Is the New Revised Ordinal of 1989 Invalid for Traditional Catholics

[BernadetteM]

I was reading some posts that say that the new revised Ordinal of 1989 is invalid. I just wanted the thoughts of what Traditional Catholics thought about this issue.

If it is indeed invalid in one’s opinion, then there haven’t been any priests who have a valid priesthood since 1989, I would assume.

It is a little confusing and I just wanted to clarify this issue.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[Gregory_I]

You are speaking of the formula of episcopal consecration that was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1968. According to extremists, this marked the decline of the episcopacy, and hence, after this point, priests began to die out as no valid bishops were being created.

They make some argument about how the new episcopal consecration does not reflect the office of Bishop to Teach, To Govern, and to Sanctify. Since the main prayer only uses the phrase “Governing spirit” and doesn’t refer to the full ministry of the Bishop, it is invalid according to extremists because of the three requirements for a validly confected sacrament: Form, matter, and intent. In this case they say that the Form is compromised in that it no longer reflects the role of a bishop (the consecratory prayer that is).

THeir justification for this point of view lies in Pope Leo XIII’s condemnation of anglican orders as invalid because they failed to reflect the Catholic priesthood. Well, these new consecration prayers of the bishop fail to reflect the Catholic teaching on the episcopacy, therefore those Bishops consecrated after 1968 are invalid bishops. If you do the Math, that means the last valid priest was consecrated in 1967. And the youngest a priest can be is 25. So, 2011-1967=44+25=69.

Which means basically, the youngest validly ordained priest in the world (If you don’t count schismatic ordinations) is 70.and the oldest is probably 95. A bishop has to be 35, so the youngest “Valid” Bishop wherever he is in the world is 80.

Yeah, I know.

THat’s the so-called argument anyway.

 

[ProVobis]

THeir justification for this point of view lies in Pope Leo XIII’s condemnation of anglican orders as invalid because they failed to reflect the Catholic priesthood.

But were they the only reason? The Anglican orders had been invalid since the Reformation. They were one of the reasons for the Council of Trent.

 

[BernadetteM]

Then in reality the Catholic Church is dead. Only those who belong to SSPX are Catholic from what I understand.

I did read this on a Traditional website, which has very few if any positive things to say about the Holy Father, Bishops or priests.

It appears that there is no longer a Pope. Each person is allowed to interpret the teachings of the Church as they see fit. I thought that this was what the protestants do. There is no real leader, yes the Anglicans who are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury consider him “a” leader, but are not required to follow him.

What I see on these websites is much bitterness and anger, although I have also seen anger from Catholics who are not traditional against the Anglican Ordinariate. Some say it isn’t fair that they will have more freedom than they do. This is not true, they will be protected, yes, from liberal Bishops who wish to prevent them from a more traditional form of liturgy and being allowed to establish parishes in dioceses where the EF is not offered. However those priests in the Ordinariate will be allowed to offer the EF, OF and the Anglican Use, so in the end they may open more doors for traditionalists who would like to see more parishes who offer the EF. We will have to wait and see how it all proceeds in the future, but at least people should not judge what they know nothing about.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[ProVobis]

Only those who belong to SSPX are Catholic from what I understand.

Your understanding is not correct on this. Most SSPX or those who attend their Masses don’t doubt the validity of the OF or at least the way it was promulgated. Therefore they must accept all priests who say it.

 

[BernadetteM]

Your understanding is not correct on this. Most SSPX or those who attend their Masses don’t doubt the validity of the OF or at least the way it was promulgated.

I was just going by what these particular posters stated. I know that not all who belong to SSPX feel this way, however, reading these statements do cause one to reflect on what the SSPX actually believes, that is why I posted the question.

Hopefully at some point they will again be reunited with the Holy Father. He might establish some type of ordinariate to protect them from those who have denied them from celebrating the EF. I am open to correction on these issues as I am not familiar with what they would want to accomodate their objections. I can understand many of their issues with what they see in some parishes, however need clarifcation on how their needs may be met.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[Gregory_I]

Hopefully they’ll simply acknowledge the legitimacy of the OF and the not always savory accutrements (Like altar girls, versus populum, etc.) and the Holy Father will just let them continue as they are.

I still Think Abp.Marcel Lefebvre of happy memory could be a saint.

After all, in the great schism of the 14th century, there were saints acknowledged by the universal church campaigning for rival claimants to the papal throne, so I don’t see why there can’t be saints on both sides of the sspx issue. It’s not like they’re sedes…

 

[maurin]

Bernadette,

Angelus Press, the publishing house of the Society, published a book on why the new rite of Episcopal Ordination is valid.

As an analogy, skin head groups in the United States are Americans, are they not? Would you take their point of view as the American point of view? The Ku Klux Klan’s?

Your take above on the Society’s point of view is innaccurate. Go to the source if you want to know the point of view of the Society qua the Society.

If you need web addresses, you may ask for them via pm.

 

[ProVobis]

I was just going by what these particular posters stated. I know that not all who belong to SSPX feel this way, however, reading these statements do cause one to reflect on what the SSPX actually believes, that is why I posted the question.

No doubt there are a few of them and they will probably never agree to any terms with the Vatican. But the fact that Bishop Fellay and the Vatican are talking and Bishop Fellay is being attacked from the extremists means that many (I’m guessing about a half) of them are hoping and praying for full communion. After all, they or their parents had been once fully tied with the Catholic Church. Some “doctrinal” issues are still being worked out, however. As well as some canonical issues, obviously.

 

[Alfonsus]

If the invalid ordination argument is right, then there is one bigger statement that we need to face. That the Catholic Church Magisterium is a laughing stock, thus it proves that the Catholic Church claims about herself is wrong. That she is just one denomination among many, and not the true Church of Christ. That makes her another Jehovah Witnesses or Mormon. That what the world say about the Church and Christian faith in general is not divine, is true.

That is the logical consequence.

 

[Ad_Pondus_Omniu]

I know first hand that the SSPX does submit to modern episcopal consecrations. One can’t accept CMRI Thuc liners with doubtful intention or openly sede views and not accept modern bishops. They’re all valid, the meaning was never changed.

The intention and actions of many actions of some Bishops is a different story, but that’s not my place to judge.
Pax

 

[laszlo]

Then in reality the Catholic Church is dead. Only those who belong to SSPX are Catholic from what I understand.

I did read this on a Traditional website, which has very few if any positive things to say about the Holy Father, Bishops or priests.

The SSPX acknowledges the pope (ordained in 1977 according to the new rite) as pope.

Originally Archbishop Lefebvre expressed his doubt about the new ordination rite, as a reason for his stand, but this was doubt only, not fact based statement.

The SSPX bishops accepted the lift of excommunication from the pope ordained according to the new rite, thus acknowledge the validity of his ordination.

They stand apart for some statements in the Dignitatis Humanae document, expecting the Church to accept their position.

 

[At_Trent]

The SSPX acknowledges the pope (ordained in 1977 according to the new rite) as pope.

Originally Archbishop Lefebvre expressed his doubt about the new ordination rite, as a reason for his stand, but this was doubt only, not fact based statement.

The SSPX bishops accepted the lift of excommunication from the pope ordained according to the new rite, thus acknowledge the validity of his ordination.

They stand apart for some statements in the Dignitatis Humanae document, expecting the Church to accept their position.

Unless I’m mis-reading this, what are you talking about ?

H.H. BXVI was ordained before VII.

 

[laszlo]

Unless I’m mis-reading this, what are you talking about ?

H.H. BXVI was ordained before VII.

Benedict XVI was receiving the order of presbiterate in 1951, the order of episcopate in 1977.

Archbishop Lefebvre doubted the validity of the bishop ordination, so from the context it should be clear . The word ordination is used widely in English too for receiving the order of episcopate.

 

[Gregory_I]

COnsecration is the technically correct term for being made a bishop.

 

[At_Trent]

Benedict XVI was receiving the order of presbiterate in 1951, the order of episcopate in 1977.

Archbishop Lefebvre doubted the validity of the bishop ordination, so from the context it should be clear . The word ordination is used widely in English too for receiving the order of episcopate.

Ok, thanks, I was just locked in on ordinations per the OP, but I see what you meant now.

 

[JaMc]

Benedict XVI was receiving the order of presbiterate in 1951, the order of episcopate in 1977.

Which is why on some of the more radical/sedevacantist websites, they refer to him as “Father Ratzinger.”

 

[laszlo]

Which is why on some of the more radical/sedevacantist websites, they refer to him as “Father Ratzinger.”

Yes. But the original question was about the SSPX, and the 4 SSPX bishops asking him to lift their excommunication reserved to the pope acknowledged his papacy and consequently the validity of his episcopal ordination. The pope is the bishop of Rome.

 

[Mark1970]

To answer the original question, I attend the Traditional Latin Mass (I prefer not to say Trasitionalist, I just think of myself as Catholic) and I accept all the post-Vatican II sacramental rites as valid, including the ordination/consecration rites.

My own personal opinion (which I’m sure some people readinf this will disagree with) is that anybody questioning their validity is potentially skating on very thin ice and needs to be very careful. I don’t consider myself theologically competant enough to elaborate on this point in public.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

What one Pope ordains, another Pope can change. Sadly, some like to believe that nothing can ever change about the church. The fail to recognize that the Tridentine Church was NOT the way it was done in the days of the Apostles, and that many things about the practices and the religious ceremonies of the Church have changed over and over again throughout the centuries.

They also refuse to acknowledge that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, who prevents it from heresy.

Only those looking for an excuse to leave the Church, or to provide an excuse for their misbehavior, rely on such "thinking of the past as being perfect’ to justify their rebellion.