Author Topic: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests? (Read 6957 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #60 on:** December 27, 2020, 10:27:33 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on December 26, 2020, 07:30:49 PM

First point: But if you tried to say anyone who disagreed with you was in sin, that's something else, no?
________________

Second point: My discussion with Pax has spread out a bit, but my main point was: if I don't trust the superiors to do the right thing on holy orders, then I wouldn't be there. If the priests can't be trusted, why go? For the sacraments, but otherwise ignore them? So the priests are sacrament vending machines who can't even be trusted with the sacraments?

Agreed on the first point, provided the matter isn't settled, which is the situation in the issue you mentioned.

As to the second, in the ecclesiastical wasteland of the post-V2 era it is sadly true that many priests throughout Traddieland have proved to be untrustworthy. However, as our options for valid Sacraments have become extremely limited, many are forced to approach the only source available within perhaps 100+ miles. In the days before rapid transit, it would be much the same in places where the local priest was not living up to his calling, yet was the only reachable conduit of Sacramental grace.

Crazy days, my friend. Apologies for my part in any initial misunderstanding of your meaning, the subject at hand, etc. Godspeed to you and all in what promise to be challenging days ahead.

Stanley N · « **Reply #61 on:** December 28, 2020, 12:02:47 AM »

Quote

If a marriage is found to be doubtful or invalid and then rectified (which is usually in private), other people do not need to be informed. Obviously, some people know, but not everyone. I don't think that makes the church a secret society.

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 26, 2020, 10:06:45 PM

Marriages are public, social contracts, which is why there are (at least one) groomsmen and a maid-of-honor (2 witnesses). Any marriage is a public act, because everyone has a right to know who is or isn't married. That's what society is built on - marriage. Just like the Church is built on valid clerics.

Pax, we're talking about conditional ordinations, not original ordinations. The analogue in marriage is validation, not the original marriage.

Marriages are public in the sense that they are witnessed and some aspects are public domain, but not everything in the sacramental records are public domain.

Let's say a few years after a marriage, a defect of intention is alleged, investigated, and then the marriage is validated. In the process of recording that in the records, the priest realizes a necessary Church dispensation was missing, which the priest also handles. These things may have been done without one or the other spouse even knowing about it. The state is likely not informed, and I doubt many outside of priests or a marriage tribunal have any business seeing that info. To everyone else the couple was already considered married, because they originally had a public, apparent marriage.

And that's comparable to what I suspect with ordinations. The original ordination is public and witnessed, and the priest gets some paperwork showing when, where and by whom he was ordained. But what about a subsequent conditional ordination? The clergy who participated obviously know it happened, but when I was last active in the SSPX, these typically had no lay witnesses. I wonder, if a layperson requested a copy of the sacramental record of a conditional ordination, would he receive anything? And even if so, would he get more than a when, where, and by whom?

Stanley N · « **Reply #62 on:** January 03, 2021, 09:55:41 PM »

Here are some excerpts from conferences by +L.

April 26, 1983

"That is another question, another problem. Fr. S---- said himself: 'my ordination is good.' I am sure he is a priest. He has been a priest for eleven years now, I think. He is a very intelligent man. Not just because he is a Jesuit, no,no,no. ( (laughingly)) . .-.-but certainly he is a very intelligent man. He was a professor.- He said to. me, 'My word, somebody is discussing about the validity of my ordination.' They discuss: 'No, his ordination is not valid..' Well, that is the reason why I said to you yesterday, or the day "before, that we must do an inquisition, (a study of each case) to know what the situation really is ~~ in this case ~~ not in all cases in general (i.e., not a blanket judgment) but in this case, to see if his ordination is valid or invalid. And I... I am responsible, and I make the decision. I can say to him: 'You must be re-ordained.' Otherwise, if I think that his ordination is valid, really valid, then I have no right to repeat the sacrament. (NB: It would be a grave sacrilege to knowingly do so).

April 28, 1983

"They ask to discuss some points... I know these points, such as the point of the 'ordination of Fr. S----', the point of .'mar-riage annulments', etc., that is nothing...I agree with them on the, principles, i.e., 'I do not accept a priest if he has not avalid ordination, ' i.e. , I don't accept an invalid priest to help us 1 that is evident! I cannot accept a priest if I do not knowif his ordination is valid or not. That is clearl But they are not in charge of this priest (Fr. S----) . I am in charge." ... I must do an inquisition to know if his ordination is valid or in-valid. I am in charge of that, not them. These 5 priests in the Northeast district know that I cannot accept an invalid priest to give the sacraments. This is evident!"

