It’s been claimed that Lefebvre 'never called in question the validity of the new rite of episcopal ordinations.' This is an untenable claim, even if some wish it were true.
1) The new SSPX holds out the example of Fr. Starks (admitted by Lefebvre into the Society without conditional ordination) as a justification for not requiring conditional ordination. But as the article shows, Lefebvre’s position on some issues changed or matured over time (eg., new Mass attendance; negotiating with Rome) and perhaps also in this matter of conditional ordination. Not sure exactly when Starks was admitted, but I seem to recall it was one of the issues raised by “the Nine,” which would put it no later than 1983.
2) As regards the new 1968 rites and the “saved by context” argument (ie., the ambiguity of the essential form is rectified by the ancillary rites clearly supposing the consecration of a bishop/priest):
I’m wondering if that principle (I forget the Latin phrase at the moment, but it seems to be well-grounded in Catholic theology) is a two-way street: If it can be used to resolve an ambiguity, can it also be used to cause one?
For example, in the new ordination rite: The essential form is nearly identical to the traditional one, but the ancillary rites approximate the null Anglican rite. Does this principle remove the otherwise univocal meaning of the essential form (ie., must not this principle regarding the ancillary rites always remain in consideration, whether to resolve an ambiguity, or to cause one)?
An absurd example to explain the question: Let’s say a Novus Ordo is said, in which the first half of the Mass is about the psychological history of Daffy Duck. Then the priest pronounces the correct words of consecration. Then he continues blathering on about what the future holds for Daffy Duck.
In such a case, would the ancillary rites have no bearing because the essential form was unambiguous? Or would we be compelled to question the intention of the minister using such a rite, notwithstanding the safeguarding of the essential form?
I really don’t know the answer, but my initial reaction was that if the ancillary rites can be used to resolve an ambiguity, maybe they can also be used to cause one. And on a slightly different note, even if the essential form is protected, would not the use of such a rite make the minister’s intention inherently dubious?
Context does matter. If a person simulates a consecration outside a liturgical setting, then there is no consecration, since the "intent" to NOT do as the Church does during Mass is well manifested.
U referred to Mr. Cekada and Mr. Sanborn as Catholic Clergy..Can U help me find them listed in the Churches comprehensive list of all Its American clergy--
Reordination is the ‘communion in the hand’ of sedevacantists. Indiscriminate reordination without investigation shows a disrespect for the sacrament.
Consider this: Faut-il re-baptiser? (NRT). This is a valid form: “In nomine Pafris mergo, et Filii mergo, et Spiritus sancti mergo”
But forget about the forms or what Rome & the popes said, think about what they didn’t say. They did NOT say, “Since baptism is the most necessary of all sacraments without which man cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, to be prudent, conditionally baptized.”
Essentially, your argument highlights the neo-SSPX refuting and condemning its founder. That’s fine if you are opposed to the SSPX, but if your intention was to defend their newfound reticence to conditionaly ordain, what are we to make of the sincerity of their cries of “Semper Idem!”?
Those who comment without engaging with the points are deemed off topic and will be blocked after a warning. This is the warning. Don't do this again please.
If the apparent authorities in Rome since the death of Pius XII do not publicly confess the Catholic faith, but on the contrary profess and teach a new ecumenical humanist religion, we must not accept anything that comes from them, either of doctrine, morals and discipline including their novel sacramental rites.
This is the prudent course if one wants to preserve one's faith and save one's soul.
Anyone can administer baptism, even a non-Catholic if necessary. Only a priest can offer the true propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass. NOT to have a doubt about Paul 6’s ordination rite is to disrespect the entirety of the Church, especially when he wanted the complete eradication of the old sacramental rite as such. To NOT re-ordain conditionally is an act of presumption and essentially a declaration that the ordination of a “president of the assembly” is the same as the ordination of a sacrificing priest.
It is not mentioned here, but it is important to know that the prayer used in the 1968 episcopal consecration rite is almost verbatim the prayer used in an Eastern Catholic rite ritual for making a bishop into a patriarch of a particular territory, hence the term "governing spirit" rather than praying that the fullness of Holy Orders be given to the priest. The rite is not only doubtful but certainly invalid, and I believe, knowing how evil "Saint" Paul VI was, that it was invalidated intentionally. novusordowatch.org/2018/06/unholy-orders-50-years-invalid-ordinations
The author of both, Fr Luigi Villa (d. 2012), was told by Padre Pio in the mid-1950s that he had a special mission to expose Masonic infiltration into the Church hierarchy. Pius XII gave him a secret Papal Mandate to do so, under certain conditions, after hearing of this. Fr Villa survived 7 assassination attempts for his efforts. He tried to stop the beatifications of John XXIII, Paul VI, & John Paul II, hard to do since JPII for ulterior motives eliminated the important "Devil's Advocate" from the canonization process, thus fast-tracking his own & many others' false canonizations.
And voilà, they show how much Catholic sense they have - God let their 'Popes' be 'heretics, Modernists or what have you, but His Providence would not let Lefebvre miss such an important point. This is exhibit #68572 why these people are controlled op and why they were formed in the first place.
What would Archbishop Lefebvre think of Fr Robinson? An Archbishop whose concern was to preserve the reality of sacramental grace and to pass on the true Faith V a priest who casually promotes pretend rites and pretend popes and modernist theology - in the name of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Technically, +T isn't wrong, as the only time I've seen Mgr. Lefebvre actually state that the form for the NREC and NRPO is defective was privately and only brought up in these interviews, which we have no reason to doubt. It seems that his mind was more in doubt of the intention of the minister of the new rite of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration during the '80's, as we see for example in Open Letter to Confused Catholics and his sermons of June 29 &30 1988 ("Operation Survival"):
"Yet the situation is even more serious than it appears. The question has also to be asked, how many priests still have the faith? And even a further question, regarding some of the priests ordained in recent years: are they true priests at all? Put it another way, are their ordinations valid? The same doubt overhangs other sacraments. It applies to certain ordinations of bishops such as that which took place in Brussels in the summer of 1982 when the consecrating bishop said to the ordinand, "Be an apostle like Gandhi, Helder Camara, and Mohamed!" Can we reconcile these references, at least as regards Gandhi and Mohamed, with the evident intention of doing what the Church intends?
[...}
The "matter" of the sacrament has been preserved in the laying on of hands which takes place next, and likewise the "form," namely the words of ordination. But we are obliged to point out that the intention is far from clear. Has the priest been ordained for the exclusive service of one social class and, first and foremost, to establish justice, fellowship and peace at a level which appears to be limited to the natural order only? The eucharistic celebration which follows, "the first Mass" in effect, of the new priest was, in fact, on these lines. The offertory has been specially composed for the circumstances. "We welcome you, Lord, by receiving on your behalf this bread and wine which you offer us; we wish to show by this all our work and our efforts to build a more just and more humane world, all that we are trying to bring about so that better living conditions may follow..." The prayer over the offerings is even more dubious: "Look, Lord we offer you this bread and this wine, that they may become for us one of the ways in which you are present." No! People who celebrate in this manner do not believe in the Real Presence!"
Open Letter, chapter 7, The News Priests
"Why Ecône? At that time perhaps you did not perfectly realize the fight that Ecône leads. You came because of your desire to be formed in Tradition. Indeed, it seemed to you that to separate oneself from Tradition was to separate oneself from the Church and, therefore, to receive possibly doubtful sacraments and a formation which is certainly not according to the principles of the Magisterium of the Church of All Times. Thus you made this path to Ecône, which no doubt merited you some criticism, perhaps from certain priests in your area, perhaps from a part of your family. You suffered for it, but in the strength of your Faith, and with the grace of God, you came."
June 29, 1988, priestly ordinations in Econe
"You well know, my dear brethren, that there can be no priests without bishops. When God calls me - no doubt this will be before long - from whom would these seminarians receive the Sacrament of Orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments? This is not possible. Who are the bishops who have truly kept Tradition and the Sacraments such as the Church has conferred them for twenty centuries until Vatican II? They are Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself. I cannot change that. That is how it is. Hence, many seminarians have entrusted themselves to us, they sensed that here was the continuity of the Church, the continuity of' Tradition. And they came to our seminaries, despite all the difficulties that they have encountered, in order to receive a true ordination to the Priesthood, to say the true Sacrifice of Calvary, the true Sacrifice of the Mass, and to give you the true Sacraments, true doctrine, the true catechism. This is the goal of these seminaries."
June 30, 1988, episcopal consecrations in Econe, "Operation Survival"
Lefebvre did question, or admit the legitimacy of questioning, the form of Confirmation; his questioning of the validity of non-olive oils - officially permitted for the rite - is equivalent to questioning the form (a fact that few seem to realise); he also admitted the legitimacy of questioning the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae. So while you're right that he didn't directly launch into a study of the NREC form, its not true to say as some do that his concerns were limited to the intentions.
No, of course not, and my comment was entirely related to the NREC and the NRPO. His comments on the New Mass and the new rite of Confirmation are numerous as you mention.
