Found this to be an interesting read:



Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekada’s Argument against the Validity of Episcopal Consecrations

by Michael Larson

Fr. Cekada’s is perhaps the most recognizable voice among the sedevacantists. His article, “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration,” asserts, as the title suggests, that the new rite of Episcopal consecration, established in 1968, is actually invalid, rendering all new-rite ordinations since that time to be null. If he is right, then almost all of those going by the title of Catholic Bishop today are frauds. What’s more, all the priests these fake bishops have ordained are not really priests either, because only a real bishop can ordain a real priest. What we see, in that case, when we look out on the popular Catholic Church as it presents itself to the world today, is a grand façade, the appearance of Christ’s Church still visible on the earth, but not the substance.

What’s appealing about this proposition (and about sedevacantism in general) is that it so effectively explains the wasteland that is modern Catholicism. By way of one single ceremony, one little group of words rarely seen by the general public, a massive deception is undertaken with incalculably destructive consequences for the Church and the world. One can even admire for a moment the simple elegance of the enemy’s strategy: cut the apostolic line quietly at the highest level and the rest is a fait accompli. Patience would be all that is required, and not even much of that. In a mere 40 years, the planet would be crawling with clerical imposters, and no one would be the wiser. No one, that is, except for Fr. Cekada and a very small percentage of traditional Catholics.

Because his assertion makes so much sense of the Church’s present crisis, I frankly admit that there may be some truth to it; nevertheless, if there is indeed a proof for the invalidity of the new-rite Episcopal consecrations, it is not to be found in this article that Fr. Cekada has penned, despite the assuredness of his thesis. In the end, while he has effectively exposed the ambiguity of the new rite, he has not produced the conclusive proof for its invalidity that his title would seem to suggest. Which is to say that if the new rite is indeed invalid, it is so for some other reason than the ones presented to us here.


In the article, Fr. Cekada’s main argument against validity operates from two general principles: 1) that the Church does not allow substantial changes (i.e. departures from original intent and meaning) in the form of consecration; and 2) that the form must univocally express the power of the order being conferred as well as the anointing of the Holy Ghost in such an act. Using these two principles, Fr. Cekada attempts to show that the new-rite form has introduced a substantial change by expressing an equivocal (as opposed to univocal) reference to the Holy Ghost and by omitting any reference—univocal or otherwise—to the power of the order proper to a bishop.

Before he gets to this analysis, the article contains an extended middle section that seeks to refute some of the arguments for validity of the new rite, namely 1) that it is based on Church-approved Eastern-rite forms; and 2) that it is based on Church-approved ancient forms such as those of Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions, and/or the Testament of Our Lord. I will not address these arguments because they do nothing to prove the invalidity of the new rite; rather, they attempt to show only that the new rite cannot be proved valid on the basis of these other rites. That is an interesting consideration in and of itself, but it is my purpose here only to show that Fr. Cekada’s article fails to prove invalidity and not to comment at all on his refutations of particular arguments that try to prove validity.


In Fr. Cekada’s argument against validity, everything hinges on a passage from Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis. Here is the key sentence in Fr. Cekada’s article: “[Pius XII] laid down the general principle when he declared that for Holy Orders these [the words of a form] must ‘univocally signify the sacramental effects — that is, the power of the Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.’”

For comparison’s sake, here is the same section from an English translation of the actual docuмent itself: “the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter [the imposition of hands], 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.”

The first point of comparison to note is that Fr. Cekada’s use of the word, “must,” before the quoted material gives the impression that the Holy Father was naming off requirements for valid form and that univocal signification was one of those requirements, when in fact that information is merely part of a non-restrictive phrase that describes the function of the words making up the form. It’s not that Fr. Cekada’s insinuation isn’t true, but that it changes the nuance of the actual passage by making it seem as though Pius XII is stressing univocal signification as a criterion when in reality he is not.

The second (and more important) difference between the two presentations of the material is Fr. Cekada’s omission of the final clause: “and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.” This clause is still referring to the words of the form, and it lends great interpretive latitude to the Church in her understanding of whether those words do in fact signify what they ought.


In order to understand Fr. Cekada’s contention that the form has changed substantially in that it does not univocally signify the sacramental effects, we must look at both the old and new forms, and these are provided by Fr. Cekada in the article.

