Some want to claim that 'the SSPX accepts Novus Ordo priests as valid,' and anyone concerned about orders must be a sedevacantist. Fr Álvaro Calderón's 2014 article shows it's more complex than that.
I don't know anything about the modern philosophical models you're talking about. This is the approach of fundamental theology, namely that we know through natural means and using the Gospels etc as simple historical documents, that there was a man called Christ, that he did certain things and established a Church etc, leading up to the act of faith.
We have already settled the question of whether the Catholic claims are true on other, prior grounds. We are now working out what that means. If you haven't settled that question, or if you're allowing the current events to call it into question, you are currently without the virtue of faith. I'd encourage you to rewind and sort out those more fundamental questions first.
No, it means that Vatican I and the entire corpus of theology on the Papacy going back 2,000 years is entirely correct, because these men *clearly* do not possess the protection of the Holy Ghost. Those who raise this objection either do not understand what that means or do not believe in it.
The convocation, promulgation, and continued promotion of Vatican II is the primary reason these men have not been Vicars of Christ. And no man protected by the Holy Ghost could do such a thing. The conclusion is self-drawingly straight-forward.
To me, it indicates the opposite (in favor of sedevacantism):
That the dogmatic teaching of Pastor Aeternus being infallibly correct, the legitimacy of the conciliar/post-conciliar popes must called into question.
First of all, Paul VI was an antipope, as the White Smoke 1958 site makes clear. But even if he were a valid pope, this article at Novus Ordo Watch proves that the new rite has invalid form:
The seeming equivocation in Fr. Calderon’s article bothers me:
On the one hand, he finds the NREC only “very probably valid,” (which means he finds it slightly doubtful), yet concludes despite that, it may still be permissible to frequent the sacraments of a priest ordained by a bishop consecrated in this rite, in seeming violation of Church teaching regarding the reception of doubtful sacraments.
What?
Then having just explained such slightly doubtful sacraments may occasionally be received (what??), nevertheless, the doubts are an intolerable shadow cast upon the root of the sacraments, and therefore the rite must be reformed.
What?
Dear Father, if you’ve given permission to receive the sacraments from priests ordained by bishops consecrated in this rite, then why should the rite be in need of reformation?
As the authors of the article note, there is not only an inconsistency inherent in Fr. Calderon’s conclusions, but it also seems to be at odds with Church teaching regarding the need to take a tutiorist position regarding sacramental validity.
To say that the rite is doubtful, but go ahead and use it is conflicted at best.
As no doubt you noted, I'm very sympathetic to what you say.
I think one part of what he says is key though, and may mitigate some of what he said - about their own responsibility being engaged. We can debate whether it is or not, of course. Plus the idea of a "shadow" of a doubt as opposed to a real doubt. I get what he means, but... Hmmmm....
Thanks John. Have you read these recent ones? They address your points.
https://www.wmreview.org/p/on-the-sede-vacante-thesis-james
https://www.wmreview.org/p/bellarmine-silveira
Also, this idea that “Vatican I was wrong” is seriously problematic. Take a look here:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/faith-falsification
I don't know anything about the modern philosophical models you're talking about. This is the approach of fundamental theology, namely that we know through natural means and using the Gospels etc as simple historical documents, that there was a man called Christ, that he did certain things and established a Church etc, leading up to the act of faith.
We have already settled the question of whether the Catholic claims are true on other, prior grounds. We are now working out what that means. If you haven't settled that question, or if you're allowing the current events to call it into question, you are currently without the virtue of faith. I'd encourage you to rewind and sort out those more fundamental questions first.
No, it means that Vatican I and the entire corpus of theology on the Papacy going back 2,000 years is entirely correct, because these men *clearly* do not possess the protection of the Holy Ghost. Those who raise this objection either do not understand what that means or do not believe in it.
The convocation, promulgation, and continued promotion of Vatican II is the primary reason these men have not been Vicars of Christ. And no man protected by the Holy Ghost could do such a thing. The conclusion is self-drawingly straight-forward.
To me, it indicates the opposite (in favor of sedevacantism):
That the dogmatic teaching of Pastor Aeternus being infallibly correct, the legitimacy of the conciliar/post-conciliar popes must called into question.
Absolutely.
Do you yourself believe the rite is valid?
I find the question perplexing. I don't think the arguments for validity are compelling as many seem to think.
By and large I think the below is basically along the right lines.
https://www.wmreview.org/p/novus-ordo-sacraments
First of all, Paul VI was an antipope, as the White Smoke 1958 site makes clear. But even if he were a valid pope, this article at Novus Ordo Watch proves that the new rite has invalid form:
novusordowatch.org/2018/06/unholy-orders-50-years-invalid-ordinations
The seeming equivocation in Fr. Calderon’s article bothers me:
On the one hand, he finds the NREC only “very probably valid,” (which means he finds it slightly doubtful), yet concludes despite that, it may still be permissible to frequent the sacraments of a priest ordained by a bishop consecrated in this rite, in seeming violation of Church teaching regarding the reception of doubtful sacraments.
What?
Then having just explained such slightly doubtful sacraments may occasionally be received (what??), nevertheless, the doubts are an intolerable shadow cast upon the root of the sacraments, and therefore the rite must be reformed.
What?
Dear Father, if you’ve given permission to receive the sacraments from priests ordained by bishops consecrated in this rite, then why should the rite be in need of reformation?
As the authors of the article note, there is not only an inconsistency inherent in Fr. Calderon’s conclusions, but it also seems to be at odds with Church teaching regarding the need to take a tutiorist position regarding sacramental validity.
To say that the rite is doubtful, but go ahead and use it is conflicted at best.
Hi Sean,
As no doubt you noted, I'm very sympathetic to what you say.
I think one part of what he says is key though, and may mitigate some of what he said - about their own responsibility being engaged. We can debate whether it is or not, of course. Plus the idea of a "shadow" of a doubt as opposed to a real doubt. I get what he means, but... Hmmmm....
Regardless, did you see this:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/novus-ordo-sacraments