http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/newordin.txt

THE PAPAL BULL "APOSTOLICAE CURAE" ON THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION

The New Rite of Ordination that was instituted by Paul VI on June 18, 1968,
after Vatican II suffers from the same defects as the Anglican Rite of  
Ordination, which was declared to be invalid by Pope Leo XIII in his infallible
Bull Apostolicae Curae.  When the Anglicans separated from the Catholic Church
in the 16th century, they created a New Rite of Ordination which removed every
reference to the true sacrificing priesthood.  Likewise, every mandatory
reference to the true sacrificing priesthood was removed from the Rite of
Ordination promulgated by Paul VI after Vatican II.  Here are some of the
prayers in the Traditional Rite of Ordination which set forth the true nature of
the priesthood, which were abolished in the New Rite of Paul VI.

"For it is a priest's duty to offer sacrifice, to bless, to lead, to preach, and
to baptize."  ABOLISHED.

"That Thou wouldst recall all who have wandered from the unity of the Church,
and lead all believers to the light of the Gospel."  ABOLISHED.

"Theirs be the task to change with blessing undefiled, for the service of Thy
people, bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Thy Son."  ABOLISHED.

"Be pleased, Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing, and
our blessing.  That whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they
consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified in the name of Our Lord Jesus
Christ."  ABOLISHED.

"Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass, both
for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord."  ABOLISHED.

"The new priests then promise obedience to their bishop who 'charges' them to
bear in mind that offering Holy Mass is not free from risk and that they should
learn everything necessary from diligent priests before undertaking so fearful a
responsibility."  ABOLISHED.

"The blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, come
down upon you, and make you blessed in the priestly Order, enabling you to offer
propitiatory sacrifices for the sins of the people to Almighty God."  ABOLISHED.

"As the previous section made clear, every prayer in the traditional rite
[of Ordination] which stated specifically the essential role of a priest
as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead
has been removed [from the New Rite of Paul VI].  In most cases these
were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant reformers, or if not
precisely the same there are clear parallels." (Historian Michael Davies, The
Order of Melchisedech, p. 83)

"There is not one mandatory prayer in the new rite of ordination itself which
makes clear that the essence of the Catholic priesthood is the conferral of the
powers to offer the sacrifice of the Mass and to absolve men of their sins, and
that the sacrament imparts a character which differentiates a priest not simply
in degree but in essence from a layman.  There is not a word in it that is
incompatible with Protestant belief."  (Historian Michael Davies, The Order of
Melchisedech, p. xix)

It is totally obvious from these facts that there is no intention in the New
Rite of ordaining a true sacrificing Priest.  Every single mandatory reference
to the true sacrificing priesthood was deliberately removed, just as in the
Anglican Rite, which was declared invalid for that very reason by Pope Leo XIII.  
Thus, the following words declared by Pope Leo XIII apply exactly to the New
Rite of Paul VI.

Pope Leo XIII decreed in Apostolicae Curae, September 13, 1896:  "For this
reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the
sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood], but, as
we have just stated, every trace of these things, which had been in such prayers
of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed
and struck out.  In this way the native character -- or spirit as it is called
-- of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself.  Hence, if vitiated in its origin it
was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that in
the course of time it could become sufficient since no change had taken
place."

The New Rite fits this description precisely.  The New Rite of Ordination
specifically eliminated the sacrificing priesthood.  The intention it manifests
is therefore contrary to the intention of the Church and cannot suffice for
validity.

Pope Leo XIII further decreed in Apostolicae Curae:  "For, to put aside other
reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in 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 in the Catholic
rite.  That form, consequently, cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the
sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify."


ADDENDUM:  THE NEW RITE OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS

Paul VI's New Rite of Consecration of Bishops is also an issue.  In Sacramentum
Ordinis, November 30, 1947, Pius XII declared what is the essential form for the
Consecration of Bishops:

"But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same
supreme Apostolic authority, We decree and establish the following:  in the
Episcopal ordination or consecration, the form consists of the words of the
'Preface,' of which the following are essential and so required for validity:  
'Complete in Your Priest the fullness of Your ministry, and sanctify him,
adorned (as he is) with the ornament of all glorification, with the dew of
heavenly anointing.  (Enchiridion Symbolorum 2301)

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 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 New Rite.

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 New Rite.

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 in the New Rite.  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.

Paul VI's New Rite of Episcopal Consecration, therefore, 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.  

Pope Leo XIII decreed in Apostolicae Curae:  "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."

The "why" was to destroy the Holy Church.  The sundry all-encompassing changes were to bring about this nullification.

Another important "why" to think about is why did the vast majority of bishops just quietly go along with this?  

I still do want to see these rites side by side (another thread).  If the changes are small, then the changes were meant to be a small dose of poison because bite by bite you can eat away at a large body.  If the changes are large, didn't anyone other than the traditionalists mention this?

We know that the action taken by the largest percentage of Catholics was to walk away from the Holy Church, but they were really walking away from a new church.

Keep up the great posts, Lover of Truth!!!

Changing the rites of consecration and ordination really sealed the deal for me.  It was/is a freemasonic diabolical plot.  By V2 the majority of highranking officials were either freemasons or of the freemasonic mentality (remember it as pretty bad at the turn of the century already) and that is how they turned the V2 council from a Catholic one to something to build their new Church upon and that is how they got their leader to approve it.

The rest, as they say, is history.  

As to why the bishops went along with it, and here we speak of the bishops that were not of the freemasonic bent, could be for a number of reasons, such as not wanting to publicly question the one who the world believed was Pope, for to call that into question would be to call his papacy into question, and that would just be nuts wouldn't it?  

Because a valid Pope wouldn't mess with and make doubtful that which is the proximate source of the ordinary means of sanctifying grace.  

Satan wants as many souls as possible to spend eternity with him and his agents, the highranking members of new Church, help him by eliminating the ordinary form of sanctifying grace.  Paul 6 is the most reprehensible object in the history of the world.  This is obvious when we realize that souls are more important than bodies and that he is responsible for leading the most astray and taking away their ordinary means of obtaining sanctifying grace from them.

Never know who might have something on who...

Is there anything good about Paul VI?  

Everything about the man gives me the creeps.