OLMC focuses again on validity only?
Jul 6, 2019 19:30:55 GMT
Post by Admin on Jul 6, 2019 19:30:55 GMT
The Catacombs recently received in our inbox the following document containing various quotes, seemingly in defense of the validity of the New Rite Sacraments, specifically of Holy Orders. With much consternation, it must be noted that it is being circulated and was forwarded to The Catacombs from souls who received it from a member of the OLMC Seminary.
This would imply that it has the support of the OLMC priests, for it is hard to imagine that it is being disseminated without their knowledge or consent. The document was shared via this link.
Below is a reprint of the document (original numbered quotes bolded in gray) with comments from The Catacombs after each.
Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX on the Novus Ordo Holy Orders
Negative statements:
1. "I agree with your desire to re-ordain conditionally these priests, and I have done this re-ordination many times. All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtful now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more Catholic." (Letter to Mr. Wilson, Oct. 28, 1988)
Positive statements:
1. "That is why I always respond to the requests of parents who have doubts regarding the validity of the confirmation received by their children or who fear it will be administered invalidly, seeing what goes on around them. The cardinals to whom I had to explain myself in 1975 reproached me on this and since then similar reproaches are repeated through the press on all my journeys. I explained why I carried on in this way. I meet the wishes of the faithful who ask me for valid confirmation, even if it is not licit, because we are in a period when divine law, natural and supernatural, has precedence over positive ecclesiastical law when the latter opposes the former instead of being a channel to transmit it. We are passing through an extraordinary crisis and there need be no surprise if I sometimes adopt an attitude that is out of the ordinary. The third condition of a valid sacrament is a right intention. The bishop or priest must have the intention of doing what the Church wills to be done. Not even the Pope can change that. The priest's faith is not among the necessary elements. A priest or bishop may no longer have the faith; another may have it less; and another a faith that is not quite complete. That has no direct effect on the validity of the sacraments they administer..." (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 24 & 25).
1. "That is why I always respond to the requests of parents who have doubts regarding the validity of the confirmation received by their children or who fear it will be administered invalidly, seeing what goes on around them. The cardinals to whom I had to explain myself in 1975 reproached me on this and since then similar reproaches are repeated through the press on all my journeys. I explained why I carried on in this way. I meet the wishes of the faithful who ask me for valid confirmation, even if it is not licit, because we are in a period when divine law, natural and supernatural, has precedence over positive ecclesiastical law when the latter opposes the former instead of being a channel to transmit it. We are passing through an extraordinary crisis and there need be no surprise if I sometimes adopt an attitude that is out of the ordinary. The third condition of a valid sacrament is a right intention. The bishop or priest must have the intention of doing what the Church wills to be done. Not even the Pope can change that. The priest's faith is not among the necessary elements. A priest or bishop may no longer have the faith; another may have it less; and another a faith that is not quite complete. That has no direct effect on the validity of the sacraments they administer..." (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 24 & 25).
The Catacombs: Notice the choice of quote from Archbishop Lefevre that focuses on validity. But let us continue to hear what the Archbishop said immediately after these above quoted words (why would anyone leave them out - they give such context to what the Archbishop’s point was in writing this book to Confused Catholics?):
A priest or bishop may no longer have the faith; another may have it less; and another a faith that is not quite complete. That has no direct effect on the validity of the sacraments they administer, but may have an indirect one. One remembers Pope Leo XIII's decision that Anglican ordinations are invalid through a defect in the intention. Now it was because they had lost the faith, which is not only faith in God, but in all the truths contained in the Creed, including, “I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church,” that the Anglicans have not been able to do what the Church wills.
