It is currently Thu May 25, 2017 10:44 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
 Dominicans of Avrillé: Epsicopal orders is not a sacrament 
Author Message

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Germany
New post Dominicans of Avrillé: Epsicopal orders is not a sacrament
I'd like to talk about a doctrinal among the Lefebvrists that even the vast majority of the sedevacantists
is not aware of.
The Dominicans of Avrillé assert that epsicopal orders is only a sacramental like the benidiction of an abbot.
I found this from the writings of Thilo Stopka:

http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibiloth ... 2006-02-03)_(Allemand).pdf


Quote:
Den Anfang machte ein Abbé Martin Lugmayr von der Petrusbruderschaft, der einen dicken Wälzer zugunsten eines Eucharistiegebetes ohne Wandlungsworte geschrieben hat, gefolgt von seinem Mitbruder Abbé Walthard Zimmer, der ein eifriger Verteidiger von Harry Potter ist. Fast zeitgleich treten nun die Mönche aus Avrillé auf den Plan, welche die Windmühle öfters gewechselt haben, je nachdem, ob sie mit oder gegen den Uhrzeigersinn drehen. Derzeit versuchen sie der seltsamen Christologie eines Lécuyer, der das Hohepriestertum Christi in der Gabe des Heiligen Geistes sieht, Geltung zu verschaffen und damit verbunden, Lécuyers Sicht vom katholischen Priestertum überhaupt. Davon aber abgesehen, ist der Ausgangspunkt der Dominikaner, der Zweifel an der Sakramentalität der Bischofsweihe, weswegen man sich nicht wundern darf, wenn sie Materie und Form der Bischofsweihe sehr nachlässig behandeln. Wir verweisen allgemein auf Diekamp, welcher der Sakramentalität der Bischofsweihe immerhin das Prädikat „Sententia certa“ verleiht, ebenso Ludwig Ott.1 Ich denke, daß wir hier auch nicht Sacramentum Ordinis und Apostolicae Curae aufführen dürfen, welche die Bischofsweihe als Sakrament behandeln. Schlussendlich sei hier auf den Can. 951 des CIC1917 verwiesen, der ganz deutlich vom bischöflichen Charakter spricht:
Can. 951. Sacrae ordinationis minister ordinarius est Episcopus consecratus; extraordinarius, qui, licet charactere episcopali careat, a iure vel a Sede Apostolica per peculiare indultum potestatem acceperit aliquos ordines conferendi.


That Stopka's allegations are true can be easily shown:
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedev ... ations.pdf

Quote:
In the interest of bringing a little order and clarity
to the question, we shall apply ourselves to studying
the validity of the episcopal consecrations according
to the ritual published by the Vatican in 1968. We
shall proceed according to the Scholastic method so
as to treat of the matter as rigorously as possible....
We take the position (today, the most widely held)
of the sacramentality of the episcopate; so doing, we
adopt the hypothesis that is most unfavorable to the
validity of the new rite. [N.B. Theological debate over
this point has taken place for centuries. Although the
Church has defined that there are precisely seven
sacraments, it remains unclear whether episcopal
consecration remains part of the sacrament of Holy
Orders or is merely “a sacramental,” an ecclesiastical
ceremony wherein the powers of the episcopate,
“bound” in the simple priest, are “freed” for the
exercise of the fulness of the priesthood.–Ed.]


I give a quote from Diekamp-Jüssen (actually the only dogmatic manual I have at home):

Quote:
II. Episkopat und Presbyterat sind sakramentale Ordines. Fidei proximum


Volume III , page 353


Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:26 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Germany
New post Re: Dominicans of Avrillé: Epsicopal orders is not a sacrame
To see the gravity of this problem I'd like to add a further point.
I do not have the impression that the leadership of SSPX seems to care about it.
As far I am aware of Bishop de Mallerais still works together with them and their magazine
La Sel de la Terre.
Let us compare that with the two priests of the dogmatic union (see http://www.dogmatische-unie.nl/) in Holland where I now attend holy mass a few times a year.
They do not receive from the Society the holy oils because they are not una cum.


Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:44 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Dominicans of Avrillé: Epsicopal orders is not a sacrame
I have asked this question before (though not on this forum, I believe) and have never really received a satisfactory answer.

There are exactly seven sacraments. This is dogma. So I have often wondered if the sacrament of Orders is split into separate sections (since they have to be just one sacrament) or if the only real sacrament is that which ordains a priest to offer Mass and hear confessions, while being consecrated bishop (after all, we don't generally say that a priest was ordained a bishop, rather he was consecrated a bishop) is merely an act that gives the man who was already ordained the authority to rule and ordain others.

Thus, can there truly be an invalid consecration?

The reason I find this important to understand is because, if the answer to the above is "No", then the bishops of the conciliar church may be true bishops and the priests true priests, albeit, with the same status of the Orthodox. Though they are still valid priests and bishops, they are not Catholics as long as the reject the Catholic Faith and hold the Modernist heresies. However, it does make the restoration of the Church through the current Conciliar lines possible and it also means that there can be numerous Catholics within the Conciliar structures even if we don't really know who they are. A man elected pope by the Conciliar cardinals in the future could begin undoing all of Conciliarism a be a true pope.

The only reason I've seen that this would not be possible is the invalidity of episcopal consecrations. But if that is not an issue, and for the first time I'm seeing that there are sedevacantists who suggest this is not an issue, then the restoration of the Catholic Church in the Vatican could be closer that we think. I grant that it would take time for him to prove he is Catholic and it would take a lot of time for sedevacantists to accept him as Catholic, but I think a genuinely Catholic pope would be heaping praise on the sedevacantists throughout the world who kept the faith alive through the Crisis. Furthermore, most Conciliar Catholics would likely openly split with such a pope.

