Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Judith 15 Ten on February 18, 2019, 03:48:51 PM

Title: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Judith 15 Ten on February 18, 2019, 03:48:51 PM
Has the New Rite of ordination and/or episcopal consecration of the Novus Ordo changed within the past 12 years?

Back in 2007, before SSPX's courtship with Rome, they taught there is no positive doubt for Novus Ordo ordinations & consecrations. http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained

I trust the SSPX's stance during this period (and before) because they were experts in Divine Liturgy, rituals, and rites. Nobody knew more about it than them.

Even Father Wathen's book, The Great Sacrilege, posits that the Novus Ordo missae and service was still valid, which made it that much more of an offense to the Lord God, because He's physically present during the sacrilege taking place.

The Book of Daniel prophesied the Continual Sacrifice (the Divine Sacrifice of the Mass) being taken away.

Many trad Catholics know that the current Novus Ordo service, and since 1969, is either 1) a prelude to the abomination of desolation where it eventually becomes invalid - the Divine Sacrifice ceases, or 2) the Novus Ordo has been invalid and it's the abomination of desolation since the first day it was instituted in 1969. 

I currently subscribe to camp 1, not 2, but I'm suspecting we might be in 2 or very close to it, which is why I presented my above thesis, "has the new rite [...] changed in the past 12 years?" There are several reasons why I've belonged to camp 1.  Firstly, I subscribe to the branch of privationism (sedeprivationism) where the only way Novus Ordo "bishops" and the so-called "pope" materially hold their offices is if the rite of ordinations and consecrations that made them priests and "bishops", respectively, are still valid. Without validity of these Rites, they cannot even materially hold their offices, much less their purported holy orders. In order to possess, at the very least, material offices, they must first possess holy orders. My understanding is that most privationism rejects the validity of the Novus Ordo Rites, therefore, according to them, the Novus Ordo priests are not valid priests but, somehow, if these "poser priests", the "bishops" (who are supposed to be priests), and the so-called "pope" (who is supposed to be a priest) converted to the Faith, then they would all formally hold their offices and holy orders. That doesn't make sense, if they were never valid priests in the first place.

Secondly, the timeline that is stated in the Bible about the abomination of desolation doesn't match the 50 years of the Novus Ordo. The NO far exceeds that timeline, so I logically conclude that for a great duration of the NO, it has been valid, albeit, still illicit and a sacrilege, hence, a PRELUDE to the coming abomination of desolation / Divine Sacrifice being taken away.

Now, there has been such a radical acceleration of apostasy spoken by Francis the Destroyer in his casual speech (which is still intended to teach people) and Church functions with Faithless religions, albeit, he hasn't attempted to do it from the Seat of Peter, ex cathedra.

I'm just wondering if this Antichrist spirit exhibited by Francis the Destroyer has been coincided with a change in the Novus Ordo Rite within within the past 12 years? If the answer is "yes", then I strongly consider that the NO rites are now invalid and their "Mass" is now ceased, hence, the public emergence of Antichrist is close, and Apocalyptic events will be more frequent and intense.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Ladislaus on February 18, 2019, 04:32:53 PM
I hold a slightly different spin on privationism.

While they certainly cannot formally exercise office without the requisite power of orders, they may materially hold the office, i.e. the designation to hold office.

So, for instance, if a conclave were to elect a layman, he could accept and be the pope-elect.  But he could not actually and formally wield the power of Bishop of Rome until he were ordained and then consecrated a bishop.  I believe that the lack of faith creates the same kind of impediment to formal exercise of authority that a lack of orders might.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 18, 2019, 04:40:18 PM
Quote from: Judith 15 Ten (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=51363.msg643994#msg643994)
Has the New Rite of ordination and/or episcopal consecration of the Novus Ordo changed within the past 12 years?

Back in 2007, before SSPX's courtship with Rome, they taught there is no positive doubt for Novus Ordo ordinations & consecrations. http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained

I trust the SSPX's stance during this period (and before) because they were experts in Divine Liturgy, rituals, and rites. Nobody knew more about it than them.

Even Father Wathen's book, The Great Sacrilege, posits that the Novus Ordo missae and service was still valid, which made it that much more of an offense to the Lord God, because He's physically present during the sacrilege taking place.

The Book of Daniel prophesied the Continual Sacrifice (the Divine Sacrifice of the Mass) being taken away.

Many trad Catholics know that the current Novus Ordo service, and since 1969, is either 1) a prelude to the abomination of desolation where it eventually becomes invalid - the Divine Sacrifice ceases, or 2) the Novus Ordo has been invalid and it's the abomination of desolation since the first day it was instituted in 1969.  

I currently subscribe to camp 1, not 2, but I'm suspecting we might be in 2 or very close to it, which is why I presented my above thesis, "has the new rite [...] changed in the past 12 years?" There are several reasons why I've belonged to camp 1.  Firstly, I subscribe to the branch of privationism (sedeprivationism) where the only way Novus Ordo "bishops" and the so-called "pope" materially hold their offices is if the rite of ordinations and consecrations that made them priests and "bishops", respectively, are still valid. Without validity of these Rites, they cannot even materially hold their offices, much less their purported holy orders. In order to possess, at the very least, material offices, they must first possess holy orders. My understanding is that most privationism rejects the validity of the Novus Ordo Rites, therefore, according to them, the Novus Ordo priests are not valid priests but, somehow, if these "poser priests", the "bishops" (who are supposed to be priests), and the so-called "pope" (who is supposed to be a priest) converted to the Faith, then they would all formally hold their offices and holy orders. That doesn't make sense, if they were never valid priests in the first place.

Secondly, the timeline that is stated in the Bible about the abomination of desolation doesn't match the 50 years of the Novus Ordo. The NO far exceeds that timeline, so I logically conclude that for a great duration of the NO, it has been valid, albeit still illicit and a sacrilege, hence, a PRELUDE to the coming abomination of desolation / Divine Sacrifice being taken away.

Now, there has been such a radical acceleration of apostasy spoken by Francis the Destroyer in his casual speech (which is still intended to teach people) and Church functions with Faithless religions, albeit, he hasn't attempted to do it from the Seat of Peter, ex cathedra.

I'm just wondering if this Antichrist spirit exhibited by Francis the Destroyer has been coincided with a change in the Novus Ordo Rite within within the past 12 years? If the answer is "yes", then I strongly consider that the NO rites are now invalid and their "Mass" is now ceased, hence, the public emergence of Antichrist is very close, and Apocalyptic events will be more frequent and intense.

Hi Judith-

Just a couple points of clarification here:

1) 2007 was not before the “SSPX’s courtship with Rome” (as you put it).  That “courtship” goes back to almost immediately after the Archbishop’s death (with Bishop Tissier noting in his famous Biography that the French District Superior was making overtures and entertaining discussions about regularization way back in 1992), and of course things really picked up in this regard with the “discrete but not secret” GREC meetings in the mid-1990’s.

I only mention this because, if your criterion or standard is to trust the SSPX positions prior to suspected politicization of those positions based on the Society’s pursuit of a canonical Agreement, then you will have to go back quite a bit further than 2007.

2) I presume your reference to 2007 is based on the Angelus article of the Avrille Dominicans, which concluded in the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration.

What is less commonly known about the background to that article are the following:

A) the contrary conclusion of the Rore Sanctifica;

B) The festering dispute between Avrille and Menzingen going back to 2001;

C) The relevance of the recent election of BXVI:

Avrille has been having troubles with Menzingen ever since the Campos affair.

Bishop Fellay was keen to get a deal already at that time, but was obstructed by objections from Bishop Williamson and Avrille (with the latter declaring they would oppose any such deal).  

This led to some internal strife with a number of friars who eventually in scandalous fashion abandoned the convent at Avrille and appealed to Menzingen for assistance, creating a quiet struggle and contest for control over these friars (Google “Steffeshausen Foundation” for this history).

So there were, by 2007 (ie., the time of the appearance of the Angelus article), already two distinct sources of friction between Avrille and Menzingen: the deal with Rome, and Menzingen giving aid to friars who canonically should not have even been allowed to wear the habit after 90 days away from the convent (incidentally, so strict are the Dominicans in this regard even until the present day, that Fr. Reginald, O.P., on loan from Avrille to Bishop Zendejas in the USA, wears a simple black cassock rather than the Dominican habit).

Amidst this hidden strife, a group of French laymen formed a think tank to study the issue of the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration (an issue which was now pressing since the election of BXVI in 2005: The first Pope to be consecrated in the new Rite.).

The name of this group, which numbered many influential intelligentia among its members, called itself the Rore Sanctifica, and their study, which made waves in Europe at the time, concluded in the invalidity of the new Rite.

This was very problematic to the SSPX’s long reconciliation process: It could not afford to allow the Pope to think it questioned the legitimacy of his episcopacy (else how could he be Bishop of Rome?).

At this time, Fr. Pierre-Marie of Avrille had penned a confusing article in response to the Rore Sanctifica arguing for the validity of the new Rite, and it was this article which was translated for the Angelus in 2007.

Had Avrille caved in to pressure from the Society and written a partisan article to maintain good relations (something they held onto until 2014)?

Not sure.

What is sure is that the article is far from persuasive, and more or less paints an analogy between the form of the new Rite and that of the Rastern rites, as the basis of its argument (an argument several other well-known articles have refuted).

3) Meanwhile, at least as late as 1998, Bishop Tissier flatly declared the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration to be invalid, when he wrote:

“Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s ‘Le Drame Anglican.’  After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of Episcopal Consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.”  

He then gives his reasons, which you can read from His Excellency’s original handwritten letter here:

http://www.fathercekada.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Tissier-New-Rite.jpg (http://www.fathercekada.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Tissier-New-Rite.jpg)
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Judith 15 Ten on February 18, 2019, 05:44:29 PM
Hi Judith-

Just a couple points of clarification here:

1) 2007 was not before the “SSPX’s courtship with Rome” (as you put it).  That “courtship” goes back to almost immediately after the Archbishop’s death (with Bishop Tissier noting in his famous Biography that the French District Superior was making overtures and entertaining discussions about regularization way back in 1992), and of course things really picked up in this regard with the “discrete but not secret” GREC meetings in the mid-1990’s.

I only mention this because, if your criterion or standard is to trust the SSPX positions prior to suspected politicization of those positions based on the Society’s pursuit of a canonical Agreement, then you will have to go back quite a bit further than 2007.

2) I presume your reference to 2007 is based on the Angelus article of the Avrille Dominicans, which concluded in the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration.

What is less commonly known about the background to that article are the following:

A) the contrary conclusion of the Rore Sanctifica;

B) The festering dispute between Avrille and Menzingen going back to 2001;

C) The relevance of the recent election of BXVI:

Avrille has been having troubles with Menzingen ever since the Campos affair.

Bishop Fellay was keen to get a deal already at that time, but was obstructed by objections from Bishop Williamson and Avrille (with the latter declaring they would oppose any such deal). 

This led to some internal strife with a number of friars who eventually in scandalous fashion abandoned the convent at Avrille and appealed to Menzingen for assistance, creating a quiet struggle and contest for control over these friars (Google “Steffeshausen Foundation” for this history).

So there were, by 2007 (ie., the time of the appearance of the Angelus article), already two distinct sources of friction between Avrille and Menzingen: the deal with Rome, and Menzingen giving aid to friars who canonically should not have even been allowed to wear the habit after 90 days away from the convent (incidentally, so strict are the Dominicans in this regard even until the present day, that Fr. Reginald, O.P., on loan from Avrille to Bishop Zendejas in the USA, wears a simple black cassock rather than the Dominican habit).

Amidst this hidden strife, a group of French laymen formed a think tank to study the issue of the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration (an issue which was now pressing since the election of BXVI in 2005: The first Pope to be consecrated in the new Rite.).

The name of this group, which numbered many influential intelligentia among its members, called itself the Rore Sanctifica, and their study, which made waves in Europe at the time, concluded in the invalidity of the new Rite.

This was very problematic to the SSPX’s long reconciliation process: It could not afford to allow the Pope to think it questioned the legitimacy of his episcopacy (else how could he be Bishop of Rome?).

At this time, Fr. Pierre-Marie of Avrille had penned a confusing article in response to the Rore Sanctifica arguing for the validity of the new Rite, and it was this article which was translated for the Angelus in 2007.

Had Avrille caved in to pressure from the Society and written a partisan article to maintain good relations (something they held onto until 2014)?

Not sure.

What is sure is that the article is far from persuasive, and more or less paints an analogy between the form of the new Rite and that of the Rastern rites, as the basis of its argument (an argument several other well-known articles have refuted).

3) Meanwhile, at least as late as 1998, Bishop Tissier flatly declared the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration to be invalid, when he wrote:

“Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s ‘Le Drame Anglican.’  After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of Episcopal Consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.” 

He then gives his reasons, which you can read from His Excellency’s original handwritten letter here:

http://www.fathercekada.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Tissier-New-Rite.jpg (http://www.fathercekada.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Tissier-New-Rite.jpg)

Thanks, X. I'll take a look at it, but I still can't reconcile a 50 year invalid NO with the timeline given in the Bible about the Continual Sacrifice being taken away.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Judith 15 Ten on February 18, 2019, 05:48:57 PM
I hold a slightly different spin on privationism.

While they certainly cannot formally exercise office without the requisite power of orders, they may materially hold the office, i.e. the designation to hold office.

So, for instance, if a conclave were to elect a layman, he could accept and be the pope-elect.  But he could not actually and formally wield the power of Bishop of Rome until he were ordained and then consecrated a bishop.  I believe that the lack of faith creates the same kind of impediment to formal exercise of authority that a lack of orders might.

I agree with everything here, but without valid rites in the NO for the last 50 years, the actual priesthood and episcopacy would be near extinction, and if the NO clerics and hierarchy decided to convert to the true Catholic Faith, they'd have to be ordained by the very few (compared to the mammoth size of the Conciliarists) valid bishops in the true Church (trad remnant). Is that logistically possible?
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 18, 2019, 06:06:52 PM
Thanks, X. I'll take a look at it, but I still can't reconcile a 50 year invalid NO with the timeline given in the Bible about the Continual Sacrifice being taken away.

Judith-

You might have noticed that I made an error above.

I was citing Bishop Tissier from memory, and overstated his case:

He does not "flatly deny the validity of the new Rite," as I stated above.

But he does clearly say it is a doubtful rite.

That would be the "positive doubt" of the SSPX you are looking for.

True, it were no official position statement of the entire Society.

But when one of its better theologians (and a bishop to boot) declares the new rite doubtful, I think there is an argument to be made in that direction.

And, since with regard to sacramental validity, the Church requires of us to take a tutiorist position (i.e., We may not approach doubtful rites), the new Rites of episcopal consecration and (less so) priestly ordination must be to us anathema.

PS: I myself do not believe all NOM's are invalid (nor did the Archbishop), but just to play "Devil's Advocate," Our Lord did prophecy there would be little faith left on earth when He returned, and St. Alphonsus predicted one day the Mass would vanish (which must not be heretical, since a sainted Doctor said it).  Personally I am not as worried about the Mass vanishing because of the 1969 rite itself, but all Masses vanishing because of invalid episcopal consecrations (who do not make priests, who therefore do not confect the sacrament, regardless of what Rite is said).  I worry about this because, though currently the SSPX would represent a large bulwark of priests and bishops about whom there is no doubt about their sacramental validity (which solves your 50 year dilemma), it is nevertheless foreseeable that the SSPX will begin allowing conciliar bishops consecrate their "bishops" (and ordain their priests).  Today we are being experimented upon to test our reaction to hob-nobbing with them.  20 more years, they will be doing the consecrations.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: songbird on February 18, 2019, 06:18:33 PM
Yes, Judith:  Pope Leo XIII and Cardinal Manning were on to the understanding of heretical popes.  Sure! after what Pope Leo XIII saw between Christ and Lucifer!

