Author Topic: Question about New Rite of NO (Read 8027 times)

RomanTheo · « **Reply #45 on:** February 21, 2019, 05:34:33 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 20, 2019, 09:11:32 PM

In the beginning of Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII, reiterating the teaching of the Council of Trent, states: "the Church has no power over 'the substance of the Sacraments,' that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs." - http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf, p. 12.

Which is why putting your faith in Dom (the modernist) Botte's hands (or warped mind) is never a good idea. Even if you are sure that Paul VI was a true pope, he has no authority to vandalize the forms of the sacraments.”

Hello Clemens Maria,

I don’t think you understand what the quotation you provided means. Let me explain.

The substance of the sacraments refers to that which Christ himself established. In the case of Holy Orders, this consisted of two things: 1) the laying on of hands, which is the matter, and 2) a prayer, which is the form. But – and this is an important but – Christ did not determine the words of the prayer (as He did, for instance, in the case of Baptism and the double consecration at Mass), but instead left it to the Church to determine what words would be used. That explains why the prayer/form is so different in the various approved rites, without this fact having ever called into question their validity.

The only thing Christ established for the prayer/form is the meaning (substance), and there are two requirements that the words the Church choose must satisfy for them to sufficiently express the meaning (as required by Christ): the prayer must 1) call upon the Holy Ghost; and 2) it must specify the level of orders that is being conferred (diaconate, priesthood, or bishopric).

The reason for mentioning this because, in the case of Holy Orders, the “substance of the sacraments” only consists of the laying on of hands (matter) and the meaning (substance) of the prayer. That is the only thing “the Church has no power over,” since they alone were established by Christ.

Now, there is an important principle to keep in mind: ecclesiam quod statuit etiam mutare et abrogare valere - 'what the Church has established, she can also change and abrogate'. Since the Church established each and every word that of the prayer/form, she has the power to change each and every word of the prayer/form.

Pius XII invoked this principle when he taught the opposite of what was taught by the Council of Florence. The Council taught that the conveying of the traditional instruments was a necessary part of the “matter” for a valid ordination. Pius XII taught the contrary and justified the change by stating the traditional instruments were “not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, everyone knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.”

So, the quotation you provided about the Church having ‘no power over the substance of the sacraments’, has contributed nothing of worth to this discussion, nor has it refuted anything I’ve written. The words of the form can be changed. The questions is whether they meet the requirement of a valid form (the substance) by specifying the office of bishop.

Quote

Clemens Maria: So if the Novus Ordo Church accepts and uses the baptismal form, "I baptise you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier", then it is a valid form?
Why are all your authorities modernists? Dom Botte, Br Ansgar, Paul VI. And you have no respect for pre-Vatican 2 authorities. Hmmm.”

No, that would not be a valid form for baptism because both the matter and form for that sacrament were established by Christ 'in specie', not merely 'in genere’ as in the case of Holy Orders. Here’s a pre-Vatican II source that explains this:

“Granting that Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments, it does not necessarily follow that personally He determined all the details of the sacred ceremony, prescribing minutely every iota relating to the matter and the form to be used. It is sufficient (even for immediate institution) to say: Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined, e.g. to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

Since the matter and form for baptism was established by Christ, in specie, the Church cannot change it. But since the words of the form for the Sacraments of Holy Orders were established by the Church, the Church has the power to change them. (ecclesiam quod statuit etiam mutare et abrogare valere). And it should be noted that the form used in the new rite is not a new form. It is an ancient form that dates back to the earliest centuries - almost certainly to the days of the apostles – and is identical to the form found in other approved rites, the validity of which has never been in doubt.

More to come when time permits.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #46 on:** February 21, 2019, 07:52:35 PM »

Quote from: RomanTheo on February 21, 2019, 05:34:33 PM

So, the quotation you provided about the Church having ‘no power over the substance of the sacraments’, has contributed nothing of worth to this discussion, nor has it refuted anything I’ve written. The words of the form can be changed. The questions is whether they meet the requirement of a valid form (the substance) by specifying the office of bishop.

Can you give one example when the Church changed the words of the form for the consecration prayer prior to Vatican 2?

The Church also established the canon of Sacred Scripture. Are you saying the Church has the authority to change the canon of Sacred Scripture? Some things the Church has established are not reformable, correct? Why would an established form for a sacrament be reformable? The desire to change the form proves that in the mind of the reformers, the traditional form is defective. They actually believed that the Apostles gave us a less than perfect form. This despite the fact that the traditional form is extremely simple and easy to understand.

If Paul VI was a true pope then you would be arguing that Spiritum principalem signifies both calling on the Holy Ghost and the power of the episcopacy. I'm pretty sure you won't find that definition prior to V2. So they replaced an indubitably valid form with a novel term which they declared after the fact (5 years later) signified the power of the episcopacy. That would be an unforgivable scandal for a true pope.

But if Paul VI wasn't a true pope then you (the Conciliar Church) do not have any priesthood. Just like the Anglicans.

2Vermont · « **Reply #47 on:** February 22, 2019, 04:46:19 AM »

https://novusordowatch.org/2019/02/they-are-really-not-bishops-3/

RomanTheo · « **Reply #48 on:** February 22, 2019, 09:46:29 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 21, 2019, 07:52:35 PM

Can you give one example when the Church changed the words of the form for the consecration prayer prior to Vatican 2?

The Church also established the canon of Sacred Scripture. Are you saying the Church has the authority to change the canon of Sacred Scripture? Some things the Church has established are not reformable, correct? Why would an established form for a sacrament be reformable? The desire to change the form proves that in the mind of the reformers, the traditional form is defective. They actually believed that the Apostles gave us a less than perfect form. This despite the fact that the traditional form is extremely simple and easy to understand.

Not only can I show you that there’s been a change in the words of the form, but I bet I could convince you in less than three posts that Pius XII was an antipope and that his teaching on the matter and form of the sacrament or Orders is heretical. Ignorance and pride are a dangerous combination, and the person in whom both are found is very easy to deceive.

Let’s start with the matter and form as taught by the Council of Florence, in the Decree to the Armenians:

Pope Eugene IV, bull Exultate Deo (Decree to the Armeniams) Council of Florence: “The sixth is the sacrament of orders.Its matter is the object by whose handing over the order is conferred. So the priesthood is bestowed by the handing over of a chalice with wine and a paten with bread [these are known as the “traditional instruments”]; the diaconate by the giving of the book of the gospels; the subdiaconate by the handing over of an empty chalice with an empty paten on it; and similarly for the other orders by allotting things connected with their ministry. The form for a priest is: ‘Receive the power of offering sacrifice in the church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit’. The forms for the other orders are contained in full in the Roman pontifical. The ordinary minister of this sacrament is a bishop. The effect is an increase of grace to make the person a suitable minister of Christ.”

Compare that to what “Pope” Pius XII taught:

“As to the matter and form in the conferring of each Order, We of Our same supreme Apostolic Authority decree and provide as follows: (…) In the Ordination to the Priesthood, the matter is the first imposition off hands of the Bishop which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition through the extension of the right hand, nor the last imposition to which are attached the words: “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum: quorum remiseris peccata, etc.” And the form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity ‘Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, invest this Thy servant with the dignity of the Priesthood; do Thou renew in his heart the spirit of holiness, so that he may persevere in this office, which is next to ours in dignity, since he has received it from Thee, O God. May the example of his life lead others to moral uprightness’.”

Do you see any similarities at all between the matter and form as taught by the Council of Florence and that taught by Pius XII? The council of Florence taught that the matter was the conveying of the traditional instruments, Pius XII said it was the laying on of hands. And the words of form are entirely different. They aren’t even substantially the same, that is, they are not merely different words (accident) that convey the same meaning (substance). They are entirely different in both accidents and substance.

So who was right, Pius XII or the Council of Florence? Let’s see what St. Thomas wrote:

“The matter of this sacrament is that material thing by the giving of which the order is conferred: thus, the priesthood is conferred by the giving of the chalice; and each order is conferred by the giving of that thing which principally pertains to the duties of that order. The form of this sacrament is as follows: ‘Received power of offering sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead’.” (In Articulos Fidei et Sacramenta Ecclesiae Expositio, Parma, 1864, p. 121)

St. Thomas gives the same form as the Council of Florence, and he also states that the matter is the traditional instruments, but says it only consists in the passing of the chalice (not the paten). He teaches the same in his commentary on the Sentences:

“It belongs to one and the same cause both to induce a form and to render the matter immediately ready for the form. Hence a bishop in conferring Orders does two things: he prepares the ordinands to receive the Orders, and he confers the power of the Order (…) the conferring of power is effected by the delivery to them of something that pertains to their proper action; and because the principal act of a priest is to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, therefore the sacerdotal character is conferred at the delivery of the chalice [matter] with a set form of words” (In IV, Sentences., d. 24, q. 2, a. 3.)

St. Albert the Great likewise teaches that the matter of ordination to the priesthood consists in the conveying of the traditional instruments:

“A sacrament has for its matter that in which is shown forth by way of likeness its act and effect: but the acts of these orders are shown forth in the instruments which are delivered to them by the Bishop.

I could provide many more quotes that teach the same, but there's an even bigger problem for you to deal with.

