Author Topic: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite (Read 13212 times)

AJNC · « **Reply #15 on:** June 10, 2017, 09:25:37 PM »

Quote from: Asbury Fox on June 10, 2017, 07:25:21 PM

The Council of Florence taught that the passing of the chalice and patten, the tradition instrmentorum, was part of the matter of Holy Orders. This was part of the matter for centuries in the Latin rite. Pope Pius XII changed this and the matter for Holy Orders. Using his authority and that of the Church to change the matter and form for the five sacraments that the Church has the right to change, Pius XII ruled that now the matter for Holy Orders was merely the laying of hands.

Apostolic Constitution Of Pope Pius XII on the Sacrament of Order November 30, 1947 Sacramentum Ordinis:

"#4 Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy"

Pius XII did rule that the matter for Holy Orders was merely the laying on the hands. He also stated that the whole rite should be retained as it then was.

Asbury Fox · « **Reply #16 on:** June 10, 2017, 11:55:49 PM »

Quote from: AJNC on June 10, 2017, 09:25:37 PM

Pius XII did rule that the matter for Holy Orders was merely the laying on the hands. He also stated that the whole rite should be retained as it then was.

I'm sure that the clerics of the Middle Ages thought that the chalice and patten should also be the matter for Holy Orders, but Pius XII was within his right to change it and was not bound by Florence. Likewise, a future Pope, like Paul VI, was not bound by the form of Pius XII, so he changed it to a new form, a different wording. This form is a new form, but it is as perfectly valid as the old form.

AJNC · « **Reply #17 on:** June 11, 2017, 01:09:04 AM »

Quote from: Asbury Fox on June 10, 2017, 11:55:49 PM

I'm sure that the clerics of the Middle Ages thought that the chalice and patten should also be the matter for Holy Orders, but Pius XII was within his right to change it and was not bound by Florence. Likewise, a future Pope, like Paul VI, was not bound by the form of Pius XII, so he changed it to a new form, a different wording. This form is a new form, but it is as perfectly valid as the old form.

I have absolutely no knowledge about sacramental theology. I'm just contributing whatever I have come across over time, that may be somewhat relevant to this thread:
This is from Hutton Gibson:

The Reform of the Liturgy (Bugnini) indexed references to Pius XII by page number:

xxiii: “work of the commission for general liturgical reform that Pius XII established in 1948. The Lord willed that from those early years a whole series of providential circuмstances should thrust me [Bugnini] fully, and indeed in a privileged way, in medias res, and that I should remain there in charge of the secretariat. This volume thus embraces in a measure the entire history of liturgical reform in the period from 1948 to 1975 – twenty-seven years devoted to restoring splendor and charm, youthful beauty, trenchancy, and a sweet fragrance to the public prayer of the Church.”

xxvi: “The liturgical reform was a ‘movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church’ (Pius XII), a great work that all who took part in approached with humility, faith, intense love, and prayer; they ‘put off their shoes,’ as Moses did on approaching the burning bush, because they knew that everything they touched was sacred. [But, with consecrated fingers, they touched it anyway.] All of us had constantly before our eyes a vision either of the divine Majesty whose earthly praise we were providing with new expressions and new emphases, or of the Church, which would be putting this new song on the lips of the faithful.”

6: “In his encyclical Mediator Dei of November 11, 1947, Pius XII put the seal of his supreme authority on this movement, which by now was to be found everywhere in the Church. The liturgy had entered [at last!] upon its true course, that of pastoral concern, and was thus returning to the ideal it had had in the beginning.”

7: “…. Pius XII had already been thinking of reform some years earlier. A project for liturgical reform – or, more accurately, liturgical codification – was later found among the papers of Father Pio Alfonzo, a Benedictine, who taught liturgy at the College of Propaganda and was a consultor of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.”