I know I’ve heard from a number of seminarians/priests who were in Econe while +T was stationed there, that the seminarians were kicked off the property during the Wednesday half-day, and the joke was that they were cleared out so +T could do conditional ordinations in Our Lady of the Fields chapel.
Similarly, and I’m sure you could attest to this, Sean, but while +W was in Winona, it was not uncommon for a seminarian to be cornered and asked to set up such-and-such a chapel at such-and-such a time for conditional ordinations as well.
I was never a seminarian myself, but having been around for long enough to know many who have been, these are regular stories I have heard.
Msgr. Lefebvre never ever called into question the validity of the new sacramental rites or of Vatican II, here is a small excerpt from one of his sermons in 1976, Lille, France:
The union desired by these Liberal Catholics, a union between the Church and the Revolution and subversion is, for the Church, an adulterous union, adulterous. And that adulterous union can produce only bastards. And who are those bastards? They are our rites: the rite of Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments-we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ or if it does not give them. The priests coming out of the seminaries do not themselves know what they are. In Rome it was the Archbishop of Cincinnati who said: "Why are there no more vocations? Because the Church no longer knows what a priest is." How then can She still form priests if She does not know what a priest is? The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests. They do not know what they are. They do not know that they were made to go up to the altar to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to give Jesus Christ to souls, and to call souls to Jesus Christ. That is what a priest is. Our young men here know that very well. Their whole life is going to be consecrated to that, to love, adore, and serve Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
https://realdivinemercy.org
I previously warned you, about a year ago, not to comment here, at least not like that. You are now blocked.
Also, we have never argued that 1958 is the date of the vacancy.
Unfortunately, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, is a heck of a drug. Blocking fully justified.
Great article. A couple thought it inspired:
1) The new SSPX holds out the example of Fr. Starks (admitted by Lefebvre into the Society without conditional ordination) as a justification for not requiring conditional ordination. But as the article shows, Lefebvre’s position on some issues changed or matured over time (eg., new Mass attendance; negotiating with Rome) and perhaps also in this matter of conditional ordination. Not sure exactly when Starks was admitted, but I seem to recall it was one of the issues raised by “the Nine,” which would put it no later than 1983.
2) As regards the new 1968 rites and the “saved by context” argument (ie., the ambiguity of the essential form is rectified by the ancillary rites clearly supposing the consecration of a bishop/priest):
I’m wondering if that principle (I forget the Latin phrase at the moment, but it seems to be well-grounded in Catholic theology) is a two-way street: If it can be used to resolve an ambiguity, can it also be used to cause one?
For example, in the new ordination rite: The essential form is nearly identical to the traditional one, but the ancillary rites approximate the null Anglican rite. Does this principle remove the otherwise univocal meaning of the essential form (ie., must not this principle regarding the ancillary rites always remain in consideration, whether to resolve an ambiguity, or to cause one)?
An absurd example to explain the question: Let’s say a Novus Ordo is said, in which the first half of the Mass is about the psychological history of Daffy Duck. Then the priest pronounces the correct words of consecration. Then he continues blathering on about what the future holds for Daffy Duck.
In such a case, would the ancillary rites have no bearing because the essential form was unambiguous? Or would we be compelled to question the intention of the minister using such a rite, notwithstanding the safeguarding of the essential form?
I really don’t know the answer, but my initial reaction was that if the ancillary rites can be used to resolve an ambiguity, maybe they can also be used to cause one. And on a slightly different note, even if the essential form is protected, would not the use of such a rite make the minister’s intention inherently dubious?
Context does matter. If a person simulates a consecration outside a liturgical setting, then there is no consecration, since the "intent" to NOT do as the Church does during Mass is well manifested.
U referred to Mr. Cekada and Mr. Sanborn as Catholic Clergy..Can U help me find them listed in the Churches comprehensive list of all Its American clergy--
https://www.officialcatholicdirectory.com/assets/OCD18_PriestsIndex.pdf
Hello Mr. Kennedy-
The resource you link to appears to pertain to the conciliar church, not the Catholic Church, and consequently, you won’t find them in there.
https://sedewatch.com/
🤣😂😆
It’s like Traditio.com for conciliarists.
Timewasters are banned.
Fr Cekada and Bp Sanborn, by the grace of God, have kept their robes clean of the 'misters' of the Novus Ordo. Deo gratias?
Reordination is the ‘communion in the hand’ of sedevacantists. Indiscriminate reordination without investigation shows a disrespect for the sacrament.
Consider this: Faut-il re-baptiser? (NRT). This is a valid form: “In nomine Pafris mergo, et Filii mergo, et Spiritus sancti mergo”
But forget about the forms or what Rome & the popes said, think about what they didn’t say. They did NOT say, “Since baptism is the most necessary of all sacraments without which man cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, to be prudent, conditionally baptized.”
