Three points on the recent SSPX ordinations [Peters]

[JReducation]

In June 1998 the bishop in Phoenix, Arizona had all of that year’s candidates for confirmation come to the new baseball stadium to all be confirmed on the same day. He gave every priest in the diocese faculties to confirm during the “service.” He invited all attendees (including a special invitation to non-Catholics) to come to the ballpark wearing red shirts for the Holy Spirit. They then sang some stupid song to the Holy Spirit to the tune of “Take me out to the Ballpark,” an American folksong sung by Barney the dinosaur to name one advocate of the song. During the Mass, many people were seen eating hot dogs and popcorn. The candidates for confirmation poured out of the bleacher seats to any priest anywhere and were confirmed. How could anyone know who was eligible for confirmation or to receive the Eucharist?

After the “event,” two boxes arrived at the rectory of a local church to a truly devout priest. A delivery man plopped the boxes on the counter and said, “These are for you. They are the consecrated hosts that weren’t used at the ballpark.” He opened the boxes and to his horror he found two large food service containers, generally used to hold about 10 gallons of ice cream, filled with consecrated hosts. The second box didn’t even have these. It was lined with butcher paper and thousands of consecrated hosts were tossed into the box. He immediately took the boxes to the sacristy and started to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in every ciborium and chalice he could find. He then scoured each container and box for Crumbs to consume. He counted 5000 hosts.

It continues. The associate pastor decided that it wouldn’t be “proper” to store the hosts for too long, yet the parish could never distribute 5000. What to do? Without telling my priest friend, he began to fill the ciboriums that were being used in the offertory procession of the succeeding Novus Ordo Masses with already consecrated hosts. So during the next Mass the priest was consecrating previously consecrated hosts!

How did this bishop over-consecrate 5000 hosts? Or was it more? Did another parish receive a similar shipment? Who can imagine a more blatant or public statement that this bishop and whoever is under him does not believe in the Real Presence. He may speak the orthodox line when his back is to the wall, but in practice he preaches heresy. Catholics in his diocese are released from any obligation to obey him as these are most certainly, as canon law demands, times of crisis.

There are three separate issues here. Let’s look at them briefly.

1. The confirmation ceremony is highly irregular, but there is nothing to suggest that the sacrament was invalid. A priest can confirm if delegated by the ordinary of the diocese. I’ll grant the I have no idea why they did a confirmation en masse at a ball park.
2. The consecrated hosts is a disturbing point. I can understand consecrating more hosts than you need. This happens at many such masses. I saw it happen when Pope Benedict celebrated mass in Sydney. There must have been almost 100 ciboriums with consecrated hosts after communion. However, I assume and have not heard differently, that there was a plan to distribute them to parishes to be properly used. In other words, they did not appear at someone’s door. I hope that someone looked into this. There should have been a committee that was responsible for seeing to the leftover consecrated hosts. That’s one of the duties of the planning committe. Obviously, someone dropped the ball, BIG TIME. But that does not make the bishop any more responsible than it would make the Pope responsible if it had happened at World Youth Day. That’s why you have liturgical committees and liturgical teams, to avoid this kind of fiasco.
3. To say that there is a state of emergency and that the faithful of an diocese do not have to obey their bishop is a major statement. That statement can only be made by someone in authority to declare an emergency. That emergency has to be recognized as such by the Holy See. This is a point already established by Pope John Paul II when he acknowledged the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre (RIP) and the other SSPX bishops. Pope John Paul set the presedent by not acknowledging that there was such a state of emergency as described in canon law and his position has been upheld by the synods of bishops and Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict has never said that the excommunications were invalid. He said they were rescinded. That’s different. Following this logic, we can understand that no one can simply declare a state of emergency and dispence people from obeying proper ecclesial authorities.

I have no idea who wrote that part above. But it is inconsistent with the presedent set by John Paul II and followed by Benedict XVI. Therefore, the writer should not be encouraging people to disobey the ordinary of a diocese. Let’s remember what happened to Mother Angelica when she mad a less aggressive statement about obeying a bishop. She was almost deposed as abbess unless she privately and publicly corrected her statement. The revocation of the authority of an abbess can only be done by the Holy Father. Even the local bishop does not have that kind of authority over a nun in solemn vows, only over sisters in simple vows.

