"THE MEMORY OF JESUS IS BOTH SACRED AND SUBVERSIVE"
First of all my sympathies to Ciaran Broadberry on the passing of his mother.The fact that the Neocat is approved by the church really is not a validation of anything,discrimination against gay and divorced people is also approved! Secondly he seems to be confused about his status.The lack of Papal Authority does not render an ordination invalid,it only renders it as unlawful,given that the proper rite was used then the sacrement has been imparted and all sacrements thereafter celebrated are valid,the exception being confession,but this is due to the technicality that a priest needs faculties in order to hear confessions.Mike
I am a US priest who has worked in the Vatican for many years. I am also qualified in Sacramental Theology and Canon Law to doctoral level.I was very shocked to see Ciaran Broadbery disown his sacred priestly ordination and episcopal consecration on this blog.I knew Archbishop Thuc personally as a young priest and he was a wonderfuly spiritual man who was deeply unhappy about the changes to the Mass after Vatican 11. My colleagues here in Rome are 100% agreed on the validity of Archbishop Thuc's ordinations and consecrations as he was of absolutely sound mind, used the Church's Pontifical to the last dot and during all his ordinations and consecrations did what the Church intended to do".Our legalistic - and not so bright colleagues here in Rome have tried to muddy the water by refusing publicly to recognise Archbishop's T's ordinations and consecrations buy they admit privately that these were absolutely valid sacramentally and canonically. I am sad to see a man like Broadbery deny the valid sacraments he has validly received.His denial is not only a lie but an insult to the Holy Spirit.Sacerdotus Americanus
Weird to see a top canon lawyer using a made up word ("sacerdotus") when even the cats in the Roman streets know that "sacerdos" is the Latin for "priest".
I never called myself - nor would I - "a top canon lawyer.My nickname in Rome is Sacer-dote-us AmericanusWhen I was younger I was something of a "dote" :-)SA
I read several issues in this blog posting. First of all, I can see why seeing a photo of a loved one, who has moved on to eternal reward could be upsetting outside of the family context. I pray for your Mother, particularly during this month of November and I will over Holy Mass for her soul, if this is acceptable to the family.I am researching for a book, a book about independent Catholicism - I have documentary evidence regarding the priestly & episcopal ordinations of Ciaran Broadbery, as indeed I have of others.As a researcher and doctorate holder (Sacred Theology) myself, hold Broadberry's denial as a matter of conscience. If I deny the existence of God my denial does not bring about the reality of non-existence, the same with his ordination & consecration. If Ciaran denies that he went through the 'liturgical action', or that he did not intend to be ordained, or that he did go through with it but was now sorry for his bad example etc! There are many issues here, one being his personal position, which does not make rational, sacramental, canonical or theological sense!I would be interested in hearing a full account of his 'sense' of what happened to him, what he intended and why he holds his current position?Bishop Pat has my details, if you want to go through him to contact me please feel free.As I say I hold documentary evidence from multiple sources confirming, affirming and making watertight, the Priestly & Episcopal Ordination of Ciaran Broadberry. Dr of Theology
Can I ask Broadbery a question if he does not mind. Did Archbishop Thuc falsify documentation, which I have seen, confirming his and other ordinations, the locations, the rite and soundness of his mind and the mind of those involved?If so this is a very serious statement, not only for all ordinations that the Archbishop celebrated, both before and after his following his conscience!As a lay theologian I would be very interested in this position? Anyone aware of the doubt about the consecration of Archbishop McQuade of Dublin. If this is the case a high percentage of the old clergy of Ireland were NOT really ordained - Thuc would have been a better option!Fran
Bishop Pat - an interesting point that I uncovered in my research on Apostolicity - and Archbishop Thuc, a side issue to the Broadbery amnesia (from Greek ἀμνησία, "ἀ" meaning "without", "μνησία" memory - is a deficit in memory caused by brain damage, disease, or psychological trauma), but connected!The Vatican has stated on many occasions that the Pius X society orders are valid, but for a long time illicit - not so today!! How Canon Law can change, better not ask Brady to record the minutes!! Now several of the Pius X scoiety or Lefebvre-ists were consecrated by Arch. Thuc around the same time that Broadbery was consecrated (but cannot recall), still like most people I will trust the historical evidence, both primary & secondary sources! In short this sacramental power, called the Apostolic Succession, passes from one Catholic bishop to all the bishops he consecrates. Arch. Thuc to Broadbery & Cox - Cox to Bp. Pat Buckley - you all in turn pass this sacramental power on to all the bishops you consecrate, and so on.Now, as we shall demonstrate in our book, the pertinent facts and the pronouncements of popes, canonists (canon law experts) and Catholic moral & sacramental theologians all lead to one unavoidable conclusion: we are obliged to regard as valid the episcopal consecrations Abp. P.M. Ngô-dinh-Thuc conferred on Broadbery, Cox & others. Cox to Pat Buckely.Since the consecrations of Bps. Broadbery and Cox were VALID, we are likewise obliged to regard as valid the line of orders which proceeds from them, and thus to hold that the priests ordained in this line are truly priests and that the bishops consecrated in this line are truly bishops.To deny this is to deny Apostolicity.Oratory Society Theologian - November 2013.
