Hey guys! I'm new here and I'm glad to join this catholic forum.
I know this has probably been discussed before, but since I can't find it, I wanted to know if people here believe in the validity of the new rite. Objectively speaking, if we rely on the criterion of validity given infallibly by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis, the formula seems completely invalid. But how can we really be sure? If it were invalid, it would mean that the sedevacantists have the true position, given the impossibility for a true pope to promulgate an invalid rite. But I could be wrong, I don't want to be wrong, this is too important a question to make a hasty decision. Could someone here tell me what they think? I am only looking for the Truth. May God enlighten us with His divine light.
So, you don't really have to determine that it's invalid. If there's a positive doubt ... for all practical intents and purposes, except in danger of death, it amounts to the same thing, where we must avoid them. Now, in danger of death, one may, if there's no other alternative available, attempt to receive Sacraments that labor under postiive doubt ... that's the only practical difference, where you can't receive a certainly invalid Sacrament even in danger of death (e.g. receive absolution from some female "priest").
In terms of the implications for SVism, there's a dialectic between how certain you are about the invalidity of the Sacraments vs. how certain one is about the illegitimacy of the V2 Papal claimants who promulgate and endorse these Rites. You are absolutely correct, that the protection of the Holy Spirit over the papacy and the Church would prevent legitimate popes from promulgating invalid Sacraments. Thus, if a Pope St. Pius X would have promulgated the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration, I would accept that as certainly valid, since we knew with certainty that he was a legitimate pope. But ... let's say I'm not so sure about Montini. Well, then I'm also therefore not so sure about the Rites he promulgated.
That's where I articulated what's known as the "sede-doubtist" position, where we're in a state of doubt, and that doubt suffices for us to carry on as is, awaiting final resolution by the Church. In other words, while it's an important question, we're not required to, nor do we have the authority, to definitively resolve the matter. Canon Lawyers state (several quotes are out there) that one is not a schismatic if he refuses submission to a papal claimant on the basis of serious and well-founded doubts about his legitimacy. And, there's the related theological maxim that
papa dubius nullus papa ... a doubtful pope is no pope. So not only does entertaining serious, well-founded doubts suffice to carry on as Traditional Catholics, but also opens one up to doubt regarding the validity of the NO Sacraments, and where there's postive doubt, one must refrain from receiving them except, as mentioned, in danger of death without any certainly-valid alternative available to you.
WAY too much effort is spent on debating valid vs. invalid, something which we'll never resolve definitively until the intervention of Church authority. SSPX et al. can argue til they're blue in the face that the Sacraments are valid, but they have zero authority to bind consciences. Only the Church's authority can do that. Oh, well, wait, the authority they claim is that of the Church has in fact declared them valid. If the Church's authority says they're valid, then they're valid ... so why bother with alll the long analyses? Well, we know why. It's precisely for the reasons you cited, where it's not really about the Sacraments but about the implications in favor of sedevacantism. But all of that is putting the cart before the horse. If the V2 papal claimants are legitimate, then the Sacraments they promulgated are valid. Move along. If they're doubtful, then there can be doubt about their Sacraments (since they're no longer guaranteed valid
a priori by the exercise of papal authority), and Fr. Calderon, SSPX, and everyone else can argue til they're blue in the face, but their arguments do not provide the requisite certainty ... as only the Church's authority can do that. Clearly there were changes made to the Rites, and if the changes were made by dubious popes, the threshold for establishing positive doubt is incredibly low, and the burden of proof rests absolutely square on those claiming there is no positive doubt, but it's a burden they cannot meet, since only the Church's authority can meet that burden.
Topic: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968) (Read 4635 times)