I woiuld not follow that piece of advice from someone who does not have the authority to offer it. You can get into trouble. The goal is not to get into trouble, but to be holy and help make things better where ever we can, even in the little things.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

CONFIRMATION
The New Order of Confirmation was promulgated on Aug. 15, 1971. The form and the matter of the sacrament have been changed.
The traditional form for the sacrament of confirmation is:–
► “I sign you with the Sign of the Cross, and I confirm you with the Chrism of salvation. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

The new form in the New Rite for the sacrament of confirmation is:–
●** “N., receive the seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.”**

As we can see, the traditional form of Confirmation has been fundamentally changed.
The new form of words actually uses the form that is used in the Eastern Rites. But there is a big difference …

In the Eastern Rite of Confirmation, when the form is pronounced by the bishop, he imposes his hands, thus completing by his action the words of the form. I sign you….(etc)] In the new rite, however, even though the Eastern Rite words are used, they are are not completed by the action of imposition of hands, as in the Eastern Rite.

Conclusion: The validity of the Confirmation is in doubt on the basis of apparent defect of form…

There is an assumed, unnamed an unproved premise here in your attempt at a syllogism, namely, that the change given (or any change for that matter) would result in an invalid Sacrament. Of course, I may not be totally accurate when I call it your syllogism.

Rather than go on about this off-topic post let me just link where this material is found as you deemed it unwise to do so. I found it by pasting a twenty word search string from* your* post into Google.

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/12_othersacraments.pdf

For those that can not pdf, here is a quote from the sedevacantist website.

As we can see,

**the traditional form of Confirmation has been fundamentally changed. **The

new form actually uses the form that is used in the Eastern Rites. Why would Paul VI replace the
traditional form in the Roman Rite with the form of the Eastern Rite? We will see the significance
of this change when we look at the matter of Confirmation, which has also been changed. Most
theologians traditionally regard the imposition of hands and the signing and anointing of the
forehead as the proximate matter of Confirmation, and the chrism of olive oil and balm
consecrated by the bishop as the remote matter. In Paul VI’s New Rite of Confirmation,

the

imposition of hands has been abolished, and other vegetable oils may replace olive oil, and
any spice may be used instead of balm!

In the New Testament, the imposition of hands was always present in confirmation (see Acts
8:17, Acts 19:6). But there is no imposition of hands in the New Rite of Confirmation. It has been
abolished. This alone renders Paul VI’s New Rite of Confirmation highly doubtful. Further, in
the Eastern Rite of Confirmation, when the form is pronounced by the bishop, he imposes his
hands,

thus completing by his action the words of the form. In the new rite, however, even though the

Eastern Rite form is used, the words are not completed by the action of imposition of hands, as in
the Eastern Rite, thus rendering it highly doubtful.

Conclusion: All the changes

considered,
the validity of the new Confirmation is highly doubtful

 

[otjm]

With due respect to other posters, it is encouraging to see, & I thank you, Chris/rkrispies, for an unemotional & objective request for facts, instead of an attempted character analysis of those who dare to rock the boat.

I haven’t been able to google a concise summary of this, so here are some notes, ‘from various sources’. The actual text of the words & actions is, however, completely accurate.
We should start with the most contentious of the ‘updated’ Sacraments….

CONFIRMATION
The New Order of Confirmation was promulgated on Aug. 15, 1971. The form and the matter of the sacrament have been changed.
The traditional form for the sacrament of confirmation is:–
► “I sign you with the Sign of the Cross, and I confirm you with the Chrism of salvation. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

The new form in the New Rite for the sacrament of confirmation is:–
●** “N., receive the seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.”**

As we can see, the traditional form of Confirmation has been fundamentally changed.
The new form of words actually uses the form that is used in the Eastern Rites. But there is a big difference …

In the Eastern Rite of Confirmation, when the form is pronounced by the bishop, he imposes his hands, thus completing by his action the words of the form. I sign you….(etc)] In the new rite, however, even though the Eastern Rite words are used, they are are not completed by the action of imposition of hands, as in the Eastern Rite.

Conclusion: The validity of the Confirmation is in doubt on the basis of apparent defect of form…

Most theologians traditionally regard the imposition of hands and the signing and anointing of the forehead as the proximate matter of Confirmation, and the chrism of olive oil and balm consecrated by the bishop as the remote matter. In Pope Paul VI’s New Rite of Confirmation, the imposition of hands has been abolished, and other vegetable oils may replace olive oil, and any spice may be used instead of balm.

Conclusion: The validity of the Confirmation is in doubt on the basis of apparent defect of both proximate and remote matter.