First, the old: “Complete in thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.”

Now the new: “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

Once again, the two significations needed according Pius XII are the power of the order and the anointing of the Holy Ghost. Fr. Cekada does admit that the new form makes reference to the Holy Ghost by the phrase, “governing Spirit.” He complains that this is ambiguous language and could mean many things other than the Holy Ghost, but he concedes that the context eventually clarifies by way of the phrase, “the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles.”

This concession leaves only the requirement for signification of the power of the order of a bishop. And it is here, oddly enough, that Fr. Cekada stakes in practical terms the entirety of his claim that the new rite is absolutely null and utterly void. While it is true that one of the powers of a bishop is indeed that of governing, Fr. Cekada points out in elaborate detail that “governing Spirit” is not a univocal expression of that power, as there are many possible interpretations. But to hang everything on apparent equivocation seems perilous to the argument he is trying to make, for the same could easily be done with the wording of the old form, of which Pius XII obviously approves.

Old-form phrases like “the fullness of Thy ministry” and “adorned in the raiment of all glory” are not exactly unequivocal expressions of power unique to a bishop. Nor is “the dew of heavenly anointing” a univocal identification of the Holy Ghost. Of course we understand these phrases to mean what they really mean, which is what Pius XII described in Sacramentum Ordinis, and which is why they are “accepted and used by the Church in that sense.” But could we not also say the same about the phrasing in the new rite? Because we know the mind of the Church on this matter (thanks to Pius XII), we can interpret the phrase, “governing Spirit,” as a particular character of the Holy Ghost to be bestowed upon those who are elevated to the role and power of governance within the Church. And this is an especially reasonable interpretation in light of the clarifying use of the term, “Spirit,” named for a second time later in the same sentence—a clarification noted and accepted by Fr. Cekada himself.

So there is in fact something of the “power of the order” contained in the new rite, but it is implicitly dismissed in Section IX.B of Fr. Cekada’s article, wherein he suddenly raises the required level of specificity regarding this power-of-the-order as it pertains to a bishop. In that section, he begins to insist that the particular power to be expressed is that of conferring Holy Orders. While it is true that no such power is precisely articulated in the form of the new rite, neither is it made clear in the form of the old. True, the old rite’s “the fullness of Thy ministry” might imply such a power, but it is far from univocally specified, so it seems inconsistent to demand such specification out of the new rite where it is perhaps lacking in the old.

Furthermore, it is arguable that there is an additional phrase in the new rite which speaks to the power of a bishop, and even (if we use our imaginations) to the particular power of conferring of Holy Orders: “the Spirit given by him [Christ] to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple.” In this phrase, there is implied both necessary criteria: the anointing of the Holy Ghost and the power of the bishop to establish the Church throughout the world. There is also the hint of apostolic succession, which would of course require the conferring of Holy Orders.

Is this an interpretive stretch? Perhaps, but remember, according to the relevant passage of Pius XII on this matter, the words of the form need only be “accepted and used by the Church in that sense”—the sense of signifying the sacramental effects. As long as the words themselves provide for such an understanding by the Church, the form seems technically intact.


I would argue, therefore, that there are not one but two places in the new form that make reference to the power of the order of a bishop. Is it as clear as we would like? No, it is not. Is it as clear as it ought to be? Probably not. But ambiguity, the trademark of the post-conciliar church, is a marvelously flexible thing. Even while it does not make clear what it should, it often protects itself from outright culpable error by retaining potentially orthodox meanings. Because of this, we cannot make sweeping generalizations such as Fr. Cekada’s declaration that all new-rite bishops and all the priests they have ordained are in reality neither bishops nor priests because of the absolute invalidity of the new Episcopal rite. Are there some frauds out there? Almost certainly. If a particular bishop, either when consecrating another bishop or when ordaining a priest, does not intend what the Church has always intended by the sacrament of Holy Orders, then the sacrament is invalid. And the ambiguity of the new form—not to mention the novelties that characterize the Novus Ordo rites in general—certainly opens the door for this sort of travesty.

