Author Topic: New Rite of Ordination (Read 6474 times)

Alexandria · « **on:** May 26, 2010, 05:20:11 PM »

Doubtful? Valid? Invalid? And why.

I don't know what to make of it. I know that it closely resembles the Anglican ordination rite which was rendered null and void.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #1 on:** May 26, 2010, 07:41:55 PM »

It's no wonder Archbishop LeFebvre didn't want to do the new rite of Ordination. It is not Traditional. This sums it up, in my opinion... :dancing-banana:

Cristian · « **Reply #2 on:** May 27, 2010, 02:15:01 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Doubtful? Valid? Invalid? And why.

I don't know what to make of it. I know that it closely resembles the Anglican ordination rite which was rendered null and void.

I believe it`s at least doubtful based on:

1) Substantial change in the form (something just a Pope can do). Of course I´m sede.
2) This form never existed before.
3) The form is ambiguous. Pius XII definied that the sacramental form has to be univoque regarding the 2 effects of the sacrament, that is, it must point out the sacramenal order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.
4) All this under a Protestant notion of the priesthood which made possible the Novus Ordo.

These are more or less the arguments of Fr. Cekada.

Cristian

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** May 27, 2010, 08:46:30 PM »

Positive Doubt

Which, conversely, means that there's positive doubt about the legitimacy of the Pope who promulgated it.

Again, here are some of the positions.

Neo-Catholics: Pope cannot promulgate an invalid rite of Ordination. Paul VI was the pope. Therefore, the new rite of ordination must be valid. [They assume legitimacy of Paul Vi].

SSPX: New Rite of Ordination is intrinsically valid but can often be invalid due to the faulty intention of the priest. [I find this so very flawed that I don't have the time to go into this.]

[Most] Sedevacantists: Pope cannot promulgate an invalid rite of Ordination. New Rite of Ordination is not valid. Pope who promulgated it cannot be legitmate.

SJB · « **Reply #4 on:** May 28, 2010, 08:20:41 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

New Rite of Ordination is intrinsically valid but can often be invalid due to the faulty intention of the priest. [I find this so very flawed that I don't have the time to go into this.]

Then if the rite is followed, the intention is there. A defect in intention would need to be external, not internal. Otherwise we could never know for sure about the validity of anybody's orders, even in the old rite.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** May 28, 2010, 09:08:57 AM »

This is a very grave concern.

I've read commentaries that declare the New Rite to be completely invalid. Those commentaries provide reasonable explanations as to why the authors believe the rites to be invalid and bases the conclusions on magisterial docuмents and theologians prior to Vatican II. I've not read any such commentary that was not well reasoned and compelling.

I've read commentaries that declare the New Rite to be certainly valid. Only one of these commentaries actually made a reasoned argument; most of them simply appeal to the emotions and say that the rites just have to be valid. The one commentary that used reason was way beyond my intellectual ability to comprehend.

All that being said, even the commentaries I've read and completely understood are based on comparative languages, the meanings of words in Latin, Greek, and other non-English languages, and some docuмents I have not access to. The commentaries against validity are only correct if the facts presented in them are true.

Thus, as far as I am concerned, the validity of the New Rites of Ordination (and, by extention, Consecration of Bishops) is at least doubtful. If the rites are indeed valid, the Church will have to make a reasonable case other than to simply say, "Of course, they're valid."

Cristian · « **Reply #6 on:** May 28, 2010, 12:49:44 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ladislaus
New Rite of Ordination is intrinsically valid but can often be invalid due to the faulty intention of the priest. [I find this so very flawed that I don't have the time to go into this.]

Then if the rite is followed, the intention is there. A defect in intention would need to be external, not internal. Otherwise we could never know for sure about the validity of anybody's orders, even in the old rite.

To my surprise it seems that internal intention is required and that a defect of it is not necessarily manifested exteriorly. This is precissely what I`m studying (my concern is about Baptism and membership in the Church), but theologians say that there is a moral certainty of its validity. I don`t really know what to think about. I tend to believe that a defect of intention necessarily manifest outwardly but theologians seems not go so far.
So to your concern, "we could never be sure of its validity", it may be answered that we may have moral certitude and that it`s enough.

