Quote:Peter was born at Verona, of parents who were infected with the heresy of the Manichees; but he himself, almost from his very infancy, fought against heresies. When he was seven years old, he was one day asked by an uncle, who was a heretic, what they taught him at the school he went to? He answered, that they taught him the Symbol of the Christian Faith. His father and uncle did all they could, both by promises and threats, to shake the firmness of his faith: but all to no purpose. When old enough, he went to Bologna, in order to prosecute his studies. While there, he was called by the Holy Ghost to a life of perfection, and obeyed the call by entering into the Order of St. Dominic.

Great were his virtues as a Religious man. So careful was he to keep both body and soul from whatsoever could sully their purity, that his conscience never accused him of committing a mortal sin. He mortified his body by fasting and watching, and applied his mind to the contemplation of heavenly things. He labored incessantly for the salvation of souls, and was gifted with a special grace for refuting heretics. He was so earnest when preaching, that people used to go in crowds to hear him, and numerous were the conversions that ensued.

The ardor of his faith was such, that he wished he might die for it, and earnestly did he beg that favor from God. This death, which he foretold a short time before in one of his sermons, was inflicted on him by the heretics. While returning from Como to Milan, in the discharge of the duties of the holy Inquisition, he was attacked by a wicked assassin, who struck him twice on the head with a sword. The Symbol of faith, which he had confessed with manly courage when but a child, he now began to recite with his dying lips; and having received another wound in his side, he went to receive a Martyr’s palm in heaven, in the year of our Lord twelve hundred and fifty-two. Numerous miracles attested his sanctity, and his name was enrolled the following year by Innocent the Fourth, in the list of the Martyrs.

From The Catacombs archives: 


Some of you may recall a short article posted here on The Catacombs  in which references a study by Fr. Alvaro Calderón, assistant Rector of the SSPX La Reja Seminary in Argentina, on the [Novus Ordo] Rite of Episcopal Consecration of Pope Paul VI.

Fr. Calderon's study was published by SiSiNoNo No. 267 in November of 2014 and may be found online here.

Below is a computer translation of Fr. Calderón's 'Conclusion' to his 2014 study on Episcopal Consecration [Italicized emphasis in the original. All other emphasis mine]:

Quote:If we consider the matter, form and intention of the new rite of episcopal consecration in the context of the rite and in the circumstances of its institution, it seems to us that it is most probably valid, because it not only means what it should mean, but that most of its elements are taken from rites received by the Church (32).

But we also believe that there is no certainty of its validity (the italicized Spanish words are no hay certezade su validez), because it suffers from two major defects, which we could classify as one [canonical] and the other theological.

- Canonical defect. For this reason: above, the institution of this New Rite cannot be considered legitimate.

- Theological defect. The Novus Ordo is not the same but only similar to other rites accepted by the Church. Although certainly these rites, on the one hand, are not very precise in their concepts; and on the other hand, the differences introduced by the Novus Ordo follow tendencies of bad doctrine. All this makes theological judgment, always difficult in these matters, even more difficult.

Now, in a matter of the utmost importance for the life of the Church, as is the validity of the episcopate, it becomes necessary to have absolute certainty. Therefore, to be able to accept this rite with peace of conscience, it would be necessary not to have only the sentence of theologians, but the infallible sentence of the Magisterium.


As for the practical attitude to sustain in the face of the new episcopal consecrations, it seems to us that the one that had supported the Fraternity until now is justified:

1. The very probable validity of the rite seems to us to make it morally acceptable to occasionally attend Mass (traditional rite) celebrated by an ordained priest or bishop the Church is not to be consecrated in the new rite, or even to receive communion in it; it seems to us acceptable, in case of necessity, to receive the acquittal from them; treat them as priests and bishops and not as lay people in disguise; we find it acceptable to allow them to celebrate in our own houses. For the shadows that float over the validity of his priesthood are but shadows, and in all those activities our responsibility for the priesthood exercised is not compromised. And the remote risk of a communion or an absolution being invalidated is not so serious.

2. But the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent one from being certain of its validity, it seems to us that - until there is a Roman sentence, for which they would have to change many things - justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional re-consecration of these bishops. Such uncertainties cannot be suffered at the very root of the sacraments (33).

- Father Alvaro Calderón

SSPX Newsletter of the District of Asia - December 1998

Quote:…The Fraternity uses all available means today, in light of the situation in the Church, to transmit to all priests of the Church this truth of the priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the reality of Christ, Priest and King, to communicate this to the whole Church.

This nature of the priest as mediator seems to me to be very simply illustrated in the priestly ordination ceremony.

