Rad Trad Vocation?

[Lil Red]

Hello,

 

So, personally I am pursuing a vocation to the priesthood outside diocesan structures, i.e. with sedevacantist organisations such as the CMRI or SSPV. No links will be provided, google it yourself so I don't get yelled at :P So my question here I suppose is, do you think God can call people to vocations outside what you consider the body of the Church?  

 

:D

 

Lefebvre

 

in my opinion (for the less-than-it's-worth-two-cents): no. 
 

[Credo in Deum]

in my opinion (for the less-than-it's-worth-two-cents): no. 
 

 

Don't sell yourself short.  Your opinion is at least worth 3 cents.  At the least. 

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

So how do you know that the CMRI and SSPV have valid Holy Orders? That's a serious question; I have always wondered how Sedevcantists came to that conclusion. Isn't possible that all of those priests and bishops are invalidly ordained? Also there are many different sedevcantist groups, how can you be sure which ones are valid?

Edited August 15, 2014 by Poorly Catechized Convert

[veritasluxmea]

So how do you know that the CMRI and SSPV have valid Holy Orders? That's a serious question; I have always wondered how Sedevcantists came to that conclusion. Isn't possible that all of those priests and bishops are invalidly ordained? Also there are many different sedevcantist groups, how can you be sure which ones are valid?

Because, they use the correct form and ceremony for ordination with all the right words, and they have apostolic succession- marcel lefebvre was a genuine, real bishop. So, the ordinations are legit, they are real priests. 

 

They are illicit, meaning they are ordained without permission, but they are validly ordained, meaning they have all the priestly powers. Illicit=/= invalid.  So they are illicitly but validly ordained. 

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

Because, they use the correct form and ceremony for ordination with all the right words, and they have apostolic succession- marcel lefebvre was a genuine, real bishop. So, the ordinations are legit, they are real priests.

They are illicit, meaning they are ordained without permission, but they are validly ordained, meaning they have all the priestly powers. Illicit=/= invalid. So they are illicitly but validly ordained.

Marcel Lefebvre founded the SSPX and was very much against the Sedevacantist position. If I remember correctly he even expelled people from his seminary that held that position.The SSPV and CMRI were founded separately and I'm unsure if they have valid apostolic secession. I know the Church doesn't recognize Sedevacantist ordinations, but I was curious about the Sedevacantist position. Edited August 16, 2014 by Poorly Catechized Convert

[veritasluxmea]

Well, if they have apostolic succession and use the same (Latin) ordination rite as Catholics, they have the priest powers. 

[Lefebvre]

Marcel Lefebvre founded the SSPX and was very much against the Sedevacantist position. If I remember correctly he even expelled people from his seminary that held that position.The SSPV and CMRI were founded separately and I'm unsure if they have valid apostolic secession. I know the Church doesn't recognize Sedevacantist ordinations, but I was curious about the Sedevacantist position.

 

Sedevacantis believe, generally speaking that they have valid Holy Orders. The orders of the CMRI's Superior General and in-house Bishop, His Excellency Bishop Pivarunas descend from those of Bp. Moises Carmona, who was in turn raised to the episcopate by Archbishop Thuc, an elderly Vietnamese archbishop who consecrated a number of bishops without Papal mandate after Vatican II. The orders of the SSPV -- noting, here, that the SSPV has always spoken strongly against the certain validity of the Thuc orders -- stem from the consecration of His Excellency Bishop Kelly by Bishop Mendez of Arecibo; who, while named a bishop by J23, was consecrated by Francis Cardinal Spellman.

[truthfinder]

Thank you for noting the question of the Thuc line.

[puellapaschalis]

I understand that when it comes to the Thuc line, there are also concerns about the form he used (e.g. no co-consecrator), which would jeopardise those consecrations.

[marigold]

Because, they use the correct form and ceremony for ordination with all the right words, and they have apostolic succession- marcel lefebvre was a genuine, real bishop. So, the ordinations are legit, they are real priests. 

 

They are illicit, meaning they are ordained without permission, but they are validly ordained, meaning they have all the priestly powers. Illicit=/= invalid.  So they are illicitly but validly ordained. 

 

How can the 'correct form and ceremony' bestow grace if they have broken communion with the Church?

[Egeria]

How can the 'correct form and ceremony' bestow grace if they have broken communion with the Church?

My memory is hazy on this, but basically because Roman Catholicism has an Augustinian view of sacraments celebrated outside the Church (whereas Orthodoxy tended to a more Cyrprianic view, although not always in as clear cut a way). Metropolitan Kallistons explains this better than I could:

The Cyprianic view can be summarized in a syllogism:

True sacraments cannot exist outside the Church; Heretics and schismatics are outside the Church; Therefore, heretics and schismatics do not possess true sacraments.

But the west since the time of Augustine has normally adopted a somewhat different position. Augustine accepted Cyprian’s minor premise but denied his major. Unlike Saint Cyprian, he distinguished between validity and regularity: a sacrament performed by heretics or schismatics, while irregular and illegitimate, is nonetheless technically valid provided that certain specified conditions are fulfilled. Whereas Cyprian denied heretics both ius and potestas to perform sacraments, Augustine denied them the first, but not necessarily the second. A number of Orthodox theologians, particularly in Russia during the past three centuries, have inclined towards the Augustinian view; but in general the position of the Orthodox Church has been Cyprianic and non-Augustinian.

From here: http://classicalchristianity.com/2014/07/06/on-cyprianic-and-augustinian-theories-and-heterodox-sacraments/

(Also of interest here is Father Georges Florovsky's article on the limits of the Church:

http://glory2godforallthings.com/florovskys-limits-of-the-church/

[puellapaschalis]

My memory is hazy on this, but basically because Roman Catholicism has an Augustinian view of sacraments celebrated outside the Church (whereas Orthodoxy tended to a more Cyrprianic view, although not always in as clear cut a way). Metropolitan Kallistons explains this better than I could:

 

*snip*

 

Yes, this is how I remember Apotheoun (sp?) explaining how sedes in the Orthodox view ipso facto could not possess valid orders.

 

(Is Apo still around, by the way, or did he get snarled off to the other forum?)

[Lefebvre]

In a related but also slightly unrelated way, if I recall correctly Orthodoxy does not share the Catholic view of the state of the priesthood lasting until death; even in cases of defrocking or laicization.

[truthfinder]

How can the 'correct form and ceremony' bestow grace if they have broken communion with the Church?

The thing is that any of these bishops believed they were ordaining in good faith - they had to because it was an emergency.  It wasn't a necessarily a willful act of obedience meaning that they meant to start a new church.  Lefebvre was disobedient but he also thought he didn't have a choice.  It's murky.

[veritasluxmea]

How can the 'correct form and ceremony' bestow grace if they have broken communion with the Church?

Because God works through the sacrament, not the person bestowing it.

 

So, if a priest privately rebels against the church and denies her teachings- but keeps it private and still pretends he believes- his sacraments are valid. If he brings it to the open- his sacraments are still valid. Being in a state of mortal sin does not erase the priest mark on his soul, it does not make his sacraments invalid. I was baptized (as a baby) by a priest who openly supported and taught heresy like women priests, among other things, and it is a valid baptism in the eyes of the Church, because he did it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A Catholic baptism, despite him being in a state of mortal sin. (I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, however. That was just the way he had been taught and he was a very nice and sincere man.)