It was precisely because Fr. Settimo (a conciliar refugee never conditionally ordained) was recently assigned to our former SSPX chapel, that we quietly made our departure in early August, and now attend the local SSPV chapel. The theoretical question then arises: "When Fr. Settimo is eventually transferred out of the chapel, and a certainly ordained priest replaces him, will you return?" Against this, I would observe the increasing numbers of conciliar priests circulating in various US SSPX venues (more than a dozen at last count), traveling among the various chapels, visiting, leaving hosts form their private masses in the various tabernacles, etc. I would have to say that this is a huge dissuasion.
It's a tremendously difficult situation. I hope that pieces like this can explain the concerns to those who don't share or understand them (yet). I think there are many who do not understand these points at all.
I am fairly new to Sedevacantism, having come over first from the Novus Ordo through the SSPX. My question is the Thuc line controversy. I have a CMRI mass that I have been attending once a month for the past several months. I have tried to educate myself as much as possible on the topic and am morally certain that the Thuc line, at least in the case of the CMRI, or Bishop Sandborn et al is legitimate, but I’d be lying if there wasn’t still a little doubt.
However, I suppose this doubt isn’t reasonable. So the question becomes, is following the safer course still required if our doubt is just minor or not reasonable?
Hello. What a mess is made when doubt becomes a motive. The Thuc line is as valid as any Novus Ordo Bishop. That said, God save the SSPX from the enmity of the Thuc line bishops.
It's a matter of prudence and charity. I've seen what happens to folks who go down this diminishing certainty/expanding doubt (professional sedevacantist) route. They become isolationist, suspicious, unreasonable and lose charity and feel it a 'legitimate' choice to refuse readily available sacraments. These are not good fruits. God is not a sneak to be used by sneaks. God has not taken away the ordinary means of salvation from the visible Catholic Church no matter how much folks who are sinking in doubt feel that that is the case. There are plenty of laymen who use the same texts to spin for and against. Fr Hesse was a canon lawyer and did not doubt the validity of the Novus Ordo rites of ordination. Ottaviani et al. did not consider them doubtful, but rather the Novus Ordo mass. I'm not advocating for using sacriligeous rites because of validiy, but to argue against validity erroneously helps no one. "The very erudite article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., published in The Angelus (December 2005 & January 2006), establishes that the form [of N.O. episcopable consecration] is in itself valid. ( https://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained-30479 ). Again another study of the issue ( https://onepeterfive.com/new-rite-consecration-valid ). If reasonable educated traditional Catholic priests reach a conclusion of validity, whom does the doubt business serve? The reason we have no St Francis de Sales these days is because the devil keeps good Catholics battling each other over the foolish impositions of dead prelates. Kyrie eleison.
Hello. The experts refer to the perennial magisterium regarding what constitutes valid matter and form and say it is valid, if deficient compared with the Roman Rites. My position is that it served no good for Montini and Sons to impose the novelties, but also it serves no good to use an erroneous set of conclusions to some how bypass the imposition. The sacraments are valid in and of themselves. It is no 'safe path' to falsely declare, without authority or proof, thousands of priests laymen, especially when God has given Eucharistic miracles in the new rite.
Whether or not it was licit for Montini et al to impose the changes is a different question from, are they valid sacraments?
I refrain from the N.O. Mass because it is deficient and used to abuse, but it does not help to dismiss valid priests as invalid. Reality matters. The studies that go over the aspects of the matter and form of the holy orders conclude validity. Add to this the Eucharistic miracles in the Novus Ordo, which have passed muster. The testimony of exorcists on the effectiveness of the local bishop supplying faculties to command demons have also to be taken into account. No one can in good Catholic conscience hold that satan is casting out satan and has the power to sustain a Eucharistic miracle that has undergone rigorous investigation.
I attend an SSPV Chapel myself. I believe that the Thuc line is valid, BUT I also support the SSPV line. There are some questions that could effect validity that haven't been answered, and the Church will, eventually, answer them.
If in need, I would definitely go to a cleric ordained in the Thuc line.
"The arguments against validity cannot credibly be dismissed as groundless or foolish: they are serious arguments which are at least probable (in a technical sense)." Those Bishops who produced the 'Ottaviani Intervention' questioning the new rite of 'Mass', did not doubt the validity of the rite of ordination. Are we then to suppose that Ottaviani et al. were dumb or complicit? Neither.
My apologies. My point was validity. They were not stupid or complicit. The episcopal rite was valid and they knew it. They were zeroing in on the Mass as the problem.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. I can't tell whether you are agreeing or disagreeing the new rites of Orders are problematic, or whether your messages have typos etc?
That they are valid - the episcopal drawing on an old rite; what purpose would have Ottavinai et al had 'attacking' the new mass if the men celebrating it were laymen? The 'problematic' side of it is another issue related to a narrative of doubt.
That would be incorrect. Archbishop Lefebvre himself admitted that, prior to the 1988 episcopal consecrations he doubted the validity of the new rites of ordination and consecration. Well before that, in the 1970s, he would not allow Conciliar clerics to work with the SSPX. This was why Fr. Hesse (who was conditionally ordained before his death), didn't officially work with the SSPX: he refused to be conditionally ordained.
Gusrard de Lauriers, one of the principal theologians behind the Ottaviani Intervention held the new rites invalid.
Where is the proof Fr Hesse sought conditional ordination? When did Ottaviani and Bacci ever evince a doubt about the ordinations? Ottaviani approved the new rites. I used to hold to the invalidity theory because, scandalised by the Novus Ordo, I simply trusted the slant of the professional sedevacantists. Then I decided to read the arguments for validity and there was no contest. The whole of the invalidity 'strength' rests on the possibility of improper intention, in which case validity is to be presumed.
I remember for you and for all as a child in the late 70s.
It was precisely because Fr. Settimo (a conciliar refugee never conditionally ordained) was recently assigned to our former SSPX chapel, that we quietly made our departure in early August, and now attend the local SSPV chapel. The theoretical question then arises: "When Fr. Settimo is eventually transferred out of the chapel, and a certainly ordained priest replaces him, will you return?" Against this, I would observe the increasing numbers of conciliar priests circulating in various US SSPX venues (more than a dozen at last count), traveling among the various chapels, visiting, leaving hosts form their private masses in the various tabernacles, etc. I would have to say that this is a huge dissuasion.
It's a tremendously difficult situation. I hope that pieces like this can explain the concerns to those who don't share or understand them (yet). I think there are many who do not understand these points at all.
I am fairly new to Sedevacantism, having come over first from the Novus Ordo through the SSPX. My question is the Thuc line controversy. I have a CMRI mass that I have been attending once a month for the past several months. I have tried to educate myself as much as possible on the topic and am morally certain that the Thuc line, at least in the case of the CMRI, or Bishop Sandborn et al is legitimate, but I’d be lying if there wasn’t still a little doubt.
However, I suppose this doubt isn’t reasonable. So the question becomes, is following the safer course still required if our doubt is just minor or not reasonable?
Hello. What a mess is made when doubt becomes a motive. The Thuc line is as valid as any Novus Ordo Bishop. That said, God save the SSPX from the enmity of the Thuc line bishops.
Thanks Jesse. See the text from McHugh and Callan above about groundless fears etc.
It's a matter of prudence and charity. I've seen what happens to folks who go down this diminishing certainty/expanding doubt (professional sedevacantist) route. They become isolationist, suspicious, unreasonable and lose charity and feel it a 'legitimate' choice to refuse readily available sacraments. These are not good fruits. God is not a sneak to be used by sneaks. God has not taken away the ordinary means of salvation from the visible Catholic Church no matter how much folks who are sinking in doubt feel that that is the case. There are plenty of laymen who use the same texts to spin for and against. Fr Hesse was a canon lawyer and did not doubt the validity of the Novus Ordo rites of ordination. Ottaviani et al. did not consider them doubtful, but rather the Novus Ordo mass. I'm not advocating for using sacriligeous rites because of validiy, but to argue against validity erroneously helps no one. "The very erudite article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., published in The Angelus (December 2005 & January 2006), establishes that the form [of N.O. episcopable consecration] is in itself valid. ( https://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained-30479 ). Again another study of the issue ( https://onepeterfive.com/new-rite-consecration-valid ). If reasonable educated traditional Catholic priests reach a conclusion of validity, whom does the doubt business serve? The reason we have no St Francis de Sales these days is because the devil keeps good Catholics battling each other over the foolish impositions of dead prelates. Kyrie eleison.
