|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2020 12:02:23 GMT
Some of you may recall a short article posted here on The Catacombs in which references a study by Fr. Alvaro Calderón, assistant Rector of the SSPX La Reja Seminary in Argentina, on the [Novus Ordo] Rite of Episcopal Consecration of Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Calderon's study was published by SiSiNoNo No. 267 in November of 2014 and may be found online here.
Below is a computer translation of Fr. Calderón's 'Conclusion' to his 2014 study on Episcopal Consecration [Italicized emphasis in the original. All other emphasis mine]:
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2020 12:39:25 GMT
It has long been a tactic of the Conciliar-SSPX to label anyone who questions the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration a sedevacantist, as is commented on below. But it is not sedevacantist to point out the doubts about (all) the Novus Ordo Rites. As Fr. Scott is quoted below, it places "the eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy" to take a "lax probabilist" position. This is not sedevacantist, nor was it ever considered asedevacantist mentality before the SSPX's attempts to reconcile with Modernist Rome, but rather how the Church always taught, as is demonstrated in the words in this post.
* * *
Recall there are many similarities between the changes, omissions, etc. that occurred in the Anglican Rite of Orders that was condemned by Pope Leo XIII that found their way into the Novus Ordo Rite of Orders of Paul VI, see here. It appears very, very likely then that the same course of action that the Catholic Church took in the matter of the Anglican Orders will likely be It's mandate at some future point for the Novus Ordo Orders. We know this is how the Church has acted: "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)"
The practice of the Holy See
Apart from exceptional circumstances, such as arose in 1896, the Holy See does not indulge in purely theoretical pronouncements on questions like that of Anglican Orders, but limits its intervention to cases of practical difficulty that are brought before it — as when persons or classes of persons who wish to minister at the Church's altars have undergone ceremonies of ordination outside its fold. And even in thus intervening the Holy See is chary of doctrinal decisions, but applies a common-sense rule that can give practical security.
Where it judges that the previous orders were certainly valid it permits their use, supposing the candidate to be acceptable; where it judges the previous orders to be certainly invalid it disregards them altogether, and enjoins a re-ordination according to its own rite; where it judges that the validity of the previous orders is doubtful, even though the doubt be slight, it forbids their use until a conditional ceremony of re-ordination has first been undergone.
Such a class of cases requiring its intervention arose when Queen Mary set to work to draw order out of the chaos in which her two predecessors had involved the affairs of the Church. What was to be done with those who had received Edwardine orders? The question was investigated at Rome, whither the needful information and documents were sent by [Cardinal] Pole, and, although we have no record of the discussion, it is clear from what has just been said about its known principles of action that the Holy See judged these orders to be invalid, for it sent directions to Pole to treat them as non-existent. That this was so appears - from the letters of Julius III and Paul IV, and the sense in which they were taken by Pole, for these letters direct that all recipients of Edwardine Orders shall, if accepted for the Church's ministry, be ordained afresh;
- from a comparison between the Edwardine and Marian registers which reveals several double entries of names of persons who received first Edwardine and afterwards Catholic ordination;
- from the course taken in punishing recalcitrant Edwardine ecclesiastics, in the ceremony of whose degradation no account was taken of their Edwardine orders.
And the practice thus initiated during the reign of Mary was adhered to ever afterwards, when Anglican clergymen came over to the Catholic Church and sought admission into the ranks of the priesthood. [...] Moreover, Leo XIII, in his Bull " Apostolicae Curae", speaks of many such cases as having been formally referred to the Holy See at different times, with the result that the practice of re-ordaining was invariably observed. Two of these cases were, in 1684 and 1704, the second of which attracted a certain amount of attention. It was that of John Clement Gordon, who had received all the Anglican orders, the episcopate included, by the Edwardine rite and from the hands of the prelates who derived their orders from the Anglican succession. The decision was that, if he would minister as a priest, he must receive the priesthood and all previous orders afresh. [Emphasis mine.] |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2020 18:39:11 GMT
A Note of Explanation
The study by Fr. Calderón on Novus Ordo Episcopal Consecrations is the second or third study the theologians of the SSPX have done since 2005 on the New Rite of Orders.
One of the more well known studies on Episcopal Consecrations is that done by Fr. Pierre-Marie (of Avrille) in 2005 who concludes that the New Rite is valid, see here, under the SSPX archives/miscellaneous/sedevacantism web link. As Mr. Johnson notes in the above Change #102, the SSPX began labeling all who questioned or doubted the New Rites as sedevacantist. This is a clever accusation, one that well clouds the issue. The old-SSPX was assuredly not sedevacantist when its priests and bishops taught that the New Rite Sacraments were doubtful. This was a doubt that was expressed repeatedly over decades, by Archbishop Lefebvre himself, as well as several other priests associated with the SSPX - see here and here.
The now-Conciliar SSPX began to switch gears in the late 1990's (with GREC) and actively seek recognition from Rome, disregarding the advice and mandate of Archbishop Lefebvre not to seek an agreement until Rome once again expresses the True Catholic Faith and not the Conciliar Faith of Vatican II. Of course, once the SSPX began to seek this agreement, it was incumbent upon them to make sure their members were not offensive in any way to Rome. With the accession of Benedict XVI to the papal throne in 2005 (the same year of Fr. Pierre-Marie's study was published) the SSPX had a vested interest in not offending the new pope by holding onto their 'old' position that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration was doubtful. So in this respect, Fr. Pierre-Marie's study was particularly helpful to the SSPX at the time. It placated the SSPX masses by telling them the New Rite was valid and it placated Rome by showing the Romans that they could work with the SSPX.
That is why it is interesting that Fr. Calderón studies - interestingly enough - the same Novus Ordo Episcopal Consecration Fr. Pierre-Marie does. (One is tempted to believe that if Fr. Pierre-Marie's study was absolutely conclusive as the SSPX and Fr. Pfeiffer have touted, there would be no need for the assistant Rector of the La Reja Seminary to repeat it and reexamine it!)
It has been noted that Fr. Calderón causes some confusion in his conclusion. He does not go as far as Fr. Pierre-Marie in declaring definitively that the New Rite is valid. He rather states that the New Rite is "most probably valid" (note the important inclusion of the word, "probably"). But he clarifies in the next sentence that "but we also believe that there is no certainty of its validity," in frank opposition to Fr. Pierre-Marie's conclusion.
This confusion appears again in his last two points on the practical application of his conclusion. In the first point, he seems to agree with the SSPX's recent acceptance carte blanche of clergy ordained or consecrated in the New Rite. But then in his second point, Fr. Calderón echoes the old-SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, etc. when he states in very clear and plain language:
Again, this is in clear opposition to Fr. Pierre-Marie's study, who concluded that:
Both Fr. Calderón's study and the article by Fr. Peter Scott (see Must Priests Who Come to Tradition be Reordained?), while certainly written in a milieu that was well on its way to pursuing reconciliation and recognition from Rome, both clearly express that doubt exists in the New Rite of Orders. As Mr. Johnson points about in his Change #102, these priests are among the top theologians of the SSPX. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais also had long expressed doubts about the Episcopal Rite of Consecration as well as the Rite of Ordinations. And as was already mentioned the founder of the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, frequently repeated that there were doubts about the validity of the Conciliar Sacraments.
So what must a Catholic do when confronted with doubtful Sacraments? What does the Church teach? What does Her wisdom advise in such situations?
Well, She is consistent!:
Thus ... it is not lawful to act on mere probability when the validity of the sacraments is in question. Again, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when there is question of gaining an end which is obligatory, since certain means must be employed to gain a certainly required end. Hence, when eternal salvation is at stake, it is not lawful to be content with uncertain means.
[Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679]
1151 1. It is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned, unless the law forbids it, convention or the danger of incurring grave harm. Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders.
Where it judges that the previous orders were certainly valid it permits their use, supposing the candidate to be acceptable; where it judges the previous orders to be certainly invalid it disregards them altogether, and enjoins a re-ordination according to its own rite; where it judges that the validity of the previous orders is doubtful, even though the doubt be slight, it forbids their use until a conditional ceremony of re-ordination has first been undergone.
While Bishop Williamson is wrong on grace in the New Mass, he does advise how to address the problem of doubtful Orders the same way the Church does:
- 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 [Note that is exactly what Pope Leo XIII ordered for the Anglican orders in Apostolicae Curae so again, in this, Bp. Williamson repeats Church teaching.]
- ... 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
- [...] 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
Dear friends, let us continue to hold the line of Archbishop Lefebvre, who himself only taught as the Church teaches, and avoid doubtful Sacraments!
A simple example of the wisdom of the Church by way of analogy -
If the engineers responsible for maintaining a plane engine are divided amongst themselves (similar to Fr. Pierre-Marie vs Fr. Calderón) on whether or not the plane engine is in good working order, the safest way to approach such a divided decision is to ground the plane(!) until it is certain that the engine is in good working order! Similarly, if the theologians are not in complete agreement about the validity of something as important as the New Rite of Holy Orders, the safest position is to conditionally reordain whenever possible and when not possible, to simply avoid doubtful Orders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 7, 2020 15:06:38 GMT
Father Hewko, in this sermon, talks about Novus Ordo Rite Ordinations and Consecrations
|
|
