I tend to read controversial theology articles as an analyst, thinking to myself as I read this particular article, “How would an antisedevacantist reply to this or that argument.” I appreciated that as I progressed through the article, those hypothetical objections were already anticipated and engaged, rather than leaving the reader wondering, “I wonder how he would have addressed the ex adiunctis argument, etc.”. As that tends to be your habitual style, I’m not surprised that you are so infrequently challenged. In fact, the only challenge I can recall is the recent one by Matt Gaspers mostly unsuccessful rebuttal (ie., his only argument which was not already pre-empted or addressed was the quote from Billuart) to Mr. McCusker’s argument from public heresy.
I’m hoping that some day, you guys will compile these articles in book form for sale. This quality and caliber of writing on the subject matter is today unique to you, at least in the English-speaking world. I’d be the first to but it.
My thoughts always revert to the implications such articles as these bring out. Like why would one refuse to implement a simple solution being offered to resolve the problem being discussed and at least on their part be part of the remedy by availing of the means presented to do so?
The answer may well be found in the personal trauma such an admittance of the possible invalidity of one's own Orders might cause. But one would not be declaring that their ordination was actually invalid, rather only possibly invalid.
The good that would arise from such an act of conditional consecration would be enormous not just for the priest but also for numerous laity who would have at least one more priest from whom they could receive the sacraments without scruple. Think of the ensuing benefits if every priest ordained in the new rite we're to receive conditional ordination. Not only would traditional following Catholics benefit but also numerous Novus Ordo Catholics even if unknown by them.
People are terrified of feeling like they were wrong or did something wrong. We all need to get over ourselves. It's a bit like pride, but it's more pathetic than pride, really.
Yes I've read the whole article and it's thoroughness is refreshing. Presenting the best of the arguments against the need for conditional ordination is so effective in permitting the reader to see both positions side by side and reach a well informed conclusion. The conclusion IMHO is undeniably clear to any unbiased reader. It won't solve all that's wrong with post-conciliarism but this one act of redress will certainly be movement in the right direction.
Here is another devastating quote from M.D. In his book "T.O.O.M."
pg. XX:
The new rite for ordaining a priest does indeed include the matter and form specified by Pope Pius XII but this is not the case in the new rite of episcopal ordination. The form specified by Pope Pius XII has been discarded and a new one introduced. In the official Liturgical Newsletter for November 1977, the American Bishops note with satisfaction that this new form corresponds with that in the proposed new Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopalian Church. A coincidence?
The total revision of both rites leaves one in the same position of Catholics in England in face of the clergy ordained with the revised rites of Thomas Cramner; as the Catholic bishops of England stated so clearly and forcefully in their "Vindication of Apostolicae Curae" where they warned against the omitting or reforming of the traditional rites: ibid. pg. 44.
“Their (the Catholic Bishops) judgement on such omissions is unanimous-that what is not affirmed is considered to be denied. This was a key pint in the Vindication of the Bull Apostolicase Curae published by the Catholic Bishops of the Province of Westminster in 1898. They warned against omitting or reforming: ‘anything in those forms which immemorial Tradition has bequeathed to us. For such an immemorial usage, whether or not it has in the course of ages incorporated superfluous accretions, must, in the estimation of those who believe in a divinely guarded, visible Church, at least have retained whatever is necessary: so that in adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential. And this sound method is that which the Catholic Church has always followed...
Excellent, as always.
Yes, very well done article. Thank you for the thoughtful discourse.
Oooooh, this is the good stuff.
Thank you Monsieur Picante. I have been enjoying your recent streams too.
I tend to read controversial theology articles as an analyst, thinking to myself as I read this particular article, “How would an antisedevacantist reply to this or that argument.” I appreciated that as I progressed through the article, those hypothetical objections were already anticipated and engaged, rather than leaving the reader wondering, “I wonder how he would have addressed the ex adiunctis argument, etc.”. As that tends to be your habitual style, I’m not surprised that you are so infrequently challenged. In fact, the only challenge I can recall is the recent one by Matt Gaspers mostly unsuccessful rebuttal (ie., his only argument which was not already pre-empted or addressed was the quote from Billuart) to Mr. McCusker’s argument from public heresy.
I’m hoping that some day, you guys will compile these articles in book form for sale. This quality and caliber of writing on the subject matter is today unique to you, at least in the English-speaking world. I’d be the first to but it.
Keep up the outstanding work!
PS: Sorry for the typos; I’m “thumbing it” on my phone (grrr).
Thank you very much Sean!
We will get around to Billuart one day, promise. Although some of the commentary in the recent Bellarmine articles may do address it indirectly.
I second those thoughts, Sean. I’ll be right there with you to buy that compilation.
Thank you—noted!
My thoughts always revert to the implications such articles as these bring out. Like why would one refuse to implement a simple solution being offered to resolve the problem being discussed and at least on their part be part of the remedy by availing of the means presented to do so?
The answer may well be found in the personal trauma such an admittance of the possible invalidity of one's own Orders might cause. But one would not be declaring that their ordination was actually invalid, rather only possibly invalid.
The good that would arise from such an act of conditional consecration would be enormous not just for the priest but also for numerous laity who would have at least one more priest from whom they could receive the sacraments without scruple. Think of the ensuing benefits if every priest ordained in the new rite we're to receive conditional ordination. Not only would traditional following Catholics benefit but also numerous Novus Ordo Catholics even if unknown by them.
Absolutely. Well-put.
People are terrified of feeling like they were wrong or did something wrong. We all need to get over ourselves. It's a bit like pride, but it's more pathetic than pride, really.
I suppose you've seen the index?
https://www.wmreview.org/p/valid-sacraments
Yes I've read the whole article and it's thoroughness is refreshing. Presenting the best of the arguments against the need for conditional ordination is so effective in permitting the reader to see both positions side by side and reach a well informed conclusion. The conclusion IMHO is undeniably clear to any unbiased reader. It won't solve all that's wrong with post-conciliarism but this one act of redress will certainly be movement in the right direction.
Great Article!
Here is another devastating quote from M.D. In his book "T.O.O.M."
pg. XX:
The new rite for ordaining a priest does indeed include the matter and form specified by Pope Pius XII but this is not the case in the new rite of episcopal ordination. The form specified by Pope Pius XII has been discarded and a new one introduced. In the official Liturgical Newsletter for November 1977, the American Bishops note with satisfaction that this new form corresponds with that in the proposed new Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopalian Church. A coincidence?
The total revision of both rites leaves one in the same position of Catholics in England in face of the clergy ordained with the revised rites of Thomas Cramner; as the Catholic bishops of England stated so clearly and forcefully in their "Vindication of Apostolicae Curae" where they warned against the omitting or reforming of the traditional rites: ibid. pg. 44.
“Their (the Catholic Bishops) judgement on such omissions is unanimous-that what is not affirmed is considered to be denied. This was a key pint in the Vindication of the Bull Apostolicase Curae published by the Catholic Bishops of the Province of Westminster in 1898. They warned against omitting or reforming: ‘anything in those forms which immemorial Tradition has bequeathed to us. For such an immemorial usage, whether or not it has in the course of ages incorporated superfluous accretions, must, in the estimation of those who believe in a divinely guarded, visible Church, at least have retained whatever is necessary: so that in adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential. And this sound method is that which the Catholic Church has always followed...
Shame I missed that. Will add some of it in.