Wolf, you have said clearly enough that Mass said by each of the traditional priestly fraternities and diocesan indult masses are all mutually contradictory. I believe that you consider this to be so because of the differing assumptions regarding the validity of V2 "changes" and subtractions and alterations made to rites of ordination, both priestly and episcopal. Fr Gregory Hesse more or less stated that a combination of intent, form and matter, combined with a certain legitimate degree of benign latitudinarianism proper to Holy Mother Church preserved validity if not liceity in all renderings of the Mass both vetus and novus. In 2011 Pope BXVI returned the wording of the English NO to proper terms such as "for many" thereby correcting one of Fr Hesse' most acute doubts as to the validity of the NO in English as originally worded.
If this is not correct in your view then what, in your opinion, is the solution to this hot mess, at least as regards validity? I firmly believe that Our Lord, though doubtless VERY UNHAPPY, is pure unconstrained act (and how!), capable of bridging chasms of human making to permit ignorant goodwill to make forward progress notwithstanding. This is not to suggest He will be merciful to culpable clerics or the prideful refusal of Truth for the sake of human preference.
Humanly speaking, the proper solution to this mess is for all the bishops to submit to conditional consecration to the SSPX bishops, similar to what Carlos Vigano recently did with Bishop Williamson. Then they can ordain all their priests in the Traditional Rite.
The following are the problems with the "New Rite of Ordination":
#1. The alteration of the form Pius XII promulgated in Sacramentum Ordinis.
#2. The omission of the "Tradition of the Instruments", Sacramentum Ordinis notwithstandiing, because the Council of Florence insisted on this, not by decree, but by Apostolic origin.
#3. The Omission of the Minor orders and the major order of the Subdiaconate.
Fr Hesse should know that the "intention" of the priest or bishop does not amount to a hill of beans, if he does not conform to Apostolic Tradition. Fr Hesse should also know that the Mind of the Church has always been that it is sacrilegious to administer PROBABLE sacraments. Administration must be MORALLY CERTAIN.
Moreover, any priest or bishop must have an Apostolic Mandate. Any man who takes it upon himself to either be ordained or consecrated bishop without permission of the Holy Seat is presumed vagus and ineligible to administer the sacraments licitly. The "crisis in the church" does not excuse. Archbishop Lefebvre was acting within his Apostolic Mandate both in ordaining priests and consecrating bishops without papal approval because the circumstances of his suppression were unjust and Pope John Paul II at no time personally forbid him, but rather objected from a canon law standpoint from a Conciliarist viewpoint. (It really is quite complex- that.) The same does not hold with the SSPV, who had themselves illicitly consecrated bishops without having been called by Apostolic Authority. (To say nothing of the fact that, in many instances, these "private consecrations" are exceedingly dubious.)
As regards the Novus Ordo, it has the following problems:
#1. Lack of an offertory, which is an obvious necessary prelude to a sacrifice.
#2. Lack of the Roman Canon, which invalidates the Consecration. The vast majority of theologians have always held that a valid consecration can only occur within the context of the Roman Canon.
#3. Lack of the Epiclesis.
#4. The confusion of the words of Institution over the Precious Blood. The words "Mysterium Fidei" are lacking. As per the Council of Trent, these are absolutely required for validity.
#5. The reduction of the Consecration of both the Body and Precious Blood to that of a narrative of the Last Supper, especially with the words "Do This In Memory of Me" added to the form of the Consecration.
#6. The conflation of the Communion of the Priest with the Communion Service.
(This is assuming the Novus Ordo is said in Latin according to the typical edition of the 1970 missal. When the vernacular is used, a multitude of additional problems appear.)
It is tragic the majority of these issues are never addressed by pastors.
Yes, it really is a steaming mess. And I fear that only the Second Coming and Saints Peter and Paul in the sky with Flaming Swords are going to be able to sort things out at this point.
Wolf, you have said clearly enough that Mass said by each of the traditional priestly fraternities and diocesan indult masses are all mutually contradictory. I believe that you consider this to be so because of the differing assumptions regarding the validity of V2 "changes" and subtractions and alterations made to rites of ordination, both priestly and episcopal. Fr Gregory Hesse more or less stated that a combination of intent, form and matter, combined with a certain legitimate degree of benign latitudinarianism proper to Holy Mother Church preserved validity if not liceity in all renderings of the Mass both vetus and novus. In 2011 Pope BXVI returned the wording of the English NO to proper terms such as "for many" thereby correcting one of Fr Hesse' most acute doubts as to the validity of the NO in English as originally worded.
If this is not correct in your view then what, in your opinion, is the solution to this hot mess, at least as regards validity? I firmly believe that Our Lord, though doubtless VERY UNHAPPY, is pure unconstrained act (and how!), capable of bridging chasms of human making to permit ignorant goodwill to make forward progress notwithstanding. This is not to suggest He will be merciful to culpable clerics or the prideful refusal of Truth for the sake of human preference.
Humanly speaking, the proper solution to this mess is for all the bishops to submit to conditional consecration to the SSPX bishops, similar to what Carlos Vigano recently did with Bishop Williamson. Then they can ordain all their priests in the Traditional Rite.
The following are the problems with the "New Rite of Ordination":
#1. The alteration of the form Pius XII promulgated in Sacramentum Ordinis.
#2. The omission of the "Tradition of the Instruments", Sacramentum Ordinis notwithstandiing, because the Council of Florence insisted on this, not by decree, but by Apostolic origin.
#3. The Omission of the Minor orders and the major order of the Subdiaconate.
Fr Hesse should know that the "intention" of the priest or bishop does not amount to a hill of beans, if he does not conform to Apostolic Tradition. Fr Hesse should also know that the Mind of the Church has always been that it is sacrilegious to administer PROBABLE sacraments. Administration must be MORALLY CERTAIN.
Moreover, any priest or bishop must have an Apostolic Mandate. Any man who takes it upon himself to either be ordained or consecrated bishop without permission of the Holy Seat is presumed vagus and ineligible to administer the sacraments licitly. The "crisis in the church" does not excuse. Archbishop Lefebvre was acting within his Apostolic Mandate both in ordaining priests and consecrating bishops without papal approval because the circumstances of his suppression were unjust and Pope John Paul II at no time personally forbid him, but rather objected from a canon law standpoint from a Conciliarist viewpoint. (It really is quite complex- that.) The same does not hold with the SSPV, who had themselves illicitly consecrated bishops without having been called by Apostolic Authority. (To say nothing of the fact that, in many instances, these "private consecrations" are exceedingly dubious.)
As regards the Novus Ordo, it has the following problems:
#1. Lack of an offertory, which is an obvious necessary prelude to a sacrifice.
#2. Lack of the Roman Canon, which invalidates the Consecration. The vast majority of theologians have always held that a valid consecration can only occur within the context of the Roman Canon.
#3. Lack of the Epiclesis.
#4. The confusion of the words of Institution over the Precious Blood. The words "Mysterium Fidei" are lacking. As per the Council of Trent, these are absolutely required for validity.
#5. The reduction of the Consecration of both the Body and Precious Blood to that of a narrative of the Last Supper, especially with the words "Do This In Memory of Me" added to the form of the Consecration.
#6. The conflation of the Communion of the Priest with the Communion Service.
(This is assuming the Novus Ordo is said in Latin according to the typical edition of the 1970 missal. When the vernacular is used, a multitude of additional problems appear.)
It is tragic the majority of these issues are never addressed by pastors.
Yes, it really is a steaming mess. And I fear that only the Second Coming and Saints Peter and Paul in the sky with Flaming Swords are going to be able to sort things out at this point.
Regards in the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary.