What Catholics Believe is intended for the thoughtful exploration of all Catholic issues with the goal in mind of promoting the Traditional Roman Catholic Religion. Please visit our website at wcbohio.com to watch full episodes or to send any questions, comments, or concerns.
To Father Jenkins, Please acknowledge the statement of Father Francois Egregyi, "Yes, you are correct. Both [he refers to Deacon Williamson and Deacon Dolan] received both hands on their heads by Archbishop Lefebvre. I know because I was there, having just been ordained subdeacon." He made this statement in these Comments on 7/26/24. Name your "reliable source". Do you still stand by your statements implying "doubtful" sacraments?
12 out of the 23 ordination rites in the catholic church expressly author ONE hand. This is before and after Sacramentum Ordinis, none of them in use changed. This is from Sacrae Theolgiae volume IVB - i am pretty sure this is on the bookshelf in your room in the video Fr Jenkins. You need to retract your statements and offer public penance.
Sacramentum Ordinis is online. I just slowly read it. It is pretty clear that as of Nov 30 1944, It is decreed that the matter for diaconate is one hand, priest and bishop two hands. Also that it does not have retroactive force unless there is any doubt , it should be taken up with the Holy. See.
@@joanlafleur9349 yes the matter is hands, having only one hand still does not invalidate it. Why do you reject the Catholic Church which teaches this?
@@joanlafleur9349 the Sacrae Theologiae literally references the document and says it would seem that two hands is necessary but that is not the case and then shows how sacred scripture is not clear on one or two hands and then shows that the church rites do not require two hands, and then finishes with church father's in support of the fact that sacramentum ordinis is not creating a new teaching about 2 hands.
@@JacquesMigne Why do you reject Pius XII decree? The purpose of his Motu Proprio was to settle this question because it did arise. Apparently , you're not happy with his clarification. When he stated that the force of his decree was not retroactive, it meant that it did not invalidate former ordinations.
@@joanlafleur9349 Name one theologian that states this is what Sacramentum Ordinis was for. Otherwise you have rejected the church. Aertnys-Damen, De Jorio, BAC scholastics - they all say the opposite of you. They actually have authority not the SSPV.
What would happen if all traditional groups came together instead of fighting and separating? You want Saints, good marriages, children who have vocations yet you all fight and add to the already confused state we are in. You all need to meet come together and fight the true enemy.
We know that. Public opinion is not to be trusted at all. Today it is for me, tomorrow it is against me. What matters is fidelity to our faith. We should have that conviction and stay calm.” ~Archbishop Lefebvre Father Jenkins do your words help everyone remain calm? Or do they cause distrust and dispare. Please go back to the SSPX, this separation should have never been. They have the fruits, The Holy Mass, Valid Sacraments Saintly Bishops, Holy Priests, Holy Sisters, Brothers and religious. A.M.D.G.
The fruits of the sspx? They are indistinguishable from the Novus ordo now. The laity are riddled with children apostatizing and laity who don't know their faith. Holy Bishops? Bp Fellay was covering up child crimes for decades! Holy mass? They have Novus ordo clergy in their ranks!
So Fr Jenkins rejects all the theologians and canonists that say there is no doubt with one handed ordinations and the decision of the Holy Office as was described by Regatillo? And then you defer to YOUR interpretation of Sacramentum Oridnis (which is absurd as for centuries priests were ordained with one hand as well as easterns), over all the theologians even after 1947. And no theologians claim your interpretation of this document. This is sacramental FEENEYISM. It is the same exact logic as the deniers of BOD.
@@joanlafleur9349 it actually uses the singular 3 times. So you are appealing to the Bible over the consensus of the theologians? So you are protestant? And you reject the eastern rite priesthood? So you are schismatic? And you reject the centuries of one handed ordinations in the Latin rite? So you deny apostolic succession? Good logic there bro
@@joanlafleur9349 if you're wondering where I got the 3 times figure. It is from the Sacrae Theologiae from the BAC Jesuits in 1950s. They say scripture doesn't clearly support one or two hands. So your comment is going against the teachers within the church.
@@JacquesMigneIs one hand indicated in Old or New testament ? I think that before Pius XII motu proprio, the single hand consecration was valid but after that , his direction should be obeyed.
very simple... one hand on head for diaconate and two for Priesthood. To do otherwise is to invalidate the Sacrament. All rubrics must be adhered to. They mostly go back to Jesus Christ Himself in their institution. Fr Luc
But for centuries priests were ordained with one hand, easterns are ordained with one hand to this day, all the theologians say there is no doubt about one hand ordinations even after 1947. Pseudo-Dionysus describes ordinations being done with specifically only one hand. And there isn't even any proof it was done one handed LOL. Name one theologian that says it invalidates it, otherwise you are arrogantly lying.