As I write in another posting, the Sacraments most certainly are not the property of the Pope. They were given by Christ, and the Church has never, never, felt free to tamper with their Matter or Form. For example (to mention another two Sacraments): The Church does not consider she has the right to (i) use cake or grape juice in ‘confecting’ the Blessed Eucharist; (ii) ordain women.

Not because of any abstruse argumentation, but simply because Our Lord did not ordain it so, and we have no power or authority to innovate.

The Pope is the guardian and custodian of the Faith. It is not his to arbitarily tamper with.

In the New Testament, the imposition of hands was always present in Confirmation (cf. Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6). But there is no imposition of hands in the New Rite of Confirmation. It has been abolished. This alone renders Paul VI’s New Rite of Confirmation highly doubtful.

Conclusion: All the changes considered, the validity of the new Confirmation is highly doubtful.
That is Point 1.
Point 2: The Old Rite (which embraces the Sacraments) was never abrogated.
Point 3: S. Thomas Aquinas writes: “In case of doubt, follow the safer course”.
Therefore: The Faithful are prudent to adhere to the immemorial Rite of Confirmation (Latin or Byzantine, remembering that it is forbidden to adopt a different Rite from that into which one was born)…

Problem: But the world’s Bishop’s refuse to make this available to the Faithful.

Hence, by the very definition of Emergency, such a state exists in the present Church.

The SSPX, alone amongst all prelates (until very recently) offer the Traditional, immemorial, and certain Rite of Confirmation.

Conclusion: {Need I go on?}

It would seem the only people who doubt the efficacy of the same sacrament are those who are about one or two steps away from such other issues as sede-vacantism. So no, there is no need to go on. At one point in the Church we almost lost the sacrament of confirmation because, primarily, of how the Church was then viewing the sacrament of reconcilliation (or penance, or confession or whatever other name you may choose). It is only those who believe that this sacrament (Confirmation) has only one formula who would believe that it may now be invalid. A good thorough review of its history will show thqt the words have varied over time. And matter - it is still the oil.

This borders on getting into an arguement about when the Consecration actually occurs. There are two schools of thought on the matter and the Church has seen fit to not define the issue.

Most theologians may have an opinion on the issue of whether or not the laying on of hands is necessary for the sacrament; but unless and until the Church defines the issue finally, all we have are opinions. And if the Church in its decision making authority and process, of which Christ granted, changes the fomula and no longer requires the laying on of hands, theologians should take note. Last time I checked, they did not run the Church, although McBrien and Currin may think differently. It is not for no reason that a group of theologians who deem themselves Catholic also openly refer to themselves as the alternative Magisterium.

Rome promulgated it, I accept it, and those who want to play the questioning game are coming awfully, awfully close to a form of cafeteria Catholicism.

 

[pnewton]

Most theologians may have an opinion on the issue of whether or not the laying on of hands is necessary for the sacrament; but unless and until the Church defines the issue finally, all we have are opinions.

I didn’t begin to go into all the fallacies once I realized the source of this theory, but false authority is right up there. Was there a poll of theologians?

Where beside sedevacatnist sites and numealinesimpet posts can we find this remarkable statsitic that is not a statistic?

Folks, this is precisely why I have chosed to stick close by Holy Mother Church. When she is flawed, the flaws will be addressed by the Holy Spirit. She will *always *be the sure vehicle of salvation.

 

[JReducation]

It would seem the only people who doubt the efficacy of the same sacrament are those who are about one or two steps away from such other issues as sede-vacantism. So no, there is no need to go on. At one point in the Church we almost lost the sacrament of confirmation because, primarily, of how the Church was then viewing the sacrament of reconcilliation (or penance, or confession or whatever other name you may choose). It is only those who believe that this sacrament (Confirmation) has only one formula who would believe that it may now be invalid. A good thorough review of its history will show thqt the words have varied over time. And matter - it is still the oil.

This borders on getting into an arguement about when the Consecration actually occurs. There are two schools of thought on the matter and the Church has seen fit to not define the issue.

Most theologians may have an opinion on the issue of whether or not the laying on of hands is necessary for the sacrament; but unless and until the Church defines the issue finally, all we have are opinions. And if the Church in its decision making authority and process, of which Christ granted, changes the fomula and no longer requires the laying on of hands, theologians should take note. Last time I checked, they did not run the Church, although McBrien and Currin may think differently. It is not for no reason that a group of theologians who deem themselves Catholic also openly refer to themselves as the alternative Magisterium.

Rome promulgated it, I accept it, and those who want to play the questioning game are coming awfully, awfully close to a form of cafeteria Catholicism.

Again, Pnewton and OTJM are making a lot of sense.

1. The argument is coming from an antagonistic source. What in a court of law would be called a hostile witness.
2. Some people mistake the meaning of “the pope does not own the sacraments.” This is very true. However, as the Vicar of Christ he has the authority to change the form without changing the matter or essence.

There are several examples in history.

1. Until the 20th century the three sacraments of initiation were allowed to be administered at the same time to infants. That form was changed in the Latin Church. Baptism and Confirmation are separately conferred. The change was gradual. It first changed in Europe and North America, where there were good means of transportation for bishops to visit parishes and confirm. Meanwhile, Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia continued the old form, one ritual, three sacraments. After Vatican II, the one ritual disappeared and separate rites for baptism and confirmation became the norm in the Latin Church around the world. I know, because my father was born in Latin America. She received the three sacraments when she was six months old. Priests and bishops did not come around that often to rural areas. This was approved by the Holy See
2. Pius X allowed Catholics to make their first communion as children. This was not always the case for the universal church. There were different rules, depending on the diocese. As I said in point 1, if you lived in a remote area, you received the sacraments of initiation when a priest came through. If you lived in a metropolitan area, you received them at different ages. Children receiving the Eucharist was the exception for special geographical areas. The popes authorized the changes in rituals and rules.
3. The words of consecration in English are different from Latin, Spanish, Portugese and Italian. The Romance languages follow the Latin translation much more accurately. The consecration in English is still valid and licit. Granted . . . the revision of the English sacramentary is in progress. The pope approved the translations.
4. Traditionally, only wine could be used for consecration. After careful study, the Holy Father approved the use of certain kinds of grape juice by priests who are recovering alcoholics. The argument was simple, it has the potential to become wine, because it possesses all the necessary material qualities. This consecration is valid. And it was authorized by the pope.
5. The ordination of married men was valid and licit in all the apostolic Churches. Today it is ilicit in the Latin Church. The pope approved the change and only he can dispense from the celibacy requirement. The promise of celibacy for secular men has become part of the rite of ordination. Celibacy is not part of the rite of ordination for religious men.

The point is that there are many changes in the external rituals that do not change the essence of the sacrament. THAT is what no pope can change, the essence.

I hope this dispels some confusion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[maurin]

Who were the liturgical abusers? Priests who were raised in the TLM, and were ordained prior to Vatican 2 were the ones leading the charge.

All of this was during a time of traditional Catholicism.

NOTE: do not presume that I am blaming traditional anything - Catholicism, catechesis, traditionalists, the EF. REad very carefully what I ahve written. You want a cure, and you are sure that the cure is the reintroduction of the TLM.

It ain’t. The problem is nowhere near as simplistic as that.

.

noone has ever argued against the fact that modernism was rampant prior to the Council. In fact it was in 1907, I believe, 5 decades or so before the Council that Pope Saint Pius X wrote promulgated his Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, or On Modernism. Prior to the Council, most of the modernists remained underground.

At the Council, the inmates took over the asylum.

 

[rkrispies]

Again, Pnewton and OTJM are making a lot of sense.

1. The argument is coming from an antagonistic source. What in a court of law would be called a hostile witness.
2. Some people mistake the meaning of “the pope does not own the sacraments.” This is very true. However, as the Vicar of Christ he has the authority to change the form without changing the matter or essence.

There are several examples in history.

1. Until the 20th century the three sacraments of initiation were allowed to be administered at the same time to infants. That form was changed in the Latin Church. Baptism and Confirmation are separately conferred. The change was gradual. It first changed in Europe and North America, where there were good means of transportation for bishops to visit parishes and confirm. Meanwhile, Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia continued the old form, one ritual, three sacraments. After Vatican II, the one ritual disappeared and separate rites for baptism and confirmation became the norm in the Latin Church around the world. I know, because my father was born in Latin America. She received the three sacraments when she was six months old. Priests and bishops did not come around that often to rural areas. This was approved by the Holy See
2. Pius X allowed Catholics to make their first communion as children. This was not always the case for the universal church. There were different rules, depending on the diocese. As I said in point 1, if you lived in a remote area, you received the sacraments of initiation when a priest came through. If you lived in a metropolitan area, you received them at different ages. Children receiving the Eucharist was the exception for special geographical areas. The popes authorized the changes in rituals and rules.
3. The words of consecration in English are different from Latin, Spanish, Portugese and Italian. The Romance languages follow the Latin translation much more accurately. The consecration in English is still valid and licit. Granted . . . the revision of the English sacramentary is in progress. The pope approved the translations.
4. Traditionally, only wine could be used for consecration. After careful study, the Holy Father approved the use of certain kinds of grape juice by priests who are recovering alcoholics. The argument was simple, it has the potential to become wine, because it possesses all the necessary material qualities. This consecration is valid. And it was authorized by the pope.
5. The ordination of married men was valid and licit in all the apostolic Churches. Today it is ilicit in the Latin Church. The pope approved the change and only he can dispense from the celibacy requirement. The promise of celibacy for secular men has become part of the rite of ordination. Celibacy is not part of the rite of ordination for religious men.

