Michael Davies: “… every prayer in the traditional rite [of Ordination] which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed [from the New Rite of Paul VI]. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.”[1] (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/new-rite-of-ordination-invalid/#_edn1)
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all: from them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.”[6]
(https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/new-rite-of-ordination-invalid/#_edn6)
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Orders and the true sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood] of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium [priesthood] 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.”[7]
(https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/new-rite-of-ordination-invalid/#_edn7)
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between ‘the law of believing and the law of praying,’ under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the liturgical order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood], but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things, which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. In this way the native character – or spirit as it is called – of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if vitiated in its origin it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that in the course of time it could become sufficient since no change had taken place.”[8] (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/new-rite-of-ordination-invalid/#_edn8)
Michael Davies: “As the previous section made clear, every prayer in the traditional rite [of Ordination] which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed [from the New Rite of Paul VI]. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.”[9]
(https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/new-rite-of-ordination-invalid/#_edn9)
Michael Davies: “… there is not one mandatory prayer in the new rite of ordination itself which makes clear that the essence of the Catholic priesthood is the conferral of the powers to offer the sacrifice of the Mass and to absolve men of their sins, and that the sacrament imparts a character which differentiates a priest not simply in degree but in essence from a layman… There is not a word in it that is incompatible with Protestant belief.”[ (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/new-rite-of-ordination-invalid/#_edn10)
People need to understand that just because the new rite of episcopal consecration is obviously, indisputably invalid that doesn't make the new rite of ordination valid.
The new rite is certainly invalid per Apostolicae Curae and because 'ut' was removed from the form.
Excerpt from - https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/new-rite-of-ordination-invalid/
Dear reader, these things described above by Pope Leo XIII as the downfall of the Anglican Rite of Ordination – the systematic removal of every reference to the sacrifice of the Mass, consecration and the true sacrificing priesthood – are exactly the things that occurred in the New Rite of Ordination promulgated by Paul VI! In his book The Order of Melchisedech, despite his false conclusions on this and other matters, Michael Davies is forced to admit the following stunning facts:
The “missing ut = invalidity” argument is a figment of your imagination.Your example is not analogous.
Ut is basically a conjunction with no inherent meaning in context.
Translated literally, ut means “in order that.”
So here is a sentence comparison, with and without it:
1) I bought rice, in order that we can eat.
2) I bought rice to eat.
The presence or absence of ut makes no difference to the meaning.
The concern regarding the new rite of priestly ordination lays elsewhere.
Your example is not analogous.
A better example would be
1) I bought rice, in order that we can eat.
2) I bought rice, eat.
The connection is lost.
(https://i.imgur.com/c6djtjl.png)
Here's the new translation that proves it. Also, none of the new ordinations are done in Latin anyway so we should look at the new translation which clearly destroys the link 'ut' established.
(https://i.imgur.com/toetHsE.png)
How did the ut come into the form? The answer is almost certainly through a copying error by a scribe, which was in its turn copied by other scribes and eventually became codified with the advent of the printed Pontifical…If, for the sake of argument, we lay aside the fact that the doctrine of indefectibility rules out any possibility of the new ordination rite being invalid, could it be maintained that the removal of ut from the traditional form justifies the allegation of a significant change of meaning?
I obtained the judgment of a number theologians and canonists competent to provide an expert opinion on the question, namely Professor J.P.M. van der Ploeg, D.P., Dr. Philip Flanagan, Dr. Francis Clark, Dr. H.J. Jordan, Dr T.C.G. Glover, Father William Lawson, S.J., and also Professor Cristine Mohrmann, one of the world’s greatest authorities on Christian Latin. They all reached the identical conclusion, that the omission of ut did not change the meaning of the Latin form to the slightest extent, and did not cast even the suspicion of doubt upon the validity of the Latin form. Thus even if, per impossibile, a sacramental form approved by the Sovereign Pontiff could be invalid, there would be no case for alleging invalidity in the case of the form for the ordination of a priest in the 1968 Ordinal.[8]
Now, if you believe that the NO church is the Catholic Church then you would have absolutely no reason to doubt it’s validity and you should also actively participate in their NO service (“mass”) as well.
