Author Topic: Is the new rite of ordination valid? (Read 6969 times)

Thursday · « **on:** September 19, 2010, 07:03:58 AM »

A few years back I had the opportunity to talk with an independent bishop. At the time I was having trouble deciding where to attend mass. He stressed that the priest should be ordained in the old rite, so either go to mass at one of the traditional group's chapels or to a priest ordained before 1969 who does the tridentine mass.

He didn't go into the problems of the new ordinations but now I'm wondering what specifically is wrong with the new rite of ordination. Anyone?

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** September 19, 2010, 08:47:51 AM »

I won't get into the details because I am simply an unqualified judge in the matter.

I have read several criticisms on the new rite of ordination of priests and/or the new rite of Episcopal consecration.

In all of these articles, those which claim the new rites to be invalid are compelling. If the facts that are alledged are, in fact, true, then the criticisms are almost certainly true--and the new rites are absolutely invalid. The problem is that the it is virtually impossible for a simple layman to independently confirm the facts presented. On the other hand, if there is any error in fact, the arguments are almost certainly invalid.

On the other hand, those which claim the new rites to be valid seldom address the opposing arguments and generally do not argue from facts but from feelings and faith that the new rites surely must be valid.

The rites of ordination and consecration is not a sacrament in which Christ gave the precises form and so the Church can make changes. The only question is whether or not the new rites truly do have a valid form, one that is valid in a way that the Anglican orders are certainly not valid.

All of this is beyond me. On the other hand, I believe it is enough that credible "experts" (I use the term loosely, because, on this matter, I'm really not sure who is and who is not an expert) disagree. The new rites may or may not be valid. It is also historically true that the new rites' validity was questioned by some theologians almost immediately upon their promulgation.

The possiblity of invalidity was one of the greatest motivating factors for Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate four bishops for the Society. This one fact alone--that the archbishop did indeed consecrate four bishops for the Society--is enough for me to question the validity of the new rites and, to be on the safe side, avoid priests who have not received Holy Orders in the traditional Rite from bishops who have not themselves been ordained and consecrated in the traditional Rite.

If you still want the details, you should be able to find many scholarly arguments on both sides of the question on the internet. Unfortunately, there is not simple, easy to understand, explanation.

Thursday · « **Reply #2 on:** September 19, 2010, 12:43:27 PM »

I'm pretty sure the catechism says to avoid doubtful priests, so the ordinations don't necessarily have to be invalid for a layman to avoid certain priests, as long as there is a legitimate reason for doubt.

This is something one would have to consider before attending a diocean traditional mass.

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 19, 2010, 02:52:02 PM »

From the 1964 Movie Becket:

Video

MyrnaM · « **Reply #4 on:** September 19, 2010, 03:30:22 PM »

The new rite takes place in the Novus Ordo Missae, it is
imperative to note that this rite takes place in a sacrilegious Mass.
Therefore, the rite begins with the Novus Ordo’s “Liturgy of the
Word,” which includes the reading of the Epistle and Gospel. No
Profession of Faith is said. The “General Intercessions” are not
said, either. The “readings” may be taken in whole or in part
from the Mass of the day or from other texts. [Contrast this to the
Old Rite where the Office of the day is never changed on account
of the ordination of the bishop. A second collect is added for the Bishop elect.

http://tinyurl.com/2bwtbre

Alexandria · « **Reply #5 on:** September 20, 2010, 05:09:21 PM »

Quote

On the other hand, those which claim the new rites to be valid seldom address the opposing arguments and generally do not argue from facts but from feelings and faith that the new rites surely must be valid.

I can relate to that.

Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, who was affiliated with the SSPX, was convinced of the invalidity of the new rite of ordination. He used to say that when there were no more true priests left in the novus ordo church, they would allow the old Mass to be said.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 20, 2010, 06:28:45 PM »

Quote from: RomanCatholic1953

From the 1964 Movie Becket:

Video

That was very good. Thank you for sharing.

