Day of Reparation for Amazon Synod outrages

[Xavier]

Well, it was beautiful. We had the Mass of Reparation today, a sermon on the importance and obligation of all Christians, i.e. of all the Catholic Faithful, not only Monks, Nuns and Priests, to sacrifice and make reparation by Fr. John, and then the Litany of the Saints at the end, just as Fr. Pagliarani directed. A very wonderful evening of prayer, worship and sacrifice.

Please everyone who assisted at a chapel where reparation was made today do share your own experiences if you wish going forward. Also the errors in Rome were condemned.

I think the enemy will be much displeased that so many Masses of reparation were offered, so many litanies sung, so much fasting done and so many sacrifices made! Deo Gratias!

Naz, the issue goes beyond whether a layman can sometimes be granted jurisdiction by the Church, to whether the Roman Church Herself, as a particular Church, can be deprived of a valid episcopal lineage. Both valid orders and habitual jurisdiction together must exist in at least some persons for indefectibility and Apostolicity, no? Also, Fr. Cekada also claims on his website that +ABL in 1982, after hearing of a study showing the new rite was basically derived from eastern rites, considered it to be valid for that reason. Anyway, we will discuss the validity issues in more detail the sede-subforum if you will. God bless.

[Kreuzritter]

It is a Protestant idea to think that once you accept Jesus as your personal savior, you don't need confession in order to be saved. So stop equivocating.

Repentance and confession of sin are aspects of saving faith. Without these one has not "accepted Christ." Stop misrepresenting views you disagree with.

The Calvinistic no true Scotsman is irrelevant to salvation if justification is forensic by imputed righteousness. Of course, salvation through forensic justification is a nonsensical term given that salvation is theosis, not an analogue of the human legal system.

Prottyism's two major forms, invented by a rigorist Augustinian monk and a French lawyer, just go to show, in their doctrine of atonement and soteriology, how correct Nietzsche's observation was on ideologies being reflections of the vital condition of their ideologues.

[Kreuzritter]

"I am the God of Luther and Calvin. I sacrificed myself to myself to take the wrath I want to unleash on man for breaking my law. So now I will only unleash it on those I willed to reject my mercy."

[Nazianzen]

Anyway, we will discuss the validity issues in more detail the sede-subforum if you will. God bless.

No, we won't.  Somehow my point seems not to have been clear.  I'll make it again.

There are new rites of Holy Orders, episcopal consecration, etc.  How would we know if they suffice to produce valid sacraments?

I am not an expert in sacramental theology.  Neither are you.  Neither is Fr. Cekada, or Fr. Pierre Marie, nor anyone else of note in the traditionalist movement that I have seen.

Fr. Pierre Marie would be the best scholar of all the names one could think of, and he has retreated to his old position of doubting the new rites.

Now, I do not mention this in order to "prove" that there is doubt.  I mention it to illustrate that the question has not been resolved by Rome.  And Rome is the only source of absolute certitude in a case like this. 

There are new rites.  How would we know if they suffice to produce valid sacraments?

Those who say, well Rome has approved the new rites, so they must be valid, are begging the question at issue.  That is, they are assuming what is to be proved.  If Rome had approved them, the question would not arise.  But the question does arise.  That is why good Catholic scholars like Fr. Pierre Marie have addressed it.  He would not do so if Rome had approved the new rites, he would do what any Catholic would do, and say "Rome has spoken, the matter is ended."

If you DO insist that Rome has approved them so the matter is not an open question, then you must also approve the New Mass as a good and holy rite of the Catholic Church, because the same people gave us that as gave us the other new rites (i.e. Orders, Confirmation, etc.).  Is that your position?  If so, say so and everybody can move on.  I for one certainly don't want to argue any other matter with somebody who approves the New Mass.  If you approve of the New Mass, you're not a traditional Catholic and none of these other controversies concern you.  You have no dog in the fight.

So, the debate is not really over whether the New Rites have the required essential elements for validity.  The debate is over whether there is a real question at all.  Obviously those who approve the New Mass don't think there could be any question about the validity of any of the new-fangled V2 rites.  But among trads, the question is a live one, and there are views on all sides (invalid, doubtfully valid, certainly valid).  Now, what follows is my contention.  Please read it carefully:

Since this is the case (i.e. there is a question which needs answering), then IN PRACTICE no Catholic can avail himself of sacraments which depend for their validity on the new rites.  This is because if there's doubt, we are obliged to avoid.

Now, the general SSPX line on this is "we have looked into it and the rites suffice for validity."  So, "it's a real question, but we have looked into it and here's our answer."  In other words, we have only a private opinion, not an authoritative guarantee. 