An excerpt from this article: https://stjohnfisher.medium.com/a-defense-of-the-new-rite-of-priestly-ordination-bf0f5aa08007So he asked Novus Ordites whether their sect has defected, what answer did he expect...
"As Michael Davies, himself explained in The Order of Melchisedech, Appendix XI,
The quibble about an “ut” is nothing to be concerned with, especially since it is doubtful it was in there in the first place, and it has the backing of a consensus of Latinists."
No.Your rice example is a complete red herring. Do you not see the comma turned into ';'? Do you not see that the new translation literally ENDS THE SENTENCE THERE!?!?
In Latin, you would translate the sentence "We bought rice in order that we can eat" as "Nos emit rice ut manducare possumus."
You would translate "We bought rice to eat" as "Nos emit rice manducare."
You would also translate your construct (i.e., "We bought rice, eat") the same way (i.e., Nos emit rice, manducare.), because the "to" in "We bought rice to eat" is implicit (just as the "ut" is implicit).
The absence of an explicit "to" does not separate the buying of rice from the purpose of eating it, just as in the new form, the absence of "ut" does not separate or disconnect the preceeding from the subsequent (i.e., because it is implicit).
The meaning is exactly identical, depite the absence of "ut," which is superfluous (i.e., beyond what is required or sufficient).
So he asked Novus Ordites whether their sect has defected, what answer did he expect...
Your rice example is a complete red herring. Do you not see the comma turned into ';'? Do you not see that the new translation literally ENDS THE SENTENCE THERE!?!?
Do you admit that Spiritus sanctitatis is cut off from the rest of the sentence in the new version or not?
Do you admit that at least the English translation cuts off the Spirit of holiness by ending the sentence there?
I admit that the “ut” you imagine to be essential is an accidental transcription error, and consequently, it’s omission could not possibly be invalidating.
Also, just ask yourself, WHY did they remove this tiny little word. Did it somehow improve the Rite, make it more "Modern"? No, the nefarious sinister agents behind all of the V2 deformation of the Church did this ON PURPOSE. There's no other rational explanation for why the "ut" was in their way.
But then your view of the Crisis is that it was just a weakness of faith rather than a deliberate destruction by design.
Ignorant as usual ... and driven by your agenda.
Certainly the omission of "ut" could be invalidating. As Pope Pius XII taught about the essential form, there are two things required, the invocation of the Holy Ghost to produce the Sacramental effect.
Traditional Rite:
Invoking the Holy Ghost to make the man a priest.
Novus Ordo Rite:
Invoke the Holy Ghost. Ask (God?) that he be made a priest.
Problem is that the Holy Ghost can be invoked for any number of things. What's missing here is the notion that the Sacramental effect is being caused by the Holy Ghost.
If you hadn't been asleep in Latin class, the "ut" is very significant gramatically. It is not simply a random two-letter word. What follows the "ut" is the effect of the first part, "so that ...". This speaks directly to the link between the Holy Ghost and the Sacramental effect, which is severed by its removal. And the Holy Ghost causing the Sacramental effect is what Pius XII described as the essence of validity.
Now, it's POSSIBLE that it could be implied, but the problem is that it's not unequivocal. Holy Ghost could be asked to cause the proper dispositions in the priest, etc. or for any other reason than to effect the ordination.
So it's highly likely that this invalidates.
Also, just ask yourself, WHY did they remove this tiny little (as you claim insignificant) word? Did it somehow improve the Rite, make it more "Modern"? No, the nefarious sinister agents behind all of the V2 deformation of the Church did this ON PURPOSE. There's no other rational explanation for why the "ut" was in their way.
But then your view of the Crisis is that it was just a weakness of faith rather than a deliberate destruction by design.