By the anointing of the priest’s hands, by the tradition of the chalice and the paten, and by the second imposition of the hands accompanied with the power to absolve sins. Now these three rites are accomplished at the end of the ordination when the ordinands are already priests by the silent imposition of the bishop’s hands and the consecratory preface. They are already priests. Nevertheless, the Church insists, through these three secondary rites, on specifying the nature of the priest’s power.

First of all, the anointing of the hands, so beautiful, so meaningful. The priest is no longer a man like others, he is a consecrated man because he receives the anointing of his hands. Anointing the two hands of the ordinand, of the ordained, the priest [bishop] pronounces these words: “Consecrate and sanctify, O Lord, these hands by this unction and our blessing so that whatsoever they shall bless and consecrate be consecrated and made holy, in the name of the Lord.” From now on, dear candidates to the priesthood, you will work wonders, you will consecrate and sanctify. Consecrating at mass, of course, holding the chalice that will become the chalice of the Precious Blood, and holding the paten that will become the paten holding Our Lord Jesus Christ, His immolated Body. Thus, you will consecrate the Holy Eucharist, you will renew sacramentally the sacrifice of the Cross. And you will sanctify souls through your hands, through all the blessings of the Church, through baptism, and through the Holy Communion you will give.

But, dear faithful, this marvelous anointing of the priest’s hands was tampered with [truqué] by the Conciliar Church 46 years ago. Paul VI instituted other words, which say nothing of consecration or sanctification. That is why we preciously safeguard the treasure of these ordination prayers.

The second rite is the rite of presenting the young priest with the chalice and the paten, with these very clear words: “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God.” These words you will not find in the other parts of the ordination. Nowhere. It is in this secondary rite that you will ultimately find specified what this priesthood is you are going to receive. “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God,” and it continues, “and to celebrate masses for the living as well as for the dead, in the name of the Lord.” To celebrate masses, this is quite clear, for the living as well as for the dead.

Not only a sacrifice of praise for the living, but also the sacrifice of expiation and propitiation for the souls in purgatory, who are no longer spoken of in the Church today. Your priesthood is a priesthood having effects for eternity, not only on earth but in Heaven for admitting in souls, and in purgatory for the deliverance of souls.

Archbishop Lefebvre would tell us: “The priest is a man of eternity, who lives not only in time, but whose priesthood has eternal effects.”

But this prayer, once again, was tampered with by the Conciliar Church—the new ordination rite where the bishop presents the chalice and the paten, with the wine and the host, yes, simply saying: “Receive the gifts of the faithful, to offer them to God.” So, what does that mean? You are receiving the gifts of the faithful to offer them to God? Is that all? We are not receiving the gifts of the faithful, we are receiving the gift of God, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ sacrificed on the Cross, to offer Him anew to God the Father. This is the truth! Obviously, we cannot accept this new, tampered with ordination rite, which casts doubts on the validity of numerous ordinations [done] according to the new rite.

And finally, the third beautiful rite—secondary, it is true, but still so important—the power to absolve sins. The priest [bishop] says to the ordinand, as he spreads open his chasuble to signify he shall thenceforth be able to exercise his priesthood and all of his priestly functions: “Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou shalt forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins thou shalt retain, they are retained.” These beautiful words of Our Lord to the Apostles on Easter, on Easter evening, what could be more beautiful? To express this power, which the young priests have already received by the silent imposition of hands and the preface, this is true, but expressing it in an explicit manner, that the priest has the power to forgive sins. You will say but only God can forgive sins. Exactly—the priest is the instrument of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins.

But, dear faithful, this prayer, this rite of transmitting the power to forgive sins, was simply suppressed in the new rite of ordination. It is no longer mentioned. So this new rite of ordination is not Catholic. And so we shall continue, of course, to faithfully transmit the real and valid priesthood through the traditional rite of priestly ordination.

Source [Disclaimer: A sedevacantist site's translation of the Bishop's sermon was used rather than a computer translation, trusting in the integrity of the editor who notes he made a 'careful' translation. However, a computer translation can be found here for comparison. Emphasis mine.]

Archbishop Lefebvre gave a four day series of conferences to the seminarians in Ridgefield, CT. He speaks of many topics, including the decision to remove Fr. Sanborn as rector and replace him with then-Fr. Williamson, the use of John XXIII liturgy in the Society, the validity of the new rites of sacraments, etc.

Many thanks to Ecclesia Militans for making these four conferences easily available for download.

April 24th

April 25th

April 26th

April 28th

Audio can be heard here: www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2019/01/20/archbishop-lefebvre-conferences-to-seminarians-in-1983-audio/

From The Catacombs archives: 

Archbishop Lefebvre gave a series of conferences to the SSPX seminarians in Ridgefield in April of 1983. The conferences dealt primarily on the issues surrounding the leaving of the "Nine," in the installation of then-Fr. Williamson as the new Rector of the seminary, and a myriad of other issues.

