https://novusordowatch.org/2016/07/tissier-invalidity-novus-ordo-ordinations/

It was the ordination sermon given by +Tissier in 2016.

SSPX Bp. Tissier Reignites Debate over Validity of Novus Ordo Ordinations

Every year on June 29, the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, the Society of Saint Pius X confers priestly and diaconate ordinations at its main seminary in Econe, Switzerland.
This year, Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais was the main celebrant ordaining 10 new priests and 12 deacons, assisted by the Superior General, Bp. Bernard Fellay, and Bp. Alfonso de Galarreta.

During his sermon, Bp. Tissier spoke on the touchy subject of the validity of the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination, originally promulgated in 1968 by “Pope” Paul VI. Further below, we have produced a careful English translation of the relevant parts of the sermon, based on the original text found in full on the official web site of the French SSPX district, La Porte Latine.

We would like to use this opportunity to raise awareness once again regarding the problems with the new ordination rite of Paul VI, not only with regard to priestly ordinations but most especially — and much more importantly — with regard to the consecration of bishops. For if the Modernist Sect does not have valid bishops, then it does not matter how valid in itself the ordination rite of priests might be, since a valid bishop is absolutely necessary for the valid conferring of holy orders.

Here, then, a quick reality check:

• Unholy Orders: Why the Novus Ordo Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Invalid
• Michael Davies: An Evaluation by John Daly — see Chapter IX, sections (B) and (C)

The following is the relevant part of Bp. Tissier’s sermon in English. While the SSPX bishop speaks about those parts of the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination that, strictly speaking, are irrelevant to validity, since, as he himself admits, they occur in the rite after the sacrament has already (supposedly) been conferred, the big story here is not whether his arguments are sound or not, but simply the curious fact that the French bishop is once again broaching a very touchy subject that could put an insurmountable barrier into the ongoing reconciliation efforts between the SSPX leadership and the Vatican:

…The Fraternity uses all available means today, in light of the situation in the Church, to transmit to all priests of the Church this truth of the priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the reality of Christ, Priest and King, to communicate this to the whole Church.

This nature of the priest as mediator seems to me to be very simply illustrated in the priestly ordination ceremony.

By the anointing of the priest’s hands, by the tradition of the chalice and the paten, and by the second imposition of the hands accompanied with the power to absolve sins. Now these three rites are accomplished at the end of the ordination when the ordinands are already priests by the silent imposition of the bishop’s hands and the consecratory preface. They are already priests. Nevertheless, the Church insists, through these three secondary rites, on specifying the nature of the priest’s power.

First of all, the anointing of the hands, so beautiful, so meaningful. The priest is no longer a man like others, he is a consecrated man because he receives the anointing of his hands. Anointing the two hands of the ordinand, of the ordained, the priest [bishop] pronounces these words: “Consecrate and sanctify, O Lord, these hands by this unction and our blessing so that whatsoever they shall bless and consecrate be consecrated and made holy, in the name of the Lord.” From now on, dear candidates to the priesthood, you will work wonders, you will consecrate and sanctify. Consecrating at mass, of course, holding the chalice that will become the chalice of the Precious Blood, and holding the paten that will become the paten holding Our Lord Jesus Christ, His immolated Body. Thus, you will consecrate the Holy Eucharist, you will renew sacramentally the sacrifice of the Cross. And you will sanctify souls through your hands, through all the blessings of the Church, through baptism, and through the Holy Communion you will give.

But, dear faithful, this marvelous anointing of the priest’s hands was tampered with [truqué] by the Conciliar Church 46 years ago. Paul VI instituted other words, which say nothing of consecration or sanctification. That is why we preciously safeguard the treasure of these ordination prayers.

The second rite is the rite of presenting the young priest with the chalice and the paten, with these very clear words: “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God.” These words you will not find in the other parts of the ordination. Nowhere. It is in this secondary rite that you will ultimately find specified what this priesthood is you are going to receive. “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God,” and it continues, “and to celebrate masses for the living as well as for the dead, in the name of the Lord.”  To celebrate masses, this is quite clear, for the living as well as for the dead.

