Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: 1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."  (Read 1535 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Neil Obstat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18156
  • Reputation: +8248/-633
  • Gender: Male
1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."
« on: August 12, 2013, 06:41:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .This was latent in the following post and it looked like it needs
    its own thread because the source thread is already bursting
    at the seams.......................................................................



    Post
    Quote from: Sienna629
    Quote from: s2srea
    Quote from: Capt McQuigg
    Quote

    New rites of Holy Orders you defend.
    On the edge of invalidity they’re penned.



    Has the SSPX view on this changed over the years?

    Fr. Cekada, for example, [is] on record saying that Archbishop LeFebrvre thought the 1968 [rite] of consecration for bishops was invalid.  



    Yes, the SSPX, via The Angelus, [published] the following article not long ago [if you want to say that 8 years is "not long"] :

    WHY THE NEW RITE OF EPISCOPAL CONSECRATION IS VALID

    Makes you wonder why they conditionally ordained priests, such as Fr. Hawker here in Southern California.


    Because there was a time when they did the right thing and erred on the side of caution. Those priests actually wanted to be conditionally ordained, so they themselves could be sure of their status.



    I have long found this matter interesting, as I have seen many
    intelligent people taking a firm stand on one side or the other.  
    Personally, I am undecided, so you can say that "I don't have
    a dog in this fight."  Hopefully, that can be a benefit to anyone
    who reads this thread.  If my bias shows, it's just out of a
    sense of instinct, here.  If I am in error, please let me know.



    I went to the linked Angelus page and found it highly wanting,
    due to the style of display it has, regardless of the content.

    I would not be surprised if no-one has ever read it, for the
    text is too small and it's kind of grey in color against a tan
    background so it does not have much contrast, and when
    you enlarge the page to make it more readable, the text
    goes off the right edge of the background wallpaper which is
    a fake parchment-looking thing, the right edge of which is
    darker so as to appear aged, and so the text that runs over
    it is even HARDER to read than it was before you tried to
    improve it by enlarging it.  Plus, much of the text on the right
    of the page becomes covered up with the stupid slide-bar that
    Angelus has on its pages like this, because the website layout
    gives the scroll-bar priority over the text that runs now behind
    it (after you enlarged the text using Ctrl + on PC/XP).

    Therefore, I wanted to copy it here where we can at least have
    a chance to adjust the appearance in a way that makes it
    legible to the reader.

    The source page says nothing about who this Fr. Pierre-Marie,
    O.P.is, nor does it identify who "Editor" is.  Someone here might
    be able to say with confidence who the Angelus website editor
    was in December of 2005, and perhaps that would be who
    "-Ed." refers to.

    {My comments in braces and in blue}



    The Angelus Online

       ...

    December 2005


    WHY THE NEW RITE OF EPISCOPAL CONSECRATION IS VALID

    Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

    Following the Council, in 1968 a new rite for the ordination of bishops was promulgated. It was, in fact, the first sacrament to undergo its "aggiornamento," or updating.


    {I will be looking throughout this article for anything that
    could be claimed is a REASON for making the changes in this
    form of episcopal consecration.  So far, there is nothing to be
    found, even though this first paragraph would seem to touch
    on the concept, saying that the new rite was "promulgated."
    Well, pardon my petulance, but since it has been aptly
    demonstrated this year, 44 years after the fact, that the
    Newmass was never promulgated, let alone legitimately, I
    would say it's rather likely that this change in this form of the
    episcopal consecration was ever promulgated, either.  That
    can be for a later post in this thread, though. NOTE:  while
    teleology might not be a matter for validity, per se, it
    nonetheless should not be a matter to be ignored if one
    would have any defense of unprecedented actions, not to
    say that changing the sacramental form has no precedent,
    but that I would expect that any precedent would also have
    an inherent PURPOSE for "even going there"............}



    In 1978, a certain Fr. Athanasius Kröger, O.S.B., published a study in the Una Voce Korrespondenz (Vol. 2, pp. 95-106), in which he raised doubts about the validity of episcopal consecrations accomplished with the new rite. According to him, the new form was not specific enough, and it created a situation analogous to that of the Anglican ordinations that were declared null and void by Pope Leo XIII.

    Later, Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy published a study entitled "The Post-Conciliar Rite of Holy Orders."(1)  Dr. Coomaraswamy concluded that the new episcopal consecrations are "almost certainly invalid." When updating his study, posted on his Internet site in 2002, he claimed that his study had never been refuted.

    For about a year now, various documents have been circulated on the Internet claiming "to demonstrate" the invalidity of the ordination of bishops performed according to the rite of Pope Paul VI. Taking up the arguments of the two aforementioned studies, they add several other considerations, notably about a change in the matter of the sacrament.

    In the interest of bringing a little order and clarity to the question, we shall apply ourselves to studying the validity of the episcopal consecrations according to the ritual published by the Vatican in 1968. We shall proceed according to the Scholastic method so as to treat of the matter as rigorously as possible....We take the position (today, the most widely held) of the sacramentality of the episcopate; so doing, we adopt the hypothesis that is most unfavorable to the validity of the new rite.

    {Can anyone tell me if the four periods preceding this
    sentence do not represent missing text, as an ellipsis (...)?}


    [N.B. Theological debate over this point has taken place for centuries. Although the Church has defined that there are precisely seven sacraments, it remains unclear whether episcopal consecration remains part of the sacrament of Holy Orders or is merely "a sacramental," an ecclesiastical ceremony wherein the powers of the episcopate, "bound" in the simple priest, are "freed" for the exercise of the fulness of the priesthood.–Ed.]

    {My first instinct here is to say that OF COURSE, EPISCOPAL
    CONSECRATION IS PART OF HOLY ORDERS, and that it is
    rather obvious that the one sacrament of ordination is left
    incomplete until such time as the episcopal consecration is
    given.  But I do not pretend to have studied the history of
    this issue. For if one becomes a bishop by a mere
    "sacramental," it leaves in my mind the hanging question of
    whether every priest already has the power to do everything
    any bishop does, but is only somehow restrained by the lack
    of need to do them.  Certainly it is not unimaginable that
    such a need could at least come to exist in the future, perhaps
    not that far away into the future, either!}



     The Difficulties

    (Objections Favoring Invalidity)
    {The website has "In-validity" but the hyphen does not belong.
    Since this appears to me to be a subtle trick to influence
    the reader unwittingly, I repaired the error.}


    Analyzed according to the four causes, a sacrament is a compound of matter (material cause) and form (formal cause); it is administered by a minister (efficient cause) who must have the intention of doing what the Church does (final cause). For a sacrament to be valid, the four causes must be respected. It is enough for only one of them to be deficient to render a sacrament invalid.

    {Summary:  Matter, Form, Minister and Intention are the four
    causes:  material, formal, efficient and final, respectively.
    While matter is first in the list, it is not treated until later,
    about halfway down the page.}



    Defect of Form

    1) The form of consecration in the 1968 Pontifical is completely different from the former rite.(2) Here are the two formulas:

    The form according to the traditional rite:

    Fulfill in Thy priest the completion of Thy ministry, and adorned in the ornaments of all glorification sanctify him with the moisture of heavenly unguent.(3)

    The new form:

        So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.(4)

    It is easy to see that the two formulas have nothing in common.

    Now, it seems that the new form is insufficient. Indeed, the grace that is asked, the "Spiritus principalis" ("the governing Spirit," the Spirit that makes rulers) certainly is here the Holy Spirit, from the fact that the word is capitalized.

