Bishops Valid? – III - His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson

[Michael]

Bishops Valid? – III

A devilish ambiguity and doubt
Are turning Church and Bishops inside out.

To present Fr Calderón’s arguments for the Newrite of Consecration of Bishops being “most likely valid” does not mean defending the Novus Ordo as a whole, nor saying that there is no problem with this Newrite. It does mean that the problem must be weighed not by hothead emotions but by the Church’s sacramental theology, a domain in which it is apt to happen, as the proverb says, that “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” Here are Fr Calderón’s arguments, still heavily summarized:—

What is needed to guarantee the validity of a sacramental Rite is its long-standing approval by the Church. Because the Newrite of Episcopal Consecration (NEC) is an entirely new rite, fabricated under Paul VI in the wake of Vatican II, it has no such guarantee. Moreover that Council’s anti-liturgical spirit, quasi-heretical collegiality and anti-authoritarian spirit, forming the context in which the NEC was fabricated, combine to raise a doubt as to its validity: has the new Matter in the NEC been so changed as to invalidate the sacrament? Does the NEC show its promulgator’s new Ritual Intention to make a Rite to consecrate bishops to “do what the Church does” (and always has done)? And has the Form been officially established by the Church, and does it sufficiently express not necessarily the grace of the bishopric to be conferred, but at least the episcopal order which necessarily implies that grace?

The new Matter of the NEC raises no doubts, because it has not been significantly changed from the Traditional matter. On the other hand the promulgator’s new Ritual Intention is problematic, because Paul VI may have been the highest authority in the Church, nevertheless all his liturgical reforms are shot through with his typical modernist desire both to “do what the Church does” and at the same time not to do it. This contradiction characterised almost his entire pontificate, causing untold confusion throughout the Church. Thus the NEC as a whole betrays his democratic spirit, altering radically in several places the Traditional concept of a Catholic bishop and his authority. This new Ritual Intention is ambiguous.

As for the NEC’s new Form, it was established by the highest Church authority, Pope Paul VI, but not with his Extraordinary infallibility, nor with the Church’s Ordinary infallibility (which never breaks with Tradition), so that a final Church judgment upon its validity must wait for the restoration of the Church’s sane Magisterium, presently eclipsed. Meanwhile as a sacramental Form it does seem valid, because “Accept the Principal Spirit” is a Form similar to other Forms approved by the Church, and any intrinsic ambiguity as to the order of bishops is wholly clarified by the immediately surrounding extrinsic Rite.

However, since Paul VI established this Newform both meaning and not meaning to break with the Traditional concept of a Catholic bishop, then in accordance with the doctrine of Leo XIII’s “Apostolicae Curae,” had his dissolving of episcopal authority been clear and explicit, his NEC consecrations would certainly be as invalid as Anglican Orders. As it is, the modernist errors are only implicit in the context of the NEC’s institution. But it is a dark shadow overhanging the validity of the NEC.

Fr Calderón’s conclusion was given here last week: the Matter, Form and Ritual Intention of the NEC are certainly illegitimate because of their break with Tradition, but they are most probably valid because they signify what needs to be signified and most of their elements come from Rites accepted by the Church. However, that validity is not certain because the Ritual Intention to break without breaking with Tradition is illegitimate, the NEC is only similar to Church-approved Rites, and the changes go all in a modernist direction. But the sacraments call for absolutely certain validity, especially the consecration of bishops on whom the Church hangs. Therefore newbishops and newpriests were best conditionally re-consecrated and re-ordained.

Kyrie eleison.

[David Kaftal]

Would anyone here who is in touch with Bishop Williamson please ask him how to reconcile invalid Newchurch Bishops, if in fact the Newrite Episcopal Consecrations are invalid, with the need for continued apostolic succession and the indefectibility of the Church? If the rites are invalid, where's the Church? The only successors of the apostles would be in the Society, the Resistance, sedevacantists, other independents (if there be any, which in fact I don't know), and a few very elderly retired bishops from pre-Vatican II days. Is that what we may be looking at?

[Dawn Marie]

Back some time in the 90's when John Vennari was given an opportunity by Fr. Gruner to start his new publication Catholic Family News he put out a video (on VCR) addressing this exact issue.

Either I bought the video or I borrowed it from someone in our SSPX chapel.

John had laid out the entire situation regarding the validity of new rite consecrations and ordinations.

When you finished watching it, which was nothing more than the facts and the teachings of the Church on the matter, your mind had a moment in which things became utterly clear.  With this clarity came a cold terror running through your veins at the reality of just how bad the situation was in the Church and just how much damage modernists, liberals and God's enemies had actually done.

It was the same for everyone who saw it.  The end result was an innumerable number of Confessions, Masses, etc would not have actually taken place because the priest was more than likely not a priest and a good number of bishops were also most likely not bishops.

