Thursday, 17 September 2020

Another priest invalidly ordained due an invalid baptism!

 For the second time in a month we have been aware of a priest invalidly baptised and thus, no sacramental validation followed. 

In both cases, the corrupt Deacon stated, "we baptise." The Vatican recently issued a condemnation of this. Where have they been? 

The real question is this; how many more were invalidly baptised and thus, invalidly ordained with no ability to confect any sacrament but don't know it because they didn't have a video of the fraud perpetuated upon them as these two did?

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/invalidly-baptized-oklahoma-priest-baptized-and-re-ordained-44890

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

I still question the validity of
a sodomite being Ordained. How can they have Proper Intention for reception of the Sacrament of Holy Orders?

Tom A. said...

You do not understand what the Church teaches regarding “intention” as it relates to sacraments. It has nothing to do with the internal state of the individual. It has everything to do with the external signs presented at the time the sacrament is administered.

Anonymous said...

Imagine how many people are without the Sacrements,and dont even know it,because the Priest administering them is not baptised.

Anonymous said...

Baptism of desire applies here.

Innocent II decreed on an invalidly baptized priest and all after.

There was no mention that the sacraments the priest had performed were invalid.

It is in Denzinger.

Anonymous said...

Tom A ?

Clarify, please.

Same to Anonymous, 6.26 am

Kathleen1031 said...

If only there was some person in charge, someone given authority in the church, that could settle dilemmas like this.

Irenaeus said...

Not again!

Anonymous said...

All the more indication that Archbishop Lefebvre was right all along.

Tom A. said...

It’s rather simple. Intention in sacramental theology relates soley to external actions. To invalidate a sacrament, the minister must externally manifest his (or her, for baptism or marriage) intention not to confect the sacrament while using proper matter and form. For example, a priest must state at some point during a Mass that he does not intend to consecrate the host. He cannot just say it internally, it must be expressed externally. By using the proper matter and form it implies he intends to perfom the sacrament. He could be an apostate who no longer believes any of it anymore but it would be a valid sacrament. An atheist can baptize anyone validly if he uses the form and matter even if he thinks its nonsense. A sodomite can be ordained a priest. He may recieve no actual graces from the sacrament if he is in mortal sin at the time. But he will recieve the power of the priesthood. Even if he is in mortal sin his entire priesthood he still can consecrate hosts and forgive sins. Personally, I think the NO ordination rites are gravely doubtful because they changed them all in 1968, so I would avoid any priest or bishop in the NO sect.

Tom A. said...

Well I would trust Pope Innocent II before I trust anything out of the current Vatican

Tom A. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Tom A et al,Please explain to me why OUR HAVING THE PROPER INTENTION was drilled into us before first Holy Communion.........oh wait!
the Baltimore Catechism and the nuns were wrong .

I do not believe a sodomite in mortal sin can have the Proper Intention to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders nor do I believe in magic . Jesus Christ reads hearts.

Peter Lamb said...

novus ordo Episcopal consecration is definitely invalid, so priestly ordination is at least doubtful and Catholic policy is that a doubtful sacrament is no Sacrament.
mason roncalli had no authority to summon a council.
mason montini had no authority to promulgate the changes and teachings of a council.
vatican ii is therefore a false, invalid "council."
Everything that emanates from vatican ii is therefore invalid, false, null and void.

Tom A. said...

Again you fail at making fundamental distinctions. The communicates intention at time of reception has nothing to do with the validity of the sacrament. The priest consecrated the host validly by using proper form and matter. If the communicate is in a state of mortal sin and receives the sacrament, no grace is obtained. In fact condemnation is obtained. But that does not mean the host was invalidly consecrated. The communicate is not the minister of the sacrament and he or she has nothing to do with the validity of the sacrament. He or she can determine whether reception will produce grace or condemnation based on the communicates intention.

Anonymous said...

Tom , you are no theologian and neither am I but it does not take a degree in Theology to see what all this has done to the Church institution. no it is NOT Vatican two. That was a symptom and NOT the cause since prior to the Council the institution was already floundering filled with perverted communist clerics and lukewarm Catholics who God rightfully spit out.

Tom A. said...

I agree that prior to V2 the Church was infested with enemies of the Church. My contention is that although they were enemies, they still provided valid sacraments because they were using proper form and matter thereby outwardly expressing proper intention. Today, fifty two years after Montini changed the ordination rites, its possible the NO sect has no valid priests left save some very old ones ordained prior to the changes.

Anonymous said...

Tom ,we can agree on that last statement.

Peter Lamb said...

Episcopal Consecration Null and Void.
An in depth analysis by Fr. Cekada. (R.I.P.):
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

Paul VI’s New Rite of Unholy Orders. June 18, 2013.
No valid priests or bishops in 45 years…
https://novusordowatch.org/2013/06/unholy-orders-invalid-bishops/