en.news

80 2KJan 10

Archbishop Viganó Conditionally Re-Consecrated a Bishop

Monsignor Carlo Maria Viganò has been secretely re-consecrated a bishop by Bishop Richard Williamson in case his Novus Ordo consecration was not valid (sub conditione), writes FaroDiRoma.it (9 January). The ordination has been rumoured for at least two months. If the consecration did indeed happen, it has still to be officially confirmed by Archbishop Viganò or Bishop Williamson.

If true, Viganò has chosen to distance himself from the Church by doubting the validity of ordinations according to the new rite (of 1968). The Fraternity of Pius X (FSSPX), from which Williamson was expelled in 2012, does not consecrate bishops sub conditione.

Monsignor Viganò was ordained a priest in March 1968 in Pavia, Italy, and a bishop in April 1992 by John Paul II, Cardinal Macharski of Krakow and Cardinal Sodano.

#newsErpczsvuon

6LikeShare

Matt Stand

Jan 15edited

Vigano can’t have it both ways. One can easily raise serious doubt about the validity of the “Bp. Richard Williamson” consecration line:

Doubt #1: the episcopal consecration of “Fr. Achille Liénart” a known Freemason (1928):
↓
Doubt #2: the priestly ordination of Marcel Lefebvre by "Mgr. Achille Liénart" (1929);
↓
Doubt #3: i) “Bp. Richard Williamson”’s Anglican baptism and the failure to conditionally re-baptize, ii) his entry into the conciliar church in without any abjuration of Anglicanism (1971);
↓
Doubt #4: the “Bp. Richard Williamson” consecration line either i) have no co-consecrator(s) or used a co-consecrator from the “Bp. Richard Williamson” line.

Sean Johnson

Jan 15

Theologically inept^^^

Matt Stand

Jan 16

Theologically sound, which is why you have no answer.

Sean Johnson

Jan 11

Necessity of Conditional Re-ordinations and Re-Consecrations

Let’s quote Father Calderón’s conclusion, which seems self-evident:

The positive and objective defects from which this rite suffers, which prevent us from being certain of its validity [since it is only probably valid] seem to us – until a Roman sentence, by which many things should change – to justify and make necessary the conditional re-ordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional re-consecration of these bishops. It is not possible to suffer such uncertainties at the very root of the sacraments (p. 6-7).

Validity of the Sacraments Reformed by Paul VI - Dominicans of Avrille, France

Matt Stand

Jan 12edited

No need to quote some out of date, decade old, opinion that I doubt is even held anymore - except by some stubborn Sedevacantists.

True or False Pope (Salza/Siscoe) thoroughly deals with the issue of the N.O. Consecration rite. It concludes:

• The new rite of does sufficiently signify the sacramental effect. In fact, a case could be made that the new form more clearly signifies the sacramental effect than does the old form of Pius XII.

• The new rite is actually not new at all. It is taken from the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus, which dates to about the year 217.

• The new rite was approved by Cardinal Ottaviani, who raised no concerns over its validity. This was one year before the Cardinal did raise concerns over the new Mass.

• The objections raised by Sedevacantist apologists, against the validity of the new rite, are refuted.

Endorsed by: Fr. Arnaldo Xavier de Salveira, Bishop Fellay, Christopher Ferrara, Brian McCall, Tim Staples, John Vennari, Michael Matt, Robert Sungenis, Frs. Brian Harrison, François Laisney, Paul Robinson, Yves le Roux, Steven Reuter, Br. Ansgar Santogrossi

Assisted by: Frs. Shannon Collins, Brian Harrison, Sean Kopczynski, François Laisney, Paul Robinson, Thomas Scott, Daniel Themann, Raymond Taouk, Geraldo Zigrang, Yves le Roux, Steven Reuter, Br. Ansgar Santogrossi, Professor Albert Doskey.

The Form is not new…

True Mass

Jan 12

Hi Matt, I hope and pray you are right. But let's face it, EVERYTHING that comes from V2 is suspect. While I'm not a Sede, not so sure they are stubborn. The only thing holding me back is Our Lady's Apparitions which spoke of these dark times.

Sean Johnson

Jan 12

@Matt Stand: No need to quote some decade old book written by laymen who don’t even read Latin, and are copying/pasting translations from others. BTW, had you bothered to read the article I excerpted from, you’d have known it was authored in 2023 by the non-sede Dominicans of Avrille.

Matt Stand

Jan 12edited

@Sean Johnson the schismatic Dominicans opinion is irrelevant, you were quoting Father Calderón’s “conclusion” which they included and this was from an article written by him in November 2014 (but I suspect you know this).

The book I referenced was written with the assistance of the clerics I listed (I’d already anticipated your objection aka ad hominem). They also critically reviewed each of the chapters. Help with translations from Latin texts were done by skilled Latin linguists, for example, Professor Doskey, who translated the entire treatise of John of St. Thomas on the loss of office for a heretical Pope. The book has been reviewed and endorsed by many traditional Catholic scholars and clerics, including de Salveira who was regarded as one of the best traditional theologians. That’s why there’s been no serious rebuttal to the book.

p.s. you may think it clever to speak in derogatory terms about the authors (laymen who don’t speak Latin, cut/paste the work of others viz. plagiarism), but your precious Dominicans have no answer to the book. Indeed, given their inability to even proof read articles they write (from the year 2033

), I wouldn’t trust them…

Sean Johnson

Jan 12

@Matt Stand: So Fr. Calderon is schismatic, but the other SSPX priests you list are not?? I think you’re outmaneuvering yourself again

Matt Stand

Jan 13

@Sean Johnson Only a Williamsonite, incapable of rational thought, could think such absurdity. I’ve already explained why you’re schismatic below. The head of the Dominican Order is the Master of the Order, Gerard Timoner. Why is he not the head of your Dominicans? Where is your link to the governing Church? Calderón via the SSPX IS linked to the governing Church albeit tenuously, as Rome says, …More

Matt Stand

Jan 15edited

@Sean Johnson Partial Communion has always existed (even if it wasn’t described as such) in the Church, otherwise the adjectives “full” and “perfect” would be superfluous (obviously). The partial communion here is in relation to unity of governance (not faith) as I had already stated. And hence why the Church is willing to supply jurisdiction to the Orthodox and SSPX, but not to a holocaust …More

Sean Johnson

Jan 15

Heretical: partial communion is a modernist novelty pre-empted by Mystici Corporis.

Matt Stand

Jan 15edited

@Sean Johnson As has already been explained to you, terms like imperfect communion were in use before VII. And you clearly have no idea what heresy is.
The hero you champion - but have split from - ++Lefebvre signed off on all but 2 of the VII documents (Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes). He signed Lumen Gentium, so I’m in good company, eh?
p.s. thanks to Gloria.TV for removing your …More

@Sean Johnson As has already been explained to you, terms like imperfect communion were in use before VII. And you clearly have no idea what heresy is.

The hero you champion - but have split from - ++Lefebvre signed off on all but 2 of the VII documents (Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes). He signed Lumen Gentium, so I’m in good company, eh?

p.s. thanks to Gloria.TV for removing your antisemitism.

Matt Stand

Jan 15edited

@Sean Johnson what does the encyclical Mystici Corporis have to do with the price of milk? Here’s the thing, such a declaration isn’t absolute. Let me explain…

In 1679 Innocent XI condemned “Propositions of Casuists”, the first one being “it is not unlawful in the administration of the sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the sacraments”. In other words, one is not allowed to approach doubtful sacraments. Yet in spite of this decree, some theologians hold that it is permissible to approach doubtful sacraments in times of necessity i.e. death. So, under certain conditions, the condemnation does not hold. Do you agree?

The point being that yours is the typical argument of a traditionalist. When you want it to be, everything must be understood as an absolute, but when you don’t everything is open to interpretation...

Sean Johnson

Jan 15

@Matt Stand I notice you never have a theological argument. Do YOU notice that?

Sean Johnson

Jan 15

@Matt Stand I suppose you didn’t notice that you just jumped from ecclesiology to sacramental theology (and I would put your own question back to you: What in the wide world of sports does that have to do with Lumen Gentium’s universal salvationism?).

Matt Stand

Jan 15edited

@Sean Johnson I notice that you are incapable of putting forward any rational argument, which are easily rebutted, and you resort to ad hominems, insults and antisemitic slurs.
No, Innocent’s Bull Sanctissimus Dominus is moral theology and a Bull is greater than an Encyclical - it was an a fortiori argument, which clearly went above your head.
p.s. I notice you didn’t answer the question

@Sean Johnson I notice that you are incapable of putting forward any rational argument, which are easily rebutted, and you resort to ad hominems, insults and antisemitic slurs.

No, Innocent’s Bull Sanctissimus Dominus is moral theology and a Bull is greater than an Encyclical - it was an a fortiori argument, which clearly went above your head.

p.s. I notice you didn’t answer the question

Sean Johnson

Jan 15

Psychological projection (ie., attributing your own unattractive qualities to your opponent). Why not just admit you’re a modernist, and a proud one at that?

Matt Stand

Jan 16

@Sean Johnson no, it’s you who had a post removed for your own antisemitic “qualities”. I, on the other hand, have kept on point and rebutted everything you have written. A fact anyone can see when they read this thread.

True Mass

2Jan 11

So what if the new rite of 1968 is invalid? A horrible thought but what if it's so. Think of the ramifications. How do we keep the Apostolic line going? Is it wrong to get reconsecrated in the pre V2 rite? Do many good faithful priests do this "just in case". Hasn't it leaked that this has been taking place for some time in the Church Mel Gibson funded. Is there a secret society of faithful priests working to save the line?
Wouldn't you like to know that your confessor has been consecrated in the traditional right? Just a thought. I'm sure not many people want to even consider this. Too frightening.
God save us.

True Mass

2Jan 10

Repudiate V2 and all the filth it has ushered in. God Bless and protect Vigano a truth Warrior for Christ.

Opera 369

Jan 10

Caro Monsignor Vigano': tutto questo teatrino senza tragedia greca, per non dare 'ragione' alla ricerca di A. Cionci riguardo alla "sede impedita" di Benedetto XVI che Lei sa benissimo di essere l'unica verita'! Come siete caduti in basso, alcuni di voi grandi prelati dell'opportunismo!

Matt Stand

Jan 10edited

Bp. Williamson espouses heresies:

#1 The Catholic Church has defected (E.C. 'Various Churches');
#2 Antiquarianism and his appeals to imitate the early Church (see quote below).

A bonus… and also schism:
#3 He rejects the 'One' mark of the Church (“God wants a loose association … but with no structure …” E.C. 'And Now?').

From the Irish Ecclesiastical Record (1889. p. 1036):

“The appeal to antiquity, against the prevailing usage of the Church, it cannot be too constantly borne in mind, is the heretic’s favourite device, and is fraught with danger. As Father Faber has admirably said:-”

Matt Stand

2Jan 10edited

Beware of Bishop Williamson & Co.

Sean Johnson

Jan 10

Sounds like sour grapes. Better to beware of an SSPX compromising (COVID shot, anyone?) to get a deal with antichrist Bergoglio.

Live Mike

Jan 11

@Matt Stand Beware of Jorge Bergoglio. Beware that you aren't led out of the Catholic Church by non-Catholic-heretics and or apostates.

Matt Stand

Jan 11edited

@Sean Johnson what has their opinion got to do with the price of milk? It’s the holocaust denying heretic who’s under the spotlight. And he is a heretic as I have shown.
@Live Mike so there are wolves on either side. That’s the warning: Williamson will lead you out of the Church too.More

@Sean Johnson what has their opinion got to do with the price of milk? It’s the holocaust denying heretic who’s under the spotlight. And he is a heretic as I have shown.

@Live Mike so there are wolves on either side. That’s the warning: Williamson will lead you out of the Church too.

Sean Johnson

Jan 11

@Matt Stand: Good to know you consider the colonial a dogma. Now go back to your Novus Ordo.

Sean Johnson

Jan 11

@Matt Stand: You seem obsessed with Williamson and Jews. Are you a Jew?

Matt Stand

Jan 11edited

Jan 15edited

@Sean Johnson your self-declared saint, Marcel Lefebvre, signed off on the Lumen Gentium document.

Sean Johnson

Jan 15

@Matt Stand Inconsequential. He spent the next 22 years opposing it.

Matt Stand

Jan 16

@Sean Johnson he didn’t, he said the exact opposite which is why he signed off on the document (and others).
Here’s a couple quotes from him. Seems I know more about your saint than you do

Jan 10

"If true, Viganò has chosen to distance himself from the Church by doubting the validity of ordinations according to the new rite (of 1968)."
But the Rite of 1968 is invalid...compared to the anciet rite. It is worthless.More

"If true, Viganò has chosen to distance himself from the Church by doubting the validity of ordinations according to the new rite (of 1968)."

But the Rite of 1968 is invalid...compared to the anciet rite. It is worthless.

Matt Stand

Jan 10

You don’t know this for certain. Either:
#1 it was something specific to his consecration (e.g. invalid matter) which is why he’s keeping quiet, or
#2 it was something more profound (e.g. a belief the N.O. form is invalid)
But it’s #2 then we would expect this to be stated publicly since it affects all his previous ordinations, consecrations, and the validity of sacraments they’ve all ministered …More

You don’t know this for certain. Either:

#1 it was something specific to his consecration (e.g. invalid matter) which is why he’s keeping quiet, or
#2 it was something more profound (e.g. a belief the N.O. form is invalid)

But it’s #2 then we would expect this to be stated publicly since it affects all his previous ordinations, consecrations, and the validity of sacraments they’ve all ministered during the last ?? years (confession, confirmation, Eucharist, holy orders, extreme unction).

Maria delos Angeles

Jan 10

WOO-HOO!

Seabass

2Jan 10

'Like' the conditional consecration, NOT the assertion +Vigano has distanced himself from the Church by this action.

Kenjiro M. Yoshimori

2Jan 10

No he hasn't.

Matt Stand

Jan 10edited

I wonder if he had to accept Bp. Williamson’s opinion on N.O. miracles. In any event, the unauthorized consecration means both are excommunicated.

Live Mike

3Jan 10

False. Matt do you comprehend the concept of conditional?

Kenjiro M. Yoshimori

Jan 10

Being excommunicated from the Pope Francis "church" of LGBTQ blessings, monosexuality, and Tucho Fernandez is no shame or loss. It isn't Catholic anyway, so in fact, he's excommunicated from a nothing "church".

Adrien

Jan 10

@Matt Stand Since there is no Pope right now and no conclave to elect a new one, it is possible that Canon Law has no instruction for the present situation, and since bishop Williamson has his own church, he is not bound by Catholic laws.

Matt Stand

3Jan 10edited

@Live Mike Brilliant! So Canon Law doesn’t apply to conditional sacraments

Seems ++Lefebvre missed a trick. He should have first sent his 4 wanna be bishops to some rogue bishop for consecration (e.g. ++Thuc), then claimed a doubt, and then perform a conditional consecration… No excommunication and they all lived happily ever after…More

@Live Mike Brilliant! So Canon Law doesn’t apply to conditional sacraments

Live Mike

Jan 11edited

@Matt Stand Your reply indicates a lack of comprehension as regards the meaning of the word "conditional" and the Code of Canon Law. The consecration was already authorized. A conditional consecration is not a "second consecration" nor "re-consecration" but performed just in case the already authorized consecration originally performed was invalid. If the first was valid then the conditional …More

Matt Stand

Jan 11

@Live Mike No, it is your lack of knowledge on Canon Law. The consecration mandate was given to a specific bishop (in this case St. JP II). If ++Vigano has a problem he goes back to Rome, not to some heretical bishop.