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #63 on:** January 04, 2021, 10:16:11 AM »

Quote

Let's say a few years after a marriage, a defect of intention is alleged, investigated, and then the marriage is validated. In the process of recording that in the records, the priest realizes a necessary Church dispensation was missing, which the priest also handles. These things may have been done without one or the other spouse even knowing about it. The state is likely not informed, and I doubt many outside of priests or a marriage tribunal have any business seeing that info. To everyone else the couple was already considered married, because they originally had a public, apparent marriage.

If you're talking about current, modernist, new-rome marriage "validations", then their process is so lax that they hand out "validations" like pieces of candy. They are so numerous, that they'd have to have a weekly newspaper to inform everyone of the proceedings. In pre-V2 days, such a review/validation was rare, as most were rejected by the local bishop and never made it to new-rome for review.
.
Aside from that, you can't compare the marriage ceremony with the new rites of ordinations. The sacrament of marriage rite was not changed post V2, while the ordination rite was.
.

Quote

And that's comparable to what I suspect with ordinations. The original ordination is public and witnessed, and the priest gets some paperwork showing when, where and by whom he was ordained. But what about a subsequent conditional ordination? The clergy who participated obviously know it happened, but when I was last active in the SSPX, these typically had no lay witnesses. I wonder, if a layperson requested a copy of the sacramental record of a conditional ordination, would he receive anything? And even if so, would he get more than a when, where, and by whom?

No, not comparable. The actual rite/words of the ordination sacrament were changed, thus the doubts for this sacrament apply to ALL cases, while a marriage validation is specific, based on a specific couple. Thus, a conditional ordination would need to be publicly made known, because all the sacraments dispensed by the "priest" before his conditional ordination are ALSO doubtful.
.
Laymen don't have a right to records/papers, but they do have a right to know when/where/by whom priests were ordained. This applies to conditional ordinations. A priest is a public figure, they shouldn't be scared to publicize their priestly record.

Stanley N · « **Reply #64 on:** January 04, 2021, 10:30:26 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2021, 10:16:11 AM

No, not comparable. The actual rite/words of the ordination sacrament were changed, thus the doubts for this sacrament apply to ALL cases, while a marriage validation is specific, based on a specific couple.

Per the quotes above, +L investigated each ordination case on its own. Not a blanket decision.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #65 on:** January 04, 2021, 10:42:51 AM »

I don’t know who L is, but the investigation findings should be public. Priest X was ordained on X day, by X Bishop. If Priest X was conditionally ordained, all Catholics have a right to know why/by whom.
.
Priests are part of the Apostolic succession, just like bishops. Everyone has a right know their history.

Stanley N · « **Reply #66 on:** January 04, 2021, 10:57:18 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2021, 10:42:51 AM

I don’t know who L is, but the investigation findings should be public.

You can't figure out +L is Archbishop Lefebvre?

We got off into some srcondary issues. Publicness is a secondary issue.

My main issue was that ordinations are individually investigated. The +L quotes show that. And he didn"t always re-ordain.

Stanley N · « **Reply #67 on:** January 04, 2021, 11:47:49 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2021, 10:16:11 AM

No, not comparable. The actual rite/words of the ordination sacrament were changed, thus the doubts for this sacrament apply to ALL cases, while a marriage validation is specific, based on a specific couple.

They are comparable on the point of the comparison, which is that just as you don't have a right to all the records/papers of someone else's marriage, you don't have a right to all the records/papers of an ordination. Some info is public, but it's not 100% public, and that is true even if doubts about ordination were about the rite while doubts about marriage were specific to the couple.

That said, in my scenarios for marriage and ordination, there IS a difference that is relevant to the public-ness of records.

But I think we have enough agreement on public-ness that I don't want to debate public-ness further.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #68 on:** January 04, 2021, 03:24:34 PM »

Quote

My main issue was that ordinations are individually investigated. The +ABL quotes show that. And he didn"t always re-ordain.