I say, the same people who gave us the New Mass gave us the new rite of Holy Orders.  If we don't trust them on the New Mass, why on earth would we rely upon them in respect of other invented rites?

Please note, NOTHING you can say about the detail of the new rites affects this argument ONE IOTA.  You can paste in slabs of sacramental theology and examples of ancient rites until the cows come home; you can cite all manner of trad scholars with letters after their names; you can say that "even" Fr. Cekada agrees with you.  None of it affects the argument I have put, at all.  It merely ignores my argument.  My argument is not "this detail is wrong, therefore there's doubt."  My argument, I repeat, is that these are new rites and the only way you'd be completely sure they are valid is if Rome approved them (not that Rome has ever approved a new rite, in two thousand years, because Rome doesn't do novelty, she maintains tradition).

There are new rites.  How would we know if they suffice to produce valid sacraments?

Your possible answers: 

1.  "I have studied the theology, compared it with the new rites, and concluded that they are valid."

2.  "People that I trust have studied the theology, compared it with the new rites, and concluded that they are valid."

3.  "Rome has approved them, so they must be valid."

"1" is foolish beyond measure.  "2" is rash, but understandable.  If "3" is your answer, then explain how it does not also apply to the rectitude and lawfulness of the New Mass.

In the Immaculate,
Naz.

[Tales]

If you DO insist that Rome has approved them so the matter is not an open question, then you must also approve the New Mass as a good and holy rite of the Catholic Church, because the same people gave us that as gave us the other new rites (i.e. Orders, Confirmation, etc.).

This does not follow conclusively.

Your entire line of argumentation is built upon taking the sedevacante position as irrefutably correct.  But if there is reasonable doubt as to the novelty of a 50 year sedevacante (which indeed very well may be correct) then any argument extrapolated from it is also doubtful.

There is no known solution to the ongoing crisis which preserves all aspects of Catholicism.  This is why Trads of all stripes whom attempt to argue their position get so angry with one another because in the argument of their interlocutor they see being damaged what is a belief of Catholicism.  Really both are centered around the ability of the faithful to know what Catholicism is.  The sedes look at the R&R and say "if the Church can teach such error, then we have no idea what in the past might have been in error!" The R&R look at the sedes and say "If we can go indefinitely without a Pope and have no known way of obtaining a new Pope, then we have no idea what if any past Popes were pretenders as well!"  The fear underlying this all is that it was simply a matter of winners writing history and that there was never anything Divine behind it at all.  Hence the anger.

I take the position of not knowing and leaving it to Jesus to solve it for me.  He is the Good Shepherd, He calmed the storm, He raised Himself from the dead, He will fix this crisis in a way that none of us can fathom.

And if my priest is not objectively validly ordained and God has chosen to withhold His graces from me due to a technicality then my understanding of God as our omnipotent Father and God as love was incorrect.  If as many Trads believe God can save souls without water baptism then He can grace me even when I am attending an objectively false Mass from an objectively non-priest.

[Nazianzen]

If you DO insist that Rome has approved them so the matter is not an open question, then you must also approve the New Mass as a good and holy rite of the Catholic Church, because the same people gave us that as gave us the other new rites (i.e. Orders, Confirmation, etc.).

This does not follow conclusively.

Your entire line of argumentation is built upon taking the sedevacante position as irrefutably correct. 

No, it doesn't rely upon the sede vacante thesis at all.  Wow.

Again:

If you reject the New Mass, you lack trust in the persons, or the processes, by which it was approved. 

I don't trust the persons (i.e. I think they lacked authority); the non-sede doesn't trust the processes (i.e. he thinks they failed to employ their authority). 

Neither I, nor the non-sede trad, accepts the New Mass.

But those who argue that the new sacramental rites have to be valid are required to tell us if they also hold that the New Mass is good and lawful.  If they don't accept the New Mass as good and lawful, then why do they trust the same source when it comes to validity?  (They cannot answer this question, and they never try.  It's like they've never thought about their own views.)

In the Immaculate,
Naz.

[Tales]

If you reject the New Mass, you lack trust in the persons, or the processes, by which it was approved.

Or you think it spiritually damaging for yourself specifically (and perhaps for most all people).

Neither I, nor the non-sede trad, accepts the New Mass.

There are non-sede Trads who accept (whatever that term specifically means) the New Mass.  But I also see you defined such people out of Trad-dom and presumably by that, Catholicism.

[Nazianzen]

If you reject the New Mass, you lack trust in the persons, or the processes, by which it was approved.

Or you think it spiritually damaging for yourself specifically (and perhaps for most all people).

That's right.  You don't trust the source of the New Mass to give you only good things.  It's given you a bad thing.

Neither I, nor the non-sede trad, accepts the New Mass.

There are non-sede Trads who accept (whatever that term specifically means) the New Mass.  But I also see you defined such people out of Trad-dom and presumably by that, Catholicism.

No, I don't suggest that they are not Catholics.  I only say that they are not traditional Catholics, meaning those people who won't go to the New Mass.  If you accept the New Mass rather than reject it, you can certainly still be a Catholic, but you're not one of that group that was pushed out of the parishes in the 'seventies, or those who joined them subsequently.

As I explained earlier, if Paul VI had not made that schism, there'd be no traditional Catholics today.  This may seem counter-intuitive, but just think about the possibilities.

1.  Paul VI introduces the New Mass as optional extra.  Nearly everybody sticks with tradition, and we talk about the minority "new Catholics" that went with the nylon and spandex mass...  (Consequently, no "traditional" in front of "Catholics" because it remains the norm.)

2.  Paul VI introduces the New Mass as a compulsory change, refusing permission to priests to offer the old Mass, and thereby depriving the faithful of it as well, which drives the faithful out of their parishes to rented halls and private homes, where "naughty" priests continue to offer the true Mass.

Of course, the second possibility is what actually happened, and only a very tiny minority were so attached to the true Mass to make the huge sacrifices involved in holding fast to it.  Now, if you yourself accept the New Mass, you're not a successor of those people, you're something else.  I'm not criticising you.  I'm just stating the plain fact.  You're not a traditional Catholic, you're a Catholic who has some level of affection for Tradition.

In the Immaculate,
Naz.

[diaduit]

Anyhoo

We had our sung mass yesterday and a beautiful sung Litany of the Saints. 

[Tales]

That's right.  You don't trust the source of the New Mass to give you only good things.  It's given you a bad thing.

Not every spirituality of the Church is appropriate for all.  Think of the many religious orders, and to a lesser extent the diversity of rites.

But ignoring that and returning to your assertion, somewhere along the line between hypothetical Real Church and Pretender Church there are moments in which the Real Church gave us the bad things that birthed the Pretender Church.  Those (bad) cardinals and bishops did not get dropped in from outerspace.  They were born in the Church and its bad seminaries with bad theology being taught.  The Real Church ordained them and raised them.  Any member of the faithful under the notorious motley crew of bad priestly theologians of the early 1900s could not count on the Real Church to not give the spiritual poison of these heretics.

And maybe I'd even say Pius XII's change to Holy Week was a bad thing.

As for the remainder, you like to think in dichotomies.  What about 3) Pope Paul VI introduces a seemingly mandatory new (disastrous) rite which was eagerly picked up by (bad) bishops & priests (whom had been formed in bad seminaries of the Real Church under the sede theory) but decades later a new Pope confirms it was always optional, despite appearances.

[Traditionallyruralmom]

Anyhoo

We had our sung mass yesterday and a beautiful sung Litany of the Saints.

us too 

[Xavier]

My argument, I repeat, is that these are new rites and the only way you'd be completely sure they are valid is if Rome approved them

Disagree. The new rite is basically like the Eastern Catholic Coptic rite. No one denies the Eastern Catholic Coptic rite is valid, even though it shouldn't be used by us in our Roman rite, which is why trad Bishops don't use it. And so, the new rite is valid, as proven in the comparison table here: http://sspx.org/en/table-3-validity-new-episcopal-consecrations

I'm not going to keep arguing the point. +ABL said it was certainly valid in 1982, and that's good enough for me. If anyone trusts +ABL to be the Saint God raised up to help us deal with this crisis, as I do, it should be good enough for him or her. Cekada claims, "By 1982, however, once [Archbishop] Lefebvre undertaken another of his periodic bouts of negotiation with the Vatican, he changed his position, apparently under the impression that Paul VI form was used in the Eastern Rites, and therefore unquestionably valid."

