I also do appreciate the Brothers' "softer" tone, where instead of denouncing people as bad-willed, they appealing "in charity" to them to pray for enlightenment.

Interestingly, they also addressed the "Pope Sifting" problem with SVism, holding, as I have been say for years, that it's more about recognizing the fact that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church founded by Christ, and that it lacks the "motives of credibility" that are the natural prelude to the assent of faith.

Michael Davies is incorrect that the Anglican Ordinal is per se incapable of conferring valid orders, since the essential form has indeed been corrected (No. 26 "Apostolicae Curae").

Dear CI readers,

Could someone please warn Brother Peter about the trap into which he is walking?

The Anglican Order was indeed pronounced invalid by Pope Leo XIII. However, unlike the Novus Ordo sect of today, the Anglicans heeded the verdict of the Pope and remedied the issue. We know from " Apostolicae Curae " No. 26, that the invalid form has been corrected:

"26. 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 that 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."

We also know that Anglican "bishops and priests" sought help in restoring the line of Apostolic Succession:
"In modern times the problem concerns only apostate Catholic priests who have joined the Church of England, or Anglican ministers who have been so doubtful of the validity of their orders that they have been re-ordained by Old Catholic bishops using the Old Catholic Ordinal, which is valid." (p.309, Michael Davies. "Cranmer's Godly Order" 1995)
Michael Davies is incorrect that the Anglican Ordinal is per se incapable of conferring valid orders, since the essential form has indeed been corrected (No. 26 "Apostolicae Curae"). There is another reason why the Anglican rite of Order is in fact invalid, but it is not the one used by Pope Leo XIII.

Brother Peter alleges in the title that the fake Eucharist is present in the Vatican. Yes, it may be, but not because of the reasons given in "Apostolicae Curae". The lineage of each primary celebrant would have to be examined in order to be absolutely sure. Remember, we are fighting a higher intelligence. It may be that in fact the Eucharist is present in the Vatican in this case; in spite of invalid Novus Ordo ministers, including antipope Francis himself, who was "ordained and consecrated" in the new, invalid (per "Apostolicae Curae" and "Sacramentum Ordinis" and "Pontificalis Romani") rite.

33....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.

29....So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Order and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it, and this the more so because among the first duties of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.

Right, Pope Leo concluded that despite their attempts to fix the essential form, the entire intention of the Rite was contrary to Catholic teaching regarding the priesthood and episcopacy.  That's one of the arguments against the Novus Ordo Rite, which did a lot of the same, to strip out references to the priest offering the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc. ... many of the same things the Anglicans did.

CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

NEW RITE PREFACE

"...ut ad sacrificia tabernaculi, quæ umbra erant futurorum bonorum, meritum sufficeret secundum Legem sacerdotum."

"...that the number of the priests prescribed by the Law might be sufficient for the sacrifices of the tabernacle,
which were a shadow of the good things to come."


The New Rite implies that the idea that the sacerdotal priesthood, as previously understood by the Catholic Church, prefigured in the Old Testament, was "a shadow of good things to come." This gets to the heart of what the Modernists deridingly called the "slaughterhouse priest," a priest who slaughters a victim on the altar. The Modernist hates that idea.

The true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass DOES slaughter a real victim (Sacramentally) on the altar every day. That is incomprehensible to the Modernist sensibilities. So they changed the words of the Preface to explain that concept of "blood sacrifice" as a propitiation for sin was "a shadow of the good things to come."

For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things; by the selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually every year, can never make the comers thereunto perfect:  2 For then they would have ceased to be offered: because the worshippers once cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer:  3 But in them there is made a commemoration of sins every year.  4 For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away.