Signatory to the Dubia…
“Cardinal” Joachim Meisner dies at 83
[UPDATE: Francis sends condolences — FULL TEXT]
The Novus Ordo Archdiocese of Cologne, Germany, is reporting that its former leader, “Cardinal” Joachim Meisner, has died. He was 83. According to a report posted on the web site of its Domradio radio station, Meisner died peacefully in his sleep while vacationing in the town of Bad Füssing.
In the Vatican II Sect, Meisner was widely viewed as a strict conservative. Along with Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmuller, and Raymond Burke, Meisner was one of the only four “cardinals” to challenge “Pope” Francis on his exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which effectively permits unrepentant public adulterers to receive the Novus Ordo sacraments.
Fr. Meisner was ordained a priest in 1962, made an invalid Novus Ordo bishop in 1975, and appointed “cardinal” by John Paul II in 1983. He was the “Archbishop” of Cologne from 1988 until 2014 (source). In 2005, it was Meisner who invited and then hosted the newly-elected “Pope” Benedict XVI for World Youth Day in Cologne.
Image source: Wikimedia Commons (Raimond Spekking)
License: CC BY-SA 4.0
;
Is there a reason why you treat the status of orders as certain according to your minority view and refuse to qualify with the words “doubtful” or “uncertain?” It would be more respectful and true to authentic theological protocol to say he was doubtfully consecrated, etc. I agree with what you are asserting about his status, but I am not certain about it, and if you are, I would appreciate a demostration of how you achieved certainty.
Certainly. First, a doubtful ordination or consecration has to be treated as invalid in the practical order. Second, Meisner was “consecrated” a bishop in 1975 using the Novus Ordo rite, and the Novus Ordo rite of episcopal consecration is not doubtful but definitely invalid. See here:
http://novusordowatch.org/2013/11/invalid-novus-ordo-bishops/
You might as well have just said I regard Cekada’s minority opinion as theologically certain, even though I have no basis for this certainty.
Furthermore, why don’t you (and Cekada) treat Daniel Dolan with similar suspicion, as he was ordained with only one hand by Lefebvre and wasn’t conditionally re-ordained by Pivarunas prior to his consecration, and no post-facto re-ordination/consecration is publically known?
There are again two schools of thought on weather elevation to Episcopal orders automatically covers lower orders. And yes, I’ve read Cekada’s opinion on this question already. And I’ve read others opposed. I am convinced that it is uncertain, with a little lean towards Cekada’s.
What I am getting at is trying to understand why you treat as certainly true minority opinions while categorically treating as certainly false majority opinions. They are all just opinions, as nobody has authority to say so, and yes I’ve read your opinion about the so called “authority of reason.” Not convincing. Anyone can say that with equal credibility. It’s essentially an admission of being up against a wall.
Alright, let’s itemize things here for better comprehension:
(1) What do you mean by “minority opinion”? If by this you mean simply “most who call themselves traditional Catholics don’t agree”, then that may be so, but then that is not what is meant in theology by “minority opinion” so the term is out of place.
(2) The invalidity of the new rite of episcopal consecration (unlike that of priestly ordination) is manifest. Certainly, at the very least, you would have to say that the preponderance of the evidence creates more than sufficient doubt regarding the validity (and I’m being very generous here). So, to say “no bassis for this certainty” is simply false.
(3) Priestly ordination with one hand is an accidental defect in the administration of the sacrament, not an essential one, and does not affect validity.
I’ve learned that the way the Catholic Church works is that not every concern someone raises needs an authoritative decision from Rome to be settled, else it is considered doubtful. Rome is only to be petitioned for a decision if one cannot arrive at an answer using “the teaching of the Church according to Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the common consent of theologians” (see Fr. Robert Sheehy, The Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments [1954], p. 40).
There is no need for us to get into a drawn-out debate on this. You’ve made your case, and I’ve made mine. I don’t have the time, I’m afraid, to engage in a whole lot of combox conversation. God bless you.
I’m not going to pretend that I have sat down, mastered Latin, read the entire bible, consulted all authoitative commentary on it, then poured over the theological manuals, the councils, and all encyclical level letters, then sat back, reflected prayerfully on the matter, and allowed myself to arrive with actionable certainty regarding these matters. I hope you won’t pretend, either, though I know you have more formal study in the matter than I do, but still not approaching what would be considerd qualifications as a theologian pre-’58. We’re both interested laymen who have need of authority to direct our consciences and opinions.
You just advised a commenter that they should not persue valid rites in the Eastern Church “under Bergoglio” because it’s not the right religion in your opinion. It seems therefore that in your opinion the entire church “under false popes” must also be members of this false religion, regardless of their belief of Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy and/or adherence to his false teaching.
This is problematic because all sede bishops descend from Mendez, Thuc, or Lefebvre (that I know of) and all three of them were members of and at times cooperators with this false religion (Mendez till his death if I am not mistaken) and none renounced the false post-’58 church and converted to the “true church”, to my knowledge. Only Thuc fully aknowledged sedevacantism, and then backpedaled? Though they were all certainly validly consecrated, by the same logic that makes Bergoglio not the pope (he is not a member of the church) one could entertain arguments that none of those three were members of the church either, they were in fact members of the “false Church” under Paul VI or JPII. It was, more than anything, their resistance to what they thought was false teaching, that confirmed they were true bishops. If that resistance counts for nothing, well that’s all folks!
I would think thst if their resistance mattered, then it would for us as well, and we could go to an Easten church thinking Bergoglio is an anti-pope yet to be declared, and holding fast to true teaching and ignoring his (the two essentials).
I happen to think that if one professes what they know to be the teaching of the true church sincerely, then they are members. But this doesn’t seem a possibility within your thinking. If you assist mass in a building “under bergoglio” your out! Within your framework, the extinction of the church seems an inevitability (when the last bishop consecrated under Pius XII dies), and that, I think, should be an impossibility.
I happen to think sedevacantism a viable, even probable, explanation, and it is certainly a minoity one, but you’ve turned it into an absloutely certain superdogma without any authority to do so and without much more than strawman exposition of counter opinions.
I hope, for your sake, you’re right about all of this. The stakes are indeed high!
Your assertion that the Novus Ordo rite of Episcopal Ordination is definitely invalid would appear to be based entirely on Fr. Cekada’s arguments that the new 1968 rite does not specify the power of Holy Order being conferred. He certainly makes a convincing case that this is not done by the words ‘Spiritum principalem’ in the form and thus establishes the conditional proposition that if the power of Holy Order being conferred was supposed to be specified by those words then it has indeed not been specified. It is not so obvious that he has established that no other words do it either, which is what he needs to do to make his case complete. Thus take the word ‘electum’. In his original article ‘Absolutely null and utterly void’ Fr. Cekada translates this as ‘chosen one’, which is certainly a good translation and, indeed, the most obvious one. Another possible translation, however, is actually ‘bishop-elect’. This is sometimes the correct translation of the word in the Summa Theologiae, as for instance in the Supplement Q. 19 Art. 3 c. which concerns whether priests alone have the keys. If this translation is used then the argument against the Novus Ordo rite comes down to saying that what the old rite achieves by ‘Complete in thy priest the fullness of thy ministry…’ is not achieved by ‘So now pour out upon this bishop-elect that power which is from you…’. If this is true then it is far from clear that it is unarguably so. And even if ‘electum’ is translated as ‘chosen one’, it is part of the meaning, and not merely the logical implications, of ‘chosen’ that what is chosen is chosen for something so that one fails to understand the word if one fails to understand that this is so. Where the end of the choice is not specified then it must be understood from the context. In the context of a supposed rite of Episcopal Ordination it seems clear that the choice of ‘chosen one’ and ‘bishop-elect’ does not make any substantial difference. And if it is not clear then at least it is arguable, so that your confidence in the invalidity of the Novus Ordo rite seems misplaced. Indeed, it is hard to see what you gain by being so insistent upon this. A serious problem for sedevacantists is to show how the vacancy might be ended. Since popes are elected by cardinals and cardinals must receive episcopal consecration then if you are right this difficulty can only be compounded with the passing of the years. The arguments for sedevacantism do not depend on the Novus Ordo rites being invalid and it is certainly a strategic mistake to entangle these issues too closely.
I don’t remember exactly now but I’m pretty sure I already held the Novus Ordo rite of episcopal consecration to be invalid before Fr. Cekada ever wrote about it. I think Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy had made the most exhaustive case in that regard (“The Problems with the New Sacraments), and of course it is also discussed in the Radecki Father’s “Tumultuous Times” (2004).
In any case, it is certainly not “manifestly invalid.” If it were, there would be little debate methinks. So we’re talking shades of doubt and certitude.
I’ve read your link below. I do enjoy your website and I think sedevacantist do bring a refiner’s fire to the laity that are willing to listen and look around. I was raised under the Novus Ordo and I left the church 23 years ago. When I returned, I returned through Orthodoxy. I was completely unaware of the Sedevacantist position, however, as I was making my way out of the mess of evangelical/protestantism I didn’t quite see myself going home to the Catholicism I left (i.e. Novus Ordo). However, the divisive opinions on valid ordinations vs. invalid in the western Rite is beyond boggling for the average person to be able to understand and follow. Due to my love for Orthodoxy and the Eastern Rite, I have decided on the Byzantine Rite.
I am under the Ukranian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia. Metropolitan Archbishop – Most Reverend Stefan Soroka was ordained to the Holy Priesthood on June 13, 1982 at Ss. Vladimir and Olga Cathedral, Winnipeg, by the Most Reverend Maxim Hermaniuk, CSsR, Metropolitan for Ukrainians in Canada and Archbishop of Winnipeg. I have no problem accepting the fact that this ordination was valid. He was consecrated as Auxiliary Bishop for the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Winnipeg, Canada, on June 13, 1996, at Ss. Vladimir and Olga Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral, Winnipeg, by the Most Reverend Bzdel, CSsR (Metropolitan of Canada and Archbishop of the Winnipeg Archeparchy), Most Reverend Cornelius Pasichny (then Bishop of Saskatoon, Canada), and Most Reverend Walter Paska (then Auxiliary Bishop for the Philadelphia Archeparchy).
In February 2001, he was installed as the sixth Archbishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy for Philadelphia, and Metropolitan for Ukrainians in the United States at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Philadelphia, PA. I believe this ordination is valid and have seen no evidence to the contrary or seen anything else presented or proclaimed among the Byzantine laity that this ordination was invalid. Most troubling I think for you all is that I have found sedevacantism no where present in the Eastern Rite.
I recently found an independent Latin Rite church, which appears to have distanced themselves from Fellay and are under their bishop of England, Williams (who was consecrated by Lefebvre.) I spent two days talking with their priest, who I was convinced was a total sedevacantist, particularly defending their “independent Catholic” status or else obey Amoris Laetitia. When I asked him about sedevacantism or what Pope Pius XI taught about being obedient to the Vicar of Christ, both days, he was convinced Francis was Pope and the succession has continued. However, he seemed to hold to the recognize and resist position.
Is this troubling and a result of the Novus Ordo? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4667098/Vatican-police-break-gay-orgy-apartment.html
It is troubling for sure. It is probably the exact result of modernism and the warning of numerous popes and Jude and Peter warning about the wolves entering in who won’t spare the flock. Therefore, I appreciate the fire of the sedevacantist, but I must admit, because of the continued tangled web, I have found my home in the Byzantine Rite.
I do not mean to sound flippant about this, as I certainly understand the struggle and all. I know that converting to the Eastern branch of the Vatican II Sect is appealing to many because in the practical order, this option allows you to sidestep the Novus Ordo “Mass” and the problem of the validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments. However, although this may not have an immediate impact on you in your liturgical life, the fundamental problem remains: You are part of the religion headed by Jorge Bergoglio, “Pope Francis”. You are placing yourself under Vatican II and the apostate “Holy See” in Rome. Nothing has changed in this regard, except that you have a valid Mass and pretty externals. But it’s still the wrong religion. Sorry to be so blunt. God bless.
NOW,
I have thick skin so I am not offended by flippant comments. However, “pretty externals” is quite flippant, wouldn’t you agree? I don’t just call them “pretty externals” or as the protestants accuse us of, “smells and bells.”