Also so you believe that not following a single article of the prescribed rite invalidates a sacrament? lol. Have you ever read sacramental theology or cases in canon law? It takes a lot wrong to make a sacrament even doubtful. There are many books that talk about what part of the ordination right have to be done correctly and what part not in order to make it doubtful. Are you claiming to be a priest? Because you need to go back to minor seminary
Father, Trump is just another henchman for the satanic new world order. He's no savior. He's an actor on a stage. Israel needs support to build their third temple so they need zionist Trump and since Israel owns America, that's who they will get. Furthermore, Trump is responsible for the inflation as it was under his administration that $4 trillion was printed out of thin air by the overlords in the federal reserve. He never condemned their actions, so he must be working for them like every other president. He spent more than any other president, just like the presidents before him. The RNC was a national embarrassment. The republicans are no different than the democrats. Let's all wake up and come to terms that every part of this federal government has been infected by the evil one. Trump is a traitor.
The implication of what Fr. Jenkins is saying is that many ordinations in the past have been invalid because theologians previously believed 2 have was not necessary for validity so in the past would not have conditionally redone the ordinations. This would lead me to doubting all ordinations that don't have a video, and videos are a very recent phenomenon in history combined with 1 hand instead of 2 being an easy mistake (as Fr Jenkins stated) so any ordination prior to videos should be considered doubtful. Therefore the net accumulation would eventually mean all priesthoods would be invalid if the bps were not valid. A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all so therefore I shouldn't go to Fr. Jenkins or anyone else for that matter. Ah, if only we knew this prior to Fr. Jenkins interpreting the 1947 document! Although this reasoning seems sound given the premise, the conclusion is absurd so this should lead one to at least question the premise. In contrast, council of Trent certainly defined the reduced essential form of the consecration of the holy Eucharist. However, according to what I know of the history, previously it was thought to be longer, not shorter, so the council of Trent refined it. I didn't hear any real reason to doubt those validity, as in the Thuc line bps (and in that case the SSPV argument sounds more like Donatism than Catholic).
What's with all those SECRET consecrations: Father Kelly (by Bishop Mendez Gomez), Fathers Guérard des Lauriers, Carmona and Zamora (by Bishop Ngo dinh Thuc in 1981), Father Viganó (by Bishop Williamson, date still withheld)? This is not the policy of the Roman Catholic Church.
O tal bispo williamson, não é e nunca foi um buspi confiável. Ok... E a grande Márfia da rexistência onde recebem Márfia de falsos profetas comunitas disfarsados de Religiosos, assim com na FSSPX onde tem uma grande Márfia da maçonaria e muitos falsos profetas pedófilos e etc e etc
Scandalous. Fr. Jenkins is making a claim that Bp. Williamson’s orders are doubtful, so he must provide proof. “A credible source” is not sufficient. Also if this were true this would make me doubt Fr. Jenkins’ own competency! If he thought there were men masquerading as priests at his own seminary, why would he stick around? Very convenient these concerns only surface years later once there are personal disputes between the SSPV and Bp. Williamson. I trust Archbishop Lefebvre and his legacy far more than I trust an anonymous “credible” source with no photo or video evidence of all this
I am finally convinced Fr Jenkins does not care at all about the Catholic Faith only that people go to his masses and no others, he is completely ignoring all counter points this is not real doubt its essentially slander and he should be ashamed of himself.
Okay. Thank you, Fr. Jenkins. Why not just go ahead and start always calling bishop Williamson, “Bishop Williamson.”You know, the same way you actually call NO archbishop Vigano, “Archbishop Vigano?”
