Author Topic: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line  (Read 1091 times)


Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #80 on: January 25, 2018, 05:00:39 PM »
Anonimus, let me spell it out for you...

SeanJohnson, January 19, 2018, 07:36:56 PM
"Seems like the 4th criteria is no longer in the SSPX' s radar."

SeanJohnson, January 20, 2018, 07:08:51 AM
"Many of the manuals speak only of form, matter, and intent because the validity of the minister is presumed."

To say something is not on the radar, but is presumed, is a direct contradiction.

Isn't the quote from January 19h about how the SSPX is looking at the situation while the quote from January 20th about how the theological manuals view the issue?

No evidence was given that the SSPX doesn't presume validity of the FSSP priests. Of course they presume it. So, as I said.

Again, isn't the point that the SSPX used to routinely conditionally ordain priests who wanted to work with them?

Their policy has been to presume validity, unless the priest himself has a doubt and asks to be conditionally ordained. That is why you will find some working with them were conditionally ordained, and others not.


The SSPX ALWAYS investigates.

They do NOT honor the request of the priest to receive conditional ordination, so long as their investigation finds no positive doubts about the conciliar ordination.

This implies that the SSPX no longer retains positive doubts regarding the form of the new rites per se.

If it did, it would always have to conditionally ordain in every instance.

No, they don't always investigate ordinations. They don't investigate any confirmations but just conditionally confirm again. And they woefully lack ANY investigation of baptisms because they consider all Novus Ordo baptisms valid, thus ruining the usual trust in valid ordinations of their seminarians since about 1996.


Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #81 on: January 27, 2018, 01:00:07 PM »
Seems paranoid to distrust SSPX orders on baptismal grounds.