    The formula is much too vague, for all the sacraments give the Holy Spirit [not Holy Orders alone–Ed.].

    {I cannot help but to add that for a Modernist, Spirit, even
    wen capitalized, can mean just about anything, such as the
    Unclean Spirit of Vatican II, for example. Now, if the form
    were to have "Holy Ghost," then this problem is much less
    significant.  But I'm dealing here with English.  The Latin form
    is "Spiritus" or "Spiritum" or "Spiritui," etc.}


    In order for the sacrament to be valid, it would be necessary to signify the specific grace given by the sacrament. In the old form, the "ministerii tui summum" (the completion of Thy ministry) was asked, which, in the context, clearly means the highest degree of priesthood, namely, the episcopacy. Consequently, it does seem that the new form is invalid because it does not signify precisely enough the grace of the episcopacy.

    As a confirmation of the insufficiency of the new form, Pope Leo XIII's declaration of the nullity of the Anglicans' priestly ordinations can be cited. Among the arguments he made was that of insufficiency of form:

       All know that the sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite – that is to say, in the matter and form – it still pertains chiefly to the form; since the matter is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the form....But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly Ordination – namely, "Receive the Holy Ghost," certainly do not in the least definitely express the Sacred Order of Priesthood, or its grace and power....This form had indeed afterwards added to it the words "for the office and work of a priest," etc.;  but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.(5)

    2) To justify the adoption of a new form of episcopal consecration, Pope Paul VI explained in his Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani, which accompanied the promulgation of the new rites of ordination:

        ...[It] was judged appropriate to take from ancient sources the consecratory prayer that is found in the document called the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, written in the beginning of the third century. This consecratory prayer is still used, in large part, in the ordination rites of the Coptic and West Syrian liturgies.6

    {Here again, the text touches on the concept of WHY BOTHER
    TO MAKE ANY CHANGES IN THE FORM, but it does not answer
    the question.  It just says "to justify the adoption of a new form,"
    and goes on to quaff the redundant canard that it was
    "promulgated," but it doesn't say WHY it was changed.}


    Now, Dr. Coomaraswamy tells us:

        While [Paul VI] is correct in pointing to the "Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus" as the source of his new rite, he stretches the truth to the limit in stating that this highly questionable document is "still used in large part in the ordination rites of the Coptic and Western Syrian liturgies." In fact the Hippolytus text has almost nothing in common with the eastern rites, and the crucial words – especially the critical phrase of "governing spirit" – is nowhere to be found within these eastern rites.(7)


    As proof of his affirmation, Dr. Coomaraswamy gives the text of the consecratory prayer from the Pontifical of the Antiochean Syrians, in which one finds nothing in common with Pope Paul VI's form. It thus seems that they wanted to mask the insufficiency of the new form by a trick. Or, at the very least, they gave proof of remarkable incompetence.

    {I would not hesitate to propose that what they did was
    an impudent Galileo Galilei performance, by which they
    lied, and lied boldly, like Galileo had learned from Martin Luther.
    You might say, "But Galileo was long since dead when this
    change was initiated, so how could they have learned from
    him?"  Well, Luther (d. 1546) was long since dead before
    Galileo (b.1564) was born, so obviously a man doesn't have
    to be your contemporary for you to learn from his heresy,
    error or other vice(s).}



    3) The essential words of the form according to the new rite ("So now pour out...praise of your name") reflect the theology of the episcopacy as a power of governing only: either as a power of jurisdiction, or as an aptitude infused into the soul to receive jurisdiction; and these essential words omit the idea of the episcopacy as the supreme degree of the priesthood.

    It is only in the words following the essential part that mention is made of the function of "high priest."

    On the contrary, in the traditional Roman rite, the designation of the supreme degree of priesthood is contained in the essential part of the form by the words "Fulfill in Thy priest the completion of Thy ministry."(8)

    Consequently, in the essential part of the form, the sacerdotal power of the bishop is rejected, and only his pastoral power is kept. Thus there is exclusion, or suggestion of exclusion, of what is, according to traditional theology, the essential power of the bishop: the completion or plenitude of the power of Order by the plenitude of the sacramental character of Order.

    4) The new form, while taking its inspiration from it, does not reproduce that of the Apostolic Tradition. Let us compare the two.

    A genitive has been transformed into an accusative(9): principalis Spiritus becomes Spiritum principalem; super hunc electum was added, without mentioning other minor modifications.(10)

    In short, the consecratory prayer of Pope Paul VI is inspired by, but does not reproduce that of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus; it constitutes an artificial creation of Dom Bernard Botte in 1968. Consequently, this form is invalid.(11)

     
    New Rite

    Et nunc
    effunde super hunc electum eam
    virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem,
    quem dedisti dilecto Filio tuo Jesu Christo,
    quem ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis,
    qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca
    ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem
    nominis tui.
       
    Text of Hippolytus

    nunc
    effunde eam
    virtutem quae a te est, principalis sp(iritu)s
    quem dedisti dilecto filio tuo Je(s)u Chr(ist)o,
    quod donavit sanctis apostolis
    qui constituerunt ecclesiam per singula loca
    sanctificationem tuam, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem
    nomini tuo.


    Translation:

    So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.
       

    Translation:

    Now pour forth on him that power which is from Thee, the governing Spirit whom Thou gave to Thy beloved Son Jesus Christ, whom He gave to the holy apostles who founded the Church in the place of Thy sanctuary unto the glory and unceasing praise of Thy name.


    Defect of Matter

    This is a relatively recent argument, since it is not found in the writing of Fr. Kröger or Dr. Coomaraswamy, even in his posting of 2002.

    In the traditional rite, the bishop-elect receives the imposition of the Gospels book upon his neck. Then the imposition of the hands (the matter of the sacrament) takes place, followed by the consecratory preface which contains the form of the sacrament (the words of consecration).

    In the new rite, the imposition of the Gospels book has been modified and displaced: it is placed upon the bishop-elect's head (and no longer upon his bowed neck), between the imposition of the hands and the consecratory preface (and no longer before the imposition of the hands).

    The result, it [seems], is a dissociation between the matter and the form, a dissociation that can render the sacrament invalid. In the sacrament of baptism, for example, if the priest were to pour the water in silence, then add another rite (for example, the imposition of salt on the tongue), and finally pronounce the words ("I baptize thee in the name of the Father, etc."), the baptism would be invalid.

    A further difficulty (which does not seem to have been remarked before) is that, in the new rite, the consecrator speaks the words of the sacramental form with hands joined. In the old rite, he spoke them with his hands extended in front of his breast, which prolonged the rite of the imposition of the hands and manifested the union of matter and form.

    In order to show clearly the difference in the course of the ceremony in the two rituals, they are reproduced here (see "The Ceremony before Vatican II" and "The Ceremony since Vatican II.")

     
    Comparisons

    The Ceremony  --  before Vatican II

    [Near the end of the litany, a cleric places the Gospels book on the altar.]

    The litany finished, all rise and the consecrator, wearing the miter, stands in front of the faldstool, and the bishop-elect kneels before him.

    The consecrator takes the Gospels book, opens it, and helped by the two bishop co-consecrators, he places it in silence on the head and shoulders of the bishop-elect, turning it in such a way that the bottom of the pages touches his head, and the top, his shoulders. One of the ordinand's assistants, kneeling behind him, holds the book thus positioned until the moment when the consecrator hands it to the new bishop.