The truth is that there are many bad bishops and many bad priests parading about in the post-conciliar church. Some are merely apathetic in their priestly duties; some are openly disobedient in moral and pastoral matters; and some are downright heretical. All of them, it seems, seek first and foremost to achieve human respect, and in so doing, appear to have lost the Faith. Looking out on such an array of lies, we can see clearly that something has gone terribly wrong with Christ’s church. Using inductive reasoning, we can then theorize any of a number of cօռspιʀαcιҽs to account for this horror. But the proof for any particular one of those theories must proceed deductively by applying incontrovertible principles to the particular situation. And Fr. Cekada’s article proceeds thusly. He takes the principles for a sacramental form laid down by Pius XII and applies them in particular to the new rite of Episcopal consecration. But the burden of proof is on Fr. Cekada. As Catholics, if we are to accept a (purportedly) Catholic form as intrinsically invalid, we must be utterly convinced by the proof (else we contribute to the chaos). Fr. Cekada knows that, and that is why he wrote the article. But I am not convinced.

I actually found it on this forum:

http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37&view=previous

I do appreciate his qualification to others in the same thread, which I think should also be read:

My article has a very narrow objective, which is to deny the certainty of Fr. Cekada's thesis. As for the state of the Church in 1966, again, no argument from me. The NREC appears to be simply a logical (and potentially devastating) extension of the project that had begun much earlier.

Quote

As Catholics, if we are to accept a (purportedly) Catholic form as intrinsically invalid, we must be utterly convinced by the proof (else we contribute to the chaos)

Yes. And, how much can a layman really understand? Not much, I'd say; even those of us who have done a decent amount of, relatively speaking (relative to other Catholics- past or present), reading on the matter. What does a layman 'know', who spends much of his free time on the subject when his opinion contradicts a priest- say Fr. Chekada? What does Fr Chekada 'know', when his opinions are put up against someone like Cannon Hesse? And Fr. Hesse's opinions on the matter against those like Msgr. Des Lauriers? Chaos is definitely the word.

More than just contributing to the chaos, isn't this grave?  that is, acting on a doubtful conscience?

I'm not sure, to be honest. I'd imagine this delves into the 'intention' arena...

Two critical summary points that are addressed by a few on Cathinfo:

Quote

But ambiguity, the trademark of the post-conciliar church, is a marvelously flexible thing. Even while it does not make clear what it should, it often protects itself from outright culpable error by retaining potentially orthodox meanings.

Quote

Using inductive reasoning, we can then theorize any of a number of cօռspιʀαcιҽs to account for this horror. But the proof for any particular one of those theories must proceed deductively by applying incontrovertible principles to the particular situation.

Thanks for the link, s2srea.

Your welcome. I hope this is beneficial to others.

While it is true that one of the powers of a bishop is indeed that of governing, Fr. Cekada points out in elaborate detail that “governing Spirit” is not a univocal expression of that power, as there are many possible interpretations. But to hang everything on apparent equivocation seems perilous to the argument he is trying to make, for the same could easily be done with the wording of the old form, of which Pius XII obviously approves. ... While it is true that no such power is precisely articulated in the form of the new rite, neither is it made clear in the form of the old. True, the old rite’s “the fullness of Thy ministry” might imply such a power, but it is far from univocally specified, so it seems inconsistent to demand such specification out of the new rite where it is perhaps lacking in the old.

FALSE:  as explained above.

Also, Larson admits that "it is true that no such power is precisely articulated in the form of the new rite".  But then argues this is OK because "neither is it made clear in the form of the old."  That's his false premise, the misrepresentation of the term "fullness of Thy ministry" as being equivocal because Larson takes it completely out of context.

But then Larson claims that there's some ambiguous implication of Episcopal Orders which the Church disambiguates because of how the Church accepts and understands it.

Is this an interpretive stretch? Perhaps, but remember, according to the relevant passage of Pius XII on this matter, the words of the form need only be “accepted and used by the Church in that sense”—the sense of signifying the sacramental effects. As long as the words themselves provide for such an understanding by the Church, the form seems technically intact.

So, according to Larson, if there's an ambiguous signification that CAN be understood as Holy Orders by the Church, then the form is valid.  That's contrary to accepted Sacramental theology ... cf. Pope Leo XIII on Anglican Orders.  There's PLENTY about the Anglican Orders that COULD be interpreted as referring to the priesthood.

