SSPV

[OldMan]

It is a leftover stew of bad theology cooked up in bad faith, whose sell-by date is long past.

It's time for SSPV to dump it, along with its policy of illegally refusing Communion to parishioners who assist at my Mass.

If SSPV's theology is so bad... why would you even want your parishioners to go to their Masses, let alone receive Communion from them?

Because (a) even priests who have bad theological ideas can confer valid sacraments; (b) SSPV's indefensible policy has sown needless division and pointless heartache among traditional Catholic families and friends, and (c) parishioners from our parishes or CMRI may occasionally travel to areas where the only Mass available is an SSPV Mass, where they run the risk of being publicly refused communion by an SSPV priest.

Thank you for answering. 

To explain my inquiry (with me being over 2,000 miles away from the Cincinnati area), I initially interpreted your statement “my parishioner” to mean those attending St. Gertrude’s.  After comparing the Sunday morning Mass times at St. Gertrude with those at Immaculate Conception, as well as the relatively short distance between the two, I was truly at a loss to grasp your parishioners’ need or desire to even take that 20-minute drive, let alone bother to subject themselves to pointless heartache and such.  But I now understand you’re also referring to places beside the Cincinnati area, as well as those with the CMRI.

FWIW, I know what it's like to be refused Communion.  I dunno... I never felt compelled to rant and rave about it on the Internet, nor did it cause me heartache. 

Carry on...   

Who is ranting and raving?

[INPEFESS]

I have already shown repeatedly why these sacraments must be presumed invalid from the various authors who have written about the subject. You have ignored these arguments repeatedly until now so you can present a new argument with the assertion that they are valid so as to put me on the defensive. The information can be found in this thread.

In #114 Inpefess specifically said that his argument there was a "summary" of the elements that constituted the SSPV policy. Here's the passage:

…here is a summary of the different elements that constitute this policy:

The premise for your argument hinges on a misinterpretation of Canon 853. This misinterpretation is effected by restricting the prohibition of the canon to only violations of a specific law, a law which you say must state that a violating person must be denied communion. But this is an extrapolation of the law because the law does not say this.

So, according to Inpefess's theory, the violation of a "specific" law is not required.

Inpefess then presented his argument in a series of numbered points. In his second point, he tells what it is that he thinks renders my parishioners publicly unworthy to receive Holy Communion:

2. To give public assent of belief to DOUBTFUL SACRAMENTS, which are legally to be considered not sacraments at all, via public participation in them gives serious public scandal and is a serious matter.

Inpefess's difficulty now is that he has made his argument a bit too clear: "public assent of belief to DOUBTFUL SACRAMENTS" is the "sin" my parishioners are supposedly guilty of. All else that follows in #114 rises or falls on this.

And the only arguments Inpefess has for "doubtful sacraments" are based on the distorted, misapplied or invented principles that Fr. Kelly has circulated — all of which have been repeatedly and systematically refuted in a manner so convincing that eight of the eleven priests who once worked with Fr. Kelly rejected his arguments, and accepted the sacramental ministrations of priests and bishops who traced their orders back to Archbishop Thuc.

Inpefess, not I, was the one to hang his argument on Fr. Kelly's discredited ideas about "doubtful sacraments." So while Inpefess may complain that I am trying to put him "on the defensive," the real problem he faces is that the Bp. Kelly's theories on the Thuc consecrations are theologically and canonically indefensible.

You can try to blame it on Bp. Kelly, as it seems you are wont to do, but let's face it: Those eight priests left because (with a lot of pressure from the first priests who had left) they needed a bishop and God hadn't supplied one yet . As desperate as they were, they were willing to stoop as low as necessary (sacraments coming from an archbishop who had been latae sententiae excommunicated for consecrating non-Catholics to the episcopacy) to get what they would soon declare to be valid sacraments without the authority to do so. It was a reckless move that placed a lot of souls in jeopardy, and these priests have spent the last two decades trying to justify it by accusing others of wrongdoing. That doesn't work.

But this is all subjective at this point. You make the claim that Bp. Kelly fabricated principles to support his policy, but then I suppose you say that Innocent XI fabricated principles, too?

Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible “in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned….Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders.”  (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151).

It is all right there in black and white just the way you like it. But I do believe the complete reasons were posted before you arrived on this thread, so, if you are interested, you can find the reasons for why they must be considered invalid in reply #51.

[Virgil the Roman]

You can try to blame it on Bp. Kelly, as it seems you are wont to do, but let's face it: Those eight priests left because (with a lot of pressure from the first priests who had left) they needed a bishop and God hadn't supplied one yet . As desperate as they were, they were willing to stoop as low as necessary (sacraments coming from an archbishop who had been latae sententiae excommunicated for consecrating non-Catholics to the episcopacy) to get what they would soon declare to be valid sacraments without the authority to do so. It was a reckless move that placed a lot of souls in jeopardy, and these priests have spent the last two decades trying to justify it by accusing others of wrongdoing. That doesn't work.

But this is all subjective at this point. You make the claim that Bp. Kelly fabricated principles to support his policy, but then I suppose you say that Innocent XI fabricated principles, too?

Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible “in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned….Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders.”  (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151).

It is all right there in black and white just the way you like it. But I do believe the complete reasons were posted before you arrived on this thread, so, if you are interested, you can find the reasons for why they must be considered invalid in reply #51.

This makes sense to me, why the SSPV and Msgr. Kelly waited as long as they did; whilst not seeking ordination from Thuc-lineage bishops.

[OldMan]

I have already shown repeatedly why these sacraments must be presumed invalid from the various authors who have written about the subject. You have ignored these arguments repeatedly until now so you can present a new argument with the assertion that they are valid so as to put me on the defensive. The information can be found in this thread.

In #114 Inpefess specifically said that his argument there was a "summary" of the elements that constituted the SSPV policy. Here's the passage:

…here is a summary of the different elements that constitute this policy:

The premise for your argument hinges on a misinterpretation of Canon 853. This misinterpretation is effected by restricting the prohibition of the canon to only violations of a specific law, a law which you say must state that a violating person must be denied communion. But this is an extrapolation of the law because the law does not say this.

So, according to Inpefess's theory, the violation of a "specific" law is not required.

Inpefess then presented his argument in a series of numbered points. In his second point, he tells what it is that he thinks renders my parishioners publicly unworthy to receive Holy Communion:

2. To give public assent of belief to DOUBTFUL SACRAMENTS, which are legally to be considered not sacraments at all, via public participation in them gives serious public scandal and is a serious matter.

Inpefess's difficulty now is that he has made his argument a bit too clear: "public assent of belief to DOUBTFUL SACRAMENTS" is the "sin" my parishioners are supposedly guilty of. All else that follows in #114 rises or falls on this.

And the only arguments Inpefess has for "doubtful sacraments" are based on the distorted, misapplied or invented principles that Fr. Kelly has circulated — all of which have been repeatedly and systematically refuted in a manner so convincing that eight of the eleven priests who once worked with Fr. Kelly rejected his arguments, and accepted the sacramental ministrations of priests and bishops who traced their orders back to Archbishop Thuc.

Inpefess, not I, was the one to hang his argument on Fr. Kelly's discredited ideas about "doubtful sacraments." So while Inpefess may complain that I am trying to put him "on the defensive," the real problem he faces is that the Bp. Kelly's theories on the Thuc consecrations are theologically and canonically indefensible.

You can try to blame it on Bp. Kelly, as it seems you are wont to do, but let's face it: Those eight priests left because (with a lot of pressure from the first priests who had left) they needed a bishop and God hadn't supplied one yet . As desperate as they were, they were willing to stoop as low as necessary (sacraments coming from an archbishop who had been latae sententiae excommunicated for consecrating non-Catholics to the episcopacy) to get what they would soon declare to be valid sacraments without the authority to do so. It was a reckless move that placed a lot of souls in jeopardy, and these priests have spent the last two decades trying to justify it by accusing others of wrongdoing. That doesn't work.

But this is all subjective at this point. You make the claim that Bp. Kelly fabricated principles to support his policy, but then I suppose you say that Innocent XI fabricated principles, too?

Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible “in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned….Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders.”  (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151).

It is all right there in black and white just the way you like it. But I do believe the complete reasons were posted before you arrived on this thread, so, if you are interested, you can find the reasons for why they must be considered invalid in reply #51.

Blah, blah, blah... the sky is falling. The sky is falling. Fr. Kelly just wanted to be the king - on his terms.

As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't call for a SSPV priest even if  he was the last priest on earth. I have my doubts about Kelly's validity as a bishop too. A few glossy pictures of an apparently sickly and possibly senile old man surrounded by a bunch of smiling priests and we are supposed to believe he consecrated a bishop. Means nothing to me. Novus Ordo Bp. Alfred Mendez (AKA Francis Gonzales) was a coward and a prevaricator (as he even denied ordaining Greenwell and Baumberger when questioned by an official of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati).

[INPEFESS]

I have already shown repeatedly why these sacraments must be presumed invalid from the various authors who have written about the subject. You have ignored these arguments repeatedly until now so you can present a new argument with the assertion that they are valid so as to put me on the defensive. The information can be found in this thread.

In #114 Inpefess specifically said that his argument there was a "summary" of the elements that constituted the SSPV policy. Here's the passage:

…here is a summary of the different elements that constitute this policy:

The premise for your argument hinges on a misinterpretation of Canon 853. This misinterpretation is effected by restricting the prohibition of the canon to only violations of a specific law, a law which you say must state that a violating person must be denied communion. But this is an extrapolation of the law because the law does not say this.

