Fr. Calderon's Study on Novus Ordo Episcopal Consecrations

[Stone]

A Note of Explanation

The study by Fr. Calderón on Novus Ordo Episcopal Consecrations is the second or third study the theologians of the SSPX have done since 2005 on the New Rite of Orders.

One of the more well known studies on Episcopal Consecrations is that done by Fr. Pierre-Marie (of Avrille) in 2005 who concludes that the New Rite is valid, see here, under the SSPX archives/miscellaneous/sedevacantism web link. As Mr. Johnson notes in the above Change #102, the SSPX began labeling all who questioned or doubted the New Rites as sedevacantist. This is a clever accusation, one that well clouds the issue. The old-SSPX was assuredly not sedevacantist when its priests and bishops taught that the New Rite Sacraments were doubtful. This was a doubt that was expressed repeatedly over decades, by Archbishop Lefebvre himself, as well as several other priests associated with the SSPX - see here and here.

The now-Conciliar SSPX began to switch gears in the late 1990's (with GREC) and actively seek recognition from Rome, disregarding the advice and mandate of Archbishop Lefebvre not to seek an agreement until Rome once again expresses the True Catholic Faith and not the Conciliar Faith of Vatican II. Of course, once the SSPX began to seek this agreement, it was incumbent upon them to make sure their members were not offensive in any way to Rome. With the accession of Benedict XVI to the papal throne in 2005 (the same year of Fr. Pierre-Marie's study was published) the SSPX had a vested interest in not offending the new pope by holding onto their 'old' position that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration was doubtful. So in this respect, Fr. Pierre-Marie's study was particularly helpful to the SSPX at the time. It placated the SSPX masses by telling them the New Rite was valid and it placated Rome by showing the Romans that they could work with the SSPX.

That is why it is interesting that Fr. Calderón studies - interestingly enough - the same Novus Ordo Episcopal Consecration Fr. Pierre-Marie does. (One is tempted to believe that if Fr. Pierre-Marie's study was absolutely conclusive as the SSPX and Fr. Pfeiffer have touted, there would be no need for the assistant Rector of the La Reja Seminary to repeat it and reexamine it!)

It has been noted that Fr. Calderón causes some confusion in his conclusion. He does not go as far as Fr. Pierre-Marie in declaring definitively that the New Rite is valid. He rather states that the New Rite is "most probably valid" (note the important inclusion of the word, "probably"). But he clarifies in the next sentence that "but we also believe that there is no certainty of its validity," in frank opposition to Fr. Pierre-Marie's conclusion.

This confusion appears again in his last two points on the practical application of his conclusion. In the first point, he seems to agree with the SSPX's recent acceptance carte blanche of clergy ordained or consecrated in the New Rite. But then in his second point, Fr. Calderón echoes the old-SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, etc. when he states in very clear and plain language:

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.

Again, this is in clear opposition to Fr. Pierre-Marie's study, who concluded that:

We think that we have shown that the reasons for suspecting the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration as it was promulgated by Rome in 1968 are not at all serious. [...] However, as we remarked at the end of the main response, if the new rite is still valid per se, it is quite possible that, owing to bad translations or an adaptation of the rite that strayed too far from the original, or because of a consecrator’s defect of intention, in certain particular cases we could have an invalid ceremony. 

Both Fr. Calderón's study and the article by Fr. Peter Scott (see Must Priests Who Come to Tradition be Reordained?), while certainly written in a milieu that was well on its way to pursuing reconciliation and recognition from Rome, both clearly express that doubt exists in the New Rite of Orders. As Mr. Johnson points about in his Change #102, these priests are among the top theologians of the SSPX. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais also had long expressed doubts about the Episcopal Rite of Consecration as well as the Rite of Ordinations. And as was already mentioned the founder of the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, frequently repeated that there were doubts about the validity of the Conciliar Sacraments.

So what must a Catholic do when confronted with doubtful Sacraments? What does the Church teach? What does Her wisdom advise in such situations?

Well, She is consistent!:


1917 Catholic Encyclopedia: On Probabilism

• Thus ... it is not lawful to act on mere probability when the validity of the sacraments is in question. Again, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when there is question of gaining an end which is obligatory, since certain means must be employed to gain a certainly required end. Hence, when eternal salvation is at stake, it is not lawful to be content with uncertain means.
  

Sources of Catholic Dogma: Denzinger


[Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679]

• 1151 1. It is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned, unless the law forbids it, convention or the danger of incurring grave harm. Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders.
  

1907 Catholic Encyclopedia: On Anglican Orders

• Where it judges that the previous orders were certainly valid it permits their use, supposing the candidate to be acceptable; where it judges the previous orders to be certainly invalid it disregards them altogether, and enjoins a re-ordination according to its own rite; where it judges that the validity of the previous orders is doubtful, even though the doubt be slight, it forbids their use until a conditional ceremony of re-ordination has first been undergone.
  

While Bishop Williamson is wrong on grace in the New Mass, he does advise how to address the problem of doubtful Orders the same way the Church does:

• Should priests ordained with the new rite of Ordination of 1972 be conditionally re-ordained with the old and certainly valid rite of Ordination ? Catholic doctrine on the validity of sacraments is clear, but the sacramental rites of the Newchurch seem to have been designed to lead gradually to invalidity (see EC 121 of Oct 31, 2009). The « gradually » is the problem. How far along was that gradual process in any given case ? [...] In brief, were I Pope, I think I might require that all priests or bishops ordained or consecrated with the « renewed » rites should be conditionally re-ordained or re-consecrated, not because I would believe that none of them were true priests or bishops, on the contrary, but because when it comes to the sacraments all serious doubts must be removed, and that would be the simplest way of removing all possible doubts. Newchurch rot of the sacraments could not be left hanging around. Newchurch Ordinations I - EC #356 May 10, 2014 [Note that is exactly what Pope Leo XIII ordered for the Anglican orders in Apostolicae Curae so again, in this, Bp. Williamson repeats Church teaching.]
  

• ... the absolute need for certain validity in sacramental Rites applies: until the restored Magisterium of the Church pronounces that the Newrite of Consecration is valid, then to be safe, Newbishops should be reconsecrated conditionally, and Newpriests ordained only by Newbishops should be re-ordained conditionally. Valid Bishops? II - EC#450 - January 27, 2016
  

• [...] the sacraments call for absolutely certain validity, especially the consecration of bishops on whom the Church hangs. Therefore newbishops and newpriests were best conditionally re-consecrated and re-ordained. Valid Bishops? III EC#451 - March 5, 2016
  

Dear friends, let us continue to hold the line of Archbishop Lefebvre, who himself only taught as the Church teaches, and avoid doubtful Sacraments!

A simple example of the wisdom of the Church by way of analogy -

If the engineers responsible for maintaining a plane engine are divided amongst themselves (similar to Fr. Pierre-Marie vs Fr. Calderón) on whether or not the plane engine is in good working order, the safest way to approach such a divided decision is to ground the plane(!) until it is certain that the engine is in good working order! Similarly, if the theologians are not in complete agreement about the validity of something as important as the New Rite of Holy Orders, the safest position is to conditionally reordain whenever possible and when not possible, to simply avoid doubtful Orders.