So what? ABL isn’t infallible. If the FORM of new rites are so ambiguous and poorly worded that they require a MENTAL intention of the minister, then that’s pathetic. And dangerous. And highly doubtful.
Cf. Pope Leo XIII in
Apostolicase Curae ...
In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost”, no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words “for the office and work of a priest or bishop”, and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.
Apologists for NO Orders would do well to read the closest thing we have to a Magisterial treatment of the subject. Any HONEST reading of that teachin would lead to the conclusion that NO Orders are "absolutely null and utterly void" just as Pope Leo declared the Anglican Orders.
Pope Leo describes how the Anglican Ordinal REMOVED all traces of the priest's power to offer sacrifice from the Ordinal to "suit the errors fo the reformers" ...
under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers
Conciliar Deformers PUBLICLY ADMITTED that much of the impetus for their reforms was to "suite the errors of the reformers". Note that he does not say that they must express those errors, but merely SUIT them, i.e. render the Rite "not incompatible" with said errrors. That's precisely what the Conciliars CLAIMED they were doing.
Then, with the first quote above, Pope Leo admits that were were "those who ...
have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood" who claimed that the "ambiguous" sections of the Rite could be interpreted in a Catholic sense. Pope Leo rejected that EXPLICITLY, the intention disambiguates position when he taught that ... "once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected", not even a correct essential form with a Catholic meaning intended for it can save the Rite from invalidity. In the NO, we still have a questionable form. Now, some of the Anglicans tried to "correct" the essential form, but EVEN WITH CORRECT ESSENTIAL FORM (which we do not know with certainty the NO has), AND with a Catholic intention by those who "attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood" cannot save the Rite because it was VITIATED IN ITS ORIGINS. Once the Rite was concocted in order to "suit" the erros of the reformers, no imposition of Catholic sense by the minister nor even a correction of essential form can rescue it later from that original / historical intention. It all boils down to the REASON the references to sacrifice were stripped from the Novus Ordo Rite. Pope Leo even cites that they gave the ostensible reason for these changes to be that they were returning to the "primitive form". Well, darn ... where have we heard that before. THAT AGAIN IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CONCILIAR MODERNISTS CLAIMED. "Hey, look, we need to make this non-offensive to the Prots and compatible with their [errors]. But we can tell everybody that we're doing this to return to the primitive / ancient forms of the Rites [even if no such ancient Rite even exists]."
I'm gobsmacked that any Catholic can read
Apostolicae Curae and not realized that EXACTLY THE SAME CONDITIONS that invalidated the Anglican Orders apply almost word for word to the Conciliar changes.
I personally hold that the NO Rite of Ordination (even apart from Episcopal Consecration) is not merely positively doubtful but "absolutely null and utterly void" ... yet, lacking the specific endorsement of papal authority, I would use the conditional form just in case.
Topic: SSPX Fake Priests (Read 114865 times)