6 Comments

Of course, now days, the SSPX takes a different posture, holding out the example of Archbishop Lefebvre having admitted Fr. Starks, who was never conditionally ordained (as though the exception has now become the rule).

Expand full comment

"For regardless of the technical question of the validity of a priest’s holy orders..." Validity is not really the issue. It is being used as a 'conversation' to achieve a desired end - the riddence of the Novus Ordo imposition. We hope and pray. Sadly it has been a cause for sede clerics - Sanbornists etc. - and their home alone lay disciples calumniating real priests and bishops calling them 'Mr'. Pretty evil, but they probably don't care as they absolve sins, confect the Eucharist, administer last rites, etc. As to labels (denominations); 'Invalidists'... 'Validists' at least doesn't sound in need of an opinionist wheelchair.

Expand full comment

Putting some shorthand labels on opposing schools of thought is not cresting denominations. Consider the debates of grace and free-will, the terms "Molinist" and "Banezian", or "Thomist" are considered perfectly acceptable.

Expand full comment

It was a joke

Expand full comment

Apologies!

Expand full comment

'Invalidist'. Guess I have a strange sense of humour.

Expand full comment