When a priest talks like this, he makes no valid consecration. There is no Mass or Communion. For Christians are obliged to believe what the Council of Trent has defined about the Eucharist until the end of time. One can make the terms of a dogma clearer, but not change them; that is impossible. Vatican II did not add anything or retract anything; and it could not have done so. Anyone who declares that he does not accept transubstantiation is, in the terms of the Council of Trent, anathema, that is, cut off from the Church. This is why Catholics in this latter part of the twentieth century have a duty to be more vigilant than their fathers were. Open Letter to Confused Catholics
It is almost as if the Archbishop is speaking to us again today as he did to the Catholics of the 1970's and 1980's: The Catholics of his day were 'confused' by supposedly valid sacraments in the Conciliar Church. It was to guide and help them avoid these pitfalls of the Conciliar Church (including doubtful sacraments) that he wrote this book particularly for the laity.
2. "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 Mahomet!' " . . . . "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." ("Open Letter to Confused Catholics"., p. 25 - emphasis as noted in the OLMC quote).
The Catacombs: Again the focus on validty. And again, why does this document not continue the (above) quote with the next few sentences written by Archbishop Lefebvre? They are a continuation of the same topic in discussing the form, matter, and intention of priestly ordinations. It seems disingenuous to cherry-pick Archbishop Lefebvre's quotes that only focus on validity and ignore why he said nevertheless to stay far away. The following immediately continues the above words of the Archbishop in this chapter of the Open Letter to Confused Catholics:
... 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!
Earlier in the same book, the Archbishop makes the following clear remarks:
But how can we assess the intention of the priest? It is obvious that there are fewer and fewer valid Masses as the faith of priests becomes corrupted and they no longer have the intention to do what the Church--which cannot change her intention--has always done. The present-day training of those who are called seminarians does not prepare them to accomplish valid Masses. They are no longer taught to consider the Holy Sacrifice as the essential action of their priestly life.
Furthermore it can be said without any exaggeration whatsoever, that the majority of Masses celebrated without altar stones, with common vessels, leavened bread, with the introduction of profane words into the very body of the Canon, etc., are sacrilegious, and they prevent faith by diminishing it. The desacralization is such that these Masses can come to lose their supernatural character, “the mystery of faith,” and become no more than acts of natural religion.
Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious. The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith. Open Letter to Confused Catholics
3. "This article wishes to settle a debate that has been circulating in traditional Catholic circles. Some writers have examined the new rite of Episcopal consecration and concluded that it must be invalid. Since this would cause manifest problems if it were true and due to the heightened awareness of such a theory, The Angelus presents (for the first time in English) a study of this question concluding that it is valid.....
"Archbishop Lefebvre, visibly raised up by God to sustain the little flock of the faithful, never called in question the validity of the new rite of Episcopal ordinations as published by Rome [this appears to be a falsehood - see the above quote of the Archbishop's in number 2, where he discusses Conciliar Episcopal Consecrations in Brussels in 1982 - The Catacombs]. We know that he was informed of the objections made against the ritual, especially by Fr. Kröger. If Archbishop Lefebvre had had a serious and positive doubt about the validity of the ordinations, he would not have failed to say so given the seriousness of the consequences" (Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration Is Valid, SSPX Angelus Article, 2005, p. 1 and 7 - emphasis as noted in the OLMC quote).
The Catacombs: An interesting point needs to be made about this 2005 study by Fr. Pierre-Marie that may considerably weaken it: It fits the SSPX's agenda (in working towards a deal with Rome) to approve of the New Rite Episcopal Consecration. Recall that when Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope he was the first New Rite Consecration bishop in the history of the Papacy.
The Catacombs: An interesting point needs to be made about this 2005 study by Fr. Pierre-Marie that may considerably weaken it: It fits the SSPX's agenda (in working towards a deal with Rome) to approve of the New Rite Episcopal Consecration. Recall that when Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope he was the first New Rite Consecration bishop in the history of the Papacy.