Also, just ask yourself, WHY did they remove this tiny little (as you claim insignificant) word? Did it somehow improve the Rite, make it more "Modern"? No, the nefarious sinister agents behind all of the V2 deformation of the Church did this ON PURPOSE. There's no other rational explanation for why the "ut" was in their way.Yes....if the "ut" was so insignificant, then why remove it at all? Maybe the anti-Catholics foresaw the possibility/probability of Old Rite bishops ordaining new rite priests. Since they knew those bishops' consecrations were 100% valid, then the only was to invalidate their priests was to mess with the new rite of ordination. All it took was one, "insignificant" two letter word.
Yes....if the "ut" was so insignificant, then why remove it at all?
I hope Sean doesn't really believe the Crisis wasn't a deliberate destruction by design. Most real Trads believe there was an infiltration by those intending to damage/destroy the Church, etc. Most real Trads believe in such a CONSPIRACY.
What a moron!
Only in the delusional world of Loudestmouth can a transcriptionist’s mistaken addition of ut become part of the essential form.
:facepalm:
I admit that the “ut” you imagine to be essential is an accidental transcription error, and consequently, it’s omission could not possibly be invalidating.
Problem is that the Holy Ghost can be invoked for any number of things. What's missing here is the notion that the Sacramental effect is being caused by the Holy Ghost.Bingo.
I hope Sean doesn't really believe the Crisis wasn't a deliberate destruction by design. Most real Trads believe there was an infiltration by those intending to damage/destroy the Church, etc. Most real Trads believe in such a CONSPIRACY.The past few years, it seems that more and more, Sean has been "straining a gnat, while swallowing a camel" as the old saying goes. On many topics, he misses the forest for the trees.
If the appearance of "ut" was a mistake, how could it be part of the essential form?Yet it is part of the essential form so you're the one who's left with the problem.
Do you really and truly believe this? :facepalm:
Yup:From your link:
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/melchisedech-appx11.htm
Your link does not provide the text of the primary source, the Leonine Sacramentary. It only refers to books that talk about it. Do you have another link that provides it? I, for one, would need to see the actual words of the form in the LS.
From your link:
the conjunction ut from the seventh line of the Latin text does not appear in the 1968 form which has been restored to the exact wording of the Leonine Sacramentary
Your link does not provide the text of the primary source, the Leonine Sacramentary. It only refers to books that talk about it. Do you have another link that provides it? I, for one, would need to see the actual words of the form in the LS.
Davies is not to be trusted. Here is a source from 1892 with Imprimatur showing the exact words of the Rite of Ordination as it existed in the Pontificale Romanum of Leo XIII:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hn3i51&seq=130&view=2up
That version of the Pontificale Romanum has the word "ut" in it. Look for yourself.
Similarly, the version used by Pius XII had the same "ut" in it. Here is a link to Pius XII's Sacramentum Ordinis (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/la/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-xii_apc_19471130_sacramentum-ordinis.html).
Having said that, the "ut" is not the main problem. Yes, its absence should make one suspicious of the change that was made. But the real problem, the elephant in the room, is that, in Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII defined the ENTIRE PREFACE as "the form" of the Sacrament, not just two or three sentences from that Preface. The "form" of the Sacrament of Priestly Ordination (the ENTIRE PREFACE) changed drastically. The meaning of the words were very clearly changed in 1968 IN THE LATIN, as I demonstrated in this post from another thread:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/conditional-ordination-71994/msg901553/#msg901553
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/conditional-ordination-71994/msg901553/#msg901553)
If the appearance of "ut" was a mistake, how could it be part of the essential form?I don't think any sedevacantists are making this argument. Remember that Sean Johnson is a rabid anti-sedevacantist--and he's the one really making and defending this argument.
Moreover, if "ut," per impossible, were really part of the essential form, then the unavoidable implication is that all the ordinations prior to the mistaken addition of "ut" were invalid.
Do the sedevacantistes really want to make that argument?
Davies is not to be trusted. Here is a source from 1892 with Imprimatur showing the exact words of the Rite of Ordination as it existed in the Pontificale Romanum of Leo XIII:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hn3i51&seq=130&view=2up
That version of the Pontificale Romanum has the word "ut" in it. Look for yourself.
