It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:36 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ] 
 Doubts about Lefebvre & Thuc Orders 
Author Message

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Laymen and priests.
I really must make one more point here that has been bothering me for many years.

This concerns the validity of the orders of everyone ordained by Lefebevre (sp?), Thuc, etc.

I have had strong doubts about the validity of those orders and consecrations for many years. In my humble opinion, despite the torrents of verbiage supporting their validity, I submit that none of those involved can authoritatively declare those orders to be valid.

Only the true Church can so rule.

Futhermore, I believe a prime "rule" of the application of Canon Law states that, "No one is competent to judge his own case." Therefore, in my opinion, everything that the SSPX, SSPV, Thuc-line, CMRI, and independents have to say that would legitimize their orders fails on that rule alone.

Lastly, it seems to me that one of the primary proofs against the validity of those orders is the simple fact of their constant and unremiting infighting. I find this constant battliing to be extemely scandalous, and unless and until we have no other recourse to POSSIBLY valid sacraments, I and my family will have nothing whatever to do with any of those groups.

I repeat; until we can no longer find certainly-valid priests to provide us with certainly-valid Mass and the sacraments, we will avoid such groups.

At this time, we believe we have, at most, maybe 8 or 9 years before such old priests are all dead.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:43 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear Ken,



Quote:
I have had strong doubts about the validity of those orders and consecrations for many years. In my humble opinion, despite the torrents of verbiage supporting their validity, I submit that none of those involved can authoritatively declare those orders to be valid.

Only the true Church can so rule.



Given this, are you saying you do not hold the SPPX, CMRI to hold valid orders? Is the SPPV also in this grouping?

If all this is a given, where do you hold the Church to be? Underground and in secert? Or, only with a few older priests and bishops ordained prior to Vatican 2, alla , Hutton Gibsons Home Alone position?

In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:54 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !

Dear Ken,

Quote:
I have had strong doubts about the validity of those orders and consecrations for many years. In my humble opinion, despite the torrents of verbiage supporting their validity, I submit that none of those involved can authoritatively declare those orders to be valid.

Only the true Church can so rule.


Given this, are you saying you do not hold the SPPX, CMRI to hold valid orders?


No. I am simply saying that **I** and I alone, have extremely strong doubts about them which are not alleviated by what THEY say about them.

Remember, it is REQUIRED of us to take the safer, or more certain, course in these matters!

Quote:
Is the SPPV also in this grouping?


I assume you mean SSPV. Yes. I include all of what I might term "extraordinarily ordained/consecrated" groups.

Quote:
If all this is a given,


Sorry. My stance is most certainly NOT a "given"!

Quote:
where do you hold the Church to be? Underground and in secret?


I don't honestly know. Perhaps underground. Perhaps in some foreign country. Perhaps behind the Iron Curtain. Perhaps ALL of these, and then some. Also, it sort of depends on what YOU mean by "underground."

I have not been able to resolve your question (where is the Church) sufficiently. However, I DO believe that the "Church" simply consists of all "right believers" and legitmate heirarchy. I agree with John when he says that there must be at least one Bishop with jurisdiction, and some possibly-scattered believers, when Christ returns.

Remember the story of one of the Old Testament prophets who was running away from Israel because he thought he was the only "true believer" left, and that if he died, the true religion would die with him? I think it was Elijah. In any case, remember what God told him when He overhauled him running away? Something to the effect that, "...you don't know them, but I have 7000 men left in Israel who believe in Me."

Quote:
Or, only with a few older priests and bishops ordained prior to Vatican 2, alla , Hutton Gibsons Home Alone position?


I most emphatically do NOT believe in Hutton Gibson's "Home Alone" position. In fact, I can just about assure you that I believe very little of what Hutton Gibson proposes for our belief.

In fact, I most emphatically do not believe in ANY "home-alone" position, and consider such a position to be extremely foolish in most instances, although understandable in many.

In our case, we have been repeatedly led to certainly-valid priests offering certainly-valid sacraments in answer to our prayers. Just when it seemed that we had nowhere to turn, something would occur to relieve us. We have a great devotion to Our Lady because of this. We also believe in the absolute necessity of Mass and the sacraments for our spiritual welfare.

We have been driving at least a 200 mile round-trip over narrow two-lane roads, summer and winter for 27 years now, in order to get to the Mass and sacraments, and will continue to do so until we can no longer drive. The highway we drive is listed amongst the top 10 most dangerous highways in the U.S., US Highway 95.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:41 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear Ken,

Thanks for the concise reponse.

Quote:
Remember, it is REQUIRED of us to take the safer, or more certain, course in these matters!


And this is why I do receive the Sacraments from the CMRI and SSPX, instead of the novus ordo clergy.

In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:06 am
Posts: 63
New post 
KenGordon wrote:

In fact, I most emphatically do not believe in ANY "home-alone" position, and consider such a position to be extremely foolish in most instances, although understandable in many.

We have been driving at least a 200 mile round-trip over narrow two-lane roads, summer and winter for 27 years now, in order to get to the Mass and sacraments, and will continue to do so until we can no longer drive. The highway we drive is listed amongst the top 10 most dangerous highways in the U.S., US Highway 95.


Ken

How encouraging and edifying. Your perserverance and determination to get to the mass and sacraments is on par with the Irish and the efforts they went to for their "rock masses". I don't mean "guitar masses" either. :)

_________________
JRM


Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:54 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
KenGordon wrote:
I most emphatically do NOT believe in Hutton Gibson's "Home Alone" position. In fact, I can just about assure you that I believe very little of what Hutton Gibson proposes for our belief.


Dear Ken & Vince,

With respect to Hutton, (who was, incidentally, the first traditional Catholic I ever met - he attended a speech I gave in Victoria in the mid-late 1980s, and I was introduced to him afterwards), he is not a home-aloner. His position is indeed similar to yours, Ken, as you've expressed it here. That is, Hutton doubts the validity and lawfulness of ordinations conducted by Thuc and Lefebvre clergy, and chooses to receive sacraments from pre-V2 ordained clergy only - even if these are not sedevacantists, but providing that they will agree to omit the name of the current claimant in Rome from the Canon of the Mass. I think that sums it up. I don't generally read Hutton's material, so I could have it partly wrong.

Hutton's position is therefore one which focusses on lawfulness (according to the letter of the canons), validity (doubting it based upon an erroneous reading of the doctrine of sacramental intention), and the "una cum". Hutton is unconcerned by a priest's standing with the New Church and will even tolerate an extraordinary amount of "craziness" in his priests, as long as they fulfill these few conditions.

Another position I am familiar with involves rejecting only those Masses which include the mention of the current Roman claimant's name, but on condition that the priest is not "crazy" in various ways (i.e. that he is orthodox). If such a priest was ordained by a Thuc or Lefebvre bishop, no problem. If he only secretly omits the odious name from the Canon, no problem. If he is a sedeplenist but he will agree to omit the name, no problem. And, some will think curiously, if he is validly ordained and will provide the Sacrament of Penance in the old rite (i.e. in Latin), even if he is a fully-functioning member of the Novus Ordo, offering the New Mass daily, then he may be approached for the Sacrament of Penance too.

A third position is that of those who will only approach sedevacantist clergy for Holy Mass and the sacraments. This position is sub-divided into those who are concerned to avoid Thuc and/or Lefebvre orders, and those who are not concerned by these issues.

And of course the position being discussed here is that of Bishop Sanborn, which Fr. Cekada is now on record as supporting, which involves asserting that the "una cum" clause is the problem, but that even if a priest omits the odious name, if he doesn't announce the omission beforehand, one still cannot assist at the Mass. One suspects that the fuzzy presentation bespeaks fuzzy thought, and that the "una cum" clause is in itself irrelevant to this position, which in fact is essentially the old Martin Gwynne doctrine that priests who recognise Benedict are (materially, at least) outside the Church. This has been raised many times with Fr. Cekada and he studiously ignores it.

There are lots of positions. I've always thought, live and let live, these are confusing times.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:50 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Spokane
New post 
It could be that I am just simple minded but, with all these "ifs" everyone has, I think there has to come a time when we just rely on the Mercy of God. I mean what "if" these pre vatican II older priests were ordained by bishops that were Freemasons and therefore not really Bishops at all by way of ipso facto.

The Church supplies, is that it, well the Church supplies for C.M.R.I. and SSPX and SSPV too, or am I wrong on these points.

The only thing I feel sure of is that Vatican II, novus ordor is not Catholic, because the Bible state that the Church is the pillar of Truth, NOT error or worse a mix of both.

1 Tim, 3; 15

_________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.


Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:38 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post 
I'm not quite as eloquent as most of the people on this forum nor can I form arguments as succinctly. At one time I had questions concerning the Thuc consecrations also, though few of the arguments against their validity seemed compelling in themselves, I was very concerned with the number of arguments from various sources that I was finding.

I found a credible refutation of every argument against validity that I had ever read in a book entitled, The Answers by Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt. The book is "a summary of objections to the validity of the 'Thuc consecrations' accompanied by numerous answers that have been given to these objections. There is an ad for this in The Four Marks newspaper that says the book is available from OLG Press (http://www.olgpress.com).

Personally, I don't know how any doubts about the validity of the Thuc consecrations could remain after reading this volume. I have, at least, never heard an argument against validity that isn't thoroughly refuted by Fr. Vaillancourt.


Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:02 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post The Validity of the Orders of Priests Ordained by Archbishop
The Validity of the Orders of Priests Ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre
by John S. Daly

[Slightly edited - emphasis in the original. This was published many years ago by Britons Catholic Library as "Letter #9".]


It has sometimes been maintained that the Orders of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre are of doubtful validity. The grounds alleged for this are that Cardinal Achille Liénart, who both ordained and consecrated Lefebvre, was a high-degree Grand Orient Freemason (Lefebvre himself admitted that he believed Liénart to be a Freemason), and there must be grounds for suspecting that the sacramental intention of a high-degree Freemason may well be the contrary of the words of the rite as his purpose in being an official in the Church must surely be to inflict maximum damage on her. And of course if Lefebvre’s own orders are doubtful, it follows that the Orders of all those ordained by him are doubtful also.

The allegation of Cardinal Liénart's membership of Freemasonry is unsubstantiated, as its sole original source, the late Marquis de la Franquerie, gives no solid evidence for it; but on the other hand the allegation is not an improbable one given that Liénart was an arch-modernist. However, even if Liénart was quite definitely a Freemason, it makes no difference. The common teaching of Catholic theologians, led by their prince St Thomas Aquinas, and expressly confirmed by Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae (1896), is that, where a minister performs the sacramental ritual using the correct matter and form, with no appearance of jest or simulation, he must be presumed to have acted validly. (1)

It is perfectly true, of course, that a minister can invalidate a sacrament by having a positive contrary intention, and theoretically we can imagine that a Freemason-bishop, wishing to injure the Church, might deliberately do this. But, by the same token, it is always theoretically possible that the minister of any sacrament might falsify his intention, so it could be argued that we can never be certain of the validity of any sacrament. To this the theologians reply that Our Lord clearly intended us to be able to rely on the validity of the sacraments and that, therefore, when He made them depend on the internal intention of the minister, He took good care to ensure that the outward actions of the minister would be a sufficiently reliable gauge of his intentions. If the outward ceremonies of the sacramental rite are in order, the faithful may, and must, presume that the intention is also.