According to Larson, then, a simple "Receive the Holy Spirit" could be valid form for both Confirmaton and Holy Orders.

There is, however, an ACTUAL weakness in Father Cekada's thesis.  In fact, he admits it, glosses over it in about one paragraph, dismissing it with the waive of a his hand, and yet it's probably THE strongest argument against his contention and, by his own admission, subverts the grandiose claim he makes in the essay's title:

 “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration”

There is, however, an ACTUAL weakness in Father Cekada's thesis.  In fact, he admits it, glosses over it in about one paragraph, dismissing it with the waive of a his hand, and yet it's probably THE strongest argument against his contention and, by his own admission, subverts the grandiose claim he makes in the essay's title:

 “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration”

HINT: See Section IX "Saved by Context?" in Father Cekada's original essay.

Fr. Cekada answered this in 2012:

cf. http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/06/21/saved-by-context-the-68-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-2/

Saved by Context? The ’68 Rite of Episcopal Consecration

QUESTION: Like you, I believe the Conciliar rite of episcopal consecration to be invalid, and that this invalidity is amply supported by your two articles. However, an acquaintance of mine… said the following, [after quoting for me ¶¶ 26-27 of the rite]

   “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.”

Now, I personally disagree with his estimation of the rite’s intention. I see nothing of the consecration coinciding with the true rite, describing the faculties of a bishop, (to judge, interpret, consecrate, ordain, offer sacrifice, baptize or confirm). Can you perhaps comment on his concerns? I fear for his soul, should he be lost to the SSPX or, worse still, the Modernists.

RESPONSE: This is a variant of an objection to my lengthy 2006 article on the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration, “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void,” that I have answered before, but perhaps not in sufficient detail. I will try to remedy that here.

Your friend’s objection does not really concern intention (what the minister intends to do) but rather the sacramental form the minister pronounces: Does it say what it is required to say? And does it therefore “work”?

Assessing this objection hinges on the principle that Pius XII laid down in Sacramentum Ordinis: That the essential sacramental form for the conferral of the episcopacy must univocally signify its sacramental effects: (1) the power of the order being conferred (the Order of episcopacy) and (2) the grace of the Holy Ghost.

Your friend (and others) argue that, even though the short passage in the Prayer of Consecration that Paul VI designated as the essential sacramental form may not specifically mention the rank of the episcopacy, other language in the Prayer (high priest-hood, power to assign ministries, loose every bond) clearly and univocally denotes that the rank of bishop is being conferred.

The whole Prayer of Consecration, in other words, makes up for seeming any lack of clarity in the essential sacramental form about the power of the Order being conferred, i.e., the episcopacy.

So what of this objection? At first glance, it may seem like a plausible argument for validity. It does not, however, withstand closer scrutiny.

I. OVERTHROWING A GENERAL PRINCIPLE

By proposing the whole Prayer of Consecration as a requisite for properly understanding the essential form, this argument overthrows the distinction in sacramental moral theology between the words of the rite as a whole and the essential form, which strictly speaking includes “only those words without which the sense of the sacramental sign cannot exist,” and which are therefore re-quired for validity.

A substantial defect in an essential sacramental form. however, cannot be rendered valid by the language that surrounds it, no matter how specific it may be. Two examples will illustrate the point.

A. Penance. Thus, while the Roman Ritual II.2 designates four prayers (Misereatur, Indulgentiam, Dominus Noster, Passio Domini) as the “Common Form of Absolution,” only the last sentence of the third prayer is considered the essential sacramental form: I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

If one of the requisite elements is omitted from the latter formula (I, absolve, you or your sins), the language in the surrounding prayers (forgive you your sins, grant you absolution, remission of sins) does not supply for or fix the omission. The formula is invalid, period.

B. Baptism. Here too, the texts that precede and follow the es-sential sacramental form (I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost) contain language that refers to new birth, the bath where one is born anew, calling to the font of Baptism, cleansing and sanctification, the grace of baptism, the will to receive baptism, new birth by water and the Holy Ghost, remission of all sins, and safeguarding of one’s baptism by a blameless life.

However, if I recite all these prayers but omit the word “baptize’ or “you” when I pour the water, the baptism is invalid, because these words are essential elements of the form. It cannot signify without it. The context cannot remedy such omissions, and the rite is invalid, period.

II. A MISSING ELEMENT

Pius XII said that the essential form for Holy Orders must signify both the grace of the Holy Ghost and the order being conferred.

While the essential form Paul VI prescribed contains an ex-pression (spiritus principalis) that can be construed as (among eleven other things) the grace of the Holy Ghost, the new form does not contain a second expression that could be construed as the Order of episcopacy.

So even assuming that phrases elsewhere in the Prayer (high priesthood, power to assign ministries) clearly connoted the Order of episcopacy, the essential form itself lacks the requisite expression for the phrases to “clarify.” It simply isn’t there.

III. ADMISSION OF A SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT

Arguing that phrases elsewhere in the Prayer of Consecration must be adduced to clarify the essential sacramental form, moreover, is an admission that the latter is not univocal, and therefore defective.

Otherwise, why would one have to look elsewhere in the Prayer of Consecration to figure out what the essential form signifies?

IV. EQUIVOCAL QUALIFIERS

What of the particular expressions themselves? The sentence following the new form speaks (in a subordinate clause) of one “whom You [God] have chosen for the episcopate,” adding:

    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.

So even assuming for the sake of argument that another element is present in the Paul VI form to construe as the power of the Sacred Order of bishop, would the foregoing language indeed render that element univocal?

A. High Priesthood. The two expressions referring to high priesthood may at first look helpful to the argument for validity, but they do not in fact unequivocally connote the Sacred Order of bishop.

The reason is that Eastern Rite liturgies use similar language in non-sacramental rites to “consecrate” a Metropolitan or a Patriarch. These prayers ask that the candidate serve according to the order of the Great Highpriest, that he is chosen as a high priest over all Thy Church, be a faithful high priest over thy housE, he function in the high priesthood, etc.

But they do so for offices that are jurisdictional, not sacramental. So the expressions in the Paul VI Prayer of Consecration cannot be univocal, because they can be used to confer a non-sacramental office as well.

B. Enumerated Powers. Nor do the powers of the high priest-hood enumerated after the new sacramental form unequivocally signify the Sacred Order of bishop.

o  To forgive sins. This is a sacramental power that a priest also possesses.

o  Assign ministries (or distribute “offices” or “gifts”). These acts do not depend upon the sacramental powers of a bishop but upon someone receiving ordinary jurisdiction. Again, a simple priest who received ordinary jurisdiction could “assign ministries.”

o  Loose every bond. This, too, has nothing to do with sacramental powers, and depends only upon jurisdiction.

V. SIGNIFICANT OMISSIONS

Moreover, the non-episcopal powers enumerated in the Paul VI Prayer of Consecration and mentioned above in IV.B actually strengthen the case against validity. Why? Because of what they replace and omit.

The source given for the Paul VI Prayer of Consecration was the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. Various reconstructions of this work, however, contain a petition to God that the candidate would receive “the power… to confer orders according to your bidding” — a sacramental act proper to the Sacred Order of bishop.

In the Paul VI Prayer this has been replaced with assigning ministries or offices — a purely jurisdictional act.

That the omission was deliberate is clear from the Coptic Rite form for episcopal consecration, which Dom Botte, the principal author of the new rite, consulted to reconstruct the text of Hippolytus. The Coptic form further specifies after the phrase quoted above (to confer orders) that the bishop is to provide clergy “for the priesthood… to make new houses of prayer, and to consecrate altars.”

None of this appears in the Paul VI Prayer of Consecration.

VI. REFUTED BY ITS RUBRICS

Finally, the rubrics for the Prayer of Consecration in the new rite prescribe that co-consecrating bishops recite only the essential form. The balance of the prayer, which contains the phrases referring to high priesthood, etc., is recited by the principal consecrating bishop alone.

To argue that the latter language is needed to “clarify” the form is to imply that the co-consecrating bishops omitted something necessary to the validity of the rite. (= The words they recited were not truly univocal.)

* * *

THE “CONTEXT” argument cannot therefore be used to maintain that the Paul VI form for episcopal consecration is valid. It overthrows a general principle of sacramental moral theology, it posits the existence of an expression in the sacramental form that is not in fact present (one connoting the power of Orders), it implicitly admits an essential defect, it is founded on expressions that are themselves equivocal, and it is undermined by omission of elements that in the Apostolic Tradition and the Coptic rite referred unequivocally to powers proper the Sacred Order of bishop. The rubrics of the new rite itself, moreover, reduce the context argument to absurdity.

If one could regard the Paul VI Rite of Episcopal Consecration as unquestionably valid according to the principles of traditional Catholic sacramental moral theology, untold problems could be avoided.

But alas, it was not to be. The men who gave us the new rite also adhered to a new theology — and Catholics everywhere paid the price.

(Internet, March 2012)
This was written by Rev. Anthony Cekada. Posted on Thursday, June 21, 2012, at 4:56 am. Filed under Epis Cons: '68 Rite, Sacrmnts. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback.
‹ Fr. Cekada Video: Sedevacantism: How to Tell Aunt Helen
Pro-Sedevacantism Quotes from Abp. Lefebvre ›
© 2015 ¶ The name *Quidlibet* is being used with permission of Nina Cunningham.
Podcast powered by podPress v8.8.10.17

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Stubborn

Fr. Cekada once again claims to know something which is impossible to know.

No one on earth can prove what Fr. Cekada claims to know.

How is this impossible to know?

You missed the rest.....

Quote from: Stubborn

but the simple fact is that it is as impossible for him to claim the 1968 Rite of Consecrations are invalid as it is for him to claim transubstantiation does not take place in the NO "mass".

Regardless of what Fr. Cekada states, it is not possible to know if the 1968 rite is valid or not - the only possible exception might be if he was standing right there during each ordination to see something missed or some other obvious impediment, beyond that, he can analyze all he wants but he can never prove it one way or the other.

Additionally, from the enemy's point of view, there is good reason to believe that they changed the Rite as far as they possibly could but purposely did everything they could to cause confusion but not invalidate the consecrations.

Would not the enemy prefer to have valid priests so that the sacrileges committed at their hands are worse - ie valid sacrileges? For example, if CITH is only really just a plain wafer 100% of the time, then the enemy missed out on an opportunity to actually blaspheme Our Lord all over the world millions a time every day. Does that make sense? No because *that* does not fit the enemy's profile.

He cannot know with certainty that the new Rite is "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void", any more than he can know with certainty that the pope is not the pope. Both are absolutely impossible to prove.
     

If it were not possible to know if a rite is valid, how is it that Pope Leo XIII ruled that the Anglican rite is invalid?

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Stubborn

Fr. Cekada once again claims to know something which is impossible to know.

No one on earth can prove what Fr. Cekada claims to know.

How is this impossible to know?

You missed the rest.....

Quote from: Stubborn

but the simple fact is that it is as impossible for him to claim the 1968 Rite of Consecrations are invalid as it is for him to claim transubstantiation does not take place in the NO "mass".

Regardless of what Fr. Cekada states, it is not possible to know if the 1968 rite is valid or not - the only possible exception might be if he was standing right there during each ordination to see something missed or some other obvious impediment, beyond that, he can analyze all he wants but he can never prove it one way or the other.

Additionally, from the enemy's point of view, there is good reason to believe that they changed the Rite as far as they possibly could but purposely did everything they could to cause confusion but not invalidate the consecrations.

Would not the enemy prefer to have valid priests so that the sacrileges committed at their hands are worse - ie valid sacrileges? For example, if CITH is only really just a plain wafer 100% of the time, then the enemy missed out on an opportunity to actually blaspheme Our Lord all over the world millions a time every day. Does that make sense? No because *that* does not fit the enemy's profile.

He cannot know with certainty that the new Rite is "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void", any more than he can know with certainty that the pope is not the pope. Both are absolutely impossible to prove.
     

If it were not possible to know if a rite is valid, how is it that Pope Leo XIII ruled that the Anglican rite is invalid?

Fr. Cekada ain't no pope, but if he were pope, his saying the 1968 rite is invalid would still hold no water because it is impossible to prove - or what is it about it being impossible to prove that is hard to understand?