Not only a sacrifice of praise for the living, but also the sacrifice of expiation and propitiation for the souls in purgatory, who are no longer spoken of in the Church today. Your priesthood is a priesthood having effects for eternity, not only on earth but in Heaven for admitting in souls, and in purgatory for the deliverance of souls.
Archbishop Lefebvre would tell us: “The priest is a man of eternity, who lives not only in time, but whose priesthood has eternal effects.”

But this prayer, once again, was tampered with by the Conciliar Church—the new ordination rite where the bishop presents the chalice and the paten, with the wine and the host, yes, simply saying: “Receive the gifts of the faithful, to offer them to God.” So, what does that mean? You are receiving the gifts of the faithful to offer them to God? Is that all? We are not receiving the gifts of the faithful, we are receiving the gift of God, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ sacrificed on the Cross, to offer Him anew to God the Father. This is the truth! Obviously, we cannot accept this new, tampered with ordination rite, which casts doubts on the validity of numerous ordinations [done] according to the new rite.

And finally, the third beautiful rite—secondary, it is true, but still so important—the power to absolve sins. The priest [bishop] says to the ordinand, as he spreads open his chasuble to signify he shall thenceforth be able to exercise his priesthood and all of his priestly functions: “Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou shalt forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins thou shalt retain, they are retained.” These beautiful words of Our Lord to the Apostles on Easter, on Easter evening, what could be more beautiful? To express this power, which the young priests have already received by the silent imposition of hands and the preface, this is true, but expressing it in an explicit manner, that the priest has the power to forgive sins. You will say but only God can forgive sins. Exactly—the priest is the instrument of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins.

But, dear faithful, this prayer, this rite of transmitting the power to forgive sins, was simply suppressed in the new rite of ordination. It is no longer mentioned. So this new rite of ordination is not Catholic. And so we shall continue, of course, to faithfully transmit the real and valid priesthood through the traditional rite of priestly ordination.
(Source: “Sermon de Mgr Tissier de Mallerais le 29 juin 2016 à Ecône: qu’en est-il de la validité du nouveau rite d’ordination?”, La Porte Latine; translation by Novus Ordo Watch.)

A Church that can promulgate for the entire Roman rite an ordination ritual that is of doubtful validity, or, as in the case of the ordinations of bishops, definitely invalid, is most certainly not the Roman Catholic Church, for in this matter the Church is infallible through the special assistance of the Holy Ghost:

Assertion 3: The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.
By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. “This law, considering all the circuмstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circuмstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Proof:
1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ’s doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.

2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism” [Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei, error n. 78; Denz. 1578].

Corollary
The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals. But it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that all the historical facts which are recorded here and there in the lessons of the Roman Breviary, or all the explanations of scriptural passages which are used in the homilies of the Breviary must be taken as infallibly true. As far as the former are concerned, those particular facts are not an object of infallibility since they have no necessary connection with revelation. As for the latter, the Church orders their recitation not because they are certainly true, but because they are edifying.

(Mgr. Gerard van Noort,  [Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1957], nn. 91-92; italics given; underlining added.)

Besides, the Council of Trent hurled an anathema at the view that the Church can give evil in the ceremonies of her Masses: “If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon VII).

The invalidity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, therefore, is one of the definitive proofs by means of which all Catholics can know that the Vatican II Church is not the Roman Catholic Church, for the simple reason that it cannot be, as it has thereby demonstrated. This is Catholic theology.

By contrast, the theology of the Society of St. Pius X is a gigantic confused and confusing mess. We have demonstrated this many times before, and perhaps nowhere as succinctly as in this challenge:

• Twelve Inconvenient Questions for the SSPX

May all SSPX clerics and adherents finally come to realize that if the “Pope” is manifestly not a Catholic, then he cannot be the head of the Catholic Church, any more than Jack can be a bachelor if he is married.

Yes, it really is that simple (sorry, Michael Matt!).