The following excerpt from the Conference given on the 26th of April is interesting. In a great sense of paternal solicitude for the souls in his care, the Archbishop demonstrates his carefulness in the selection of his priests for the Society, showing a focus on the proverbial 'quality over quantity'.

In a subsection of the Conference entitled, The Question of the Indian Priests, the Archbishop says the following words:

Quote:"I think they are valid priests. Because I received from Fr. Bolduc, the document of their ordination.  ... I investigated the bishop (who ordained them) in the 'Romanum Pontificio,' in this diocese in India...that city and diocese is all very Catholic...and so he was a true Catholic bishop who ordained these Indian priests ... some were ordained before the Council of Vatican II: Fr. Mathias, Fr. Pinto, before the Council. I cannot say that this ordination was invalid. They are true priests and there is no reason to say they are not true priests. But there is another question involved concerning them -- these priests, what kind of formation did they receive? Especially Fr. Papas (sp?), who came from India...this man, I think is very modernist! [...] I know that Fr. Bolduc has begged me for priests...he said, 'I need priests...I have not enough priests; ... please send us priests...', etc. I am aware of the need, but it is very important to send true priests, true Catholic Traditional priests. It is worse to send a priest you are not sure of, i.e. priests who have no Traditional doctrine. [Emphasis - The Catacombs]

Taken from The Liturgical Year by Dom Prosper Gueranger (1841-1875)

Quote:Cletus, the son of Emilianus, was a Roman of the fifth region and of the Patrician street. He governed the Church during the reigns of the emperors Vespasian and Titus. Agreeably to the order given him by the Prince of the apostles, he established five and twenty priests in the City. He was the first who in his letters used the words: “Health and Apostolic benediction.” Having put the Church into admirable order, and having governed it twelve years, seven months, and two days, he was crowned with martyrdom under the emperor Domitian, in the second persecution following that of Nero, and was buried in the Vatican, near the body of St. Peter.

Quote:Marcellinus, a Roman by birth, ruled over the Church from the year two hundred and ninety-six to the year three hundred and four, during the terrible persecution of Diocletian. He had much to suffer from the impious severity of those who reproached him with showing too much indulgence towards such as had relapsed into idolatry, whence ensued a calumnious report of his having offered incense to idols. But in truth, this blessed pontiff was beheaded for the confession of the faith, together with three other Christians, Claudius, Cyrinus, and Antoninus. Their bodies, by the emperor’s order, were left six and thirty days without burial, after which the blessed Marcellus, in consequence of his receiving, while asleep, ad admonition from St. Peter, had them buried in the Cemetery of Priscilla, on the Salarian Way; at which burial were present many priests and deacons, who, with torches in their hands, sang hymns in honor of the martyrs. Marcellinus governed the Church seven years, eleven months, and twenty-three days. During this period he held two ordinations in December, at which four were made priests, and five bishops for divers places.

From The Catacombs archive:

Quote:"The union desired by these Liberal Catholics, a union between the Church and the Revolution and subversion is, for the Church, an adulterous union, adulterous. And that adulterous union can only produce bastards. And who are those bastards? They are our rites: the rite of the Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments-we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ or if it does not give them. The priests coming out of the seminaries do not themselves know what they are." -Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Lille, August 29, 1976

Quote:Where the rite for ordaining a priest is concerned, the first point to make is that the matter and the essential form designated by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis remain unchanged. This is a point in favor of the new rite. It is the only point in its favor.1

Quote:... since the Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis of Pius XII, it would seem that no priestly ordination in which the minister uses exactly the words prescribed in that document (Da quaesumus, Omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum presbyterii dignitatem ... etc.), could be impugned on the grounds of defective form, whatever defect there might be in the other elements of the rite.3

Quote:There is thus no basis for questioning the validity of the new ordination rite, even in the English version. I have no qualms in attending Tridentine Masses celebrated by priests ordained in the new rite, and I know that Archbishop Lefebvre has accepted the services of at least one such priest to work with the Society of Saint Pius X.6

Quote:"There can be no doubt of the validity of the new rite, but there are certain features which the author [Mr. Davies] deplores."7

Quote: " .. .it is worth pointing out that the Latin word presbyter, used to denote priest in the Latin text of both the traditional and new ordinals, is translated as 'presbyter' in numerous places in the ICEL translation. At no time in any English-speaking country have Catholic priests been referred to as 'presbyters'. The term 'presbyter' is also used in the proposed Anglican-Methodist Ordinal."9

Quote:that whereas the Church has embellished the beauties of the ordination ceremony by adding worthy prayers in the course of time, still she has guarded the prayers and ceremonies which have come down to her from the earliest ages, careful not to omit anything, for "in adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us, we can always feel secure; whereas if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential."10