The point is that there are many changes in the external rituals that do not change the essence of the sacrament. THAT is what no pope can change, the essence.

I hope this dispels some confusion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for all who offered thoughts on this, especially you, Br. JR. I have to say I always appreciate your posts and the wisdom therein.

I had a feeling that the Rite had not changed such that the sacramental grace was no longer conferred upon the recipient. As one poster quoted St. Thomas Aquinas: when in doubt, go for the safer course. For me, that’s sticking to the Holy Mother Church and what has come from her approved by the Holy Father.

Chris

 

[otjm]

noone has ever argued against the fact that modernism was rampant prior to the Council. In fact it was in 1907, I believe, 5 decades or so before the Council that Pope Saint Pius X wrote promulgated his Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, or On Modernism. Prior to the Council, most of the modernists remained underground.

At the Council, the inmates took over the asylum.

So let’s not go back to insisting, as some have in their naivety, that we reinstitue the oath against Modernism. History should have put that to bed as an effective tool.

However, you impugn the motives and the product of many intelligent and holy men. Both JP2 and Benedict 16 were periti at the Council.

The issue is not the council; the issue is that there was a massive explosion of disobedience after the Council and that, in short, was the sexual revolution already in full bloom that went nuclear at Humanae Vitae. The impact of the immediate and complete outright dismissal of HV had far, far more to do with the subsequent ignoring of just about anything and everything that eminated from Rome than did any one of the documents or all of them combined. Both JP2 and B16 have tried, and tried repeatedly, to correctly and completely impliment the documents of V2. and if history tells us anything, it can take up to 100 years to do so. Those who are so fast to condemn V2 and hold up Trent as a model of obedience and implementation show their ignorance of history; Some things Trent set up took that 100 years to get fully on track.

 

[JReducation]

So let’s not go back to insisting, as some have in their naivety, that we reinstitue the oath against Modernism. History should have put that to bed as an effective tool.

However, you impugn the motives and the product of many intelligent and holy men. Both JP2 and Benedict 16 were periti at the Council.

The issue is not the council; the issue is that there was a massive explosion of disobedience after the Council and that, in short, was the sexual revolution already in full bloom that went nuclear at Humanae Vitae. The impact of the immediate and complete outright dismissal of HV had far, far more to do with the subsequent ignoring of just about anything and everything that eminated from Rome than did any one of the documents or all of them combined. Both JP2 and B16 have tried, and tried repeatedly, to correctly and completely impliment the documents of V2. and if history tells us anything, it can take up to 100 years to do so. Those who are so fast to condemn V2 and hold up Trent as a model of obedience and implementation show their ignorance of history; Some things Trent set up took that 100 years to get fully on track.

It took almost 40 years after Trent to get the liturgy in place and the catechism. That does not mean that the dust settled once the liturgy and catechism were formalized. It just took that long to get it right. Then came the implementation of the liturgy and the dissemination of the catechism.

The same happend with many other councils. We’re still debating some points of Vatican I.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[I_Believe]

Oh, I agree that the traditional Catholics aren’t responsible for the mess we are in. It’s the ordained who are responsible.

If traditional Catholicism is the answer, how? Say a young priest from Mount St. Mary’s in Maryland is assigned to my parish. He has a love of the TLM, and is conservative/traditional. What’s the plan? My altar doesn’t even face correctly. We all face north! What is one priest going to do?

First he needs a few volunteers to help do this…
youtube.com/watch?v=oUNfbgRJOe8

Then he can begin building Faith from the pulpit. Some will think it’s wonderful, and will feel their Faith has been renewed, bolstered, whatever. And some will be shocked. Both results are a good thing for their souls.