I am not a Sedevacantist expert and not looking to be. Also I know you all have been writing on these topics ad naseum for so long attempting to argue the points with you would prove futile. I know that while you don’t hold to sedeprivationism you don’t reject it either. I agree with Guerard des Lauriers’ about material and formal popes and one could become the true Pope automatically as soon as he would renounce his heresies and become a Catholic.
Pope Clement XIII promulgated Christianae Reipublicae on November 25, 1766, “to Our Venerable Brothers, all Patriarchs, Primates, Metropolitans, Archbishops, and Bishops Who Enjoy Grace and Communion with the Apostolic See.” The Byzantine Rite was in communion with Rome prior to the promulgation of this encyclical. Of what can you accuse the East of not being faithful to in regards to what Pope Clement XIII wrote? To say we are, “the eastern branch of the Vatican II sect” grossly misapplies your criticisms of Vatican II to the East. That statement makes it seem as if the eastern branch grew out of Vatican II in 1965. The Eastern Rite, unchanged when they began coming home in the 1400’s remained unchanged after Vatican II. Otherwise you’d never recognize we have a valid mass. Yes, we have a valid mass because we remained unchanged. Just as you challenge the recognize and resist crowd then you must be challenged to either prove we do not have a valid mass or stop calling us the Eastern Branch of the Vatican II sect. Otherwise, if you are looking for the Eastern Branch of the non-Vatican II sect, then this would be all of the other Eastern Orthodox churches that have remained in schism since 1054.
As you have three possibilities within Rome, the indult position, the SSPX/Resistance and the Sedevacantist position. We have only two Eastern Branches, those in communion with Rome and those not. Judging by your earlier comments you will make a third category, the “dismiss the Eastern Rite altogether” position. This has been the curias desire for a long time. We have a saying in the east, “we don’t fear the pope as much as we fear those around the pope” (such as the article I linked up earlier.
A valid option still remains for those in the west.
Thank you for your feedback. I am not quite following and suspect we are talking apples and oranges. My point was that the ‘official’ (for lack of a better term) Byzantine rite (or any other ‘official’ Eastern rite) is in union with the Vatican II Sect and submits to Francis, just as much as the Latin rite does. So, you are in the same position theologically as if you were a regular Novus Ordo or indultarian, except that you have a valid Mass and a very beautiful liturgy. The problem is that it is a liturgy and a Mass within the Church of Francis, which is an apostate religion. That’s what I was trying to say. God bless.
Certainly and I appreciate your points. As I already expressed I do appreciate the fire the sedevacantist bring, as if a refiner’s fire to get people to wake up and look around. The point I was making was that, if I understand your point, nothing about Pope Francis or what Vatican II does has any legitimacy (other than they legitimately stole the chair and usurped the church). If this is the case, then if nothing about Francis is legitimate and we are “in union with the Vatican II sect and submit to Francis,” then we couldn’t possibly have a legitimate mass. This is why I stated I held to Guerard des Lauriers’ position about material and formal popes and therefore if Francis has become a heretic, he could become the true Pope automatically as soon as he would renounce his heresies and become a Catholic (again). What I find most interesting is that if Laurier is correct, and if you are correct (the seat is vacant), then currently there is only one person who could repent and become Pope, i.e. Francis. No other person in the world is in the position to repent and become the true pope. You have stated that tragically there is no pope and Sedevacantist desire one. If tomorrow you woke up and found that Bergoglio repented, and came in line 100% with everything NOW has been writing about, would you even accept him as Pope then? If so, then I guess you would conclude Lauriers was correct. If not, then I don’t think Sedevacantist could ever accept a real pope again, but now I’m getting off topic.
So my point, which I didn’t state earlier, was that my authority recognizes Francis as pope and have made no pronouncements about whether he has become a heretic or not. Therefore, my understanding of Lauriers’ position is that the pope remains in that position, whether heretic or not and if he’s a heretic there is the possibility of repentance. Ultimately the seat in Rome has made no difference as to whether the East has retained a valid mass.
As it is stated here, your understanding of the de Laurien Thesis is a bit ascew. All Jorge would have to do is repent? Uh, that? No. Revisit/review/study the Thesis.