Cristian

Alexandria · « **Reply #7 on:** May 28, 2010, 12:57:23 PM »

Gentlemen

Thank you for your answers.

I don't know what to make of it myself. For me, it is a big question mark all the way down the line.

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** May 28, 2010, 05:44:41 PM »

Quote from: Cristian

To my surprise it seems that internal intention is required and that a defect of it is not necessarily manifested exteriorly. This is precissely what I`m studying (my concern is about Baptism and membership in the Church), but theologians say that there is a moral certainty of its validity. I don`t really know what to think about. I tend to believe that a defect of intention necessarily manifest outwardly but theologians seems not go so far.
So to your concern, "we could never be sure of its validity", it may be answered that we may have moral certitude and that it`s enough.

I've read this as well. But I've also read that the theologians argue that if the rites are performed outwardly exactly according to the liturgical books established by the Church but intention to "do as the Church does" is only inwardly manifest, then the Church will supply validity for the Sacrament. The only exception to this would be if the priest, though performing a Sacrament correctly in all elements (i.e., outwardly) also manifests his lack of intention to "do as the Church does" in some other way.

For example, should a priest give a talk immediately prior to performing an outwardly correct Baptism that the sole purpose of the ceremony is to receive the child into the Church and that Original Sin is a figment of the imagination, the intention is clearly lacking and the Baptism invalid. On the other hand, if the priest secretly thinks this but never makes his belief known, the Church supplies validity, thus, we can have "moral certainty".

I wish I could provide a reference, but I do know that I believed the source reliable at the time. If this is not accurate, I would appreciate correction.

As for the New Rites of Ordination and Consecration of Bishops, it would be difficult to believe many Novus Ordo clerics have any intention of ordaining priests to offer Sacrifice or consecrating Bishops as true successors of the Apostles. This vocabulary is nearly completely absent from our Conciliar priests and bishops.

Alexandria · « **Reply #9 on:** May 28, 2010, 06:19:57 PM »

I know what book you may be talking about because the parts of it that I have read say what you just wrote, TK - The Sacraments and Their Celebration by Nicholas Halligan, O.P. It's a hard book to get, and it's way too expensive for me too. Maybe someday.....

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** May 28, 2010, 06:20:00 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ladislaus
New Rite of Ordination is intrinsically valid but can often be invalid due to the faulty intention of the priest. [I find this so very flawed that I don't have the time to go into this.]

Then if the rite is followed, the intention is there. A defect in intention would need to be external, not internal. Otherwise we could never know for sure about the validity of anybody's orders, even in the old rite.

Exactly. I follow the school of thought that intention means the intention to do what the Church does. IMO simply by following the rite prescribed by the Church one IS intending to DO what the Church DOES. It doesn't matter whether the priest believes in transubstantiation, etc. Even if some evil freemason infiltrator had the thought "I don't intend to ordain this man to the priesthood", if he performs the rite according to the Church's prescription, it's still valid because of his intention to perform the rite.

Some argue that if the form is followed, the proper intention is presumed. I say that if the form is followed, that in itself constitutes the requisite intention.

Otherwise, the Church would be in utter chaos, because you never would know if any given priest has valid orders due to some bad intention on the part of the ordaining bishop.

THEN if some priests are invalid and they then become bishops, everyone they in turn consecrate would be invalid and on and on and on.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** May 28, 2010, 06:22:01 PM »

There are some theologians who hold the position I advocated above.

Alexandria · « **Reply #12 on:** May 28, 2010, 06:26:45 PM »

How about Talleyrand (I'm not sure of the spelling, but you must know who I mean)? The men he ordained did not have to be conditionally ordained.

Caminus · « **Reply #13 on:** May 28, 2010, 07:39:37 PM »

Quote

SSPX: New Rite of Ordination is intrinsically valid but can often be invalid due to the faulty intention of the priest. [I find this so very flawed that I don't have the time to go into this.]

Or rather your mischaracterization is deeply flawed.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** May 28, 2010, 09:26:45 PM »

It's only that position which is consistent with the almost-universally-held opinion that even atheists can validly baptize. Atheists do not believe in Baptism, do not believe in the Holy Trinity, do not intend to remove Original Sin, etc. That's why the saying goes that one must intend to do what the Church does and not that one must intend to do what the Church intends.