Fr. Pierre Marie Allegedly Admits 2005 Study Was Mistaken
Jul 4, 2021 12:07:38 GMT -5
Voxxkowalski likes this
Post by Pacelli on Jul 4, 2021 12:07:38 GMT -5
The following quotes are taken from poster Michael Wilson posted on the Suscipe Domine Forum, Sedevacantist Thesis Subforum, in the thread "Is the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration Valid?". Please note that this thread cannot be linked here as Suscipe Domino hides the Sedevacantist subforum from public view.
Some comments on the quotes: Mr. Wilson's assertions here are huge as far as importance, as the SSPX relies on the study of Fr. Pierre Marie as the intellectual foundation of its belief that the 1968 consecration rite of bishops approved by Paul VI is valid. Mr. Wilson states that Fr. Pierre Marie has admitted that the he was mistaken as to the fact that the Coptic and Maronite rites of consecration of bishops do not support by comparison the Paul VI episcopal consecration rite.
Mr. Wilson also states that that Fr. Pierre Marie is now in favor of reordination of priests ordained in the new rite which is also a confirmation that his study does not prove what he originally attempted to prove, that the new rite is valid.
Some comments on the quotes: Mr. Wilson's assertions here are huge as far as importance, as the SSPX relies on the study of Fr. Pierre Marie as the intellectual foundation of its belief that the 1968 consecration rite of bishops approved by Paul VI is valid. Mr. Wilson states that Fr. Pierre Marie has admitted that the he was mistaken as to the fact that the Coptic and Maronite rites of consecration of bishops do not support by comparison the Paul VI episcopal consecration rite.
Mr. Wilson also states that that Fr. Pierre Marie is now in favor of reordination of priests ordained in the new rite which is also a confirmation that his study does not prove what he originally attempted to prove, that the new rite is valid.
No, it wasn't Dr. Cooramaswamy that was mistaken as to the form of the Maronite rite of orders, as Fr. Pierre Marie claimed, it was Fr. Pierre Marie himself who was mistaken, and which he latter admitted. Fr. Pierre Marie was not only mistaken about the Maronite rite but also about the Coptic rite; he also used the rite for the enthronement of an archbishop not the Consecration of a Bishop in his study.
As to Msgr. Lefebvre, he never studied the rite in depth, but he did have doubts, as to its validity, as the testimony of Frs. Cekada and Sanborn attest to. Also that various priest that were ordained in the new rite, and worked with or joined the SSPX, were re-ordained in the traditional rite, when they requested it; and which would have been a sacrilege if the new rite was certainly valid. (Michael Wilson, November 11, 2019, all emphasis added)
As to Msgr. Lefebvre, he never studied the rite in depth, but he did have doubts, as to its validity, as the testimony of Frs. Cekada and Sanborn attest to. Also that various priest that were ordained in the new rite, and worked with or joined the SSPX, were re-ordained in the traditional rite, when they requested it; and which would have been a sacrilege if the new rite was certainly valid. (Michael Wilson, November 11, 2019, all emphasis added)
Yes, in the review Sel De La Terre, Fr. Pierre Marie has come out publicly in favor of the re-ordination of the priest ordained in the New Rite; that is the equivalent of distancing himself from his own study, "proving" the validity of the new rite. Also and interesting side note, My father wrote to Msgr. Lefebvre in 1988 requesting the re-ordination of Fr. Walter Ranger SSPX, who was assigned to our parish in Davie, Fla. Fr. Ranger was subsequently re-ordained; and Msgr. Lefebvre wrote back to my dad telling him that he had re-ordained other priests in the past and that "more and more the new sacraments were doubtful, because of the lack of intention, which was no longer Catholic." This letter was published in the Sel de La Terre with our family's permission.
I answered a little bit to hastily and I forgot to reference Fr. Pierre Marie's response to the fact that he used the rite for the enthronement of a Maronite Archbishop; he admitted that he had used the aforementioned form of the rite, but after consulting with liturgical books, he found that there were times in history when this rite was used for the Consecration of a bishop. This response is partially true; but as we read in my response on page #1 when in the past a non-bishop has been elected to archbishop, the ceremony of enthronement is preceded by the rite of Consecration of a bishop. (Michael Wilson, November 12, 2019, all emphasis added)
I answered a little bit to hastily and I forgot to reference Fr. Pierre Marie's response to the fact that he used the rite for the enthronement of a Maronite Archbishop; he admitted that he had used the aforementioned form of the rite, but after consulting with liturgical books, he found that there were times in history when this rite was used for the Consecration of a bishop. This response is partially true; but as we read in my response on page #1 when in the past a non-bishop has been elected to archbishop, the ceremony of enthronement is preceded by the rite of Consecration of a bishop. (Michael Wilson, November 12, 2019, all emphasis added)