Sean Johnson

Jan 11

@Matt Stand: Actually, its your lack of doctrine, to be trying to apply canon law amidst a state of grave public necessity. By analogy, you're the guy who insists upon driving the speed limit with a motorcycle crash victim in your back seat who is about to die. "Now, now, we must obey the law!" The reality is that it is your duty to break the law (law which is actually dispensed by the necessity, …More

Matt Stand

Jan 12edited

@Sean Johnson Wrong. There’s a difference between a crisis and a state of necessity. A SoN only kicks in when ALL other avenues have been exhausted…

It is possible for a Catholic couple to marry in front of two witnesses only. But if they haven’t first tried to find a priest with faculties, or find any priest, or wait 30 days, their marriage is invalid. ++Vigano’s first recourse is to Rome, not to a holocaust denying heretical bishop.

But with your logic there’s some “constant” state of necessity which allows you to dispense with Canon Law all together. You then become your own schismatic pope - as we see in +W - deciding which laws to follow.

Sean Johnson

Jan 13

You are theologically incompetent. A state of grave general spiritual necessity exists whenever: 1) Many souls, 2) are threatened in spiritual goods of great importance (e.g., faith and morals, 3) and are without hope of help from their lawful pastors. (Prummer). In that case, even excommunicated clergy are obliged to come to the aid of faithful who, without their assistance would be damned; the …More

Matt Stand

Jan 15

@Sean Johnson this is false and no theologian agrees with your perverse reasoning. A state of necessity and a crisis are not the same. Yes, any priest can absolve - even reserved sins - in cases of danger of death. But a man diagnosed with cancer and given 3 months to live would not be state of emergency, even though it would be a crisis for him. Simple reasoning which you fail to grasp.

Sean Johnson

Jan 15

Your homemade theology is shameless, but at least it’s obvious

Matt Stand

Jan 16

@Sean Johnson the only thing obvious is my ability to rebut everything you write with simple (but for you) inconvenient facts.

SonoftheChurch

5Jan 10edited

Oh no, Archbishop Viganò, what have you done!?…and at the hands of that renegade, Williamson, no less! To abandon Holy Mother Church for trickster schismatics and neo-sedevacantists and their poisonous apostasy at the hour of her greatest need, when your strong, clear, courageous voice and uncompromising stand in the pursuit and proclamation of the truth is so essential now, more than at any other time in the darkness of our day, is enormously and horrifically tragic indeed. How could you do such a thing while the whole Church is smothered in crisis, experiencing a cataclysm unprecedented in all of her history, and reeling in painful passion and unparalleled suffering at the hands of false, canine-shepherds, who, like ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing, tear at her mercilessly with venomous, salivating dagger-toothed jaws. For you to jump ship now, out of the sure safety of the Barque of Peter, into the deceptive, death-infested waters of schism and neo-sedevacantism, with its looming waves of heretical rebellion and rancorous sedition, when Our Mother is so desperately in need of all her true and devoted sons in this moment of her direst peril, is gallingly grievous. Such an utter betrayal is unspeakably and deplorably sad, and I pray, above all things, and for the sake of your immortal soul, that it is not true; but if it is, may God forgive you….“extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”

Live Mike

5Jan 10

Baloney

Sean Johnson

5Jan 10

Yes, please accept Vatican II and get behind Francis and help us destroy the Church! We need you! There’s no salvation outside the fake conciliar church!!

