Discussion about this post

User's avatar
John Q Public's avatar

For me, the problem with Sedevacantism is that, if there have been six modernist and heretical popes in a row, that’s a good sign that Vatican I’s ideas about papal infallibility were all wrong. We should continue to hope that, someday, we will have a pope who’s not a heretic and properly exercises the charism of infallibility? It would be better to acknowledge Luther was right in his conviction that the papacy would sacrifice Christianity itself to maintain its power and prerogatives. Isn’t this what we’ve seen? Where is a saintly pope to tell me different?

Expand full comment
Sean Johnson's avatar

The seeming equivocation in Fr. Calderon’s article bothers me:

On the one hand, he finds the NREC only “very probably valid,” (which means he finds it slightly doubtful), yet concludes despite that, it may still be permissible to frequent the sacraments of a priest ordained by a bishop consecrated in this rite, in seeming violation of Church teaching regarding the reception of doubtful sacraments.

What?

Then having just explained such slightly doubtful sacraments may occasionally be received (what??), nevertheless, the doubts are an intolerable shadow cast upon the root of the sacraments, and therefore the rite must be reformed.

What?

Dear Father, if you’ve given permission to receive the sacraments from priests ordained by bishops consecrated in this rite, then why should the rite be in need of reformation?

As the authors of the article note, there is not only an inconsistency inherent in Fr. Calderon’s conclusions, but it also seems to be at odds with Church teaching regarding the need to take a tutiorist position regarding sacramental validity.

To say that the rite is doubtful, but go ahead and use it is conflicted at best.

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts