Independent seminarians

[neel]

Would a discussion of sedeprivationisism violate the rules of fisheaters?

[HMiS]

But one wonders how good this training in philosophy and theology is. Does Bp. Clayton have any real theological formation? Not to be offensive or anything, but I almost attended Bp. Taylors chapel a few months ago as I was away from home. I drove by it first to check it out. Turns out it was a house turned into a chapel. I got a weird vibe and decided not to attend. You must be careful entrusting your vocation and religious formation to men who's own education is suspect.

If you have not attended and merely judge on "vibes and feelings", I think you cannot judge the theological formation of Bp. Clayton. He may turn out to be a MA in theology or a PhD, or a former university professor. You do not know.



Dear sprayci,

I can feel for you, as from an Indult position in the latter years I have gone to a position of the SSPX, without excluding however e.g. sedeprivationism. I also think that things cannot be sorted out right now, but that we at least have to resist. The problem is indeed that most sedevacantists and even sedeprivationists think theirs is the only true and legitimate explanation of the current crisis and as if they can morally bind other faithful Roman Catholics worried and confused by the crisis, with their own explanations or quotations (often selective) of e.g. Paul VI's, John XXIII's, JP II's and Benedict XVI's theological and ecclesiastical works and writings.

So I quite share your general opinion.

Also I never intended to bash Bp. Clayton, but I only appointed out external similarities of his personal history with the history of Old Catholic (Ultrajectine), Old Roman Catholic (Matthew anti-Papal), or schismatic Orthodox Byzantine sects' bishops in the USA and Europe.

Also I think that generally his position maybe legitimized.

But because of the general clear situation of the SSPX and its pastoral care, I agree with them.

I have also studied the reformed (Latin Church, post-1968) rites for holy orders, which were drastically changed, but I cannot state for sure that they are invalid, I presume the best therefore. Also, I have seen the sede lay activists "against" the validity (Rore Sanctifica.org, the Rore Sanctifica Commission of many sedevacantist ex-SSPX-affiliated clergy and elderly parish clergy of sede tendency) use arguments which were not theological or unprofessional, unsound, or ridiculous, including the claim that "Spiritus principalis" (search this forum for the word) can nót designate the Holy Ghost, which is nonsense. I also know the works of a famous traditional"ist" Dominican professor JPM van der Ploeg O.P., who has written on these subjects.

I think declaring the new rite for priestly ordination invalid or doubting it, is untenable, as the matter and even the form were not changed drastically (in fact the Latin forms and consecratory prayers are identical with the Leonine Sacramentary's, which also lacks the controversial "ut"), unlike with the New Rite's episcopal consecration (which was heavily tampered with).

I will not assume or live by other people's mere personal opinions, but only by the teaching of the Church. I trust that Our Lord will pardon me, should I err in this situation in these subjects and aspects of the crisis situation prevailing nowadays.

In future things will become clear to the universal Roman Catholic Church now virtually in diaspora.

But in the meantime, I will just follow my well formed Roman Catholic conscience, and fullfil my duties in the best way as possible.

In this aspect, I continue to doubt the opportunitivity and liceity of taking recourse to yet other "independent" traditional Roman Catholic bishops ordained from (at least materially) schismatic lines.

But I understand that in this situation of the Most Holy, Apostolic See of Rome, the subversion of the hierarchy, and the subversion of the sanctification of the souls of at least the Latin Rites (but also the Easterners') of the universal Catholic Church, only one law counts most: Salus animarum suprema lex. The salvation of souls is the highest law.

But I personally am weary of any material association with non-Catholics like the Old Catholic sects' apostolic successions, or the schismatic followers of the very leftist ex-Roman Catholic auxiliary bishop Carlos Duarte Costa (whose ordinations are of course valid, including those of his successors, who are mostly ex-Roman Catholic former parish priests or chaplains who joined his anti-Papal sect for "Social justice" in the 1940s and 1950s). I count on Archbishop Lefebvre, future saint of the Roman Catholic Church and a true missionary bishop and theologian, and his followers more, to be honest.

We will have to see what will come. You have my prayers indeed.

[spraycj]

Dear sprayci,

I can feel for you, as from an Indult position in the latter years I have gone to a position of the SSPX, without excluding however e.g. sedeprivationism. I also think that things cannot be sorted out right now, but that we at least have to resist. The problem is indeed that most sedevacantists and even sedeprivationists think theirs is the only true and legitimate explanation of the current crisis and as if they can morally bind other faithful Roman Catholics worried and confused by the crisis, with their own explanations or quotations (often selective) of e.g. Paul VI's, John XXIII's, JP II's and Benedict XVI's theological and ecclesiastical works and writings.

So I quite share your general opinion.

I think it's unfortunate that there are those clergy who anathematize those who don't share their opinions on how to handle the current crisis.  It does nothing but lead to confusion and dismay on the part of the laity.

 

I will not assume or live by other people's mere personal opinions, but only by the teaching of the Church. I trust that Our Lord will pardon me, should I err in this situation in these subjects and aspects of the crisis situation prevailing nowadays.

