations. Invalid bishops -> invalid priests.

Here is a PDF of the episcopal consecrations:

https://de.scribd.com/doc/15442729/Comparison-of-Old-and-New-Consecration-Rites

The important part is on page 25 and 26:





What does Pius XII say?

The form is the words determining the application of the matter, by which the sacramental effects are univocally signified -- namely the power of Orders and the grace of the Holy Spirit." In other words the words of the form must specify what power of orders is given and that the grace of the Holy Ghost is given.

Yes, the Episcopal Rite does call on the "governing spirit" (page 25). But that alone doesn't make it valid because you need to say WHAT you are intending the Holy Spirit to do (Fulfil in thy priest... ). BOTH have to be invoked to be valid, and this is in EVERY rite, even the Eastern. So the "it's a new rite, you can't apply SO to it" argument from Fr. Hesse doesn't count.

1. Does the New Rite call on the Holy Spirit?

- "bless him [the elected] with spiritual power" (that's not the Holy Spirit)
- "pour out thy holy blessing" (not the Holy Spirit either)
- "by thy gracious word, bless him" (not the Holy Spirit again)
- "From the beginning of the Church you have chosen ministers" (Protestant understanding of "bishop" as administrator)
- "pour out the governing spirit" (page 25 - okay let's presume this means Holy Spirit)

Let's presume "yes".

2. Now, what powers do they call on the "governing spirit" for? What should the Holy Spirit do?

- "Through the power of the spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood" - (okay let's presume they somehow mean the Holy Spirit, okay let's go...)
- "grant him the power to forgive sins" (the bishop-elect, if he is a valid priest, already has this power, useless and confusing prayer)
- "grant him the power to assign ministries" (that's not the intention to make a Catholic bishop, but a Protestant minister)
- "grant him the power to loose every bond given by the apostles etc." (that's not the proper power of a bishop either!)

So, the New Rite, while maybe, calling on the "power of the spirit" as Holy Spirit, it completely misses the essential: to define WHAT you're calling on the Holy Spirit for (if you're calling him at all)! It mentions the word "office of bishop", yes, but Anglicans have "bishops" too, with invalid orders. So the word alone doesn't make it valid.

The best argument against this is "the context form can supplement", but in the New Rite, that makes it even worse, since the entire explanation of "what is the purpose of a bishop" (present in the Old Rite) or even the interrogation "are you even Catholic" for the bishop is abolished. The only thing that is left in in terms of duties of a bishop is "obeying the pope" (obviously they had to leave that in, can't miss a psychological jab against those 1988 schismatics).

If the new rite just said "God please pour out the Holy Spirit to consecrate this guy a bishop, so that he has the power to ordain priests to continue the sacrifice of Christ" - it may be very colloquial, but still definitely valid. The best explanation is that they are mentioning the "high priesthood", but that's just a regular priest in the context of the Old Testament. A "high priest" is not a bishop in the Old Testament. So even the best-case interpretation fails.

Throughout the entire rite, they refer to the bishop as a "guide of the flock", "guardian" and "minister-appointer". Then they, for some reason mention "loosening bonds" and "assigning ministries" as one of the bishops core tasks, which any Catholic would understand that a regular priest already has this power.

If someone is spazzing out about the Thuc bishops being definitely invalid because of some rumored "withheld intention" to Guerard des Lauriers, but at the same time accepting Novus Ordo "ministers" as definitely valid because some liberal SSPX priest said "well they're calling on the Holy Spirit, so it must be valid" - then we've hit hyprocrisy central.

Fr. Hesse only defended the new Rite of priesthood ordination (which only has two sentences changed and none of the essential form). So yes, Fr. Hesse was a valid priest, as he was ordained by an Old-Rite bishop with the correct intention. But here, we are not talking about "ut" and "et", we are talking about a rite, where 100% of the prayers are completely rewritten and the bishop is consistently mentioned as having the power to "appoint people" (Protestant intention).

So, does this validate against the intention of Sacramentum Ordinis? Or even anything before that? I asked Gemini to defend the New Rite, and this is the best answer (mathematically):

The Church's position is that the term "high priesthood" (summi sacerdotii) in the context of the New Testament and apostolic succession does signify the episcopacy. Furthermore, the combination of phrases—being chosen for the "office of bishop," being a "shepherd," receiving the "high priesthood," and having the apostolic power to "loose every bond"—taken together, sufficiently and univocally signifies the order being conferred.

So, I asked further:

Okay, try to think this through as hard as you can: If Pius XII says that a Catholic rite has to "unambiguously signify the specific sacramental power being conferred" and I have to do spiritual gymnastics in order to read what powers it confers - is the new Rite valid or not.