In Iam dudum, Pope Benedict XII formally condemned numerous errors and heresies of the Armenians. Now keep in mind that the Armenians are the ones to whom the bull Exultate Deo, from the Council of Florence, was principally addressed – the bull which teaches that the matter or orders was the conveying of the traditional instruments (matter). Also keep in mind that “Pope” Pius XII said the orders of the diaconate and priesthood are conferred by the imposition of hands (matter), combined with the recitation of a certain prayer (the form) - the only difference being that when ordaining a deacon, the diaconate must be mentioned (at least with words that mean the deaconate), and when ordaining a priest, the presbyterate must be so signified by the words. That’s the only difference, according to Pius XII.

With all this in mind, brace yourself as your read the following error of the Armenians that was Benedict XII formally condemned a century before the Council of Florence:

“The order of presbyterate and diaconate are both conferred in the same way, namely, by the imposition of hands and by saying certain words only with this difference, that in the ordaining of a deacon the Order of the diaconate is mentioned, and in the ordaining of a priest the Order of the presbyterate” - CONDEMNED (Denzinger 547)

The error that Benedict XII condemned is precisely what Pius XII teaches in Sacramentum Ordinis.

So, the teaching of “Pope” Pius XII is not only contrary to tradition and the explicit teaching of the Council of Florence, but it has also been formally condemned by the Church.

If you applying your Sedevacantist “logic”, would you not have to conclude that Pius XII was an Antipope, and that the ordinations conferred according to what he wrote in Sacramentum Ordinis are invalid? If not, explain why.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #49 on:** February 22, 2019, 09:15:03 PM »

There was no change to the ceremony. All the elements with all the same meaning remained. Florence and Pope Pius XII changed nothing within the rite itself. If there was a change it was in the theology used to explain the rite which is external to the rite. In the worst case scenario you are making the argument that the popes actually moved the form and matter around within the rite. But I don't think that is the case. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains it thus:

Quote

Matter and form

In the question of the matter and form of this sacrament we must distinguish between the three higher orders and the subdiaconate and minor orders. The Church having instituted the latter, also determines their matter and form. With regard to the former, the received opinion maintains that the imposition of hands is the sole matter. This has been undoubtedly used from the beginning; to it, exclusively and directly, the conferring of grace is ascribed by St. Paul and many Fathers and councils. The Latin Church used it exclusively for nine or ten centuries, and the Greek Church to this day knows no other matter. Many scholastic theologians have held that the tradition of the instruments was the sole matter even for the strictly hierarchical orders, but this position has long been universally abandoned. Other scholastics held that both imposition of hands and the tradition of the instruments constitute the matter of the sacrament; this opinion still finds defenders. Appeal is made to the Decree of Eugene IV to the Armenians, but the pope spoke "of the integrating and accessory matter and form, which he wished Armenians to add to the imposition of hands, long since in use amongst them, that they might thus conform to the usage of the Latin Church, and more firmly adhere to it, by uniformity of rites" (Benedict XIV, "De syn. dioc.", VIII, x, 8). The real foundation of the latter opinion is the power of the Church with regard to the sacrament. Christ, it is argued, instituted the Sacrament of Order by instituting that in the Church there should be an external rite, which would of its own nature signify and confer the priestly power and corresponding grace. As Christ did not ordain His Apostles by imposition of hands, it would seem that He left to the Church the power of determining by which particular rite the power and grace should be conferred. The Church's determination of the particular rite would be the fulfilling of a condition required in order that the Divine institution should take effect. The Church determined the simple imposition of hands for the East and added, in the course of time, the tradition of the instruments for the West--changing its symbolical language according as circuмstances of place or time required.

The question of the form of the sacrament naturally depends on that of the matter. If the tradition of the instruments be taken as the total or partial matter, the words which accompany it will be taken as the form. If the simple imposition of hands be considered the sole matter, the words which belong to it are the form. The form which accompanies the imposition of hands contains the words "Accipe spiritum sanctum", which in the ordination of priests, however, are found with the second imposition of hands, towards the end of the Mass, but these words are not found in the old rituals nor in the Greek Euchology. Thus the form is not contained in these words, but in the longer prayers accompanying the former imposition of hands, substantially the same from the beginning. All that we have said about the matter and form is speculative; in practice, whatever has been prescribed by the Church must be followed, and the Church in this, as in other sacraments, insists that anything omitted should be supplied. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm "Holy Orders"

So, no, Pope Pius XII did nothing to jeopardize the validity of the sacrament. The same cannot be said of Paul VI. Even assuming for the sake of argument that he was a true pope, he didn't just move the form around within an existing rite, he substituted a concocted man-made rite in place of a rite that was in use since at least the 5th century. It is obvious from Fr. Pierre-Marie's article that the reformers did not take the tutiorist position. Rather they pressured the Congregation of the Faith and the Congregation of the Sacraments into going along with the novelty despite many questions which they brought up which Dom Botte was not able (or not willing) to answer. As it turns out Dom Botte's research was faulty and what he thought was a consecration rite was actually an installation rite. So how an installation rite could possibly contain a univocal form for a consecration is anyone's guess.

But again, if Paul VI was not a true pope, then your Novus Ordo Church has no priesthood. I wouldn't bet my salvation on Paul VI being a true pope. Archbishop Lefebvre understood that.

forlorn · « **Reply #50 on:** February 23, 2019, 06:31:17 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 22, 2019, 09:15:03 PM

There was no change to the ceremony. All the elements with all the same meaning remained. Florence and Pope Pius XII changed nothing within the rite itself. If there was a change it was in the theology used to explain the rite which is external to the rite. In the worst case scenario you are making the argument that the popes actually moved the form and matter around within the rite. But I don't think that is the case. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains it thus:

So, no, Pope Pius XII did nothing to jeopardize the validity of the sacrament. The same cannot be said of Paul VI. Even assuming for the sake of argument that he was a true pope, he didn't just move the form around within an existing rite, he substituted a concocted man-made rite in place of a rite that was in use since at least the 5th century. It is obvious from Fr. Pierre-Marie's article that the reformers did not take the tutiorist position. Rather they pressured the Congregation of the Faith and the Congregation of the Sacraments into going along with the novelty despite many questions which they brought up which Dom Botte was not able (or not willing) to answer. As it turns out Dom Botte's research was faulty and what he thought was a consecration rite was actually an installation rite. So how an installation rite could possibly contain a univocal form for a consecration is anyone's guess.

But again, if Paul VI was not a true pope, then your Novus Ordo Church has no priesthood. I wouldn't bet my salvation on Paul VI being a true pope. Archbishop Lefebvre understood that.

It's a bit of a lame excuse to dodge the issue and say "They only moved things around within the rite" - when that's exactly what the Armenians were condemned for doing. Of course you could argue that "Well, the Armenians didn't have the authority to alter the rite - the Church did". But why then could the Church not institute a new rite? You could say that altering a rite is different to instituting a new one, but the fact that we have many rites within the Church(and also many extinct ones) means that the Church must've instituted new rites in the past even when there were already existing traditional ones.

And even the question of validity itself is one I find issue with - does the Church not decide what is valid and what is not? And is it not a doctrine of the Church that its Masses and the ceremonies, vestments, etc. used therein CANNOT be blasphemous or calls to impiety(as a false Mass surely would be)? Why would that not apply to the Novus Ordo? Only answer I've heard on here to this is that it was instituted for the "Conciliar Church" not the "real Church", as if a valid Pope could somehow split his own Church in two without him even knowing, and then accidentally issue the Mass for the new fake Church he didn't even know existed.

Now, I'm no Novus Ordite. I don't think John XXIII and Paul VI were valid Popes, and therefore I don't think their Mass is valid. But I don't see how, if we suppose that they were valid Popes, how the new Mass can be invalid.

2Vermont · « **Reply #51 on:** February 23, 2019, 06:53:30 AM »

Quote from: forlorn on February 23, 2019, 06:31:17 AM

It's a bit of a lame excuse to dodge the issue and say "They only moved things around within the rite" - when that's exactly what the Armenians were condemned for doing. Of course you could argue that "Well, the Armenians didn't have the authority to alter the rite - the Church did". But why then could the Church not institute a new rite? You could say that altering a rite is different to instituting a new one, but the fact that we have many rites within the Church(and also many extinct ones) means that the Church must've instituted new rites in the past even when there were already existing traditional ones.

And even the question of validity itself is one I find issue with - does the Church not decide what is valid and what is not? And is it not a doctrine of the Church that its Masses and the ceremonies, vestments, etc. used therein CANNOT be blasphemous or calls to impiety(as a false Mass surely would be)? Why would that not apply to the Novus Ordo? Only answer I've heard on here to this is that it was instituted for the "Conciliar Church" not the "real Church", as if a valid Pope could somehow split his own Church in two without him even knowing, and then accidentally issue the Mass for the new fake Church he didn't even know existed.

Now, I'm no Novus Ordite. I don't think John XXIII and Paul VI were valid Popes, and therefore I don't think their Mass is valid. But I don't see how, if we suppose that they were valid Popes, how the new Mass can be invalid.

This is the issue, is it not? That is why the sudden change by the SSPX with respect to the Episcopal Consecration rite in 2005. That rite has to be certainly valid for Benedict XVI to have been a true pope (ie. the "Bishop of Rome"). That is why the SSPX since then have gone out of their way to try and convince others (and themselves) that it actually is a valid rite. I think it is great that the R&R folks agree that the NREC is at least doubtful and does all consecrations and ordinations in the Old Rite. However, they still have the contradiction that you bring up regarding how the Catholic Church can give us doubtful, harmful rites and masses.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #52 on:** February 23, 2019, 08:12:55 AM »

Quote from: forlorn on February 23, 2019, 06:31:17 AM

It's a bit of a lame excuse to dodge the issue and say "They only moved things around within the rite" - when that's exactly what the Armenians were condemned for doing. Of course you could argue that "Well, the Armenians didn't have the authority to alter the rite - the Church did". But why then could the Church not institute a new rite? You could say that altering a rite is different to instituting a new one, but the fact that we have many rites within the Church(and also many extinct ones) means that the Church must've instituted new rites in the past even when there were already existing traditional ones.

