Sedevacantists and Akita

[Baylee]

To "excommunicate" people for attending "Una Cum" masses is way beyond the powers of any priest or even bishop; especially non-residential bishops who have no ordinary jurisdiction. The Church has not made any official declaration on the status of the Conciliar Popes, either for or against; even on the "intrinsic" validity of the new sacramental rites; so the views of trads on this subject, remain on the level of "opinions"; and have no juridic effect on the Catholic faithful.
So one can regard such "excos" as totally worthless.

And no one here said differently.  But some folks refuse to even discuss or consider that the opinion that the NO rites are doubtful could be......CORRECT! It's the equivalent of sticking one's fingers in their ears and saying "lalalalalalala!"

You've been here longer than me:  has anyone really tried to discuss the conclusions of many sede AND non-sede clergy regarding the New Rites?  Or has it always been pushed aside because it might get people upset?

[queen.saints]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Warmbier

And just a reminder that feeding tubes are such ordinary means these days that even the North Korean Prison system provides them to prisoners when necessary. It was only when he was returned to America that Otto Warmbier was promptly killed by his own parents.

But are feeding tubes Ordinary or Extraordinary treatment according to the Church?  This is the crux of the matter not whether the secular world thinks and acts as if they are.

Rather than continue to disrupt the thread, maybe a new thread is needed which addresses this question.

This is actually not even the crux of the matter, which is pointed out in the response to Fr. Cekada by Fr. Jenkins.

As Fr. Cekadas own sources state, even in cases of extraordinary means, the question of whether or not they were properly prepared for death before falling ill is the most important question, followed by the wishes of the sick individual who is the only one with a right in the matter (not their spouse or any other person), and after that, there are also the questions of possible scandal, the question of what a normal, "conscientious" man would decide under the circumstances (not an adulterer who publicly admitted to previously trying to kill her by infection before he found out that was illegal) etc. which all have a part to play in the morality.

And the fact that in this particular case normal oral feeding was classified as experimental therapy and forbidden by the court is clearly amoral.

And, yes, what the developed (and even undeveloped) world considers ordinary means absolutely plays a part in deciding what can reasonably constitute a "grave burden".

[Miriam_M]

I really agree with Awkward that there are two fundamentally competing discussions going on here.  It would be helpful if a poster or a mod would separate them, please, so that those interested in only one of the two discussions, OR both, could continue.

[Michael Wilson]

And no one here said differently.  But some folks refuse to even discuss or consider that the opinion that the NO rites are doubtful could be......CORRECT! It's the equivalent of sticking one's fingers in their ears and saying "lalalalalalala!"

You've been here longer than me:  has anyone really tried to discuss the conclusions of many sede AND non-sede clergy regarding the New Rites?  Or has it always been pushed aside because it might get people upset?

We have discussed it in the past; and the issue of the validity of the N.O. Was once "the" issue among trads; but now the field of battle has shifted more towards the validity of the Conciliar Popes; especially since the issue of "authority"is more far reaching and affects the validity issue i.e. What is the degree that Catholics are bound to submit to the Council; the N.O.M.; the New Code of Canon Law; and the magisterial decrees of the Conciliar Church. Why is this? Because if the Conciliar Popes are true Popes, then Vatican II is a true Council; the Conciliar decrees must be accepted by the faithful; the reformed sacramental rites are legitimate, valid and work for the edification and salvation of souls; same for the New Code of Canon Law; the Ecumenical directory; Balamaand and Abu Dhabi declarations etc. etc. If these are not true Popes then the contrary is true.
That is were the R&R position is radically contradictory; to whit: The R&R's want to have their cake (Pope and hierarchy) and 'eat them too' i.e. Decide when and to what measure they will submit to said hierarchy (mostly not at all). 

[Baylee]

And no one here said differently.  But some folks refuse to even discuss or consider that the opinion that the NO rites are doubtful could be......CORRECT! It's the equivalent of sticking one's fingers in their ears and saying "lalalalalalala!"

You've been here longer than me:  has anyone really tried to discuss the conclusions of many sede AND non-sede clergy regarding the New Rites?  Or has it always been pushed aside because it might get people upset?