Indeed the main argument of Apostolicae Curae is that Anglican ministers are presumed not to have a sound intention to ordain because they changed the ritual to reflect their deliberate will not to ordain priests in the Catholic sense. If they had not changed the ritual, their intention would have to have been presumed sufficient; for what is inward and invisible can be judged only by what is outward and perceptible to the senses.

In short, the Church does not leave us to draw our own inferences. She tells us that it is wrong to judge a sacrament invalid through defective intention unless during the ceremony the minister gives some clear sign of not meaning what he says.

The fact of joining a Masonic lodge does indeed show an interior opposition to at least a part of the Catholic Church's teaching and mission, but it does not prove a habitual wish to injure the Church by every available means, one that is so deeply-rooted and dominant in the soul as to over-ride the ordinary disposition of all men to mean what they say and to accomplish in fact what they symbolise by their actions. After all, to render a sacrament invalid one must be deliberately lying while uttering the sacramental formula; even a grossly erroneous sacramental doctrine and the intention not to produce the sacramental effects do not destroy the sacrament if the minister has a predominant intention to do what Christ instituted, as is normally the case. That is why the Holy See found the baptisms of the Oceanian Methodists valid notwithstand¬ing their expressly warning baptizands that baptism had no effect on the soul (Instruction of the Holy Office to the Vicar Apostolic of Oceania, 18th December 1872, Fontes n. 1024).

Mention should perhaps be made of the views of the late Dr. Hugo Maria Kellner of the United States on the topic of the validity or otherwise of Archbishop Lefebvre's Orders, since these views have enjoyed a resurgence of popularity. Kellner maintained that a Freemason was incapable of having the necessary intention to receive the sacrament of Holy Order validly, and that therefore Liénart, who was already a high-ranking Freemason at the time of his episcopal consecration, was not validly consecrated. In other words, even if Liénart had wanted to ordain, he could not have done so, as he was not himself a bishop.

It is quite impossible to reconcile Dr. Kellner's position with that of the Catholic Church. Some of the evidence we are about to mention relates to the intention of the minister conferring sacraments rather than to the intention of the person receiving them, but what applies to the former applies at least as much to the latter if not more so. Not only is no greater degree of intention necessary in order to receive a sacrament validly than in order to confer one, but in fact, generally speaking, a lower degree of intention is sufficient.

Thus for the minister of a sacrament a merely virtual intention (a disposition conceived before the action and virtually continuing during the action) is sufficient for validity, but a merely habitual intention (the disposition of the will which was conceived before the action, has not been withdrawn, but is not adverted to at the time of the action) is not. By contrast, for the recipient of a sacrament a virtual intention again always suffices, but so too, normally, does a habitual intention and even, in some cases, an interpretative intention (when a person incapable of an actual or habitual intention, for instance because of unconsciousness or insanity, had at least an implicit wish, before the emergency, to receive the sacrament). (2) Moreover even infants (before the use of reason) can validly receive sacraments, including ordination to the priesthood and even consecration as bishop,(3) whereas they certainly cannot administer sacraments, being incapable of forming any of the necessary intentions already mentioned. In short, any intention necessary in a recipient of the sacraments is at least as necessary in a minister of them, and therefore if a particular kind of intention is sufficient for validity in a minister, so, all the more so, is the same kind sufficient for valid reception.

Here now are seven proofs that Dr. Kellner's claims cannot be true:

1(a). Among the diriment (invalidating) impediments to the valid reception of Holy Orders, membership of Freemasonry is not listed, either explicitly or implicitly, in the Code of Canon Law, despite the fact that the Code deals with Freemasons as a separate category of miscreants in several other places.

1(b). Indeed Dr. Kellner himself acknowledged that what he was maintaining was in contradiction to the provisions of the Code of Canon Law, explaining this problem away by asserting that the Code must have been infected by the influence of Freemasonry. This is a very grievous error indeed, because, while it is no part of the Church's doctrine that her laws are in every way as perfect as they could be, it very much is part of her doctrine that her indefectibility prevents error from infecting her laws or any of the means by which she conveys her doctrine to the faithful. In other words, her indefectibility extends, not only to the direct teaching of pope and bishops, but also to her laws, (4) her liturgy, and whatever else the faithful rightly take to be a manifestation of her mind. This is why such sources are used by theologians as evidence of Catholic doctrine.

2. If a Freemason cannot have the valid intention to receive the sacrament of Holy Order, it is difficult to see how he can have the valid intention to receive any other sacrament. And the doctrine that a Freemason cannot have the necessary intention to receive a sacrament validly would imply that he could not, for instance, contract a valid marriage, since both the ministers and the recipients of this sacrament are the spouses themselves and, for validity, both spouses need to have a sound intention, sufficient both to give and to receive the sacrament. Yet it is certain that, when a Freemason receives the sacrament of marriage, he is validly married, for the Church has never made a practice of demanding that those who abandon Freemasonry and return to her bosom should be remarried.

3. To receive a sacrament validly, it is not necessary that one's intention should be all that the Church wishes it to be - good, holy, and associated with the desire to promote the glory of God. Nor is it even necessary that one should believe in what the Church teaches about the effects of the sacrament. Theologians teach that, provided an ordinand does not inwardly or outwardly resist the sacrament of ordination, it is valid.

4. In Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII taught that, when a sacrament is seriously administered according to the rite of the Church, the minister's intention is to be presumed sufficient. And Pope Leo XIII also taught (ibid.) that even a heretic or a Jew can validly confer a sacrament, describing this as a "doctrine".