Quote:"Since," as Father Clark observes, "the meaning of words can be changed by human usage and convention, and the efficacy of sacramental words depends upon their meaning, it may happen that liturgical words which convey the sacramental symbolism in one context, do not do so in another."12

Quote:... the use of the word "priest" in itself in no way denotes an acceptance of the Catholic concept of the priesthood (sacerdotium), as this word is used frequently throughout Cranmer's Ordinal. Reference to the sacerdotium must be looked for in specific references to the powers of a priest ordained to consecrate and offer sacrifice.15

Quote:... The traditional rite of ordination has been remodelled "in the most drastic manner," and, following Cranmer's example, has been achieved principally by the subtraction of "prayers and ceremonies in previous use," prayers and ceremonies which gave explicit sacerdotal signification to the indeterminate formula specified by Pius XII as the essential form. This formula does indeed state that the candidates for ordination are to be elevated to the priesthood-but so does the Anglican. Within the context of the traditional Roman Pontifical there was not the least suspicion of ambiguity-within the new rite there most certainly is.17

Quote:... It is your ministry which will make the spiritual sacrifices of the faithful perfect by uniting them to the Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ. That sacrifice will be offered in an unbloody way through your hands. 18

Quote:Every informed Catholic knows of the six heterodox [Protestant] consultants whose help was invoked by Archbishop Bugnini in his "reform" of the Catholic liturgy. Every informed Catholic is aware of the historical climate during which the new rites originated and were publicly instituted-a climate which, as Pope John's Council shows, was permeated by a spirit of false ecumenism ready to minimise any Catholic belief or tradition in order to placate the Protestants. 20

Quote:... let this argument suffice for all. From them [the prayers of the Anglican ordinal] has been deliberately removed all which sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That "form" consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits essentially that which it ought to signify. 21

Quote:But if, on the contrary, the rite is changed with the manifest purpose of introducing another rite which is not accepted by the Church, and of repudiating that which the Church does, and which is something that by Christ's institution belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is evident not 'merely that the intention necessary for a sacrament is lacking, but rather that an intention is present which is adverse to and incompatible with the sacrament.

Quote:"If the new Catholic rite, shorn of any mandatory prayer signifying the essential powers of the priesthood, is valid, then there seems to be no reason why the 1662 Anglican rite should not be valid too, and still less can there be any objection to the 1977 Anglican series 3 Ordinal."22

Quote:"is based on the contention that the Holy Ghost would not permit the supreme authority in the Church to promulgate an invalid sacramental rite."23

Quote:"The acceptance of a sacramental rite by virtually the entire Church also constitutes an irrefutable proof of its validity."24 

Quote:to doubt is not to judge, but rather to suspend all judgment of assent, and to remain fluctuating between either side of a contradiction."26 

Quote:"a state of mind in which a man gives no assent to either side, but remains suspended, embracing neither side definitely. "27

Quote:And so a doubt or opinion - no matter how probable it seems - cannot make what is not a sacrament to become a sacrament, nor transform into medicine what is actually poison. In this case, the certain natural law forbids one to expose himself to a danger of not obtaining the end or of bringing about evil, or to apply means which are utterly in-adequate or even harmful. To expose oneself to a danger of this kind "when in doubt concerning means necessary to salvation" is gravely illicit. In such matters, the safest and most certain course must be followed. 28

Quote:Since upon the matter and the form depends the validity of the sacraments, there is a grave obligation in conferring the sacraments to apply the matter and form which are certain and prescribed. Therefore, whenever there is question of the matter and the form, and thus of the validity of the sacraments, it is not licit to follow even a more probable opinion, or to apply a questionable form or matter. The reason is that the sacrament would be senselessly exposed to the danger of nullity, which would constitute a grave irreverence against God.29

Quote: "a minister who follows a merely probable opinion concerning the validity of a sacrament, having abandoned the safer course, sins mortally, both because the danger of frustrating the sacrament constitutes by its very nature a grave irreverence, and also because charity and justice are violated in a very serious matter."31

Quote:If a sacrament whose validity is in doubt is necessary either absolutely or respectively, or upon it still other things depend, then it must be "repeated", as long as the validity of the sacrament is not morally certain.

In which case, it is necessary to "repeat" the sacraments of Baptism, Holy Orders, absolution of the dying, Extreme Unction for one dying without the use of his senses, and the consecration of the Sacred Offerings lest they present the danger of idolatry. In such cases the principle commonly admitted by theologians is this: "If it is licit to repeat, then it is necessary to repeat. "33

Quote:But if there exists a prudent doubt as to whether the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders were truly and validly conferred, then they are to be conferred again conditionally. Indeed, the more necessary the sacraments are, then the more readily they are to be re-iterated, also those which are conferred but once, that is Baptism and Holy Orders, even though there is a much greater probability favoring the validity of the sacrament...36