+
JMJ
So Bishop Huonder is in the news for two reasons.
First, his 'Testimony' concerning Pope Francis etc. This was received as a nice reinforcement by Trads (SSPX and others). Of course, there are those that now are demanding an apostolic investigation. Yawn, been here before. This was predictable as other bishops who have followed the same path came to the same conclusions. It is the way.
Second, he celebrated the Chrism Mass and blessed the Holy Oils for use in the SSPX's European chapels and ceremonies. This caused a stir amongst some Trads who are locked in one or the other statements made by either Archbishop Lefebvre or others.
I received two versions of a question regarding this event:
Hi Tradical
Do you have any comments about doubtful oils in SSPX europe by +Huonder (NO Bishop not conditionally consecrated)?
God BlessHi Tradical
Any thoughts on Huonder oil, not conditionally ordained and consecrated by SSPX bishops?
God Bless
My comments are as follows:
- Following the doctrine of the Church it is not possible for the Catholic Church to promulgate a heretical or invalid rite.
- This forms the basis for sedevacantists who believe that the See of Peter has been vacant for decades or for some hundreds of years. This is an example of what happens when one arrogates to themselves the power to dictate who is and is not the Vicar of Christ. This however creates other issues with doctrine, but we shan't sport with your intelligence by going through that again (Jane Austen quote).
- Further the SSPX did examine the validity of the Rite of Episcopal consecration (see reference #9)
- Suffice to say that I am confident that the rite itself is valid with the usual conditions.
- It is important to understand that the conditional conferring of any sacrament is not to be done willy-nilly. Some seem to think it necessary due to their personal distrust of all things emanating from Rome and the Church. It is true that much is bad, but not all. Reason and facts need to guide decision making not the prejudice of someone like standing as judge, jury and executioner while sitting and writing at a keyboard.
- The doubt of someone wholly unrelated to the person does not constitute a 'doubt'. It is a personal doubt founded on fear, but not a real doubt stemming from knowledge. What is needed for the validity of a sacrament is the correct form, matter and intention. The best person to understand if there was a defect in any of these is a witness of the event and in this case the best witness is the Bishop in question.
- One could go down the rabbits holes of the other actions of the consecrating bishops, but that would simply lead them to Wonderland where they will be lost wondering and being unable to make a real conclusion as to the validity - they can opine but it won't change the reality.
Update #1
The following two comments were received and have been anonymized:
Hi Tradical
From Archbishop Lefebvre's sermon
Consecrations
of June 30, 1988:
You know my very dear brethren, you know that there cannot be priests without bishops. All these seminarians who are present here, if tomorrow the good Lord calls me back, and it will no doubt be without delay, well, these seminarians, from whom will they receive the sacrament of Holy Orders? From Conciliar bishops, whose sacraments are all dubious because we do not know exactly what their intentions are? It is not possible. Now which are the bishops who kept Tradition, who kept the sacraments as the Church gave them for twenty centuries until the Second Vatican Council? Well, it's Bishop De Castro Mayer and myself. I can't help it but that's the way it is.God Bless
Hi Tradical
This looks interesting
https://laportelatine.org/spiritualite/sermons/sermon-de-mgr-tissier-de-mallerais-le-29-juin-2016-a-econe
I think the commentator was referring to this passage:
Or, cette belle prière a été truquée, encore une fois, par l’Eglise conciliaire, le nouveau rite d’ordination où l’évêque présente le calice et la patène, avec le vin et l’hostie oui, en disant simplement : « Recevez les dons des fidèles pour les offrir à Dieu ». Alors qu’est-ce que c’est ? Vous recevez les dons des fidèles pour les offrir à Dieu ? C’est tout ? Nous ne recevons pas le don des fidèles, nous recevons le don de Dieu qui est Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ immolé sur la croix, pour l’offrir à nouveau à Dieu son Père. Voilà la vérité ! Nous ne pouvons pas, évidemment, accepter ce nouveau rite d’ordination truqué qui fait peser des doutes sur la validité de nombreuses ordinations selon le nouveau rite.
Deepl Translation:
Now, this beautiful prayer has been rigged, again, by the conciliar Church, the new ordination rite where the bishop presents the chalice and paten, with the wine and host yes, simply saying, "Receive the gifts of the faithful to offer to God." So what is this? You receive the gifts of the faithful to offer them to God? Is that all? We do not receive the gift of the faithful, we receive the gift of God which is Our Lord Jesus Christ immolated on the cross, to offer it again to God his Father. This is the truth! We cannot, of course, accept this new contrived rite of ordination which casts doubt on the validity of many ordinations according to the new rite.
*** Tradical Thoughts ***
What I think the commentator is trying to suggest is that all
ordinations and episcopal consecrations are dubious due to a defect in
intention either in the priestly or episcopal consecration. That is good because it avoids the problem that would pose for the sedevacantists.
I am a little surprised that the commentator didn't bring up the quotes of Innocentes, Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 and others of Bishop TdM.
Moving on ...
So the first thing is that these are generalizations and even Bishop TdM qualifies his statement with 'many'. It is a fallacy to take a generalized statement and apply it to specific cases. This would be the whole to parts fallacy.
Even Bishop Williamson, of infamous memory, didn't conditionally ordain all Novus Ordo priests who joined the SSPX.
Even Archbishop Lefebvre didn't conditionally ordain every Novus Ordo priest and this was one of the issues that the 'Nine' took when they tried to take over the US district:
And so you have in fact conditionally ordained at least two priests in America: Father Sullivan and Father [. . .]. Indeed, you even asked Rev. Philip Stark to accept conditional ordination and he, as you yourself told us, adamantly refused And yet, after his refusal, you nevertheless allowed and continue to allow him to work with the Society; and he is not the only doubtfully ordained priest that you permit to do so — he is one of many.(Letter of the 'Nine' to Archibishop Lefebvre 1983)
The exception proves the rule ... or something like that. There is more about this in the Archbishop's letter:
Of course I suspect that the commentator will say that he changed his mind as this letter was written in 1983 and the later one in 1988. Well, sorry not sorry, there's nothing to suggest that the Archbishop would support the assertion that I think they are making.
Moving on ...
P^3
- Is the SSPX About to Consecrate New Bishops? - OnePeterFive
- Bishop Huonder’s Testimony (1) - FSSPX.Actualités / FSSPX.News
- If a NUKE can be gentle, this is it. VIDEO: A Bishop addresses the present crisis. ¡Hagan lío! | Fr. Z's Blog
- Former Novus Ordo Diocesan Bishop Celebrates Chrism Mass in PiusX Seminary – gloria.tv
- LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH: Play it again, Sam: The SSPX is NOT in Schism!
- Pope Francis said SSPX priests 'are not schismatics': retired Swiss bishop - LifeSite
- RORATE CÆLI: SSPX Communiqué: CDF Prefect Cardinal Ladaria meets Superior-General Fr. Pagliarani
- https://cathcon.blogspot.com/2023/05/apostolic-investigation-into-bishop.html
- https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Rite_of_the_Consecration_of_a_Bishop_in_the_Catholic_Church
Comments
Post a Comment