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/CASSICIACUM%20THESIS-Lucien.pdf
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf
I found nothing in this article that would indicate to me that my understanding of des Lauriers was askew. Additionally, the Eastern Rite Catholics were never even a topic of conversation in this piece. There was mention of the Greek Schismatics, which the article claimed they were such because the have material jurisdiction/succession. In fact I’d digress for a second on the Greeks. So would Sedevacantist now say the Greeks do have proper jurisdiction because they reject the same pope the Sedevacantist do? In my opinion, every time sedevacantism is confronted with the Eastern church (be it the uniates or the “schismatics”) the sedevacantist position begins to have all sorts of problems.
Back to my earlier point. The only two in discussion is the Novus Ordo Sect (consiliars) and the Greek Schismatics. There is again no mention of the Eastern Rite Catholics because they are neither in error nor do they lack proper jurisdiction and a proper mass. I mentioned in one of my earlier arguments, there are only two positions within the Eastern Camp. Those who are in schism with Rome and those that are in communion with Rome. Therefore, I must once again reiterate that whether the seat is vacant or not or the pope is a heretic or not, it has done nothing to effect the Eastern Rite of the Catholic church. Again, please read for yourself the earlier comment from Novus Ordo Watch to my first comment, which is that they also say we have a valid mass. In this they are correct. Our mass is valid, our sacraments are valid, our priesthood is valid and our bishops are valid. Therefore, I do not think that my understanding of Des Lauriers is skewed and again nothing in the article changed my mind I need to think of his position any differently.
I did enjoy reading all of the links you did send by the way so thank you. Blessings be upon you.
Vinny, no, the Greeks do not “reject the same pope the Sedevacantists do”. And if they do, they reject him for the wrong reason. Rather, the Greeks reject the Papacy altogether. We merely say that Francis and his Novus Ordo predecessors are invalid occupants of the office. That’s an essential difference.
I do not see in the least what sort of problems Sedevacantism should have when being confronted with the Eastern Church. The only difference to the Latin Church is that they have more valid sacraments. So what? It’s not like validity of sacraments suffices to allow one to partake of them.
The bishop of your eparchy (or whatever it’s called) submits to Francis. That is the religion whose Mass you’re attending.
“They have more valid sacraments. So what?” Honestly my dear brothers (and sisters) it is this type of flippant attitude that makes it so hard to talk to sedevacantists. So if you don’t like something I’ve said, strike back with flippant, dismissive attacks of 2000 years of history in the Eastern Rite with “so what?” Then you want everyone to jump through their skin because you say there is no pope in Rome and the seat is vacant. The Sedevacantists kind of remind me of the “Trump’s not my President” crowd. They’ll let us know when there is a valid president sitting in the White House. The sedevacantists will let us know when there is a valid pope sitting back in Peter’s chair.
Like it or not, you have joined the Protestants because there is no longer a visible church but an invisible church “made up of true Catholics” and the visible church, in your eyes, is completely heretical and apostate. They only other people in my life I have telling me the Catholic Church is apostate, besides the Sedevacantists are the Protestants. The only other people in public declaring the true church is a spiritual union of true believers, besides the Sedevacantists are the Protestants. I am aware, there is absolutely nothing a Catholic can say to a Sedevacantist that you all will hear except for the explicit statement “Francis is not Pope.” Absent this, you will not listen to the East and you will never again listen to the west. Come quickly Lord Jesus. This is not going to end well for us.
Dear Vinny,
I really don’t understand what the problem is here. I am certainly willing to hear criticism, but I don’t understand it here. Perhaps part of the problem is that written communication tends to be more easily misunderstood than spoken communication.
The question: “So what?” was not meant to be flippant, it was simply meant to point out the fact that a religion having valid sacraments does not suffice to make it the true religion, nor does a valid Mass alone suffice to permit you to assist at it. You may disagree, and then we can discuss it, but that is all that my “so what?” was supposed to indicate. Lutherans have a valid baptism, but that doesn’t mean it is permissible to receive baptism from them. The Eastern Orthodox and some Old Catholics have valid Masses. This does not mean you are allowed to assist at those Masses.