(footnote 5) “In an audience granted to Cardinal Carlo Salotti, prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, on May 10, 1946, Pope Pius XII expressed his wish that a start be made on studying the problem of a general reform of the liturgy. In another audience, granted to Archbishop Alfonso Carinci, secretary of the same Congregation, on July 17, 1946, it was determined ‘that a special commission of experts should reflect on the general reform of the liturgy and offer concrete proposals’; ….”

9: “So secret …. was their work that the publication of the Ordo Sabbati Sancti instaurati at the beginning of March 1951 caught even the officials of the Congregation of Rites by surprise. The commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope, who was kept abreast of its work by [two termites] Monsignor Montini and even more, on a weekly basis, by Father Bea, confessor of Pius XII. Thanks to them, the commission was able to achieve important results even during periods when the Pope’s illness kept everyone else from approaching him.”

44: “The liturgy feeds the Church’s life; it must therefore remain dynamic and not be allowed to stagnate or become petrified. Pius XII said as much in 1947 in this lapidary sentence: ‘The liturgy is something lasting and alive.’”

385: “In this docuмent (Missale Romanum) Pope Paul VI promulgated the new Roman Missal …. The constitution notes that the current reform brings to completion the work begun by Pius XII with his restoration of the solemn Easter Vigil and Holy Week.”

708: April 21, 1966 Cardinal Lercaro sent Paul VI a memorandum incorporating: “…. Revision of the sacramental rites in the Roman Pontifical raises a series of problems that are very serious and sensitive not only from the viewpoint of ritual but also and above all because of their theological consequences. …. Her rites in their structure and particular parts should also have a didactic function; they should therefore be clear in their organization and contain a series of gestures and words that express sure teaching.

“The problem becomes even more urgent and sensitive where the rites of ordination are concerned, especially the three sacramental ordinations, episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate. The ritual for these orders has been formed by successive contributions that reflect the doctrinal and cultural influence of the periods in which the rites and formulas were created. The formulas of ordination, for example, reflect the allegorizing mentality and spirituality of the early Middle Ages, containing as they do a whole series of references to personages, events and rites of the Old Testament as applied to the new covenant. The gestures and several parts of the rite, for example, the traditio instrumentorum, the traditio insignium, and, to some extent, the taking of an oath of fidelity, reflect the influence of the feudal period, and so on.

“Furthermore, each gesture is habitually accompanied by a formula, but the latter is not always in harmony with the objective meaning of the gesture itself. For example: the laying on of hands (an essential part of the rite) at the consecration of a bishop is accompanied by the words ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ which are not the sacramental formula but, by reason of their placement and of the solemn moment at which they are said, end up by pushing into the background the real sacramental formula, namely, the ensuing preface.

“Finally, it is necessary for the study group to keep before it the extensive doctrinal enrichment [new] brought to this area by Vatican II, especially in its Constitution on the Church, when dealing with the episcopate and with the priesthood in general. In the present effort at renewal, the liturgy cannot fail to introduce this wealth of teaching into its formulas, which are intended not simply for the conferral of a sacrament but also for the instruction of the faithful through the rite. Nor may we set up an opposition between this renewal and the simple respect due to a text that is rich indeed, but rich rather by reason of its venerable age than of its authentic theological content.”

The Cardinal then addressed himself in greater detail to several issues:

Sacramental formulas. In virtue of the apostolic constitution Sacramentum Ordinis of Pius XII, the sacramental formula for the conferral of holy orders in each of its three degrees is the entire preface, although only one part of this is said to be essential and indispensable.

But the three prefaces in the Pontifical no longer seem suited to their purpose, since they do not adequately show forth the true nature of priesthood to the full extent in which the Church now understands it. The Consilium should therefore adopt two resolutions. The first has to do with the episcopate: “In our opinion there should be a study on whether other texts may be substituted which better express the theology of the episcopal office.” The second concerns the diaconate: “The Fathers have decided that there should be a study of how the consecratory preface may better express the theology of the diaconate in the [new] light of the constitution Lumen gentium.”

A good starting point for the study of episcopal consecration would seem to be the text in the Traditio Apostolica of [antipope] Hippolytus. This is still used in the Coptic Rite and, in a fuller version derived from the Testamentum Domini, among the West Syrians.
For the diaconate the formula has been tackled almost from scratch, using part of the current formula and completing it.

For the presbyterate the current formula seemed already a rich one, needing only the restoration[?] of the original form it had in the source and a few additions or revisions.
The words “Receive the Holy Spirit” These occur at the moment when the celebrant lays his hands on the elect during Episcopal consecration. [So obviously they mean nothing.] They also occur in a fuller form in diaconal ordination (“Receive the Holy Spirit for strength to resist the devil and his temptations, in the name of the Lord”).

These words are not part of the sacramental formula and can lead to incorrect interpretations in catechetical instruction and into misunderstanding of the rite by the faithful. [Is this a classroom? Are the faithful being ordained?] It seemed wise, therefore, to eliminate them, so that the imposition of hands is done in silence, as is already the case in the ordination of priests. [Now the faithful can’t determine whether the ordinand is becoming a deacon or a priest. Let’s eliminate the consecratory prayers at Mass because they may confuse a Christian Scientist!] ….

According to the regulations in the old Pontifical, after the imposition of hands the co-consecrating bishops should “also recite the prayer Propitiare and the entire preface that follows; throughout the remainder of the rite they should likewise read in a low voice everything that the consecrating bishop reads or sings.”

All this creates a disagreeable situation, since the words of the principal consecrator [who may be tone-deaf] are continually [continuously?] accompanied by the murmur of the other two bishops as they recite the same formula. [Of course it’s the same formula; why else are they present?] It would seem more appropriate to adopt the practice of the Eastern Rites, in which …. the other bishops participate simply by imposing hands and by their [manifest?] intention. The verbal participation of the co-consecrators will therefore be limited to the essential formula, that is, they will sing or recite, along with the consecrating bishop, only the part of the preface that is determined to be the “essential part.” [But the entire preface is designated as the form. And what if Pius XII was wrong in redefining the form? His Sacramentum ordinis was addressed to only the Latin Rite and therefore failed a condition for an infallible statement.] No more Lercaro.

http://huttongibson.com/index-detail.php?Novus-Ordo-from-Pius-XII-69

songbird · « **Reply #18 on:** June 11, 2017, 03:47:19 PM »

AJNC: Thank You very much for this post reply. I really do think there are "holes" the start of destruction to be seen with Pius XII. I think we will find more "reform" that is not to be accepted. What Christ Instituted, there is no need for "reform", "renew", "change"!

Read the prophecies! No consecration, no pope has said a word! And it is stated that like King Louis XVI, they will lose authority and King Louis XVI was beheaded. Rome has no head. Has not for some time. It would not surprise me if Pope Pius XI was a coward compared to Pilate and shakes hands with the enemy and makes friends.

Any one who thinks they can change what "GOD" did, just know this, it is not God's and that is elementary.

Pope is to protect, what is already in place, and to make clear definitions of laws.

The enemy will always try to find loop holes to their liking.

Asbury Fox · « **Reply #19 on:** June 11, 2017, 04:31:19 PM »

Quote from: songbird on June 11, 2017, 03:47:19 PM

What Christ Instituted, there is no need for "reform", "renew", "change"!

Christ didn't give us the wording and form for the sacrament of Holy Orders. He left that to the Church and the Church has always decided the form for Holy Orders. We have had different rites and forms throughout the centuries. In Acts Ch. 6 you can see the matter of Holy Orders with the apostles laying hands and ordaining deacons and praying. They had a form and wording, but it was not recorded by scripture. The form has changed with new rites since the time of the apostles, as has the matter, with the chalice and patten being part of the matter at one time and not being part of the matter at a different time. The sacrament has always remained the same in substance, the ordination of deacons, priests, and bishops for the Church.

