Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8

Author Topic: Question about New Rite of NO  (Read 14393 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Clemens Maria

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2246
  • Reputation: +1485/-605
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question about New Rite of NO
« Reply #60 on: February 24, 2019, 11:38:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: XavierSem 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.
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1485/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #61 on: February 25, 2019, 12:51:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/11/divino-afflatu-centennial-iii-centenary.html


    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 - also now with a related YouTube channel), has received compliments from different places (from Msgr. A. Wadsworth, ICEL General Secretary, 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, 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.”)
    Logged

    Offline RomanTheo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 327
    • Reputation: +164/-148
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #62 on: February 28, 2019, 08:50:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Quote from: X 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 univocal — that 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. 
    Logged

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +613/-55
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #63 on: February 28, 2019, 09:43:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RomanTheo on February 28, 2019, 08:50:34 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?
    Logged

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1485/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #64 on: February 28, 2019, 01:25:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: X on February 28, 2019, 09:43:28 AM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11443
    • Reputation: +6403/-1149
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #65 on: May 02, 2019, 04:14:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on February 21, 2019, 04:55:20 AM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #66 on: May 02, 2019, 04:19:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on May 02, 2019, 04:14:14 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.
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12120
    • Reputation: +7647/-2331
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #67 on: May 02, 2019, 04:23:57 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12120
    • Reputation: +7647/-2331
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #68 on: May 02, 2019, 04:25:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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?
    Logged

    Offline Your Friend Colin

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 516
    • Reputation: +241/-106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #69 on: May 02, 2019, 07:35:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.  

    Logged

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +613/-55
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #70 on: May 02, 2019, 07:50:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 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.  

    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).
    Logged

    Offline Your Friend Colin

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 516
    • Reputation: +241/-106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #71 on: May 02, 2019, 07:53:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: X on May 02, 2019, 07:50:11 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:
    Logged

    Offline RomanTheo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 327
    • Reputation: +164/-148
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #72 on: May 03, 2019, 12:13:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: X on May 02, 2019, 07:50:11 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.
    Logged

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +613/-55
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #73 on: May 03, 2019, 01:49:14 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RomanTheo on May 03, 2019, 12:13:15 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.
    Logged

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5843
    • Reputation: +4691/-490
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #74 on: May 04, 2019, 07:58:58 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Judith 15 Ten on February 18, 2019, 05:48:57 PM
    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.)
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
    « previous next »