The following is my reply Fr. Cekada's rebuttal to Br. Ansgar, as found on pages 4 and 5 of the link that "X" provided.
Fr. Cekada: “Pius XII’s “Ambiguous” Formulas: Br. Ansgar sets out to demonstrate that the essential sacramental forms prescribed in Sacramentum Ordinis by Pius XII — yes, Pius XII — were ambiguous and thus invalid by the standard I applied to the Paul VI form.”
Comment: Here is the argument as presented by Br. Ansgar that he's referring to:
Br. Ansgar: “But that is not all: the traditional Latin formulas for the diaconate and episcopate taken together also fall short of Fr. Cekada’s required degree of univocity in a sacramental formula : the deacon is said to receive the Holy Spirit for “the work of the ministry” while the bishop receives the “fullness (summa ) . . . of your ministry”. Even though a bishop receives the plenitude of the sanctifying power of the priesthood, the formula itself does not say “priesthood”, but rather “ministry”, a generic term also used for the non-sanctifying (non-priestly) power of order a deacon receives. According to his own principles, how does Fr. Cekada know that the formula “plenitude of the ministry” univocally signifies a bishop and not an archdeacon, since diaconate is also, and even etymologically (diakonos—minister), ministry?
Comment: Before reading Fr. Cekada’s reply, be sure to notice what Br. Ansgar is asking. He wants to know how Fr. Cekada can be sure he the phrase “plenitude of the ministry” univocally signifies a bishop.. See if you can spot the sleight of hand Fr. Cekada uses:
Fr. Cekada: “Diaconate. The word “ministry,” Br. Ansgar argues, is used in the Pius XII forms for both diaconate and episcopacy. How, Br. Ansgar asks, does Fr. Cekada know that the formula for episcopal consecration 'makes a bishop and not an archdeacon'? Well, Fr. Cekada knows it because Rev. Francis Hürth SJ, one of the theologians who wrote Sacramentum Ordinis for Pius XII, explained exactly what the word “ministry” meant in the form for diaconal ordination: “No one can doubt that the word ‘ministry’ in this sentence is used in the full and technical sense corresponding to the Greek term diaconia (‘diaconii’), from which this whole Order derives its name ‘diaconate’.”
Comment: Notice what he just did. He answered by quoting an authority who explained what “ministry” meant in formula of ordination of a deacon. But that’s not what Br. Ansgar asked. He asked how Fr. Cekada knew that “the formula “plenitude of the ministry” univocally signifies a bishop.” Fr. Cekada avoided answering that altogether and therefore the question still stands. How does ministry univocally signify the office of bishop, when it is also used to refer to the deaconate?
He dodges a similar question again on page 5. This time by quoting the same authority, and then misrepresent what the quote said by claiming the authority "explained" what he did not explain:
Fr. Cekada: “Episcopacy. And finally, applying the same method to the form that Pius XII prescribed for episcopal consecration, Br. Ansgar claims: ‘But still, ‘”fullness of your ministry” does not in itself indicate that this ministerial fullness is specifically different from the non-priestly ministry the ordained had once received when he was ordained a deacon.’29
“And Fr. Hürth provides an explanation of these terms from the theologians who proposed as the essential form the passage that Pius XII finally adopted: 'The words which fully suffice for the power and the grace to be signified are found in the consecratory Preface, whose essential words are those in which the ‘fullness or totality’ of the sacerdotal ministry and the ‘raiment of all glory’ are expressed.'30
“So unless you follow the tenets of the weird modern theory in which an author has no 'privileged' insights into what his own writings mean, Fr. Hürth’s explanations of how and why the terms in the Pius XII forms are univocal [where did he explain that?] will suffice to defeat Br. Ansgar..."
Comment: Fr. Hurth did not answer Brother Ansgar’s questions by “explain[ing] how and why the terms in the Pius XI forma are univocal.” All he said is that they ‘fully suffice”, but without explaining how or why. But there’s something far more important to point out about Fr. Cekada’s reply.
Before seeing how Fr. Cekada has just refuted his own thesis, remember that this entire argument comes down to the meaning of Spiritus principalis and specifically whether it suffices to signify the sacramental effect – namely, the office of Bishop. Also remember that the reason Fr. Cekada claims it does not is because he discovered that “principalis” (like all other words), has more than one meaning, and then jumped to the conclusion that because of that it is ambiguous, and consequently cannot univocally signify the office of Bishop. But now comes the interesting part.
What did Fr. Cekada do when the same argument was put to him – i.e., that ministry has multiple meanings, and therefore does not univocally signify the sacramental effect? Did he turn to a dictionary (like he did with “principalem”) in an attempt to show that the word really only has one meaning (univocal)? No. That wouldn’t have worked. Instead, he turned to an authority who explained what the word ‘ministry’ was intended mean in that particular sentence (even though the explanation pertained to the form of ordination for a deacon, not a bishop).
The reason this is important is because it demonstrates that Fr. Cekada himself realizes that it doesn’t matter if a word has multiple meanings. What matters is the sense in which the word or phrase is “accepted and used by the Church” (as Pius XII) Therefore, all we need to do to demonstrate what the Church means by Spiritus Principalis is quote an authority who was involved in preparing the new rite.
For this, let us turn to the explanation for Spiritus Principalis given by Dom Botte, who was on the commission that prepared the New Rite – just as Fr. Cekada’s expert (Fr. Hurth) was involved in writing Sacramentum Ordinis - to find out what the term “Spiritus principalis” means. Remember, according to Fr. Cekada’s own reasoning and method, this should definitively settle the matter. And how much more so if the expert explains the meaning of the phrase in the correct context - Bishopric, not diaconate - and really does explain why it does suffice for validity, rather than simply saying so. Here is the explanation of Spiritus principalis given by Botte:
“The real question is this: among all the epithets that might have been suitable, why was principalis chosen? At this point it is necessary to broaden the investigation. The three orders [i.e., bishops, priests, and deacons] have a gift of the Holy Ghost, but it is not the same for each. For the bishop, it is the Spiritus principalis; for the priest, who forms the bishop’s council, it is the Spiritus consilii; and for the deacon, it is the Spiritus zeli et sollicitudinis. It is clear that these distinctions are made according to the functions of each minister. Thus it is clear that principalis must be correlated with the specific functions of the bishop (…) It can be concluded that the formula is certainly valid, for it has been utilized from time immemorial in numerous Eastern Rites; it means the gift of the Holy Ghost that creates the bishop." (Dom Bernard Botte, “Spiritus Principalis (formule de l’ordination episcopale),” Notitiae, 10 (1974), 410-11.)
There you have it. The testimony of an expert who was on the commission that prepared the new rite who explains what Spiritus principalis means - how it is accepted and used by the Church - and states that “it is certainly valid.”
By using Fr. Cekada’s own method for determining how an ambiguous word is to be understood when used in the context of the formula for ordination or consecration, we have just proven that his entire thesis against the validity of the new rite is “absolutely null and utterly void.”
Next we will look at the arguments of Rama Coomerswami, which may actually be worse than those of Fr. Cekada.