And even the question of validity itself is one I find issue with - does the Church not decide what is valid and what is not? And is it not a doctrine of the Church that its Masses and the ceremonies, vestments, etc. used therein CANNOT be blasphemous or calls to impiety(as a false Mass surely would be)? Why would that not apply to the Novus Ordo? Only answer I've heard on here to this is that it was instituted for the "Conciliar Church" not the "real Church", as if a valid Pope could somehow split his own Church in two without him even knowing, and then accidentally issue the Mass for the new fake Church he didn't even know existed.

Now, I'm no Novus Ordite. I don't think John XXIII and Paul VI were valid Popes, and therefore I don't think their Mass is valid. But I don't see how, if we suppose that they were valid Popes, how the new Mass can be invalid.

I’m not arguing that anything was moved. The ceremony has remained the same. Neither the Council of Florence nor Pope Pius XII changed anything in the rite. Only the theology was changed.
I would like to know how many Rites of Consecration the Church recognizes as being valid or at one time recognized as valid and what the status of those rites are today? I honestly don’t know. Do you? I suppose I should say I’m only interested in what pre-V2 theologians say about it. I consider the Conciliar Church to be a non-Catholic sect so I pay no attention to what they say.

forlorn · « **Reply #53 on:** February 23, 2019, 09:13:02 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 23, 2019, 08:12:55 AM

I’m not arguing that anything was moved. The ceremony has remained the same. Neither the Council of Florence nor Pope Pius XII changed anything in the rite. Only the theology was changed.
I would like to know how many Rites of Consecration the Church recognizes as being valid or at one time recognized as valid and what the status of those rites are today? I honestly don’t know. Do you? I suppose I should say I’m only interested in what pre-V2 theologians say about it. I consider the Conciliar Church to be a non-Catholic sect so I pay no attention to what they say.

I was referring to this with the moving part: "he didn't just move the form around within an existing rite." I wasn't trying to make an point there, I was just paraphrasing from memory. Sorry for the misrepresentation.

The current minority rites of the Church, such as the Byzantines and the Maronites, still have their own rites of Ordination and Consecration. And there are many extinct rites even within Europe which certainly had their own different Masses, although I don't know what their rites of Ordination were like.

The ceremony may not have changed, but the matter and form changing is a far bigger deal than the ceremony changing. And I can't find anything online to suggest that the ceremony may not be changed by the Church, whereas in the very article you linked it suggests that the ceremony is important BECAUSE it is instituted by the Church. Meaning that should the Church see fit to change it, it can.

Quote

As Christ did not ordain His Apostles by imposition of hands, it would seem that He left to the Church the power of determining by which particular rite the power and grace should be conferred. The Church's determination of the particular rite would be the fulfilling of a condition required in order that the Divine institution should take effect. The Church determined the simple imposition of hands for the East and added, in the course of time, the tradition of the instruments for the West--changing its symbolical language according as circuмstances of place or time required.

As we see here, the Church decided the rite and altered it over time.

Judith 15 Ten · « **Reply #54 on:** February 23, 2019, 09:42:38 AM »

New Rite Condemned by the Tradition of the Church

http://fsspx.news/en/content/32569

Archbishop Lefebvre gives here the theological reasons for which the SSPX has constantly opposed the Novus Ordo Missæ which came out of the Second Vatican Council.

We find a very enlightening synthesis in the collection of declarations by its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, The Mass of All Time. Likewise, in his Open Letter to Confused Catholics, published in 1985, the comparison between the old and the new Mass has lost nothing of its relevance, in spite of the desire of the Holy See to correct some abuses in the conciliar liturgy during the past few years.
The New Rite Already Judged

Extracts from The Mass of All Time
1. The judgement of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci

We are not judging the intention but the facts (and the consequences of these facts, similar incidentally, to those of past centuries where these reforms had been introduced) oblige us to acknowledge, along with Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci1 (Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, sent to the Holy Father on September 3, 1969) that the “Novus Ordo Missae […] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated [at] the Council of Trent”2
2. A new rite already condemned by several Popes and Councils

It is a conception more Protestant than Catholic which expresses everything which has been unduly exalted and everything which has been diminished.

Contrary to the teachings of the 22nd session of the Council of Trent, contrary to the encyclical Mediator Dei of Pius XII, the role of the faithful in the participation of the Mass has been exaggerated, and the role of the priest has been belittled to that of a mere president.

It has exaggerated the place given to the liturgy of the Word and lessened the place given to the propitiatory Sacrifice. It has exalted the communal meal and secularized it, at the expense of respect for and faith in the Real Presence effected by transubstantiation.

In suppressing the sacred language, it has pluralized the rites ad infinitum, profaning them by incorporating worldly or pagan elements, and it has spread false translations at the expense of the true faith and genuine piety of the faithful.

And yet the Councils of Florence3 and Trent4 had both declared anathemas against all of these changes, while affirming that our Mass in its Canon dated back to Apostolic times.

The popes St. Pius V and Clement VIII insisted on the necessity of avoiding changes and transformation and of preserving perpetually this Roman Rite hallowed by Tradition.

The desacralization of the Mass and its secularization lead to the laicization of the priesthood, in the Protestant manner5.

How can this reform of the Mass be reconciled with the canons of the Council of Trent and the condemnations in the Bull Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI6?
3. “It is Tradition which condemns them, not me”

I do not set myself up as a judge; I am nothing, I am merely an echo of a Magisterium which is clear, which is evident, which is in all of the books, the papal encyclicals, council docuмents, basically in all of the theological books prior to the Council. What is being said now does not at all conform with the Magisterium which has been professed for two thousand years. Therefore it is the Tradition of the Church, her Magisterium which condemns them. Not me!7
4. The traditional judgments of the Church on the Eucharist are definitive

As for our attitude vis-à-vis the liturgical reform and the breviary, we must hold fast to the affirmations of the Council of Trent. It is hard to see how to reconcile it with the liturgical reform. Yet the Council of Trent is a dogmatic, definitive Council and once the Church has made a definitive pronouncement on certain matters, another council may not change these definitions. Without this no more truth is possible!

Faith is something which is unchangeable. When the Church has presented it with all of her authority, there is an obligation to believe it to be immutable. Now, if the Council of Trent went to the trouble of adding anathemas to all of the verities concerning the sacraments and the liturgy, it was not for nothing. How can they behave so casually, as if the Council of Trent no longer exists and say that Vatican II has the same authority and consequently can change everything? We might just as well change our Credo which dates from the Council of Nicea, which is much more ancient, because Vatican II has the same authority and is more important than the Council of Nicea…

It is our duty to be firm about these things, and this is the strongest response we can make to the liturgical reform: it goes against the absolutely definitive and dogmatic definitions of the Council of Trent8.
5. An avowal by Paul VI

Here is an interesting little fact which illustrates what Paul VI thought of the changes in the Mass. (…) Jean Guitton asked him: “Why would you not accept that the priests at Ecône continue to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V? It was what was said before. I do not see why the seminary is refused the ancient Mass. Why not allow them to celebrate it?” The response given by Paul VI is very significant. He replied: “No, if we grant the Mass of St. Pius V to the Society of St. Pius X, all that we have gained through Vatican II will be lost9.” (…) It is extraordinary that the pope could see the ruin of Vatican II in the return of the ancient Mass. It was an incredible revelation! This is why the liberals wanted so much for us to say this Mass which represents for them a totally different concept of the Church. The Mass of St. Pius V is not liberal, it is anti-liberal and anti-ecuмenical. Therefore it cannot conform to the spirit of Vatican II10.
Holy Sacrifice or Eucharistic meal?

Extract from Open Letter to Confused Catholics.

In preparation for the 1981 Eucharistic Congress, a questionnaire was distributed, the first question of which was: “Of these two definitions: ‘The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass’ and ‘Eucharistic Meal’, which one do you adopt spontaneously?” There is a great deal that could be said about this way of questioning Catholics, giving them to some extent the choice and appealing to their private judgment on a subject where spontaneity has no place. The definition of the Mass is not chosen in the same way that one chooses a political party.

Alas! The insinuation does not result from a blunder on the part of the person who drew up the questionnaire. One has to accept that the liturgical reform tends to replace the idea and the reality of the Sacrifice by the reality of a meal. That is how one comes to speak of Eucharistic celebration, or of a “Supper”; but the expression “Sacrifice” is much less used. It has almost totally disappeared from catechism handbooks just as it has from sermons. It is absent from Canon II, attributed to St. Hippolytus.