John Steven · « **Reply #7 on:** September 20, 2010, 08:59:54 PM »

I believe the Church in canon law says if there is any question regarding the validity of a Sacrament we are to always give the benefit of the doubt towards validity rather than invalidity. The burden of proof would be on those claiming invalidity. I would never presume to definitively say a particular Sacrament is valid or invalid but rather give the possibility that it could be doubtful and avoid it for those reasons. Only a definitive statement from the Church would be a final say on the matter.

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** September 21, 2010, 06:29:39 AM »

Quote from: John Steven

I believe the Church in canon law says if there is any question regarding the validity of a Sacrament we are to always give the benefit of the doubt towards validity rather than invalidity. The burden of proof would be on those claiming invalidity. I would never presume to definitively say a particular Sacrament is valid or invalid but rather give the possibility that it could be doubtful and avoid it for those reasons. Only a definitive statement from the Church would be a final say on the matter.

I have read this also; I have not read the actual canon, but I believe this is correct.

The operative words, however, are "benefit of doubt".

In a great many cases a child who has simply learnt his catechism instinctively knows that a sacrament as "celebrated" in the Novus Ordo is not valid. In other words, there is no doubt.

There is no doubt when the priest changes the form of the sacrament or uses clearly invalid matter. What I find most amusing is that many Conciliar Catholics will refuse to condemn a Mass because of "doubt" when all manner of abuses are heaped upon the celebration of the Mass, use of sweetend bread, the priest inventing his own Canan, etc., while at the same time condemning Thuc-line bishops because they have "doubts" about Bishop Thuc's mental fitness--a charge that can never be substantiated.

Alexandria · « **Reply #9 on:** September 21, 2010, 11:48:37 AM »

For my own part, I am not going to waste my time going to a mass that has dubious sacraments when I can go to one that does not have dubious sacraments. For years I sat in the novus ordo pews questioning - does he believe in what he is doing? Is he really a priest? Is this mass valid? And if that wasn't bad enough, on top of it all I endured the usual antics that go along with all of the new church theology. My novus ordo "faith journey" led me elsewhere.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 21, 2010, 02:33:17 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

For my own part, I am not going to waste my time going to a mass that has dubious sacraments when I can go to one that does not have dubious sacraments. For years I sat in the novus ordo pews questioning - does he believe in what he is doing? Is he really a priest? Is this mass valid? And if that wasn't bad enough, on top of it all I endured the usual antics that go along with all of the new church theology. My novus ordo "faith journey" led me elsewhere.

Amen amen. I refuse to attend an NO, and will be ok receiving at an SSPX with confirmed Old Rite priests, or any CMRI chapel (where I truly believe the faith is present) or an SSPV chapel too.

The graces that have abounded from going to those places rather than a conciliar diocesan-affiliated church have been 100 fold more than I could have imagined. A tough road (dealing with lost friends), but better than losing my soul.

Alexandria · « **Reply #11 on:** September 21, 2010, 02:36:24 PM »

Quote

The graces that have abounded from going to those places rather than a conciliar diocesan-affiliated church have been 100 fold more than I could have imagined.

I, too, have found this to be so.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #12 on:** September 21, 2010, 02:37:20 PM »

Talk about grace? When I attended the NO church, I thought I was so good, and saintly.

Later when I went back to Tradition, now I find I am working out my salvation with fear and trembling.

Belloc · « **Reply #13 on:** September 22, 2010, 07:29:30 AM »

NO encourages teh "everyone is great" thinking

There as a priest on the coast that used to tell his parishoners this-the "hey, you're all good people, after all, you are attending Mass and all, so we wont have confession, just give me a call if there is anything you want to talk about" In his "off" hrs, he golfed a lot and usually, 2-3 minutes after Mass, was in black slacks and a polo shirt.....

Sedetrad (andy) knows likely what I mean, same town he lives in...

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #14 on:** September 22, 2010, 12:16:40 PM »

Quote from: John Steven

The burden of proof would be on those claiming invalidity...

The burden of proof is upon you to provide the relevant canons, etc., supporting your initial comment about how to handle doubtful sacraments, etc. We thank you in advance for providing us with the information.