Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Question about New Rite of NO  (Read 5410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trad123

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1142
  • Reputation: +177/-104
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question about New Rite of NO
« Reply #105 on: May 07, 2019, 11:57:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Are priests ever said to belong to the "high priesthood", or only bishops?

    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline XavierSem

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1289
    • Reputation: +82/-135
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #106 on: May 08, 2019, 12:19:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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

    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.

    Do make Acts of Consecration to the Twin Hearts, Spiritual Offerings of the Precious Blood of Jesus in Union with the Holy Mass, like in St. Gertrude's Chaplet, along with Spiritual Communions at least every hour. The Saints say Spiritual Communions are a way to quickly advance to Union with God.


    Offline XavierSem

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1289
    • Reputation: +82/-135
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #107 on: May 09, 2019, 05:41:48 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • 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.
    Do make Acts of Consecration to the Twin Hearts, Spiritual Offerings of the Precious Blood of Jesus in Union with the Holy Mass, like in St. Gertrude's Chaplet, along with Spiritual Communions at least every hour. The Saints say Spiritual Communions are a way to quickly advance to Union with God.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 994
    • Reputation: +708/-200
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #108 on: May 10, 2019, 11:25:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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!

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4427
    • Reputation: +2706/-1249
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #109 on: May 10, 2019, 12:35:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.


    Offline trad123

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1142
    • Reputation: +177/-104
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #110 on: May 10, 2019, 11:17:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 425
    • Reputation: +89/-28
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #111 on: May 10, 2019, 11:56:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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) 

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 994
    • Reputation: +708/-200
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #112 on: May 11, 2019, 07:15:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.  


    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 994
    • Reputation: +708/-200
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #113 on: May 11, 2019, 08:40:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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

    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.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 606
    • Reputation: +605/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #114 on: May 11, 2019, 09:15:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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

    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).

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 994
    • Reputation: +708/-200
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question about New Rite of NO
    « Reply #115 on: May 11, 2019, 02:58:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16