This tendency is connected with what we have discovered concerning the Real Presence: if there is no longer a sacrifice, there is no longer any need for a victim. The victim is present in view of the sacrifice. To make of the Mass a memorial or fraternal meal is the Protestant error. What happened in the sixteenth century? Precisely what is taking place today. Right from the start they replaced the altar by a table, removed the crucifix from it, and made the “president of the assembly” turn around to face the congregation. The setting of the Protestant Lord’s Supper is found in Pierres Vivantes, the prayer book prepared by the bishops in France which all children attending catechism are obliged to use:

“Christians meet together to celebrate the Eucharist. It is the Mass... They proclaim the faith of the Church, they pray for the whole world, they offer the bread and the wine. The priest who presides at the assembly says the great prayer of thanksgiving.”
Now in the Catholic religion it is the priest who celebrates Mass; it is he who offers the bread and wine. The notion of president has been borrowed directly from Protestantism. The vocabulary follows the change of ideas. Formerly, we would say, “Cardinal Lustiger will celebrate a Pontifical Mass.” I am told that at Radio Notre Dame, the phrase used at present is, “Jean-Marie Lustiger will preside at a concelebration.” Here is how they speak about Mass in a brochure issued by the Conference of Swiss Bishops: “The Lord’s Supper achieves firstly communion with Christ. It is the same communion that Jesus brought about during His life on earth when He sat at table with sinners, and has been continued in the Eucharistic meal since the day of the Resurrection. The Lord invites His friends to come together and He will be present among them.”

To that every Catholic is obliged to reply in a categorical manner, “NO! the Mass is not that!” It is not the continuation of a meal similar to that which Our Lord invited Saint Peter and a few of his disciples one morning on the lakeside, after His Resurrection. “When they came to land they saw a charcoal fire there and a fish laid thereon and bread. Jesus said to them, come and dine. And none of them durst ask Him, ‘Who art thou?,’ knowing that it was the Lord. And Jesus cometh and taketh the bread and giveth them, and fish in like manner” (John 21: 9-13).

The communion of the priest and the faithful is a communion to the Victim Who has offered Himself up on the altar of sacrifice. This is of solid stone; if not it contains at least the altar stone which is a stone of sacrifice. Within are laid relics of the martyrs because they have offered their blood for their Master. This communion of the Blood of Our Lord with the blood of the martyrs encourages us also to offer up our lives.

If the Mass is a meal, I understand the priest turning towards the congregation. One does not preside at a meal with one’s back to the guests. But a sacrifice is offered to God, not to the congregation. This is the reason why the priest as the head of the faithful turns toward God and the crucifix over the altar.

At every opportunity emphasis is laid on what the New Sunday Missal calls the “Narrative of the Institution.” The Jean-Bart Centre, the official centre for the Archdiocese of Paris, states, “At the center of the Mass, there is a narrative.” Again, no! The Mass is not a narrative; it is an action.

Three indispensable conditions are needed for it to be the continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross: the oblation of the victim, the transubstantiation which renders the victim present effectively and not symbolically, and the celebration by a priest, consecrated by his priesthood, in place of the High Priest Who is Our Lord.

Likewise the Mass can obtain the remission of sins. A simple memorial, a narrative of the institution accompanied by a meal, would be far from sufficient for this. All the supernatural virtue of the Mass comes from its relationship to the Sacrifice of the Cross. If we no longer believe that, then we no longer believe anything about Holy Church, the Church would no longer have any reason for existing, we would no longer claim to be Catholics. Luther understood very clearly that the Mass is the heart and soul of the Church. He said: “Let us destroy the Mass and we shall destroy the Church.”

Now we can see that the Novus Ordo Missae, that is to say, the New Order adopted after the Council, has been drawn up on Protestant lines, or at any rate dangerously close to them. For Luther, the Mass was a sacrifice of praise, that is to say, an act of praise, an act of thanksgiving, but certainly not an expiatory sacrifice which renews and applies the Sacrifice of the Cross. For him, the Sacrifice of the Cross took place at a given moment of history, it is the prisoner of that history; we can only apply to ourselves Christ’s merits by our faith in His death and resurrection. Contrarily, the Church maintains that this Sacrifice is realized mystically upon our altars at each Mass, in an unbloody manner by the separation of the Body and the Blood under the species of bread and wine. This renewal allows the merits of the Cross to be applied to the faithful there present, perpetuating this source of grace in time and in space. The Gospel of St. Matthew ends with these words: “And behold, I am with you all days, even until the end of the world.”

The difference in conception is not slender. Efforts are being made to reduce it, however, by the alteration of Catholic doctrine of which we can see numerous signs in the liturgy.

Luther said, “Worship used to be addressed to God as a homage. Henceforth it will be addressed to man to console and enlighten him. The sacrifice used to have pride of place but the sermon will supplant it.” That signified the introduction of the Cult of Man, and, in the Church, the importance accorded to the “Liturgy of the Word.” If we open the new missals, this revolution has been accomplished in them too. A reading has been added to the two which existed, together with a “universal prayer” often utilized for propagating political or social ideas; taking the homily into account, we often end up with a shift of balance towards the “word.” Once the sermon is ended, the Mass is very close to its end.

Within the Church, the priest is marked with an indelible character which makes of him an alter Christus: he alone can offer the Holy Sacrifice. Luther considered the distinction between clergy and laity as the “first wall raised up by the Romanists”; all Christians are priests, the pastor is only exercising a function in presiding at the Evangelical Mass. In the Novus Ordo, the “I” of the celebrant has been replaced by “we”; it is written everywhere that the faithful “celebrate,” they are associated with the acts of worship, they read the epistle and occasionally the Gospel, give out Communion, sometimes preach the homily, which may be replaced by “a dialogue by small groups upon the Word of God,” meeting together beforehand to “construct” the Sunday celebration. But this is only a first step; for several years we have heard of those responsible for diocesan organizations who have been putting forward propositions of this nature: “It is not the ministers but the assembly who celebrate” (handouts by the National Center for Pastoral Liturgy), or “The assembly is the prime subject of the liturgy”; what matters is not the “functioning of the rites but the image the assembly gives to itself and the relationship the co-celebrants create between themselves” (Fr. Gelineau, architect of the liturgical reform and professor at the Paris Catholic Institute). If it is the assembly which matters then it is understandable that private Masses should be discredited, which means that priests no longer say them because it is less and less easy to find an assembly, above all during the week. It is a breach with the unchanging doctrine: the Church needs a multiplicity of Sacrifices of the Mass, both for the application of the Sacrifice of the Cross and for all the objects assigned to it, adoration, thanksgiving, propitiation, and impetration.

As if that were not enough, the objective of some is to eliminate the priest entirely, which has given rise to the notorious SAAP (Sunday Assemblies in the Absence of the Priest). We can imagine the faithful gathering to pray together in order to honor the Lord’s Day; but these SAAP are in reality a sort of “dry Mass,” lacking only the consecration; and the lack, as one can read in a docuмent of the Regional Center for Social and Religious Studies at Lille, is only because “until further instructions lay people do not have the power to carry out this act.” The absence of the priest may even be intentional “so that the faithful can learn to manage for themselves.” Fr. Gelineau in Demain la Liturgie writes that the SAAP are only an “educational transition until such time as mentalities have changed,” and he concludes with disconcerting logic that there are still too many priests in the Church, “too many doubtless for things to evolve quickly.”

Luther suppressed the Offertory; Why offer the pure and Immaculate Host if there is no more sacrifice? In the French Novus Ordo the Offertory is practically non-existent; besides which it no longer has this name. The New Sunday Missal speaks of the “prayers of presentation.” The formula used reminds one more of a thanksgiving, a thank-you, for the fruits of the earth. To realize this fully, it is sufficient to compare it with the formulas traditionally used by the Church in which clearly appears the propitiatory and expiatory nature of the Sacrifice “which I offer Thee for my innumerable sins, offenses and negligence, for all those here present and for all Christians living and dead, that it may avail for my salvation and theirs for eternal life.” Raising the chalice, the priest then says, “We offer Thee, Lord, the chalice of Thy redemption, imploring Thy goodness to accept it like a sweet perfume into the presence of Thy divine Majesty for our salvation and that of the whole world.”

What remains of that in the New Mass? This: “Blessed are You, Lord, God of the universe, You who give us this bread, fruit of the earth and work of human hands. We offer it to You; it will become the bread of life,” and the same for the wine which will become “our spiritual drink.” What purpose is served by adding, a little further on: “Wash me of my faults, Lord. Purify me of my sin,” and “may our sacrifice today find grace before You”? Which sin? Which sacrifice? What connection can the faithful make between this vague presentation of the offerings and the redemption that he is looking forward to? I will ask another question: Why substitute for a text that is clear and whose meaning is complete, a series of enigmatic and loosely bound phrases? If a need is found for change, it should be for something better. These incidental phrases which seem to make up for the insufficiency of the “prayers of presentation” remind us of Luther, who was at pains to arrange the changes with caution. He retained as much as possible of the old ceremonies, limiting himself to changing their meaning. The Mass, to a great extent, kept its external appearance, the people found in the churches nearly the same setting, nearly the same rites, with slight changes made to please them, because from then on people were consulted much more than before; they were much more aware of their importance in matters of worship, taking a more active part by means of chant and praying aloud. Little by little Latin gave way to German.

Doesn’t all this remind you of something? Luther was also anxious to create new hymns to replace “all the mumblings of popery”. Reforms always adopt the appearance of a cultural revolution.

In the Novus Ordo the most ancient parts of the Roman Canon which goes back to apostolic times has been reshaped to bring it closer to the Lutheran formula of consecration, with both an addition and a suppression. The translation in French has gone even further by altering the meaning of the words pro multis. Instead of “My blood which shall be shed for you and for many,” we read “which shall be shed for you and for the multitude.” This does not mean the same thing and theologically is not without significance.