Essentially, your argument highlights the neo-SSPX refuting and condemning its founder. That’s fine if you are opposed to the SSPX, but if your intention was to defend their newfound reticence to conditionaly ordain, what are we to make of the sincerity of their cries of “Semper Idem!”?
Those who comment without engaging with the points are deemed off topic and will be blocked after a warning. This is the warning. Don't do this again please.
Neil,
If the apparent authorities in Rome since the death of Pius XII do not publicly confess the Catholic faith, but on the contrary profess and teach a new ecumenical humanist religion, we must not accept anything that comes from them, either of doctrine, morals and discipline including their novel sacramental rites.
This is the prudent course if one wants to preserve one's faith and save one's soul.
D
m s be. Kmyymi my m
Mm Myrtle’s Lowe’s is a t c n rim n d
By an
Cs
Vex mmm
A s e k
Anyone can administer baptism, even a non-Catholic if necessary. Only a priest can offer the true propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass. NOT to have a doubt about Paul 6’s ordination rite is to disrespect the entirety of the Church, especially when he wanted the complete eradication of the old sacramental rite as such. To NOT re-ordain conditionally is an act of presumption and essentially a declaration that the ordination of a “president of the assembly” is the same as the ordination of a sacrificing priest.
It is not mentioned here, but it is important to know that the prayer used in the 1968 episcopal consecration rite is almost verbatim the prayer used in an Eastern Catholic rite ritual for making a bishop into a patriarch of a particular territory, hence the term "governing spirit" rather than praying that the fullness of Holy Orders be given to the priest. The rite is not only doubtful but certainly invalid, and I believe, knowing how evil "Saint" Paul VI was, that it was invalidated intentionally. novusordowatch.org/2018/06/unholy-orders-50-years-invalid-ordinations
On the evils of Paul VI:
"Paul VI: The Pope Who Changed the Church":
catholicendtimetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Chiesa-viva-441-S-en-OK-1.pdf (Title should read "Antipope"; Communist asset: p.18; Responsible for the murder of scores of bishops & priests: p.21; Freemason: p.30; his mother a false convert Jew: p.44; as Jewish High Priest: p.50; Homosexual: p.55; Satanist?: 53, 59, 82, 87; p.80: read "Impostor Sr Lucia of Fatima": sisterlucytruth.org)
chiesaviva.com/lettera%20ai%20cardinali/letter%20to%20cardinals.pdf (summary of his evils)
The author of both, Fr Luigi Villa (d. 2012), was told by Padre Pio in the mid-1950s that he had a special mission to expose Masonic infiltration into the Church hierarchy. Pius XII gave him a secret Papal Mandate to do so, under certain conditions, after hearing of this. Fr Villa survived 7 assassination attempts for his efforts. He tried to stop the beatifications of John XXIII, Paul VI, & John Paul II, hard to do since JPII for ulterior motives eliminated the important "Devil's Advocate" from the canonization process, thus fast-tracking his own & many others' false canonizations.
And voilà, they show how much Catholic sense they have - God let their 'Popes' be 'heretics, Modernists or what have you, but His Providence would not let Lefebvre miss such an important point. This is exhibit #68572 why these people are controlled op and why they were formed in the first place.
What would Archbishop Lefebvre think of Fr Robinson? An Archbishop whose concern was to preserve the reality of sacramental grace and to pass on the true Faith V a priest who casually promotes pretend rites and pretend popes and modernist theology - in the name of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Technically, +T isn't wrong, as the only time I've seen Mgr. Lefebvre actually state that the form for the NREC and NRPO is defective was privately and only brought up in these interviews, which we have no reason to doubt. It seems that his mind was more in doubt of the intention of the minister of the new rite of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration during the '80's, as we see for example in Open Letter to Confused Catholics and his sermons of June 29 &30 1988 ("Operation Survival"):
"Yet the situation is even more serious than it appears. The question has also to be asked, how many priests still have the faith? And even a further question, regarding some of the priests ordained in recent years: are they true priests at all? Put it another way, are their ordinations valid? The same doubt overhangs other sacraments. It applies to certain ordinations of bishops such as that which took place in Brussels in the summer of 1982 when the consecrating bishop said to the ordinand, "Be an apostle like Gandhi, Helder Camara, and Mohamed!" Can we reconcile these references, at least as regards Gandhi and Mohamed, with the evident intention of doing what the Church intends?
[...}
The "matter" of the sacrament has been preserved in the laying on of hands which takes place next, and likewise the "form," namely the words of ordination. But we are obliged to point out that the intention is far from clear. Has the priest been ordained for the exclusive service of one social class and, first and foremost, to establish justice, fellowship and peace at a level which appears to be limited to the natural order only? The eucharistic celebration which follows, "the first Mass" in effect, of the new priest was, in fact, on these lines. The offertory has been specially composed for the circumstances. "We welcome you, Lord, by receiving on your behalf this bread and wine which you offer us; we wish to show by this all our work and our efforts to build a more just and more humane world, all that we are trying to bring about so that better living conditions may follow..." The prayer over the offerings is even more dubious: "Look, Lord we offer you this bread and this wine, that they may become for us one of the ways in which you are present." No! People who celebrate in this manner do not believe in the Real Presence!"
Open Letter, chapter 7, The News Priests
"Why Ecône? At that time perhaps you did not perfectly realize the fight that Ecône leads. You came because of your desire to be formed in Tradition. Indeed, it seemed to you that to separate oneself from Tradition was to separate oneself from the Church and, therefore, to receive possibly doubtful sacraments and a formation which is certainly not according to the principles of the Magisterium of the Church of All Times. Thus you made this path to Ecône, which no doubt merited you some criticism, perhaps from certain priests in your area, perhaps from a part of your family. You suffered for it, but in the strength of your Faith, and with the grace of God, you came."
June 29, 1988, priestly ordinations in Econe
"You well know, my dear brethren, that there can be no priests without bishops. When God calls me - no doubt this will be before long - from whom would these seminarians receive the Sacrament of Orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments? This is not possible. Who are the bishops who have truly kept Tradition and the Sacraments such as the Church has conferred them for twenty centuries until Vatican II? They are Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself. I cannot change that. That is how it is. Hence, many seminarians have entrusted themselves to us, they sensed that here was the continuity of the Church, the continuity of' Tradition. And they came to our seminaries, despite all the difficulties that they have encountered, in order to receive a true ordination to the Priesthood, to say the true Sacrifice of Calvary, the true Sacrifice of the Mass, and to give you the true Sacraments, true doctrine, the true catechism. This is the goal of these seminaries."
June 30, 1988, episcopal consecrations in Econe, "Operation Survival"
Some points:
Lefebvre did question, or admit the legitimacy of questioning, the form of Confirmation; his questioning of the validity of non-olive oils - officially permitted for the rite - is equivalent to questioning the form (a fact that few seem to realise); he also admitted the legitimacy of questioning the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae. So while you're right that he didn't directly launch into a study of the NREC form, its not true to say as some do that his concerns were limited to the intentions.
See below for more:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/archbishop-lefebvre-and-conciliar
No, of course not, and my comment was entirely related to the NREC and the NRPO. His comments on the New Mass and the new rite of Confirmation are numerous as you mention.
Yes – just to be clear, I wasn't attributing that position to you.
Absolutely, and I have edited my comment to make this more clear.
+T himself questioned the validity of the NREC.
Yes, he did, on several occasions, as recently as the ordinations of 2016 in Econe.
I know I’ve heard from a number of seminarians/priests who were in Econe while +T was stationed there, that the seminarians were kicked off the property during the Wednesday half-day, and the joke was that they were cleared out so +T could do conditional ordinations in Our Lady of the Fields chapel.
Similarly, and I’m sure you could attest to this, Sean, but while +W was in Winona, it was not uncommon for a seminarian to be cornered and asked to set up such-and-such a chapel at such-and-such a time for conditional ordinations as well.
I was never a seminarian myself, but having been around for long enough to know many who have been, these are regular stories I have heard.
Interesting stuff!
Msgr. Lefebvre never ever called into question the validity of the new sacramental rites or of Vatican II, here is a small excerpt from one of his sermons in 1976, Lille, France:
The union desired by these Liberal Catholics, a union between the Church and the Revolution and subversion is, for the Church, an adulterous union, adulterous. And that adulterous union can produce only bastards. And who are those bastards? They are our rites: the rite of Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments-we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ or if it does not give them. The priests coming out of the seminaries do not themselves know what they are. In Rome it was the Archbishop of Cincinnati who said: "Why are there no more vocations? Because the Church no longer knows what a priest is." How then can She still form priests if She does not know what a priest is? The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests. They do not know what they are. They do not know that they were made to go up to the altar to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to give Jesus Christ to souls, and to call souls to Jesus Christ. That is what a priest is. Our young men here know that very well. Their whole life is going to be consecrated to that, to love, adore, and serve Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
I should have put a question mark at the end of the first sentence, so that it would read:
Msgr. Lefebvre never ever called into question the validity of the new sacramental rites or of Vatican II?
Maybe I should have put several.