Thank God Vatican I council took place! To define pope/infallibility.  The first time I ran across "Continual Sacrifice" was by the Redemptorist priest in their paper back books.
For shame I did not read it in my Bible and no one else do I hear bring it to the pulpit.  

We are in need to be advised how to prepare ourselves, the solutions and Our Lady has made Herself known and heard. Heard, maybe not, for we know how that is.

IMO we have had the Sacrifice of the Mass transitioned out.  Where do you put a time to it?  I don't think this is necessary to know and who would.  IMO many know of the traditional that the time of Lucifer is shorter than we know.  The AX is coming to Lucifer!  It will be joyful when Christ comes to put His Church on earth back on track, so to say.  But we have tribulation.  We all hope to do that.  Like Christ went to His death on the Cross, the Mass appears the same, BUT it is still with us, as Church/Christ Resurrects, the Mass as well.  Til that point, we do as Our Lady and apostles did, we will be looking as forming cenacles to the Holy Ghost til His coming.  

IMO then Our Lady will have Redemptorix as dogma, defined.  I think that is what Vat. I would have tried for, but Vat. I was not finished....war.

I understand that the last apparition that Sister Lucia had (1927?) in the chapel at the altar, was a part of the 3rd secret.  The Mass?  I think so.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 18, 2019, 06:49:48 PM
Judith, lots of different angles to the ordination and NOM validity questions.  So the answer to your questions are varied. 

1. When Fr Wathen wrote the Great Sacrilege, it was 1971.  He said that it was not his intent to judge the validity of the consecration as the Church is the only entity able to definitively say. 

Secondly, at the time, most priests who were saying the new mass were valid priests, so the issue of the new rites had not had time to muddy the waters. 

2.  Even Cardinal Ottaviani said that the NOM has a doubtful consecration intention, which must be supplied by the priest.

3.  I don’t think that all NOM masses are invalid nor do I think all NO priests are not priests.  But, there is positive doubt in my mind, so I assume they are not - which is why I never go to new-rome priests for sacraments and why I believe, per canon law, that everyone should avoid for the same reason.  It’s a sin to take chances with sacraments. 

4.  Even if the priest is a priest, through faulty seminary training he could invalidate the mass because of his lack of intention. 

5.  On the contrary, a non-priest who thinks he’s one, could have a proper intention, yet no mass takes place.  

6.  The Episcopal consecrations are very problematic.  These non-bishops have probably “ordained” 1,000s and 1,000s of non-priests. 

7.  I don’t think that the purpose of the new rites by the Freemasons/communists/satanists were to end the priesthood sacramentally.  I don’t think God would allow that.  The purpose was to, just like V2 is saying truth and non-truth, was to allow both an ordination and a non-ordination, depending on the circuмstances and the candidate.  

Far, far, far greater damage to the priesthood has been done the through liberal, Marxist, perverted seminaries.  If you can corrupt priests to think like marxists and to accept the coming global-Freemasonic-religion, what care do you have if they become actual priests?  A bad priest is far more dangerous than a good fake-priest (ie one who thinks they were ordained but were not).

I think all of this situation is similar to the oft-quoted “abomination of desolation” circuмstances but I think the “ending of the sacrifice” will come during the anti-Christ in the 7th and final age of the Church.  We’re living in the end of the 5th age and so our evils will parallel the 7th but not fully. 
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: 2Vermont on February 19, 2019, 04:40:55 AM
Amidst this hidden strife, a group of French laymen formed a think tank to study the issue of the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration (an issue which was now pressing since the election of BXVI in 2005: The first Pope to be consecrated in the new Rite.).

The name of this group, which numbered many influential intelligentia among its members, called itself the Rore Sanctifica, and their study, which made waves in Europe at the time, concluded in the invalidity of the new Rite.

This was very problematic to the SSPX’s long reconciliation process: It could not afford to allow the Pope to think it questioned the legitimacy of his episcopacy (else how could he be Bishop of Rome?).

At this time, Fr. Pierre-Marie of Avrille had penned a confusing article in response to the Rore Sanctifica arguing for the validity of the new Rite, and it was this article which was translated for the Angelus in 2007.
I think this is the main reason for the change in the position, but I thought Fr Pierre-Marie penned his article in 2005, the same year that Benedict was elected.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 19, 2019, 05:16:26 AM
I think this is the main reason for the change in the position, but I thought Fr Pierre-Marie penned his article in 2005, the same year that Benedict was elected.

You are correct.  I mistakenly said 2007.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 19, 2019, 08:47:04 AM
Saying that the Novus Ordo rites are doubtful is an understatement.  If the only change was the dropping of the “ut” we could say the rite was doubtful because it failed to meet the minimum requirements for validity set forth by Pope Pius XII in the 1940s.  But the changes were much more extensive and substantial than that.  Pope Leo found that the Anglican rites were “absolutely null and utterly void” (doubtlessly invalid).  Arguably the Novus Ordo is more egregiously deformed than the Anglican rites.  Read Fr Cekada’s response to Fr Pierre-Marie.  In fact when I read Fr Pierre-Marie’s article before reading Fr Cekada’s I was already convinced that it was invalid.  The first half of Fr Pierre-Marie’s article paints a horrifying picture of the Novus Ordo rite that nothing written in the second half was able to convince me it was valid.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 19, 2019, 09:11:02 AM
Quote
Saying that the Novus Ordo rites are doubtful is an understatement....The first half of Fr Pierre-Marie’s article paints a horrifying picture of the Novus Ordo rite that nothing written in the second half was able to convince me it was valid.
Ok, I get your point, but why does your opinion matter?  You're not the Church, so it doesn't.  Even if 99% of the laity believed the same as you, it doesn't matter, because the Church isn't a democracy; the rules aren't determined by popularity or majority; She is a monarchy, which rules from top to bottom.  Until the Church says they are absolutely invalid, then all we can say is that they are extremely doubtful, and avoid them for that reason (which is reason enough).  No one outside of rome can say otherwise with any degree of authority or certainty.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 19, 2019, 12:56:23 PM
Ok, I get your point, but why does your opinion matter?  You're not the Church, so it doesn't.  Even if 99% of the laity believed the same as you, it doesn't matter, because the Church isn't a democracy; the rules aren't determined by popularity or majority; She is a monarchy, which rules from top to bottom.  Until the Church says they are absolutely invalid, then all we can say is that they are extremely doubtful, and avoid them for that reason (which is reason enough).  No one outside of rome can say otherwise with any degree of authority or certainty.
If you're not a sede, Rome has spoken.  The NOM is valid.  End of discussion.  Your opinion doesn't matter.  The Church is a monarchy and the Pope has ruled that it is valid.  If you say they are doubtful you are making your own opinion greater than the Pope's decision.  But if you are a sede....
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 19, 2019, 02:24:31 PM
My point is that yes, I agree with you that there is MUCH doubt on the issue.  This doubt allows all catholics to avoid the issue, per canon law.  But we can't cross the line and say that they are "absolutely" invalid; only Rome can make this decision.  We can say that they are "more likely than not" invalid, but we can't say 100%. 
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: forlorn on February 19, 2019, 02:45:58 PM
My point is that yes, I agree with you that there is MUCH doubt on the issue.  This doubt allows all catholics to avoid the issue, per canon law.  But we can't cross the line and say that they are "absolutely" invalid; only Rome can make this decision.  We can say that they are "more likely than not" invalid, but we can't say 100%.
Rome made the decision that it IS valid. 


Anyway, to OP: The only changes to the NO I know of are that they changed the translation of much of it, at least in English, but based on the wonky grammar and what I heard, apparently the new translation was CLOSER to the Latin than before. So I doubt it fits your criteria for the moment when the NO Mass will become the abomination.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on February 19, 2019, 03:38:02 PM
Saying that the Novus Ordo rites are doubtful is an understatement.  If the only change was the dropping of the “ut” we could say the rite was doubtful because it failed to meet the minimum requirements for validity set forth by Pope Pius XII in the 1940s.  But the changes were much more extensive and substantial than that.  Pope Leo found that the Anglican rites were “absolutely null and utterly void” (doubtlessly invalid).  Arguably the Novus Ordo is more egregiously deformed than the Anglican rites.  Read Fr Cekada’s response to Fr Pierre-Marie.  In fact when I read Fr Pierre-Marie’s article before reading Fr Cekada’s I was already convinced that it was invalid.  The first half of Fr Pierre-Marie’s article paints a horrifying picture of the Novus Ordo rite that nothing written in the second half was able to convince me it was valid.
Can you explain, in your own words, why you believe the new rite of episcopal consecration is invalid?  
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on February 19, 2019, 05:27:19 PM
Can you explain, in your own words, why you believe the new rite of episcopal consecration is invalid?  

Or if there is anyone else, such as Judith 15 Ten, who can explain in their own words why they believe new rite is invalid, I would be interested in hearing it.  

The reason I'm asking is because everyone I know of who doubts the validity of the new rite does so because others doubt it, and not for doctrinal reasons.   And those I know who don't merely doubt, but positively affirm that the new rite is invalid, likewise don't do so for solid doctrinal reasons, but because the doubts of others have so persuaded them that they eventually because certain it is invalid.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 19, 2019, 05:49:10 PM
Or if there is anyone else, such as Judith 15 Ten, who can explain in their own words why they believe new rite is invalid, I would be interested in hearing it.  

The reason I'm asking is because everyone I know of who doubts the validity of the new rite does so because others doubt it, and not for doctrinal reasons.   And those I know who don't merely doubt, but positively affirm that the new rite is invalid, likewise don't do so for solid doctrinal reasons, but because the doubts of others have so persuaded them that they eventually because certain it is invalid.

The explanation is because “faith comes by hearing.”

Very few are illumined by infused knowledge.

And in such difficult matters, only a very rash person would concoct his own theology.

The whole raisin d’etre of authority is to serve and protect truth, so why should a Catholic be shamed for embracing the guidance of well formed authorities?

As for myself, I make Bishop Tissier’s doubts my own.  Whether I quote his words, or reformulate them in my own makes no difference:

He doubts, and I find his reasons for doubting persuasive.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on February 19, 2019, 06:29:43 PM
The explanation is because “faith comes by hearing.”


But we're not talking about an act of faith (believing a truth), but refusal to believe something due to doubts of others.  

X: Very few are illumined by infused knowledge.  And in such difficult matters, only a very rash person would concoct his own theology.

Reply: I am not suggesting that anyone concoct his own theology.  Why would anyone do that when we have the Church's sacramental theology to guide us? The reason for studying the Church's theology is precisely because we don't have infuse knowledge.

X: The whole raisin d’etre of authority is to serve and protect truth, so why should a Catholic be shamed for embracing the guidance of well formed authorities?  As for myself, I make Bishop Tissier’s doubts my own.  Whether I quote his words, or reformulate them in my own makes no difference:  He doubts, and I find his reasons for doubting persuasive.

Reply: But doubting because he doubts is not an act of submission to authority.   Has he commanded you to doubt?  I "doubt" it.  If he did command you to doubt was it a legitimate act of authority, and does he even have any legitimate claims of authority over you?
Your position is not that of submission to authority, but of doubting because someone else doubts.  That's the same reason almost everyone else I have spoken about this with has given for doubting, or positively denying, the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration.  
 
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 19, 2019, 06:43:45 PM
But we're not talking about an act of faith (believing a truth), but refusal to believe something due to doubts of others.  

X: Very few are illumined by infused knowledge.  And in such difficult matters, only a very rash person would concoct his own theology.

Reply: I am not suggesting that anyone concoct his own theology.  Why would anyone do that when we have the Church's sacramental theology to guide us? The reason for studying the Church's theology is precisely because we don't have infuse knowledge.

X: The whole raisin d’etre of authority is to serve and protect truth, so why should a Catholic be shamed for embracing the guidance of well formed authorities?  As for myself, I make Bishop Tissier’s doubts my own.  Whether I quote his words, or reformulate them in my own makes no difference:  He doubts, and I find his reasons for doubting persuasive.

Reply: But doubting because he doubts is not an act of submission to authority.   Has he commanded you to doubt?  I "doubt" it.  If he did command you to doubt was it a legitimate act of authority, and does he even have any legitimate claims of authority over you?
Your position is not that of submission to authority, but of doubting because someone else doubts.  That's the same reason almost everyone else I have spoken about this with has given for doubting, or positively denying, the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration.  
 

Hello RT-

I’m not really understanding what you are trying to say, I guess.

If St. Thomas has a certain doctrinal position, or St. Jerome a biblical interpretation, or St. Alphonsus a moral opinion, then I am usually going to go with that opinion, based on their authority in those domains (not because they have some kind of personal jurisdiction over me).

Same with the present issue:

Rather than trust in self, I trust in those who are more studied in the matter.
Are you saying I should not do that?  Or that the authorities I should place such trust in are the conciliarists who have proven themselves untrustworthy?

Not trying to argue with you.  Just trying to understand your position.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 19, 2019, 07:05:29 PM
RomanTheo, the first half of Fr Pierre-Marie’s article shows how the NO episcopal consecration doesn’t meet the minimum requirements for validity as specified by Pope Pius XII in the 1940s.  It also shows how Dom Botte’s research was faulty and the rite is based on an ancient episcopal installation ceremony.  He also deals with the specific problems of the new form as if maybe despite not meeting minimum requirements it might still be valid but it becomes abundantly clear that the meaning of the new form is not the same as the old.  If you know anything about sacramental theology you know that a change in meaning of the form invalidates the sacrament.  So if using the Creator in place of the Father invalidates the form then what can we say about the significance of the changes in the episcopal consecration form?  It’s beyond the pale.

In the second half of the article he goes on to argue that the rest of the ceremony gives a context to the form which gives it the required meaning for validity.  Fr Cekada’s response proves from pre V2 sources that context can never give validity to a defective form.  Context could invalidate a good form but it cannot validate a defective form.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: 2Vermont on February 19, 2019, 07:29:09 PM
Or if there is anyone else, such as Judith 15 Ten, who can explain in their own words why they believe new rite is invalid, I would be interested in hearing it.  

The reason I'm asking is because everyone I know of who doubts the validity of the new rite does so because others doubt it, and not for doctrinal reasons.   And those I know who don't merely doubt, but positively affirm that the new rite is invalid, likewise don't do so for solid doctrinal reasons, but because the doubts of others have so persuaded them that they eventually because certain it is invalid.
I think you are saying that most folks doubt it merely because others doubt it.  If you mean that most people don't read up on clerical studies and come to an informed decision on their own, you are probably correct.

In my case, I read Fr Pierre's and Father Cekada' s studies and decided against the New Rite of Consecration (the New Rite of Ordination is less of a concern).

The fact that the SSPX changed its tune at the exact same time Benedict was elected made me very suspicious of their motivation in declaring the New Rite certainly valid.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on February 19, 2019, 08:10:14 PM
RomanTheo, the first half of Fr Pierre-Marie’s article shows how the NO episcopal consecration doesn’t meet the minimum requirements for validity as specified by Pope Pius XII in the 1940s.  It also shows how Dom Botte’s research was faulty and the rite is based on an ancient episcopal installation ceremony.  He also deals with the specific problems of the new form as if maybe despite not meeting minimum requirements it might still be valid but it becomes abundantly clear that the meaning of the new form is not the same as the old.  If you know anything about sacramental theology you know that a change in meaning of the form invalidates the sacrament.  So if using the Creator in place of the Father invalidates the form then what can we say about the significance of the changes in the episcopal consecration form?  It’s beyond the pale.

It looks like you are reading the objections as if they are Fr. Pierre-Marie's own arguments.  Those objections do not reflect his position.  They are the objections of others that he refutes later in the article.  

His article is structured like the Summa. He proposes objections, then answers the question, and then lastly replies to the objections.

Fr. Pierre-Marie does not believe the new form is invalid, or even doubtful.  On the contrary, he said: "It can be concluded that the formula is certainly valid, for it has been utilized from time immemorial in numerous Eastern Rites; it means the gift of the Holy Ghost that creates the bishop."

Here's a link his replies to the objections you mentioned.  http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations-5



Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 19, 2019, 08:19:51 PM
It looks like you are reading the objections as if they are Fr. Pierre-Marie's own arguments.  Those objections do not reflect his position.  They are the objections of others that he refutes later in the article.  

His article is structured like the Summa. He proposes objections, then answers the question, and then lastly replies to the objections.

Fr. Pierre-Marie does not believe the new form is invalid, or even doubtful.  On the contrary, he said: "It can be concluded that the formula is certainly valid, for it has been utilized from time immemorial in numerous Eastern Rites; it means the gift of the Holy Ghost that creates the bishop."

Here's a link his replies to the objections you mentioned.  http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations-5

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (giving his main reason for doubting the validity of the NREC):

“The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.”

Hence his conclusion:

“I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of Episcopal Consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.”
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 19, 2019, 08:27:20 PM
It looks like you are reading the objections as if they are Fr. Pierre-Marie's own arguments.  Those objections do not reflect his position.  They are the objections of others that he refutes later in the article.  

His article is structured like the Summa. He proposes objections, then answers the question, and then lastly replies to the objections.

Fr. Pierre-Marie does not believe the new form is invalid, or even doubtful.  On the contrary, he said: "It can be concluded that the formula is certainly valid, for it has been utilized from time immemorial in numerous Eastern Rites; it means the gift of the Holy Ghost that creates the bishop."

Here's a link his replies to the objections you mentioned.  http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations-5
He begins by stating the facts.  He never refutes the facts.  He admits them.  The form does not meet the minimum requirements set forth by Pius XII.  The form is based on an episcopal installation ceremony that Dom Botte erroneously thought was a consecration ceremony.  The rite is not the same as the eastern rites.  He refutes none of that because those are facts that he admits are true.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 19, 2019, 08:39:13 PM
Fr. Cekada vs Fr. Celier (SSPX):

1st round knockout by Fr. Cekada.

Note also that Fr Celier is the same SSPX priest who was a member of GREC, and who wrote an accordist book (Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists) with the Foreword written by a public Freemason, and avowed hater of Archbishop Lefebvre).

Fr. Celier has placed his own reputation under a cloud of suspicion, and such a man defending (however ineptly) the validity of the new Rite is rather a strong mark AGAINST concluding likewise.

Take it away, Fr. Cekada:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpCelierWeb.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpCelierWeb.pdf)

Note that Fr Cekada and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais share the same objection/concern, with only the extent of their conclusion differing.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on February 19, 2019, 08:59:12 PM
Hello RT-

I’m not really understanding what you are trying to say, I guess.

If St. Thomas has a certain doctrinal position, or St. Jerome a biblical interpretation, or St. Alphonsus a moral opinion, then I am usually going to go with that opinion, based on their authority in those domains (not because they have some kind of personal jurisdiction over me).

Same with the present issue:

Rather than trust in self, I trust in those who are more studied in the matter.
Are you saying I should not do that?  Or that the authorities I should place such trust in are the conciliarists who have proven themselves untrustworthy?
Ah, okay I see what you mean by submitting to his authority.  

Do I think you should doubt simply because he has doubts?  No, not without doing your own homework.  

There are a lot of trustworthy and intelligent people who have not had any doubts about the validity of the new rite, such as Cardinal Ottaviani, so it strikes me as imprudent to doubt simply because someone you consider trustworthy and intelligent doubts.   

What I think you should do is find out what issues cause him to doubt, and then thoroughly investigate those matters yourself.  Then, after doing so, you might doubt for the same reasons he doubts, but not simply because he doubts.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on February 19, 2019, 09:04:02 PM
He begins by stating the facts.  He never refutes the facts.  He admits them.  The form does not meet the minimum requirements set forth by Pius XII.  The form is based on an episcopal installation ceremony that Dom Botte erroneously thought was a consecration ceremony.  The rite is not the same as the eastern rites.  He refutes none of that because those are facts that he admits are true.
Have you ever read an article in the Summa?  That's how Fr. Pierre-Marie's article is structures. He doesn't begin with "facts".  He begins with objections that he later refutes.
 
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on February 19, 2019, 09:33:52 PM

“The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.”

That's it.  That the argument against the new rite, or at least the argument that causes people to doubt the validity. 

What I would suggest is that you research that point.  Don't set out to defend what Bishop Tissier said, but look into it yourself with an open mind and see what you find. 

What you will be trying to determine is if the phrase "spiritul principalem" signifies the sacramental effect, by referring to the office of bishop.   All that is required for a valid form is that 1) the Holy Ghost is called upon to 2) raise the person to the office of Bishop.  The Holy Ghost is clearly mentioned in the new form. The argument is that the phrase spiritual principalem does not sufficiently indicate the office of Bishop.

If you look into that argument yourself I bet you come away with no doubts about the validity of the new rite, but only if you look into it honestly with an open mind.  I would start with Fr. Pierre-Marie's article and see what he has to say about the phrase.  

Also keep in mind that words mean what the Church understands them to mean.  If a heretical sect uses a theological or doctrine term that the Catholic Church uses, but understanding of the term differently, their meaning of the word of phraase doesn't have any effect whatsoever on what the Church means when it uses the same word or phrase.  This fact will help you see through one of Fr. Cekada's nonsensical arguments, which is the same nonsensical argument used by Rama Coomerswami. 
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 19, 2019, 09:34:00 PM
Ah, okay I see what you mean by submitting to his authority.  

Do I think you should doubt simply because he has doubts?  No, not without doing your own homework.  

There are a lot of trustworthy and intelligent people who have not had any doubts about the validity of the new rite, such as Cardinal Ottaviani, so it strikes me as imprudent to doubt simply because someone you consider trustworthy and intelligent doubts.  

What I think you should do is find out what issues cause him to doubt, and then thoroughly investigate those matters yourself.  Then, after doing so, you might doubt for the same reasons he doubts, but not simply because he doubts.
Hi RT-
I have given His Excellency’s REASONS twice in this thread.
I’m confident you are aware of that.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 19, 2019, 09:42:48 PM
That's it.  That the argument against the new rite, or at least the argument that causes people to doubt the validity.

What I would suggest is that you research that point.  Don't set out to defend what Bishop Tissier said, but look into it yourself with an open mind and see what you find.

What you will be trying to determine is if the phrase "spiritul principalem" signifies the sacramental effect, by referring to the office of bishop.   All that is required for a valid form is that 1) the Holy Ghost is called upon to 2) raise the person to the office of Bishop.  The Holy Ghost is clearly mentioned in the new form. The argument is that the phrase spiritual principalem does not sufficiently indicate the office of Bishop.

If you look into that argument yourself I bet you come away with no doubts about the validity of the new rite, but only if you look into it honestly with an open mind. I would start with Fr. Pierre-Marie's article and see what he has to say about the phrase.  

Also keep in mind that words mean what the Church understands them to mean.  If a heretical sect uses a theological or doctrine term that the Catholic Church uses, but understanding of the term differently, their meaning of the word of phraase doesn't have any effect whatsoever on what the Church means when it uses the same word or phrase.  This fact will help you see through one of Fr. Cekada's nonsensical arguments, which is the same nonsensical argument used by Rama Coomerswami.

Do you really think I haven’t looked into the argument myself?

How then did I become aware of the doubts of Lefebvre, Williamson, de Mallerais, Cekada, Coomaraswamy, and others?

Archbishop Lefebvre doubted the new Rite, and I prefer to place my trust in his  authority rather than my own.

Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier share those doubts.

Fr Pierre-Marie wrote a poor article which, besides being unconvincing, departed from them.

Why he might have done so is open to question, but what is not open to question is that his arguments do not withstand the criticisms of Lefebvre, Cekada, Williamson, Coomaraswamy, and de Mallerais.

When the sedes and RR camps are in agreement, the argument becomes rather compelling.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 19, 2019, 10:11:13 PM
Fr. Celier likes to speak about “context.”

He did it in his book “Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists” in his four rules for interpreting Archbishop Lefebvre (the last of which suggested that since Lefebvre was a practical, rather than systematic thinker, he was prone to contradict himself when circuмstances changed, and in fact had allegedly done so with regard to being open to an agreement with Rome, despite his many other statements to the contrary).

So sayeth the book which opens with a foreword from a Freemason!

The same argument is tried here a couple years earlier: Use “context” to broaden the subject matter under consideration.

But Cekada (and de Mallerais) blow that one out of the water:

”Meaning Derived from Context?

Fr. Celier enunciates the following principle: “In reality, the words of the sacramental formula should be referred to a three-fold field of meaning. For it is erroneous to require that a text express a sense in a comprehensible way outside of any other context.”

Here Fr. Celier takes up the nebulous double-talk of modernist sacramental theology, which dismisses pre-Vatican II teaching on essential sacramental forms as a theology of “magic words.”

Like Fr. Celier, the modernists propose instead a “broader context” that effects a sacrament. In my days in a modernist seminary, many was the time I heard priests and fellow seminarians say that pronouncing the Words of Consecration at Mass was not important because “the whole Eucharistic Prayer was consecratory.”

This is also the same theology that allowed Ratzinger and John Paul II to declare in 2001 that when the Nestorian schismatics use the Anaphora (Canon) of Addai and Marai for their Mass, it is valid, even though it does not contain the Words of Consecration — or even mention the Body and Blood of Christ.

But according to traditional Catholic sacramental theology, “context” cannot supply validity when an essential element is omitted from the sacramental form.

Thus for example, although the “context” of the traditional baptismal rite contains prayers that explicitly mention baptism, cleansing and the life of grace, this context cannot render the sacrament valid if the priest substantially changes or omits an essential word (e.g., “baptize,” “I,” “you,” “Father,” etc.) in the essential sacramental formula.

The rite is invalid, period.

Nor would the “implicit” signification that Fr. Celier proposes for an essential sacramental form produce a valid baptism. If a priest says “I baptize you in the name of God,” the baptism will still be invalid, even though the surrounding context “implies” the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.”
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on February 20, 2019, 12:18:18 AM

The rite is invalid, period.

Nothing you wrote touched upon the question.  Why does spiritum principalem not suffice to signify the sacramental effect? That is the only question that matters at this point.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 20, 2019, 04:38:47 AM
Nothing you wrote touched upon the question.  Why does spiritum principalem not suffice to signify the sacramental effect? That is the only question that matters at this point.

Fr. Cekada:

“The dispute hinges on the essential sacramental form for the episcopacy — the one sentence in the rite that contains what is necessary and sufficient to consecrate a true bishop. Put very simply, my argument was this:

• In his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII taught that a form for conferring Holy Orders must univocally (unambiguously) signify the sacramental effects: the power of the Order received (deacon, priest or bishop) and the grace of the Holy Ghost.

• In 1968 the post-Vatican II reformers completely changed the essential sacramental form for episcopal consecration. In the process, they removed one of these essential ideas: the power of Holy Orders (potestas Ordinis) that a bishop receives.

• According to the general principles of Catholic sacramental theology, if a sacramental form is changed in such a way as to remove an essential idea, the form becomes invalid.

• The new form, I therefore concluded, is invalid. Consequently, those consecrated with this rite are not true bishops.

A key point of dispute in the debate concerned the meaning in the new form of the Latin phrase Spiritus principalis — rendered into English as “governing Spirit” and into French as “l’Esprit qui fait les chefs.”

Those who defended the validity of the new rite maintained that this expression unambiguously signified the episcopacy.

I demonstrated that it did not — I unearthed at least a dozen different meanings for it — and that in the new form itself, the expression means nothing more than the Holy Ghost, merely one of the required elements for a valid sacramental form for Holy Orders.

In my articles I had presented all this in a systematic fashion and cited various treatises to support each point of my argument.

In his editorial, however, Fr. Celier did not respond with a systematic theological argument of his own. Rather, he launched a personal attack against the members of Rore Sanctifica and myself— and then recycled the objections of a modernist Benedictine that I had already answered.

Since Fr. Celier’s editorial will be translated and widely circulated, I will answer these objections once again. I will conclude by pointing out how the use of these arguments by Fr. Celier and others indicates a larger problem within SSPX.”

NB: My only distinction here is that where Fr Cekada says “invalid,” I say “doubtful.”
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 20, 2019, 08:28:16 AM
Quote
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.
Suppose Fr Cekada is wrong and there are not multiple meanings for “governing spirit” and that it univocally defines the power of the episcopacy.  Where is the second requirement for validity, specifically where is the grace of the Holy Ghost mentioned?  Or if you are going to take the position that “governing spirit” univocally defines both the power of the episcopacy and the grace of the Holy Ghost, please cite a pre-Vatican 2 source for such a definition.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on February 20, 2019, 10:43:40 AM
“The dispute hinges on the essential sacramental form for the episcopacy — the one sentence in the rite that contains what is necessary and sufficient to consecrate a true bishop. Put very simply, my argument was this:
 
• In his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII taught that a form for conferring Holy Orders must univocally (unambiguously) signify the sacramental effects: the power of the Order received (deacon, priest or bishop) and the grace of the Holy Ghost.
 
In 1968 the post-Vatican II reformers completely changed the essential sacramental form for episcopal consecration. In the process, they removed one of these essential ideas: the power of Holy Orders (potestas Ordinis) that a bishop receives.
 
• According to the general principles of Catholic sacramental theology, if a sacramental form is changed in such a way as to remove an essential idea, the form becomes invalid.
 
The new form, I therefore concluded, is invalid. Consequently, those consecrated with this rite are not true bishops.
 
A key point [no, the key point] of dispute in the debate concerned the meaning in the new form of the Latin phrase Spiritus principalis — rendered into English as “governing Spirit” and into French as “l’Esprit qui fait les chefs.”
 
Those who defended the validity of the new rite maintained that this expression unambiguously signified the episcopacy.
 
I demonstrated that it did not — I unearthed at least a dozen different meanings for it — and that in the new form itself, the expression means nothing more than the Holy Ghost, merely one of the required elements for a valid sacramental form for Holy Orders.
Your post was helpful in allowing us to drill down to the main point of the dispute, but it failed utterly in showing why “spiritus principalis” does not univocally to signify the sacramental effect.

What you did show is Fr. Cekada’s reason for believing why it does not, namely, because he looked up the definition of principalis and found that the word has more than one meaning (just like every other word in the dictionary), and since it has more than one meaning the word is ambiguous, rather than univocal, and therefore does not “univocally” refer to the office of bishop.   

If Fr. Cekada’s reasoning were correct, every sacrament would be invalid, or at least highly doubtful. 

Let’s look at the old form of episcopal consecration as one example.   Keep in mind that to be valid, the form must signify two things: 1) the Holy Ghost and 2) the office of the episcopate.   And according to Fr. Cekada, if there is any ambiguity it is invalid.  The bold parts below are supposed to signify the episcoate and the Holy Ghost

Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis: “Finally in the Episcopal Ordination or Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator. The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:  ‘Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing’.” 

Does the phrase “fullness of thy ministry” univocally signify the office of bishop?   How many meanings do you think Fr. Cekada could unearth for the word “ministry”?    And what about “heavenly anointing”?  Who would have ever guessed that’s a reference to the Holy Ghost?

If you apply Fr. Cekada’s argument to the old form, the only conclusion an honest person can reach is that the old rite of episcopal consecration ‘is absolutely null and utterly void,’ or at least highly doubtful (and hence must be avoided).  Therefore, there must be a flaw somewhere in Fr. Cekada’ reasoning.  And indeed there is... 
 