Besides, the Council of Trent hurled an anathema at the view that the Church can give evil in the ceremonies of her Masses: “If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon VII).

The invalidity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, therefore, is one of the definitive proofs by means of which all Catholics can know that the Vatican II Church is not the Roman Catholic Church, for the simple reason that it cannot be, as it has thereby demonstrated. This is Catholic theology.

Novusordowatch, for all the good they do, often twist the truth and draw false conclusions.

The Council of Trent also anathematised the idea that the Pope could change the rites of administration of the sacraments. It is just not what Christ gave him power to do. If he tries, it doesn't make him not Pope, or it doesn't make the Church no longer the Church, it simply means he is acting illegitimately and should not be followed. Hear the first minute of this video of Canon Hesse:

You claim above that ABL, BW, Fr Schmidberger and Canon Hesse "all said" that a new rite bishop ordains valid priests. In response to my request you provided two pieces of evidence. 1. Fr Hesse's ordination. You provide a quote from Fr Hesse where he evidently says that ABL, Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson and Fr Schmidberger all said that his ordination was valid and there was no need for him to be 're-ordained".
Are you aware that Fr Hesse was ordained by an old-rite bishop, Cardinal Sabattani, who was consecrated in 1965? So that in no way relates to the validity of the NREC but only the new rite of priestly ordination. 2. You provided a link to your phone conversation with 'Brent' from the Angelus press in 2019 who told you what the process is with the neo-SSPX investigating ordinations of new priests coming to Tradition. Further comment is superfluous.

As I posted:
"Per Fr. Hesse, +ABL, +Williamson and I think Fr. Schmidberger all said that an and old rite bishop who ordained priests in the new rite, and a new rite bishop who ordained priests in the old rite, were both validly ordained priests."

Again, the principle is that all sacraments, being the Church's, must initially be presumed valid because they all belong to the Church. Only the Church can declare otherwise.

When the Church says in order to avoid sacrilege, due inquiry is needed, then due inquiry is needed, the case is closed (imo) and there is no reason not to do due inquiry. The only reason to insist otherwise is because some insist the new rite in and of itself is invalid/doubtful, that's all the due inquiry they decide is needed.

 This priest and that theologian can vehemently opine and firmly insist that the new rite is automatically always invalid / doubtful all they want, and as I've repeatedly said - I totally agree with them, their opinions and insistence.

The core issue is +ABL and other reliable trads who should know, disagree with those who insist that the new rite in and of itself is automatically always doubtful or invalid. I stick with +ABL etc., because of the above principle.

Novusordowatch, for all the good they do, often twist the truth and draw false conclusions.

The Council of Trent also anathematised the idea that the Pope could change the rites of administration of the sacraments. It is just not what Christ gave him power to do. If he tries, it doesn't make him not Pope, or it doesn't make the Church no longer the Church, it simply means he is acting illegitimately and should not be followed. Hear the first minute of this video of Canon Hesse:

I love Fr. Hesse's arguments,  but if you consider Fr. Cekada book Work of Human Hands, the point by point systematic destruction of Tradition by Modernist cannot be disputed.   It's not a minor thing and how Tradition should judge the changes is clear.  You can't be liberal with these grave matters. 

If he tries, it doesn't make him not Pope, or it doesn't make the Church no longer the Church ...

It's not about whether a putative Pope "tried".  He didn't just try.  He did in fact destroy the Mass, in the sense that he imposed it on the faithful.  But true popes are protected by the Holy Spirit from destroying the Mass.  Ergo, these guys posing as Popes are not actually Popes but are usurpers and destroyers.  Wake up.  Masons / Communists / Jews have been trying for centuries to get "their man" on the See of Peter and they finally succeeded (as God has allowed).

Legitimate Popes are protected by the Holy Spirit from wrecking the Church.

The kernel of the sedevacantist error.

A pious and understandable instinct to think this way, in fact the first instinct of the Archbishop himself.  Unfortunately not taught by the Church anywhere, ever.

Bishop Tissier was not here questioning the validity of the essential form of the new rite of priestly ordination

He said it was "not catholic".