5. Hence, as already mentioned, in the case of the Methodist Baptisms in Oceania the Holy See found that Baptism was validly administered even when the minister expressly warned the baptizands not to believe that Baptism produced any effect whatever on the soul. The Holy Office taught that, notwithstanding this fundamental and heretical error concerning the nature of Baptism, the underlying, general intention to confer and receive the sacrament as instituted by Jesus Christ was sufficient, and that not even conditional re-Baptism was permitted. The principle underlying this decision is that error in the mind as to what the Church is and does in her sacraments is not incompatible with the intention in the will to administer or receive the sacrament in question.

6. At the time of the French Revolution, Talleyrand, Bishop of Autun, joined the schismatic national church, thus leaving the Catholic Church, and consecrated a number of bishops in the new church. Later, when he returned to the Catholic Church, he confessed quite openly that he had been a member of Freemasonry throughout this period. Nevertheless, when some of the bishops whom he had consecrated wished to be reconciled with the Church, Pope Pius VII confirmed them in their episcopal offices without requiring them to be re-consecrated, even conditionally. Thus he accepted as definitely valid the consecrations administered by Talleyrand despite the latter's membership of Freemasonry.

7. In England during the latter part of the reign of King Henry VIII, Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, outwardly conformed to Catholic belief and practice but was inwardly a Protestant heretic and had the intention and desire to subvert the Church, as not only his actions in the reign of King Henry VIII but also his subsequent actions in the reign of King Edward VI made clear. Nevertheless the Catholics of the day, including the authorities in Rome, had no hesitation in accepting as valid the Ordinations and Consecrations in which he was involved.

Therefore there can be no doubt that the Orders of Lefebvre and those conferred by him are valid even if Liénart was a Freemason.

APPENDIX

An argument has been adduced from Paul IV's Cum ex Apostolatus (1559) purporting to show that a heretic cannot ordain. This is based either on a misunderstanding or a mistranslation. The bull says that, if anyone is raised to the episcopate after falling into heresy, his elevation is "null, void and worthless" and that "each and all of (his) words, deeds, actions and enactments...shall be without force..." (§ 6). This nullifies the acts of heretical prelates from a juridical point of view; that is, a heretical bishop cannot appoint someone to office, declare sentence against a delinquent, absolve from censure, etc. But it has nothing to do with sacramental validity. On that topic Canon Law says that those who are ordained by heretics need to be dispensed to be allowed to function, but have no need of re-ordination (Canon 2372). And this has always been the Church's position (cf. Denzinger 358)

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

1. “The minister of the sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is, and in the words which he utters the intention of the Church is expressed. This intention suffices for the perfection of the sacrament unless the contrary is externally expressed on the part of the minister or the recipient of the sacrament.” (St Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae, pt. III, q. 64, a. 9, resp. ad secundam)

If a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does." (Apostolicae Curae)

...whenever there is no appearance of simulation on the part of the minister, the validity of the sacrament is sufficiently certain... (Cardinal Billot, de Sacramentis, vol.1, ed.6, p.201)

2. See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, pp.343-346.
3. Ibid., p.460. Although valid, the ordination and episcopal consecration of infants would, of course, be illicit.
4. Pope Pius VI condemned the teaching of the Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia that "the Church...could establish a discipline which is...dangerous or harmful" as "false, temerarious, scandalous, pernicious, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom she is ruled, and at least erroneous." (Denzinger 1578)


Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:18 pm
Profile E-mail
New post Doubts about Lefebvre & Thuc orders
I read, some time ago, in an SSPX publication, when the questions began swirling about the possible invalidity of Archbishop Lefebvre's orders, that there were two other bishops of unquestionable lineage who were present at Archbishop Lefebvre's ordination, who laid hands on him during the ceremony, thus negating any possibility of invalidity of his orders.

In Jesus and Mary, Pat Beck


Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:30 pm

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Doubts about Lefebvre & Thuc orders
Pat Beck wrote:
I read, some time ago, in an SSPX publication, when the questions began swirling about the possible invalidity of Archbishop Lefebvre's orders, that there were two other bishops of unquestionable lineage who were present at Archbishop Lefebvre's ordination, who laid hands on him during the ceremony, thus negating any possibility of invalidity of his orders.

In Jesus and Mary, Pat Beck


His episcopal consecration is not the problem: it is his ordination.

And, I repeat, despite all the well-intentioned and well-researched verbiage in support of the ordinations he performed, none of you, or they, have any competence nor authority in these matters.

"They", because no one is competent to judge his own case, AND they do not have the authority to so decide.

Furthermore, as is well understood, or should be, the Church has always judged each such case on its own merits, so their attempts at justifying their validity on the basis by comparison with the sordid story of Tallyrand are moot, at best.

"You" because you have no authority or competence in law to so decide.

It must, finally, be decided by the Church.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Concerns.
I also remember reading recently of a Catholic bishop who confessed on his deathbed to purposely withholding his intention when ordaining in several cases. This was some centuries ago, as I remember it.

Perhaps John knows what I am talking about.

I cannot now remember what the Church ruled on this.

Lastly, I must make as clear to you all as possible that my reservations are my own, and have nothing to do with any of you.

We must all follow our consciences in matters such as these, and I am simply trying, as best I can, to do that.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !


Dear Ken,

Where do you goto Mass? Thanks in advance,

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:33 pm
Profile
New post Doubts about Lefebvre & Thuc orders
Ken: I was referring to then Fr. Lefebvre's ordination, not his consecration as bishop - he was ordained a priest by then Bishop Lienart, on Saturday, September 21, 1929, in the Chapel of the Sisters of the Sacred Heart in Rue Royale, Lille. Bishop Lienart was the new bishop, from a rather liberal Lille family of cloth merchants, and at 44 was the youngest bishop in France. I got this information out of The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, written by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais.

In Jesus and Mary, Pat Beck


Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:51 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Doubts about Lefebvre & Thuc orders
KenGordon wrote:
And, I repeat, despite all the well-intentioned and well-researched verbiage in support of the ordinations he performed, none of you, or they, have any competence nor authority in these matters.

"They", because no one is competent to judge his own case, AND they do not have the authority to so decide.


Actually, my friend, the whole thrust of this matter is the other way. Neither you nor any man has any business casting doubt upon the validity of any sacrament without clear evidence of a defect. The Church has never regarded any of the nonsense raised by Hugo Kellner or Hutton Gibson as evidence of a defect, as JS Daly certainly demonstrated and which would be apparent to anybody who picked up a theology manual and read about the matter.

To cast doubt upon a scrament without sufficient grounds is a very grave matter and I would think, a sin.

Just as marriage enjoys the favour of law, so all sacraments enjoy the presumption of validity. This presumption is "fierce" and may only be undermined by actual proof. Not innuendo, suggestion, questioning, or even "doubt." PROOF. Without proof to the contrary, you are assured of VALIDITY. There is no middle ground.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:29 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Where we go to Mass.
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Dear Ken,

Where do you goto Mass? Thanks in advance,


I believe I have answered this question in detail at least once before.

However, I will, again, answer your question:

I and my immediate family attend Mass and receive the sacraments, at present, from Fr. Theodore Bradley, a retired diocesan priest, 81 years of age, who is under almost constant persecution from his "bishop", that devil, Skystad.

Our venue is normally a rented Grange Hall in Newman Lake, WA.

Our small, informal group is called the Don Bosco Club. It was started several years before we heard of it by the patriarchs of two families, most of whose members still attend.

At present, there are about 200 of us. Some are refugees from the NO, some refugees from the Mount, some are refugees from the SSPX, and/or SSPV, some have never attended the NO.

We have remarkably little controversy, leaving most matters of conscience to the individual.

We have a very small choir, of which I am the appointed leader. We always sing during Mass. An English hymn before Mass and at the recessional, and only Latin hymns, as ordered by St. Pius X, DURING Mass.

We also sometimes have a Gregorian High Mass, although we are not competent enough to sing all the propers yet.

We always try to sing the Sequence where it occurs, Victimae Paschali Laudes, and Veni Creator Spiritus being two of our favorites.

Fr. Bradley is a sedeplenist, but does not mention the anti-pope's name in the Canon at the specific request of some of our "parishoners". He will gently sidestep any attempt by any of us to discuss the anti-popes, yet he visits the Mount at times, and is friendly with the SSPX and CMRI clergy.

He has proven himself to be one of the kindest, most humble men I have ever known.

Since he also regards himself as a missionary, he will go just about anywhere to offer the Tridentine Mass for anyone who asks. Due to his missionary activities, we are able to have Sunday Mass and the sacraments only twice a month on average, although he will also offer Mass during the week in semi-private homes if enough people can be gotten together.

He also tries to stay out of the "bishop's" way, and sometimes has to be on his circuit to avoid him.

Before Fr. Bradley started helping us on a regular basis, we would have priests come from far away as often as we could. Among others, Fr. John Paley (an Hermit from the New York area), Fr. Stephen Sommerville, Fr. Lewis Campbell, Fr. Thomas Dignan, Fr. Hermann Adam (who flew from Germany to us, and who died recently), Fr. DaSilva, Fr. Cyril Town (RIP), and some others whom I cannot now remember.

We are part of the Catholic "underground."

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:38 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi,

Dear Ken,

Many thanks for your repsonse, sounds like a wonderful group of Catholics. One wonders what you will do when the last pre-Vatican 2 ordianed priest dies...No more Mass?

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:46 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi,

Dear Ken,

Many thanks for your repsonse, sounds like a wonderful group of Catholics. One wonders what you will do when the last pre-Vatican 2 ordianed priest dies...No more Mass?


We worry about that constantly, yet also put our faith and hope in Our Lady. We cannot answer that at this point. We simply don't know.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:50 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
KenGordon wrote:
We worry about that constantly, yet also put our faith and hope in Our Lady.


I do hope you will reflect on this, Ken: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... =5336#5336

I hate to think of so many souls deprived of necessary sacraments because of the unfounded scruples of elderly laymen who have forgotten some truly basic theology!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:00 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post 
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
We worry about that constantly, yet also put our faith and hope in Our Lady.


I do hope you will reflect on this, Ken: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... =5336#5336

I hate to think of so many souls deprived of necessary sacraments because of the unfounded scruples of elderly laymen who have forgotten some truly basic theology!


John:

I have read and re-read that. I repeat: until Holy Mother Church rules on this matter, anything that you or anyone else says on the matter is simply your opinion, which is no better nor no worse than mine.

Thanks,

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:13 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Doubts about Lefebvre & Thuc orders
John Lane wrote:
Actually, my friend, the whole thrust of this matter is the other way. Neither you nor any man has any business casting doubt upon the validity of any sacrament without clear evidence of a defect. The Church has never regarded any of the nonsense raised by Hugo Kellner


Who is Hugo Kellner?

Quote:
or Hutton Gibson


I have previously stated my view of Hutton's "theology"...

Quote:
as evidence of a defect, as JS Daly certainly demonstrated and which would be apparent to anybody who picked up a theology manual and read about the matter.

To cast doubt upon a scrament without sufficient grounds


I know that, and I believe I have sufficient grounds for doubt. However, as I have REPEATEDLY stated, these doubts are my own and have no bearing whatever on what you choose to believe.