The flaw is a misunderstanding of what suffices for a univocal signification.  It doesn’t mean the word (i.e, “ministry”) can have only one possible meaning, or even that the word or phrase (“Heavenly anointing”) must unambiguously be understood as referring to what it signifies.  All that is required for a univocal signification is that the word or phrase be accepted and used by the Church as meaning what it is intended to signify.

This brings us to Fr. Cekada’s misrepresentation of what Pius XII teaches in Sacramentum Ordinis.  Here is what he wrote:

Fr. Cekada: “Pius XII taught that a form for conferring Holy Orders must univocally (unambiguously) signify the sacramental effects: the power of the Order received (deacon, priest or bishop) and the grace of the Holy Ghost.”

That’s not what Pius XII taught.  This is what he wrote:

Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis: “Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.”

The reason the words univocally signify the sacramental effect is because they “are accepted and used by the Church in that sense,” regardless of how many definitions Fr. Cekada can “unearth” for the same word or phrase. 
 
And the phrase “spiritus principalis” has been used by the Church to refer to the office of bishops since the earliest centuries, and probably during the time of the apostles.  Do a google search of “spiritual principalis” and “ordination” or “consecration” and you will find that the form used for episcopal consecration in the most ancient rites uses the phrase spiritus principalis.  In fact, the entire form in these ancient rites is virtually identical to the "new" form used by Paul VI.  There is no doubt whatsoever that the form used in the new rite is valid.  It is more ancient and less ambiguous than the old form. 
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 20, 2019, 11:12:26 AM
Your post was helpful in allowing us to drill down to the main point of the dispute, but it failed utterly in showing why “spiritus principalis” does not univocally to signify the sacramental effect.

What you did show is Fr. Cekada’s reason for believing why it does not, namely, because he looked up the definition of principalis and found that the word has more than one meaning (just like every other word in the dictionary), and since it has more than one meaning the word is ambiguous, rather than univocal, and therefore does not “univocally” refer to the office of bishop.  

If Fr. Cekada’s reasoning were correct, every sacrament would be invalid, or at least highly doubtful.  

Let’s look at the old form of episcopal consecration as one example.   Keep in mind that to be valid, the form must signify two things: 1) the Holy Ghost and 2) the office of the episcopate.   And according to Fr. Cekada, if there is any ambiguity it is invalid.  The bold parts below are supposed to signify the episcoate and the Holy Ghost

Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis: “Finally in the Episcopal Ordination or Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator. The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:  ‘Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing’.”

Does the phrase “fullness of thy ministry” univocally signify the office of bishop?   How many meanings do you think Fr. Cekada could unearth for the word “ministry”?    And what about “heavenly anointing”?  Who would have ever guessed that’s a reference to the Holy Ghost?

If you apply Fr. Cekada’s argument to the old form, the only conclusion an honest person can reach is that the old rite of episcopal consecration ‘is absolutely null and utterly void,’ or at least highly doubtful (and hence must be avoided).  Therefore, there must be a flaw somewhere in Fr. Cekada’ reasoning.  And indeed there is...

The flaw is a misunderstanding of what suffices for a univocal signification.  It doesn’t mean the word (i.e, “ministry”) can have only one possible meaning, or even that the word or phrase (“Heavenly anointing”) must unambiguously be understood as referring to what it signifies. All that is required for a univocal signification is that the word or phrase be accepted and used by the Church as meaning what it is intended to signify.

This brings us to Fr. Cekada’s misrepresentation of what Pius XII teaches in Sacramentum Ordinis.  Here is what he wrote:

Fr. Cekada: “Pius XII taught that a form for conferring Holy Orders must univocally (unambiguously) signify the sacramental effects: the power of the Order received (deacon, priest or bishop) and the grace of the Holy Ghost.”

That’s not what Pius XII taught.  This is what he wrote:

Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis: “Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.”

The reason the words univocally signify the sacramental effect is because they “are accepted and used by the Church in that sense,” regardless of how many definitions Fr. Cekada can “unearth” for the same word or phrase.

And the phrase “spiritus principalis” has been used by the Church to refer to the office of bishops since the earliest centuries, and probably during the time of the apostles.  Do a google search of “spiritual principalis” and “ordination” or “consecration” and you will find that the form used for episcopal consecration in the most ancient rites uses the phrase spiritus principalis.  In fact, the entire form in these ancient rites is virtually identical to the "new" form used by Paul VI.  There is no doubt whatsoever that the form used in the new rite is valid.  It is more ancient and less ambiguous than the old form.  

Greetings RT-

I have just alerted Fr. Cekada of your contention, and asked him if he cares to defend his thesis and rebut your comments.

I will let you know how/when/if he responds (presuming he responds to me before posting here directly).

Meanwhile, I find it very interesting that Bishop Tissier, Fr Cekada, Coomaraswamy, the Rore Sanctifica, et al havecall cited the ambiguity of the essential sacramental form as cause for positive doubt on the validity of the new Rite.

But if your simple explanation (ie., every word is ambiguous, therefore there really is no ambiguity here) is correct, it evinces a rather remarkable ineptitude in Bishop Tissier to make such a mistake (an ineptitude which runs contrary to his reputation).

But I suspect you did not actually read Fr Cekada’s discussion on this he ambiguity of the phrase in question, but rather simply responded to my reference to it.

So while we await a response from Fr Cekada, let’s go see what he had to say on the matter of the alleged ambiguity of the essential form andbphrase in question...
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 20, 2019, 11:31:28 AM
Your post was helpful in allowing us to drill down to the main point of the dispute, but it failed utterly in showing why “spiritus principalis” does not univocally to signify the sacramental effect.

What you did show is Fr. Cekada’s reason for believing why it does not, namely, because he looked up the definition of principalis and found that the word has more than one meaning (just like every other word in the dictionary), and since it has more than one meaning the word is ambiguous, rather than univocal, and therefore does not “univocally” refer to the office of bishop.  

If Fr. Cekada’s reasoning were correct, every sacrament would be invalid, or at least highly doubtful.  

Let’s look at the old form of episcopal consecration as one example.   Keep in mind that to be valid, the form must signify two things: 1) the Holy Ghost and 2) the office of the episcopate.   And according to Fr. Cekada, if there is any ambiguity it is invalid.  The bold parts below are supposed to signify the episcoate and the Holy Ghost

Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis: “Finally in the Episcopal Ordination or Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator. The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:  ‘Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing’.”

Does the phrase “fullness of thy ministry” univocally signify the office of bishop?   How many meanings do you think Fr. Cekada could unearth for the word “ministry”?    And what about “heavenly anointing”?  Who would have ever guessed that’s a reference to the Holy Ghost?

If you apply Fr. Cekada’s argument to the old form, the only conclusion an honest person can reach is that the old rite of episcopal consecration ‘is absolutely null and utterly void,’ or at least highly doubtful (and hence must be avoided).  Therefore, there must be a flaw somewhere in Fr. Cekada’ reasoning.  And indeed there is...

The flaw is a misunderstanding of what suffices for a univocal signification.  It doesn’t mean the word (i.e, “ministry”) can have only one possible meaning, or even that the word or phrase (“Heavenly anointing”) must unambiguously be understood as referring to what it signifies. All that is required for a univocal signification is that the word or phrase be accepted and used by the Church as meaning what it is intended to signify.

This brings us to Fr. Cekada’s misrepresentation of what Pius XII teaches in Sacramentum Ordinis.  Here is what he wrote:

Fr. Cekada: “Pius XII taught that a form for conferring Holy Orders must univocally (unambiguously) signify the sacramental effects: the power of the Order received (deacon, priest or bishop) and the grace of the Holy Ghost.”

That’s not what Pius XII taught.  This is what he wrote:

Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis: “Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.”

The reason the words univocally signify the sacramental effect is because they “are accepted and used by the Church in that sense,” regardless of how many definitions Fr. Cekada can “unearth” for the same word or phrase.

And the phrase “spiritus principalis” has been used by the Church to refer to the office of bishops since the earliest centuries, and probably during the time of the apostles.  Do a google search of “spiritual principalis” and “ordination” or “consecration” and you will find that the form used for episcopal consecration in the most ancient rites uses the phrase spiritus principalis.  In fact, the entire form in these ancient rites is virtually identical to the "new" form used by Paul VI.  There is no doubt whatsoever that the form used in the new rite is valid.  It is more ancient and less ambiguous than the old form.  

Hello RT-

Looks like your argument is that of Br. Ansgar, OSB (a modernist), which was refuted by Fr. Cekada beginning on p.4 of this article:

Begin reading at this point, and see if you still maintain your/Br. Ansgar’s argument:

“Br. Ansgar sets out to demonstrate that the essential sacramental forms prescribed in Sacramentum Ordinis by Pius XII — yes, Pius XII — were ambiguous and thus invalid by the standard I applied to the Paul VI form.”

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf)
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on February 20, 2019, 12:36:49 PM
Hello RT-

Looks like your argument is that of Br. Ansgar, OSB (a modernist), which was refuted by Fr. Cekada beginning on p.4 of this article:

Begin reading at this point, and see if you still maintain your/Br. Ansgar’s argument:

“Br. Ansgar sets out to demonstrate that the essential sacramental forms prescribed in Sacramentum Ordinis by Pius XII — yes, Pius XII — were ambiguous and thus invalid by the standard I applied to the Paul VI form.”

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf)

Let's hope Fr. Cekada comes on to defend his position.  

And for the record, I didn't get my arguments from Br. Ansgar, but I did just read page four of the link you provided.   Thanks for alerting me to it, because without realizing it Fr. Cekada indirectly refutes his entire thesis.  I'll explain how later.  For now, I would suggesting saving the docuмent as a pdf, just in case it mysteriously disappear from the internet or secretly gets "revised."
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 20, 2019, 12:57:57 PM
Let's hope Fr. Cekada comes on to defend his position.  

And for the record, I didn't get my arguments from Br. Ansgar, but I did just read page four of the link you provided.   Thanks for alerting me to it, because without realizing it Fr. Cekada indirectly refutes his entire thesis.  I'll explain how later.  For now, I would suggesting saving the docuмent as a pdf, just in case it mysteriously disappear from the internet or secretly gets "revised."

RT-

May I ask what your level of theological training is?

Your pseudonym seems to suggest you are a “Roman Theo(logian)”
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: 2Vermont on February 20, 2019, 04:21:56 PM
Why should Fr Cekada have to defend his position to anyone here?  He has written more fully about this matter and his writings and rebuttals are easily accessible online.  RomanTheo just needs to actually read them and get his SSPX/Novus Ordo head out of the sand.


When the sedes and RR camps are in agreement, the argument becomes rather compelling.


Even X and I agree!  
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on February 20, 2019, 05:33:45 PM
The following is my reply Fr. Cekada's rebuttal to Br. Ansgar, as found on pages 4 and 5 of the link that "X" provided.

Fr. Cekada: “Pius XII’s “Ambiguous” Formulas: Br. Ansgar sets out to demonstrate that the essential sacramental forms prescribed in Sacramentum Ordinis by Pius XII — yes, Pius XII — were ambiguous and thus invalid by the standard I applied to the Paul VI form.”

Comment: Here is the argument as presented by Br. Ansgar that he's referring to:

Br. Ansgar: “But that is not all: the traditional Latin formulas for the diaconate and episcopate taken together also fall short of Fr. Cekada’s required degree of univocity in a sacramental formula : the deacon is said to receive the Holy Spirit for “the work of the ministry” while the bishop receives the “fullness (summa ) . . . of your ministry”. Even though a bishop receives the plenitude of the sanctifying power of the priesthood, the formula itself does not say “priesthood”, but rather “ministry”, a generic term also used for the non-sanctifying (non-priestly) power of order a deacon receives. According to his own principles, how does Fr. Cekada know that the formula “plenitude of the ministry” univocally signifies a bishop and not an archdeacon, since diaconate is also, and even etymologically (diakonos—minister), ministry?

Comment: Before reading Fr. Cekada’s reply, be sure to notice what Br. Ansgar is asking.  He wants to know how Fr. Cekada can be sure he the phrase “plenitude of the ministry” univocally signifies a bishop..  See if you can spot the sleight of hand Fr. Cekada uses:

Fr. Cekada: “Diaconate. The word “ministry,” Br. Ansgar argues, is used in the Pius XII forms for both diaconate and episcopacy. How, Br. Ansgar asks, does Fr. Cekada know that the formula for episcopal consecration 'makes a bishop and not an archdeacon'? Well, Fr. Cekada knows it because Rev. Francis Hürth SJ, one of the theologians who wrote Sacramentum Ordinis for Pius XII, explained exactly what the word “ministry” meant in the form for diaconal ordination: “No one can doubt that the word ‘ministry’ in this sentence is used in the full and technical sense corresponding to the Greek term diaconia (‘diaconii’), from which this whole Order derives its name ‘diaconate’.”

Comment: Notice what he just did.  He answered by quoting an authority who explained what “ministry” meant in formula of ordination of a deacon. But that’s not what Br. Ansgar asked.  He asked how Fr. Cekada knew that “the formula “plenitude of the ministry” univocally signifies a bishop.”  Fr. Cekada avoided answering that altogether and therefore the question still stands.  How does ministry univocally signify the office of bishop, when it is also used to refer to the deaconate?

He dodges a similar question again on page 5. This time by quoting the same authority, and then misrepresent what the quote said by claiming the authority "explained" what he did not explain:

Fr. Cekada: “Episcopacy. And finally, applying the same method to the form that Pius XII prescribed for episcopal consecration, Br. Ansgar claims: ‘But still, ‘”fullness of your ministry” does not in itself indicate that this ministerial fullness is specifically different from the non-priestly ministry the ordained had once received when he was ordained a deacon.’29

“And Fr. Hürth provides an explanation of these terms from the theologians who proposed as the essential form the passage that Pius XII finally adopted: 'The words which fully suffice for the power and the grace to be signified are found in the consecratory Preface, whose essential words are those in which the ‘fullness or totality’ of the sacerdotal ministry and the ‘raiment of all glory’ are expressed.'30

“So unless you follow the tenets of the weird modern theory in which an author has no 'privileged' insights into what his own writings mean, Fr. Hürth’s explanations of how and why the terms in the Pius XII forms are univocal [where did he explain that?] will suffice to defeat Br. Ansgar..."

Comment: Fr. Hurth did not answer Brother Ansgar’s questions by “explain[ing] how and why the terms in the Pius XI forma are univocal.”  All he said is that they ‘fully suffice”, but without explaining how or why. But there’s something far more important to point out about Fr. Cekada’s reply.

Before seeing how Fr. Cekada has just refuted his own thesis, remember that this entire argument comes down to the meaning of Spiritus principalis and specifically whether it suffices to signify the sacramental effect – namely, the office of Bishop.  Also remember that the reason Fr. Cekada claims it does not is because he discovered that “principalis” (like all other words), has more than one meaning, and then jumped to the conclusion that because of that it is ambiguous, and consequently cannot univocally signify the office of Bishop. But now comes the interesting part.

What did Fr. Cekada do when the same argument was put to him – i.e., that ministry has multiple meanings, and therefore does not univocally signify the sacramental effect?  Did he turn to a dictionary (like he did with “principalem”) in an attempt to show that the word really only has one meaning (univocal)?  No.  That wouldn’t have worked.  Instead, he turned to an authority who explained what the word ‘ministry’ was intended mean in that particular sentence  (even though the explanation pertained to the form of ordination for a deacon, not a bishop).

The reason this is important is because it demonstrates that Fr. Cekada himself realizes that it doesn’t matter if a word has multiple meanings.  What matters is the sense in which the word or phrase is “accepted and used by the Church” (as Pius XII)   Therefore, all we need to do to demonstrate what the Church means by Spiritus Principalis is quote an authority who was involved in preparing the new rite.

For this, let us turn to the explanation for Spiritus Principalis given by Dom Botte, who was on the commission that prepared the New Rite – just as Fr. Cekada’s expert (Fr. Hurth) was involved in writing Sacramentum Ordinis - to find out what the term “Spiritus principalis” means.  Remember, according to Fr. Cekada’s own reasoning and method, this should definitively settle the matter.  And how much more so if the expert explains the meaning of the phrase in the correct context - Bishopric, not diaconate - and really does explain why it does suffice for validity, rather than simply saying so. Here is the explanation of Spiritus principalis given by Botte: 


“The real question is this: among all the epithets that might have been suitable, why was principalis chosen? At this point it is necessary to broaden the investigation. The three orders [i.e., bishops, priests, and deacons] have a gift of the Holy Ghost, but it is not the same for each. For the bishop, it is the Spiritus principalis; for the priest, who forms the bishop’s council, it is the Spiritus consilii; and for the deacon, it is the Spiritus zeli et sollicitudinis. It is clear that these distinctions are made according to the functions of each minister. Thus it is clear that principalis must be correlated with the specific functions of the bishop (…) It can be concluded that the formula is certainly valid, for it has been utilized from time immemorial in numerous Eastern Rites; it means the gift of the Holy Ghost that creates the bishop." (Dom Bernard Botte, “Spiritus Principalis (formule de l’ordination episcopale),” Notitiae, 10 (1974), 410-11.)

There you have it.  The testimony of an expert who was on the commission that prepared the new rite who explains what Spiritus principalis means - how it is accepted and used by the Church -  and states that “it is certainly valid.”

By using Fr. Cekada’s own method for determining how an ambiguous word is to be understood when used in the context of the formula for ordination or consecration, we have just proven that his entire thesis against the validity of the new rite is “absolutely null and utterly void.”

Next we will look at the arguments of Rama Coomerswami, which may actually be worse than those of Fr. Cekada.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 20, 2019, 06:06:02 PM
RT-

May I ask what your level of theological training is?

Your pseudonym seems to suggest you are a “Roman Theo(logian)”

?
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 20, 2019, 09:11:32 PM
RT, you have repeated several times the idea that the same analysis of the new form when applied to the old form would show the old form to also be equivocal.  That's not true.  The old form is the received rite.  Not only the meaning but the very words themselves are of Apostolic origin.  Therefore it is the authority of Our Lord and God who guarantees the univocal meaning and validity of the form.  The new form is a man-made form conceived in the warped mind of the modernist Dom Botte.  It is based on faulty research.  And arguably it is intentionally equivocal because they had the same goal as the Anglican reformers:

Quote
It is true (http://newadvent.com/cathen/15073a.htm) that the traditional names of the three orders occur in places, but, as explained at the head of this article, these names at the Reformation (http://newadvent.com/cathen/12700b.htm) were often used in a sense from which all notion of the priesthood (http://newadvent.com/cathen/12409a.htm) and its mystical powers had been drained off. That this was the sense in which they were intended by those who framed and authorized the Edwardine rites is proved (http://newadvent.com/cathen/12454c.htm) by the statements of classical Anglican (http://newadvent.com/cathen/01498a.htm) writers like Hooker, who defend the retention of the old names on the plea that "as for the people, when they hear the name [priest (http://newadvent.com/cathen/12406a.htm)] it draweth no more their minds to any cogitation of sacrifice than the name of a senator or of an alderman causeth them to think upon old age, or to imagine that every one so termed must needs be ancient because years were respected in the nomination (http://newadvent.com/cathen/11093a.htm) of both" (Eccles. Polity, V, lxxviii, 2). There is, moreover, the broad fact that, when the old and the new rite are compared, it appears that the difference lies just in this: that the framers of the new have cut out all that in the old gave expression to the idea (http://newadvent.com/cathen/07630a.htm) of a mystic sacerdotium in the Catholic (http://newadvent.com/cathen/03449a.htm) sense of the term. There is also the connected fact that the introduction of the Edwardine Ordinal was the outcome of the same general movement which led to the pulling down of the altars and the substitution of communion tables, in order that, as Ridley expressed it, "the form of a table shall more move the simple people from the superstitious (http://newadvent.com/cathen/14339a.htm) opinions of the Popish mass unto the right use of the Lord's supper". - http://newadvent.com/cathen/01491a.htm "Anglican Orders"
So, no, Fr Cekada does not have to apply the same analysis to the traditional rite.  It is guaranteed to be valid.

Quote
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.


Quote
The reason this is important is because it demonstrates that Fr. Cekada himself realizes that it doesn’t matter if a word has multiple meanings.  What matters is the sense in which the word or phrase is “accepted and used by the Church” (as Pius XII)   Therefore, all we need to do to demonstrate what the Church means by Spiritus Principalis is quote an authority who was involved in preparing the new rite.
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.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: 2Vermont on February 21, 2019, 04:55:20 AM
?
Hmm....I suspect a "priest" ordained by a Novus Ordo "bishop".
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on February 21, 2019, 05:34:33 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 (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.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 21, 2019, 07:52:35 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.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: 2Vermont on February 22, 2019, 04:46:19 AM


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

Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on February 22, 2019, 09:46:29 AM
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.

Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: 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:

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.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: forlorn on February 23, 2019, 06:31:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: 2Vermont on February 23, 2019, 06:53:30 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. 

Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 23, 2019, 08:12:55 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.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: forlorn on February 23, 2019, 09:13:02 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) by imposition of hands (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07698a.htm), it would seem that He left to the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) the power of determining by which particular rite the power and grace should be conferred. The Church's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) determination of the particular rite would be the fulfilling of a condition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04211a.htm) required in order that the Divine institution should take effect. The Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) determined the simple imposition of hands (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07698a.htm) for the East and added, in the course of time (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14726a.htm), 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.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Judith 15 Ten 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.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo 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 5th 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 5th 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 5th 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.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X 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.”
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Nishant Xavier 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.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria 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 5th 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.


Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria 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 (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf)
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 24, 2019, 11:38:49 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.
Paul VI was the one who specified that the form of the NREC is 42 words.   He didn't say the form was the entire preface.  Whereas the form of the Eastern Rites is universally agreed to be the entire preface.  You are right, if the Eastern Rite form was anything less than the entire preface it would be invalid according to Pope Pius XII's criteria.  But it wasn't invalid.  Therefore you know that Pope Pius XII was considering the entire preface as the form.  But Paul VI said the NREC form is only 42 words and those 42 words don't specify the 2 criteria for a valid form.  Spiritum Principalis (or equivalent) is indeed in the Eastern Rite forms but there is a lot more in them also which does meet Pope Pius's criteria.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 25, 2019, 12:51:33 PM
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/11/divino-afflatu-centennial-iii-centenary.html (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/11/divino-afflatu-centennial-iii-centenary.html?m=1)


Quote
Fr. Anthony Cekada, regardless of our natural and strong disagreements with him in a matter of rock-solid and foundational relevance, is one of the most knowledgeable living analysts of the liturgical developments of the Latin Church in the last few centuries. His most famous publication, Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI (Philothea Press (http://www.philotheapress.com/) - also now with a related YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/WorkofHumanHands?feature=mhee)), has received compliments from different places (from Msgr. A. Wadsworth, ICEL General Secretary (http://www.doctrinaliturgica.com/2011/07/missal-translation-director-praises-cekadas-book-on-the-mass-of-paul-vi/), who remarked that it is "full of interesting and credible analysis... an important contribution... scholarly ...I encourage others to read it," to Dr. Alcuin Reid, who, in a review published by The New Liturgical Movement (http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/07/book-review-work-of-human-hands.html), wrote that “Father Cekada’s great service is to flag the big question that we have not widely, as yet, been prepared to face…," that is, “if the Missal of Paul VI is indeed in substantial discontinuity with the preceding liturgical and theological tradition, this is a serious flaw requiring correction.”)
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on February 28, 2019, 08:50:34 AM
Quote
Quote from: X (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=51363.msg644705#msg644705) on Sat Feb 23 2019 17:19:20 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)

 Fr. Cekada:
“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) The expression governing Spirit (Spiritus Principalis) is not univocalthat is, it is not a term that signifies only one thing, 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.”


Comment: But the word “ministry” – as in “fullness of the ministry” - is also “not a term that signifies only one thing.”  Therefore, according to Fr. Cekada’s interpretation of Pius XII’s teaching, the old rite of episcopal consecration is also null and void. And so is the rite of ordination for a deacon, since Pius XII not only used the ambiguous word ‘ministry’ in the form to designate the episcopate, (tuo ministerii tui summam – ‘the fullness of the ministry’), but he also used it to in the form of ordination of a deacon, signify the diaconate (quo in opus ministerii tui – ‘the work of the ministry’).  

As I said before, all you have to do to realize that Fr. Cekada’s arguments are erroneous is apply them to the form of episcopal consecration used in the old rite, and you will quickly discover that it, too, fails Fr. Cekada's criterion for validity. 
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on February 28, 2019, 09:43:28 AM

Comment: But the word “ministry” – as in “fullness of the ministry” - is also “not a term that signifies only one thing.”  Therefore, according to Fr. Cekada’s interpretation of Pius XII’s teaching, the old rite of episcopal consecration is also null and void. And so is the rite of ordination for a deacon, since Pius XII not only used the ambiguous word ‘ministry’ in the form to designate the episcopate, (tuo ministerii tui summam – ‘the fullness of the ministry’), but he also used it to in the form of ordination of a deacon, signify the diaconate (quo in opus ministerii tui – ‘the work of the ministry’).  

As I said before, all you have to do to realize that Fr. Cekada’s arguments are erroneous is apply them to the form of episcopal consecration used in the old rite, and you will quickly discover that it, too, fails Fr. Cekada's criterion for validity.

RT-

That is quite a truncated presentation of Fr. Cekada’s argument.

If I understand him correctly, he is not arguing merely that the phrase is equivocal, but that among all the possible meanings which could be derived from the phrase, anything suggesting the conferral of episcopal Orders is not among them.

To be consistent and maintain your argument against Fr. Cekada’s full argument, it seems to me you must also demonstrate that there is nothing in the essential form of the sacrament in the traditional Rite which suggests the conferral of episcopal Orders.

Can you do that?
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 28, 2019, 01:25:24 PM
If I understand him correctly, he is not arguing merely that the phrase is equivocal, but that among all the possible meanings which could be derived from the phrase, anything suggesting the conferral of episcopal Orders is not among them.
Exactly.  And pointing to the Eastern Rites and claiming that the term was used in them is not going to help because the Eastern Rite forms explicitly mention the power of Order and specifically the episcopacy in their forms.  The Spiritus principalis is referring to the Holy Ghost in the Eastern forms and that's what Dom Botte said it meant in the 1968 NREC form in 1969.  When it became a point of contention, he later (1974) changed his tune and claimed it meant the power of the episcopacy.  But then where is the invocation of the Holy Ghost?
This is a total disaster for every traditionalist still attached to the Conciliar Church.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: 2Vermont on May 02, 2019, 04:14:14 PM
Hmm....I suspect a "priest" ordained by a Novus Ordo "bishop".
I now know that RomanTheo is a conciliar "priest".  It appears my suspicions were probably correct.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 02, 2019, 04:19:38 PM
I now know that RomanTheo is a conciliar "priest".  It appears my suspicions were probably correct.
LOL, and he made a huge blunder, on the other thread, quoting Saint Robert Bellarmine and Van Noort.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 02, 2019, 04:23:57 PM
Let's be fair and realize that many novus ordo catholics have been lied to their whole lives.  When they are "red pilled", it is normal for them to debate and argue.  They have to come to terms with their false ideals.  We must have patience and charity.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 02, 2019, 04:25:22 PM
Quote
LOL, and he made a huge blunder, on the other thread, quoting Saint Robert Bellarmine and Van Noort.
Totally irrelevant to the present thread.  Let's keep the threads separate, shall we?
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Your Friend Colin on May 02, 2019, 07:35:25 PM
RomanTheo,

You may have exhausted all resources trying to defend the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration from people here, but as you said, we should investigate these matters with an open mind. Many of the people refuting you have already made up their mind and they are solidified in their position. I am not at all certain that the NREC is inherently doubtful. Before I read this thread, I had made up my mind that the NREC is indeed doubtful. But I think you made a good defense of it and your arguments are persuasive. 

I would appreciate if you continue your input on this thread. From your posts, it clear you have quite an extensive theological background and training. I have not come to any conclusion on this matter (how could I? I have no theological nor sacramental education and I'm a layman). I am open to hearing what you have to say contrary to the negative feedback you've been getting from everyone on this thread.  

Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on May 02, 2019, 07:50:11 PM
RomanTheo,

You may have exhausted all resources trying to defend the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration from people here, but as you said, we should investigate these matters with an open mind. Many of the people refuting you have already made up their mind and they are solidified in their position. I am not at all certain that the NREC is inherently doubtful. Before I read this thread, I had made up my mind that the NREC is indeed doubtful. But I think you made a good defense of it and your arguments are persuasive.

I would appreciate if you continue your input on this thread. From your posts, it clear you have quite an extensive theological background and training. I have not come to any conclusion on this matter (how could I? I have no theological nor sacramental education and I'm a layman). I am open to hearing what you have to say contrary to the negative feedback you've been getting from everyone on this thread.  

Well, you must have a short (or selective) attention span:

RT checked out of the thread when I called him back into line regarding the actual premise of Fr. Cekada's article, which was this:

Whatever else the equivocal term spiritus principalis might mean, anything suggesting the conferral of orders not among the possibilities.

Because RT is honorable, he has been reflecting upon that fact.

Should he reemerge in this thread, his starting point will need to be addressing that point.  

Without doing so, nothing else he can say will matter (and I gather he would agree with that statement).
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Your Friend Colin on May 02, 2019, 07:53:12 PM

Well, you must have a short (or selective) attention span:



I see the edit you made, X! 
You could have just left it at 'short attention span'.
You're probably correct!  :jester:
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on May 03, 2019, 12:13:15 PM
Well, you must have a short (or selective) attention span:

RT checked out of the thread when I called him back into line regarding the actual premise of Fr. Cekada's article, which was this:

Whatever else the equivocal term spiritus principalis might mean, anything suggesting the conferral of orders not among the possibilities.

Because RT is honorable, he has been reflecting upon that fact.


No, that wasn't it.  I wrote a lengthy reply to your last post right away, but got called away before I could finish and remained too busy to complete it for several weeks.  By then the thread had gone stale, so I never put the final touches on it and posted it.  I'll read through the thread again next week to refresh my memory and then continue where I left off. And if memory servers, I already addressed the sentence you put in bold (above) in a previous post.  It was at least answered indirectly, but I'll be sure to address it directly next week.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on May 03, 2019, 01:49:14 PM

No, that wasn't it.  I wrote a lengthy reply to your last post right away, but got called away before I could finish and remained too busy to complete it for several weeks.  By then the thread had gone stale, so I never put the final touches on it and posted it.  I'll read through the thread again next week to refresh my memory and then continue where I left off. And if memory servers, I already addressed the sentence you put in bold (above) in a previous post.  It was at least answered indirectly, but I'll be sure to address it directly next week.

RT-

Your final argument was to misconstrue Fr. Cekada’s argument, and make him say that since the phrase spiritus principalis is equivocal, the form is therefore invalid.

You then responded to your own straw man by noting that other words used in the form of other rites are also capable of other meanings, but those rites are not on that account deemed to be equivocal.

I then intervened to say that Fr. Cekada’s actual argument is that whatever equivocal meaning one may choose to assign to the phrase spiritus principalis, nothing suggesting the conferral of episcopal orders is among the possibilities (hence the doubtful form).