The following words were written by Fr. Anthony Cekada. While most are aware Fr. Cekada is a sedevacantist and his comments on the validity of New Rite Sacraments may be biased in and of themselves, he makes an interesting point about the motivation of the SSPX to declare the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration valid. In the light of the extensive summary contained in the “Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction” which outlines over one hundred examples of the SSPX aggressively working, both in public and behind the scenes, to foster and curry a deal with Modernist Rome, the motivation for Fr. Pierre-Marie’s study that Fr. Cekada speaks of does not seem very far-fetched:
4. "The matter and the form of the Latin rite of priestly ordination introduced by Pope Paul VI in 1968 are not subject to positive doubt. They are, in effect, practically identical to those defined by Pope Pius XII in 1947 in Sacramentum Ordinis..... The new rites of ordination are similarly illegitimate, for they do not adequately express the Catholic Faith in the priesthood. By writing very strongly against them, Archbishop Lefebvre did not intend to declare their invalidity. He stated very clearly, in Open Letter to Confused Catholics, quoting parts of the ceremony that are certainly not a part of the form of the sacrament and consequently not necessary for validity, that such a ceremony destroys the priesthood..... His intention is, consequently, to point out that it is the Catholic notion of the priesthood that is destroyed, not necessarily the validity of the sacrament of holy orders." (Must Priests Who Come to Tradition Be Conditionally Re-Ordained?, SSPX Angelus Article, 2007 - emphasis as noted in the OLMC quote)
After Benedict XVI was elected in 2005, however, the issue resurfaced. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, appointed an Archbishop and Cardinal by Paul VI, had been consecrated with the new rite on May 25, 1977. Was he, apart from the sede vacante controversy, even a real bishop? In the summer of 2005, a French traditionalist publisher, Editions Saint-Remi, published the first volume of Rore Sanctifica, a book-length dossier of documentation and commentary on the Paul VI Rite of Episcopal Consecration.
The study, featuring on its cover side-by-side photos of Ratzinger and SSPX Superior General Mgr. Bernard Fellay, concluded that the new rite was invalid. This naturally caught the attention of higher-ups in the SSPX in Europe, who were by then negotiating with Benedict XVI to obtain special status in the Vatican II church. How could SSPX’s superiors rally traditionalists to a pope who may not even be a bishop? The Dominicans in Avrillé, France, a traditionalist religious order in the SSPX orbit, immediately took up the task of trying to make a convincing case for the validity of the new rite. One of them, Fr. Pierre-Marie OP, produced a lengthy article in favor of it that the Dominicans published in their quarterly, Sel de la Terre.
Thilo Stopka, a former SSPX seminarian in Europe, challenged Fr. Pierre-Marie’s conclusions, and in turn published a great deal of valuable research on the Internet to refute them. Meanwhile, the SSPX’s official U.S. publication, The Angelus, promptly translated Fr. Pierre-Marie’s article into English, publishing it in two successive issues (December 2005, January 2006) under the title “Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid.”
I find it ironic and particularly sad that such an article appeared in The Angelus. In August 1977 I visited an old-line traditionalist in Upper Michigan, Bill Hanna. He passed along a favorite quote from Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, a Capuchin who worked with SSPX and would later edit The Angelus: “Once there are no more valid priests, they’ll permit the Latin Mass.” Father Carl, it seems, had a bit of the prophet in him.
In his Angelus article, Fr. Pierre-Marie argued that the Paul VI Rite of Episcopal Consecration is valid because it uses prayers to consecrate bishops that are virtually the same as those (a) used in the Catholic Church’s eastern rites, or (b) once used in the ancient Church.
Please note: Paul VI made these same two claims when he promulgated the new consecration rite in 1968, and both are demonstrably false. It is appalling that the SSPX superiors recycled them to market the validity of that same rite to an unsuspecting traditionalist laity. To support this argument, Fr. Pierre-Marie offered several tables that compare various Latin texts. These we will discuss in an appendix. As for the rest of his article, most readers probably came away from it utterly baffled. For although Fr. Pierre-Marie said he would “proceed according to the Scholastic method so as to treat the matter as rigorously as possible,” he never managed to focus clearly on the two central questions:
(1) What principles does Catholic theology employ to determine whether a sacramental form is valid or invalid?
(2) How do those principles apply to the new rite of episcopal consecration? Source
The study, featuring on its cover side-by-side photos of Ratzinger and SSPX Superior General Mgr. Bernard Fellay, concluded that the new rite was invalid. This naturally caught the attention of higher-ups in the SSPX in Europe, who were by then negotiating with Benedict XVI to obtain special status in the Vatican II church. How could SSPX’s superiors rally traditionalists to a pope who may not even be a bishop? The Dominicans in Avrillé, France, a traditionalist religious order in the SSPX orbit, immediately took up the task of trying to make a convincing case for the validity of the new rite. One of them, Fr. Pierre-Marie OP, produced a lengthy article in favor of it that the Dominicans published in their quarterly, Sel de la Terre.
Thilo Stopka, a former SSPX seminarian in Europe, challenged Fr. Pierre-Marie’s conclusions, and in turn published a great deal of valuable research on the Internet to refute them. Meanwhile, the SSPX’s official U.S. publication, The Angelus, promptly translated Fr. Pierre-Marie’s article into English, publishing it in two successive issues (December 2005, January 2006) under the title “Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid.”
I find it ironic and particularly sad that such an article appeared in The Angelus. In August 1977 I visited an old-line traditionalist in Upper Michigan, Bill Hanna. He passed along a favorite quote from Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, a Capuchin who worked with SSPX and would later edit The Angelus: “Once there are no more valid priests, they’ll permit the Latin Mass.” Father Carl, it seems, had a bit of the prophet in him.
In his Angelus article, Fr. Pierre-Marie argued that the Paul VI Rite of Episcopal Consecration is valid because it uses prayers to consecrate bishops that are virtually the same as those (a) used in the Catholic Church’s eastern rites, or (b) once used in the ancient Church.
Please note: Paul VI made these same two claims when he promulgated the new consecration rite in 1968, and both are demonstrably false. It is appalling that the SSPX superiors recycled them to market the validity of that same rite to an unsuspecting traditionalist laity. To support this argument, Fr. Pierre-Marie offered several tables that compare various Latin texts. These we will discuss in an appendix. As for the rest of his article, most readers probably came away from it utterly baffled. For although Fr. Pierre-Marie said he would “proceed according to the Scholastic method so as to treat the matter as rigorously as possible,” he never managed to focus clearly on the two central questions:
(1) What principles does Catholic theology employ to determine whether a sacramental form is valid or invalid?
(2) How do those principles apply to the new rite of episcopal consecration? Source
4. "The matter and the form of the Latin rite of priestly ordination introduced by Pope Paul VI in 1968 are not subject to positive doubt. They are, in effect, practically identical to those defined by Pope Pius XII in 1947 in Sacramentum Ordinis..... The new rites of ordination are similarly illegitimate, for they do not adequately express the Catholic Faith in the priesthood. By writing very strongly against them, Archbishop Lefebvre did not intend to declare their invalidity. He stated very clearly, in Open Letter to Confused Catholics, quoting parts of the ceremony that are certainly not a part of the form of the sacrament and consequently not necessary for validity, that such a ceremony destroys the priesthood..... His intention is, consequently, to point out that it is the Catholic notion of the priesthood that is destroyed, not necessarily the validity of the sacrament of holy orders." (Must Priests Who Come to Tradition Be Conditionally Re-Ordained?, SSPX Angelus Article, 2007 - emphasis as noted in the OLMC quote)
The Catacombs: Is this perhaps more selective quote mining? Father Scott also wrote in this same article with the following words:
The Archbishop knew it took the Church over three hundred years to declare the Anglican Orders invalid. So as a good Shepard of souls, he warned and spoke many times on the doubtfulness of the Conciliar New Rite Sacraments.
It would, indeed, be tragic if all traditional priests did not have moral certitude as to their ordination, and if there existed two different grades of priests, a higher grade ordained in Tradition, and a lower grade. It is for this reason that the superiors have the right to insist on conditional re-ordination for any priest turning towards Tradition, and will only accept ordinations in the conciliar Church after having investigated both priestly and episcopal ordinations and established moral certitude.
Archbishop Lefebvre clearly recognized his obligation of providing priests concerning whose ordination there was no doubt. It was one of the reasons for the episcopal consecrations of 1988, as he declared in the sermon for the occasion:
Archbishop Lefebvre clearly recognized his obligation of providing priests concerning whose ordination there was no doubt. It was one of the reasons for the episcopal consecrations of 1988, as he declared in the sermon for the occasion:
You well know, my dear brethren, that there can be no priests without bishops. When God calls me—this will certainly not be 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."
5. "Just as the superiors take seriously their duty of guaranteeing the moral certitude of the holy orders of their priests, whether by means of conditional ordination or careful investigation (when possible), so also must priests who join the Society accept conditional ordination in case of even slight positive doubt, and so also must the faithful recognize that each case is different and accept the decision of those who alone are in a position to perform the necessary investigations." (Ibid.)
The Catacombs: At first glance, the only reason this quote was included was for the last few words, that the laity must accept the decision of those who have made the "necessary investigations". But anyone in Tradition sadly knows that it does not always happend that those who "alone are in a position to perform the necessary investigations" remain unaffected by political (or other) motivations.The SSPX has seemingly ceased and desisted from reordainations in the last several years out of deference to Modernist Rome. But let us see how Fr. Scott in this same article taught us about the Church's teaching with respect to moral certitude with respect to the Sacraments:
2) When it concerns the validity of the sacraments, we are obliged to follow a “tutiorist” position, or safest possible course of action.
We cannot choose a less certain option, called by the moral theologians a simply probable manner of acting, that could place in doubt the validity of the sacraments, as we are sometimes obliged to do in other moral questions. If we were able to follow a less certain way of acting, we would run the risk of grave sacrilege and uncertainty concerning the sacraments, which would place the eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy. Even the lax “probabilist” theologians admitted this principle with respect to baptism and holy orders, since the contrary opinion was condemned by Pope Innocent XI in 1679. Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible
Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent conferring of sacraments. One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things necessary for eternal salvation. The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the Church. They do not want to share modernist, liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests ordained in such rites, for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters. It is for this reason that they turn to the superiors to guarantee validity. Source
We cannot choose a less certain option, called by the moral theologians a simply probable manner of acting, that could place in doubt the validity of the sacraments, as we are sometimes obliged to do in other moral questions. If we were able to follow a less certain way of acting, we would run the risk of grave sacrilege and uncertainty concerning the sacraments, which would place the eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy. Even the lax “probabilist” theologians admitted this principle with respect to baptism and holy orders, since the contrary opinion was condemned by Pope Innocent XI in 1679. Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible
in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned.... Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders." (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)
Bishop Williamson has said the following about new Reites of Ordination and Consecration, echoing what Archbishop Lefebvre and also Fr. Peter Scott have written:
And again:
And yet again:
This is how Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX always taught: that there were indeed rare cases that in the early days of Vatican II wherein some priests may not have required reordination or reconsecration after a careful and thorough investigation. But as time goes by and the corruption of the Conciliar Church becomes more and more obvious, the doubtfulness of those New Rite Sacraments increases exponentially.
6. "Some sedevacantists argue that the current pope was consecrated bishop with the new rite invented by Paul VI, a rite that they deem invalid; thus, Benedict XVI is not a bishop or pope.
Should priests ordained with the new rite of Ordination of 1972 be conditionally re-ordained with the old and certainly valid rite of Ordination? Catholic doctrine on the validity of sacraments is clear, but the sacramental rites of the Newchurch seem to have been designed to lead gradually to invalidity (see EC 121 of Oct 31, 2009). The « gradually » is the problem. How far along was that gradual process in any given case ? [...]
In brief, were I Pope, I think I might require that all priests or bishops ordained or consecrated with the « renewed » rites should be conditionally re-ordained or re-consecrated, not because I would believe that none of them were true priests or bishops, on the contrary, but because when it comes to the sacraments all serious doubts must be removed, and that would be the simplest way of removing all possible doubts. Newchurch rot of the sacraments could not be left hanging around. Newchurch Ordinations I - EC #356 May 10, 2014
In brief, were I Pope, I think I might require that all priests or bishops ordained or consecrated with the « renewed » rites should be conditionally re-ordained or re-consecrated, not because I would believe that none of them were true priests or bishops, on the contrary, but because when it comes to the sacraments all serious doubts must be removed, and that would be the simplest way of removing all possible doubts. Newchurch rot of the sacraments could not be left hanging around. Newchurch Ordinations I - EC #356 May 10, 2014
And again:
[...] the Newrite of episcopal Consecration is an entirely new Rite. As such, is it valid? It is certainly illegitimate, because no Pope has the right to make such a break with Catholic Tradition. On the other hand in the context of the Newrite and its institution, the Newmatter, Newform and Newintention are very probably valid, because they signify what needs to be signified and most of their elements come from Rites accepted by the Church. But the validity is not certain because the break with Tradition is not legitimate, and because the Newrite is only similar to Rites approved by the Church, and all the changes go in a modernist direction. Therefore the absolute need for certain validity in sacramental Rites applies: until the restored Magisterium of the Church pronounces that the Newrite of Consecration is valid, then to be safe, Newbishops should be reconsecrated conditionally, and Newpriests ordained only by Newbishops should be re-ordained conditionally. Valid Bishops? II - EC#450 - January 27, 2016
And yet again:
[...] the sacraments call for absolutely certain validity, especially the consecration of bishops on whom the Church hangs. Therefore newbishops and newpriests were best conditionally re-consecrated and re-ordained. Valid Bishops? III EC#451 - March 5, 2016
6. "Some sedevacantists argue that the current pope was consecrated bishop with the new rite invented by Paul VI, a rite that they deem invalid; thus, Benedict XVI is not a bishop or pope.
"The new ritual of episcopal consecration comes from a prayer found in Apostolic Tradition, a work apparently from St. Hippolytus and dating from the beginning of the third century. Even if this attribution is probably, it is not agreed upon by all; some think that it is an “anonymous compilation containing elements of different ages”. As for St. Hippolytus, he is thought to have been an antipope for some time before reconciling with Pope St. Pontian at the moment of their common martyrdom (in 235). It is from that same work that Canon number 2 of the new mass issues.
"Yet, this prayer of the consecration is taken up again with a few variations in two oriental rites, the Coptic rite used in Egypt and the Eastern Syrian rite, used notably by the Maronites. It was therefore adopted by post-conciliar reformers to manifest the unity between the traditions of the three great patriarchates: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.
"Yet, this prayer of the consecration is taken up again with a few variations in two oriental rites, the Coptic rite used in Egypt and the Eastern Syrian rite, used notably by the Maronites. It was therefore adopted by post-conciliar reformers to manifest the unity between the traditions of the three great patriarchates: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.
"By reason of this closeness to two Catholic rites, it cannot be affirmed that Paul VI’s prayer is invalid.
Isn’t it true that the new rite of Paul VI is close to the Anglican rite that was declared invalid by Leo XIII?
It is true that the rite of Paul VI is close to the Anglican rite, but not to the rite condemned by Leo XIII. The Anglican and Episcopalian churches also introduced a new consecratory prayer, taken from St. Hippolytus, with the aim to have a rite acceptable to Catholics, after the condemnation of the Anglican ordinations by Leo XIII." (The Argument of the Nullity of the Pope’s Episcopal Consecration, Dominicans of Avrille article from Le Sel de la Terre, N. 79, Winter 2011-2012)
The Catacombs: Prior to this article on sedevacantism, the Dominican of Avrille said this about Conciliar episcopal consecrations:
Dominicans of Avrille - Le Sel de la Terre 54
Later in 2017, in an article entitled, The Art of Confessing, the Dominicans made this comment:
Let us dwell a few moments on these last few quoted words of Archbishop Lefebvre (arguably at one of the most important occasions of his episcopal ministry) where he states that 'the sacraments from Conciliar bishops are ALL doubtful'!
It is true that the rite of Paul VI is close to the Anglican rite, but not to the rite condemned by Leo XIII. The Anglican and Episcopalian churches also introduced a new consecratory prayer, taken from St. Hippolytus, with the aim to have a rite acceptable to Catholics, after the condemnation of the Anglican ordinations by Leo XIII." (The Argument of the Nullity of the Pope’s Episcopal Consecration, Dominicans of Avrille article from Le Sel de la Terre, N. 79, Winter 2011-2012)
The Catacombs: Prior to this article on sedevacantism, the Dominican of Avrille said this about Conciliar episcopal consecrations:
Dominicans of Avrille - Le Sel de la Terre 54
“Due to the generalized disorder, both at the liturgical and dogmatic levels, we can have serious reasons to doubt the validity of certain episcopal ordinations.” thecatacombs.org/thread/1746/questionable-priestly-ordinations-conciliar-church
Today, we must be precise: “a traditional priest validly ordained”. We know that there is a doubt on the validity of the new rite of priestly ordination (look at the letter of Archbishop Lefebvre on our website). There is also a doubt about the validity of the ordinations performed by conciliar bishops, even when they use the traditional rite. In his sermon of the consecration of four bishops (June 30, 1988), Archbishop Lefebvre said:
www.dominicansavrille.us/the-art-of-confessing-part-1-of-3/
“If God calls me, from whom will these seminarians receive the priestly ordination: from conciliar bishops whose sacraments are ALL doubtful?
A few closing comments
"If this is what OLMC is condoning, this focus purely on validity (as Bishop Fellay has done), then the the next logical conclusion is that the New Mass and the New Sacraments are "legitimately promulgated" as defined in the 2012 SSPX Doctrinal Declaration."
Bishop Fellay said in No. 7 of the Doctrinal Declaration: "We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II."
Consequently, the Superior General:
a) recognizes the validity of all the sacraments reformed by the modernists, provided that they are held with the intention due. There are three components to consider in judging the validity of the sacraments: matter, form and intention of a true minister. Bishop Fellay [ and OLMC? - See here Fr. Pfeiffer's conference of March 2, 2019 entitled "New Ordination rite intention Catechism"] does not object to anything regarding the matter, nor regarding the form of the Novus Ordo Sacraments, and refers only to the requirement of the necessary intent of the celebrant.
Consequently, the Superior General:
a) recognizes the validity of all the sacraments reformed by the modernists, provided that they are held with the intention due. There are three components to consider in judging the validity of the sacraments: matter, form and intention of a true minister. Bishop Fellay [ and OLMC? - See here Fr. Pfeiffer's conference of March 2, 2019 entitled "New Ordination rite intention Catechism"] does not object to anything regarding the matter, nor regarding the form of the Novus Ordo Sacraments, and refers only to the requirement of the necessary intent of the celebrant.
However, in the seminaries of the SSPX it has always been taught that there are serious doubts about the validity of various reformed sacraments, due to the changes introduced by the modernists as to the matter, form, or intention. That's why the sound custom of conditionally confirming those confirmed in the Novus Ordo and of conditionally ordaining those priests ordained according to the rite of Paul VI has always existed in the Society. Fr. Alvaro Calderon, "Are the Episcopal Consecrations Reformed by Paul VI Valid?" [This was an excellent article and is worth reviewing in its entirety. - The Catacombs]
