Gregory I, not so quick. I do like you, but first it was your earth-shattering personal interpretation of BoD that I feel has started you on the trend toward Modernism. Be careful please.
If you are going to go off to become a Novus Ordo supporter and appease the anti-sedes here (as is already being shown), at least do the proper research on the Consecratory prayers for ordaining Bishops and their origin. Don't chop-shop whatever the Dimonds have said on this because they don't paint the whole picture many times on many issues regarding changes with Vatican II and Paul VI's heretical ideas. Its not so much what he added, but what was removed from the original rites that many neglect to realize nor will notice have been removed in the first place.
Here are some words from the book "The Destruction of the Christian Tradition", courtesy of Rama Coomaraswamy. I have only jumped to a certain part, so please go google the book up or buy it for yourself for a better understanding and showcase of evidence. I am not a theologian, but I know whats right when I see it. And I also know to concede when I am in error; but here I am not in error as far as I have concluded.
Note: Coomaraswamy analyzed the ENTIRE consecratory text from the supposed and historically incomplete source text that Paul VI adopted from the "Apostolic Tradtion of Hippolytus
AND then he read the
ENTIRE consecratory text of the New Rite of Ordination of Paul VI. Many traditional Catholics have just read a portion of the text, as you , Gregory I, have quoted in your original post... yet that is not true with Coomaraswamy's analysis of it.
--------------------------------------
THE RESULT OF THESE CHANGES IS THE PROTESTANTIZING OF THE ORDINAL"Clearly, almost every reference to a specifically Catholic understanding of the episcopate has been deleted from the post-Conciliar rite. Included in these deletions are his function of ordaining priests, confirming, and his use of the "Keys". Admittingly the term "bishop" is retained, but outside the essential form, and in such a way as would in no way offend our Protestant brethren. As such there is no positive
signifcatio ex adjunctis, but rather a negative one. With this in mind, let us consider some of the statements of Leo XIII in his Apostolicae curae that irreformably declared Anglican Orders "null and void."
In vain has help been recently sought from the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose of the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood of the Catholic rite. That "form" consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify... The same holds good of Episcopal consecration... Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, 'Almightly God,' since it, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium... The episcopate undoubtedly, by the institution of Christ, most truly belongs to the sacrament of Orders and constitutes the sacerdotium in the highest degree, namely that which by the teaching of the Holy Fathers and our liturgical customs is called the summum sacerdotium, sacri ministerii summa. So it comes to pass that, as the sacrament of Orders and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the Episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the same reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it and this the more so because among the first duties of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.
Michael Davies, despite his dubious conclusion in
The Order of Melchisedech that the new ordination rite is unquestionably valid, provides us with all the necessary evidence required to state that the intention of Paul VI was to make the new ordination rites acceptable to Protestants. He also provides us with the evidence that Paul VI's Ordinal was created with the help of the same henchmen that assisted in creating the
Novus Ordo Missae -- Archbp. Bugnini and the six heterodox (Protestant) "consultants." Francis Clark also stresses Paul VI's ecuмenical intent. Indeed, he goes so far as to parallel it with Cranmer's intent in creating the Edwardian (Anglican) rite, namely that of destroying the sacerdotal character of Orders. He considers the Cranmerian result invalid, but that of the post-Conciliar Church as legitimate because it derives from a Pope.
Let the import of such an intent be clear. Protestants deny the sacramental character of Orders, and any attempt to create a rite that would satisfy them must resort to both
ambiguity and
deliberate obfuscation of doctrine. If Michael Davies' contention is correct, and I believe it is, Paul VI had no choice but to deliberately delete every reference to a specifically Catholic characterization of the episcopacy.
--------------------------------------------------
A real ordination of Bishops... ABL did not, in his wisdom, use the New Rite of Ordination. Why?
Remember who Paul VI was... a man who believed the United Nations could save the world and bring it peace.... a man who approved of communist Cuba and its intent of achieving a 'new order' and a 'new man' because Cuba conformed to his own ideals .... a man who appeased heretics at the convening of the satanic robber council known as Vatican II by including them directly in manipulating consecratory rites and the Mass, the holy Liturgy.
I will never forget who my leader is... it is Jesus Christ. Gregory I, I hope you do not forget also.
Topic: The 1968 Rite os Episcopal COnsecration is Valid. (Read 12260 times)