To call attention to an important distinction between two things: • The fact of a sacrament — i.e., did a ceremony take place? and • The validity of a sacrament — i.e., did the ceremony work?Canonists and moralists such as Fathers Cappello, Davis, Noldin, Wanenmacher, and Ayrinhac (I name them for Broadbery & Co to research) take such a distinction for granted. So, too, do Church tribunals convened to rule on the validity of a marriage or an ordination. Facts first, validity later - cold, but to the point! Broadbery should really take note. Regardless of how he now feels about the facts, the 'fact' of ordination cannot be denied from an historical point of view surely!!! Did he physically go through a process with other people using certain formula?Therefore, I am not addressing the issue of validity (Did the consecrations work?), but merely the issue of fact (Did the ceremony take place; did Abp. Thuc perform the rite?).For the purpose of the research of the Oratory Society, is Braodbery stating that these ordinations did in FACT not OCCUR? Remember - validity later!Clearly, the Thuc consecrations took place. But since Broadbery & Co have claimed that 'fact' of the consecrations is not “proven” or “certain,” or can’t be “acknowledged,” we’ll take some research to prove the obvious.We in the Oratory Society have in fact conducted such research that will stand in any canonical or civil tribunal.Society Researcher
Legal LimboWhen things were normal in the Church, it was easy to ascertain the fact that an episcopal consecration took place. You went to someone with authority. He looked up the particulars in an official register. If an authorised church official had duly recorded the consecration in the register, church law regarded it as a fact — “proven” in the eyes of church law. The same goes for baptisms, confirmations and priestly ordinations.If these official registers were lost or accidentally destroyed, you took another route. You brought the evidence to someone with authority — a diocesan bishop or a judge in a Vatican tribunal, say. The official examined the evidence and issued a decree stating that so-and-so had received the sacrament.These officials enjoyed a legal power called ordinary jurisdiction — authority, deriving ultimately from the pope, to command, make laws, punish and judge. Part of that authority consisted in the power to establish in the eyes of church law the fact that a given sacramental act took place — to function as a sacramental counterpart to the Registrar of Deeds.In both cases — that of either official registers or hierarchical decrees — someone with ordinary jurisdiction was exercising his power. He judged he had sufficient legal evidence that, say, a particular ordination had been performed. He entered it into the official register, or issued a decree. The fact of the ordination was then established before the law. (To put Broadbery & Co at ease - this is an historical fact, his consecration etc has been decreed). In contrast to this, consider my own ordination. It’s a fact that Bishop Pat Buckley ordained me to the priesthood in Ireland. But that fact has not been legally established. It’s not recorded in the ordination register of the Diocese of Down & Connor as far as I know, as church law would require. Should normalcy return to the Church in my lifetime, I’d go to someone with ordinary jurisdiction. He would then rule on the evidence and issue a decree which would legally establish the fact of my ordination.Where does this leave the fact of the Thuc consecrations? In the same place it leaves my ordination, the Cox consecrations and all sacraments Society Catholic clergy confer: in a sort of legal limbo. Since no one outside the framework of the Roman Structure possesses ordinary jurisdiction, no one has the power to rule on the legal evidence that a particular sacrament was performed and then establish it as a fact before church law. That’s a function of church officials who have received their authority from a pope.Nevertheless, we independent Catholics can and do establish the fact that we have conferred or received sacraments. The means we use is moral certitude, a simple concept we’ll apply to the Thuc consecrations, just as we do to any other sacrament.Thank God that the Roman Legalism has been well and truly established in recent years as being morally - null & void. A fact now being attempted to change under the courageous leadership of Frances I. God Bless his work and he can be assured of my prayers.Oratory Society Priest - and free from Legal frameworks but a willing slave to the GOSPEL of JESUS CHRIST.