    Then the consecrator touches with both hands the head of the ordinand, saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit."

    This is done in turn by the bishop co-consecrators, who not only must touch with both hands the head of the ordinand while saying "Receive the Holy Spirit," but also (with, at the right moment, the intention of conferring the episcopal consecration) recite with the bishop-consecrator the prayer, "Be pleased, O Lord,..." and all of the preface which follows....

    The consecrator, not wearing the miter, [joins his hands] and says: "Be favorable, Lord, to our supplications, and inclining towards your servant the abundance of Thy sacerdotal grace, pour forth upon him the virtue of Thy blessing. Through our Lord Jesus Christ."

    [At the word benedictionis, the three prelates make the sign of the cross over the bishop-elect.]

    Extending his hands, the consecrator alone says: "For ever and ever."...

    Then he says the words of the form of episcopal consecration, which must be recited in a speaking voice, hands extended: "Fulfill in Thy priest the completion of Thy ministry...."

     

     

    Pontificale Romanum, Pt. I, ed. typica (Vatican: Plyglotte Press, 1962). The details in brackets have been taken from Consécrations des Evêques (Angers: Richer, 1920) pp. 51ff.
       
    The Ceremony  --  since 1968

    After the litany, the principal consecrator alone stands and, with hands joined, sings or says: "Lord, be moved by our prayers. Anoint your servant with the fullness of priestly grace, and bless him with spiritual power in all its richness. We ask this through Christ our Lord."

    R. Amen.
    Deacon: Let us stand.
    [All rise.]

    The principal consecrator and the consecrating bishops stand at their places, facing the people. The bishop-elect rises, goes to the principal consecrator, and kneels before him.

    The principal consecrator lays his hands upon the head of the bishop-elect, in silence. After him, all the other bishops present do the same.

    Then the principal consecrator places the open book of the Gospels upon the head of the bishop-elect; two deacons, standing at either side of the bishop-elect, hold the Book of the Gospels above his head until the prayer of consecration is completed.

    Next the principal consecrator, with his hands extended, sings the prayer of consecration or says it aloud: "God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...."
    The following part of the prayer is sung by all the consecrating bishops, with hands joined: "So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit...."



    Pontifical Romain (Paris: Desclée-Mame, 1977). We have rectified the translation to bring it closer to the original: Pontificale Romanum, ed. typical (Vatican: Libreria Editirice Vaticana), 1968. [English version: ICEL, Roman Pontifical, 1978.]
       


    Second typical edition (1990)

    The second typical edition of the new rite, published in 1990, contains a few changes to the rubrics. Here is our translation from this ritual:

    After the litany, the principal consecrating bishop, standing with hands extended, says, "Receive, Lord,..."

    R. Amen.
    Deacon: Let us stand.
    [All rise.]
    The bishop-elect approaches the principal consecrator (who stands in front of the faldstool) and kneels before him.

    The principal consecrating bishop places his hands on the head of the bishop-elect in silence.

    After the imposition of hands, the bishops present remain around the principal consecrating bishop until the end of the prayer of ordination, in such a way, however, that the action can be seen clearly by the faithful.

    Then the principal consecrating bishop takes the Book of the Gospels which a deacon hands him, and places it, open, upon the head of the bishop-elect; two deacons standing on either side of him hold the Book of the Gospels above the bishop-elect's head until the end of the ordination prayer.

    The bishop-elect kneeling before him, the principal consecrating bishop, without the miter, having near him the co-consecrating bishops also without miter, says, hands extended, the prayer of ordination: "God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...."

    The following part of the prayer is recited by all the consecrating bishops, hands joined, in a low voice, nevertheless in such a way that the principal consecrating bishop's voice can be clearly heard: "So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit...."

    Pontificale Romanum, ed. altera, (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1990).


    Defect of Intention

    1) One could raise one other difficulty against the validity of the new ritual: intention.

    It has been declared that this ritual was adopted with an ecumenical intention. The Copts and the western Syrians are mentioned. The Anglicans could have been mentioned, too, since they have also adopted a similar rite, derived from the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus.

    Now, such an intention can corrupt the validity of a rite. Indeed, among the reasons Pope Leo XIII gave for the invalidity of the Anglican ordination rite is defect of intention:

        With this inherent defect of form is joined the defect of intention, which is equally essential to the sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. When any one has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by the very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.(12)

    2) As regards intention, a final difficulty arises from the fact that the new rite was introduced for the purpose of applying the new conciliar theology concerning the episcopacy.


    {Here we have the accusation that the purpose of making
    these changes was in order to introduce the new conciliar
    theology concerning the episcopacy.  If this is the only reason,
    I would say this proves conclusively that the changes are invalid
    and the new form is nothing but garbage.}



    Here is the comment of Canon André Rose expressed in an article published in La Maison Dieu, No. 98 (the journal of pastoral liturgy edited by Cerf Publishing)(13):

        On June 18, 1968, the Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani recognitio was promulgated, approving the new ceremonial for the ordination of deacons, priests, and bishops. The most striking change introduced by this document is undoubtedly the introduction of a new consecratory prayer for ordination to the episcopacy.


    {Once again the claim that Pontificalis Romani Recongitio was
    "promulgated," but no supporting evidence is provided to show
    that this is the case.  In order for any law or document to be
    promulgated, certain criteria must be met, including but not
    limited to WHERE and for what PURPOSE and BY WHOM this
    law applies, and also the CONSEQUENCE(S) to anyone among
    those to whom it applies if they DON'T implement the law.}



        The Roman document cites the doctrine of the Constitution Lumen Gentium on the episcopacy as the supreme degree of the sacrament of Holy Orders....It is to better emphasize the doctrine of the Second Vatican Council that the formula of the consecration prayer for episcopal ordination is now replaced by a new prayer, extracted from the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, a document from the early third century.(14) Nonetheless, this ancient text has always been in usage to the present day, in a more developed form, in the liturgy of the Copts and western Syrians.(15)

    This intention to apply the conciliar doctrine could be disquieting when one knows that the Council gave a heterodox teaching on collegiality, a doctrine that it was necessary to correct by a nota praevia which is hardly mentioned in our day.

    This disquietude could increase from the fact that the ritual in use at the time was reproached for having been modified in the 12th century in such a way as "to veil somewhat the universal collegial power of the bishops over the entire People of God."(16)
         

    Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro


    Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro
    (1891-1976). Born in the archdiocese of Genoa, Italy. Studied at the Seminary of Genoa and the Pontifical Biblical Institute at Rome. Ordained in 1914, consecrated Archbishop of Ravenna in 1947, and created Cardinal Priest on January 12, 1953. President of the Consilium for Liturgical Reform.

     

    Fr. Louis Bouyer


    Fr. Louis Bouyer, Oratorian
    (1913-2004). Born in Paris; grew up in a non-denominational Protestant environment. Studied for Protestant license in theology at Paris. Influenced by his teachers, Auguste Lecerf (Calvinist), Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran), and Sergei Bulgakoff (Russian Orthodox). Began publishing in 1938. By 1947 he had become a Catholic priest and member of the Oratory, and had obtained a doctorate in theology from the Catholic Institute of Paris. His major works are Liturgical Piety (1954), and Eucharist (1968).