You may have noticed that most priests nowadays recite as one continuous passage the principal part of the Canon which begins, “the night before the Passion He took bread in His holy hands,” without observing the pause implied by the rubric of the Roman Missal: “Holding with both hands the host between the index finger and the thumb, he pronounces the words of the Consecration in a low but distinct voice and attentively over the host.” The tone changes, becomes intimatory, the five words “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum,” operate the miracle of transubstantiation, as do those that are said for the consecration of the wine. The new Missal asks the celebrant to keep to the narrative tone of voice as if he were indeed proceeding with a memorial. Creativity being now the rule, we see some celebrants who recite the text while showing the Host all around or even breaking it in an ostentatious manner so as to add the gesture to their words and better illustrate their text. The two genuflections out of the four having been suppressed, those which remain being sometimes omitted, we have to ask ourselves if the priest in fact has the feeling of consecrating, even supposing that he really does have the intention to do so.

RomanTheo · « **Reply #55 on:** February 23, 2019, 04:35:43 PM »

Quote

Forlorn: The ceremony may not have changed, but the matter and form changing is a far bigger deal than the ceremony changing. And I can't find anything online to suggest that the ceremony may not be changed by the Church, whereas in the very article you linked it suggests that the ceremony is important BECAUSE it is instituted by the Church. Meaning that should the Church see fit to change it, it can.

Exactly right. The Church has the authority to change or abrogate whatever she herself has established, just as Pius XII himself says in Sacramentus Ordinis And for the sacrament of orders, that includes everything except the laying on of hands and the meaning that the form must express.

Quote

Clemens Maria: Paul VI (…) substituted a concocted man-made rite in place of a rite that was in use since at least the 5th century.

It looks like you’ve done some research since your previous post and discovered that the “Traditional rite” is not quite as traditional as you thought. The 5^th century is a long time after the apostolic age, wouldn’t you agree?

The question that naturally comes to mind next is what rite was used before the man-made rite of the 5^th century was concocted? Or, even better, what rite was used by the apostles? As luck would have it, a liturgical book written in the early 200’s has survived until our day. And what’s more, the express purpose of the book was to docuмenting the rites as they were celebrated by the Apostles themselves. The book was written by St. Hippolytus, who was a disciple of St. Irenaues, who himself was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

One thing of interest about the apostolic rites is that they were very simple. The man-made rites that were concocted by men centuries later are much more elaborate. There’s no question that the more solemn and majestic rites give greater glory to God (which is one of the reason men concocted them), but during the days of persecution, it was necessary that the rites remain simple.

Before looking at the simple rite that the apostles used for consecrating a bishop, let's read read something you wrote:

Quote

Clement-Maria: If Paul VI was a true pope then you would be arguing that Spiritum principalem signifies both calling on the Holy Ghost and the power of the episcopacy. I'm pretty sure you won't find that definition prior to V2. So they replaced an indubitably valid form with a novel term which they declared after the fact (5 years later) signified the power of the episcopacy. That would be an unforgivable scandal for a true pope.

Here’s the rite of episcopal consecration used by the apostles. The form is the part in bold.

“Let the bishop be ordained after he has been chosen by all the people. When he has been named and shall please all, let him, with the presbytery and such bishops as may be present, assemble with the people on a Sunday. While all give their consent, the bishops shall lay their hands upon him, and the presbytery shall stand by in silence. All indeed shall keep silent, praying in their heart for the descent of the Spirit. Then one of the bishops who are present shall, at the request of all, lay his hand on him who is [to be] ordained bishop, and shall pray as follows, saying:

‘God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who dwellest on high yet hast respect to the lowly, who knowest all things before they come to pass. Thou hast appointed the borders of thy church by the word of thy grace, predestinating from the beginning the righteous race of Abraham. And making them princes and priests, and leaving not thy sanctuary without a ministry, thou hast from the beginning of the world been well pleased to be glorified among those whom thou hast chosen. Pour forth now that power, which is thine, of thy royal Spirit [Spiritus Principalis!], which thou gavest to thy beloved Servant Jesus Christ, which he bestowed on his holy apostles, who established the church in every place, the church which thou hast sanctified unto unceasing glory and praise of thy name. Thou who knowest the hearts of all, grant to this thy servant, whom thou hast chosen to be bishop, [to feed thy holy flock] and to serve as thy high priest without blame, ministering night and day, to propitiate thy countenance without ceasing and to offer thee the gifts of thy holy church. And by the Spirit of high-priesthood to have authority to remit sins according to thy commandment, to assign the lots according to thy precept, to loose every bond according to the authority which thou gavest to thy apostles, and to please thee in meekness and purity of heart, offering to thee an odour of sweet savour. Through thy Servant Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom be to thee glory, might, honour, with [the] Holy Spirit in [the] holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen'." (The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hyppolitus).

Notice any Latin words of interest in the form used by the apostles? Looks like Spiritus Principalis isn’t such a novel term after all, doesn’t it?

Now let’s look at the form that’s used in the new rite of Paul VI. See if you can spot any similarities:

“And now pour forth on this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit (Spiritus Principalis), whom you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ, whom he gave to the holy Apostles, who founded the Church in every place as your sanctuary, unto the glory and unending praise of your name."

It is identical. The form used in the new rite was not invented. It was taken directly from the most ancient ordination rite known to exist, and which was almost certainly used by the apostles. And it includes the word Spiritus Principalis, which Fr. Cekada claims is too ambiguous to suffice.

And the identical form is found in other ancient rites as well – rites that precede the “Traditional” Novus Ordo rite that was concocted by men in the 5^th century, by hundreds of years. There is not the slightest doubt whatsoever about the validity of the new rite.

All anyone needs to do to realize that Fr. Cekada’s specious arguments are erroneous, is apply them to the form used in the Traditional Rite. Anyone who does so honestly will be forced to conclude that it does not meet Fr. Cekada’s criterion for validity. And since no one doubts the validity of the Traditional rite, this alone will prove that his arguments are erroneous, without having to understand why they are erroneous.

X · « **Reply #56 on:** February 23, 2019, 05:19:20 PM »

Response from Fr. Cekada-

Dear X,
I don’t intervene in forums anymore because of the press of other duties.
The answer to the guy’s objection is in section VI.D of my original article: Whatever spiritus principalis may mean, it does not even equivocally signify the Sacrament of Orders, still less, the episcopal order.
Without that univocal signification, a form for the conferral of Holy Orders is invalid, for Pius XII taught that a form must contain both (1) the grace of the Holy Ghost and (2) the Power of the order being conferred.
Fr. Cekada

Having read the section Fr. Cekada references, I think I should also add Section VI. A.

Absolutely Null and Utterly Void

The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration

— Rev. Anthony Cekada —

www.traditionalmass.org

VI. Power of the Episcopacy?

Question: Does the new sacramental form univocally signify the sacramental effects — the power of Order (the episcopacy) and the grace of the Holy Ghost? These are the criteria Pius XII laid down for the sacramental form. Here again is the new form of Paul VI to which we will apply them: “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.”47 The form does seem to signify the grace of the Holy Ghost. But “governing Spirit”? Lutheran, Methodist and Mormon bishops also govern. Can such a term univocally signify the power of Order conferred — the fullness of the priesthood? The expression governing Spirit — Spiritus principalis in Latin — is at the heart of the dispute over the validity of the new rite, for if it does not signify the fullness of the priesthood that constitutes the episcopacy, the sacrament is invalid.

A. Early Doubts about Validity

The casual reader will of course be tempted to dismiss this as some crackpot traditionalist fever dream. But forty years ago, even before the new rite was promulgated, a member of the study group that created the new rite of episcopal consecration raised just this issue. In an October 14, 1966 memo, Bishop Juan Hervás y Benet (1905-1982), the Ordinary of Ciudad Real (Spain) and a promoter of Opus Dei, wrote to fellow study group members: “It would be necessary to establish undeniably that the new form better and more perfectly signifies the sacramental action and its effect. That is to say, that it should be established in no uncertain terms that it contains no ambiguity, and that it omits nothing from among the principal charges which are proper to the episcopal order.… A doubt occurs to me concerning the words ‘Spiritus principalis’; do these words adequately signify the sacrament?”48 Whether he received an answer is not recorded. But consider what the bishop’s question implied at the time for anyone with serious theological training: Will introducing this expression in the form expose the sacrament to the risk of invalidity? After Paul VI promulgated the new rite for Holy Orders in June 1968, it had to be translated into various modern languages. The expression Spiritus principalis immediately caused problems. The first official English translation rendered it as “excellent Spirit”; French, as “the Spirit that makes chiefs” or “leaders”; German, as “the spirit of a guide.” These expressions probably led some of the more conservative bishops at the time to fear for the apostolic succession, because Rome suddenly issued two declarations on the translation of sacramental forms within three months (October 1973 and January 1974).49 The latter declaration from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, moreover, was reprinted in Notitiae (the official publication of the Congregation for Divine Worship), accompanied by a rather strange commentary. The author, a Dominican, specifically mentioned Pius XII’s 1947 Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, the “substance of the sacraments,” how each new sacramental formula “continues to signify the special grace conferred by the sacrament,” and the need to “preserve the validity of the sacramental rite.”50 A coincidence? In the same issue of Notitiae, about a dozen pages later, we come across a short article by Dom Bernard Botte OSB explaining the meaning of — surprise! — Spiritus principalis. Clearly, this Latin expression had a lot of people worried.

_______________________

Footnotes:

47. ICEL translation. “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.

48. German Liturgical Institute (Trier), Kleinheyer file, B 117; cited PierreMarie, “Why the New Rite…” (Jan 2005), 15. My emphasis.

49. SC Divine Worship, Circular Letter Dum Toto Terrarum, 25 October 1973, AAS 66 (1974) 98–9; SC Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Instauratio Liturgica, 25 January 1974, AAS 66 (1974), 661. The second docuмent explained that when the Holy See approves a translation, it judges that it “rightly expresses the meaning intended by the Church,” but that it also stipulates that the translation “is to be understood in accord with the mind of the Church as expressed by the original Latin text.” This statement is bizarre. A translation either conveys the substantial meaning of the Latin or it does not. If the latter, it is invalid no matter what anyone “stipulates” — except Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass: 'When I use a word… 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

50. B. Douroux, “Commentarium,” Notitiae 10 (1974), 394-5. “purché la nuova formula continui a significare la grazia speciale conferita dal sacramento.”

D. Univocally Signify the Effect?

We now begin to apply a few more of our criteria from section I. Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis declared that the form for Holy Orders must “univocally signify the sacramental effects — that is, the power of the Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.”66 The new form fails on two of these points.

(1) Not Univocal. The expression governing Spirit is not univocal — that is, it is not a term that signifies only one thing,67 as Pius XII required. Rather, as we demonstrated above, the expression is ambiguous — capable of signifying many different things and persons. We do, among its various meanings, find one meaning connoting the Holy Ghost — but not in a sense exclusively limited to bishops. Coptic abbots, King David, and virtuous leaders can all receive this governing Spirit.

(2) No Power of Order. Among these many different meanings, however, we do not find the power of Order (potestas Ordinis) of the episcopacy. The expression governing Spirit does not even equivocally connote the Sacrament of Holy Orders in any sense. Still less does it connote what the theologians who advised Pius XII said the sacramental form for conferring the episcopate must express: the “fullness of the priesthood of Christ in the episcopal office and order” or the “’fullness or totality’ of the priestly ministry.”68 One of the constituent elements for a form capable of conferring the order is therefore absent. So, we have an answer to the question with which we began this section: Does the new sacramental form univocally signify the sacramental effects — the power of Order (the episcopacy) and the grace of the Holy Ghost? The answer is no.

________________________

Footnotes:

66. Sacr. Ord. DZ 2301. ¶4. “quibus univoce significantur effectus sacramentales — scilicet potestas Ordinis et gratia Spiritus Sancti.”

67. Forcellini, Lexicon 8:869. “proprie de eo qui unius est vocis… cui multivocus vel plurivocus opponitur.… ‘Univoca (sunt) quae sub eodem nomine et sub eadem substantia continentur.’”

68. F. Hürth, “Commentarius ad Cons. Apostolicam Sacramentum Ordinis,” Periodica 37 (1948), 31–2. “plenitudinem sacerdotii Christi in munere et ordine episcopali.” “’summa seu totalitas’ ministerii sacerdotalis.”

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #57 on:** February 24, 2019, 12:09:06 PM »

It borders on the patently ridiculous to say the ancient rite in the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolýtus is invalid. If so, the Coptic and West Syrian rites are invalid as well. And even using some of Fr. Cekada's widely exaggerated criteria (which is not at all a correct summary of Pope Pius XII; and which if applied to other ancient valid eastern rites would lead to similar wròng conclusoons that they were valid), this rite likely fulfils even those! Just see the number of allusions to the specific power of the episcopacy/high priesthood/shepherds of the flock/bishops. It is liturgy and ancient rites that inform sacramental theology, not the other way around.

"Let the bishop be ordained after he has been chosen by all the people. When he has been named and shall please all, let him, with the presbytery and such bishops as may be present, assemble with the people on a Sunday. While all give their consent, the bishops shall lay their hands upon him, and the presbytery shall stand by in silence. All indeed shall keep silent, praying in their heart for the descent of the Spirit. Then one of the bishops who are present shall, at the request of all, lay his hand on him who is [to be] ordained bishop, and shall pray as follows, saying:

‘God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who dwellest on high yet hast respect to the lowly, who knowest all things before they come to pass. Thou hast appointed the borders of thy church by the word of thy grace, predestinating from the beginning the righteous race of Abraham. And making them princes and priests, and leaving not thy sanctuary without a ministry, thou hast from the beginning of the world been well pleased to be glorified among those whom thou hast chosen. Pour forth now that power, which is thine, of thy royal Spirit, which thou gavest to thy beloved Servant Jesus Christ, which he bestowed on his holy apostles, who established the church in every place, the church which thou hast sanctified unto unceasing glory and praise of thy name. Thou who knowest the hearts of all, grant to this thy servant, whom thou hast chosen to be bishop, [to feed thy holy flock] and to serve as thy high priest without blame, ministering night and day, to propitiate thy countenance without ceasing and to offer thee the gifts of thy holy church. And by the Spirit of high-priesthood to have authority to remit sins according to thy commandment, to assign the lots according to thy precept, to loose every bond according to the authority which thou gavest to thy apostles, and to please thee in meekness and purity of heart, offering to thee an odour of sweet savour. Through thy Servant Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom be to thee glory, might, honour, with [the] Holy Spirit in [the] holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen'." (The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hyppolitus).

Fr. Cekada's claim is that the specific power of episcopal authority is not mentioned here. Unfortunately, that seems plainly erroneous.

1. The rite asks for the Spirit given by Christ to His holy Apostles. Will any one whomsoever venture to doubt that the Apostles were Bishops? Incredible! If not, the specific order is mentioned.

2. Mention is also made of high priesthood [summus sacerdos] which is just another term sacred Tradition, the Fathers and ancient liturgies use for the episcopacy. By analogy with the three grades of order that existed in ancient Israel, the deacons are levites, simple priests are priests and bishops are high priests. It is clear in the rite above that the specific grace of the Spirit of the High Priesthood or the Episcopal Authority given to the Apostles is being conferred. It is not doubtful that high priesthood is univocal. Simple priests are not high priests. Therefore, the rite is valid.

3. Finally, Our Lord Jesus is Himself the Great High Priest and Chief Shepherd of the flock. The Father annointed and consecrated Him as such. The Lord said He gives to the Apostles the authority His Father gave Him. In the rite above, though the specific mention of the Spirit given to the Apostles should by itself settle the matter that this is a clear reference to episcopal power, the portion "thy royal Spirit, which thou gavest to thy beloved Servant Jesus Christ, which he bestowed on his holy apostles" only renders it even more certain, as Jesus certainly was the great High Priest, just as His Apostles were certainly Bishops. Both are not doubtful at all.

So, the allegation that there is no specific mention of the episcopacy here seems wrong.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #58 on:** February 24, 2019, 11:29:44 PM »

Quote

RomanTheo wrote:
The question that naturally comes to mind next is what rite was used before the man-made rite of the 5^th century was concocted? Or, even better, what rite was used by the apostles? As luck would have it, a liturgical book written in the early 200’s has survived until our day. And what’s more, the express purpose of the book was to docuмenting the rites as they were celebrated by the Apostles themselves. The book was written by St. Hippolytus, who was a disciple of St. Irenaues, who himself was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

Please cite a reference for your position that a new consecration rite was concocted in the 5th century.

Also, below (Section V) is what Fr. Cekada has to say about St. Hippolytus and The Apostolic Tradition which is supposed to have been written by him, but I'm also including Section IV first because it has been argued that the 1968 NREC form is essentially an Eastern Rite form.

Quote

IV. An Eastern Rite Form?

Question: Was the new form employed in a Catholic Eastern Rite as the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy?

If so, this would be the strongest evidence for arguing that the new form is valid. One could demonstrate that it therefore met the criteria Pius XII enunciated regarding the form for Holy Orders, because it would already be among the words “accepted and used by the Church in that sense.” [20]

[20. Sacr. Ord., DZ 2301, ¶4: “quaequae ab Ecclesia qua talia accipiuntur et usurpantur."]

In his Apostolic Constitution promulgating the new rite, Paul VI says that new Preface for Episcopal Consecration is taken from The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (a docuмent we shall discuss in section V), which continues to be used “in large part” for episcopal consecrations by two Catholic Eastern Rites in particular: the Coptic and the West Syrian.

And indeed on this basis, Fr. Pierre-Marie argued: “The utilization of the form that is in use in two certainly valid Eastern rites assures its validity.” [21]

[21. “Why the New Rite...” (Jan 2005), 10.]

But is the factual claim really true? Is the Paul VI form indeed in use in two Eastern Rites?

All one need do is (1) ascertain from theology books which Eastern Rite consecration prayers are considered the sacramental forms, (2) look up those texts, and (3) compare them with the Paul VI form.

Two general points immediately emerge to defeat the Eastern Rite argument:

(1) The sacramental form that Paul VI prescribed for conferring the episcopacy consists of merely one sentence. Eastern Rite forms, however, consist of a whole prayer, or even a series of prayers, several hundred words long.

So on the face of it, the Paul VI form — a mere 42 words long in Latin — cannot be described as a form “in use in two certainly valid Eastern Rites.”

(2) Nor could one even claim that the entire Paul VI Preface of Episcopal Consecration (212 words long in Latin) is somehow a form “in use in two certainly valid Eastern Rites.” The Preface does indeed contain some phrases found in Eastern Rite forms — but there are significant omissions and variations. It is still not identical to any one of them.

