|
Post by Admin on Jan 25, 2019 12:54:33 GMT
Questionable priestly ordinations in the conciliar Church
A letter of Archbishop Lefebvre: [ Editor’s note: In this transcription, we have left unchanged the spelling and style found in the handwritten letter of the Archbishop. ] Handwritten Letter from Arch Lefebvre - necessary to conditionally ordain CommentaryArchbishop Lefebvre relies on two principal arguments to assert that the new sacraments, especially ordinations, are henceforth questionable: * the evolution of the rites; * and the defect in intention. The new rites of the sacraments promulgated by the conciliar Church, promulgated in the typical editions in Latin, are probably valid 1. But that does not prevent numerous sacraments from being invalid in practice, for the two reasons quoted above. Archbishop Lefebvre said that in his opinion a great number of new masses were invalid – while admitting the validity of the new rite in itself. Bp Tissier de Mallerais, in his sermon from June 29, 2016 at Econe, spoke as follows concerning the rite of ordination for priests: In an article that appeared in Le Sel de la terre 54 on the subject of the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, after showing that the rite in itself is probably valid, we added: And we quoted the remarks of Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject of the episcopal consecration of Bp Daneels, auxiliary bishop of Brussels: We could quote numerous examples of sacraments given in the conciliar Church that were certainly invalid: confirmations given without using holy oils; baptisms where one person pours the water, while another pronounces the words, etc4. This is why the position of Archbishop Lefebvre in the letter that we have quoted here, appears wise: because of the particular importance of the sacrament of ordination, it is necessary to conditionally re-ordain the priests who come from the conciliar Church to the Traditional one.
(Taken from “ Le Sel de la terre” 98) 1. We can make an exception for the new rite of Confirmation that permits the use of oils other than olive oil, which introduces a doubt concerning the validity, by reason of a defect of matter. We also point out that Fr Alvaro Calderon (SSPX), in the Spanish language review Si Si No No (#267, November 2014), speaks of a “slight doubt,” a “shadow” concerning the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration in itself (see Le Sel de la terre 92, p. 172). 2. Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Nantes (France), February 5, 1983. 3. Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Ecône (Switzerland), October 28, 1988. We take this occasion to ask our readers who have knowledge of sacraments that are certainly invalid (notably baptism) to kindly send us their testimony.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 20, 2019 11:24:14 GMT
The above words of Archbishop Lefebvre on the need for conciliar priests to be conditionally reordained are powerful and to the point.
Fr. Hewko reiterates this very clearly in his recent statement:
Fr. Peter Scott wrote the following conclusion in a 2007 Angelus article, entitled, " Must priests who come to Tradition be re-ordained?":
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 20, 2019 17:33:12 GMT
Two more interesting articles that deal with this topic are:
|
|
|
Post by Juan Diego on Feb 21, 2019 0:05:09 GMT
How many of us were urged by the SSPX that if we were confirmed after 1971 that condition confirmation was a must? It didn't matter what bishop, it was explained that it was due to the change of the oil used (the matter) and the change in the words (the form). If it was so important for each and every confirmation to be conditionally done, how much more important for ordinations? We understood the necessity when we heard from so many SSPX priests in many different states the same said from the pulpits how important it was. We went to the local diocese to ask them directly and sure enough they said olive oil is no longer used and peanut oil was good enough. Whoa! Needless to say from that point on we knew that was not the place for us.
What about the oils used in the Eastern Rites? I know they confirm at baptisms. Never the less, the change of oil (matter) and/or words (form) would make the validity of the Confirmation, ordination and consecration highly doubtful as well.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 24, 2019 10:35:46 GMT
Beginning at roughly the 19:40 min mark, Fr. Hewko reminds us [from 2018] of at least one reason why ordinations and confirmations in the Conciliar Church are often conditionally repeated:
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 25, 2019 19:24:06 GMT
1990 Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Bishop de Castro Mayer:
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 25, 2019 19:41:24 GMT
Many of those who have been a part of the SSPX for a number of years, especially when Archbishop Lefebvre was alive, are aware that conditional reordinations were the order of the day, the rule rather than the exception when it came to Novus Ordo clergy joining the SSPX/tradition.
The following article from Ecclesia Militans [2016] shows the concerns of the laity that new priests visiting and/or joining the SSPX at that time were not being reordained, as was always the custom of Archbishop Lefebvre:
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 25, 2019 20:51:49 GMT
Over the years we have heard the question too, why aren't all Conciliar priests reordained. This question has been around for decades...
As the above posts show, most priests entering the SSPX from the Conciliar Church were reordained. However, the Archbishop always used prudence and discretion in his decision on whether or not to reordain conciliar priests.
Speaking of the Archbishop's discretion, Bishop [then-Father] Williamson was asked in an interview in The Angelus [July 1983] the following questions on how distinctions are made in the decision to conditionally reordain Conciliar priests:
Please note however, there was an important change in the 1983 new Code of Canon Law [going into effect late November of that year] that now permitted a bishop to use other kinds of oils, other than the traditional olive oil for administration of the sacraments:
Thus we see from the viewpoint of the SSPX and tradition, after 1983 there was an increase in doubt concerning validity of ordinations done in the Conciliar Church. [Again, Fr. Hewko references this in the above posted video of a Sexagesima sermon from 2018.]
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 11, 2019 12:06:45 GMT
From conferences given by Archbishop Lefebvre in April, 1983 to the seminarians in Ridgefield, CT:
"Concerning the Validity of the New Rite Sacraments"
April 25, 1983"Fr. Williamson tells me some of you have a difficulty in understanding, concerning the New Rite of ordination, and over the 'New Rite' Sacraments. The rule of theology for the condition of validity of Sacraments, can be found in (your manuals) of Theology. We must perform an application of these conditions. . .to the new rite Sacraments of the reform of Vatican II. In some cases it is very difficult to know if it is valid or not. Especially in the vernacular translations of the form of the sacraments. In Latin it is easier to know if its valid or invalid, but in the vernacular, it is very difficult to know if some words invalidate a sacrament. So we must do, in some cases, a detailed study of that case. You know that many priests today change the form of the Sacrament! That is. another difficulty in determining validity or invalidity, e.g. 'What did this bishop say when he did this sacrament? A bishop said, e.g. concerning the form of Confirmation... that it was certainly valid (in the vernacular).' We ask; 'Well, what did he say? What did he do?' We must perform an examination of these things before we can say they are valid or invalid. We must study each case." "It is very difficult, as in the case of the ordination of new priests, because ...what do they have as the intention when they perform the Sacraments? What is a Sacrament for the young priest now (in the Conciliar Church)?' Is it a sign, a symbol? (For them)... it has no signification. Many of these young priests, they do not know what 'Grace' is... they do not know. They do not believe in Original Sin. What do they do when they give the Sacrament of Baptism? What do they think this Sacrament does? They do not know!
"It is very difficult, we know that. But we cannot saying 'All the Sacraments are invalids' , without performing an examination, . .we cannot say that. We must do a study. For example you may say, in this country (they do this), in this diocese, (they do that), etc... we must consider these things before passing judgment. We cannot say, 'a priori', that all sacraments are invalid. . .no. . .For example, we. do not know what oil they use for the Sacrament of Confirmation.
"If you read in your dictionary of theology about the Sacrament of Confirmation, the conclusion is that, if (as was the case before Vatican II), they do not use olive oil, then it is not a valid Confirmation. But now, in the new Canon Law, either olive oil or 'other oils' may be used! Valid? Invalid? If they use olive oil or peanut oil? It is invalid if it is not olive oil, because in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, they say we must use olive oil, not any other oil, for validity. The situation is very difficult now for us... but I think after 10 or 20 years it will be even. more difficult for you, because the situation is getting progressively worse with time. . .they change ...no rite to give the Sacrament (no rule), etc."
"Now, for priestly ordinations it is the same situation. We must see what they have done in each case, and to determine if the form was: valid or not, we must do a study. In some cases, some theologians are against the validity, while some theologians are for validity, etc."
"In the Anglican Ordinations » you know that the Church spent 3 &1/2 centuries (studying its validity), before finally giving a decision about the validity of Anglican Ordinations, i.e., that they are invalid. It is only after 350 years that we are finally sure that the Anglican Ordinations are invalid! (laughingly) Oh... it is very difficult to come to a decision (on the new rite) in one week!”
"If we think truly that a Sacrament is (most likely) invalid, then we must redo the Sacrament conditionally. ...
"As for the validity of the Sacraments, I think that many sacraments ... are valid if they use the Latin form. However, with the vernacular translations, there begins the doubt of validity.
"In practice, we must study each sacrament, each circumstance where these sacraments are given. One bishop said the words of Confirmation with another form? We do not know. We must investigate and find out which form. The same with the oil he used, etc. Perhaps its valid, invalid...we must do an inquisition. But I cannot say as these priests (of the Northeast) said, that we consider all sacraments of the new rite, practically all are invalid. That is impossible."
---
Here we can see the wisdom of the Archbishop. He was always balanced in his approach. He did not swing from one extreme to the other. He did not say all the sacraments of the new rites were invalid, nor did he take the progressive, liberal approach and say that all the new rite sacraments are without a doubt, valid.
Thus we can see why not every priest ordained in the new rite was re-ordained by the Archbishop, depending on the individual circumstances of their Orders.
Notice too the Archbishop's wisdom and foresight in realizing that "after 10 or 20 years it will be even more difficult for you, because the situation is getting progressively worse with time. . . they change ...no rite to give the Sacrament (no rule), etc." This is perhaps most clearly exemplified in his letter in the opening post above dated October 1988. A few months earlier at the June 1988 Ordinations, he said to the seminarians about to be ordained:
We have all witnessed how seemingly each and every Conciliar bishop and priest is allowed much license in manipulating the sacraments, for one- maybe the form is changed, for others - perhaps the matter, even the intention we have all seen corrupted on occasion. Archbishop Lefebvre said many times the new priests being formed in the Conciliar seminaries no longer understand that the Holy Mass is a Sacrifice. Many of us have seen the clown or tango Masses; the baptism that speak, not to the removal of original sin, but to 'joining the community of Christians'; the confirmations where the bishop doesn't believe that confirmation gives the Holy Ghost; the priesthood twisted into nothing more than a presider over the faithful [as Fr. Gommar de Pauw points out], etc.
But most importantly, the Archbishop was always acutely aware that the foundation of all these changes of the rites of Sacraments sprung from a corrupted, man-centered Vatican II: Again we see the wisdom of the Archbishop, the St. Athanasius of our times, who knew firmly and unequivocally that any compromise with Rome before Rome returns to Tradition would be a spiritual death blow to any group or even individual soul who compromises on Tradition and the Catholic Faith.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|