Anytime you change a sacrament you render it doubtful. There is no reason to do so unless you are following a diabolical scheme. Why did they water down the rite of exorcism?
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/ordinatio.htmhttp://sedevacantist.com/nrec_collins.htmlThe Form in the New Rite for the Consecration of Bishops
The form in the New Rite of Paul VI for the Consecration of Bishops is radically different from that which was declared essential for validity by Pius XII. Here it is:
“And now pour out upon this chosen one the power that comes from You, the excellent spirit You gave Your beloved Son Jesus Christ, which He Himself gave the Holy Apostles, who built the Church in every place as Your Sanctuary for the everlasting glory and praise of His name.” (The Oratory Catechism, p. 339)
The two forms only have one thing in common, the single word “et,” which means “and.” In the Traditional Rite, with its expression “the fullness of Your ministry” and “ornament of all glorification,” the purpose of Consecration is clearly defined since both can refer only to the bishop. In the new rite, an unambiguous description of the effect of Episcopal Consecration is missing.
In the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration, basically every reference to the specifically Catholic understanding of the Episcopate has been deleted, just like in the New Rite of Ordination. In fact, there is not one unambiguous statement about the intended sacramental effect of Episcopal Consecration that can be found.
In the Traditional Rite of Consecration, the Consecrator instructs the bishop elect in the following terms:
"A bishop judges, interprets, consecrates, ordains, offers, baptizes and confirms."
This has been abolished.
In the Traditional Rite, the Bishop-to-be is asked to confirm his belief in each and every article of the Creed.
This has been abolished.
In the Traditional Rite, the Bishop-to-be is asked if he will "anathematize every heresy that shall arise against the Holy Catholic Church."
This has been abolished. The deletion of this requirement to anathematize heresy is significant, for this is indeed one of the functions of a Bishop.
In the Traditional Rite, after the consecratory prayer, the functions of a Bishop are once again specified in these words:
"Give him, O Lord, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven... Whatsoever he shall bind upon earth, let it be bound likewise in Heaven, and whatsoever he shall loose upon earth, let it likewise be loosed in Heaven. Whose sins he shall retain, let them be retained, and do Thou remit the sins of whomsoever he shall remit... Grant him, O Lord, an Episcopal chair..."
This entire prayer has been abolished in the New Rite.
Conclusion: Paul VI’s New Rite of Episcopal Consecration has a radically different form than what Pius XII declared was necessary for validity. Further, other references to the specifically Catholic understanding of the Episcopate, such as that the Bishop is empowered to ordain, were deliberately abolished. The words of Leo XIII against Anglican Orders again prove relevant.
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”
Thus, the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration cannot be considered valid. All “priests” ordained by such “Bishops” consecrated in this Rite, even if the Traditional Rite of Ordination was used, such as with most of the Fraternity of St. Peter priests, Institute of Christ the King priests, etc. cannot be considered valid priests.
These facts also show that the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Mass), besides its own inherent problem of a changed form of consecration, is not valid when offered by such a “priest” or “Bishop.”
Objection – But Paul VI approved these New Rites; therefore, I accept them because he was the Pope.
Answer – It is not within the scope of this article to show why Paul VI was definitely not the Pope, but a Satanic infiltrator who tried to change every aspect of the Church that he possibly could. I refer you to our video Vatican II: Council of Apostasy and the articles on our website to prove this assertion. But it should be noted that if one accepts as valid and sure his New Sacraments just because Paul VI approved them, then one must also accept as valid and without blemish the docuмents of Vatican II, since Paul VI approved Vatican II and the New Rites by the same degree of authority. But it is a fact that most traditional Catholics would have grave problems with Vatican II (since Vatican II contains clear heresies), so they must logically admit that Paul VI’s approval of the New Sacramental Rites could also be fatally defective. Further, if one argues that the New Rite of Ordination or Episcopal Consecration is valid just because one of the conciliar “popes” approved it, then, in order to be consistent, one must also accept the New Catechism (promulgated by John Paul II with equal authority) as valid and sure in teaching the Faith.
But if all of those other things contain denials of the Faith (as they clearly do), then the New Rites of Ordination of Paul VI also are not sure and could be invalid – as, in fact, they are. The changes to the Rites of Ordination and Episcopal Consecration followed precisely the pattern of the Anglican Reformers: a deliberate attempt to remove the specific Catholic understanding of these things from the rites. No sincere person can deny this. The rites are therefore invalid on the same grounds.
The truth is that Paul VI was not the Pope, but a non-Catholic Antipope, as our material proves. Only those who obstinately blind themselves to the truth can fail to see what is going on here – an enemy of the Catholic Church in Antipope Paul VI who tried to destroy the sacraments, the Faith and the holy priesthood; who changed the rites to all 7 seven sacraments; abolished the Oath Against Modernism; abolished the Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent; abolished the Index of Forbidden Books, etc., etc., etc. Frankly, only a foolish person would unfailingly accept his New Rites of Ordination and Consecration when we consider the man, what he believed, the dubious nature of his “election,” and how, among other things, he was publicly and repeatedly seen clothed in the vestment of a Jєωιѕн high priest and Freemason (see picture of Paul VI wearing Jєωιѕн rationale on our website).
The fruits of Paul VI’s new Vatican II “priesthood” are clear for all to see – mind-bogglingly sick and bad, because his New Rites of Ordination and Consecration are simply not valid, just like Vatican II is fraught with heresy and was an invalid robbers’ council filled with denials of the Catholic Faith.
MHFM
Topic: The 1968 Rite os Episcopal COnsecration is Valid. (Read 13169 times)