So on both counts, the new form cannot be among the words “accepted and used by the Church” as a sacramental form for Holy Orders.

Here are some of the details.

A. Coptic Rite Form?

This uniate group descends from monophysite heretics (= Christ has only one nature), who, after the Council of Chalcedon (451) went into schism, led by the Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt, and then went into a long decline. (See Appendix.)

By the 19th century, enough Copts had renounced their errors and submitted to the pope for the Holy See to organize them into their own uniate Rite.

In 1898 their Synod decreed that, for the three major orders in the Coptic Rite, “the form is the actual prayer which the ordaining bishop recites while imposing hands on the ordinand.” [22] The 19th-century dogmatic theologian Heinrich Denzinger, best known for his Enchiridion Symbolorum, a collection of dogmatic texts, also published a collection of Eastern Rite liturgical texts, the Ritus Orientalium. In his lengthy introduction to this work, Denzinger further specifies that the sacramental form for episcopal consecration in the Coptic Rite “is the prayer Qui es, Dominator, Deus omnipotens, which in the ritual itself is called the [imposition-of-hands] prayer.” [23]

[22. Quoted Cappello 4:732. “In collatione trium ordinum majorum... forma est ipsa oratio quam ordinans recitat, dum manus ordinando imponit.”]

[23. H. Denziger, Ritus Orientalium, Coptorum, Syrorum et Armenorum (Würzburg: Stahel 1863), hereafter “RO,” 1:140. “Apud Coptitias est oratio illa, Qui es, Dominator, Deus omnipotens, quae in ipso rituale eorum dicitur oratio cheirotonías.”]

Note the following:

(1) This prayer is a Preface about 340 words long in a Latin version. [24] The Paul VI form is 42 words long. The two forms, therefore, cannot be equated.

[24. See RO 2:23–24. It is divided into two sections. According to the rubric in the footnote, the consecrating bishop continues to hold his hand imposed during the part following the interjection of the Archdeacon.]

(2) This lengthy Coptic form mentions three specific sacramental powers considered proper to the order of bishop alone: “to provide clergy according to His commandment for the priesthood... to make new houses of prayer, and to consecrate altars.” [25]

[25. Translation in O.H.E. KHS-Burmester, Ordination Rites of the Coptic Church (Cairo: 1985), 110–1. RO 2:24 renders the “provide clergy...priesthood” phrase into Latin as: “constitutendi cleros (klêros Arabs: Clericos) secundum manda - tum ejus ad sanctuarium,” giving “in ordine sacerdotali” in a footnote.]

Though the Paul VI Preface surrounding the new form contains many phrases found in the Coptic form (including “governing spirit,” which we shall discuss below), these phrases are missing.

This omission is particularly significant, because the dispute over the validity of the Paul VI form revolves around whether it adequately expresses the power of the Order being conferred — i.e., episcopacy.

B. Maronite Rite Form?

In the 5th century, some Syrians became monophysite heretics, and (like the Copts) went into schism after the Council of Chalcedon. These are also known as “Jacobites,” after Jacob Baradai, who was clandestinely consecrated a bishop in the 6th century and organized their movement.

Other West Syrians who opposed the monophysites came to be called Maronites (after the monastery of St. Maro, their center). Most Maronites eventually settled in Lebanon and were known for their deep devotion to the Holy See.

The Maronites adopted some externals of the Roman Rite (vestments, altar style, etc.) but continued otherwise to follow the Rite of Antioch, one of the ancient patriarchal sees. According to Denzinger, the form for the episcopacy in the Maronite Rite consists of the prayers: “Deus qui universam Ecclesiam tuam per istos pontifices in manus impositione exornas, etc., Deus deorum et Dominus dominantium.” [26]

[26. RO 1:141. “Apud Syros, Maronitas et Jacobitas, forma episcopatus ex Assemano est in illis duabus orationibus vel in eorum altera: Deus, qui universam Ecclesiam tuam per istos pontifices in manus impositione exornas, etc., Deus deorum et Dominus dominantium, quae apud utrosque sequuntur, postquam episcopus manum impositam tenens dixerit: Etiam, [sic] Domine Deus etc.” The text Denzinger gives for the prayer in RO 2:195 actually begins with “Eia” rather than “Etiam.” The Maronites use both prayers.]

Comparing this with the Paul VI form reveals the following:

(1) The Maronite form is a Preface at least 370 words long, interspersed with impositions of the bishop’s hand on the head of the candidate. It prays that the candidate receive the “sublime episcopal order,” with subsequent prayers twice begging God to “perfect” his grace and priestly ministry. [27] This form has nothing in common with the Paul VI form.

[27. RO 2:195. “recipiat sublimem episcoporum ordinem.” RO 196-7: “perfice nobiscuм gratiam tuam tuumque donum.” “perfice...sacerdotale ministerium.”]

(2) On a following page of the Maronite Rite for Episcopal Consecration, there is a prayer that has some phrases in common with the Paul VI form (e.g. “gov- erning Spirit”) and Preface (“loose bonds”) but, even though it occurs in the ceremony, this is not the Maronite sacramental form. [28]

[28. RO 2:198. “Spiritum...Sanctum, illum principalem.” “expellat omnia ligamina.”]

(3) The Maronite prayer that most closely resembles the Paul VI form and Preface of Episcopal Consecration is one found in the Rite for the Consecration of a Maronite Patriarch. [29] And indeed Fr. Pierre-Marie reproduces much of the text to support arguments for the validity of the new rite.

[29. RO 2:220.]

However, this prayer is not a sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy. It is merely an installation prayer, because the Maronite Patriarch is already a bishop when he is appointed.

C. Syrian Rite Form?

From the 17th-19th centuries, various Syrian Jacobite bishops, including even a Patriarch of Antioch, abjured their errors and submitted to the Holy See. In the 19th century the pope set up a Syrian Rite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch headquartered in Beiruit, Lebanon. (In the mid-20th century, many Syrian Rite Catholics lived in Iraq.)

The Syrians, like the Maronites, follow the Antiochene Rite, but there are some differences.

The form for episcopal consecration in the Syrian rite, according to Denzinger, consists of either the same prayers used by the Maronites, or another: “Deus, qui omnia per potentiam tuam,” [30] recited after the Patriarch imposes his right hand on the ordinand’s head.

[30. RO 1:141. “In ordine autem nostro ex codice Florentino desumpto, non occurrit nisi haec una: Deus, qui omnia per potentiam tuam.”]

Once again, we compare this with the Paul VI form:

(1) The Syrian form is about 230 words long, [31] versus 42 words in the Paul VI form. Again, it is not the same.

[31. RO 2:97.]

(2) In even greater detail than the Coptic form, the Syrian form enumerates specific sacramental powers considered proper to the order of bishop: May he “create priests, anoint deacons, consecrate altars and churches, bless houses, call forth vocations to ecclesiastical work.” [32]

[32. RO 2:97. “eo fine ut... sacerdotes constituat, diaconos ungat: consecret altaria et ecclesias: domibus benedicat: vocationes ad opus (ecclesiasticuм) faciat.”]

And once again, even though the Paul VI form and Preface contain some phrases present in the Syrian form (e.g., “governing... Spirit,” feed” [the flock], “loose bonds”), the foregoing expressions are absent.

(3) In the Syrian Rite as in the Maronite Rite, the prayer that most closely resembles the Paul VI form and Preface is the one used for “consecrating” a Patriarch. [33]

[33. For the prayer instituting the Patriarch, see B. DeSmet, “Le Sacre des Éveques dans l’Église Syrienne: Texte,” L’Orient Syrien 8 (1963), 202-4.]

Once again, however, it is not a sacramental prayer for consecrating a bishop, and this is clear from the following:

o The Syrian liturgical book prescribes the same order of service and prayers for consecrating a bishop and for consecrating the Patriarch, with but one change in the text. For the consecration of the Patriarch, the presiding bishop omits the prayer designated as the form for episcopal consecration (the prayer Deus, qui omnia per potentiam tuam), and substitutes “the Prayer of Clement,” [34] the text that resembles the Paul VI Preface.

[34. De Smet, 166-7. “Par le même rite de la chirotonie, c’est-à-dire, les mêmes priéres et le même office avec lesquelles le patriarche lui-même sacre les métropolites et les évêques, par ces mêmes rites ils le sacreront eux aussi... il y a, dans le sacre du patriarche, trois élements qui luisont propre, à savoir:... 2º L’invocation du Saint-Esprit, dont il est écrit de Clément, et que nous donnerons plus loin: elle est dit uniquement sur le patriarche par les pontifes qui l’établissent.” (My emphasis. The first and third elements are the election and the manner of giving the crosier.) The episcopal consecration form and the installation prayer appear successively on pp. 202-04, where it is easy to compare the difference in contents.]

o Two different terms in Syriac are used to distinguish the sacramental rite for the consecration of a bishop from the non-sacramental rite for the consecration of a patriarch. The first rite is called an “imposition of hands,” while the second is referred to with a term meaning “to confide or invest someone with a duty.” [35]

[35. G. Khouris-Sarkis, “Le Sacre des Éveques dans l’Église Syrienne: Introduction,” L’Orient Syrien 8 (1963), 140-1, 156-7. “Mais le pontificale... fait une distinction entre la consécration conferée aux évêques et celle qui est conférée au patriarche... et c’est pour cela que le pontificale appelle cette consécration ‘syom’îdo d-Episqûfé,’ imposition des mains aux évêques. The word used in the title of the ceremony for the patriarch, “’ Mettasºrhonûto,’ est l’action de confier une charge à quelqu’un, de l’en investir.”]