Look what effect a Traditional Monastery had on an atheist …

youtube.com/watch?v=d20nzljVYPM

Do we have to wait for these guys to become Bishops - and hope there’s more trads than not?

Yes, some will become Bishops. In the meantime we can pray. Especially that if it be His will, God grant H.H. BXVI many years as Bishop of Rome

I’ve see enough of BXVI to know he doesn’t stand against VII, but does side with Tradition. And that’s enough for me at this point. Judging by his appointments to key positions, I’d say the Church is in good hands and the worst is behind us. But there is still the priest shortage looming. It’s time to try what used to work again. Lot’s of altar boys serving lots of TLM’s We aren’t getting very good results with the altar girls.

 

[numealinesimpet]

There are three separate issues here. Let’s look at them briefly.
…
3. To say that there is a state of emergency and that the faithful of a diocese do not have to obey their bishop is a major statement.

Agreed. That sentence was originally written to me by an eyewitness of this ‘Baseball Confirmation’ who was still in a state of shock, and who transferred the attendence of the family to the SSPX from that day. I actually normally delete it when (with their permission) I pass on this info to illustrate what can happen in the present circumstances. It does not release from a general duty of obedience to the bishop, I agree. But it illustrates that one cannot necessarily obey every individual precept from the hierarchy at present. To have attended that Baseball Confirmation would, in S. Thomas’ phrase, have been ‘indiscreet obedience’.

That statement can only be made by someone in authority to declare an emergency. That emergency has to be recognized as such by the Holy See. This is a point already established by Pope John Paul II when he acknowledged the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre (RIP) and the other SSPX bishops. Pope John Paul set the presedent by not acknowledging that there was such a state of emergency as described in canon law and his position has been upheld by the synods of bishops and Pope Benedict XVI.

I disagree. Pope John Paul II did not rule on the matter, he simply ignored it. “But they kept silent.”

Pope Benedict has never said that the excommunications were invalid. He said they were rescinded. That’s different.

Following this logic, we can understand that no one can simply declare a state of emergency and dispence people from obeying proper ecclesial authorities.

That does not follow at all. The excommunications were unilaterally lifted. The lifting does not prove that they were originally valid.

Your line of argument does not allow for the possibility that the Emergency emanates from the Pope himself, yet the precedent of Pope Liberius proves that this can happen. When it does, the consequences are very grave.

I have no idea who wrote that part above.

It was a parent with seven children.

I would not follow that piece of advice from someone who does not have the authority to offer it. You can get into trouble. The goal is not to get into trouble, but to be holy and help make things better where ever we can, even in the little things.

Agreed. When I was a young parent, many teenage children from practising Catholic families, who had been faithful for generations, were lapsing, and the parents did not know why. It was this disturbing fact that impelled my wife and me to study the documents of Vatican II in detail, highlighter in hand. We were astonished at the gigantic loopholes. It set us on the path of attempting to find the line between ‘perfect obedience’ and ‘indiscreet obedience’. If I had brought my children to anything like the Baseball confirmation, I doubt that my credibility with them regarding the Faith would have withstood it. A bishop has no right to place a parent in such a dilemma. yet since Vatican II it is commonplace. Not being under a vow of obedience to the bishop, yet charged as the primary educator of my chldren by the marriage Vow, I am not at liberty to turn a blind eye to these things.

 

[numealinesimpet]

There is an assumed, unnamed an unproved premise here in your attempt at a syllogism, namely, that the change given (or any change for that matter) would result in an invalid Sacrament. Of course, I may not be totally accurate when I call it your syllogism.

Not at all. The line of argument I wrote was my own. I am happy to debate it, in the interests of truth and fidelity to the Church. That is what this website is for.

Rather than go on about this off-topic post

Why off-topic? Somebody asked for primary information on the details of the changes between the trad. and the Novus Ordo Rites of the Sacraments.

let me just link where this material is found as you deemed it unwise to do so. I found it by pasting a twenty word search string from* your* post into Google.

Correct. I was looking for direct quotes from the words & rubrics, & could not find a handy laying-out of the text, side by side, except on the website you quote, which contains many things I disagree with. But the part that I quoted – the texts of the words and the accompanying rubrics – can be found by opening and reading the actual liturgical books.

I certainly deemed it unwise to publish the website, firstly because I disagree with many of its conclusions, and secondly because I knew that others would then seize on its sedevac origin to brush aside the actual facts, derailing the discussion of the actual topic of “the substance of the changes and their implications”, as you have done.