Adrien

Jan 10

In the new rite of episcopal consecration, at least when the vernacular language is used, the consecrator usually pronounces every words cleanly and with an obvious presence of mind.
In any old rite (Mass or other Sacrament) anything goes and whatever occurs. The worst is, of course, the priest that were tricking the faithful by not saying the Words of Consecration at Mass on purpose. Who knows if …More

In the new rite of episcopal consecration, at least when the vernacular language is used, the consecrator usually pronounces every words cleanly and with an obvious presence of mind.

In any old rite (Mass or other Sacrament) anything goes and whatever occurs. The worst is, of course, the priest that were tricking the faithful by not saying the Words of Consecration at Mass on purpose. Who knows if that still happens today.

Here is an example of liturgical pronunciation... maybe some words are omitted

:
John F. Kennedy's Requiem Mass and Burial Rite (INTACT VERSION) 11/25/1963
To follow this Mass with the text below, start at 29:12 or any part with your missal.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccáta mundi, dona eis requiem sempiternam.

Dómine Jesu Christe, Fili Dei vivi, qui ex voluntáte Patris, cooperánte Spíritu sancto, per mortem tuam mundum vivificásti: líbera me per hoc sacrosánctum Corpus et Sánguinem tuum, ab ómnibus iniquitátibus meis, et univérsis malis, et fac me tuis semper inhærére mandátis, et a te numquam separári permíttas. Qui cum eódem Deo Patre et Spíritu sancto vivis et regnas Deus in sæcula sæculórum. Amen.

Percéptio Córporis tui, Dómine Jesu Christe, quod ego indígnus súmere præsúmo, non mihi provéniat in judícium et condemnatiónem: sed pro tua pietáte prosit mihi ad tutaméntum mentis et córporis, et ad medélam percipiéndam. Qui vivis et regnas cum Deo Patre in unitáte Spíritus sancti Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.

Panem cœléstem accípiam, et nomen Dómini invocábo.

Dómine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanábitur ánima mea.

Sean Johnson

2Jan 10

Sounds like an argument from the devil: “Get rid of those old rites where we didn’t know what was being said, and use the vernacular! Luther was right!”

Adrien

Jan 10edited

Jan 10edited

@Kenjiro M. Yoshimori My point was more focus on the validity of the rites as they are in the books with their vocal rendition. Since some people believe the new ones are invalid or dubious even ''in normal circumstance'' as I said in my comment above to foward.

Of course, a pizza and beer Mass is invalid with an obvious defect of the matter.

''In the new rite, anything goes''. Globally, yes, we all know that.

If God was to give us the real stats about liturgical abuses and defects, the ministers of the new rites would badly win in nearly every category; except one.

The coming of an audible liturgy with the use of local vernacular languages, create a context in which the ministers (priest or bishop) have nowhere to hide. It is unlikely for the faithful to hear a text of the Mass delivered at excessive irreverent speed, mumbling or extremely indistinct mumbling, word skipping, skipping of sentence or paragraph.

I am not talking about those who are changing the text with improvisation, alterations or even their own written text as we saw in the general context new rites (1965-1969, 1970 onward), but rather in both in the modified Vetus Ordo (1965-1969) and Novus Ordo, those who are claiming to follow the liturgical books.

Also, up to 1964, the real Roman rite was number one above all the other Latin rites and was used by the vast majority of the priests. Now a small number of priests are using the Old Roman rite, so they are on average much more conservative and dedicated to the liturgy, materially as well as spiritually.

Credo .

Jan 11

"Suddenly the whole chapel was illuminated by supernatural light, and a cross of light appeared above the altar".
O most holy Trinity, Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, I adore Thee profoundly. I offer Thee the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference by which He is offended …More

Live Mike

6Jan 10edited

If true, Viganò has chosen to insure the validity of his ordination / consecration and has moved closer towards traditional Catholicism by the conditional use of the traditional form of the ritual of the Catholic Church. If true, Viganò has chosen to distance himself from the Vatican II Counciliar Church now turned Bergoglian Synodal Anti-church. @en.news

Seabass

2Jan 10edited

And conditional confirmations..I've had one. A great peace of mind...now there's no doubt.