Ins & outs of cults & fanatical groups! Not worth the energy or the argument I say. A friend of mine once received 2 Jehovah Witnesses graciously. Tea was supped and all went well until he offered to pray for and with them-then the fangs came out. By your fruits shall you know them. Share some of your success stories Pat. Protect the anonymity of those who wish to be anonymous and fek the begrudgers-Sean
PART IBurden of Disproof - To Broadbery & Co this burden is yours and I must ask, please try it, I need a laugh!Once you’re certain of the fact that a 'real' bishop (Thuc - Cox - Buckley - oh Broadbery is in there, sorry to remind you all)) performed a consecration using a Catholic rite, is it then necessary to prove positively that the bishop did not omit one of these essential elements during the ceremony?No. The mere fact that a bishop used a Catholic rite is of itself sufficient evidence for validity, which thereafter requires no further proof. Validity becomes a “given,” which can only be disproved. And this can only be achieved by demonstrating that one of the ingredients essential to validity was either absent (or probably absent) when the ceremony was performed.SEE PART II
PART II This applies to all the sacraments and is evident from:1. Ordinary Pastoral Practice. Day-to-day sacramental record-keeping takes for granted that the minister of a sacrament fulfilled the essential requirements for validity. Official baptismal and ordination registers say nothing whatsoever about technical terms such as “matter,” “form” or “ministerial intention.” And sacramental certificates merely state that so-and-so received a sacrament “with all necessary and fitting ceremonies and solemnities,” or simply “according to the rite of the Holy Roman Church.” They say nothing more, because church law requires nothing more. Such sacraments are regarded as valid without further proof.2. Canonists. Canonists speak of “the queen of presumptions, which holds the act or contract as valid, until invalidity is proved.” It is applied to the sacraments in the following way: If someone goes before a church court to challenge the validity of a Catholic baptism, marriage or ordination, the burden of proof is on him. He must show that something essential was lacking when the sacrament was conferred.3. Church Law and Moral Theology. These sources forbid re-administering a sacrament conditionally unless there is a “prudent” or “positive” doubt about validity. As an example of a doubt which would not fall into this category, the Dominican moral theologian Fanfani speaks of a priest who does not recall whether he recited the essential sacramental formula. “He should repeat nothing,” says Fanfani. “Indeed, he sins if he does so — for everything that is done must be supposed to have been done correctly, unless the contrary is positively established.” That the essential parts of the rite were performed is once again simply taken for granted.The canonist Gasparri (later a cardinal and compiler of the 1917 Code of Canon Law) offers a general principle: “…an act, especially one as solemn as an ordination, must be regarded as valid, as long as invalidity would not be clearly demonstrated.”4. Even Unusual Cases, (Thuc - Broadbery & Cox - Buckley etc). Canonists and moralists even extend these principles to cases where someone other than the usual Catholic minister employs a Catholic rite to confer a sacrament. If a midwife who says she performed an emergency baptism is serious, trustworthy and instructed in how to perform baptisms, says the theologian Merkelbach, “there is no reason to doubt seriously the validity of a baptism.”Finally, so strongly does the Church hold for the validity of a sacrament administered according to a Catholic rite, that she extends the principle not only to Catholic clergymen, but also even to 'schismatics' (Thuc - Cox & Broadbery - Buckley etc). Thus ordinations and episcopal consecrations received from Orthodox bishops, and from Old Catholic bishops in Holland, Germany, Larne and Switzerland “are to be regarded as valid, unless in a particular case an essential defect were to be admitted.”The foregoing, of course, reflects the Church’s reasonableness. She doesn't ask us to disprove convoluted negative accusations — “Prove positively to me that you did not omit to do what you were supposed to do to make the sacrament valid.” Otherwise, hordes of specially-qualified witnesses would have to be trained to do an independent validity check each time a priest conferred a sacrament. Although, Roman dioceses & double standards - peas in a pod!!!!It is easy to see, therefore, why a sacrament administered with a Catholic rite must be regarded as valid till the contrary is positively established.If Broadbery did not approach the Bishop of Ferns and go through the legal processes of Canon Law - he is in fact still BISHOP - VALID. Oratory Society Priest
“Negative” DoubtsThe only way a sacrament can truly be said to be doubtful is if you establish a positive (or prudent) doubt about its validity. A doubt is positive when it possesses a basis which is clearly objective and firmly rooted in reality. In the case of a sacrament, it must be founded on solid evidence that something essential to validity was probably omitted.To establish a positive doubt about the validity of the Thuc consecrations, therefore, you’d have to prove that, when the rite was performed, a substantial defect either did occur or probably occurred in one of the following essential elements: • The imposition of hands. • The essential 16-word formula. • The minimal intention of the bishop “to do what the Church does.”Now no one who was present at the Thuc consecrations has ever said one of these defects occurred. (Is Broadbery?)Absent any evidence whatsoever for such a defect, the objectors raise personal speculations, musings, conjectures, hypotheses and — a favourite device — rhetorical questions about what may or may not, or possibly could or could not, have occurred during the “essential 15 seconds” of the consecration. The known methods for fundamentalist Catholics, i.e. Neo-Cats. As an aside issue, these were the means by which sexual abuse went unquestioned in the Roman Church!The chief characteristic of such objections, however, is that they are subjective — i.e., rooted not in a knowledge of what occurred during the rite, but in the objector’s lack of personal knowledge of what occurred. Such objections are what moral theologians call negative (or imprudent) doubts. And negative doubts don’t render a sacrament “doubtful.”So, has Broadbery anything to add?