FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: What happened in 1955?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
So I remember reading certain Mel Gibson-like Catholics have some beef with priests ordained after 1955(?)

Now, I'm familiar with the arguments about post-conciliar/post VII sacraments re:validity, but VII wasn't 1955.

What ostensibly 'happened' in 1955? I'm not finding this info anywhere?

Whatever light you can shed or links you can link...
(02-26-2011, 03:35 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: [ -> ]1955 holy week changes?

According to that link a lot more than 'holy week changes occurred in 1955...

You think that's it?
      Holy Week, classification of feasts, reductions, and simplifying the rubrics of the Office occurred in 1955, but , as to priests themselves, Gibson(especially the father) holds that a priest needs to have been "sent" through the normal channels back in the day(the ordinary of a diocese or by the superior of a religous order, or the Pope himself) to be licitly and, by their reckoning in some cases, valid administration of the sacraments.  Depending on who you hear, it might be those ordained while Pope Pius XII was alive, meaning those ordained after October, 1958 would not be acceptable to go to.  Some draw pretty much the same line, except they push it to 1961(some might even go later, till the rite of ordination changes in 1968).  Their reasoning is that the acceptance of modernism had not then gone wholesale to the hierarchy, therefore the bishops(most who had been installed be valid popes) were still being Catholic, at least officially. 
    It all has to do with jurisdiction(what some say is being sent.)  They would typically say that, notwithstanding the validity of the ordinations done by Bishop De Castro Mayer, Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Thuc, and others like them, they lost the privilege/right to ordain priests and bishops for the administration of the sacraments. 
    Some(not Gibson, I believe) concede that those ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishops De Castro Mayer and Thuc could have jurisdiction, since as bishops they did not need a mandate from the pope to ordain priests, but that they should not have consecrated bishops because of the lack of a mandate. 
    I don't believe Mel himself is as strong as his father on these things.  His father is in his early 90's.  He himself, putting the side of the incorrectness of his stand for the moment, could live with this because God will call him home one day and there will still be some old rite priests around.  The less wiser folks like you and me are in a different predicament.  The ordinations and consecrations by all three above mentioned bishops have been great sources of bringing the sacraments to the faithful these past few decades.  While I agree with Gibson concerning Vatican II and its popes, I do not follow his putting the breaks on their being any new priests being able to be ordained.  Hope this helps.