New Rite of Episcopal Consecration: Valid?

[Bonaventure]

It would appear that the SSPX since 2011-2012 accepts the entirety of the post conciliar magisterium, sacraments, etc.

Per the Society's own site:

https://fsspx.news/en/news/communique-general-house-society-saint-pius-x-june-14-2012-10713

Supposedly, this is the substance of the April 15, 2012 declaration:

Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble

Presented to Rome
15th April, 2012

Translated from the text on La Sapiniere.

I
We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.


II
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)


III

1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.

2. We recognise the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that "the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith."(3)

3. Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque as nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty(6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith(7).

4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(.

5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.

6. That is why it is legitimate to promote through legitimate discussion the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church(9).

7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.

8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.


Notes--
(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.

(2) Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.

(3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, Dz. 3070.

(4) Council of Trent, Dz. 1501: "All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand."

(5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denz. 4209-4210.

(6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3020: "Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore [...] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3]."

(7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.

( For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 21.

(9) There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the porrection of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of Order. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way.
www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012

I regret not speaking Cardinal Levada himself regarding this, before he passed. I would have had the connections to have that conversation.

I would also say considering their actions regarding Bishops Salvador Lazo and Vitus Huonder, the Society accepts the validity 

[Baylee]

It would appear that the SSPX since 2011-2012 accepts the entirety of the post conciliar magisterium, sacraments, etc.

Per the Society's own site:

https://fsspx.news/en/news/communique-general-house-society-saint-pius-x-june-14-2012-10713

Supposedly, this is the substance of the April 15, 2012 declaration:

Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble

Presented to Rome
15th April, 2012

Translated from the text on La Sapiniere.

I
We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.


II
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)


III

1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.

2. We recognise the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that "the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith."(3)

3. Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque as nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty(6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith(7).

4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(.

5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.

6. That is why it is legitimate to promote through legitimate discussion the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church(9).

7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.

8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.


Notes--
(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.

(2) Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.

(3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, Dz. 3070.

(4) Council of Trent, Dz. 1501: "All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand."

(5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denz. 4209-4210.

(6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3020: "Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore [...] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3]."

(7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.

( For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 21.

(9) There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the porrection of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of Order. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way.
www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012

I regret not speaking Cardinal Levada himself regarding this, before he passed. I would have had the connections to have that conversation.

I would also say considering their actions regarding Bishops Salvador Lazo and Vitus Huonder, the Society accepts the validity 

Yes, it is clear in #7. I think this may have been when it was made official, but they started questioning their earlier position against the validity after Ratzinger was elected pope in 2005 (as he was consecrated in the New Rite).  I think 2012 was when the Resistance broke away from the SSPX.

7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.

The bolded is what I was referring to earlier.

[Bonaventure]

They (SSPX) focus on intention despite it being the most difficult element of the sacrament to "muck up," and ironically in light of Cardinal Liénart.

My view of it was that it was used as a back door way to justify sub cond. ordinations and confirmations whilst officially accepting the prima facie validity.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

They (SSPX) focus on intention despite it being the most difficult element of the sacrament to "muck up,"

I don't see it this way.  How many priests are out there in Novus Ordo Land who "say the black and do the red" but inwardly believe that nothing supernatural is happening and they're just putting on a performance, a "Last Supper Memorial"?

[Baylee]

They (SSPX) focus on intention despite it being the most difficult element of the sacrament to "muck up,"

I don't see it this way.  How many priests are out there in Novus Ordo Land who "say the black and do the red" but inwardly believe that nothing supernatural is happening and they're just putting on a performance, a "Last Supper Memorial"?

But there is no way to determine what was happening "inwardly".

[Bonaventure]

They (SSPX) focus on intention despite it being the most difficult element of the sacrament to "muck up,"

I don't see it this way.  How many priests are out there in Novus Ordo Land who "say the black and do the red" but inwardly believe that nothing supernatural is happening and they're just putting on a performance, a "Last Supper Memorial"?

Lack of belief, heresy, even apostasy are not what "intention" means.

Intentions merely means to do what the Church does.

If your premise were true, Abp. Lefebvre would have been conditionally ordained and consecrated considering Cardinal Liénart's masonry.

[awkward customer]

7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.

But which Church, the Catholic Church or the Conciliar Church?  They're not the same and they believe different things about the Mass.

Does a Novus Ordo priest act 'in persona Christi' while he offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?  Or does he simply  'preside' while the People of God celebrate the Eucharist?

If a Novus Ordo priest has the intention to do what the Conciliar Church does, then he is not offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  While the interior intentions of the priest cannot be known, the intentions of the Mass he celebrates can surely be ascertained.   Just listen to what they say.

