Your position on the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration is far from secure when examined in light of traditional Catholic theology and the clear concerns expressed by Archbishop Lefebvre.
1. Doubts and Intentions in the New Rites:
Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly highlighted the significant doubts regarding the intention and form of sacraments in the post-Vatican II rites. In a letter dated October 28, 1988, he stressed that the intentions behind modern sacramental rites are often not Catholic, making them dubious. The traditional understanding of sacramental validity relies heavily on proper intention, form, and matter. With modernists openly embracing a new ecuмenical theology, which Archbishop Lefebvre described as aligning with Protestant beliefs, the sacramental intention in the new rites is, at best, questionable.
2. Form and Matter in Traditional Theology:
Contrary to your assertion that the new rite’s form is “more clearly determined,” Archbishop Lefebvre argued that the new rites exhibit “serious deviations” in form, as outlined in his conferences and letters. Traditional Catholic theology holds that valid form must convey the sacramental reality explicitly. When we examine examples such as the rite of ordination and episcopal consecration, the ambiguous language often lacks the clarity traditionally required to ensure sacramental grace. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais also criticized the new ordination rite, stating it was “not Catholic” and thus doubtful in conveying valid sacramental grace.
3. The Need for Conditional Ordinations and Reordination:
Archbishop Lefebvre and many traditional bishops, in light of these concerns, have repeatedly conditionally re-ordained priests and bishops coming from the Novus Ordo. The reason for this is to safeguard the faith by ensuring valid sacraments. As Lefebvre said, “We must do a study,” and for cases of doubt, the practice of conditional ordination has been essential to preserve Apostolic Succession and ensure a valid priesthood.
4. Apostolic Succession and Supplied Jurisdiction:
The argument that a hierarchy lacking “ordinary jurisdiction” is invalid contradicts traditional Catholic principles, especially in times of crisis. The Church teaches that “supplied jurisdiction” applies in cases of necessity to ensure the continuation of valid sacraments and Apostolic Succession. In his ordinations and consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre relied on this principle to provide bishops and priests for the faithful in the face of an unprecedented crisis within the Church.
The conciliar changes to the rites of ordination, especially with ambiguous intentions and forms, align with Protestant theology rather than Catholic tradition. It is not we who lack Apostolicity but the modernists who have adopted a new theology incompatible with the Deposit of Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre’s steadfast position was that true fidelity to the Church requires us to reject doubtful sacraments, uphold traditional forms, and defend the integrity of the priesthood. This stance aligns with traditional Catholic teaching and cannot be dismissed as “Old Catholicism 2.0” without ignoring the core principles of sacramental theology and Apostolic Succession.
You don't know what you are talking about. Before I reply, quote an pre-Vatican II authority who supports your claims. And, in case you aren't aware of it, one of the major errors of Archbishop Lefebvre was miunderstanding the sacramental intention. Therefore, also quote any pre-Vatican II authority to show what "the intention to do what the Church does" actually requirs on the part of the minister. And keep in mind that even a pagan, who has no idea what baptism does to the soul, or a heretic who explicitly denies that baptism has any effect on the soul, can baptize validly, which means their ignorance or errors regarding baptism do not nullify the sacramental intention to do what the Church does.
Topic: Attn: Ladislaus "Double Effect" (Read 1104 times)