brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/07/fr-calderon-refutes-bishop-fellay.html





Fr Alvaro Calderon, professor of philosophy and dogmatic theology at the seminary of the SSPX in Buenos Aires and author of several texts of extraordinary quality, such as "La Lámpara Bajo el Celemín"(The lamp Under the Bushel) and "Prometheus, the Religion of Man", has published a study in the journal "Si, Si,No,No" No. 267, November 2014, which is entitled "Are the Episcopal Consecrations Reformed by Paul VI Valid?". Although the main purpose of the article is to respond to the objections of the sedevacantist sectors that oppose the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, in this study by Fr. Calderón some seriously erroneous statements made by Bishop Fellay in his never retracted "Doctrinal Declaration" of October 2012 are refuted from the point of view of sacramental theology.



Bishop Fellay said in No. 7 of the Doctrinal Declaration: "We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II."





Consequently, the Superior General:



a) recognizes the validity of all the sacraments reformed by the modernists, provided that they are held with the intention due. There are three components to consider in judging the validity of the sacraments: matter, form and intention of a true minister. Bishop Fellay does not object to anything regarding the matter, nor regarding the form of the Novus Ordo Sacraments, and refers only to the requirement of the necessary intent of the celebrant. However, in the seminaries of the SSPX it has always been taught that there are serious doubts about the validity of various reformed sacraments, due to the changes introduced by the modernists as to the matter, form, or intention. That's why the sound custom of conditionally confirming those confirmed in the Novus Ordo and of conditionally ordaining those priests ordained according to the rite of Paul VI has always existed in the Society. Extreme Unction was always considered as very likely invalid, etc.



b) He states that these sacraments were legitimately promulgated, an ambiguous expression (Does he say that the Sacraments are legitimate or is it only the act of promulgating these that is legitimate?) that has been interpreted by the majority of Catholics as nothing more than an acceptance of the legitimacy of the Sacraments of the Novus Ordo. For the concept of "legitimacy", see here.



Well, Fr. Calderon says differently: The rite of episcopal consecration (which is a Sacrament) is "certainly illegitimate" and "probably valid" (noting that "there is no certainty of its validity").



Here are the essential quotes (bold and italics in original):



"The new rite is certainly illegitimate.

The new rite that Paul VI intended to promulgate by his apostolic constitution Pontificalis Romani is certainly illegitimate by the accuмulation of two reasons: firstly, because no pope has authority to destroy the Roman liturgical tradition and much less so to invent a rite that is in rupture with the whole of Catholic tradition; secondly, because the contamination with modernist doctrines causes harm to the faith, and a decision contrary to the common good of the Church cannot have the force of law.

(...)

Because of all this, even though the rite, considered as such, were totally orthodox and a better expression of the doctrine of the episcopate, it would not be legitimate, because no pope has the authority to break the liturgical tradition of the Church. The invention of a new rite is an act which is certainly illegitimate, even if he is a pope or an angel from heaven who intends to establish it.

(...)

(...) And the Society is obligated to declare the illegitimacy of the Novus Ordo Missae, because of the doctrines of the Paschal Mystery that inspire it (...), so we must also recognize that the Novus Ordo episcopal consecration is certainly illegitimate.



The new rite is probably valid.

A sacramental rite can be certainly illegitimate, but that does not necessarily invalidate it.

(...)

If we consider the matter, form and intention of the new rite of episcopal consecration in the context of the rite and the circuмstances of their institution, we think it is most likely valid (...)

But we also believe that there is no certainty of its validity (...)

(...)

Now, in a matter of utmost importance for the life of the Church, such as the validity of the episcopate, it is necessary to be absolutely certain. Therefore, to accept in good conscience this rite, it would be necessary to not only rely on the judgment of theologians, but on the infallible judgment of the Magisterium.

As for the practical attitude to maintain in light of the new episcopal consecrations, it seems justified that which until now had been held by the Society: (Note the past tense, "had been held" NON POSSUMUS.)