     

    Dom Bernard Botte
    (1893-1980). Monk of Mont César, Belgium, as a young monk he assisted Dom Beauduin and listened to his lectures at Liturgical Weeks. He specialized in Oriental languages, which enabled him to study the ancient sources of rites. He collaborated in the Centre de Pastoral Liturgique and the Institut Supérieur de Liturgie. He was appointed to the Consilium, and directed work groups that devised several key changes in the Roman liturgy.

     

    Archbishop Annibale Bugnini
    (1912-82). Ordained priest in 1936; Secretary, Commission for General Liturgical Restoration, 1948-60; Secretary, Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy, 1960-62; Peritus, Conciliar Commission on the Liturgy, 1962-64; Secretary, Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, 1964-69; Secretary, Congregation for Divine Worship, 1969-75. Ordained titular Archbishop of Diocletiana, 1972; Pro-Nuncio Apostolic in Iran, 1976-82.

     

    Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani
    (1890-1979). One of the 20th century's most influential churchmen. Known for being staunchly orthodox, he was Secretary of the Holy Office from 1959-66 and Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith from 1966-68. He is best known for writing the Introduction to the "Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass" along with Cardinal Bacci which was sent in 1969. As a result, it is commonly known as "The Ottaviani Intervention."

    Arguments on the Contrary(17)

    1) The reform of the ritual of episcopal consecration was examined by the Holy Office at a time when Cardinal Ottaviani [known for his staunch and unwavering orthodoxy–Ed.] was the Prefect. Fr. Bugnini relates the episode in his memoirs.

        The completely positive answer from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was particularly pleasing and an occasion of both joy and surprise. The Consilium had been worried especially about the proposal to use the text from the Traditio Apostolica of Hippolytus for the prayer of episcopal ordination. Here is what the Congregation said (November 8, 1967):

        "Their Eminences of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carefully examined the matter at their plenary session on Wednesday, October 11, 1967,..


    {Which was the day of the 5th anniversary of the Most
    Regrettable Speech of Pope John XXIII, Oct. 11th 1962}



    ..and came to the following decisions:

        "The new schema is approved with the following qualifications:

            1. Number 89: in the questions asked of the candidate for the episcopal office, greater emphasis should be put on faith and its conscientious transmission; moreover, the candidate should be expressly asked about his determination to give obedience to the Roman Pontiff.(18)

            2. Number 96: The text of Hippolytus, duly adapted, is acceptable.(19) Regarding the approach: the mind of the Cardinals is that liturgical innovations should be dictated by real need and introduced with all the precautions that so sacred and serious a matter requires.

        "Once the changes listed have been made in the Ordo, it is then to be studied by a joint committee, in accordance with the august decision of the Holy Father..."(20)

    Now, Cardinal Ottaviani would never have allowed a rite of doubtful validity to pass review.


    2) Archbishop Lefebvre, visibly raised up by God to sustain the little flock of the faithful, never called in question the validity of the new rite of episcopal ordinations as published by Rome.

    We know that he was informed of the objections made against the ritual, especially by Fr. Kröger.

    If Archbishop Lefebvre had had a serious and positive doubt about the validity of the ordinations, he would not have failed to say so given the seriousness of the consequences.

    3) For the 37 years that have elapsed since this rite was promulgated, most of the Roman Rite bishops of the Catholic Church have been ordained with it. There is certainly not a single resident bishop (a bishop having the power of jurisdiction) who was ordained before 1968.

    Consequently, if the new rite is invalid, the Roman Church is deprived of a hierarchy, which would seem contrary to the promises of Christ ("the gates of hell shall not prevail against her").

    Answer to the Question

    In order to answer the question, it is necessary to find out what was done.

    Now, at this level of inquiry, we should first point out the lack of seriousness of those who have undertaken to "demonstrate the invalidity of the new rite."

    For example, Dr. Coomaraswamy, followed in this by numerous disciples, did not go to the trouble to inform himself as to the identity of the Coptic and Syrian rites to which Pope Paul VI compares the new rite.

    The doctor quite simply made an error as to rite. He compares the rite of Pope Paul VI with a Syrian rite that has nothing in common with it, and then confidently concludes that the pope "stretches the truth to the limit in stating that this highly questionable document is 'still used in large part in the ordination rites of the Coptic and Western Syrian liturgies'."

    Indeed, we shall have no difficulty in showing that the affirmation of Pope Paul VI is exact and that it is the doctor who has not done his work.


    {Certainly, if Pope Paul VI was ("is") so "exact" in doing his
    work, he would have given some hint as to the PURPOSE that he
    had in mind for changing the most elevated sacrament of
    sacerdotal orders for the entire Church.  Okay, so where is it?  
    What are his inescapable reasons?  I don't see any at all!  That
    is, except for the stupid reason given above that says the new
    theology of the episcopacy which was introduced whole cloth
    at Vat.II was to be hereby introduced into the episcopacy itself.
    Is that what you mean by "exact?"}



    When someone pretends to be involved in something serious like theology, he must do it seriously. This is not the case with Dr. Coomaraswamy and the "Coomaraswamists."(21)


    The Genesis of the New Rite

    Let us begin by exposing the genesis of the new rite.(22) The execution of the reform prescribed by the Second Vatican Council was entrusted to a new organism, parallel to the Congregation of Rites, called the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia (Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), referred to hereafter as the Consilium. Its president was Cardinal Lercaro, Archbishop of Bologna,(23) and its secretary was Fr. Bugnini (who had already worked on the preparation of the Constitution on the Liturgy.)


    {I can't ignore the fact that in America, we would say that
    Cardinal Lercaro was the Baloney Archbishop, and the
    secretary of the Concilium was a guy that needs no
    introduction, the Freemason Bugnini.  How do I know he
    was a Freemason? He buried his own mother in a "Job's
    Daughters" plot with Freemason symbols all over the
    headstone -- how could a non-Freemason bury his own
    mother in such a place as this?  And his own mausoleum
    crypt has similar Freemason designs carved in stone.  
    That's all the evidence I need.}



    The Consilium was composed of two different groups. Firstly, there were 40 members as such, for the most part cardinals or bishops, who had a deliberative vote. Then there was the group of consultors, more numerous and given the task of preparing the work.

    The consultors were divided into a certain number of study groups (coetus), each one tasked with a specified area. Each group was presided over by a relator who had to organize the work. Dom Bernard Botte, O.S.B. (1893-1980), a monk of Mont-César (Belgium) was the relator of "Group 20" given the task of revising the first part of the Roman Pontifical [which included the rite of ordinations]. His collaborators were: Fr. B. Kleinheyer (secretary), then professor at the seminary of Aix-la-Chapelle, author of a thesis on the ordination of the priest in the Roman Rite; Fr. C. Vogel, professor at Strasbourg, who had taken the succession from Msgr. Andrieu for editing the Ordines Romani and the Romano-Germanic Pontifical; Fr. E. Lengeling, professor of Liturgy at Munster-in-Westphalia (later Dean of the Faculty of Theology); Fr. P. Jounel, professor at the Superior Institute of Liturgy at Paris; Msgr. J. Nabuco, Brazilian prelate and author of a Commentary on the Roman Pontifical; finally, (but not at the beginning) Fr. J. Lécuyer, then professor at the French Seminary in Rome, who in 1968 became Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost after the resignation of Msgr. Lefebvre.


    {So, let me get this straight:  here is an SSPX article trying to
    defend the indefensible, and to do so, they have chosen to say
    that one of the key guys involved was the one who took the
    place of ABL when he abandoned the Holy Ghost Fathers as he
    saw the Order was becoming irredeemably corrupt.  I see.  As
    you were, men -- carry on!}



    The three most active members were Dom Botte and Frs. Kleinheyer and Lengeling.


    {And so, Fr. J. Lécuyer, the priest who had already replaced ABL
    as Superior General in the already-corrupted Order of the Holy
    Ghost Fathers, was not a "most active participant" in this new
    thingy, perhaps, why, he was still too busy corrupting the Holy
    Ghost Fathers and he could see that the Consilium did not have
    a lot of need for his own corrupting influence, because they were
    doing all the corrupting they needed on their own, thank you
    very much.}



    The group held its first meeting at Trier from August 3-5, 1965. Despite his faults, of which we shall speak later, it must be recognized that Dom Botte was competent, and that the group which he directed worked seriously. After the first presentation of the project of the new rite before the Consilium, Dom Botte wrote to Fr. Kleinheyer on November 27, 1965:

        I believe that that is the first time that they found themselves in the presence of a coetus that proposed reasonable things supported by sufficient documentation and justification. One bishop told me: "There is no way not to agree with you, since it has been explained so well." It went completely otherwise for the ordo missae!(24)


    {So, with all this "competence" and the group that "worked seriously,"
    we still have no word on WHY this project was being undertaken,
    correct?  All these clear heads doing all this serious work, and nobody
    has a word to say about what their purpose is?}



    The Coetus drafted five successive schemas: Schemas 102 (De Pontificali No. 5 of September 10, 1965),25 150 (De Pontificali No. 7 of April 5, 1966),26 180 (De Pontificali No. 12 from August 29, 1966),27 220 (De Pontificali No. 15 of March 31, 1967),28 and 270 (De Pontificali No. 17 of February 1, 1968). All these schemas are kept in the archives of the German Liturgical Institute at Trier, where they can be consulted.(29)



    {Has anyone thought of going through these schemas to look
    for one sentence, SOMEWHERE, that mentions, perhaps in
    passing, the PURPOSE that was given or rumored, or penciled
    in or stuck on a Post-It somewhere - wait - they didn't have
    Post-Its -- maybe a MEMO? -ANYTHING, that gives us today
    any clue whatsoever for WHY the "ancient and accepted" form
    -- no, wait, that's Freemason terminology -- the handed-down-
    and-received-tradition-from-the-3rd-century (or thereabouts),
    was suddenly going to be tossed out like the baby with the
    bathwater and start over from scratch with something that has
    NO RESEMBLANCE WHATSOEVER with the ancient form?  
    ...........................ANYONE?!}


              
    page 2


    1. Studies of Comparative Religion, Vol.16, Nos. 2, 3; republished by The Roman Catholic (New York: Oyster Bay Cove) as a brochure. Dr. Coomaraswamy is a former surgeon. He has since become a sedevacantist and was recently ordained priest by Bishop Jose Lopez-Gaston, a Thuc-line bishop.


    {Am I the only one in the room who detects a subtle sneer
    with the "Thuc-line bishop" and "has become a sedevacantist"?  
    By association it almost seems that being "a former surgeon"
    is somehow a matter for one to be ashamed of - like, Those
    who can, do, those who can't, well, let's all talk about something
    else.
    }



    2. The ordination prayer in the Roman Pontifical before the Council is very ancient: "The most important part dates back to the Leonine Sacramentary." (Joseph Lécuyer, C.S.Sp., "La prière d'ordination de l'Évêque," Nouvelle Revue Théologique, June 1967, p. 601, which refers the reader to L. C. Mohlberg, Sacramentarium Veronense [Rome, 1956], pp. 119-20.) Now, the Leonine Sacramentary dates from the fifth or sixth century (not to exclude the possibility that it encompasses prayers more ancient still: Dom Martène has reported on a pontifical from the Church of Tarentaise [in the region of Savoy] that he dates to before A.D. 300 and which includes the essential of the traditional form: De Antiquis Ecclesiae ritibus [Anvers, 1736], p. 250 ff.)


    {And something so ancient -- by dint of its antiquity alone, should
    be reason enough to preserve it UNTOUCHABLE, not to mention
    the fact that nobody has any positive reason to change it.}



    3. Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis of Nov. 30, 1947, DS 3860: Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui , et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum caelestis unguenti rore sanctifica...." [English version: Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, tr. by Roy J. Deferrari, 30th ed. (1955; reprint, Loreto Publications, n.d.), 2301. Hereafter, abbreviated Dz.]


    {This "Dz" would seem to be an attempt to make a
    distinction with "DS" which is the usual term, but refers
    normally to a recent copy of Denzinger-Schönmetzer.  And
    since all the editions after 1949 contained the conspicuous
    and questionable 122/49 letter in it (which has no place in
    such a book), it wasn't until Loreto Pubs. came along and
    provided a proper edition without the protocol letter in it, that
    we have at last an unsullied reference book.  N.B. if the
    Holy Office of 1949 could manage to allow such an injustice
    to take place, and the likes of Vat.II could meet with papal
    approval, and the Oath Against Modernism could be expelled
    from the seminaries of the world, is it then any wonder that
    Episcopal Consecrations could become tainted with error?}



    4. [English version: ICEL, 1978.] The Latin formula: "Et nunc effunde super hunc electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio tuo Jesu Christo, quem ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui."

    5. Letter Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896 (DS 3315-3316). [English version: "A Light in the Heavens": The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII (reprint: TAN Books & Publishers, 1995), pp. 400-401.]


    {Well, it's nice to see something once in a while that you can
    rely on, without having the urge to double check all the details!}



    6. Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani recognitio, approving new rites for the ordination of deacons, priests, and bishops, June 18, 1968: AAS (1968) 369-73. [English version: ICEL, Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts (Liturgical Press, 1982), 2606-12.]

    7. Coomaraswamy, "The Post-Conciliar Rite of Order," Internet.

    8. Before the Middle Ages, the expression was "mysterii summam," which amounts to the same thing, for the completion (or perfection, or plenitude) of the sacrament is the same thing as the completion of the ministry.

    9. In Latin, the genitive case is used when a noun modifies another noun and frequently demonstrates possession. The accusative case is used to show the direct object of the verb. ("Principalis spiritus" may appear to be nominative at first, but in context and in reference to the original Greek, it is clearly genitive.)

    10. The work Rore Sanctifica [a study written in French alleging to "prove" the invalidity of the new rite of consecration for bishops -Ed.] (St. Remi Publishing, 2005), from which we have drawn this objection, makes the reproach that the word puero was replaced with Filio. Rore Sanctifica uses an Ethiopian (?) version of the Apostolic Tradition which has the word puer instead of Filius. (which is found in the Latin version of the Apostolic Tradition we have used.)

    11. This argument may seem ridiculous to more than one reader, but we have presented it, for it is one of the "strong points" of the work Rore Sanctifica.

    12. Apostolicae Curae (DS 3318).

    13. The article appeared in Au Service de la Parole de Dieu (Gembloux: Ed. J. Duculot, 1968), pp. 129-45, and reprinted in La Maison Dieu, 98, pp. 127ff.