Gemini favors the "I have to obey the Magisterium" and this is the best defense an AI on "extreme" settings can come up with:

1. "Unambiguous" Means Clear in the Mind of the Church: "Unambiguous" does not mean "obvious to any person who reads it in a vacuum."
(aka "you're not a theologian, don't question us)

1. The Pope Provides the Clarity: The supreme authority of the Pope himself removes the ambiguity. When Pope Paul VI promulgated the new rite his apostolic authority is the ultimate guarantee of its meaning and validity. (just lol, circular reasoning)

2. The "Gymnastics" Are Simply Theology: The terms are not ambiguous to the Church. (lol again)

3.1. "High Priesthood" (Summi Sacerdotii): This term has been used for centuries to refer to the episcopacy. The Council of Trent used it. (Correction: the Catechism of the Council of Trent uses it, yes - but it's still not defining the powers)

3.2. The Context Creates Unambiguity: It is prayed over a man who has been presented "for the office of bishop." The combination of being chosen for the episcopacy and receiving the "fullness of the high priesthood" creates a context that is, for the Church, sufficiently and univocally clear. (ah yes, it's so clear that we have hundreds of hours of debates)

4. Conclusion: The New Rite is valid because the supreme authority on Earth has declared it to be so. (lololololol)

The strongest pro-NO argument ist 3.1. - "Summi Sacerdotii" (high priesthood) appears in the Catechism of the Council of Trent as a synonym for "high priest / bishop". Let's assume also that. Let's look at the wording:

Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to forgive sins as you have commanded, to assign ministries as you have decreed, and to loose every bond by the authority which you gave to your apostles.

The latter half of the sentence I already debunked above, they don't confer the episcopate.

The problem is in the ambiguity here: "Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood" - this doesn't invoke the Holy Spirit to do it. It just defines what Spirit we're talking about. It just says that the Holy Spirit has, in general, the power to give the grace of the high priesthood. Of course he has. But it doesn't say "go ahead and do it" (like the old "Fulfill.. the priesthood" - imperative grammar to the Holy Spirit - go and fulfil it).

THE LIBERAL SSPX "DEFENSE" DOES NOT MENTION THIS; THEY ONLY FOCUS ON THE WORDS "GOVERNING SPIRIT".

Yes, they throw in the words "office of bishop" (right after the word "minister"), but so do the Anglicans.

The NO Rite does NOT say to actually "Holy Spirit, do it" (the Old Rite does, imperative case: "Fulfil in thy priest, ..."). Second, the while the wording "Summi Sacerdotii" the same as Trent, the powers conferred here do not have the same intention as the Council of Trent. Geminis best argument therefore is "it's valid because Paul VI said it is".

It is NOT Catholic to accept anything ambiguous in terms of doctrine. Pope Honorious got anathematized because he wrote ONE ambiguous word, and he had the orthodox intention - still got the anathema.

Even if you, with insane gymnastics, could somehow prove that the 3rd part of the prayer was somehow actually conferring the high priesthood, it would still be anathematized and burned. Doctrine may never be expressed in such a way that it can mean two things.

Update: Gemini gave up after I posted this rebuttal. Bishop Williamson, rest his soul, only talked about the priesthood, not the episcopate.

...

It should be noted also that the new Preface (Consecration prayer) does not surgically remove the Catholic understanding of what a priest does either. Let us compare the words of the Old and New:

Old: " Thus you poured out in abundance of the paternal fullness of Aaron's sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, so that ministers of the priesthood were sufficient for the sacrificial victims and for frequent officiating of the Sacrament."

New: "In this way, you poured out in abundance of the paternal fullness on the son's of Aaron so that for the sacrifices of the tabernacle, which were a shadow (symbolic) of future goods, the merits (ministers) was sufficient according to the Law of the Priests."

Could you say, as a positive doubt, that the two signify two different meanings? Or is it a probable opinion based on our distrust of the subtle changes of terminology?

...

The change in the language of the Preface (quoted above) reflects a move from direct and clear signification in the traditional Rite toward indirect and ambiguous signification in the New Rite.

And you have the "probable opinion"/"positive doubt" issue backwards. There is no doubt at all about the traditional Rite. It is valid. It is not my "probable opinion" that this is the case. It is dogmatically certain. This is what the Church has always taught. I don't have to prove this.

You are the one holding a "probable opinion" that the Novus Ordo is valid. You think your opinion is probable because, as you say, Jesus would not "leave us orphans" (which is true but you misapply the phrase to this case). The burden of proof that the Novus Ordo is valid is on you. Until you can prove this with a dogmatic statement from the Church, you theory can be nothing more than a "probable opinion."

The Church says that I don't need to prove my "opinion" that the New Rites are invalid. The fact that they are significantly different from the Traditional Rites casts sufficient, "positive doubt" on the New Rites. I don't need to have certainty about the New Rites. I am required to avoid them simply because they signify something substantially different from the traditional Rites.

So, in order to follow the requirements of Catholic moral theology, we must ordinarily receive the Sacraments from a minister who is certainly valid (the traditionally-ordained Priest), and only in extraordinary circuмstances should we consider receiving Sacraments from a minister who is only probably valid. 

But you flip this on its head because of your "leave us orphans" theory. You naively accept that the Church (the true Roman Catholic Church) is identical to the entity infiltrated by Freemasons who inexplicably changed the traditional Rites. You are living in a false reality.

The Novus Ordo is a test, allowed by God. You are failing that test because of your human attachments and lack of clear reasoning. Please pray about this and ask for God to give you the humility to see the Truth before it is too late.