The Leonine Sacramentary is an ancient text. It was not promulgated under Leo XIII. It would be nice to have the quote from it. It may or may not be available online. I remember finding, if not the whole, some of the text in either English or Latin of the Gregorian Sacramentary in trying to find out about the way the Holy Week or simply Holy Saturday was carried out I think.
The oldest source of liturgical texts of the Roman Rite is a manuscript in the library of the cathedral chapter of Verona in northern Italy (Cod. Bibl. Capit. Veron. 80), commonly known as “the Leonine Sacramentary,” a collection of these libelli Missarum originally made in Rome itself. Its dating and raison d’etre have been the subject of a huge amount deal of scholarly debate; the 1966 critical edition by Dom Leo Mohlberg OSB (https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2020/10/online-resources-critical-editions-of.html?m=1) includes a bibliography on just the question of the dating, with over 80 entries. Broadly speaking, the Verona manuscript seems to be a copy made in the first quarter of the 7th century of a collection made about 40 years earlier. The name “Leonine Sacramentary” is essentially a fancy of its discoverer, a canon of Verona named Giuseppe Bianchini (1704-64), who was in his time a highly respected scholar of Christian antiquity.The collection is in every way extremely irregular, as are many of the individual Masses it contains, several of which have multiple alternative collects, or two prefaces, while others are lacking various parts. The first three quires of the manuscript are now missing, and so if it ever had a prologue which explained why it was made, and made as such, with less rhyme or reason than one would expect as to both the contents and their arrangement, this is now lost. However, there is a conjecture which I think would well account for its wild irregularity.For almost 20 years in the mid-6th century, the Italian peninsula was wracked by a terrible war between the Ostrogoths, who had ruled Rome and most of Italy since 493, and the Byzantines under the Emperor Justinian, who sought to regain control of their ancient capital and the heart of the Roman Empire. Beginning in March of 537, the First Rome was besieged for a year, and most of its famous aqueducts were broken. In 546, the city was sacked, and in 549-50, subjected to another siege, at the end of which, a notable portion of the population fled. It is guessed that about fifty years later, when St Gregory the Great was, as Pope, effectively the ruler of Rome and environs under the suzerainty of Byzantium, the population was down to perhaps around 80,000, perhaps rather fewer than that, living in a city built for 1.5 million.
Evidently, you did not understand the point Davies was making:
He makes no reference to Leo XIII (nor does the Leonine Sacramentary have anything to do with Leo XIII.
The Leonine Sacramentary (which has nothing to do with any of the Leos) was in use in the 4-7th centuries.
He's saying that a book in the 1890's said that the form was unchanged since the Leonine Sacramentary, but that the author hadn't noticed that the "ut" had crept in.
Evidently, you did not understand the point Davies was making:
He makes no reference to Leo XIII (nor does the Leonine Sacramentary have anything to do with Leo XIII.
The Leonine Sacramentary (which has nothing to do with any of the Leos) was in use in the 4-7th centuries.
He's saying that a book in the 1890's said that the form was unchanged since the Leonine Sacramentary, but that the author hadn't noticed that the "ut" had crept in.
I found an online publication of the Leonine Sacramentary, though it appears to be published by Anglicans, but maybe that doesn't matter. Anyway, page 243 of the Index at the bottom of the book gives the page numbers of the rites of ordination for priests, bishop, etc., which are on pages 122, 123.
The introduction on page xv says that the suggested authors of the book (apparently it isn't known for sure) are: Pope Leo Magnus (+461), Pope Felix lll (+492), or Pope Gelasius (+469).
Leonine sacramentary (archive.org) (https://ia800206.us.archive.org/4/items/LeonineSacramentary/LeonineSacramentary.pdf)
(https://ia800206.us.archive.org/4/items/LeonineSacramentary/LeonineSacramentary.pdf)
I (https://ia800206.us.archive.org/4/items/LeonineSacramentary/LeonineSacramentary.pdf) couldn't understand pages 122 and 123, since it's all in Latin, but maybe someone else can.
Pius XII stated very clearly what "the form" of the Sacrament had to be after 1947. And in his required formula, "ut" was present.This should settle the matter.
I found an online publication of the Leonine Sacramentary, though it appears to be published by Anglicans, but maybe that doesn't matter. Anyway, page 243 of the Index at the bottom of the book gives the page numbers of the rites of ordination for priests, bishop, etc., which are on pages 122, 123.
The introduction on page xv says that the suggested authors of the book (apparently it isn't known for sure) are: Pope Leo Magnus (+461), Pope Felix lll (+492), or Pope Gelasius (+469).
Leonine sacramentary (archive.org) (https://ia800206.us.archive.org/4/items/LeonineSacramentary/LeonineSacramentary.pdf)
(https://ia800206.us.archive.org/4/items/LeonineSacramentary/LeonineSacramentary.pdf)
I (https://ia800206.us.archive.org/4/items/LeonineSacramentary/LeonineSacramentary.pdf) couldn't understand pages 122 and 123, since it's all in Latin, but maybe someone else can.
The "Leonine Sacramentary" is not a perfect text. Do you see all the footnootes at the bottom of the pages? Do you see how some of those notes reference alternative readings of the actual words in the text?
These ancient docuмents are sometimes nothing but fragments with parts of pages missing. The scholars have to make assumptions in some cases. That is one of the reasons for the footnotes: to let other scholars know that the original text was ambiguous. Read the Introduction (https://ia800206.us.archive.org/4/items/LeonineSacramentary/LeonineSacramentary.pdf) to understand how uncertain it all is. It is not to be taken as "authoritative." It is a mess, as the author explains.
As I said, the current, authentic "form" of Priestly Holy Orders is the exact "Preface" to be found in the Pontificale Romanum used by Pius XII. The "Leonine Sacramentary" is of historical interest only.
This should settle the matter.
It certainly settles the matter because all that's needed is positive doubt. Nobody's saying we can prove the Rite is invalid, as the authority of the Church would be required to determine that with certainty. But when the essential form has been CHANGED by a completely unreliable and questionable "authority", that suffices to establish positive doubt. Given the positive doubt criterion, where that suffices to treat the Sacrament as invalid in the practical order, the burden of proof is 100% on the side of those who assert that it's valid. I know that I'm not going to put my soul at risk by going to Confession to NO-ordained priests. But if Sean Johnson or others want to believe that it's certainly valid, well, that's their choice, and more power to them. But, you know what, I'll bet that Johnson would never put his money where his mouth is and start going to Confession to Novus Ordo priests.
The “missing ut = invalidity” argument is a figment of your imagination.
Ut is basically a conjunction with no inherent meaning in context.
Translated literally, ut means “in order that.”
So here is a sentence comparison, with and without it:
1) I bought rice, in order that we can eat.
2) I bought rice to eat.
The presence or absence of ut makes no difference to the meaning.
The concern regarding the new rite of priestly ordination lays elsewhere.
But let's extend your example to make it more apropos to the NO Rite.Again, logic and basic english grammar settles the matter.
1) I bought rice for us to eat.
2) I bought rice. Let's eat.
In #1 we're clearly eating the rice. In #2, you bought rice (just got back from the store), but we're going to eat spaghetti now. Rice is for tomorrow. And the #2 is basically saying, "I'm back from the store now (having bought rice for tomorrow), so, since I'm back, we can eat our spaghetti dinner." Or I'm back from buying rice in an attempt to save my wet cell phone, so now we can eat our steak dinner.
Does #2 imply that you're going to eat the rice? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's not certain. And it's not unequivocally certain whether we're going to now eat the rice that I just bought.
It certainly settles the matter because all that's needed is positive doubt.This is what all self-professed Traditional Catholics should at least think about any New Rite. But that might mean one cannot go to one's nearest FSSP, ICKSP or even SSPX mass. Or believe their favorite NO-ordained priest on the internet is not truly a priest.
This is what all self-professed Traditional Catholics should at least think about any New Rite. But that might mean one cannot go to one's nearest FSSP, ICKSP or even SSPX mass. Or believe their favorite NO-ordained priest on the internet is not truly a priest.I don't not wish to risk my soul on this 'maybe' so I will simply avoid NO 'priests'.