    14. The ancient formulary came from the seventh-century Gelasian Sacramentary, augmented by a part coming from the Frankish liturgy. The original part, of Roman origin, presented the ordination of a bishop under the form of the "spiritual" vesture of a new Aaron. The non-Roman supplement was formed of a mosaic of extracts from the epistles, underscoring the relations between the mission of the bishop and that of the apostle. On the superiority of the prayer of Hippolytus in relation to this prayer, see J. Lécuyer, "The Prayer for the Ordination of a Bishop" in Nouvelle Revue Théologique, Vol. 89, June 1967, pp. 601-6. The author underlines the profound parallelism between certain passages of the Constitution Lumen Gentium and this prayer. See also, "L'Evêque d'après les prières d'ordination" (article written in collaboration by several Canons Regular of Mondaye), in L'Episcopat et l'Eglise universelle (Paris, 1962), pp. 739-68.

    15. The complete text of this prayer is to be found in H. Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium, (Graz, 1961) pp. 23-24.

    16. "From the 12th century a slightly different formula was introduced at Rome, undoubtedly for fear of overshadowing the exclusive power of the Pope over the whole Church: instead of saying "ad regendam ecclesiam tuam et plebem universam," henceforth was said "ecclesiam tuam et plebem sibi commissam," which results in veiling somewhat the universal collegial power of the bishops over the whole People of God." (Joseph Lécuyer, C.S.Sp., "La prière d'ordination de l'Évêque," Nouvelle Revue Théologique, Vol. 89, June 1967, pp. 602-3.) What Fr. Lécuyer regrets as a loss seems to us rather a clarification: a simple bishop does not rule "the whole people," even if he must have a solicitude for the universal Church.


    {One might reasonably wonder, if this "simple bishop" were
    to become the ONLY BISHOP LEFT IN THE WORLD, how we
    then would not say he rules "the whole people." While those
    with their heads in the sand, or perhaps those who are stuck in
    the 80s might think it ridiculous for only one bishop to be left
    standing in the world, the way things are going in 2013 for
    the Resistance, it's not too hard to fathom anymore! But hey,
    Do You Like Apples?  You know, at some point, when the
    number of bishops left standing in the world gets to be really
    small, there would be all the more chance that the few
    remaining will get together and make the Collegial Consecration
    of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  How do you like
    them apples?!?!
    }



    17. It is known that in the arguments on the contrary ("sed contra"), the argumentation is not always irreproachable. St. Thomas sometimes gives a response to these arguments at the end of his article in order to rectify what might have been deficient. That is what we shall do here.


    {Well, shucks, at least they're willing to admit their argument is
    "not irreproachable" and "might have been deficient."  Of
    course, the irreproachability and deficiency must be couched
    in terms of consistency with the work of St. Thomas!}



    18. "Largior pars fiat circa ipsam fidem eamdemque fideliter tradendam et explicita quaestio ponatur candidato de praestanda obedientia romano ponifici."

    19. "Placet textus Hyppoliti [sic], opportunis inductis accomodationibus."

    20. Annibale Bugnini, La Riforma liturgica, 1948-1975 (Rome: CLV Edizioni liturgiche, 1983), p. 692 [English version for citations: The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1990), p. 712]. This approbation was conveyed to Fr. Buginini on November 8. The notification bears a protocol number (Prot. 578/67), but no signature, at least on the copy we consulted in the archives of the German Liturgical Institute (Trier), under "Pontificale Romanum."

    21. Coomaraswamy and most of his disciples are sedevacantists. It is a windfall for them to have been able to "demonstrate" the invalidity of the new rite of episcopal ordination. Thus the last conclave was a "conclave of laymen" and Benedict XVI cannot be pope, because he is not even a bishop...


    {And so, if they are correct, their achievement is "a windfall" and
    therefore not something that we ought attribute much credence.
    Okay?  Be most careful to keep "demonstrate" in quotation marks.}


    22. See especially: Bernard Botte, O.S.B., Le Mouvement liturgique: Témoignage et souvenirs (Desclée, 1973) pp.156ff. This book contains interesting admissions. [English version of cited passages: From Silence to Participation: An Insider's View of Liturgical Renewal, tr. by John Sullivan, O.C.D. (Washington, D.C.: The Pastoral Press, 1988), pp. 125ff.

    23. 1891-1976. After the Council, Cardinal Lercaro became a public leader of the progressive wing. Later, Cardinal Gut replaced Cardinal Lercaro at the head of the Consilium.

    24. Archives of the German Liturgical Institute (Trier), Kleinheyer file, B 116.

    25. This first schema of the Pontifical was presented to the Consilium at the sixth plenary session, from Nov. 21-23, 1965.

    26. Discussed in a relation between the relators of the Consilium in May, 1966.

    27. Discussed at the seventh plenary session of the Consilium, October 6, 1966.

    28. Sent to the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith and of Sacraments and Rites on April 8, 1967, and to Pope Paul VI on April 19.

    29. The history of the work of Group 20 has been written: Jan Michael Joncas, "The Work of the Consilium in the Reform of the Roman Rite Episcopal Ordination, 1965-1968," in Ephemerides Liturgicae 108 (1994), 81-127, 183-204. Nevertheless, this work only provides information of a "material" nature.


    {website junk from Angelus follows} :

    Current Issue
    current-book
    Recent Issues

        May 2013
        March 2013
        January 2013
        November 2012
        October 2012
        August 2012

    Our Bookstore
    bookstore-book

        Home
        Subscribe
        The Angelus
        The Si si No no
        Feedback
        News
        About Us
        Bookstore

    © 2010 Angelus Press
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18156
    • Reputation: +8248/-633
    • Gender: Male
    1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."
    « Reply #1 on: August 12, 2013, 07:23:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    In the text first provided, where it says that,

    "It is easy to see that the two formulas have nothing in common,"

    ..it is not literally true, for there are four words found in both new and
    old form, as given there.  

    Those common words are:  the, of, in, and, him.  

    Therefore, it is literally untrue to say "...the two formulas have nothing
    in common."


    Quote


    The form according to the traditional rite:

        Fulfill in Thy priest the completion of Thy ministry, and adorned in the ornaments of all glorification sanctify him with the moisture of heavenly unguent.(3)

    The new form:

        So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.




    Note:  the word, "him" refers to the priest in the old form but refers to
    Jesus Christ in the new form.   This is especially noteworthy in light of
    the fact that there is a movement now to consecrate women bishops,
    in which case calling the recipient by the male pronoun "him," while being
    grammatically correct, would nonetheless be 'offensive' to the feminists.  

    Does the SSPX also defend that aspect of the REASON to make this
    change??




    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  :popcorn:



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3826/-28
    • Gender: Male
    1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."
    « Reply #2 on: August 12, 2013, 07:42:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is there a source anyone can point to which contradicts this article? Anything which would point to why they conditionally ordain(ed) and confirm(ed)?

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4499
    • Reputation: +3873/-343
    • Gender: Male
    1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."
    « Reply #3 on: August 13, 2013, 07:03:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • When I first saw this article in The Angelus, it was the first time I had ever heard that there ever was a question of the validity of the new rites of consecration of bishops or of the ordination of priests.

    I also found the article very difficult to follow.  I'm just not that bright.  On the other hand, I started looking for more articles about this subject and came across Father Cekada's work, "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void," and found it much more compelling than The Angelus piece.

    A pdf of this article can be found at:  http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

    In either case, I am not truly competent to make a definitive judgment and I, of course, can certainly not bind the consciences of anyone else.  But I am convinced, at the present, that the arguments against validity are more credible than the arguments for validity.  In fact, Michael Davies, in his book about the ordinal for priests, asks the question how the new rite is any different than the Anglican rite.  While he declares that he is convinced that it must be valid, he convinced me of the contrary opinion.

    The issue is certainly a grave problem but I and my family will not attend the services of any priest ordained in the new rite or ordained by a bishop whose orders follow a line in the new rite.  The new rite is doubtful at best while I actually am convinced that it is invalid absent a clear refutation of the arguments against validity.  

    N.B.: The Angelus published a refutation of Father Cekada's paper a few months later and it was so poorly reasoned that the SSPX simply confirmed my suspicions at the time that he (Father Cekada) was right.

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3506
    • Reputation: +4131/-267
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."
    « Reply #4 on: August 13, 2013, 08:06:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: s2srea
    Is there a source anyone can point to which contradicts this article? Anything which would point to why they conditionally ordain(ed) and confirm(ed)?


    This is Fr Cekada's original article on the issue:

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

    And here is Fr Cekada's rebuttal of The Angelus' press article:

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf


    I have been told, but do not know myself, that the article by Fr. Marie that the Angelus re-ran was originally titled 'Why the New rite of Episcopal Consecration MAY be Valid.'  Again, I have no way to confirm this to be true or not, so take it for what it's worth.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com


    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3826/-28
    • Gender: Male
    1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."
    « Reply #5 on: August 13, 2013, 10:27:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Quote from: s2srea
    Is there a source anyone can point to which contradicts this article? Anything which would point to why they conditionally ordain(ed) and confirm(ed)?


    This is Fr Cekada's original article on the issue:

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

    And here is Fr Cekada's rebuttal of The Angelus' press article:

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf


    I have been told, but do not know myself, that the article by Fr. Marie that the Angelus re-ran was originally titled 'Why the New rite of Episcopal Consecration MAY be Valid.'  Again, I have no way to confirm this to be true or not, so take it for what it's worth.


    Thanks guys. I remember seeing this article. But I have to go over it once more.

    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3826/-28
    • Gender: Male
    1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."
    « Reply #6 on: August 13, 2013, 10:40:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As this is an important subject, I would like to know which priests in the Society who have come from the NO, have not been conditionally ordained. I remember reading on this website that there were two such priests, around the time the doctrinal preamble scandal was just revealing itself. If you know of them, please post their names here. But I will also create a new thread for greater visibility on the subject.

    If this would be considered detraction, then please don't.

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1362/-80
    • Gender: Male
    1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."
    « Reply #7 on: August 14, 2013, 12:16:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Richard
    Anything which would point to why they conditionally ordain(ed) and confirm(ed)?


    Fr. Peter Scott explains,

    Quote
    The matter and the form of the Latin rite of priestly ordination introduced by Pope Paul VI in 1968 are not subject to positive doubt. They are, in effect, practically identical to those defined by Pope Pius XII in 1947 in Sacramentum Ordinis ...

    The question of episcopal consecration in the 1968 rite promulgated by Paul VI is even more delicate. The difficulty lies in the complete change of the wording of the form of episcopal consecration.

    The very erudite article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., published in The Angelus (December 2005 & January 2006), establishes that the form is in itself valid. Although radically different from the traditional Latin form, and although only similar, but not identical, to the forms used in the Eastern rites, it is in itself valid, the meaning designating sufficiently clearly the Catholic episcopacy.

    For the form of Holy Orders is variable and changeable, this being one of the sacraments established only in general terms. The substance is consequently retained for aslong as the words have essentially the same meaning.

    However, this does not mean that this new rite of episcopal ordination is valid in every concrete case, for this could depend upon the translation, modifications (now that the principle of change has been accepted), and eventual defect of intention. For the danger of the creeping in of a defective intention, as with the rite ofpriestly ordination, cannot be excluded ...

    We must observe the same balance as Archbishop Lefebvre. On the one hand, it is our duty to avoid the excess of sedevacantism, which unreasonably denies the very validity and existence of the post-conciliar Church and its priesthood. On the other hand, however, we must likewise reject the laxist and liberal approach that does not take seriously the real doubts that can arise concerning the validity of priestly ordinations in the post-conciliar Church ...

    Just as the superiors take seriously their duty of guaranteeing the moral certitude of the Holy Orders of their priests, whether by means of conditional ordination or careful investigation (when possible), so also must priests who join the Society accept conditional ordination in case of even slight positive doubt, and so also must the faithful recognize that each case is different and accept the decision of those who alone are in a position to perform the necessary investigations
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3506
    • Reputation: +4131/-267
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."
    « Reply #8 on: August 14, 2013, 12:41:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: s2srea
    As this is an important subject, I would like to know which priests in the Society who have come from the NO, have not been conditionally ordained. I remember reading on this website that there were two such priests, around the time the doctrinal preamble scandal was just revealing itself. If you know of them, please post their names here. But I will also create a new thread for greater visibility on the subject.

    If this would be considered detraction, then please don't.


    I don't see how it could possibly be considered detraction, since the faithful have the utmost right to know with moral certainty that they have validly ordained priests administering the sacraments to them, and it is the responsibility of those clergy that presume to care for the faithful to provide such certainty.

    I certainly hope there are no NO ordained priests in the society.  
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18156
    • Reputation: +8248/-633
    • Gender: Male
    1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."
    « Reply #9 on: August 14, 2013, 01:25:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .



    While teleology might not be a matter for validity,

    per se, it nonetheless should not be a matter

    to be ignored if one would have any defense of

    unprecedented actions;  not to say that changing

    the sacramental form has no precedent, but that

    I would expect that any precedent would also have

    had an inherent PURPOSE for "even going there".



    I could translate this into third grade language but it seemed that
    perhaps others may appreciate reading more concise terms to
    discuss the topic at hand.  It seems to me that this is the definitive
    issue with regards to the change in episcopal consecration form
    that was foisted upon the Church, instituted, demanded, ordered,
    force-fed, imposed and arbitrated, but probably not, I dare say,
    "promulgaged."   We can talk about that later.  

    For now, I would really appreciate hearing any informed opinion
    or report on any documented facts regarding WHAT the PURPOSE
    was in mind for making any changes whatsoever to the Church's
    episcopal consecration form of ancient origin.   Why do it at all?  

    Can anyone here come up with ONE good reason?  Just ONE?  

    Please???




    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4774
    • Reputation: +5560/-449
    • Gender: Male
    1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."
    « Reply #10 on: August 14, 2013, 01:44:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A Catholic gentleman made a comment to me a few years ago, that Menzingen went out of it's way to support the Conciliar church on the new rite for political reasons:

    To refuse to believe the new rite was valid would mean not only challenging the validity of newChurch priests, but even the previous consecration of Cardinal Ratzinger.   Therefore, this challenge would have blocked any doctrinal talks.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but in his previous CD lectures, Bishop Williamson does not challenge Paul VI's new ordination rite.

    If we consider the devastation of the Conciliar MO, why would they not desecrate the Sacrament of Holy Orders?   Why hold back?

    In fact, if you're a friend of the anti-Christ, Holy Orders is the main Sacrament you want to violate.


    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18156
    • Reputation: +8248/-633
    • Gender: Male
    1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."
    « Reply #11 on: August 14, 2013, 03:50:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Quote from: s2srea
    Is there a source anyone can point to which contradicts this article? Anything which would point to why they conditionally ordain(ed) and confirm(ed)?


    This is Fr Cekada's original article on the issue:

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

    And here is Fr Cekada's rebuttal of The Angelus' press article:

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf


    I have been told, but do not know myself, that the article by Fr. Marie that the Angelus re-ran was originally titled 'Why the New rite of Episcopal Consecration MAY be Valid.'  Again, I have no way to confirm this to be true or not, so take it for what it's worth.



    I'm reading the first of the two articles here, and I have found the
    following answers to my question of PURPOSE, that is, why did
    anyone think that there was any reason to change the episcopal
    consecration form of ancient origin?  


    On page 4, Fr. Cekada has the following:

    Quote
    Dom Botte proposed that another text from this same collection
    be introduced into the Rite of Episcopal Consecration to replace the
    traditional consecratory Preface.  The old Preface, he said, had “poor
    doctrinal content,” was oriented “almost exclusively towards the
    bishop’s liturgical role,” was a “hybrid formula, poorly balanced.” 16
    Something was needed that better expressed the theology of
    Vatican II.



    It appears to be the inference of Fr. Cekada here, that this "Study
    Group number 20" of the Consilium convened to reform the
    sacraments, was looking for some way to "better express the
    theology of Vatican II."  

    I do not see anything factual, however, in this 16-page article to
    support that opinion or inference.  What is it based on?  I'm not
    accusing Fr. Cekada of making it up, but I would like to know
    where he got the notion in the first place, because he does not
    say, specifically.

    He has, “'The old Preface,’ he said, had 'poor doctrinal content,’
    was oriented 'almost exclusively towards the bishop’s liturgical role’
    [and] was a 'hybrid formula, poorly balanced’.”

    Certainly Dom Botte was making value judgments and inferences
    on the substance of the ancient episcopal consecratory formula's
    Preface.

    However, it seems to me a bit of a leap to say that because he
    made these inferences and value judgments regarding the old
    formula, that therefore "something was needed that better
    expressed the theology of Vatican II."  There is something missing
    in the process here.  And I would like to know what that something
    is, if it's not too much to ask.  



    Furthermore,

    Quote
    The prayer for episcopal consecration from Hippolytus, said Dom
    Botte, survived in “more evolved” versions in the Syrian and Coptic
    Eastern Rites. Used in the Roman Rite, he said, it also “would affirm
    a unity of outlook between East and West on the episcopacy” — i.e.,
    thrill the eastern schismatics, who also used these rites. “This was
    an ecumenical argument.  It was decisive.”17

    So Botte’s text, lifted nearly verbatim from his 1963 work, became
    the new Preface for Episcopal Consecration when Paul VI
    promulgated it in June 1968.18

    17. B. Botte, From Silence to Participation: An Insider’s View of
    Liturgical Renewal (Washington: Pastoral 1988), 135.
    18. Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani (18 June 1968),
    AAS 60 (1968), 369–73.



    Note: we have another instance of "the new form was promulgated
    by Paul VI in June of 1968."  Fr. Cekada has not shown ANY answers
    to the question, "WHAT MAKES YOU CONVINCED IT WAS
    PROMULGATED AT ALL?"  Certainly Fr. Cekada knows what it takes
    for something to be "promulgated."  Or.......... does he?  


    Therefore, it would seem we have a second answer to my question
    of WHY DO THIS AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE, namely, that Dom Botte
    had written a screed in 1963 that had therefore been kicking around
    not getting much opposition and mellowing with age (5 whole years!)
    before it was dragged out and paraded as the latest and greatest thing
    since sliced bread, because it was ECUMENICAL, and, BTW, unopposed
    for 5 whole years.  It was "ecumenical" because it kissed up to the
    Eastern Schismatics.  

    Notice that when Fr. Franz Schmidberger wants to insult someone, he
    says they're "schismatic."  Well, here is kissing up to REAL schismatics
    as the basis for changing the Episcopal consecration formula, and where
    was Fr. Schmidberger or any other of the nefarious Menzingen-denizens
    to complain about this?  

    CRICKETS.  

    So we have
    ~ to better express the theology of Vat.II
    ~ to kiss up to the Eastern Schismatics

    Anything else?


    I'm going to come back to this later...........  God willing!..............





    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18156
    • Reputation: +8248/-633
    • Gender: Male
    1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."
    « Reply #12 on: August 14, 2013, 04:20:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Incredulous
    A Catholic gentleman made a comment to me a few years ago, that Menzingen went out of it's way to support the Conciliar church on the new rite for political reasons:

    To refuse to believe the new rite was valid would mean not only challenging the validity of newChurch priests, but even the previous consecration of Cardinal Ratzinger.   Therefore, this challenge would have blocked any doctrinal talks.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but in his previous CD lectures, Bishop Williamson does not challenge Paul VI's new ordination rite.


    This would be a great question to ask at a conference, when he's
    really in the mood to swing at a fastball.  I expect that in light of the
    fact that he went out on a limb recently in Spain to conditionally re-
    ordain Fr. Iglesias, that he would not mind at all taking a firm stand
    on the episcopal consecration question, especially in light of the other
    fact, that he himself was consecrated with the traditional form along
    with his 3 brother bishops.  I don't think he would mind now, even if
    it means revising his prior posture on the question, even if it had been
    due to some absence of definitive pronouncement.  


    Quote
    If we consider the devastation of the Conciliar [NovusOrdo?], why would they not desecrate the Sacrament of Holy Orders?   Why hold back?

    In fact, if you're a friend of the anti-Christ, Holy Orders is the main Sacrament you want to violate.





    You can be pretty sure that the change agents were very
    careful not to tell anyone that their purpose was to "desecrate
    the Sacrament of Holy Orders."
     That would not have been a
    very wise announcement to give to the Catholics of 1969.


    I appreciate your concerns, Incredulous.  And I am pleased that
    you are taking a look at this angle over which I am obsessed.  I
    have been asking very well-informed people this question, and I
    am rather bewildered that it seems to be a question that nobody
    has asked before, and it seems to me to be a very important
    question.  

    Why change the rite of episcopal consecration?  If it had served
    the Church for umpteen centuries just fine, then why make any
    changes now?  How could "hundreds of experts" in 39 Study
    Groups of the Consilium be focused on changing things without
    any good reason to do so?

    I know there was some moment, some point at Vat.II when
    they suddenly decided that they would start changing the Missal,
    but did this also include changing the sacramental forms, and if
    so, why?


    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3506
    • Reputation: +4131/-267
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    1968 Episcopal(-ian-?) Newconsecration of Bishops !,."
    « Reply #13 on: August 14, 2013, 08:13:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Neil Obstat, I'm not sure what you mean by looking for a good reason for them to change the rite to this "ancient form."  The prevailing, primary reason would be the same reason why there became new rites in every sacrament-- a new religion.  The idea of retreating to a rite of some sort of ancient and primitive Christian integrity is just a lie, not to mention that returning to older forms of worship for the sake of them is condemned by Pius XII.  The new sacramental rites are owed to the new religion.

    Quote from: Psalm 73
    Lift up thy hands against their pride unto the end; see what things the enemy hath done wickedly in the sanctuary. [4] And they that hate thee have made their boasts, in the midst of thy solemnity. They have set up their ensigns for signs, [5] And they knew not both in the going out and on the highest top. As with axes in a wood of trees, They have cut down at once the gates thereof, with axe and hatchet they have brought it down. [7] They have set fire to thy sanctuary: they have defiled the dwelling place of thy name on the earth. [8] They said in their heart, the whole kindred of them together: Let us abolish all the festival days of God from the land. [9] Our signs we have not seen, there is now no prophet: and he will know us no more. [10] How long, O God, shall the enemy reproach: is the adversary to provoke thy name for ever?
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16