Hello. The experts refer to the perennial magisterium regarding what constitutes valid matter and form and say it is valid, if deficient compared with the Roman Rites. My position is that it served no good for Montini and Sons to impose the novelties, but also it serves no good to use an erroneous set of conclusions to some how bypass the imposition. The sacraments are valid in and of themselves. It is no 'safe path' to falsely declare, without authority or proof, thousands of priests laymen, especially when God has given Eucharistic miracles in the new rite.
Whether or not it was licit for Montini et al to impose the changes is a different question from, are they valid sacraments?
I refrain from the N.O. Mass because it is deficient and used to abuse, but it does not help to dismiss valid priests as invalid. Reality matters. The studies that go over the aspects of the matter and form of the holy orders conclude validity. Add to this the Eucharistic miracles in the Novus Ordo, which have passed muster. The testimony of exorcists on the effectiveness of the local bishop supplying faculties to command demons have also to be taken into account. No one can in good Catholic conscience hold that satan is casting out satan and has the power to sustain a Eucharistic miracle that has undergone rigorous investigation.
I attend an SSPV Chapel myself. I believe that the Thuc line is valid, BUT I also support the SSPV line. There are some questions that could effect validity that haven't been answered, and the Church will, eventually, answer them.
If in need, I would definitely go to a cleric ordained in the Thuc line.
The Thuc line was not even slightly in mind when writing this piece. It was about Novus Ordo clerics, and that's it.
Yes, because Archbishop Thuc used a Catholic rite that was unquestionably valid in itself.
"The arguments against validity cannot credibly be dismissed as groundless or foolish: they are serious arguments which are at least probable (in a technical sense)." Those Bishops who produced the 'Ottaviani Intervention' questioning the new rite of 'Mass', did not doubt the validity of the rite of ordination. Are we then to suppose that Ottaviani et al. were dumb or complicit? Neither.
Sonia, why are the only options you're presenting either a) validity, or b) stupidity/complicity of Ottaviani et al?
People can just get things wrong, or overlook things. It happens all the time.
My point was that 'neither'.
Missed that. Apologies.
My apologies. My point was validity. They were not stupid or complicit. The episcopal rite was valid and they knew it. They were zeroing in on the Mass as the problem.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. I can't tell whether you are agreeing or disagreeing the new rites of Orders are problematic, or whether your messages have typos etc?
That they are valid - the episcopal drawing on an old rite; what purpose would have Ottavinai et al had 'attacking' the new mass if the men celebrating it were laymen? The 'problematic' side of it is another issue related to a narrative of doubt.
That would be incorrect. Archbishop Lefebvre himself admitted that, prior to the 1988 episcopal consecrations he doubted the validity of the new rites of ordination and consecration. Well before that, in the 1970s, he would not allow Conciliar clerics to work with the SSPX. This was why Fr. Hesse (who was conditionally ordained before his death), didn't officially work with the SSPX: he refused to be conditionally ordained.
Gusrard de Lauriers, one of the principal theologians behind the Ottaviani Intervention held the new rites invalid.
As our host points out, the situation is complex.
Where is the proof Fr Hesse sought conditional ordination? When did Ottaviani and Bacci ever evince a doubt about the ordinations? Ottaviani approved the new rites. I used to hold to the invalidity theory because, scandalised by the Novus Ordo, I simply trusted the slant of the professional sedevacantists. Then I decided to read the arguments for validity and there was no contest. The whole of the invalidity 'strength' rests on the possibility of improper intention, in which case validity is to be presumed.