Quote:
is a very grave matter and I would think, a sin.


Careful, John! I most certainly know what is required for something to be a sin, vs a mistake.

Quote:
Just as marriage enjoys the favour of law, so all sacraments enjoy the presumption of validity. This presumption is "fierce" and may only be undermined by actual proof. Not innuendo, suggestion, questioning, or even "doubt." PROOF. Without proof to the contrary, you are assured of VALIDITY. There is no middle ground.


Well, I have no doubts that you know, or at least you think you know, more about theology than I do. However, neither you nor I are theologians, and cannot bind one another.

I refuse to bind you: why are you attempting to bind me?

I believe I have sufficient proof to doubt the validity of their orders. You do not. We disagree. So what's the problem?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:23 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Archbishop Lefebrve
Some of the posts on this forum are truly wonderful. The two John that you posted, Fr. Faber's on Scandal and John Daly's on the Validity of the Orders of Archbishop Lefebrve, are simply breathtaking. The English construction, grammar, and vocabulary are a joy to read, and the content is magnificent. What a pleasure and educational opportunity for all of us. I'm going to enjoy re-reading these articles many times.

John Lane wrote:
Just as marriage enjoys the favour of law, so all sacraments enjoy the presumption of validity. This presumption is "fierce" and may only be undermined by actual proof. Not innuendo, suggestion, questioning, or even "doubt." PROOF. Without proof to the contrary, you are assured of VALIDITY. There is no middle ground.


How would you class the case of Archbishop Thuc? Would most everything brought forward against validity be considered under innuendo and "doubt", or is there a serious case for real doubt?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:33 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Archbishop Lefebrve
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
How would you class the case of Archbishop Thuc? Would most everything brought forward against validity be considered under innuendo and "doubt", or is there a serious case for real doubt?


That case, when stripped of all the really obvious nonsense, comes down to the claim that Archbishop Thuc was senile, and therefore mentally incompetent to form a sufficient intention.

Yes, I think it is nothing more than innuendo and subjective (i.e. unfounded) "doubt."

I really feel very sad for those who have to rely upon their superiors for guidance on this, and don't have access to the books. Once such a doubt is planted it can gnaw away until there is insufficient confidence to rely upon such priests. If they are the only ones within reach, you're home alone. Terrible.

The evil that men do lives after them. This is true even when the evil was unintended.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:55 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
KenGordon wrote:
until Holy Mother Church rules on this matter, anything that you or anyone else says on the matter is simply your opinion, which is no better nor no worse than mine.


Holy Mother Church has ruled on this matter. "If a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does." (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:58 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Doubts about Lefebvre & Thuc orders
KenGordon wrote:
I know that, and I believe I have sufficient grounds for doubt.

This is not a subjective matter. The doubt must be objective, which means it must be based upon externally verifiable evidence, in accord with the requirements of the Catholic Church. Nothing of that nature has ever been presented in this case. The doubt is based upon manifestly incorrect grounds.

Please understand, the default position is certitude about validity. To move away from that is a positive, deliberate, step. You're not permitted to stand there saying, "I'm not convinced yet." You're the one required to make the case against, or accept the certitude regarding validity. I know that you don't understand this, so I am not being hard upon you, but I must insist upon the truth.



KenGordon wrote:
Careful, John! I most certainly know what is required for something to be a sin, vs a mistake.

If I were to impugn somebody's marriage on the basis of doubt arising from the fact that the husband was rumoured to be a Freemason and therefore could not intend to make a sacrament, would I be innocent? Or would that be both rash and irresponsible?

I am trying to assist you here Ken, but also other readers. You chose to state your doubts here. Nobody asked, you volunteered them.



KenGordon wrote:
I refuse to bind you: why are you attempting to bind me?

The Church binds us both on these matters.



KenGordon wrote:
So what's the problem?

Doubts about sacramental validity are very grave, and pregnant with great evil if permitted to stand.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Doubts about Lefebvre & Thuc orders
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
I know that, and I believe I have sufficient grounds for doubt.

This is not a subjective matter. The doubt must be objective, which means it must be based upon externally verifiable evidence, in accord with the requirements of the Catholic Church. Nothing of that nature has ever been presented in this case. The doubt is based upon manifestly incorrect grounds.


How can you possibly be so certain about that? I have never posited my proofs to you. You have simply PRESUMED that I was following the lead of a certain Kellner, of whom I have only heard the name, and Hutton Gibson, whom I hold in low esteem. Neither actually enters the picture at all.

I must protest. Your overarching knowledge of my soul is truly amazing! I would never dare.

Quote:
Please understand, the default position is certitude about validity. To move away from that is a positive, deliberate, step. You're not permitted to stand there saying, "I'm not convinced yet." You're the one required to make the case against, or accept the certitude regarding validity. I know that you don't understand this,


Gee, you young whipper-snapper, now you know how I think. Amazing! Yes, John, I fully and completely DO understand "this", and have for years.

Quote:
so I am not being hard upon you, but I must insist upon the truth.


Or your interpretation of it...

Quote:
KenGordon wrote:
Careful, John! I most certainly know what is required for something to be a sin, vs a mistake.

If I were to impugn somebody's marriage on the basis of doubt arising from the fact that the husband was rumoured to be a Freemason and therefore could not intend to make a sacrament, would I be innocent? Or would that be both rash and irresponsible?


It would be stupid...and if you are implying that I would ever do such a thing, then you do not know me as well as you think you do, nor do you really understand what I know about this either. You are presuming again.

Quote:
I am trying to assist you here Ken,


John, my boy, you are barking up the wrong tree with me.

Quote:
but also other readers. You chose to state your doubts here. Nobody asked, you volunteered them.