The important thing to realize is that the problem we have today is not essentially one of sacraments. The core of the problem is not the Novus Ordo Missae, which is merely a symptom of the greater problem. Unfortunately, over the years — thanks especially to the SSPX — the problem has largely been reduced to one of sacramental rites. The SSPX slogan “it’s the Mass that matters” is false. It is the FAITH that matters. It is the CHURCH that matters. And for this reason, the Eastern rite is not a solution, because although you have a valid Mass and priesthood there, it is not the Roman Catholic religion of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors because the Eastern rite is in full communion with (and part of) the Modernist hierarchy. The Eastern rites are just as much bound to Vatican II, ecumenism, Amoris Laetitia, Modernist canon law, etc., as much as the Latin rite. So that’s what I’m trying to tell you. I’m sorry if it has come across as flippant.
We do NOT believe in an invisible church. A lot of people misunderstand this. It is just the reverse: The Catholic Church is visible, yes, but visible in the UNITY OF THE FAITH, and if you start saying that a Pope can have one faith (religion) and the rest of the Church another, then you have destroyed the unity of the Church, as well as her visibility, because a visible Church that isn’t Catholic, or that is divided in Faith, is not the Catholic Church.
There is a lot to say about all this, and a lot has already been said. I would like to encourage you, in order to give you the bigger picture and also some HOPE in all of this, please listen to (or read the transcript of) this 45-minute lecture on the Catholic teaching about the Church before the coming of the Antichrist:
http://novusordowatch.org/2017/02/papacy-passion-of-church-fatima-conference-2016/
God bless you.
This is all so very well said, NOW-despite-yes-the inherent difficulties in written combox format.
Vinny- you’re welcome.
I did say: “As per what you wrote.” It’s possible your understanding was not elucidated in your very words here. It’s inherent in the format of a combox, for sure. that one often cannot cover things with efficacy. So I sent the links to cover the bases, so to speak.
As per what you say here: “–whether the seat is vacant or not or the pope is a heretic or not, it
has done nothing to effect the Eastern Rite of the Catholic church–” I urge you to take to heart NOWatch’s responses below. Step away from the Heresy of Modernism which produced VII Sectariansim, the religion with which, from what I can tell, you align yourself.
N.O.W., Please clarify your position. You wrote:
“…you have a valid Mass and a very beautiful liturgy. The problem is that it is a liturgy and a Mass within the Church of Francis, which is an apostate religion.”
Therefore, is it your postition that they have a valid mass with a valid Eucharist? Or is it that they have a valid mass without a valid Eucharist?
Thanks.
Their Mass is in communion with heretics, therefore it is undertaken by a schismatic sect who have chosen Apostate Rome over the True Church and her Papal Office, therefore they confect the Sacrament but do so to their detriment. The True Catholic Popes made this plain – partaking of Holy Communion disunited from the Holy See is a sin. The Arian Bishops had valid Masses but they were heretics and therefore outside the Unity of the Faith.
Thanks for your input. However, I must say that I disagree that Arians had valid masses or could validly consecrate bread and wine to become the Most Blessed Sacrament. They could not have had the correct intention necessary to do so.
Yes, they could. To have the necessary intention, it is not necessary, strictly speaking, to believe in the Catholic religion at all. All that is necessary for a valid intention is to intend to do what the Church does. And for this reason even an atheist can baptize someone validly.
Please provide proof the best proof you have for your contention.
The True Catholic Faith, Her Doctrine, Her Worship etc., are the opposite of doubt. They leave no place for ‘maybe…maybe not’, which is the bread and butter of Protestantism and its ‘greatest acheivement/attack-on-Christ’; i.e. the Novus Ordo (VII) Conciliar post-catholic religion.
Pope Pius IX, acknowledging (as does the N.O.W. moderator) that transubstantiation can and does occur apart from the Church by schismatic priests or worse, said, “he who eats the Lamb outside of it (the Catholic Church) has no part with God. (Amantissimus, April 18, 1862).
Of heretics, St. Jerome wrote: God hates the sacrifices of these and pushes them from Himself, and whenever they come together in the name of the Lord, He abhors their stench, and holds His nose… (In Amos, V:22, P.L. 25, 1033-1034)
Also, a great deal of authentic Catholic teaching found here:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/
Hi again, This is how I found it translated: “…whoever eats of the lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned;” papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9amant2.htm
I take this to mean non-catholics who approach Holy Communion in order to consume it have profaned. It mentions only eating, not consecration.
I don’t see why you would think it means that apostates of the faith can validly consecrate bread and wine.
They have a valid Mass with a valid Eucharist (if it weren’t a valid Eucharist, they wouldn’t have a valid Mass). They certainly do. As do the Eastern Orthodox. The point is, though, that that’s almost entirely irrelevant because validity of the Mass alone does not permit one to assist at it.
Thanks. In your opinion, do they continue to validly ordain bishops and priests?
Yes, they do. Although I heard a few years ago or so that they were beginning to change the ordination rites to “update” them…
Do you mean to imply that an apostate of the faith can ordain/consecrate Catholic priests and bishops? If so, this is contradictory. Someone cannot be an apostate of the faith and also a Catholic.
Yes, I mean to imply that, and in fact it is DOGMA that apostates, if they have valid orders, can validly ordain and consecrate. It is not necessary to be a Catholic to be able to confer valid sacraments. To deny this is the heresy of Donatism.
To my understanding, donatists claimed that those (1) who are of unworthy moral character cannot validly celebrate a sacrament, (2) even if they don’t repent. But I didn’t assert either 1 or 2.
Please provide quotes from a pope or a council as proof of your definition of the heresy of donatism.
The Donatists asserted both, that those who are morally unworthy cannot validly confer a sacrament, and also that heretics cannot.
Council of Trent, Session 7, Canons on Baptism, Canon IV: “If anyone shall say that the baptism, which is also given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 860)
With respect to baptism, this is “de fide”. With respect to the other sacraments, it is proximate to faith. You can find this really in any dogmatic theology manual. In particular, you will also find it in Fr. Raphael De Salvo’s “The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments” (1948).
Thanks for your response. I had asked for the reference to a papal, or council document, with your original definition of the heresy of donatism, for you had written:
“It is not necessary to be a Catholic to be able to confer valid sacraments. To deny this is the heresy of Donatism.”
But you referred me to the Council of Trent which doesn’t explicitly mention donatism, and only made pronouncements with regard to baptism by heretics. This much, I agree, has been declared, and is infallible.
Provided the heretic does what the Church does, a person can be baptized by one. This should increase the chances that more will be saved.
Trent doesn’t mention atheists or apostates. But note that I had asked if you meant to imply that an apostate, not a heretic, could validly ordain. By apostate the Church means someone who has totally rejected the Catholic faith. It’s not synonymous with heretic. Your response and Trent’s addresses heretics, not apostates.
But this is an important distinction. For someone who has totally rejected the faith is either agnostic, an atheist, has joined a false religion, or has united himself to a mix of false religions or religious beliefs.
The Council of Trent met many times over many years, and they could have mentioned that heretics could celebrate the other sacraments too. It was the perfect moment to do so, but they did not. That was Trent’s statement. However, Trent affirmed that the bishop must be present for Confirmation; this rules out heretics and apostates. For sure Trent could not have meant that a heretical bishop must be present.
Now you assert that it’s “proximate to faith” that heretics can celebrate the other sacraments. Why? Because (despite Trent) one theologian said so? Some, many, all? Has this ever been officially declared by the Church? Or is this your personal assessment?
You do realize that there are catastrophic implications if an apostate of the faith (or even a heretic) is able to consecrate bishops. I don’t believe Christ intended this given how he providentially selected and prepared twelve apostles. Nor do I think that heretical bishops multiplying themselves will increase the number who are saved.
I will read the book you suggested. But, at this point, I see no compelling evidence that according to the Church it’s “proximate to faith” that heretical bishops can ordain who they wish, or that the Church recognizes them as qualified to celebrate the sacraments (as newly ordained heretical Catholic bishops?).
I may have taken the definition of the heresy of Donatism a bit too loosely, that I can certainly concede. Although my point wasn’t so much about the heresy of Donatism specifically; rather, my overall point was that it is Catholic teaching that the sacraments can be conferred validly even if the minister does not have the Faith because the intention to do what the Church does, does not depend upon the Faith of the minister. That is the Catholic position. Whether the unbelieving minister is a heretic or an apostate (atheist would qualify as apostate) is irrelevant since the difference between heretic and apostate is merely one of degree, not of kind.
>> You do realize that there are catastrophic implications if an apostate of the faith (or even a heretic) is able to consecrate bishops. <<
On the contrary: The implications would be catastrophic if a heretic, apostate, or atheist bishop were NOT able to consecrate bishops validly.
I see you are new to this whole controversy. That's fine, but please realize that if you would like to understand Catholic theology better, you must delve into Catholic theology. I'd be happy to help you with identifying resources to consult, but I am not interested in a drawn-out debate about these matters when it is evident (not trying to be rude, just descriptive) that you are not familiar much with the subject matter.
All these objections and concerns you're raising have been brought up many times before in the history of the Church and have been answered. This whole issue touches the core of sacramental theology, namely, that the minister acts in the person of Christ. It is really Christ who confers the sacraments; sanctifying grace comes from Him and not from the minister himself. The sacraments work "ex opere operato". That's why Faith is not a requirement for the valid administration of the sacraments. This is not controversial, nor is it the "opinion" of "one theologian".
Besides the books I already mentioned, I can also recommend the Pohle-Preuss collection on dogmatic theology (I believe it is vol. 8 that talks about the requirements for a valid sacramental intention):
http://loretopubs.org/pohle-preuss-manual-of-dogmatic-theology-in-12-volumes-book-five-vol-8-and-9.html
I can also recommend Fr. Bernard Leeming's "Principles of Sacramental Theology" (1956).
I don't have a whole lot of time to spend on combox discussions, so please pardon me if I am referring you to sources where you can find the answers rather than doing all the research for you.
You may want to subscribe to thecatholicarchive.com to get a hold of a lot of out of print books in electronic format. God bless you.
False. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. She is His undefiled Spouse. For one to even remotely imply that His Majesty Jesus Christ allows His Bride to be defiled by allowing an apostate to validly hold the Throne, is-as others have said here & elsewhere-not only a metaphysical impossibility, but an idea from Satan. Get thee hence.
There is no moral decline in the Church. She remains as She has always been, unchangeable & indefectable. The See of Peter is currently vacant. That’s all. Clearly-again just by reading your words, you reveal that you hold that She Herself can be in a state of decline. This is just one part of of that slew of errors which those who imbibe the Heresy of Modernism proclaim.
You may have meant to say that the members, bc scandal, exhibit a general moral decline. But those who were broken up by law enforcement were VII Sectarians, not Catholics. That said though, the fact of their particular failings is not nearly as disastrous, not even in the same category, as the fact that they are teaching a false religion. The same applies to Francis. If only he engaged in moral failings but taught True Doctrine, the entire situation would be vastly different.
As to other matters referring to your worship, etc.- NOWatch has addressed that better than I could certainly & quite obviously. I judge you not, my friend.
Hello
Yes, there is much that God allows but does not approve of. One of the many things God does not allow, is for His promise regarding His Church to be contradicted or made void. A valid Pope is Christ’s literal proxy/Vicar on earth. No Vicar of Christ contradicts the Church, that is, contradicts Christ and His teachings. Christ’s Vicar has a special Charism which prevents him from teaching the Church anything to harm souls. The post-Pius-XII Vatican is a dark creature. It has exiled Christ and His Church in favour of error. What has remained is the scaffold of Catholicism upon which a dead/satanic creature called the New Order hopes to make itself ‘presentable’ – a skeleton with no flesh; an Emperor with no clothes all the same. It can nourish no soul. We pray that the scaffold may once again have flesh on ‘dem bones’, but in the mean time we must cleave to the diminished but still very vibrant and visible One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church during this long interregnum. If this means that one cannot geographically have access to the sacraments, that is a sacrifice. But there is no alternative. One must make a spiritual communion with the continuing Sacrifice of the Mass.
PS. RE: “air of pride and impatience.” Ask, Seek, Knock. Truth is what matters. If you feel an ‘air of pride and impatience’, put it aside for the sake of holding to the True Faith. Being good is a good thing, but ‘without Faith, it is impossible to please God.’
His death is very suspicious. He knew to much I guess and asking to many questions.
Pope Francis is completely corrupt. When will the church wake up.