I've read the SSPX article referenced, but, frankly, I could not follow its logic, so it's at all easily demonstrated by this article.

In any event, I still have a problem with how the bishops of the Church of England can be invalid bishops while the bishops of the Conciliar church can be valid when there seems to be virtually no difference between the ordinal (as admitted by Michael Davies in The Order of Melchizedek. Thus, I am still confused.


Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:12 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Germany
New post Re: Dominicans of Avrillé: Epsicopal orders is not a sacrame
Dear TKGS!

According to Diekamp-Jüssen there are three orders that belong to the sacrament:
the order of deacon, the deacon of priest and the order of bishop. The three degrees must be considered
in light of their relationship to the sacrifice of the mass (a deacon serves the priest at mass, the priest offers
the sacrifice of the mass, the bishop has the power to enable others to offer the sacrifice of mass).
According to the Vindication even the spending of the sacraments is secondary in respect to that power.

For understanding the nature of this sacrament I would like to recommend to you to read (or to reread) the
papal decrees Apostolicae Curae and Sacramentum ordinis.

A good appendix to both decrees is the Vindication that can be found here:

http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/etudes/2 ... e_1898.pdf
(Unfornatetly I have just gone through it and not studied it in great detail.)

I think that the people from the "International Comission Rore Sanctifica" are the ones who made the most detailed studies regarding the invalidity of the new rites of orders.
Here:
http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/

And here the introduction by Father Schoonbroodt (as I know him personally: he is a wounderful priest who works really hard for the salvation of souls):
http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/etudes/2 ... torial.pdf

http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/etudes/2 ... torial.pdf


The arguments regarding the invalidity of the new rite of orders are summarized here (unfortunately there is only a German version. I am not aware of an English one):

rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/04-rite_de_paul_6-invalidite_du_rite_episcopal/2009-02-28_Etude_de_STOPKA-Thilo_Das-Pontifikale-Pauls-VI/RORE_2009-02-26-DE_Das-Pontifikale-Pauls-VI_-_ePaper(f).pdf

(please add a www. to the above. The link was once again broken).


Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Germany
New post Re: Dominicans of Avrillé: Epsicopal orders is not a sacrame
Maybe somebody would ask why I posted this in the part of the forum
that has the name "Una Cum Controversy".
I know of many sedevacantists who say that we must not attend SSPX masses because of the una cam phrase. And I understand them. However I found Father Cekada's arguments against una cum masses not
compelling.
In my case I could easily attend an SSPX mass every day (in principle at least).
To attend a non una cum mass is only possible a few times a year in my case.

However I found other reasons not to attend
SSPX masses. This has lead to the same conclusions in my case at the practical level.
In private discussions I found out that several people thought I was behind everything the Society stands for that I was a "Lefebvrist". It is not permissible to attend mass if the result is that you put your own faith or the faith of others into serious danger. I totally agree
with Father Cekada, Bishop Dolan and Bishop Sanborn that SSPX is a schismatic sect, not Catholic at all.

In order to add a personal story:
In 2010 I attended this "Schöneberger Sommerakademie". Usually there are also some of the Dominicans of Avrille. There was a lay brother. He was very kind to explain to us the differences between the Dominican rite and the standard Roman and I served there as as an altar boy at their high mass on this sunday in Schönenberg.
However when I said that I disagree with their views regarding the new rite of orders he said:
"No, no this is not a matter of opinion. The simple believers don't have a right to dispute this!"
I then avoided this topic in order to prevent us from insulting each other.

The very same people who have not understood Catholic teaching regarding the sacrament of orders tell me and Stopka
that we do not have a right to dispute their claims that the new rite of orders is valid.

I was confirmed by this fake bishop Jaschke who is a staunch modernist.
I asked my local SSPX priest to receive conditional confirmation from an SSPX bishop (in this case it would have been Tissier de Mallerais). He said that the Society could not do this. I asked him whether he could give a study to me where it was shown that the new rite of orders is valid. I did this on numerous occasions. I am still waiting up to the present day... And with his successor it was almost the same game.

I heared that I should have trust into the Society, that the Society has authority and therefore my confirmation must have been valid.

But there is a happy ending:
thanks to this wonderful priest Rissling and especially this woundeful bishop Pivarunas I have now my confirmation. I received it in Ulm on 16th October last year. And I would also give thanks to this saintly Archbishop Thuc the only bishop who did not make false comprimises with the modernists! Without him I would have to spend the rest of my life without the sacrament of confirmation!


Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:54 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Dominicans of Avrillé: Epsicopal orders is not a sacrame
Martin wrote:
But there is a happy ending:
thanks to this wonderful priest Rissling and especially this woundeful bishop Pivarunas I have now my confirmation. I received it in Ulm on 16th October last year. And I would also give thanks to this saintly Archbishop Thuc the only bishop who did not make false comprimises with the modernists! Without him I would have to spend the rest of my life without the sacrament of confirmation!


Well if push comes to shove you could have always done it under the Maronites, or some other Eastern Rite. Glad you got your orders, now Bishop Thuc he did a lot of good for the Church with the consecrations he did of +Carmona and +Des Lauriers. I would not go so far as to say he was a Saint, but greatly that act was Saintly.

Give me some time, Saint Thomas goes over this topic and some other Thomist's also go over it quite in-depth.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:13 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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.