In reply to a completely DIFFERENT question, on a DIFFERENT thread which you, or someone else, decided needed more discussion. I didn't.

Quote:
KenGordon wrote:
I refuse to bind you: why are you attempting to bind me?

The Church binds us both on these matters.


YOU are not the Church.

Quote:
KenGordon wrote:
So what's the problem?

Doubts about sacramental validity are very grave, and pregnant with great evil if permitted to stand.


First of all, young man, you have no idea what proofs I have in my own mind concerning this issue. Next, your berating me in public most assuredly will not resolve those doubts.

Good day to you, Sir.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Last edited by KenGordon on Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:35 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Hutton Gibson's position
To all,

To my understanding, I had thought that Hutton Gibson based his position on the fact that the priests ordained by bishop not appointed by Rome, were not "sent" by the Church, and that bishops could not lawfully be consecrated without a papal mandate. It is possible that I may be confusing him other similiar positions, so I am not totally sure.

There may be other points to his position, but I had thought that was why he does not deal with any clergy ordained after a certain date in the 1960's. I am not sure of the date.

Does anyone know if this is his position? Does he deny the validity of orders of Archbishop Lefevbre as well? If so, has anyone ever shown him the paper written by John Daly, which John Lane just posted on this forum?

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:22 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post 
Dear Mr. Gordon,

I have noticed over the past several months that whenever anyone has a disagreement with you you become very defensive and cold. John has been extremely nice and patient with you in this and in other discussions on this forum. He has allowed you broad liberty in expressing your thoughts on several controversial issues. Look again at what you wrote in your last post to John and I think it would behoove you to edit it.

In our Lord,

Lance Tardugno

PS: Please don't construe this piece of constructive criticism as an uncharitable act, that is not my intention.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:45 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post 
Lance Tardugno wrote:
Dear Mr. Gordon,

I have noticed over the past several months that whenever anyone has a disagreement with you you become very defensive and cold.


I think that is a misapprehension on your part, Mr. Tardugno. My first duty is to my family, and I really shouldn't be spending the time I do here. We seem to go from one crisis to another in our family, and I am in poor health. To me, it simply reaches a point where I feel that 1) I am not clearly making the points I am trying to, and 2) I can no longer afford the time to clarify those. Therefore, I simply drop the issue.

Quote:
John has been extremely nice and patient with you in this and in other discussions on this forum. He has allowed you broad liberty in expressing your thoughts on several controversial issues. Look again at what you wrote in your last post to John and I think it would behoove you to edit it.


I am sorry, Mr. Tardugno, but in re-reading what I wrote, I believe all I did was tell the truth.

In my opinion, Mr. Lane has unjustly attacked me on the basis of what he erroneously thinks are both my reasons for my doubts, and on the basis that I do not understand certain things with which I am completely familiar.

In a word, Mr. Tardugno, he has treated me as though I were one of his children, or an unenlightend fool.

Therefore, I intend to retire from the field and lick my unjustly inflicted wounds.

Thank you for your kindness.

Quote:
In our Lord,

Lance Tardugno

PS: Please don't construe this piece of constructive criticism as an uncharitable act, that is not my intention.


Of course not, and I do not so misconstrue your efforts.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !


Dear Ken,

As a fly on the wall regarding this exchange, please allow me some comments. No doubt you have "doubts" about the validity of traditional Holy Orders ( after Vatican 2). It appears your doubt is based on being " sent " from the Church? I could be wrong, and if so I am sorry.


Regarding valid Holy Orders, John Lane would like you to read the theology books regarding what constitutes Valid Holy Orders, and for that matter, what constitutes invalid or doubtful Holy Orders. Once the principles are applied to this " question", I am confident your " doubts' will dissipate, at least regarding the SSPX and CMRI Holy Orders.

Itis a pleasure having you on this Forum, and we look forward to your continued participation. The last thing anyone wants is for your group to run out of valid priests offering the Sacraments.


In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:38 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
KenGordon wrote:
In my opinion, Mr. Lane has unjustly attacked me on the basis of what he erroneously thinks are both my reasons for my doubts, and on the basis that I do not understand certain things with which I am completely familiar.


Dear Ken,

I'm surprised by this. I'm certainly very sorry for offending you and I apologise.

I apologise also for assuming that you had adopted the views of Kellner or Gibson. I was not aware of another source of doubt concerning Archbishop Lefebvre's orders.

If you consider that I have attacked you, then perhaps you could quote the words? I didn't intend any attack and I didn't think I had made one.

In relation to the validity of the sacraments, these are public acts of the Church and to be respected as such by the faithful.

Unless and until there is real proof overturning the presumption of validity, we are required to consider sacraments as valid. That is what the presumption means.

You cannot say publicly that you have good grounds for doubting the validity of a sacrament and then refuse to specify those grounds. I am very sorry that I seem to be talking down to you by insisting upon this, but I can't think of any way to enforce the rules of this forum relating to Catholic doctrine without appearing to be acting as a "father."

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:20 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Short reply
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
In my opinion, Mr. Lane has unjustly attacked me on the basis of what he erroneously thinks are both my reasons for my doubts, and on the basis that I do not understand certain things with which I am completely familiar.


Dear Ken,

I'm surprised by this. I'm certainly very sorry for offending you and I apologise.

I apologise also for assuming that you had adopted the views of Kellner or Gibson. I was not aware of another source of doubt concerning Archbishop Lefebvre's orders.

If you consider that I have attacked you, then perhaps you could quote the words?


Go back to the post I referred to and substitute your name for mine, then re-read it. If you don't think what you say is an attack, then I really am the fool.

Quote:
I didn't intend any attack and I didn't think I had made one.


OK.

Quote:
In relation to the validity of the sacraments, these are public acts of the Church and to be respected as such by the faithful.


...unless there are very good reasons not to.

Quote:
Unless and until there is real proof overturning the presumption of validity, we are required to consider sacraments as valid. That is what the presumption means.


Of course.

Quote:
You cannot say publicly that you have good grounds for doubting the validity of a sacrament and then refuse to specify those grounds.


John...I could not very well REFUSE to specify those grounds...WHEN I HAD NEVER BEEN ASKED....now could I?

Quote:
I am very sorry that I seem to be talking down to you by insisting upon this, but I can't think of any way to enforce the rules of this forum relating to Catholic doctrine without appearing to be acting as a "father."


I am not your son, nor am I unworthy of as much respect from you as you expect from each of us. In fact, I am old enough to be YOUR father.

I said I had a hide like a rhinocerous, but I forgot to mention that that does not extend to those I consider my friends.

Now, as far as I am concerned, I will no longer publicly post anything on this subject. I wish to God I had never posted one word of it. This has been most disedifying for me.

I will PM you with a copy of my recent reply to Vince, which I do not wish to make public.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:42 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Short reply
Dear Ken,

KenGordon wrote:
Go back to the post I referred to and substitute your name for mine, then re-read it.

This post? http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... =5349#5349

I really don't understand why you found it so offensive, but I have already apologised. I don't want any bad blood with anybody, particularly not you my friend.



KenGordon wrote:
Quote:
You cannot say publicly that you have good grounds for doubting the validity of a sacrament and then refuse to specify those grounds.


John...I could not very well REFUSE to specify those grounds...WHEN I HAD NEVER BEEN ASKED....now could I?

Sure. But as I said, "Please understand, the default position is certitude about validity. To move away from that is a positive, deliberate, step. You're not permitted to stand there saying, 'I'm not convinced yet.' You're the one required to make the case against, or accept the certitude regarding validity."

What I am highlighting is that you cannot say publicly that you have good grounds for doubt but not reveal what those grounds are. I didn't make that clear. Either you withdraw the comment that you have good grounds for doubt, or you put your case, but what you are doing is not permissible.
Does this make sense now?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:30 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Short reply
John Lane wrote:
Dear Ken,

KenGordon wrote:
Go back to the post I referred to and substitute your name for mine, then re-read it.

This post? http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... =5349#5349


Yes. By the way, how do you do that? Embed a previous post, I mean?

Hmmmm....well, in re-reading your post, it doesn't look so bad to me now.

Quote:
I really don't understand why you found it so offensive,


Well, on a quick perusal, I must agree with you. However, at this point, it is certainly not worthwhile for me to "sift" it for accusations which probably don't exist.

I will quote here something I recently sent to Vince privately:

Ken Gordon wrote:
Thank you for that below. First of all, I wish to apologize to you and John for my fit of pique. Unfortunately, I often suffer from bouts of depression, and most often, the "output" is unreasonable anger, since if I didn't beome angry, I would sit in a dark corner and cry. Sometimes I can "catch" it before I do something really stupid, but sometimes I am a little late...like yesterday. That isn't an excuse, but it is an explanation.

In any case, I apologize to you, and will do the same to John. I dearly love you all because you love God.


Quote:
but I have already apologised. I don't want any bad blood with anybody, particularly not you my friend.


See above: :D

John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
John Lane wrote:
You cannot say publicly that you have good grounds for doubting the validity of a sacrament and then refuse to specify those grounds.


John...I could not very well REFUSE to specify those grounds...WHEN I HAD NEVER BEEN ASKED....now could I?


Sure. But as I said, "Please understand, the default position is certitude about validity. To move away from that is a positive, deliberate, step. You're not permitted to stand there saying, 'I'm not convinced yet.' You're the one required to make the case against, or accept the certitude regarding validity."

What I am highlighting is that you cannot say publicly that you have good grounds for doubt but not reveal what those grounds are. I didn't make that clear. Either you withdraw the comment that you have good grounds for doubt, or you put your case, but what you are doing is not permissible.


OK. Agreed. However, the main thing that NOW keeps me from listing the reasons for my doubts here is that I recently came to the conclusion that since this issue is such a "hot button" issue with you all, that in order NOT to disturb your peace of mind, I should keep silent from now on, as I had for the past 30 years. In fact, as I said earlier, I wish to God I had never even brought it up to begin with here.

I will say this however: in my opinion, it is most probable that their orders are VALID. However, only the Church can finally decide the issue, and until then, I must, in good conscience, on the basis of what I KNOW to be true, reserve the RIGHT to doubt.

If you thought it might be helpful, and not injurious to the peace of some of the others on the forum, perhaps we could open a thread wherein we discuss Fr. Cekada's quite early article on this issue, and the "holes" in his argument. Vince just sent me a copy of it, although I have it in my files.

However, I really think this issue should simply be dropped.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:41 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Short reply
KenGordon wrote:
In any case, I apologize to you, and will do the same to John.


You know that there is no problem, Ken. :)

Btw, readers can see an answer to the Liénart Freemasonry issue here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... =5414#5414

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:40 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Short reply
KenGordon wrote:
Yes. By the way, how do you do that? Embed a previous post, I mean?


There is a little blue arrow to the left of the "Posted" title at the top left of each post. That arrow is an "anchor" target which if you click on it will take the relevant post to the top of the browser. After you do this you can see the address of that specific post in the address bar. You can then copy and paste it to an email or to another post so as to show another the path to that post.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:43 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Spokane
New post 
Thank you so much guys for your kindness and charity to each other. Reminds me of what St. Peter and St. Paul were going through when they disagreed. :lol:

_________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.


Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:21 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.