Nadir · « **Reply #20 on:** June 11, 2017, 04:56:15 PM »

I am concerned personally with this question of the validity of the present rite of ordination, so I appreciate your input, Ashbury Fox. However, you refer us to Acts 6 but this concerns not the ordination of priests but
.
The ordination of the seven deacons.
And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them. And the word of the Lord increased; and the number of the disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly: a great multitude also of the priests obeyed the faith. And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people.

songbird · « **Reply #21 on:** June 11, 2017, 06:02:23 PM »

I wonder about Our Lady. She stayed on 15 years after Christ's death? She was a guide and help to the apostles and the "Creed" was developed because of Her guidance. I wonder just how much more She was involved to help get the Church in motion along with the Holy Ghost. Validity of ordinations is #1. The Precious Blood/Body on earth is what makes a True Faith. Anything else is zero.

The enemy is very clever and knows what they did and what they continue to do. Martin Luther got those wheels turning and he saw to it that there was no consecration of any clergy. The ending of the Precious Blood certainly was started very well by him and kept up to this day.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #22 on:** June 11, 2017, 06:07:39 PM »

Quote from: Asbury Fox on June 10, 2017, 07:25:21 PM

The Council of Florence taught that the passing of the chalice and patten, the tradition instrmentorum, was part of the matter of Holy Orders. This was part of the matter for centuries in the Latin rite. Pope Pius XII changed this and the matter for Holy Orders. Using his authority and that of the Church to change the matter and form for the five sacraments that the Church has the right to change, Pius XII ruled that now the matter for Holy Orders was merely the laying of hands.

Apostolic Constitution Of Pope Pius XII on the Sacrament of Order November 30, 1947 Sacramentum Ordinis:

"#4 Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy"

The Novus Ordo church New Rite of ordination is doubtful at best, however, its invalidity has nothing to do with Pius XII and "the passing of the chalice and patten, the tradition instrmentorum, as part of the matter of Holy Orders". That should be the end of this thread if that is the where you were going with the subject of the invalidity of the New Rite.

songbird · « **Reply #23 on:** June 11, 2017, 06:39:11 PM »

Know the Truth and it shall set you free! today, of all days, Holy Trinity Sunday.

We know that the Holy Ghost Inspired the Apostles to the Scripture and this goes also for the sacraments! God wills the writings and this includes the Sacraments. It is called Divine Revelation. We believe, do we not?! Oh, yes and those who don't, hm! Truths are revealed and to be acted upon. The Institution of the Sacraments are Infallible, are they not?! Sure they are! Now, who in the "devil" would desire to "reform" but Martin Luther and anyone who wishes to follow Luther.

Oh, don't you just love it, when we get some one on the forum who looks to trip us. Shame Shame!

Asbury Fox · « **Reply #24 on:** June 11, 2017, 10:35:35 PM »

Quote from: Nadir on June 11, 2017, 04:56:15 PM

I am concerned personally with this question of the validity of the present rite of ordination, so I appreciate your input, Ashbury Fox. However, you refer us to Acts 6 but this concerns not the ordination of priests but
.
The ordination of the seven deacons.
And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them. And the word of the Lord increased; and the number of the disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly: a great multitude also of the priests obeyed the faith. And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people.

My point was to show that the matter and form can change for Holy Orders. When the apostles ordained priests, they weren't using the rite of Pius XII. The wording of the form has changed throughout the centuries. The new rite of Paul VI has a form for the priesthood, and it's perfectly valid.

Asbury Fox · « **Reply #25 on:** June 11, 2017, 10:40:28 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on June 11, 2017, 06:07:39 PM

The Novus Ordo church New Rite of ordination is doubtful at best, however, its invalidity has nothing to do with Pius XII and "the passing of the chalice and patten, the tradition instrmentorum, as part of the matter of Holy Orders". That should be the end of this thread if that is the where you were going with the subject of the invalidity of the New Rite.

The Novus Ordo rite is perfectly valid and is not doubtful. The point of the chalice and patten was to show that the Church can change matter and form. The new rite of Paul VI has a new form. This form is valid and not doubtful. I am not arguing that the new rite is better than the old rite or even that there should have been a new rite. I am only arguing that the new rite is valid and a Pope can make a new rite.