We have discussed it in the past; and the issue of the validity of the N.O. Was once "the" issue among trads; but now the field of battle has shifted more towards the validity of the Conciliar Popes; especially since the issue of "authority"is more far reaching and affects the validity issue i.e. What is the degree that Catholics are bound to submit to the Council; the N.O.M.; the New Code of Canon Law; and the magisterial decrees of the Conciliar Church. Why is this? Because if the Conciliar Popes are true Popes, then Vatican II is a true Council; the Conciliar decrees must be accepted by the faithful; the reformed sacramental rites are legitimate, valid and work for the edification and salvation of souls; same for the New Code of Canon Law; the Ecumenical directory; Balamaand and Abu Dhabi declarations etc. etc. If these are not true Popes then the contrary is true.
That is were the R&R position is radically contradictory; to whit: The R&R's want to have their cake (Pope and hierarchy) and 'eat them too' i.e. Decide when and to what measure they will submit to said hierarchy (mostly not at all).

Maybe the validity of the NO Mass was discussed because I've been trying to search for threads about the validity of the NO Rites of Ordination and Consecration and coming up pretty empty. Whenever I find one it never goes beyond one page. It seems as if that topic hits too close to home and people just don't want to "go there". 

[LausTibiChriste]

Can someone explain to me why the Anglican rites were declared null and void but the same reasoning for their abrogation doesn't apply to the new rites?

[awkward customer]

This is actually not even the crux of the matter, which is pointed out in the response to Fr. Cekada by Fr. Jenkins. .......

I've just started another thread in the General Catholic discussion subforum so that the dispute over the Schiavo case can be continued there.

[awkward customer]

Can someone explain to me why the Anglican rites were declared null and void but the same reasoning for their abrogation doesn't apply to the new rites?

This is an excellent question.

[Michael Wilson]

It goes back to the fact that if the Vatican II Popes are true Popes, then there is no grounds for doubting the validity of the sacramental rites that they published; in fact it would be heretical. If they are not whom they purport to be, then the question is legitimate even necessary.

[Michael Wilson]

Can someone explain to me why the Anglican rites were declared null and void but the same reasoning for their abrogation doesn't apply to the new rites?

Some traditionalist have done so, such as Fr. Barbara in his "Fortes in Fide" magazine during the 1970's on the application of the "Apostolicae Curae" criteria to the N.O.M. and of course Fr. Cekada in his critique of the New Rite of orders.

[LausTibiChriste]

Can someone explain to me why the Anglican rites were declared null and void but the same reasoning for their abrogation doesn't apply to the new rites?

Some traditionalist have done so, such as Fr. Barbara in his "Fortes in Fide" magazine during the 1970's on the application of the "Apostolicae Curae" criteria to the N.O.M. and of course Fr. Cekada in his critique of the New Rite of orders.

What did they say?

[Baylee]

LTC, Thank you for asking.

Here are Father's writings on the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration in full (his original and his follow up):

https://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

https://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf

He explains that the power to ordain was removed from the New Rite and then refers to AC here:

The removal of the power to ordain from the Anglican form for episcopal consecration was among the
reasons adduced by Leo XIII for declaring Anglican orders invalid, "because among the first duties of the episcopacy is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice."

He doesn't elaborate on AC, but one of the big issues with the form of the NREC is it's missing the power to ordain. I would read the document in full to better understand.

[Miriam_M]

This is actually not even the crux of the matter, which is pointed out in the response to Fr. Cekada by Fr. Jenkins. .......

I've just started another thread in the General Catholic discussion subforum so that the dispute over the Schiavo case can be continued there.

Thank you!

[Michael Wilson]

You can read all of Fr. Barbara's issues of "Fortes in Fide" (English) online here: http://www.the-pope.com/fif.html
The one I was referring to was the "Special edition on the Mass"
On Father Noel Barbara; he stated that if you look at the following paragraphw of Apostolicae Curae:

30. For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it necessary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between "the law of believing and the law of praying", under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.

All this can be applied to a T to the men who ordered, designed and promulgated the N.O.M. (As well as the documents of VII).
1. Consider the time and circumstances under which the reforms were undertaken.
2. The men who ordered them.
3. By whom it was publicly authorized.
4. The "animus" of the N.O. Against the Catholic Mass and the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice including the real presence.
5. "The abettors who associated themselves with members of heterodox sects.
6. "The ends that they had in view" i.e. A new "ecumenical" prayer service acceptable to Protestants.
7. "under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers." (Think of the prayers of Consecration narrated now in a "narrative" voice)
8. The deliberate removal of all the explicitly prayers that made the propitiatory end of the Holy Sacrifice evident, especially those of the Offertory.
In the next paragraph, Pope Leo stated: 

In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.

Fr. Goes into much more detail, but this is the gist of it.