Yes, but again, you're comparing apples-bicycles. In the 70s-90s, there was a higher likelihood that a new-rite ordination was valid, because the bishop was a valid bishop (i.e. consecrated in the old rite, previous to 1970). The main problem with the new rites are the episcopal consecrations.
.
Nowadays, the true bishops are all but dead. The new-rites have been used for ordinations/consecrations since the 70s, so for a new-rite priest, you have a DOUBLE DOUBT - 1) doubt about his ordination, because 2) you doubt the consecrating bishop.
.
For a new-rite Bishop, you have a TRIPLE DOUBT - 1) doubt about his ordination, 2) doubt about his consecrating bishop, and 3) doubt about his personal consecration.
.
The current new-sspx (since the late 90s) has to deal with a higher level of doubt, than did +ABL in the 70s-80s-90s.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #69 on:** January 04, 2021, 03:34:44 PM »

Quote

They are comparable on the point of the comparison, which is that just as you don't have a right to all the records/papers of someone else's marriage, you don't have a right to all the records/papers of an ordination.

I disagree totally. You are interjecting the notion of "papers" into the debate, which is not what we're talking about. No one has a right to "papers" but they do have a right to facts/proof. There is no "freedom of information act" related to the Church. But, since Traditional groups are not the Church, but only a part of it, and since we live in hazy doctrinal times, then Traditional groups should provide enough facts/proof regarding questionable sacraments. Papers/docuмents aren't necessary if Traditional groups are open about what has or hasn't happened and if they can be trusted. The new-sspx has increasingly absorbed more new-rite priests in the days since +ABL, and so they have a responsibility to explain their rationale.
.
If a couple has their marriage examined by Church authorities and it is determined that the original marriage was valid, there's no need to tell anyone. If it is determined that the original marriage never happened, then that should be publicly known.
.
If a priest needs to be conditionally ordained (and in this day and age, that is quite often necessary), then this is not a mark against the priest, but only a mark against V2 Modernism. There should be no shame, but joy that the priest is finally a priest, 100% doubt-free.
.
But since the new-sspx wants to "play nice" with V2 Modernists, 1) they don't want to admit that new rites are problematic, and 2) they want to wield doctrinal authority over the laity (which authority they don't have, because they aren't the Church or an official religious organization), so they do what they want, and tell everyone to stop questioning them. This is a prideful power play. There are no secrets when it comes to sacraments (except for Confession).

Matthew · « **Reply #70 on:** January 04, 2021, 04:23:56 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on January 04, 2021, 10:57:18 AM

You can't figure out +L is Archbishop Lefebvre?

We got off into some srcondary issues. Publicness is a secondary issue.

My main issue was that ordinations are individually investigated. The +L quotes show that. And he didn"t always re-ordain.

For what it's worth, the standard abbreviation is +ABL. Don't over-think it, it's just part of the organic online Trad language. Languages are not always consistent or logical. Don't ask why, just acknowledge and go with the reality.

2Vermont · « **Reply #71 on:** January 04, 2021, 04:52:32 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on January 04, 2021, 10:57:18 AM

You can't figure out +L is Archbishop Lefebvre?

We got off into some secondary issues. Publicness is a secondary issue.

My main issue was that ordinations are individually investigated. The +L quotes show that. And he didn"t always re-ordain.

Well, this was one point of contention for the Nine (which interestingly enough happened at about the same time as your quotes):

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineLetter.pdf

PS. You've been posting here a long time now. You didn't know that ABL is how folks refer to Archbishop Lefebvre around these parts?

Stanley N · « **Reply #72 on:** January 04, 2021, 05:27:58 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on January 04, 2021, 04:52:32 PM

Well, this was one point of contention for the Nine (which interestingly enough happened at about the same time as your quotes):

Of course. The quotes are from conferences the Archbishop gave at Ridgefield directly addressing the content of the complaints of "the nine".

Author Topic: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests? (Read 6957 times)

gladius_veritatis

Re: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests?

Stanley N

Re: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests?

Stanley N

Re: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests?

Pax Vobis

Re: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests?

Stanley N

Re: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests?

Pax Vobis

Re: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests?

Stanley N

Re: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests?

Stanley N

Re: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests?

Pax Vobis

Re: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests?

Pax Vobis

Re: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests?

Matthew

Re: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests?

2Vermont

Re: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests?

Stanley N

Re: Validly ordained FSSP and ICKSP priests?