So, according to Inpefess's theory, the violation of a "specific" law is not required.

Inpefess then presented his argument in a series of numbered points. In his second point, he tells what it is that he thinks renders my parishioners publicly unworthy to receive Holy Communion:

2. To give public assent of belief to DOUBTFUL SACRAMENTS, which are legally to be considered not sacraments at all, via public participation in them gives serious public scandal and is a serious matter.

Inpefess's difficulty now is that he has made his argument a bit too clear: "public assent of belief to DOUBTFUL SACRAMENTS" is the "sin" my parishioners are supposedly guilty of. All else that follows in #114 rises or falls on this.

And the only arguments Inpefess has for "doubtful sacraments" are based on the distorted, misapplied or invented principles that Fr. Kelly has circulated — all of which have been repeatedly and systematically refuted in a manner so convincing that eight of the eleven priests who once worked with Fr. Kelly rejected his arguments, and accepted the sacramental ministrations of priests and bishops who traced their orders back to Archbishop Thuc.

Inpefess, not I, was the one to hang his argument on Fr. Kelly's discredited ideas about "doubtful sacraments." So while Inpefess may complain that I am trying to put him "on the defensive," the real problem he faces is that the Bp. Kelly's theories on the Thuc consecrations are theologically and canonically indefensible.

You can try to blame it on Bp. Kelly, as it seems you are wont to do, but let's face it: Those eight priests left because (with a lot of pressure from the first priests who had left) they needed a bishop and God hadn't supplied one yet . As desperate as they were, they were willing to stoop as low as necessary (sacraments coming from an archbishop who had been latae sententiae excommunicated for consecrating non-Catholics to the episcopacy) to get what they would soon declare to be valid sacraments without the authority to do so. It was a reckless move that placed a lot of souls in jeopardy, and these priests have spent the last two decades trying to justify it by accusing others of wrongdoing. That doesn't work.

But this is all subjective at this point. You make the claim that Bp. Kelly fabricated principles to support his policy, but then I suppose you say that Innocent XI fabricated principles, too?

Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible “in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned….Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders.”  (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151).

It is all right there in black and white just the way you like it. But I do believe the complete reasons were posted before you arrived on this thread, so, if you are interested, you can find the reasons for why they must be considered invalid in reply #51.

Blah, blah, blah... the sky is falling. The sky is falling. Fr. Kelly just wanted to be the king - on his terms.

As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't call for a SSPV priest even if  he was the last priest on earth.

I would be careful saying that as a Catholic. It says a lot about your good will in this matter.

You are lashing out at others in a desperate attempt to justify your own cause. You can't successfully justify your own cause by trying to make everyone else's look bad.

But this seems to be purely an emotional issue for you that is fueling what appears to be nothing short of hatred, so I think it is probably a good idea that you and I stop our conversation here lest it should become an occasion of sin.

[Cam42]

[...]

Blah, blah, blah... the sky is falling. The sky is falling. Fr. Kelly just wanted to be the king - on his terms.

As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't call for a SSPV priest even if  he was the last priest on earth. I have my doubts about Kelly's validity as a bishop too. A few glossy pictures of an apparently sickly and possibly senile old man surrounded by a bunch of smiling priests and we are supposed to believe he consecrated a bishop. Means nothing to me. Novus Ordo Bp. Alfred Mendez (AKA Francis Gonzales) was a coward and a prevaricator (as he even denied ordaining Greenwell and Baumberger when questioned by an official of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati).

Is there a dubium on the consecration of Bishop Kelly?  I know that the consecration was done in "secret" and not immediately made known, but is there any doubt to the validity of the action?  If there is, how easy is it to find the document which ratifies the consecration?  That would most certainly clear things up.

[INPEFESS]

[...]

Blah, blah, blah... the sky is falling. The sky is falling. Fr. Kelly just wanted to be the king - on his terms.

As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't call for a SSPV priest even if  he was the last priest on earth. I have my doubts about Kelly's validity as a bishop too. A few glossy pictures of an apparently sickly and possibly senile old man surrounded by a bunch of smiling priests and we are supposed to believe he consecrated a bishop. Means nothing to me. Novus Ordo Bp. Alfred Mendez (AKA Francis Gonzales) was a coward and a prevaricator (as he even denied ordaining Greenwell and Baumberger when questioned by an official of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati).

Is there a dubium on the consecration of Bishop Kelly?  I know that the consecration was done in "secret" and not immediately made known, but is there any doubt to the validity of the action?  If there is, how easy is it to find the document which ratifies the consecration?  That would most certainly clear things up.

(Answered in PM)

[vakarian]

[...]

Blah, blah, blah... the sky is falling. The sky is falling. Fr. Kelly just wanted to be the king - on his terms.