The SSPX should clarify their position.  They should specify which Church they mean, or people like me might think they are behaving like controlled opposition, with the aim of keeping as many Trads as possible from recognising what is really going on, which is the destruction of the Catholic Church and hierarchy through invalid Sacraments, as well as false teachings  A couple of generations of fake Bishops 'consecrated' in the NO rite would eliminate the Catholic Priesthood entirely were it not for the Trads.

It's just a pity that so many Catholics have only been receiving bread for all these decades, although the disappearance of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from the (official) Altars of the Church might help explain the depths of the current mess we are in.

[Baylee]

7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.

But which Church, the Catholic Church or the Conciliar Church?  They're not the same and they believe different things about the Mass.

Does a Novus Ordo priest act 'in persona Christi' while he offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?  Or does he simply  'preside' while the People of God celebrate the Eucharist?

If a Novus Ordo priest has the intention to do what the Conciliar Church does, then he is not offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  While the interior intentions of the priest cannot be known, the intentions of the Mass he celebrates can surely be ascertained.   Just listen to what they say.

The SSPX should clarify their position.  They should specify which Church they mean, or people like me might think they are behaving like controlled opposition, with the aim of keeping as many Trads as possible from recognising what is really going on, which is the destruction of the Catholic Church and hierarchy through invalid Sacraments, as well as false teachings  A couple of generations of fake Bishops 'consecrated' in the NO rite would eliminate the Catholic Priesthood entirely were it not for the Trads.

It's just a pity that so many Catholics have only been receiving bread for all these decades, although the disappearance of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from the (official) Altars of the Church might help explain the depths of the current mess we are in.

This is why the FORM of the sacraments are critical.  If the minister uses a CATHOLIC RITE (ie. form and matter), then we can know that he intended to do what the Church does.  Think of baptism.  Anyone (Heretic, Jew, Atheist) can baptize so long as they use the proper form and matter. By doing so, they have intended to do what the Church does.

But are the Novus Ordo sacraments CATHOLIC?  That is why we consider whether the form of the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid/Catholic. This one sacrament affects soooooo many others (valid ordinations, valid eucharist, valid absolutions, valid confirmations).  These Modernists were no fools.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

They (SSPX) focus on intention despite it being the most difficult element of the sacrament to "muck up,"

I don't see it this way.  How many priests are out there in Novus Ordo Land who "say the black and do the red" but inwardly believe that nothing supernatural is happening and they're just putting on a performance, a "Last Supper Memorial"?

Lack of belief, heresy, even apostasy are not what "intention" means.

Intentions merely means to do what the Church does.

If your premise were true, Abp. Lefebvre would have been conditionally ordained and consecrated considering Cardinal Liénart's masonry.

The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm

[LausTibiChriste]

They (SSPX) focus on intention despite it being the most difficult element of the sacrament to "muck up,"

I don't see it this way.  How many priests are out there in Novus Ordo Land who "say the black and do the red" but inwardly believe that nothing supernatural is happening and they're just putting on a performance, a "Last Supper Memorial"?

Lack of belief, heresy, even apostasy are not what "intention" means.

Intentions merely means to do what the Church does.

If your premise were true, Abp. Lefebvre would have been conditionally ordained and consecrated considering Cardinal Liénart's masonry.

The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm

Anyone can copy and paste quotes from a variety of sources...you're wasting gigabytes without expanding further...this is a forum not a secondary version of C.E.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Anyone can copy and paste quotes from a variety of sources...you're wasting gigabytes without expanding further...this is a forum not a secondary version of C.E.

The quote doesn't need my commentary because it says the exact opposite of the opinion expressed by Bonaventure.

I am not a theologian, and very often, the best I can do is to point people to those who are.

[LausTibiChriste]

Anyone can copy and paste quotes from a variety of sources...you're wasting gigabytes without expanding further...this is a forum not a secondary version of C.E.

The quote doesn't need my commentary because it says the exact opposite of the opinion expressed by Bonaventure.

I am not a theologian, and very often, the best I can do is to point people to those who are.

If quoting sources accomplished anything, Trads would have been united years ago

[awkward customer]

The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm

I read the article this comes from and sure enough, it is saying that for the validity of the Sacraments,  "the common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required."

Why is New Advent saying this when all I have ever heard is that internal intention does not affect the Sacrament as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does?

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Why is New Advent saying this when all I have ever heard is that internal intention does not affect the Sacrament as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does?

Your guess is as good as mine.

[LausTibiChriste]

Why is New Advent saying this when all I have ever heard is that internal intention does not affect the Sacrament as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Then find another reference to copy and paste?