Edit: Many of those who relate to us what was going on in the late 60s and early 70s in the Vatican after Rome had been infiltrated, including +ABL himself, Cardinal Journet etc, say that Bugnini could go in, make the Pope sign what he wanted, and also mislead others. So we have reason to suspect whether these things even freely and ultimately came from the Pope, rather, they came from Bugnini. There's also this, "When Bugnini faced opposition which was "not only massive but, one might say, close to unanimous" he would carry the day by declaring that "The Pope wills it!" From Paul VI himself Bouyer would learn that Bugnini pressed the pope to approve the removal of the cursing psalms by asserting a unanimous, but non-existent, recommendation from the Consilium." https://catholicherald.co.uk/magazine/the-strange-birth-of-the-novus-ordo/

There are many good reasons to keep up the necessary critiques of the new rites. But the thesis of invalidity, now after 50 years, has clearly been falsified. When a theory predicts false things, and the opposite happens, that's when you know that theory is false. It cannot happen that there are no valid Roman rite Bishops with habitual jurisdiction in the Roman Catholic Church, that is impossible. When one distinguishes validity and integrity, the difficulty disappears and the dichotomy of "it's either valid and then everything is good about it", or, "there's something deficient about it, and then it's surely invalid" is itself a totally invalid idea. These new rites were also framed with ecumenical considerations in mind.

All in all, the new rites are truncated rites which confer much less grace, that is what will happen when the "integrity" of the rite is vitiated. These things have been explained by theologians and it is clear. But the bare minimum requirements of validity must necessarily be present.

[Maximilian]

There is no known solution to the ongoing crisis which preserves all aspects of Catholicism. 

Yes, excellent point.

This is why Trads of all stripes whom attempt to argue their position get so angry with one another because in the argument of their interlocutor they see being damaged what is a belief of Catholicism. 

Yes, this is a good observation. We have 10 lbs of stuff that have to be shoved back into a 5 lb bag. Something must be tossed out. Each group chooses something different to scrap. Each group then points to the other guy and accuses him of tossing out some elements of what they believe to be the Catholic Faith. All groups are correct to a limited extent, which is why they can never reach agreement.

[Maximilian]

But the thesis of invalidity, now after 50 years, has clearly been falsified.

Just the opposite. It is re-confirmed every Sunday, when it fails to do what it is intended to do.

When a theory predicts false things, and the opposite happens, that's when you know that theory is false.

Correct. When a theory says that the New Mass validly confects the Holy Sacrifice, and every week thousands of times around the world it fails to do so, then we have proof that the theory is incorrect.

It cannot happen that there are no valid Roman rite Bishops with habitual jurisdiction in the Roman Catholic Church, that is impossible.

And yet the "impossible" continues to happen so often throughout the world, not just in this instance but in so many others. "For man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Man says "impossible," but God laughs at man's claims and makes it happen anyway.

[Xavier]

Correct. When a theory says that the New Mass validly confects the Holy Sacrifice, and every week thousands of times around the world it fails to do so, then we have proof that the theory is incorrect.

Bishop Williamson wrote some time ago in Eleison Comments: "I'm sure you ask yourselves 'What kind of world are my children going to have to grow up in? How are they going to keep the Faith?' Very good questions. By prayer and Charity and by frequenting the sacraments, so long as they are still available, so long as it's at all still possible to reach the sacraments. And some Novus - I've got into quite a lot of controversy for saying this, but it's true - there is no question that some Novus Ordo Masses are valid. And if they're valid, then it's defined by the Council of Trent that grace passes, "ex opere operato" is the strict phrase. And you and I have no right before God to look down our noses and to write off these Catholics as though they're just trash."

If "there is no question that some Novus Ordo Masses are valid", then for that same reason (only a valid Priest can offer a valid Mass), the new rite of ordination cannot be per se invalid either. And that's excluding even the absurdity of 50-years-of-invalid-bishops thing.

And yet the "impossible" continues to happen so often throughout the world, not just in this instance but in so many others. "For man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Man says "impossible," but God laughs at man's claims and makes it happen anyway.

True, God laughs at man's claims that His Church has defected, and that there are no valid Roman rite residential Bishops remaining in His Church. Bp. Williamson also mentioned another point against such an absurd theory,"There have been eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass. They are still occurring." So, Eucharistic miracles that have continued to happen in recent times are another point of evidence that not all NOM's are always invalid. There's a book by Fr. Mueller written over a 100 years ago called "Blessed Eucharist: Our Greatest Treasure" where Father explains that such miracles can be correctly used as demonstrations of the supernatural Truth of the Catholic Faith in the Real Presence, against both Protestants and naturalists. St. Thomas says God alone can be the efficient cause of Transubstantiation, and it is only ultimately by His Power that it can happen. Granted therefore even one such incident where transubstantiation happens visibly, God Himself bears witness, by a miracle that could come only from Him, that claims of per se invalidity are just not true. So, yes "Man says "impossible," [that the new rites could be valid in any case whatsoever] but God laughs at man's claims and makes it [ordination/consecration and or transubstantiation] happen anyway".