I think this is what we all hope for, and thankfully our Good Lord is merciful, and I highly doubt He will damn any of us for doing what we think in good conscience is correct, given the current circumstances in the Church.

In future things will become clear to the universal Roman Catholic Church now virtually in diaspora.

Let us hope and pray that this diaspora ends soon!


As always, I enjoy reading your level headed and cautious approach, and look forward to speaking with you further. 

There is, after all, more that unites us as Traditionalists, than separates us.

We will have to see what will come. You have my prayers indeed.

Thank you, you have mine as well.

[HMiS]

Let us hope and pray that this diaspora ends soon!


As always, I enjoy reading your level headed and cautious approach, and look forward to speaking with you further. 

There is, after all, more that unites us as Traditionalists, than separates us.

That is very true. Of course. Although I do not use the word "traditionalist" to designate my own faith convictions. I am Roman Catholic simply, or a traditional Roman Catholic. The "-ist" addition is a term incorporated by traditional Catholics who had taken over this term from the modernistic or non-Catholic journalists and theologians who tried to label us as somehow non-faithful Catholics, who somehow exalt Tradition too much or do "not really understand" what they call "living Tradition" (the word "living" is often not the legitimate development, the flowering of dogma, but in the modernists' eyes the change of the content of dogma due to external changing environments).

As for bishop Clayton, I continue to ask myself: how can he speak about "incardinating" someone, as he does not have ordinary jurisdiction and cannot claim it either. And at bp. Taylor's own website, I have sadly seen photos of  his, with ordained subdeacons in mere rochette and cassock, with a maniple, but without a proper tunic, without proper ritual, the bishop himself wearing not the prescribed liturgical vestments even.

I remain very critical and ask myself questions concerning the capability and theological foundation of these bishops (episcopi vagantes).

This critical attitude also pertains to the moral liceity of a traditional Roman Catholic seminarian c.q. male effectively associating with such bishops.

[spraycj]

This critical attitude also pertains to the moral liceity of a traditional Roman Catholic seminarian c.q. male effectively associating with such bishops.

I must admit that this thread prompted me to do a great amount of prayer and thinking, and I wanted to state publicly that I am no longer associated with these bishops.

I wish them all the best, however after prayerful consideration, and speaking with other traditional priests, I am going to study for the priesthood with a more regular and accepted traditionalist group.

[MagisterMusicae]

I must admit that this thread prompted me to do a great amount of prayer and thinking, and I wanted to state publicly that I am no longer associated with these bishops.

I wish them all the best, however after prayerful consideration, and speaking with other traditional priests, I am going to study for the priesthood with a more regular and accepted traditionalist group.

I cannot in good conscience join the SSPX, because I privately hold to the sedeprivationist point of view. I also have serious concerns about the New Rite of Ordination, not to mention the New Rite of Confirmation as well.

I, however, do not believe I that I have the right to judge the Holy See to be vacant, either formally or materially. This is simply a private opinion of mine, hence until some future Pontiff, on who we can ALL agree is most certainly a valid Pope, has ruled on the issue of the post-Conciliar Popes, I believe the reigning Pontiff should be mentioned in the una cum of the Canon.

This separates myself, and those others who believe as I, from those who express the sedeprivationist view. Those who hold publicly to this view, believe it to be a mortal sin to offer the una cum in the Canon.  

That is why I am not affiliated with the SSPX or the SSPV.

Given that you have decided to pursue a vocation to the priesthood through one of the more mainstream groups, I might add some details.

I know of more than a few priests of the SSPX who probably or certainly hold a similar view to the view expressed above.

These men have a personal opinion, but also understand that it is not their place to make their opinion out to be anything more than that (and hence do not publicly present it). I think you would find a number of SSPX priests who would express some degree of doubt about the new rites of ordination and confirmation, but defer to the general policy of the SSPX and await a future time when things can be certain.

While I would not agree with your personal opinion, fair arguments for your tempered opinion and fair arguments against could easily be made and for certainty we shall need to wait for a the decision of a proper authority on these questions to be certain of the extent to which each is correct.

I would encourage you to speak to the Rector of the SSPX seminary you might consider attending and discuss the particulars of your situation. You may find that it is a better fit than you think.

[orthodoxkatholikos]

I have been writing to schismatic bishop Mendez of Brazil-Venezuela to learn about the Costa Line. I also wrote to many other "bishops", usually I ask about the ceremonies used, the knowledge of such bishops and priests in Latin and rubrics, etc. to get a feel of their rites.

I find more than often the Costa line is dubious because they are not following the strict Tridentine praxis, but innovating.

Not sure if you done your own investigation into the lines?

I likewise don't like the Thuc line because very questionable circumstances surrounding various lines subsequent to Thuc, e.g. in Spain.

So, two dubious lines more or less, but perhaps valid in some parts, which needs more study. Then there is Kelly line from Bp Mendez of Puerto Rico. Kelly has complained about other lines, but supplies little evidence of his own line.