(...)

(...) the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent having certainty of its validity, we feel that (...) they justify and necessitate the conditional ordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional consecration of these bishops. Such doubts in the very root of the sacraments cannot be tolerated."



brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/07/fr-calderon-refutes-bishop-fellay.html

Please note the change to this text:

Well, Fr. Calderon says differently: The rite of episcopal consecration (which is the plenitude of the sacramental character of Holy Orders) is "certainly illegitimate" and "probably valid" (noting that "there is no certainty of its validity").

In the first minute of this video (2009) you can see the extent of +Fellay's sacramental theology. ABL should have tested him before making him a bishop, or even a priest. With what he believes, he could not possibly object to the N.O. Mass. He must think the words of consecration are magic words. Listen carefully to the first minute. It is truly an embarrassment.



This video is divided in many 15 min. sections.

Actually, what +Fellay said is not new, I remember not long after Fr. Anthony Ward was ordained that he told a similar story that +Fellay tells in the opening minute of that video - that was back in 1972 or so. Fr. said he learned it from his  seminary professor, which is probably the same story all the seminarians were taught back then.

The jist was, to err on the side of caution, validity was presumed.  

   

If anyone would translate this whole study by Fr. Calderon, it would be to the great benefit of the whole Resistance in treating Conciliar consecrations, and consequently ordinations and confirmations made by bishops consecrated in the new rite.

Here, download this PDF.  It deals with the matter from a thorough perspective and is written by a Dominican of Avrillé Fr. Pierre Marie, O.P., and is from the Angelus.  I would recommend it.

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf



edit:

My mistake, this only deals with validity.  The question of illicitness is not mentioned.

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

If anyone would translate this whole study by Fr. Calderon, it would be to the great benefit of the whole Resistance in treating Conciliar consecrations, and consequently ordinations and confirmations made by bishops consecrated in the new rite.

Here, download this PDF.  It deals with the matter from a thorough perspective and is written by a Dominican of Avrillé Fr. Pierre Marie, O.P., and is from the Angelus.  I would recommend it.

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf

I am aware of that study, but this new one by Fr. Calderon reaches a different conclusion, and that is its importance - that the new rite of episcopal consecration is "probably valid", which in sacramental theology would be no different than saying "doubtful", because Catholics may only administer and receive "certainly valid" rites. Fr. Calderon says that because there is no certainty the priests coming from the NO should be conditionally ordained in the traditional rite.

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

If anyone would translate this whole study by Fr. Calderon, it would be to the great benefit of the whole Resistance in treating Conciliar consecrations, and consequently ordinations and confirmations made by bishops consecrated in the new rite.

Here, download this PDF.  It deals with the matter from a thorough perspective and is written by a Dominican of Avrillé Fr. Pierre Marie, O.P., and is from the Angelus.  I would recommend it.

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf

I am aware of that study, but this new one by Fr. Calderon reaches a different conclusion, and that is its importance - that the new rite of episcopal consecration is "probably valid", which in sacramental theology would be no different than saying "doubtful", because Catholics may only administer and receive "certainly valid" rites. Fr. Calderon says that because there is no certainty the priests coming from the NO should be conditionally ordained in the traditional rite.

Are you a sedevacantist?

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

In the first minute of this video (2009) you can see the extent of +Fellay's sacramental theology. ABL should have tested him before making him a bishop, or even a priest. With what he believes, he could not possibly object to the N.O. Mass. He must think the words of consecration are magic words. Listen carefully to the first minute. It is truly an embarrassment.



This video is divided in many 15 min. sections.

Actually, what +Fellay said is not new, I remember not long after Fr. Anthony Ward was ordained that he told a similar story that +Fellay tells in the opening minute of that video - that was back in 1972 or so. Fr. said he learned it from his  seminary professor, which is probably the same story all the seminarians were taught back then.

