Fr. Calderon's Study on Novus Ordo Episcopal Consecrations

[Stone]

It has long been a tactic of the Conciliar-SSPX to label anyone who questions the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration a sedevacantist, as is commented on below. But it is not sedevacantist to point out the doubts about (all) the Novus Ordo Rites. As Fr. Scott notes (below), it places "the eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy" to take a "lax probabilist" position. This is not sedevacantist, nor was it ever considered a sedevacantist mentality before the SSPX's attempts to reconcile with Modernist Rome, but rather how the Church always taught, as is demonstrated in the words in this post.


From the Catalogue of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX [all emphasis mine]:

#102: Double Compromise (Valid Episcopal Rite; Tutiorist Position Toward Sacramental Validity):

With the 2005 election of Pope Benedict XVI to the papacy, the discussion regarding the validity of the 1968 rite of episcopal consecration heated up, as Benedict XVI was the first pope to be consecrated a bishop according to the new rite. A determination of the issue had huge implications: If the form of the new rite was invalid, or even doubtful, would Benedict XVI truly be the Bishop of Rome?

Until that time, the matter regarding the validity of the form of the new rite was a disputed matter open for debate within the Society, with some of its best theologians declaring the new rite "doubtful."

One such theologian was none other than Bishop Tissier de Malleris, who, having received the book of Dr. Coomaraswamy La Drame Anglican, which declared the new rite invalid, responded in a 1998 letter:

"Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s pamphlet “Le Drame Anglican.”

After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of episcopal consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.

The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.

As regards Mgr Lazo, it would be difficult for us to explain these things to him; the only solution is not to ask him to confirm or ordain.

Yours very truly in Our Lord Jesus Christ,

+Bernard Tissier de Mallerais


PS: Another thought: Mgr Lazo has already confirmed “quite a few” [people] with us. Obviously, this is valid because “the Church supplies” (canon 209), because a simple priest can confirm with jurisdiction. And it is difficult to see how to make our doubt known to Mgr Lazo. So silence and discretion about this, please." www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/

A few years later, in 2006, a group called the International Committee Rore Sanctifica [www.rore-sanctifica.org/contact.html] based out of France conducted a study which concluded in the invalidity of the new form of episcopal consecration, and did so persuasively enough for the SSPX and its assets to spring into action, and jump to the defense -without saying so- of Pope Benedict XVI, with a flurry of studies concluding in favor of the validity of the new rite:

In 2007, former US District Superior, Fr. Peter Scott wrote an article titled "Must priests who come to Tradition be re-ordained?," which explained to the faithful why is was essential to conditionally ordain priests (and bishops) coming to the Society from the conciliar church, who had been ordained in the new, doubtful rites:

"When it concerns the validity of the sacraments, we are obliged to follow a “tutiorist” position, or safest possible course of action.

We cannot choose a less certain option, called by the moral theologians a simply probable manner of acting, that could place in doubt the validity of the sacraments, as we are sometimes obliged to do in other moral questions. If we were able to follow a less certain way of acting, we would run the risk of grave sacrilege and uncertainty concerning the sacraments, which would place the eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy. Even the lax “probabilist” theologians admitted this principle with respect to baptism and holy orders, since the contrary opinion was condemned by Pope Innocent XI in 1679. Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned.... Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders." (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)

Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent conferring of sacraments. One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things necessary for eternal salvation. The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the Church. They do not want to share modernist, liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests ordained in such rites, for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters. It is for this reason that they turn to the superiors to guarantee validity."

Very good!

But in the same article, Fr. Scott states his belief that Fr. Pierre Marie, O.P. (Avrille) had demonstrated the validity of the form of the new rite of episcopal consecration (a disputed contention within Tradition and the SSPX), but nevertheless proceeds to cite another 2007 Le Chardonnet article by Fr. Nicolas Portail (SSPX), in which the latter declares:

"The authors correctly observe that this rite is the vehicle of a conception of the episcopacy according to Vatican II. It also shows that the functions that are special to the episcopal order (ordaining priests, consecrating churches, administering confirmation...) are not mentioned in the consecratory preface, in opposition to other prefaces in the Eastern Rites. In addition, the specific error of collegiality is explicitly mentioned in the consecrator’s allocution. It cannot be denied that this rite is, from a traditional perspective, weak, ambiguous, imperfect, defective, and manifestly illicit."

Still, Fr. Scott's emphasis had subtly shifted the conversation away from the validity of the form, to the validity of the intention of the consecrating bishop.

Additional articles of Fr. Celier (there he is again! Any time there is a chance to strike at Tradition, he emerges!) and Fr. Calderon supplemented those of Fr. Pierre Marie and Fr. Scott.

The validity of the form was now beyond question in SSPX circles: Only a sedevacantist (allegedly) could question it!

But as the quotation from Bishop Tissier de Mallerais demonstrates, it was not always so (and nobody ever accused Bishop Tissier of being sedevacantist).

This new position/policy was implemented to smooth the way for negotiations with Pope Benedict XVI.

In this regard, the aforementioned International Committee Rore Sanctifica seems to have made a rather prophetic response to all the pro-validity SSPX rebuttals to its study. Speaking of these allegedly validly consecrated bishops, it stated:

"One wonders whether or not one will in the near future see these individuals on the altars (tables) used by the Society. Clearly the author(s) are happy to sleep with strange bedfellows." www.the-pope.com/letterpmv.html

Well, that day has come:

The advent and acceptance of conciliar Bishop Huonder (Diocese of Chur, Switzerland) by the SSPX is the personification and fulfillment of that prophecy.

In short, it is a double compromise and change: For the sake of negotiations with modernist Rome, we will conclude the new rite is certainly valid.

And for the sake of negotiations with modernist Rome, we will no longer maintain our tutiorist position with regard to sacramental validity.