A Syrian liturgist explains: “In the first case [episcopal
consecration], the ordinand receives a charism different from the one
he already possesses... In the second, the Patriarch does not receive
a charism different from the one he received at the time he was made a
bishop.” [36]

[36. Khouris-Sarkis, 140-1. “Dans la prémière, l’élu reçoit un charisme différent de celui qu’il possedait déjà... Dans le second, le patriarche ne reçoit un charisme différent de celui qu’il a reçu au moment où il a été créé évêque.”]

D. Not an Eastern Form.

We began this section with a question: Was the new form employed in a Catholic Eastern Rite as the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy?

The answer is no, because:

o The Paul VI form is not identical to the Eastern Rite forms.

o In particular, the lengthy Eastern Rite forms mention either perfecting the priesthood or specific sacramental powers proper to a bishop alone (ordaining priests, etc.). The Paul VI form does not.

o In the Maronite and Syrian Rites, the prayer that most closely resembles the Paul VI consecration preface is not the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy, but a non-sacramental prayer for installing a Patriarch, who is usually already a bishop when he is appointed.

So, one cannot argue that the Paul VI form is valid because it is in use as a sacramental form “in two certainly valid Eastern Rites.”

It is not among the words “accepted and used by the Church in that sense,” and there is no guarantee of validity on this basis.

V. Another Approved Form?

Question: Was the new form employed as the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy in some other rite in the past that enjoyed at least tacit approval from the Church?

Such evidence, though not as strong a proof for validity as use in a Catholic Eastern Rite, would add at least some weight to the argument that the new form is valid.

Above, we mentioned that the Paul VI Preface for Episcopal Consecration was taken nearly verbatim from an ancient prayer for consecrating a bishop that appears in Dom Botte’s 1963 edition of The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus. It also has parallels in other ancient texts such as The Apostolic Constitutions and the Testament of the Lord.

Fr. Pierre-Marie also employed these texts as evidence to argue that the new rite is valid.

How much certitude can we have that (1) these texts themselves were actual sacramental forms used to confer the episcopacy, and (2) they received at least tacit approval from the Church as such — that even in a broad sense they were “accepted and used by the Church in that sense”?

Alas, if by “certitude,” we mean the certitude Catholic moral theology requires for conferring or receiving a valid sacrament, our answer must be: None at all. For we immediately descend into the mystifying world of scholarly debates over the authorship, origin, dating, reconstruction and deciphering of 1700-year-old texts.

A. Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus?

Here are some of the preliminary problems we discover:

(1) Identity of Author? The Jesuit expert on Eastern liturgies, Jean-Michel Hanssens, devotes nearly one hundred pages to trying to identify Hippolytus: Was he the same Hippolytus associated with an Easter computation table? The one represented by a statue? The one reputed to be a native Roman? Or the Egyptian one? The pope’s counselor? Or the anti-pope? The priest Hippolytus? Or a bishop? Or the martyr? Or one of the several saints in the martyrology? [37]

[37. La Liturgie d’Hippolyte: Ses Docuмents, Son Titutlaire, Ses Origines et Son Charactere (Rome: Oriental Institute 1959), 249–340.]

The best we can manage is scholarly conjecture.

(2) Origin? Where did The Apostolic Tradition come from? Some say Rome; others say Alexandria, Egypt. More conjecture.

(3) Age? How old is it? “Usually” dated around 215 AD, but “the section dealing with ordination may have been retouched by fourth-century hands in order to bring it into line with current doctrine and practice.” [38]

[38. P. Bradshaw, Ordination Rites of the Ancient Churches of East and West (New York: Pueblo 1990), 3.]

Note: “retouched.” More scholarly conjecture is needed to tell us which parts of the docuмent were retouched.

(4) Manuscript Authority? How much confidence can we put in the originals? Well, we don’t even have them:

“The Greek original of the docuмent has not survived, except in the form of a few isolated fragments. t has to be reconstructed from an extant Latin translation and from later Coptic, Arabic and Ethiopic versions, as well as from the use made of it by compilers of later Church orders, which increases the difficulty of determining exactly what the author wrote.” [39]

[39. Bradshaw, 3–4. My emphasis.]

Hence, the subtitle of Dom Botte’s 1963 edition: An Attempt at Reconstruction. [40] At least a half-dozen other scholars (Connolly, Dix, Easton, Elfers, Lorentz, Hans- sens) have made similar attempts.

[40. “Essai de Reconstituton.”]

Reconstruction, said Dom Botte, can “bring us back only to an archetype, and not the original.” [41]

[41. La Tradition...Essai, xxxiii-iv.]

So, we have only more conjecture, but this won’t even get us the original.

(5) Liturgical Use? Does the text accurately reflect actual use? “It is not easy to distinguish what represents a real usage from the ideal,” [42] said Dom Botte in 1963. The prayers The Apostolic Tradition contains were given as “models, and not as fixed formulas.” [43]

[42. La Tradition...Essai, xiv]
[43. La Tradition...Essai, xvi]

And finally, said Dom Botte, in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, “Its origin, whether Roman or [Egyptian] is not really important here. Even if it is a Roman docuмent, it should not be viewed as the Roman liturgy of the 3rd century, a time when the liturgy left a great deal of room for a celebrant to improvise.” [44]

[44. Louvain conference notes, July 1961, “Le Rituel d’Ordination dans la ‘Tradition Apostolique’ d’Hippolyte,” Bulletin du Comité 36 (1962), 5.]

And so, multiple volumes of scholarly works produce a model for an episcopal consecration prayer that was not necessarily followed word-for-word anyway.

This does not exactly build our confidence.

B. Apostolic Constitutions?

An impressive title, to be sure. However, it is “a composite revision” of three earlier Church orders.

The Constitutions appears to have originated in Syria, “and is generally thought to be the work of an Arian [heretic] who was to some extent composing an idiosyncratic idealization rather than always reproducing exactly liturgical practice with which he was familiar.” [45]

[45. Bradshaw, 4.]

A composite dreamed up by a heretic?

C. Testament of Our Lord?

An even more impressive title! Alas, it “probably” dates from the 5th century and “seems” to have been composed in Syria.

Moreover, “Although originally written in Greek, it is extant only in Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic versions. Like the Apostolic Constitutions, it is doubtful how far it represents actual historical practice.” [46]

[46. Bradshaw, 4–5.]

Doubtful historical practice?

D. No Proof of Approved Use.

The question that began this section was: Was the new form employed as the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy in some other rite in the past that enjoyed at least tacit approval from the Church?

Our answer: We have absolutely no idea, because:

o We have no definitive original texts.

o We have “reconstructed” texts based on nothing more than the authority of scholarly theories about which readings were correct.

o We do not know whether these texts were actually used to consecrate bishops.

o We have no record of Church approval.

So, one cannot argue on the basis of these texts that the Paul VI form is valid. None of them have been “accepted and used by the Church in that sense,” so there is no guarantee of validity on this basis either.

So Fr. Pierre-Marie responded to this and basically conceded that the 42-word NREC form is not the same thing as the much larger Eastern Rite forms but he argued 2 things. 1. That the 42-word NREC form needs to be compared with the formal-essential part of the Eastern Rites and 2. That the whole preface of the NREC should be compared with the whole form of the Eastern Rite. Unfortunately, it is a Catholic theological principle that the context (the whole preface) cannot redeem a defective form. We know what the minimal requirements of the Latin Rite form are from Pope Pius XII's 1947 Sacramentum Ordinis encyclical and we know that Paul VI specified that the form of the NREC is that 42-word form previously posted in this thread. Paul VI never said that the form is the whole preface. He never abrogated Pope Pius XII's law. He thought the 42-word form was sufficient. It isn't. Also, Pope Pius XII was certainly aware of the Eastern Rite forms and since Sacramentum Ordinis did not invalidate those forms we can be certain that those forms met Pope Pius XII's requirements (1. laying on of hands, 2. specifying the order being received univocally, and 3. invoking the Holy Ghost). And the Eastern Rites do that except they don't do it in 42 words. The formal-essential that Fr. Pierre-Marie would be invalid if Pope Pius XII's law was applied to it. So we know that Pope Pius was considering the Eastern Rite forms as a whole which do meet the requirements.

So the NREC is invalid. And a true pope can't promulgate an invalid sacramental form. Therefore the NREC is proof that Paul VI was an antipope.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #59 on:** February 24, 2019, 11:31:47 PM »

Note that you have to scroll inside the quote to see the entire quoted sections of Fr. Cekada's article. Also available here http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

Author Topic: Question about New Rite of NO (Read 8027 times)

RomanTheo

Re: Question about New Rite of NO

Clemens Maria

Re: Question about New Rite of NO

2Vermont

Re: Question about New Rite of NO

RomanTheo

Re: Question about New Rite of NO

Clemens Maria

Re: Question about New Rite of NO

forlorn

Re: Question about New Rite of NO

2Vermont

Re: Question about New Rite of NO

Clemens Maria

Re: Question about New Rite of NO

forlorn

Re: Question about New Rite of NO

Judith 15 Ten

Re: Question about New Rite of NO

RomanTheo

Re: Question about New Rite of NO

X

Re: Question about New Rite of NO

Nishant Xavier

Re: Question about New Rite of NO

Clemens Maria

Re: Question about New Rite of NO

Clemens Maria

Re: Question about New Rite of NO