Asbury Fox · « **Reply #26 on:** June 11, 2017, 11:01:18 PM »

The new form and rite is very similar to the old form and rite. Most of the words are the same.

The new form of Paul VI:

"Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, to these Thy servants, the dignity of the priesthood; renew within them the spirit of holiness. May they hold from Thee, the office of the second rank in Thy service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living."

That's perfectly valid. The bishop is laying his hands and beseeching God to grant him the office of the priesthood.

songbird · « **Reply #27 on:** June 11, 2017, 11:49:09 PM »

How does that saying go? You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time.

And how about this: We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed. We worship as you once worshipped. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then. If you were right then, we are right now.

New Order is invalid. You can not change "Canon" from "many" to "All". Christ's own word(s),, many. And there is no way that you can convince me that New Order has valid priest. Not at all.

Thank God for Vatican I. Infallibility/ Divine Revelation can not be changed. Impossible.

AJNC · « **Reply #28 on:** June 12, 2017, 01:38:18 AM »

This WJ Morgan article could be of interest:

https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?pretty;board=9;topic=19235.0

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #29 on:** June 12, 2017, 03:01:28 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on June 11, 2017, 06:07:39 PM

The Novus Ordo church New Rite of ordination is doubtful at best, [....]

I thought I had at least that much of traditional Catholicism figured out. A "solved problem" as mathematicians and engineers might say. Then I began reading this thread and--much more authoritatively--the appealingly short Apostolic Constitution "Sacramentum Ordinis" by Pope Pius XII[‡], in which I read:

Quote from: Pope Pius XII "Sacramentum Ordinis"

[§] 3. [....] Besides, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established. [....]
[§] 5. [....][¶] In the Ordination to the Priesthood, the matter is the first imposition off[sic] hands of the Bishop which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition through the extension of the right hand, nor the last imposition to which are attached the words: "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum: quorum remiseris peccata, etc."[†] And the form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:

"Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet."

("Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, invest this Thy servant with the dignity of the Priesthood; do Thou renew in his heart the spirit of holiness, so that he may persevere in this office, which is next to ours in dignity, since he has received it from Thee, O God. May the example of his life lead others to moral uprightness.")

Pius XII specifically identified the words about accepting the Holy Ghost/Spirit and forgiving sins as not required. And the words about offering Mass for the living and the dead are also not required. Which purportedly reduced the risk for Pope Paul VI to drop them entirely.

Quote from: Asbury Fox on June 11, 2017, 10:40:28 PM

The Novus Ordo rite is perfectly valid and is not doubtful. [....] The new rite of Paul VI has a new form. This form is valid and not doubtful. [....] I am only arguing that the new rite is valid and a Pope can make a new rite.

That would seem to be the logical consequence if "Sacramentum Ordinis" is the crucial issue that overwhelms all other objections to validity.

If so, it seems that I would be obliged to withdraw my rejection of the validity of Novus Ordo "ordinations/installations". I find this consequence deeply troubling, not least of which because doing so might mean that I would be obligated to acknowledge "Francis" as a valid pope.

So I suppose I'll need to resume my research in the relevant traditional Catholic literature. Perhaps "Sacramentum Ordinis" is not really the crucial issue?

-------
Note ‡: Pope Pius XII: "Sacramentum Ordinis". Apostolic Constitution. <http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM>. Parenthesized translation to English of the italicized Latin "form" is not the work of AlligatorDicax, but presumably of 1 of the compilers or editors of <http://www.papalencyclicals.net/>.

Author Topic: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite (Read 13212 times)

AJNC

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite

Asbury Fox

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite

AJNC

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite

songbird

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite

Asbury Fox

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite

Nadir

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite

songbird

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite

Last Tradhican

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite

songbird

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite

Asbury Fox

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite

Asbury Fox

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite

Asbury Fox

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite

songbird

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite

AJNC

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite

AlligatorDicax

Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite