Author Topic: The 1968 Rite os Episcopal COnsecration is Valid. (Read 13157 times)

Pepsuber · « **Reply #45 on:** February 15, 2012, 08:09:45 AM »

Which of the errors condemned in Quanta Cura do you think are held by Benedict XVI?

SJB · « **Reply #46 on:** February 15, 2012, 08:49:30 AM »

Quote from: Pepsuber

Which of the errors condemned in Quanta Cura do you think are held by Benedict XVI?

This is what I was referring to:

Quote from: Pepsuber

I don't think the liberal errors condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus (#s 77-80) rise to that level.

Did these liberal errors "rise to that level" after the Syllabus condemned them?

Pepsuber · « **Reply #47 on:** February 15, 2012, 10:33:06 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Pepsuber
Which of the errors condemned in Quanta Cura do you think are held by Benedict XVI?

This is what I was referring to:

Quote from: Pepsuber
I don't think the liberal errors condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus (#s 77-80) rise to that level.

Did these liberal errors "rise to that level" after the Syllabus condemned them?

Which of those errors are mentioned in Quanta Cura?

SJB · « **Reply #48 on:** February 15, 2012, 10:57:21 AM »

Quote from: Pepsuber

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Pepsuber
Which of the errors condemned in Quanta Cura do you think are held by Benedict XVI?

This is what I was referring to:

Quote from: Pepsuber
I don't think the liberal errors condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus (#s 77-80) rise to that level.

Did these liberal errors "rise to that level" after the Syllabus condemned them?

Which of those errors are mentioned in Quanta Cura?

The Syllabus of Errors is the list of what Quanta Cura condemned.

Pepsuber · « **Reply #49 on:** February 16, 2012, 08:06:44 AM »

Quote from: SJB

The Syllabus of Errors is the list of what Quanta Cura condemned.

Do you have a citation for that?

Do you know of any manuals that assign theological grades of certainty to the propositions in the Syllabus along with the relevant censure? Heresy consists in the dissent from revealed truths, but not everything infallibly decided by the Church is a revealed truth.

SJB · « **Reply #50 on:** February 16, 2012, 05:32:19 PM »

Quote from: Pepsuber

Quote from: SJB
The Syllabus of Errors is the list of what Quanta Cura condemned.

Do you have a citation for that?

Do you know of any manuals that assign theological grades of certainty to the propositions in the Syllabus along with the relevant censure? Heresy consists in the dissent from revealed truths, but not everything infallibly decided by the Church is a revealed truth.

Quote from: Denzinger 1700

"Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors *

[Excerpted from various Allocutions, Encyclicals, Epistles of PIUS IX, together with (the above quoted) Bull, "Quanta cure," edited Dec. 8, 1864]

A. Index of the Acts of Pius IX, from which the Syllabus is excerpted

1700 1. The Encyclical Letter, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846 (to this are referred the propositions of the Syllabus 4--7, 16]. 40, 63).

2. The Allocution, "Quisque vestrum," Oct. 4,1847 (Prop. 63).

3. The Allocution, "Ubi primum," Dec. 17, 1847 (Prop. 16].

4. The Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," Apr. 20, 1849 (Prop. 40, 64,76).

5. The Encyclical Letter, "Nostis et Nobiscuм," Dec. 8, 1849 (Prop.

6. The Allocution, "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850 (Prop. 76).

7. The Allocution, "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850 (Prop. 43, 45).

8. The Condemnation, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851 (Prop. 15, 21,23, 30, 51, 54, 68)9. The Condemnation, "Ad apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851 (Prop. 24, 25, 34 36, 38, 41, 42, 65 67, 69--75).

10. The Allocution, "Quibus luctuosissimis," Sept. 5, 1851 (Prop. 45).

11. Letter to the KING of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852 (Prop. 73).

12. The Allocution, "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852 (Prop. 31, 51, 53, 55, 67, 73,74, 78).

13. The Allocution, "Singular) quadam," Dec. 9, 1854 (Prop. 8, 17, 19).

14. The Allocution, "Probe memineritis," Jan. 22,1855 (Prop. 53).

15. The Allocution, "cuм saepe," July 26, 1855 (Prop. 53). 16]

16. The Allocution, "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855 (Prop. 77).

17. The Encyclical Letter, "Singular) quidem," Mar. 17., 1856 (Prop.4, 16].).

18. The Allocution, "Nunquam fore," Dec. (15), 1856 (Prop. 26, 28, 29, 31, 46, 50, 52, 79).

19. The Letter, "Eximiam tuam," to the Archbishop of Cologne, June 15, 1857 (Prop. 14 NB)

20. The Apostolic Letter, "cuм catholica Ecclesia," Mar. 26,1860 (Prop. 63, 76 NB)

21. The Letter, "Dolore haud mediocri," to the Bishop of Wratislava (Breslau), Apr. 30, 1860 (Prop. 14 NB).

22. The Allocution, "Novos et ante," Sept. 28, 1860 (Prop. 19, 62,76, NB).

23. The Allocution, "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17., 1860 (Prop 37, 43,73).

24. The Allocution, "Iamdudum cernimus," Mar. 18, 1861, (Prop. 37, 61,76, NB, 80).

25. The Allocution, "Meminit unusquisque," Sept. 30, 1861 (Prop. 20).

26. The Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862 (Prop. 1--7, (15),19, 27, 39, 44, 49, 56--60, 76, NB)

27. The Letter, "Gravissimas inter," to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, Dec. II, 1862 (Prop. 9--11).

28. The Encyclical Letter, "Quanto conficiamur moerore," Aug. 10, 1863 (Prop. 17., 58).

29. The Encyclical Letter, "Incredibili," Sept. 17., 1863 (Prop. 26).

30. The Letter, "Tuas libenter," to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising,

Dec. 21, 1863 (Prop. 9, 10, 12--14,, 22, 33).

31. The Letter, "cuм non sine," to the Archbishop of Friburg, July14, 1864 (Prop. 47,48).

32. The Letter, "Singularis Nobisque," to the Bishop of Montreal (?), Sept. 29, 1864 (Prop. 32).

B. Syllabus*

Comprising the particular errors of our age, which are noted in

consistorial Allocutions, in Encyclical and other Apostolic

Letters of His Holiness, our Lord Pope Pius IX *

Pepsuber · « **Reply #51 on:** February 16, 2012, 09:14:33 PM »

SJB, I beg your pardon, but that doesn't answer my question. It's a list of the propositions of the Syllabus along with their sources.

SJB · « **Reply #52 on:** February 17, 2012, 10:20:03 AM »

Quote from: Pepsuber

SJB, I beg your pardon, but that doesn't answer my question. It's a list of the propositions of the Syllabus along with their sources.

Why is it in Denzinger? The syllabus was issued on the same day at the same hour as an appendix to Quanta Cura. Here's an excerpt from a book 100 years ago:

Pepsuber · « **Reply #53 on:** February 17, 2012, 11:02:09 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Pepsuber
SJB, I beg your pardon, but that doesn't answer my question. It's a list of the propositions of the Syllabus along with their sources.

Why is it in Denzinger?

Why not? Is there some kind of special status for things that are published in Denzinger? I agree that the Syllabus is infallible but the fact that it is infallible does not mean that everything that is condemned within it rises to the level of heresy.

SJB · « **Reply #54 on:** February 17, 2012, 11:08:55 AM »

Quote from: Pepsuber

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Pepsuber
SJB, I beg your pardon, but that doesn't answer my question. It's a list of the propositions of the Syllabus along with their sources.

Why is it in Denzinger?

Why not? Is there some kind of special status for things that are published in Denzinger? I agree that the Syllabus is infallible but the fact that it is infallible does not mean that everything that is condemned within it rises to the level of heresy.

What is a denial of an ex cathedra pronouncement?

Pepsuber · « **Reply #55 on:** February 17, 2012, 11:15:27 AM »

Quote from: SJB

What is a denial of an ex cathedra pronouncement?

Do you think that the Syllabus is ex cathedra?

SJB · « **Reply #56 on:** February 17, 2012, 11:34:32 AM »

Quote from: Pepsuber

Quote from: SJB
What is a denial of an ex cathedra pronouncement?

Do you think that the Syllabus is ex cathedra?

Yes.

Quote from: Willhelm and Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology

III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the docuмents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the docuмent. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical docuмents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—

1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.

2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.

3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.

4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #57 on:** February 17, 2012, 03:28:34 PM »

Pepsuber, time to sit down and eat some humble pie because you got a fat slice served to you.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #58 on:** February 17, 2012, 03:43:15 PM »

Quote from: PartyIsOver221

Pepsuber, time to sit down and eat some humble pie because you got a fat slice served to you.

katholikos · « **Reply #59 on:** February 17, 2012, 07:30:22 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Fr. Cekada's Arguments were just demolished.

Often, this is quoted as the 1968 rite of consecrating a bishop:

"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."

Guess what?

That is NOT THE ENTIRE PRAYER OF CONSECRATION!

This is what Paul VI said: "the form [of ordination] consists in the words of the consecratory prayer, OF WHICH the following BELONG TO the essence and are consequently required for validity..."

So, this is the PRINCIPLE PART that theo other co-consecrators all intone together, but it is by no means the END of the Consecration!

The Consecration in FULL is this:

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.

Sorry guys. I can no longer consider this rite invalid, at least not materially.

The prayer of consecration itself, in its ENTIRETY clearly and univocally denotes the grace of the holy spirit, that this grace is the gift of the high priesthood, and that the rank of bishop is being conferred, with some of the particular powers of bishops mentioned: "Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to... assign ministries as you have decreed, and to loose every bond by the authority which you gave to your apostles"

This, for me is earth shattering. There is absolutely no doubt as to the intention here. I agree Paul VI shouldn't have changed it, but I mean, LOOK. It clearly spells out the Role of a Catholic Bishop.

There is nothing earth-shattering here. The Church's teaching is that the essential form must signify univocally, both the grace of the Holy Ghost and the power of order. You are basically advancing the "argument from context," which Fr. Cekada addressed in "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void" (Part IX, pp. 11-12).

Objections to this study were addressed in a follow-up, "Still Null and Still Void".

A simplified summary of the study is here: "Why the New Bishops Cannot be True Bishops"

Finally, Fr. Cekada's response to the SSPX's French district: "New Bishops, Empty Tabernacle"

I have no idea how anyone could say that Fr. Cekada argues that Benedict XVI isn't the Pope because he's not a valid bishop. That is absolutely not his argument, as anyone can find out for himself by looking through the articles on sedevacantism written by him and other authors.