The church has always been extrememly cautious abaout changing anything in the Sacraments that might affect their validity by altering the matter and form. You do not need a sedevac website to tell you that: it is in any history book that deals with the topic.

These dangerous innovations, unprecedented in the entire history of the Church, are the kind of thing that has spawned the heresy of sedevacantism in the mid-twentieth century. The very idea had not the slightest credibility since at least the Counter-Reformation of the 16th - 17th centuries. [The Avignon Schism of the 14th Century, with the standing scandal of an absentee pope for 40 years followed by two rival popes for another 30, was a major factor lending credibility to Protestantism]. Instead of merely castigating the sedevacs, one should, in charity, (but not on this thread) point out where their errors are. There are good articles in the main SSPX website on this topic.

 

[I_Believe]

The priest shortage started when priests, who were ordained prior to and shortly subsequent to Vatican 2 started leaving. Interestingly, the majority of them left to get married. and most of that loss was of priests who were ordained prior to Vatican 2.

The sex scandal is not exactly new; it is more that the world had no idea how deadly harmful sexual abuse to children was re: their lifetime. That, and it took attorneys to break it out into the open. Granted that we have had some homosexual bishops, the problem was more a series of issues: 1) true lack of knowldedge on the part of many bishops of what was actually happening (many lawsuits were the first notice that abuse had occured previously); 2) psychologists and psychiatrists who held out that they could “cure” the abuser, and reliance on their expertise, and 3) clericalism in the highest order, coupled with an intense desire to create no scandal. There were other issues in addition. But keep in mind that many of the abusers were priests who were ordained well before Vatican 2.

Who were the liturgical abusers? Priests who were raised in the TLM, and were ordained prior to Vatican 2 were the ones leading the charge.

All of this was during a time of traditional Catholicism.

NOTE: do not presume that I am blaming traditional anything - Catholicism, catechesis, traditionalists, the EF. REad very carefully what I ahve written. You want a cure, and you are sure that the cure is the reintroduction of the TLM.

It ain’t. The problem is nowhere near as simplistic as that.

We will be a minority religion as long as secualrism is the attitude of the land. Think not? Look at Europe, which has had secualrism at its core far longer than the US. It has nothing to do with young priests embracing, or not embracing the EF.

None of this is a criticism of the EF. It is simply to point out that your view of the cure cfails to understand the disease.

What makes you think those priests that went astray were traditional priests ? What you are describing is the fruit of modernism. I’m talking about traditional priests. It doesn’t matter that a priest is raised on the TLM and has taken the OAM, if he breaks his vows before God.

Don’t try to tell me these priests you are describing are traditional priests. They are not. You are taking my point entirely out of context. I said/meant, traditional priests and the practice of traditional Catholicism, untainted by modernist leanings, is not to blame for any of this mess.

Traditional Parochial schools, traditional seminaries, traditional clergy, and the Gregorian Rite are indeed the answer. The fruits of Modernism are undeniable.

It is that simple, imho.

 

[I_Believe]

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/12_othersacraments.pdf

For those that can not pdf, here is a quote from the sedevacantist website.

What are you doing ? Spamming for the Dimonds ? Who do I make my check out to ? MHFM or Pope Mike ?

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

 

[PaulinVA]

First he needs a few volunteers to help do this…
youtube.com/watch?v=oUNfbgRJOe8

You missed the part of my post where I said the people face North. You can’t have the priest ad orientem if he’s actually facing north and not east. I think I am right on this - the priest and the people have to face east in the TLM? so, for us it isn’t just dressing up the altar.

Then he can begin building Faith from the pulpit. Some will think it’s wonderful, and will feel their Faith has been renewed, bolstered, whatever. And some will be shocked. Both results are a good thing for their souls.

Well, I will not limit the Holy Spirit, but, as I said in another post, I’m in a diocese with conservative priests already.

I’ve see enough of BXVI to know he doesn’t stand against VII, but does side with Tradition. And that’s enough for me at this point. Judging by his appointments to key positions, I’d say the Church is in good hands and the worst is behind us. But there is still the priest shortage looming. It’s time to try what used to work again. Lot’s of altar boys serving lots of TLM’s We aren’t getting very good results with the altar girls.

If you think being an altar server leads to being a priest, then you are mistaken. One does not have a call to be an altar server. Being a priest is indeed a vocation. Linking the two doesn’t make sense, unless you are using the opportunity for a gratuitous swipe at altar server girls. God calls men to be priests, correct? Does He only pick from the pool of men who were altar servers?

And, once again, we do not know the effect of rolling out the TLM to the general Church. We know the effect it has on people who seek it out. Those people are not the same. The TLM is not magic. You can’t turn the calendar back to 1960. You have to develop strategies that will work with today’s Catholics who are steeped in today’s Church and today’s culture.

 

[pnewton]

Why off-topic? Somebody asked for primary information on the details of the changes between the trad. and the Novus Ordo Rites of the Sacraments.

Because that was not the original post or topic. You can do what you want. I do not moderate here. However, I personally like to stick to the topic.

 

[maurin]

However, you impugn the motives and the product of many intelligent and holy men. Both JP2 and Benedict 16 were periti at the Council. .

I understand that is your fervent and pious hope of these periti made Popes. Of course, I do not doubt His Holiness’ holiness or intelligence. And I am far from impugning their motives at the time of the Council. Modernism was condemned by many Popes prior to the Council.

Even in the early 60’s communication around some parts of the world was almost immediate. To other parts of the world, not so much.

Today, it is nearly immediate to almost all parts of the world. Using the century it took to institute Trent is hardly a great argument in the year 2009.

Even in the early 60’s transportation to and from 2 absolute opposite points on the planet took maybe a day-2 or 3 tops. At the time of Trent it could take a week to go from Rome to Pisa. These types of comparisons to Trent are not the best comparisons.

 

[maurin]

pnewton,

I detest the sedevacantist position. But just because info came from a sede site does NOT NECESSITATE the dismissal of the info. For instance, “the fathers” claim Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. You just can’t argue with that.

So it might be more effective to address the substance of n’s posts rather than dismiss the sources.

At the end of the day the hope is that the sedes renounce their ridiculous opinion.

 

[numealinesimpet]

There are three separate issues here. Let’s look at them briefly.

1. The confirmation ceremony is highly irregular, but there is nothing to suggest that the sacrament was invalid. A priest can confirm if delegated by the ordinary of the diocese.
   …
   Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

No, JR, the validity as such is not necessarily the nub of the issue. A Sacrament can be valid and still harmful. A Black Mass is valid (because offered by a validly ordained priest, who is following the rubrics and intending to bring about what the Church intends – ie transubstantiation) – but it is the greatest abomination since the sin of Adam. If it were not valid, the devil would not bother to encourage it. And he does. Apart from Masses as such, there is a Street Price for Consecrated Hosts up and down Europe. I can’t speak for elsewhere.

I’ll grant that I have no idea why they did a confirmation en masse at a ball park.

I need no Pope, bishop or priest to tell me that the Baseball Confirmation was an abomination. I am not the Pope, so I cannot discipline the bishop. I am not the bishop, so I cannot either guess what were his intentions, or bring order to the diocese of Arizona. But as a married man with a family, I am under a grave obligation to protect my children from such as this.
No bishop is justified in forcing any Catholic dad into the position where he must set aside the injunction of his bishop in the interests of protecting his children from grave scandal. Yet this is now a commonplace situation in the Church today.
Therein lies the whole problem: what to do about it?

 

[maurin]

You missed the part of my post where I said the people face North. You can’t have the priest ad orientem if he’s actually facing north and not east. I think I am right on this - the priest and the people have to face east in the TLM? so, for us it isn’t just dressing up the altar.

True, many Traditional Chapels who take over or purchase a poorly planned Diocesan Church must completely renovate the interior.

Well, I will not limit the Holy Spirit, but, as I said in another post, I’m in a diocese with conservative priests already.

If you think being an altar server leads to being a priest, then you are mistaken. One does not have a call to be an altar server. Being a priest is indeed a vocation. Linking the two doesn’t make sense, unless you are using the opportunity for a gratuitous swipe at altar server girls. God calls men to be priests, correct? Does He only pick from the pool of men who were altar servers?

that’s not a very effective argument, Paul. For many men–not all men, but for many–serving at the Altar is the first taste and first step, the planting of the seed, so to speak, of a Vocation.

And, once again, we do not know the effect of rolling out the TLM to the general Church. We know the effect it has on people who seek it out. Those people are not the same. The TLM is not magic. You can’t turn the calendar back to 1960. You have to develop strategies that will work with today’s Catholics who are steeped in today’s Church and today’s culture.

But we do know the effect of rolling the NO out to the general Church. Sadly, we do.