Fr. Jenkins, since you have no authority, and presumably recognize this fact, how can you then say that annulments issued by the Church are "invalid" and "sanction adultery"? Such decrees issued by the proper authority - and you don't point us to any other so-called authority in the matter of determining such cases - are presumed valid and thus do not "sanction adultery." By those very decrees the Church is saying there was NO valid marriage, therefore the people involved are free to marry in the Church. These decrees are judicial in nature, which means that the matter is settled legally once a decree is issued. No one else has a say in the matter. The New Testament urges us to even acknowledge the secular powers and to obey them. How much more so the judgments of the Church in such matters? Who else do we go to? The Church has a right to judge whether or not a valid sacrament took place. But don't you see the irony involved in you casting doubt upon basically all sacraments in the Church anyway but then saying that decrees of annulment are also invalid? If all our sacraments are basically empty rituals to you, then why are you even bothering to exempt marriage as also an empty ritual? You can't have it both ways, saying on the one hand that all 'Novus Ordo' sacraments are invalid, doubtful, etc., yet on the other also claiming that none of the annulment decrees are valid! If all our sacraments are trash, then all the marriages are trash too (in your view) and thus all the annulment decrees ought to be, by that same 'logic', valid. Have you even thought this through? You claim that the entire visible Church teaches and believes in modernism, not Catholicism, so how can all these 'Catholics' even be married according to you? They would have received, according to you, teaching on a "false religion" including the teachings on marriage. They would have not been prepared for Catholic marriage in the least as they are not even Catholic, according to you, so how can they ALL enter into valid Catholic marriages which then are somehow immune from a decree of annulment? Get your story straight.
Yeah he's basically saying you are screwed because of the crisis in the Church and you just have to suck it up. Not good enough. If married civilly outside the Church and divorced you are free to marry in the Church after confession for the fornication/adultry! It is only marriages in the Church that need annulment so your argument is valid. The fact is The Sacraments in the N.O. are valid and he and the others who are claiming otherwise are in schism. Therefore one must do their best to discern with great care if the marriage falls within the parameters for annulment which are actually clear. There's more pressure to get it right and then go to the Church to work through the vetting process for the annulment. Just because some people and some priests and even the current administration and confusion in the Church is too liberal it doesn't mean you cannot follow the right path and get a valid annulment. The structure is still there. He is skipping the issue. The whole point of annulment is a very deep and serious understanding of what the truth is in your circumstance. Something akin to the examination of conscience to make a true and good confession. There is the Truth and that is what we must try to find despite the sloppiness of the Church. The looseness in the Church will probably let some through that shouldn't have been allowed and there is a danger there. Many are correct in their criticisms of the current Church but it no reason throw the baby out with the bathwater.
When the so-called "authority" of the Church starts doing things that have always been contrary to the teachings and practices of the Church, that "authority" becomes unreliable. Not even the Church can change the teachings of Christ. I thought that would be clear.
@@MichaelHellmann-jy9ob Again, you can't have it both ways. If the Church is not the Church but teaches "The Novus Ordo Religion," whatever that is, then there are no valid 'Catholic' marriages in the whole Church, therefore all annulment decrees would have to be valid.
@@AS-yz2iz Does the authority of the Church vanish in all places and for all time because some in authority have erred? Certainly not. Any errors on the part of clergy is their fault and on them individually. Sin does not nullify God's decrees, and the sinfulness of the ministers does not invalidate the sacraments (look up Donatism).
Timestamps: 0:00 - Intro 1:03 - Welcome & Prayer requests 2:51 - Donations & Highlights RU-vid channel 4:44 - Attempted assassination of President Trump 19:32 - Connection to Our Lady's words at Fatima? 28:05 - The new Republican Party platform 35:11 - The Democrat response 47:05 - "Bishop" vs "Father" Williamson (listen to that answer in this episode: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-beYQSCo1r6k.html) 49:01 - Is this the time of the Great Apostasy?
Fr. Jenkins. What do you say about the letter signed and dated by Fr. F. Egregyi, on Nov. 8 2012, attesting that he personally saw Archbishop Lefebvre lay 2 hands when he consecrated BISHOP Williamson? Are we supposed to take the word of your unnamed source over Fr. Egregyi?
I am Father Egregyi. I think the person who wrote this comment is mistaking Father Williamson with Father Dolan. I was witness to Father Dolan's ordination in June 1976, I was not a witness to Father Williamson's consecration in June 1988!
Dear Fr. I was referring to the priestly ordination of Bishop Williamson in 1976, not his consecration as bishop in 1988. Bishop Williamson was ordained with Fr. Dolan.
Understandably our country needs prayers, but bringing so much politics into this show is not appealing. There are those of us who have the opinion that the Dems and Republicans are flip sides of the same coin. If we wanted political commentary, all we have to do is scroll the channels. We do not come to WCB for that. No rudeness intended.
I think a Catholic perspective is extremely important when discerning the political situation in the world today. It's all interconnected. You can't pigeon hole what's going on in the world and not seeing the web that connects them all.
Timestamps: 0:00 - Intro 1:03 - Welcome & Prayer requests 3:40 - Fr Jenkins "inconsistency" in referring to Fr Williamson, Fr Sanborn and Archbishop Viganò 42:32 - Where to get a marriage annulment? 52:16 - More details on Trump's assassination attempt
Some thoughts: 1. Fr. Jenkins never names his one "very reliable witness", who supposedly knows more about sacramental theology than Father Cekada and Arcebishop Levebvre. That would be the minimum for a matter so serious like that. 2. In the Eastern Rites, who were always considered as valid by the church, only one hand is used at the ordination. Why Fr. Jenkins omits that? 3. The burden of proof is on Father Jenkins to proof both hands are required to the validity of ordination.
I was witness to the two hand imposition over Father Dolan's head by Archbishop Lefebvre in June 1976. Not of Father Williamson's consecration in June 1988.
Can Fr Jenkins publicly confirm next episode he has never been made aware of the public letter by a former SSPX priest that contradicts this anonymous witness? This letter has apparently been public for 12 years.
Dude open your eyes up and actually read some things for yourself. There is no proof it was done with one hand, actually contrary witness testimony, and he rejects all the theologians that say one handed is not doubtful. Don't be a cult member be a Catholic.
@@MichaelHellmann-jy9obThe Eastern rite is not the Roman rite. Priest are not allowed to marry in the Roman rite, but they are in the Eastern. Does that make one valid and the other invalid?
@@AS-yz2iz We are talking about Matter and Form. If one hand is valid in the eastern rite, then it is valid in the roman rite also, even if ilicit. If an eastern priest switched to the roman rite, would his mass be invalid because of the "one hand" ordination? Of course not.
Some thoughts: 1. Fr. Jenkins never names his one "very reliable witness", who supposedly knows more about sacramental theology than Father Cekada and Arcebishop Levebvre. That would be the minimum for a matter so serious like that. 2. In the Eastern Rites, who were always considered as valid by the church, only one hand is used at the ordination. Why Fr. Jenkins omits that? 3. The burden of proof is on Father Jenkins to proof both hands are required to the validity of ordination.
@@MichaelHellmann-jy9ob no, the first thing to do is to establish the allegation is actually true. Who saw this one hand? Why have they never gone public? Might this be a joke that grew legs? Did Fr Cekada seriously work with a fake priest for all those years? Did Archbishop Lefebvre consecrate a deacon in 1988?
Did you not listen? Fr Jenkins quotes from a papal bull by Pius XII signifying that two hands are to be used in ordination and one hand over for deaconate.
@@MichaelHellmann-jy9ob it doesn't matter what happens in the Eastern Rites. The question is there is nobody who witnessed the alleged invalid ordination who has come out publicly and given testimony. No testimony = gossip.
@@MichaelHellmann-jy9obyes, Pius XII I did make that distinction. . That is what popes are supposed to do, define and make it a dogmatic definition binding on the faithful.
Even if there were a defect in his ordination to the priesthood, in the case of +Williamson, would this have not been sanated by his consecration as a bishop?
No, because in order to be validly consecrated a bishop you have to have been validly ordained a priest beforehand. There's no jumping from one order to another.
@@francoisegregyi233that's not true, the majority opinion of theologians is that the priesthood is automatically conferred during a consecration. It's theoretical as the Holy See never made a pronouncement on this.
@@JacquesMigne For clarification (at least for everyone else, if you are already aware), the majority opinion of theologians (as far as I can tell) was historically the contrary (i.e., that episcopal consecration does pre-require priestly ordination). The change in opinion occurred with Sacramentum ordinis in 1947, which held that episcopacy is a sacrament rather than a mere grade of order, whereas the former majority opinion was that episcopacy was merely a grade of priesthood (thus, the major orders were considered subdiaconate, diaconate, priesthood, rather than diaconate, priesthood, episcopacy).