This sent people in the States in panic mode, and it swept the States like a wildfire.  People were freaking out because it meant that there was a possibility that their Confessions to N.O. priests over the years were invalid.  It mean a plethora of consequences.

What was John saying exactly in his video?  Nothing different than what BPW is saying in his EC's here.

However BPF caught wind of the terror running through people after having seen just how vast was the destruction and ordered all of the videos to be taken out of all of the Churches and then further declared John Vennari no longer welcome to sell anything in the SSPX because of it.

BPF went around calming the masses by saying it wasn't true and that even if it was the faithful need not worry...or something along those lines.

Personally I was a bit annoyed that this bishop wanted to suppress this truth of course we were all unaware of what he was doing with GREC at the time which might explain why he ordered its suppression.  The truth might be scary but that is not a reason to suppress it.

Needless to say John agreed to whatever BPF wanted and he pulled all the tapes and no one ever saw them again.

BPW is tackling a very intense, serious and scary issue, that's just the way it is.

[Bill]

I agree with you,Joseph. I'm sure I'll butcher the Latin but "ecclesia supplecit"

I believe it may have been because of the panic that ensued that Bishop Fellay removed the videos from the SSPX Chapels. A prudent act. Solid Catechesis should have followed.

Back in the day I had a similar conversation with someone we would all agree is a good solid Priest. I don't mention his name for the simple fact that I may be misrepresenting him, and I'd like it clear that I am relating that which I understood of the conversation. But when I first found Tradition and asked Father if I needed to Confess again past sins he told me that the Church supplied anything that was missing from those Confessions as long as I believed I was validly receiving the Sacrament-- again, this my understanding of our conversation.

I also believe that this is the same argument used in discussions with NO Catholics who deny the validity of The Sacraments administered by SSPX Priests.

I remain absolutely open to correction!!

[Dawn Marie]

That is what was explained to us also "ecclesia supplecit"

No reason for panic but still the reality of the situation is still there as far as valid consecrations/ordinations.  It is possible in some cases such men were not ordained/consecrated whatever the case may be.

A difficult subject but it remains a possibility :(

[David Kaftal]

Yet another reason to always wear the Brown Scapular!!   ... ah, assuming that whoever invested you in it was really a priest... YIKES!!!!

Okay. Maybe in addition to asking H.E. to comment on the implications of Newchurch possibly being Nochurch, is to ask him to please discuss ecclesia supplecit in this context as well, particularly regarding Newchurch Confessions, marriages, and even investing in the Brown Scapular.

I'm afraid I am freaking out a bit myself.

[Kate Jackson]

Golly there I go again - all confused! Are there any bishops out there consecrated pre - John  xxiii whilst we are at it!?!

[Bill]

Dawn Marie said: That is what was explained to us also "ecclesia supplecit"
No reason for panic but still the reality of the situation is still there as far as valid consecrations/ordinations. It is possible in some cases such men were not ordained/consecrated whatever the case may be.
A difficult subject but it remains a possibility :(


And again I remain completely open to correction here. I've been following with interest BPW's Eleison Comments, especially these three we're talking about. When His Excellency is teaching, frankly there is no better teacher.

But my biggest fear is that if we are willing to accept that there are no valid Priests or Bishops left, then, in effect, haven't we fallen into a practical sedevacantism? Christ didn't promise indefectibity to anyone but to Peter and His successors. I think it's becoming pretty clear He didn't promise it to the Society. Now Francis may not be Catholic, but he is the validly elected Pope of Christ's visible Church, is he or isn't he?

The devil is having a field day with us. St Michael the Archangel defend us in battle!

Resist the temptation to despair.

The likes of us won't be the first to be given the answers. We (Traditionalists, the pioneers after the Council) have always trusted God to take care of us and His Church and were rewarded with St Marcel the Great. Another will be raised up. Don't despair! That's what the father of lies wants.

[Bill]

David, thanks for the reminder!!! Of course, the Brown Scapular!!!

[Dawn Marie]

I'm lost...where is His Excellency saying there are no valid priests or bishops?  I don't see him saying this at all.  What I see is him explaining the point that since the changes in ordinations and consecrations there are at least doubts, but he makes no declaration saying all N.O. clergy etc are not valid, only that there is a possibility.  That is why the SSPX before it tipped the ship on its side always re ordained the N.O. priests who came in, because there is doubt.  The doubt is not a certitude, only a doubt.

The Church, when She regains Her feet again with good holy men and Pope will one day have to declare one way or the other.  Until then, there is a doubt.

[Bill]

No no no, I took the Bishop as saying the opposite. I was referring to those who stated they were bordering on nervousness.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Dawn Marie]

Ahhhh got ya :) I did misunderstand...sorry.

Bill said:

No no no, I took the Bishop as saying the opposite. I was referring to those who stated they were bordering on nervousness.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Bill]

No apologies due on your part. I should have been more clear. If we learned one thing from the modernists, this is it: the importance of clarity. I did not make myself clear. Mea culpa! :)