That is where you left the thread, and naturally therefore, explaining why/how spiritus principalis conveys (in any sense, much less an unequivocal one) the conferral of episcopal orders will need to be your starting point.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: TKGS on May 04, 2019, 07:58:58 AM
I agree with everything here, but without valid rites in the NO for the last 50 years, the actual priesthood and episcopacy would be near extinction, and if the NO clerics and hierarchy decided to convert to the true Catholic Faith, they'd have to be ordained by the very few (compared to the mammoth size of the Conciliarists) valid bishops in the true Church (trad remnant). Is that logistically possible?
.
If the Apostles could baptize thousands of people in a day, it is certainly possible for the valid bishops of world to ordain and consecrate the hundreds of Conciliar priests and bishops who might seek valid orders.
.
The question should not be whether it is logistically possible, but, rather, will any Conciliar priests or bishops seek valid orders and will RomanTheo be one of them?
.
“But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?”  (Luke 18:8.)
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: 2Vermont on May 04, 2019, 08:14:37 AM
The question should not be whether it is logistically possible, but, rather, will any Conciliar "priests" or "bishops" seek valid orders and will RomanTheo be one of them?

Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Your Friend Colin on May 04, 2019, 11:22:28 AM
Fixed that for you.
We get it, 2Vermont, you don’t believe any New Rites of Consecration/Ordination are valid.

Who needs the Church to render a verdict on this EXTREMELY complicated issue? We’ve got you!
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: 2Vermont on May 04, 2019, 11:46:56 AM
We get it, 2Vermont, you don’t believe any New Rites of Consecration/Ordination are valid.

Who needs the Church to render a verdict on this EXTREMELY complicated issue? We’ve got you!
Actually, my position on CI is that I don't think any are certainly valid.  If you're going to get sarcastic, at least get your facts correct.  To be clear, I have less doubt with the New Rite of Ordination.  However, Roman Theo is most likely ordained in the New Rite by a man consecrated in the New Rite.  I wouldn't trust anything he says here.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 04, 2019, 12:23:08 PM

Quote
However, Roman Theo is most likely ordained in the New Rite by a man consecrated in the New Rite.  I wouldn't trust anything he says here.
Facts are facts, and I'm interested in RomanTheo's responses.  A complex problem deserves looking at all angels to find a solution.  Viewing his arguments based on his background is emotional and distracting.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: 2Vermont on May 04, 2019, 12:34:02 PM
Facts are facts, and I'm interested in RomanTheo's responses.  A complex problem deserves looking at all angels to find a solution.  Viewing his arguments based on his background is emotional and distracting.
Except if one is ordained in the New Rite they already have an inherent bias.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 04, 2019, 05:29:03 PM
I agree with Pax that regardless of background, the argument can be judged on its own merits.

And I agree with 2V that RT's pedigree will likely (but not necessarily) make him biased.

Which of us can truly ever step outside of ourselves in those things which impact us so intimately to render a truly impartial opinion?  It can be done, but it usually isn't.

My position is to acknowledge the possibility of a priori bias, but nevertheless judge the argument on its own merit.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Ladislaus on May 04, 2019, 05:41:03 PM
While the Novus Ordo was universally (in every vernacular translation) using "for you and for all" during the Consecration, it was very likely invalid.

Now that they have reverted to "for you and for many", and since their Anaphora 1 (i.e. Canon 1) is almost verbatim the Tridentine Canon, I think that it's likely valid ... when they use that Canon.  Not so sure about the other ones.

BUT, ironically, as if by design, they only reverted to the valid formula of consecration after nearly all the pre-1968 ordained priest had died or retired.  So the NOM is still positively doubtful, but now it's more due to the fact that the New Rites of Ordination/Consecration are positively doubtful.

But if a validly-ordained priest offered the NOM using Anaphora I, I believe that it's most likely valid ... although I still think there's room for positive doubt (due to their having messed with the Offertory).

Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 04, 2019, 05:49:50 PM
I agree with Pax that regardless of background, the argument can be judged on its own merits.

And I agree with 2V that RT's pedigree will likely (but not necessarily) make him biased.

Which of us can truly ever step outside of ourselves in those things which impact us so intimately to render a truly impartial opinion?  It can be done, but it usually isn't.

My position is to acknowledge the possibility of a priori bias, but nevertheless judge the argument on its own merit.
It could be true, but humans are biased.  That's just life.  To completely ignore anything he says because someone thinks his ordination is invalid seems unreasonable to me.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: forlorn on May 05, 2019, 08:22:50 AM
While the Novus Ordo was universally (in every vernacular translation) using "for you and for all" during the Consecration, it was very likely invalid.

Now that they have reverted to "for you and for many", and since their Anaphora 1 (i.e. Canon 1) is almost verbatim the Tridentine Canon, I think that it's likely valid ... when they use that Canon.  Not so sure about the other ones.

BUT, ironically, as if by design, they only reverted to the valid formula of consecration after nearly all the pre-1968 ordained priest had died or retired.  So the NOM is still positively doubtful, but now it's more due to the fact that the New Rites of Ordination/Consecration are positively doubtful.

But if a validly-ordained priest offered the NOM using Anaphora I, I believe that it's most likely valid ... although I still think there's room for positive doubt (due to their having messed with the Offertory).
I don't understand what's the big deal about "many" vs "all". "pro multis" can be translated as "for many" and "for the many". Multis in Latin doesn't specify whether it's the entirety of a group or not, just the quantity. Many can be all of a group in Latin. 
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 05, 2019, 11:55:25 AM
Many is not all.  Many means almost all.  Using "many" is Apostolic because Christ knew that not all would accept Him, therefore His sufferings were not for them.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Laud A Haug on May 05, 2019, 01:24:32 PM
 
Quote
Many means almost all.

"Many" doesn't mean almost all. "Many" means a sizable amount, which is relative. "Many" can mean a sizable minority. "Most" means almost all. A "majority" means at least half plus one.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 05, 2019, 04:45:47 PM
That’s better.  Thank you. 
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Stanley N on May 05, 2019, 09:17:20 PM
While the Novus Ordo was universally (in every vernacular translation) using "for you and for all" during the Consecration, it was very likely invalid.
That would be claiming that "for many" is essential to validity of the form.
The contrary view common in the Roman Rite is that "this is my body" and "this is my blood" are the essential parts. Some add that the words also need to signify sacrifice in some way.
At the extreme is the anaphora of Addai and Mari, which does signify a change of substance and sacrifice but doesn't use "this is..." or any words of institution, and the Vatican recognizes it as valid. 
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 05, 2019, 11:11:55 PM
I thought the council of Florence defined the exact formula for the consecration of the wine?
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Your Friend Colin on May 05, 2019, 11:45:21 PM
De Defectibus
Pope St. Pius V



Quote
V - Defects of the form
20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:


HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM,
 and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM


If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Nishant Xavier on May 06, 2019, 06:14:09 AM
Quote from: Clemens Maria
Paul VI was the one who specified that the form of the NREC is 42 words.   He didn't say the form was the entire preface.  Whereas the form of the Eastern Rites is universally agreed to be the entire preface.  You are right, if the Eastern Rite form was anything less than the entire preface it would be invalid according to Pope Pius XII's criteria.  But it wasn't invalid.  Therefore you know that Pope Pius XII was considering the entire preface as the form.  But Paul VI said the NREC form is only 42 words and those 42 words don't specify the 2 criteria for a valid form.  Spiritum Principalis (or equivalent) is indeed in the Eastern Rite forms but there is a lot more in them also which does meet Pope Pius's criteria.

Hello Clemens Maria. Would you like to address (1) the essential form or "42 words" asks that the Principal or Governing Spirit given to the Apostles is poured out on the Bishop-to-be. Is it doubtful that the Apostles were Bishops and not merely Priests? I've never seen this addressed in any publication by any "nrec is invalid/doubtful" person. (2) Secondly, which to my mind is even more forceful, is it doubtful that Jesus Christ is a High Priest, whom we heard St. Peter describe just this Sunday as "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." (1 Pet 2:25)? Jesus Christ most certainly has the Mark of the Episcopacy! Now read the "42 words" (italicized) again.

From: http://sspx.org/en/table-3-validity-new-episcopal-consecrations (http://sspx.org/en/table-3-validity-new-episcopal-consecrations)

"Deus et Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi,Pater misericordiarum et Deus totius consolationis,qui in excelsis habitas et humilia respicis,qui cognoscis omnia antequam nascantur,tu qui dedisti in Ecclesia tua normas, per verbum gratiae tuae, qui praedestinasti ex principio genus iustorum ab Abraham, qui constituisti principes et sacerdotes, et sanctuarium tuum sine ministerio non dereliquisti, cui ab initio mundi placuit in his quos elegisti glorificari: Et nunc effunde super hunc electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum Principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio tuo Iesu Christo, quem ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui. Da, cordium cognitor Pater,huic servo tuo, quem elegisti ad Episcopatum,ut pascat gregem sanctum tuum, et summum sacerdotium tibi exhibeat sine reprehensione, serviens tibi nocte et die, ut incessanter vultum tuum propitium reddat, et offerat dona sanctae Ecclesiae tuae; da ut virtute Spiritus summi sacerdotii habeat potestatem dimittendi peccata, secundum mandatum tuum; ut distribuat munera secundum praeceptum tuum, et solvat omne vinculum secundum potestatem quam dedisti Apostolis; placeat tibi in mansuetudine et mundo corde, offerens tibi odorem suavitatis, per Filium tuum Iesum Christum, per quem tibi gloria et potentia et honor, cuм Spiritu Sancto in sancta Ecclesia et nunc et in saecula saeculorum."

[A translation: God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all consolation, you dwell in heaven, yet look with compassion on all that is humble.  You know all things before they came to be; by your gracious word you have established the plan of your Church. From the beginning you chose the descendants of Abraham to be your holy nation.  You established rulers and priests, and did not leave your sanctuary without ministers to serve you.  From the creation of the world you have been pleased to be glorified by those whom you have chosen.So now pour out upon this chosen one the power that is from you, the Principal Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to his holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name. Father, you know all hearts.  You have chosen your servant for the office of bishop.  May he be a shepherd to your holy flock, and a high priest blameless in your sight, ministering to you night and day; may he always gain the blessing of your favor and offer the gifts of your holy Church.  Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to forgive sins as you have commanded, to assign ministries as you have decreed, and to loose every bond by the authority which you gave to your apostles.  May he be pleasing to you by his gentleness and purity of heart, presenting a fragrant offering to you, through Jesus Christ, your Son, through whom glory and power and honor are yours with the Holy Spirit in your holy Church, now and for ever. R.  Amen."]

[See also, for those who would like to research or study the matter further on their own, and verify Father Pierre Marie's conclusion:

The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration: New ECR (http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jmjoncas/LiturgicalStudiesInternetLinks/ChristianWorship/Texts/Centuries/Texts_1900_2000CE/RCWorshipTexts1900_2000CE/Rite_of_Ordination_of_a_Bishop.htm)

The Traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration: Traditional ECR (https://archive.org/stream/consecrationbish00unknuoft/consecrationbish00unknuoft_djvu.txt) ]

So, even in those 42 words, what Spirit is being poured out? (1) The Father made His Son High Priest, and that same Spirit of High Priesthood is now being poured out (2) The Lord Jesus made His Apostles Bishops, and most certainly not merely Priests, as I'm sure you would agree, and therefore "The Spirit given by Him to His Holy Apostles" is certainly a reference to the Office of Bishop. The remaining words don't pertain to the essential form, but that doesn't matter. The essential form can only refer to Bishops.

Do you want to argue the Apostles were Priests, not Bishops? Or otherwise, that Our Lord Jesus was not perhaps a High Priest? I don't think you will. Then otherwise, what exactly? Principal Spirit is not the only indicator, even in the essential form alone. Therefore, to say the form is equivocal between the Episcopacy and the simple priesthood on the basis that Principal Spirit alone is not sufficiently clear is (even if true) not enough for those who want to prove the form is invalid or positively doubtful. You have to show that in the whole essential form, there is no portion which clearly signifies the Grace of the Episcopacy given by the Holy Spirit.

The context of the rite shows what the words of the essential form mean within the form itself. "the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood" is what the essential form means when it says "The Spirit given by Him to His Holy Apostles". And "You have chosen your servant for the office of bishop. May he be a shepherd to your holy flock, and a high priest blameless in your sight" shows what the essential form means when it says "the Principal Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ". What was the Principal Spirit given to Jesus Christ in His Humanity, and to His Apostles? To be Bishop and Shepherd and High Priest. Fr. Cekada wants to argue Principal Spirit can mean different things, not necessarily Episcopacy. Fine, let's grant that. Can the same be said of the remaining 40 words of the essential form? I don't think so. Those words could only refer to the High Priesthood or Episcopacy.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Nishant Xavier on May 06, 2019, 06:29:46 AM
Validity is only one thing, it is not enough; what also matters is that the plenitude of graces, when what is called the "integrity" of the rite is properly adhered to, be conferred. Even if someone says only the "I baptize you ..." with intent to do what the Church does, he will baptize validly, but all the other graces that accompany the rite will be lost. You have Rome's own best exorcists who have said the new rite is terribly weaker than the old rite in exorcising. These are trained and competent exorcists who know what they are talking about. The same is so for all the new rites. They are valid, but the traditional rites confer grace much more super-abundantly. More souls are saved by Tradition, more graces are obtained by the Traditional rites, for the Church, for Her Shepherds and for the world.

In Michael Davies' Order of Melchizedek, he shows how so much of the grace that accompanied the conferring of the Catholic Priesthood has been lost by the prayers that were suppressed. The predictable and likely result would be that you have Priests who don't know what the Priesthood is and what Priests are required and supposed to be. Thus, there is a major crisis in the Priesthood that only a return to Tradition can heal. Thankfully, all can use the traditional rites to ordain and some Bishops have begun to do so.

The essential form (words analogous to "I baptize you...") remains almost  identical and because that is intact, the rite is valid.

Old Essential Form: “Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet.”

New Essential Form:“Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis. Acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet.”

The only difference is the single word "ut" that means "that". The translation is, briefly, “Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to this Your servant, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew in his heart the spirit of holiness, so that [the new one would be almost same, except there may be a fullstop here in place of so that] he may persevere in this office, which is next to ours [means next to the Episcopacy] in dignity, since he has received it from Thee, O God. May the example of his life lead others to moral uprightness.”

[For those who wish to compare themselves, The new rite of ordination itself: 1968 Ordination Rite (http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jmjoncas/LiturgicalStudiesInternetLinks/ChristianWorship/Texts/Centuries/Texts_1900_2000CE/RCWorshipTexts1900_2000CE/Rite_of_Ordination_of_a_Priest.htm)

The traditional rite of Priestly Ordination from Sancta Missa: Traditional Rite of Priestly Ordination (https://sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/40-the-sacrament-of-holy-orders-rite-of-priestly-ordination.html)]

Therefore, imho, the true opinion on this matter is that the new rite is valid, but inferior to the traditional rite, because many surrounding graces are lost in it. It is the integrity not essence that is vitiated in the new rite. This point is made clearer in the new rite of priestly ordination, where some prayers not pertaining to the essential form are removed, though the form largely remains. The practical consequence is that immense graces are lost for the Priesthood and the Church, and for our sanctification and salvation.

And therefore the Treasure of Tradition is necessary for all Bishops and Priests to return to, in order for the Church's Triumph to come.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 06, 2019, 12:46:26 PM
Hello Clemens Maria. Would you like to address (1) the essential form or "42 words" asks that the Principal or Governing Spirit given to the Apostles is poured out on the Bishop-to-be. Is it doubtful that the Apostles were Bishops and not merely Priests? I've never seen this addressed in any publication by any "nrec is invalid/doubtful" person. (2) Secondly, which to my mind is even more forceful, is it doubtful that Jesus Christ is a High Priest, whom we heard St. Peter describe just this Sunday as "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." (1 Pet 2:25)? Jesus Christ most certainly has the Mark of the Episcopacy! Now read the "42 words" (italicized) again.

From: http://sspx.org/en/table-3-validity-new-episcopal-consecrations (http://sspx.org/en/table-3-validity-new-episcopal-consecrations)

"Deus et Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi,Pater misericordiarum et Deus totius consolationis,qui in excelsis habitas et humilia respicis,qui cognoscis omnia antequam nascantur,tu qui dedisti in Ecclesia tua normas, per verbum gratiae tuae, qui praedestinasti ex principio genus iustorum ab Abraham, qui constituisti principes et sacerdotes, et sanctuarium tuum sine ministerio non dereliquisti, cui ab initio mundi placuit in his quos elegisti glorificari: Et nunc effunde super hunc electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum Principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio tuo Iesu Christo, quem ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui. Da, cordium cognitor Pater,huic servo tuo, quem elegisti ad Episcopatum,ut pascat gregem sanctum tuum, et summum sacerdotium tibi exhibeat sine reprehensione, serviens tibi nocte et die, ut incessanter vultum tuum propitium reddat, et offerat dona sanctae Ecclesiae tuae; da ut virtute Spiritus summi sacerdotii habeat potestatem dimittendi peccata, secundum mandatum tuum; ut distribuat munera secundum praeceptum tuum, et solvat omne vinculum secundum potestatem quam dedisti Apostolis; placeat tibi in mansuetudine et mundo corde, offerens tibi odorem suavitatis, per Filium tuum Iesum Christum, per quem tibi gloria et potentia et honor, cuм Spiritu Sancto in sancta Ecclesia et nunc et in saecula saeculorum."

[A translation: God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all consolation, you dwell in heaven, yet look with compassion on all that is humble.  You know all things before they came to be; by your gracious word you have established the plan of your Church. From the beginning you chose the descendants of Abraham to be your holy nation.  You established rulers and priests, and did not leave your sanctuary without ministers to serve you.  From the creation of the world you have been pleased to be glorified by those whom you have chosen.So now pour out upon this chosen one the power that is from you, the Principal Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to his holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name. Father, you know all hearts.  You have chosen your servant for the office of bishop.  May he be a shepherd to your holy flock, and a high priest blameless in your sight, ministering to you night and day; may he always gain the blessing of your favor and offer the gifts of your holy Church.  Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to forgive sins as you have commanded, to assign ministries as you have decreed, and to loose every bond by the authority which you gave to your apostles.  May he be pleasing to you by his gentleness and purity of heart, presenting a fragrant offering to you, through Jesus Christ, your Son, through whom glory and power and honor are yours with the Holy Spirit in your holy Church, now and for ever. R.  Amen."]

[See also, for those who would like to research or study the matter further on their own, and verify Father Pierre Marie's conclusion:

The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration: New ECR (http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jmjoncas/LiturgicalStudiesInternetLinks/ChristianWorship/Texts/Centuries/Texts_1900_2000CE/RCWorshipTexts1900_2000CE/Rite_of_Ordination_of_a_Bishop.htm)

The Traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration: Traditional ECR (https://archive.org/stream/consecrationbish00unknuoft/consecrationbish00unknuoft_djvu.txt) ]

So, even in those 42 words, what Spirit is being poured out? (1) The Father made His Son High Priest, and that same Spirit of High Priesthood is now being poured out (2) The Lord Jesus made His Apostles Bishops, and most certainly not merely Priests, as I'm sure you would agree, and therefore "The Spirit given by Him to His Holy Apostles" is certainly a reference to the Office of Bishop. The remaining words don't pertain to the essential form, but that doesn't matter. The essential form can only refer to Bishops.

Do you want to argue the Apostles were Priests, not Bishops? Or otherwise, that Our Lord Jesus was not perhaps a High Priest? I don't think you will. Then otherwise, what exactly? Principal Spirit is not the only indicator, even in the essential form alone. Therefore, to say the form is equivocal between the Episcopacy and the simple priesthood on the basis that Principal Spirit alone is not sufficiently clear is (even if true) not enough for those who want to prove the form is invalid or positively doubtful. You have to show that in the whole essential form, there is no portion which clearly signifies the Grace of the Episcopacy given by the Holy Spirit.

The context of the rite shows what the words of the essential form mean within the form itself. "the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood" is what the essential form means when it says "The Spirit given by Him to His Holy Apostles". And "You have chosen your servant for the office of bishop. May he be a shepherd to your holy flock, and a high priest blameless in your sight" shows what the essential form means when it says "the Principal Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ". What was the Principal Spirit given to Jesus Christ in His Humanity, and to His Apostles? To be Bishop and Shepherd and High Priest. Fr. Cekada wants to argue Principal Spirit can mean different things, not necessarily Episcopacy. Fine, let's grant that. Can the same be said of the remaining 40 words of the essential form? I don't think so. Those words could only refer to the High Priesthood or Episcopacy.
I thought this had already been covered earlier.  Pope Pius XII specified 2 requirements for the form to be valid.  It must invoke the grace of the Holy Ghost and it must make clear the power of the specific order being received.  Fr. Cekada would agree that Spiritus principalis could signify the grace of the Holy Ghost.  But where is the term indicating the power of order?  The Eastern rite forms do specify the power of order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.  Unless you are claiming that Spiritus principalis signifies both the Holy Ghost and the power of order.  That would be novel.  There would be no precedent for it in the Eastern rites.  And the only reason it was supposed that the NREC could be valid in the first place was that it was based on Eastern rites.  But now that it is shown that it isn't comparable to any Eastern rite, its validity is highly doubtful.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: RomanTheo on May 06, 2019, 02:54:16 PM
Paul VI was the one who specified that the form of the NREC is 42 words.   He didn't say the form was the entire preface.  Whereas the form of the Eastern Rites is universally agreed to be the entire preface.  (...)  But Paul VI said the NREC form is only 42 words and those 42 words don't specify the 2 criteria for a valid form.  Spiritum Principalis (or equivalent) is indeed in the Eastern Rite forms but there is a lot more in them also which does meet Pope Pius's criteria.

You misrepresented what Paul VI said, as did Fr. Cekada.  He did not limit the form to the 42 words. He explicitly stated that “the form consists of the words of the consecratory prayer,” and then added “of which" the 42 words belonged to the essence and therefore were required for validity.  Here is what he wrote:

Paul VI: “Finally, in the ordination of a bishop, the matter is the laying of hands by the consecrating Bishops, or at least by the principal Consecrator, done in silence over the head of the Elect before the consecratory prayer; the form consists of the words of the consecratory prayer, of which the following belong to the essence, and are therefore required for validity.  ‘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, given by the Same to the holy Apostles, who founded the Church in each place, to be your sanctuary in the unceasing glory and praise of your name.’” (Source (http://www.rosarychurch.net/consecration/paul_6.html))

As you can see, he merely specified which words of the form were essential for validity.  He did not the limit the form to those words alone.  The following is the entire form/consecratory prayer:.

“Prayer of Consecration

“26.  Next the principal consecrator, with his hands extended over the bishop-elect, sings the prayer of consecration or says it aloud:

“God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all consolation, you dwell in heaven, yet look with compassion on all that is humble.  You know all things before they came to be; by your gracious word you have established the plan of your Church.  From the beginning you chose the descendants of Abraham to be your holy nation.  You established rulers and priests, and did not leave your sanctuary without ministers to serve you.  From the creation of the world you have been pleased to be glorified by those whom you have chosen.

[The following part of the prayer is recited by all the consecrating bishops, with hands joined:]

“So now pour out upon this chosen one the power that is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to his holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.

[Then the principal consecrator continues alone.]

“Father, you know all hearts.  You have chosen your servant for the office of bishop. May he be a shepherd to your holy flock, and a high priest blameless in your sight, ministering to you night and day; may he always gain the blessing of your favor and offer the gifts of your holy Church.  Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to forgive sins as you have commanded, to assign ministries as you have decreed, and to loose every bond by the authority which you gave to your apostles. May he be pleasing to you by his gentleness and purity of heart, presenting a fragrant offering to you, through Jesus Christ, your Son, through whom glory and power and honor are yours with the Holy Spirit in your holy Church, now and for ever.  R.  Amen.”

“27.  After the prayer of consecration, the deacons remove the Book of the Gospels which they have been holding above the head of the new bishop.  One of them hold the book until it is given to the bishop.  The principal consecrator and the consecrating bishops, wearing their miters, sit.” (source (http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jmjoncas/LiturgicalStudiesInternetLinks/ChristianWorship/Texts/Centuries/Texts_1900_2000CE/RCWorshipTexts1900_2000CE/Rite_of_Ordination_of_a_Bishop.htm))  

There is no doubt whatsoever that this is a valid form for episcopal consecration. Not only is it virtually identical to that which St. Hippolytus said was used by the Apostles themselves, but it clearly and unambiguously satisfies the requirements specified by Pius XII.  
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 07, 2019, 08:34:43 PM
You misrepresented what Paul VI said, as did Fr. Cekada.  He did not limit the form to the 42 words. He explicitly stated that “the form consists of the words of the consecratory prayer,” and then added “of which" the 42 words belonged to the essence and therefore were required for validity. Here is what he wrote:

Paul VI: “Finally, in the ordination of a bishop, the matter is the laying of hands by the consecrating Bishops, or at least by the principal Consecrator, done in silence over the head of the Elect before the consecratory prayer; the form consists of the words of the consecratory prayer, of which the following belong to the essence, and are therefore required for validity.  ‘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, given by the Same to the holy Apostles, who founded the Church in each place, to be your sanctuary in the unceasing glory and praise of your name.’” (Source (http://www.rosarychurch.net/consecration/paul_6.html))

As you can see, he merely specified which words of the form were essential for validity.  He did not the limit the form to those words alone.

There is no doubt whatsoever that this is a valid form for episcopal consecration. Not only is it virtually identical to that which St. Hippolytus said was used by the Apostles themselves, but it clearly and unambiguously satisfies the requirements specified by Pius XII.  

Neither I nor Fr. Cekada have misrepresented what Paul VI said.  Nor did Br Ansgar, Fr. Pierre-Marie, nor Fr Calderon find any fault in Fr Cekada's belief that when Paul VI said "the form consists of the words of the consecratory prayer, of which the following belong to the essence, and are therefore required for validity" means that he is specifying the essential form.  So your spin on it amounts to sophistry.  Fr Calderon conceded that the 42-word consecratory prayer was the essential form but he argued that the surrounding context was enough to give it validity.  Your argument is with Paul VI and Dom Botte who specified the essential form to be 42 words and in 1969 identified Spiritus principalis as the Holy Spirit and in 1974 changed his mind and said it was the power of the episcopacy.  Or maybe you think that they were wrong?  Maybe they didn't know what they were doing?  Did incompetents just stumble into giving us a valid rite?  You should read the rest of Fr Cekada's response where he refutes Fr Calderon.  http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf)


You're whistling past the graveyard, RT.  You should get conditional ordination from an SSPX (or sede) bishop.  And you should certainly not be offering Novus Ordo "Masses".
Even if you are convinced in your own mind that your ordination was valid, you should still receive conditional ordination for the sake of the people you are trying to help get to Heaven.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: trad123 on May 07, 2019, 09:36:14 PM
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jmjoncas/LiturgicalStudiesInternetLinks/ChristianWorship/Texts/Centuries/Texts_1900_2000CE/RCWorshipTexts1900_2000CE/Rite_of_Ordination_of_a_Bishop.htm

http://www.rosarychurch.net/consecration/paul_6.html

http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/la/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19680618_pontificalis-romani.html



Quote
Prayer of Consecration

26.  

(. . .)

The following part of the prayer is recited by all the consecrating bishops, with hands joined:

So now pour out upon this chosen one the power that is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to his holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.
    
Then the principal consecrator continues alone.

Father, you know all hearts.  You have chosen your servant for the office of bishop.  May he be a shepherd to your holy flock, and a high priest blameless in your sight, ministering to you night and day; may he always gain the blessing of your favor and offer the gifts of your holy Church.  Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to forgive sins as you have commanded, to assign ministries as you have decreed, and to loose every bond by the authority which you gave to your apostles.  May he be pleasing to you by his gentleness and purity of heart, presenting a fragrant offering to you, through Jesus Christ, your Son, through whom glory and power and honor are yours with the Holy Spirit in your holy Church, now and for ever.  R.  Amen.


Absolutely Null and Utterly Void, Fr. Cekada

traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf  (http://traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf)


Quote
E. Requirements in a Form for Holy Orders

What specifically are we looking for in the new rite of episcopal consecration? What must the words of a form for conferring Holy Orders express? Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, laid down the general principle when he declared that for Holy Orders these must “univocally signify the sacramental effects — that is, the power of the Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.”13

Note the two elements that it must univocally (i.e., unambiguously) express: the specific order being conferred (diaconate, priesthood or episcopacy) and the
grace of the Holy Ghost. So we must therefore ascertain whether the new form is indeed “univocal” in expressing these effects.


Quote
III. The Paul VI Form

Paul VI designated the following passage in the Preface as the new form for the consecration of a bishop:

“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.”19

The dispute over the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration centers on this passage. At first glance, it does seem to mention the Holy Ghost. However, it does not appear to specify the power of Holy Order being conferred — the fullness ofthe priesthood that constitutes the episcopacy — that the traditional form so clearly expressed.



What Paul VI stated was the essential form doesn't include the sentence with the "office of bishop", but nevertheless the office is specified right after the "essential form" in such a consecration.

It looks like Fr. Cekada would be right, if only the first sentence was stated. The only thing I think Fr. Cekada proved undoubtedly is that Paul VI erred as to what constitutes the essential form, but it looks to me like the Novus Ordo may indeed have valid bishops.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 07, 2019, 10:06:41 PM
Trad123, please read the last section of Fr Cekada's response to objections (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf)). He answers Fr Calderon's claim that the surrounding context could give validity to an invalid essential form.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: trad123 on May 07, 2019, 10:10:09 PM
The Validity of the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, Fr. Alvaro Calderon

Article starts on page 42:

www.angelusonline.org/uploads/articles_issue_pdf/240_2006_nov.pdf


Quote
Fr. Cekada rejects the resemblance to the Coptic rite for two reasons: 1) the form is shorter (42 words versus 340); and 2) it omits the phrases indicative of the bishop’s power of Order, which would in fact be the substantial defect of the new form.

Form

The first reason is fallacious because Fr. Cekada takes as the “form” the entire Coptic preface (in reality, a single sentence must be “formal-effective”); and, at the same time, he denies that the context of the new preface can take away the ambiguity of the “formal-effective” phrase of the new rite. But one must choose: if the context does not determine the signification of the form, it would be necessary to identify the “formal-effective” sentence of the Coptic rite and to compare it with that of the new rite; if, on the contrary, the context determines the signification, then it is necessary to compare one complete preface with the other complete preface. It is fallacious to compare a complete preface, on the one hand, with the “formal effective” sentence on the other.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 07, 2019, 10:12:46 PM
The only good answer to Fr Cekada would be to say that the form has to be valid because it was promulgated by the Pope who cannot possibly impose a harmful liturgical rite on the faithful.  But for obvious reasons that is not an argument that any R&R traditionalist would want to make.  And besides there is plenty of doubt about the legitimacy of Paul VI's claim to the papacy.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 07, 2019, 10:15:17 PM
Trad123, please read the last section of Fr Cekada's response to objections (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf)). He answers Fr Calderon's claim that the surrounding context could give validity to an invalid essential form.
Still haven't read it, have you?
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: trad123 on May 07, 2019, 10:19:26 PM
Trad123, please read the last section of Fr Cekada's response to objections (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf)). He answers Fr Calderon's claim that the surrounding context could give validity to an invalid essential form.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf)


Quote
B. Context of the New Form

Fr. Calderon would have us look to the context of the new form for assurance of its validity.

He says:

“This context is very ample because it cannot be reduced to the Preface alone; the complete rite must be taken into consideration.”

From a quote by Leo XIII that speaks of the removal of all idea of consecration and sacrifice from Anglican ordination rites, Fr. Calderon extrapolates the following principle: if in the rest of the rite “consecration and sacrifice were involved,” the rite would have“consistency.”59

In response:

• Fr. Calderon cites no authorities to support his principle about “involvement” producing “consistency”— whatever those nebulous terms may mean.

Fr. Calderon, however, has not even gotten to the point where he could make an argument from context. He has not demonstrated that the new form — even equivocally — contains both elements that Pius XII required in the sacramental form for Holy Orders: the power of the Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.

I'm not interested in the first bullet point.

I have to ask, is that it?
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: trad123 on May 07, 2019, 10:27:52 PM
I concede the essential form by itself omits stating the office, but two sentences later, it is stated, unequivocally.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: trad123 on May 07, 2019, 11:34:08 PM
www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf


Quote
B. Application to the New Form

(. . .)

8. The new form fails to meet two criteria for the form for Holy Orders laid down by Pius XII.

(a) Because the term governing Spirit is capable of signifying many different things and persons, it does not univocally signify the sacramental effect.
(b) It lacks any term that even equivocally connotes the power of Order that a bishop possess — the “fullness of the priesthood of Christ in the episcopal office and order,” or “the fullness or totality of the priestly ministry.”


http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jmjoncas/LiturgicalStudiesInternetLinks/ChristianWorship/Texts/Centuries/Texts_1900_2000CE/RCWorshipTexts1900_2000CE/Rite_of_Ordination_of_a_Bishop.htm (http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jmjoncas/LiturgicalStudiesInternetLinks/ChristianWorship/Texts/Centuries/Texts_1900_2000CE/RCWorshipTexts1900_2000CE/Rite_of_Ordination_of_a_Bishop.htm)


Quote
So now pour out upon this chosen one the power that is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to his holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.
    

Father, you know all hearts.  You have chosen your servant for the office of bishop.  May he be a shepherd to your holy flock, and a high priest blameless in your sight, ministering to you night and day; may he always gain the blessing of your favor and offer the gifts of your holy Church.  Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to forgive sins as you have commanded, to assign ministries as you have decreed, and to loose every bond by the authority which you gave to your apostles.  May he be pleasing to you by his gentleness and purity of heart, presenting a fragrant offering to you, through Jesus Christ, your Son, through whom glory and power and honor are yours with the Holy Spirit in your holy Church, now and for ever.  R.  Amen.


Does someone have a link to the old rite of consecration, in English? 
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Nishant Xavier on May 07, 2019, 11:50:07 PM
Hi Trad123, I believe I gave it earlier. Anyway, this is the portion, with the essential form specified by Pope Ven. Pius XII in red. "Prayer of Consecration of a Bishop in the Old: "THE CONSECRATION OF A BISHOP - It is truly worthy and just, right and profitable unto salvation that we should at all times and in all places give thanks unto Thee, O holy Lord, Father Almighty, Eternal God, honor of all dignities which serve unto Thy glory in sacred orders. To Thee O God, who, in the secret communings of familiar intercourse, giving instruction unto Moses Thy servant, concerning, among other branches of divine worship, the nature of sacerdotal vesture, didst order that Aaron, Thy chosen one, should be clad in mystic robes during the sacred functions, so that succeeding generations might be enlightened by the examples of their predecessors, lest the knowledge derived from Thy instruction should be wanting in any age. Since, in deed, with the ancients, the very appearance of symbols would obtain reverence, and with us there would be the experience of the things themselves more certain than the mysteries of figures. For the adornment of our minds fulfils what was expressed by the outward vesture of that ancient priesthood, and now brightness of souls rather than splendor of raiment commends the pontifical glory unto us. Because even those things which then were sightly unto the eyes of the flesh, demanded rather that the eyes of the spirit should understand the things they signified. And therefore we beseech Thee, O Lord, give bountifully this grace to this Thy servant, whom Thou hast chosen to the ministry of the Supreme Priesthood, so that what things soever those vestments signify by the refulgence of gold, the splendor of Jєωels, and the variety of diversified works, these may shine forth in his character and his actions. Fill up in Thy Priest the perfection of Thy ministry and sanctify with the dew of Thy heavenly ointment this Thy servant decked out with the or naments of all beauty." See: https://archive.org/details/consecrationbish00unknuoft (https://archive.org/details/consecrationbish00unknuoft) Supreme Priesthood, Perfection of Thy Ministry etc etc are all references to the High Priesthood or Episcopacy. Also note the examples of the invocation of Moses and Aaron etc who were High Priests under the old law and this same Grace is invoked in the Consecration. The entire prayer of Consecration is always important to take into account, since it pertains to integrity; no doubt the essential form confers validity.

Quote from: Clemens Maria
It must invoke the grace of the Holy Ghost and it must make clear the power of the specific order being received.

Ok.

Quote
Fr. Cekada would agree that Spiritus principalis could signify the grace of the Holy Ghost.  But where is the term indicating the power of order?

Ok, Spiritus Principalis is taken as signifying the Grace of the Holy Ghost. What specifies the Power of the Episcopacy here, then? The continuing portion of the essential form itself that says "The Spirit given by Him to His Holy Apostles". It seems clear the Apostles were Bishops, therefore an invocation of the Spirit given to the Apostles can hardly refer to anything other than the Episcopacy.

Priests in the mainstream Church like RomanTheo should make the right decision to start offering the Tridentine Mass, and receive conditional ordination, if a Traditional Catholic Bishop, after judging all the specifics of the situation, were to recommend doing so.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: trad123 on May 07, 2019, 11:53:28 PM
Thank you, I found it just as you were posting.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm

Sacramentum Ordinis, On the Sacrament of Order, Pope Pius XII - 1947

Quote
5.

(. . .)

Finally in the Episcopal Ordination or Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator. The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:

“Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.”

[“Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.”]

Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: trad123 on May 07, 2019, 11:57:52 PM
Are priests ever said to belong to the "high priesthood", or only bishops?

Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Nishant Xavier on May 08, 2019, 12:19:08 AM
Such would seem impossible. Summus Sacerdos is a well known term in Apostolic Tradition practically identical to the Episcopacy. Every High Priest was a Priest, but every Priest was not a High Priest. Thus, the CE says "The Christian Priesthood: In the New Testament bishops and priests are, according to Catholic teaching, the sole bearers of the priesthood, the former enjoying the fullness of the priesthood (summus sacerdos s. primi ordinis), while the presbyters are simple priests (simplex sacerdos s. secundi ordinis). The deacon, on the other hand, is a mere attendant of the priest, with no priestly powers." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm)

By analogy with the three grades of orders prefigured in ancient Israel that receive their complete fulfilment in the Catholic Church, Deacons are levites, Priests are simple Priests, and Bishops are High Priests. At least that is the way the Fathers explain it. And the "Supreme Priesthood" in the traditional rite is also a clear reference to the Episcopacy. I'll have to look it up in Latin later on. God bless.

Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Nishant Xavier on May 09, 2019, 05:41:48 AM
The principle followed with respect to Priests from new Church that come to Tradition is this: (1) If the candidate himself has doubts about ordination that he would like to be resolved, and a (2) Traditional Catholic SSPX Bishop, after examining all the details of the case, decides and judges that conditional ordination is needed, then that is done.

Sometimes (1) As with Fr. Gregory Hesse, the Priest himself has no doubt. (2) A Traditional Catholic Bishop or Bishops examine the case and judge that conditional ordination, in this case, is not needed. And then the Priest simply begins offering the True Mass.

Laymen are not in the final analysis either capable or competent of passing judgment on such matters in such a way as to bind others to their personal opinion. If a layman has doubts, he has every right to seek out Traditional Catholic Bishops and Priests Consecrated or Ordained in the traditional rite. But not to presume to say that every Bishop in the new Church is invalid. That is practically heretical. As Fr. Marie has proven, it contradicts the Indefectibility and Apostolicity of the Roman Church for Her to be without valid Bishops. No wonder some who believe that false opinion, contradicting Bishops and Priests, are tempted to lapse into "Orthodox" schism.

When valid form and matter are used, presumption is for validity, not against it, unless some contrary intention is explicitly manifested in some special case. This is what will have to be judged later on. Telling Father RomanTheo he is not a valid Priest without knowing anything about the specific details of his case is a different kind of  presumption. It's almost like telling a married man he is not married.

Traditional Catholic Bishops will investigate carefully before deciding. Then, laity should abide by that judgment made by the Bishops.

When a person comes to Tradition, he will receive all the graces he had thus far been losing out on. The vast majority of Traditional Catholic Bishops and Priests have endorsed that study by Father Pierre Marie and apply its conclusion in practice. We should recognize their authority and do the same.

Edit: And yes, the term for High Priesthood that is used is summum sacerdotium in Latin. That can be verified in the SSPX study itself.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 10, 2019, 11:25:14 AM
I concede the essential form by itself omits stating the office, but two sentences later, it is stated, unequivocally.
So now you know better than both Pope Pius XII and Paul VI what makes the sacrament valid?  Paul VI said the essential form is what gives it validity.
XavierSem, "the Spirit given by him to his holy apostles" is a reference to Spiritus principalis.  So how could Spiritus principalis not be an unequivocal term for the power of the episcopate but at the same time be an unequivocal term for BOTH the Holy Ghost AND the power of the episcopate?  You are quite the practitioner of mental gymnastics!
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 10, 2019, 12:35:26 PM
Quote
When valid form and matter are used, presumption is for validity, not against it,
Isn't this whole thread a debate on IF the form is valid?  That's why the sacrament cannot be presumed valid.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: trad123 on May 10, 2019, 11:17:49 PM
So now you know better than both Pope Pius XII and Paul VI what makes the sacrament valid?  Paul VI said the essential form is what gives it validity.

I think Paul VI erred when he stated what the essential form was, for his new rite of consecration. He certainly erred when Vatican II declared non-Catholic sects can be a means of salvation.

I'm starting to think there may be valid bishops in the Novus Ordo, despite that. Doesn't mean I think Paul VI was pope.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 10, 2019, 11:56:43 PM
Straight up saying alleged priests aren't priests seems presumptuous to me.  I can see expressing doubt, but I don't see how anyone but the Church has the right to make that final judgment.  

(I personally don't think I have particular doubt, but its certainly possible I'm just wrong) 
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 11, 2019, 07:15:59 AM
I think Paul VI erred when he stated what the essential form was, for his new rite of consecration. He certainly erred when Vatican II declared non-Catholic sects can be a means of salvation.

I'm starting to think there may be valid bishops in the Novus Ordo, despite that. Doesn't mean I think Paul VI was pope.
You can’t know with moral certainty that they are validly consecrated.  A positive doubt destroys the trust that we must have in this sacrament. Therefore we must avoid them.  The Church isn’t ever going to be able to declare that there is no positive doubt.  It’s a fact that we just have to accept.  
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 11, 2019, 08:40:56 AM
Let's summarize what everyone agrees on.  A new rite of episcopal consecration was promulgated by Paul VI in 1968.  In the Apostolic Constitution promulgating the new rite he specified the essential form:

Quote
ACTS of  PAUL VI
 APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
 
Approbation of the new rites for ordination of Deacons, Priests, and Bishops
Denique in Ordinatione Episcopi, materia est impositio manuum quae ab Episcopis consecrantibus, vel saltem a Consecratore principali, fit silentio super caput Electi ante precationem consecratoriam; forma autem constat verbis eiusdem precationis consecratoriae, quorum haec ad naturam rei pertinent, atque adeo ut actus valeat exiguntur: 
Quote
Quote
Et nunc effunde super hunc Electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio Tuo Iesu Christo, quem Ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui.
Finally, in the ordination of a bishop, the matter is the laying of hands by the consecrating Bishops, or at least by the principal Consecrator, done in silence over the head of the Elect before the consecratory prayer; the form consists of the words of the consecratory prayer, of which the following belong to the essence, and are therefore required for validity.
Quote
Quote
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, given by the Same to the holy Apostles, who founded the Church in each place, to be your sanctuary in the unceasing glory and praise of your name.
Source: http://www.rosarychurch.net/consecration/paul_6.html (http://www.rosarychurch.net/consecration/paul_6.html)

I think we all agree now that Spiritus principalis does not signify the power of the episcopacy.  Rather everyone including Fr Calderon, trad123, RomanTheo and many others all try to find the power of the episcopacy somewhere else in the rite.  But according to Catholic theological principles, both the Holy Ghost and the power of orders must be unequivocally specified in the ESSENTIAL FORM.  Even Paul VI implicitly concedes that point.  Therefore, at best, the NREC is a doubtful form and therefore all those consecrated according to this rite must be avoided.
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: X on May 11, 2019, 09:15:11 AM
Let's summarize what everyone agrees on.  A new rite of episcopal consecration was promulgated by Paul VI in 1968.  In the Apostolic Constitution promulgating the new rite he specified the essential form:

Finally, in the ordination of a bishop, the matter is the laying of hands by the consecrating Bishops, or at least by the principal Consecrator, done in silence over the head of the Elect before the consecratory prayer; the form consists of the words of the consecratory prayer, of which the following belong to the essence, and are therefore required for validity.

Source: http://www.rosarychurch.net/consecration/paul_6.html (http://www.rosarychurch.net/consecration/paul_6.html)

I think we all agree now that Spiritus principalis does not signify the power of the episcopacy.  Rather everyone including Fr Calderon, trad123, RomanTheo and many others all try to find the power of the episcopacy somewhere else in the rite.  But according to Catholic theological principles, both the Holy Ghost and the power of orders must be unequivocally specified in the ESSENTIAL FORM.  Even Paul VI implicitly concedes that point.  Therefore, at best, the NREC is a doubtful form and therefore all those consecrated according to this rite must be avoided.

Agreed.

It would be like inserting some vague reference to the body and blood of Christ in the prayers at the foot of the altar, or elsewhere, while excising “this is my body/blood,” but claiming the Mass was certainly valid despite the lack of any essential form, because the vague references elsewhere implicitly sufficed.

Would anyone accept such a Mass as certainly (or even doubtfully) valid (other than JPII, in the case of the Nestorian Anaphora)?

Such an argument is reducible to this: Essential form is not essential for validity (heretical).
Title: Re: Question about New Rite of NO
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 11, 2019, 02:58:24 PM
Yes, the Novus Ordo apologists seem to be arguing that Paul VI screwed up (I'm sure it was an accident...not!) and misidentified the essential form and yet he still managed to give the Novus Ordo a valid sacrament despite the obvious intention to do exactly the same thing as the Anglicans and other "Reformers" did centuries ago which the Church has already ruled as invalid.  Yeah, go ahead and stake your salvation on that but when you end up in hell, you'll only have yourselves to blame.

Quote
In conferring the Sacraments (as also in the Consecration in Mass) it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI. To do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence towards what Christ our Lord has instituted; it would be a grievous sin against charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effect of the Sacrament; it would be a grievous sin against justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments, whenever the minister, whether ex officio or not, undertakes to confer a Sacrament. In the necessary Sacraments there is no doubt about the triple sin; in Sacraments that are not necessary there will always be the grave sacrilege against religion.
Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology, London: Sheed & Ward, 1935, Volume III, page 27

Quote
Various Errors on Moral Subjects
 Condemned by a degree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679
1. It is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned, unless the law forbids it, convention or the danger of incurring grave harm. Therefore one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal, or episcopal orders. (Denzinger 1151)
Innocent XI (1676-1689)
Source: http://www.rosarychurch.net/consecration/probable_priests.html