The jist was, to err on the side of caution, validity was presumed.  

   

To think that a priest, with the wrong intention (mad at his bishop), most likely the wrong form and matter can "consecrate  all the bread in the bakery" or "all the wine in the cellar", outside of the Sacrifice of the Mass, is simply madness.

Leavened wheat bread is still valid matter, and so is any wine without added sugar or other additives. The valid form we all know, and the valid intention of doing what the Church does, theologians say, is very easy to have.
So yes, a priest who wanted to spite his bishop would be able to consecrate a whole bakery, or even a whole wine cellar (it would be a sacrilege), and if externally he followed the form, validity indeed would be presumed for obvious reasons (erring on the side of caution).

Without the sacrifice there is no consecration. It is absurd to believe that a bakery or a wine cellar can be consecrated independent of the Mass and independent of the entire matter of bread of the sacrament of both bread and wine being present.  Even canon law specifically states that under no circuмstances whatsoever may any priest attempt consecration outside of the sacrifice of the Mass, or consecration of only bread or wine alone in a Mass.  It is instructive that canon law admits no exception whatsoever, not even in the case of imminent death, because no law can bind unconditionally unless the thing itself is impossible.  Not even divine law binds in cases of impossibility.  The only reason canon law can permit no exception whatsoever is because it is impossible to do.  The intention to do what the Church does in confecting a sacrament is the same intention of Jesus Christ who instituted the sacrament for when a priest consecrates he does so in the person of Jesus Christ.  Furthermore, at the very moment that Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of His Body and Blood, He made the Apostles priests.  It is Jesus Christ who bound the sacrament, the sacrifice and the priesthood.  Those whose theology permits divorcing what Christ has bound together are committing a grave error. To believe that a priest can enter a bakery and turn all the bread into the Blessed Sacrament while intending to do what Jesus Christ did, displays a profound ignorance of sacramental theology.  It is an ignorance so profound that it is frightening to know that he was negotiating with Rome on behalf of traditional Catholics.

I should add that it is this kind of theology that makes the Novus Ordo corruption possible. The Novus Ordo denies the idea of sacrifice.

----------Without the sacrifice there is no consecration.----------

The consecration is precisely what makes the One Sacrifice present. So, what you should have said is - without the consecration there is no sacrifice.

----------It is absurd to believe that a bakery or a wine cellar can be consecrated independent of the Mass and independent of the entire matter of bread of the sacrament of both bread and wine being present.----------

The Mass is essentially expressed in and by the words of consecration. As for the matter, I already told you which type of bread and wine found in those places is valid matter. If you don't believe me, you are free to check.

----------Even canon law specifically states that under no circuмstances whatsoever may any priest attempt consecration outside of the sacrifice of the Mass, or consecration of only bread or wine alone in a Mass.  It is instructive that canon law admits no exception whatsoever, not even in the case of imminent death, because no law can bind unconditionally unless the thing itself is impossible... The only reason canon law can permit no exception whatsoever is because it is impossible to do.----------

  With such logic, I should not be surprised of your statements. Od course the law forbids it without exception. We are forbidden from committing any sacrilege (which is what this example would be), without exception, and yet we are perfectly able to commit the sacrilege, it is by no means impossible.
The same can be said for any crime.

----------The intention to do what the Church does in confecting a sacrament is the same intention of Jesus Christ who instituted the sacrament for when a priest consecrates he does so in the person of Jesus Christ.  Furthermore, at the very moment that Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of His Body and Blood, He made the Apostles priests.  It is Jesus Christ who bound the sacrament, the sacrifice and the priesthood.  Those whose theology permits divorcing what Christ has bound together are committing a grave error. To believe that a priest can enter a bakery and turn all the bread into the Blessed Sacrament while intending to do what Jesus Christ did, displays a profound ignorance of sacramental theology.----------

Methinks you should look for profound ignorance somewhere else.
There are unfortunately priests who consecrate precisely in order to commit sacrilege.