With Lefebvre's line, people have subjective doubts, and I think for the right reasons. If the Freemasons are trying to destroy the church, and IN FACT the sacraments and apostolic succession, then would it be beyond reason that bishops like Lienart or Bugnini would of mumble words or had a contrary intention to do what the Church does? Objectively, Lefebvre's line is valid, but what if ...?

I say people should salvage the true faith, and undoubtless sacraments and lines.

I hate these dark lines, gray lines, etc. Who would want to be a dubious priest? Look at the so-called Old Catholics they get re-ordained many times, some Thucites too, and even a few Lefebvrite priests.

To end the controversies, though, I say a group of valid bishops (Latin or Byzantine) should re-baptize, re-ordain, re-consecrate clergy as necessary, and end all doubts, and videotape and documentate the ceremonies.

That way, there be some doubtless lines. And those who make new bishops and priests, should do the same.

That's what I think.

 

 

[neel]

I have been writing to schismatic bishop Mendez of Brazil-Venezuela ....

Didn't Bishop Mendez die in 1995?

With Lefebvre's line, people have subjective doubts, and I think for the right reasons.

The claims against Archbishop Lefebvre are absolutely insane and aren't taken seriously by Catholics that know anything about sacramental theology.

To end the controversies, though, I say a group of valid bishops (Latin or Byzantine) should re-baptize, re-ordain, re-consecrate clergy as necessary, and end all doubts, and videotape and documentate the ceremonies.

That way, there be some doubtless lines. And those who make new bishops and priests, should do the same.

That's what I think.

And I think you're crazy.

[orthodoxkatholikos]

Quote:

Originally Posted by orthodoxkatholikos
I have been writing to schismatic bishop Mendez of Brazil-Venezuela ....

Didn't Bishop Mendez die in 1995?

-He is alive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Fernando_Castillo_Mendez

Quote:

Originally Posted by orthodoxkatholikos


With Lefebvre's line, people have subjective doubts, and I think for the right reasons.

The claims against Archbishop Lefebvre are absolutely insane and aren't taken seriously by Catholics that know anything about sacramental theology.

-Lefebre's Lines are objectively valid. The hypothetical is the problem, what if Lienart wanted to invalidate his lines...and knew how to do it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by orthodoxkatholikos


To end the controversies, though, I say a group of valid bishops (Latin or Byzantine) should re-baptize, re-ordain, re-consecrate clergy as necessary, and end all doubts, and videotape and documentate the ceremonies.

That way, there be some doubtless lines. And those who make new bishops and priests, should do the same.

That's what I think.

And I think you're crazy.

-Ok I am not going to say you are crazy, that's a big statement. In fact, I think you are sane. But, if one is crazy for saying this even so as carefully as I did (saying its objectively valid), how much more crazy would Bishop Thuc be for declaring them invalid and telling Lefebvre himself he needed re-ordination? I quote Thuc:

Monsgr (Lefebrve),  

I have heard that you are in this moment in bad health. This is why I have taken the audacity to tell you the following:  

 

You have been consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Lienart, (who) never believed in our religion, so your consecration by him has been nulled.  I am ready to consecrate you a bishop or you can find a bishop to consecrate you secretly.  

As regards the ecclesiastics that you made priests, find a bishop, for example myself, to consecrate them. All this, is in strict secrecy, known only between you and I.  

Pierre Martin Ngo-dihn-Thuc, Archbishop

 Now, according to your logic, then Bp Thuc was "crazy", and so he could not complete a doubtless valid sacrament (such as Holy Orders) as a "crazy" bishop, correct? This argument adds more weight to Bp Clarence Kelly's claims, that the Thuc line is dubious because Thuc went "crazy".

 

 

[HMiS]

Both the Lefebvre and Thuc lines are valid. And must be accepted as such.

Why? Because no substantial proof exists that Bishop Liénart in 1929 priestly ordination withheld his intention publicly (and private withholding would not suffice and can never be known). Secondly because there is only little or even no real proof Liénart was a Freemason. And even if he was, this would not harm the validity of the administration of the sacraments by him per se.

That Archbishop Thuc himself believed in all kinds of conspiracy theories is one thing, and that he mistakenly consecrated 5 bishops in Palmar de Troya near Sevilla (Spain) on January 1st, 1976, is another. But he used the proper form, matter and was fully sane and knew what he was doing (convinced of an emergency situation in the Church or legitimacy even), so his consecrations were valid too.

Of course there were some doubtful off-spring from Palmar and others falsely claiming to have been consecrated by abp. Thuc, but who were not really consecrated by him. But the official Bp. Carmona, Bp. Mendéz (SSPV), Bp. Zamora and Bp. Guérard des Lauriers lines (e.g. bp. Sanborn, bp. Dolan, bp. Pivarunas, bp. Stuyver) are all valid bishops. No doubts.

If we start doubting them, we can doubt every East Bloc secret 1950s ordination's  validity. (With conspiracy theories about communist infiltration etc. or mental insanity or old-agedness.) Thuc did unwise things, but that does not affect validity, only liceity (if even that).

That is reality. All the rest is emotions, personality conflicts and power struggles.