As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't call for a SSPV priest even if  he was the last priest on earth. I have my doubts about Kelly's validity as a bishop too. A few glossy pictures of an apparently sickly and possibly senile old man surrounded by a bunch of smiling priests and we are supposed to believe he consecrated a bishop. Means nothing to me. Novus Ordo Bp. Alfred Mendez (AKA Francis Gonzales) was a coward and a prevaricator (as he even denied ordaining Greenwell and Baumberger when questioned by an official of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati).

Is there a dubium on the consecration of Bishop Kelly?  I know that the consecration was done in "secret" and not immediately made known, but is there any doubt to the validity of the action?  If there is, how easy is it to find the document which ratifies the consecration?  That would most certainly clear things up.

(Answered in PM)

Why not answer on this thread? 

[Virgil the Roman]

It seems awful odd to decry the suspiciousness and secrecy surrounding the various supposed-Thuc episcopal consecrations and cast doubt upon them, whenever the Msgr. Kelly did something terribly similar in secret.    

[INPEFESS]

[...]

Blah, blah, blah... the sky is falling. The sky is falling. Fr. Kelly just wanted to be the king - on his terms.

As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't call for a SSPV priest even if  he was the last priest on earth. I have my doubts about Kelly's validity as a bishop too. A few glossy pictures of an apparently sickly and possibly senile old man surrounded by a bunch of smiling priests and we are supposed to believe he consecrated a bishop. Means nothing to me. Novus Ordo Bp. Alfred Mendez (AKA Francis Gonzales) was a coward and a prevaricator (as he even denied ordaining Greenwell and Baumberger when questioned by an official of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati).

Is there a dubium on the consecration of Bishop Kelly?  I know that the consecration was done in "secret" and not immediately made known, but is there any doubt to the validity of the action?  If there is, how easy is it to find the document which ratifies the consecration?  That would most certainly clear things up.

(Answered in PM)

Why not answer on this thread? 

I am trying to avoid the firefight which this question may start as well as the distraction it may conveniently provide those who are trying to justify themselves by pointing fingers at everyone else. In a discussion such as this, especially at such a point in this discussion, red-herrings become very convenient escape routes that try to draw the attention away from one's self. Cam42 asked a legitimate question that deserved a response, so I decided to answer it in PM instead of on the forum because there are already enough red-herrings here to fill a whole ocean. I just don't want this discussion to get sidetracked on an unwarranted and calumnious attack on Bp. Mendez and the validity of his consecration when the subject of debate concerns, very specifically, the lawfulness of refusing communion to someone who is knowingly and publicly participating in doubtful sacraments against the injunction (proceeding from basic, common sense principles of sacramental theology) of Pope Innocent XI not to participate in doubtful sacraments (and even those for which there is nothing more than a "probable opinion").

You can already see the tendency to do this in such comments as this:

Novus Ordo Bp. Alfred Mendez (AKA Francis Gonzales) was a coward and a prevaricator

Despite the falsity of these statements, they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand as well as calumnious and un-Catholic. This is why I answered the question in PM.

However, since my response has raised suspicion, I will answer the question here. 

It seems awful odd to decry the suspiciousness and secrecy surrounding the various supposed-Thuc episcopal consecrations and cast doubt upon them, whenever the Msgr. Kelly did something terribly similar in secret.    

There is no doubt as to the validity of the Bp. Kelly save that which has been trumped up by those who are trying to justify their own selves.

There were five witnesses present at the consecration of Bishop Kelly, each of whom meets the canonical requirements for a qualified witness. (1) They all provided concordant testimony as to both the essential elements of the matter and form of the sacrament as well as that both had unmistakeably taken place. (2) Each of the five witnesses signed the consecration certificate testifying as to these facts. (3) All of these witnesses are still alive to provide testimony as to the existence of both the matter and form of the consecration.

Points (1) and (2) each fulfills the basic requirement of the Church for a presumption of validity; point (3) can provide the basic requirement of the Church even to this day. 

Bp. Kelly wrote a book addressed to those who were trying to justify their own selves by impugning the validity of others called The Sacred and the Profane, which can be found here.

He only wrote the book in response to a letter from a Thuc bishop who was attacking Bp. Mendez's reputation and Bp. Kelly's validity in a desperate attempt to justify his involvement in a dubious lineage. Bp. Kelly addressed each statement of this bishop's letter and showed how the accusations made therein were false. The letter specifically attacks the very person, character, and reputation of Bp. Mendez accusing him of many scandalous things without sufficient evidence as well as disingenuously impugns the validity of Bp. Kelly.

I suspect that you don't want to read an entire book to find the answer to your question, however, so I would recommend skimming through the content section of the book for the topic that will hopefully answer whatever questions you may have.

To impugn the validity of a priest  or bishop without sufficient cause or (as the theologians call it) positive doubt is a very serious offense.

I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.