The charitable thing here, since this is now public, would be for WCB to facilitate a chance for Ricard Williamson to publicly respond to the claims of the unnamed source. What does he say happened? If he contradicts the unnamed source, and the unnamed source is not willing to step forward publicly, it's really not reasonable for this doubt to be taken seriously. As Fr Jenkins himself said near the end of the section, his own subjective confidence in a witness can only go so far. PS: Given that there has indeed been a public letter out since November 8th, 2012 by Father Francois Egregyi testifying the use of two hands by Abp Lefebvre on June 29th, 1976, the onus is indeed on Fr Jenkins (as replies below say) to tell us he has never been aware of this 12-years-old public testimony that contradicts his anonymous witness. If this anon is not willing to step up, Fr Jenkins should immediately apologize to Bishops Williamson and Dolan for spreading gossip about their ordinations. Given this, the Father-calling is really outrageous and disappointing.
No, the first thing that needs to happen is for the person making the assertion to do so publicly and not anonymously. Did this person not have anything to say in 1988 at the time of the Econe consecrations, if not why not?
@@AS-yz2iz Fr Jenkins has no standing to expect a response. The purported witness to the invalid ordination is the one who may have the right to expect answers. Btw, someone told me your baptism was invalid because the priest didn't use the Trinitarian formula.
@@nonnobis2232 Whose baptism is invalid? SSPV? They use the same rite used before any of the changes. Proper matter and form. I've witnessed MANY of them That's ridiculous. And no, the "witness" is not the only one who has a right to answers. Any priest who has accusations brought against him, whether valid or not, has a duty to answer them when questioned by anyone who is trying to do their due diligence in finding the proper place to attend Mass and receive the sacraments. There are no guarantees given to us by the authorities of the Church as to validity these days, so every traditional Catholic priest and bishop has to do their part to provide answers to those asking sincere questions.
Fr., why bother? Can’t trust the Church, the govt, education, healthcare, business, your neighbors, your family. Can’t trust myself to properly hear from God. What’s the point? Why bother getting up in the morning?
@@kbeauticianYes, but if the Church’s shepherds may be imposters, ie. Bishops not bishops? Therefore, those they’ve ordained not priests, the only solution for the laity is to go it alone, trust in God the Father, the Son, Christ, the Holy Ghost, Mary, the angels and saints. Trusting in our fellow men is out as well-meaning as they may be, it’s ultimately the blind leading the blind into the ditch. The Lone Ranger Tradcat, just me and Heaven is all that’s left. Same for every Catholic who wants, no, needs, One in Whom trust can be 100% be reliable for salvation. But hmmmm, sounds an awful lot like the Protestant’s “trust in Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.” There is no one on earth to look for advice and guidance in the spiritual life.
@@kbeauticianYes, but if the Church’s shepherds may be imposters, ie. Bishops not bishops? Therefore, those they’ve ordained not priests, the only solution for the laity is to go it alone, trust in God the Father, the Son, Christ, the Holy Ghost, Mary, the angels and saints. Trusting in our fellow men is out as well-meaning as they may be, it’s ultimately the blind leading the blind into the ditch. The Lone Ranger Tradcat, just me and Heaven is all that’s left. Same for every Catholic who wants, no, needs, One in Whom trust can be 100% be reliable for salvation. But hmmmm, sounds an awful lot like the Protestant’s “trust in Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.” There is no one on earth to look for advice and guidance in the spiritual life.
@@mariekatherine5238 Yes. We already know the Church is in a state of disaster since Vat2. And apparently, we must hold firm to the unchanged Catholic teachings. Despite all that. >>>Why bother getting up in the morning?<<< Hope. Faith. THE FAITH is why. KEEP THE FAITH.
If Bp. W. is not a Bp., then the priests he ordained aren’t priests. So by now, tens, or maybe 100’s of thousands are going to hell? # for Vigano. This sounds like extreme nit-picking given the regarding confusion over what practice was commanded when and by whom. That would include me having gone to SSPX for entire Catholic life. In which case, what hope is there for correcting an oversight that happened before people were born? Of which most of us could have possibly known? So, what should now be done? How many times does one get conditionally rebaptized, redo six decade’s worth of bad confessions, sacrilegious communions, confirmations, marriages, extending down through children, grandchildren, great grandchildren. Our parents, grandparents so apparently faithful to the true Catholic Faith, given invalid Last Rites, buried falsely in Catholic graves, and presumably condemned to Hell? What hope is there for us? This is gravely scandalous to the scrupulous. If true, why do you wait until 2024 to speak out? There’s no redoing for most of us. This news, if it is news, and true, means my entire religious life is a lie, my parents are in hell along with my grandparents. It’s all a great hoax. Worse, there’s no magisterial authority to whom to appeal. Apparently, God wills for most of us to be lost.
this is absolutely terrifying... why NOW, in 2024, instead of years earlier, if he knew about this supposed invalid consecration ? enough to put folks into a total tailspin and whirlpool to go right on down the drain ... abomination !!
Stop listening to these over nit picky priests and bishops, I’m finding a lot of them have grave sins they conceal… which in my mind reveals them to be false prophets (some but probably not all); I believe Jesus is far more merciful than they seem to convey; in the words of St. Pio, pray, hope and don’t worry!! First and foremost pray for grace to overcome your sins and God will respond. I think all of us searching too deep into this are in fact dealing with scruples (me included); let’s pray our rosaries, go to the catholic masses the Holy Spirit guides us to and overcome our flesh and the world; I think simplicity is lost when we make it into too much of a science project, I’ve been finding this more harmful than helpful for me
The guidance to the true Church is not found in the Vatican II false church. The Pius X Society has adopted the John the XXIII indult Mass , recognized the NO along with their sacraments in order to be in communion with Rome. This was just the compromise that some priests have left and became independent and is when the SSPV formed to preserve Tradition. Fr. Jenkins cited the authority that we should turn to in these confusing times and that is the papal bulls of all the pre Vatican II popes, doctors of the church, Council of Trent + Catechism.
Firstly, scrupulosity is a sin, so confess to your Spiritual Director, explain the situation, and consider well his counsel. Secondly, if we're going to be legalists, bordering on Talmudists even, then we must add into the equation the following question: Can a modo proprio change the matter (or the form) of a sacrament? Don't despair.
Fr. Jenkins is exacting when it comes to doctrine, validity, proper actions, rules, etc. of the Church. This is very important for us to understand. We, in these last six decades or so, have become, little by little, resistant to "rules". As we all get influenced by "modernism" over our lifetimes, drip by drip, we almost automatically resist any information that will challenge us in any way, especially in what we "want" to believe. Since being in the SSPV we're learning more and more how critical it is to realize what it means to by holy and how much more critical it is to be eternally thankful for God's Mercy; since walking in holiness is quite a job for most of us. God bless Fr. Jenkins for his faithfulness in sharing with us and God bless all the Priests and Sisters of the SSPV.
Summary: Two atheists of the New Church 40 years old speaking badly about a Priest who upholds the Faith of 1,971 years. Bishop Williamson speaks less harshly of the jews than Jesus Christ did to their Satanic faces. Go read Matthew and John and come back to me.
😺He may even doubt himself😸 Seriously though, he’s detail oriented and through and he doesn’t miss. Old school and very well informed. One of our Church treasures.
Right. Because in this day and age, you should trust everyone. 🙄 I'd rather have a cautious priest intent on doing things the way the Church always did, than than one who naively trusts everyone and gets sucked into error.
@@PM-nr1yo Did he "laicize" anyone? I didn't know he had that power. You don't think it's prudent to mention concerns? And what if they are valid, and there was a serious issue with the ordinations, and people found out he knew about it and didn't say anything? Then what? He'd get raked over the coals for not making it public. Just take it how you want. If you don't think there's an issue, then go to Williamson and his priests. If you're not comfortable with them and the situation, then don't. It's not that complicated.
Interesting. Does Fr Jenkins believe that anyone baptised or confirmed in the Novus Ordo should have those sacraments conditionally carried out under traditional forms if they are to consider themselves validly a Catholic Christian? And if the celebrant was ordained/consecrated originally pre Council does this have a bearing on the answer in any way? Indeed would he consider any sacraments carried out in the Novus Ordo pertaining to the laity to be valid? Marriage, confession etc?
I think they research to make sure the proper matter and form of baptism was performed. If so, they don't redo it. If they can't, then they conditionally baptize. Same goes for the other sacraments.
@@AS-yz2iz yes I tend to agree; certainly for baptism at least since literally anyone can baptise in extremis; my concern follows from the issues raised in this video I suppose where an ordained minister is necessary for the sacrament. If the matter and form of the sacrament were judged valid but the minister was ordained/consecrated in the Novus Ordo does that cast doubt on the validity of the sacrament according to Traditional Catholics?
@@James_RC I would say it does cast doubt. As far as marriage goes, I'm not sure, because it's the bride and groom who confer the sacrament on each other. But, I don't think that God will judge someone harshly if they have been going in good faith to priests who may not have valid orders. I would assume that once altered to the fact there might be an issue, that person should do their best to thoroughly research and find out the status of said priests. It's a sad state we're in right now.
