Author Topic: Validity of Conciliar rites of orders. (Read 1817 times)

Nishant · « **on:** September 28, 2013, 04:13:53 PM »

This thread is to investigate the reasons for the validity or invalidity of the new rites of orders. I will maintain the former here.

It's somewhat surprising to me how it seems to be taken for granted by many people that the new rite is per se invalid. Note that validity has nothing to do with legitimacy. In fact, false antiquarianism and ecuмenism, two oft-condemned errors, were among the errors of the innovators, but this itself argues against per se invalidity, as we will see.

A very good argument for validity can be made and has been made by Society priests like Fr. Marie, Fr. Calderon and Fr. Celier (some old articles for reference 1 and 2 on the substantial similarity between the new rites and several Eastern rites of antiquity, namely the Coptic and West Syrian. But beside that, the major argument made by the most prominent writers against the validity of the new rite, I think, is based on a transparent mistake.

To begin with episcopal consecration, which is where the real question lies, the relevant principle of sacramental theology that applies is this, summarized by Fr. Cekada, himself quoting Pope Pius XII: The form must “univocally signify the sacramental effects — that is, the power of the Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.” This is universally accepted.

The sum total of Fr. Cekada's arguments were that the new Paul VI form did not satisfy the first condition, i.e. it did not specify the order due to be conferred. It seems to me this argument is entirely unsustainable.

First here is the relevant portion of the 1968 form, the bolded portion is the essence of the form.

Quote

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.

Fr. Cekada, and typically most sedevacantist writers, agree that the second condition, the grace of the Holy Ghost, is satisfied. What of the first condition, the specific power of order conferred? Much of the focus was on whether "governing Spirit" accurately signified that power proper to the episcopacy. Arguably, it does by itself.

But something almost completely ignored in the study was the subsequent portion, where it is said this is the Spirit given by Christ to the Apostles, and there is nothing other than the episcopate, the high priesthood of the New Covenant, that that can signify. Nor is it doubtful, anymore than it is doubtful that the Apostles were bishops. In any case, the surrounding context "Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood" and "May he be a shepherd to your holy flock, and a high priest blameless in your sight" makes absolutely clear what is meant.

So, in conclusion, I agree with Fr. Scott's summary. On consecration,

Quote

The question of episcopal consecration in the 1968 rite promulgated by Paul VI is even more delicate.

The difficulty lies in the complete change of the wording of the form of episcopal consecration. The very erudite article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., published in The
Angelus (December 2005 & January 2006), establishes that the form is in itself valid.

Although radically different from the traditional Latin form, and although
only similar, but not identical, to the forms used in the Eastern rites, it is in itself valid, the meaning designating sufficiently clearly the Catholic episcopacy.

For the form of Holy Orders is variable and changeable, this being one of the sacraments established only in general terms. The substance is consequently retained for as long as the words have essentially the same meaning. However, this does not mean that this new rite of episcopal ordination is valid in every concrete case, for this could depend upon the translation, modifications (now that the principle of change has been accepted), and eventual defect of intention.

And on ordination,

Quote

A negative doubt is to be despised.
This axiom is accepted by all moral theologians. A negative doubt is a doubt that is not based upon any reason. It is the question “what if” that we frequently ask for no reason at all. Such a doubt cannot weaken moral certitude and is not reasonable. (Cf. Prummer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, I, §328.)

The matter and the form of the Latin rite of priestly ordination introduced by Pope Paul VI in 1968 are not subject to positive doubt. They are, in effect, practically identical to those defined by Pope Pius XII in 1947 in Sacramentum Ordinis.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #1 on:** September 28, 2013, 05:04:02 PM »

I keep reading that negative doubts are to be despised and, on a theoretical level, that is good advice. But, since the novus ordo was promulgated, it's like someone high up hit the off button and Catholicism stopped being Catholic and became conciliar with popes saying that all Muslims and Catholics worship the same god and this belief can't be traced back further than the Vatican II council itself.

So, post changes, the conciliar church keeps shrinking with less and less weekly mass attendance and those that do attend are, shall we say, borderline indifferentists.

Well? What's a guy to do? If we have a handful of SSPX priests saying that the new rite is valid then why did Archbishop LeFebrvre make such a big fuss?

:confused1:

My statements about the shrinkage of the faith of the conciliar church isn't a "what if?" statement because it's solidly backed up by existing sociological data.

Give it another couple decades and you won't be able to tell the conciliarist (who will still be around although in a real airy-fairy kinda socialism with a cross kind of way) from the barely remaining mainline protestant sects.

If the SSPX remains true to the Catholic Faith, then they will continue to be strong and they will see growth.

2Vermont · « **Reply #2 on:** September 29, 2013, 04:57:56 PM »

Have you actually read this:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

Because there are other things that Fr Cekada brings up that one can not ignore (as much as we'd like to).

I read Fr. Pierre's/SSPX's explanation and thought the same as you: he made the case for validity. Then I read Fr Cekada. Validity of the New Rite of Consecration is not so obvious as you would like to believe.

It's been a couple of months since I read it, but I do remember one thing that Fr Cekada pointed out. That one of the Eastern Rites used wasn't even for the consecration of a bishop! It was for the installation of a patriarch (who is already a bishop)!

Stubborn · « **Reply #3 on:** September 30, 2013, 05:16:47 AM »

The SSPX can make all the studies they want using the "official" NO formula, but there is no guarantee the NO even bother to use the original NO formulas for Ordination when they do not even get the words of transubstantiation right.

And as Capt McQuigg notes, Archbishop LeFebrvre's primary reason for being the rebel that he was, was because he doubted, or more accurately, he knew there was no way to prove that NO priests were even priests, which is why he opened his own seminary in the first place.

From Who Shall Ascend?:

........It is not our purpose in these pages to decide whether the new ordination rite is invalid, though, as we shall see, the argument is substantial enough that we are bound to allow for this possibility. Furthermore, we must see the issue in the context of the total redefinition and reconstitution of the Church, such as was set in motion at the Council. In view of the fact that, since the Council, the priest's role has been in the process of being modified, as we said, to that of a Protestant p r e s b y t e r , there is every reason to deduce that the new ordination rite sabotages the Sacrament of Holy Orders according to the explicit program and purposes of those now in power. (The reader is reminded that the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful.)

By way of preface, we observe: The revisers had a reason for making changes, and particular reasons for each change they made. They cannot argue that their new formulas are identical to the old; that would be to admit that the changes mean nothing, and that, therefore, there was no reason to make them.

To admit that they made changes for no reason whatsoever would be a sign of a most irreverent capriciousness and cynicism. Besides, such an explanation could only be regarded as a concealment. The new forms (Latin and English) must be seen to say something different from the old. Furthermore, in view of what the other changes in the liturgical rites have connoted, we are compelled to be suspicious. We should rather say, we have every reason to look for an effort at neuterizing this sacramental rite, because those in charge of the new rites have shown themselves untrustworthy, or, more accurately, determinedly subversive. The new form could not be an improvement on the old.

How can one method or set of words ordain someone better than another? The alteration of the form can only have had the intention of either negating this purpose, or, at the very least, of creating a doubt as to its efficacy. (As if it needs to be said: They could not have added something to the form by taking words away. And what could they have wanted to add to the power of Orders? Why did they touch the form at all?) ...........

TKGS · « **Reply #4 on:** September 30, 2013, 06:45:47 AM »

Much of the controversy over the validity of the new rites of orders rests on texts of languages in which I have absolutely no ability to understand. This is most especially true of the SSPX defense I have read. I note that even Mr. Michael Davies, in his book, The Order of Melchisedech asked how the new rites differ from the Anglican rites which are undoubtedly invalid, though he concluded that the new rites must be valid because he believed they were promulgated by the Church.

Father Cekada's argument that the new rite of consecration of a bishop actually come from the Eastern rite of installing a patriarch who is already a bishop and not that of a priest being consecrated as a bishop is compelling.

In the final analysis, if the facts presented by Father Cekada are indeed correct, then his conclusion that the new rites are invalid is inescapable and absolutely certain. If the facts presented by the SSPX are correct, then their conclusion that the new rites are valid are, at best, probable and no one (including the SSPX) has ever challenged Father Cekada on the facts he presents.

I often read people telling me that the problem with sedevacantism is that it is not the "safer course". While I disagree with that assessment, the fact is that the "safer course", when it comes to the new rites of orders, is clearly that one must avoid those new rites.

Ambrose · « **Reply #5 on:** September 30, 2013, 06:59:08 AM »

If the rite comes from the Church, it is infallibly protected from being invalid or impious. Catholics do not ever need to question or doubt the rites of the Church, it is impossible for the Church to give stones rather than bread.

The problem with the Conciliar rites is that they do not come from the Church, therefore they lack that guarantee, they can be invalid or impious or both.

Some of the conciliar rites are obviously valid, such as baptism, but others are doubtful in my opinion. For myself, I follow what I believe to be the safer course and avoid any priest ordained in the Paul VI rite of ordination, or any priest ordained by a bishop who was consecrated in the Paul VI rite.

TKGS · « **Reply #6 on:** September 30, 2013, 08:59:44 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

If the rite comes from the Church, it is infallibly protected from being invalid or impious. Catholics do not ever need to question or doubt the rites of the Church, it is impossible for the Church to give stones rather than bread.

The problem with the Conciliar rites is that they do not come from the Church, therefore they lack that guarantee, they can be invalid or impious or both.

Some of the conciliar rites are obviously valid, such as baptism, but others are doubtful in my opinion. For myself, I follow what I believe to be the safer course and avoid any priest ordained in the Paul VI rite of ordination, or any priest ordained by a bishop who was consecrated in the Paul VI rite.

The other problem is that it, at the time of their promulgation, it appeared to most people that these new rites came from the Church. After all, they came from the government that occupied the Vatican at the time which seemed to most people to be the Church.

But when a new rite is introduced and it is nearly identical to a condemned rite (as Michael Davies so aptly points out), one must do the unthinkable--stop and think.

One sign that the Church has promulgated something valid is when it is peacefully accepted by (at least) virtually the whole Church. I have been amazed to discover that, from the beginning of the promulgation of the new rites were seriously discussed and questions of validity were asked by more than just a few people: The most famous of which seems to have been Archbishop Lefebvre even though he was later talked into accepting them as valid.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #7 on:** September 30, 2013, 09:28:05 AM »

Nishant, first, I don't think that all are satisfied with 'governing Spirit.' Cekada notes that there are a dozen different things that this could possibly mean, and while within the context of ..."whom You gave [to our Lord Jesus Christ]" seems to indicate this 'governing Spirit' is the Holy Ghost, it is not univocal (because of other possible meanings), which is what is required for sacramental form per Pius XII.

Now, say we were to be satisfied that governing Spirit univocally means the Holy Ghost. It cannot, then, also signify the power of order-- the point at which we contend that it does is the point that we must also admit that it is not univocal, as it would be signifying more than one thing. And at this point we would have to say that it does meet the requisite form for validity as laid down by Pius XII.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #8 on:** September 30, 2013, 09:28:23 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Nishant, first, I don't think that all are satisfied with 'governing Spirit.' Cekada notes that there are a dozen different things that this could possibly mean, and while within the context of ..."whom You gave [to our Lord Jesus Christ]" seems to indicate this 'governing Spirit' is the Holy Ghost, it is not univocal (because of other possible meanings), which is what is required for sacramental form per Pius XII.

Now, say we were to be satisfied that governing Spirit univocally means the Holy Ghost. It cannot, then, also signify the power of order-- the point at which we contend that it does is the point that we must also admit that it is not univocal, as it would be signifying more than one thing. And at this point we would have to say that it does meet the requisite form for validity as laid down by Pius XII.

Too late to edit. Very significant omission. Last sentence should read:

"...We would have to say that it does NOT meet etc."

s2srea · « **Reply #9 on:** September 30, 2013, 09:30:45 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Much of the controversy over the validity of the new rites of orders rests on texts of languages in which I have absolutely no ability to understand. This is most especially true of the SSPX defense I have read. I note that even Mr. Michael Davies, in his book, The Order of Melchisedech asked how the new rites differ from the Anglican rites which are undoubtedly invalid, though he concluded that the new rites must be valid because he believed they were promulgated by the Church.

Father Cekada's argument that the new rite of consecration of a bishop actually come from the Eastern rite of installing a patriarch who is already a bishop and not that of a priest being consecrated as a bishop is compelling.

In the final analysis, if the facts presented by Father Cekada are indeed correct, then his conclusion that the new rites are invalid is inescapable and absolutely certain. If the facts presented by the SSPX are correct, then their conclusion that the new rites are valid are, at best, probable and no one (including the SSPX) has ever challenged Father Cekada on the facts he presents.

I often read people telling me that the problem with sedevacantism is that it is not the "safer course". While I disagree with that assessment, the fact is that the "safer course", when it comes to the new rites of orders, is clearly that one must avoid those new rites.

Bravo TKGS!

Nishant- I hope you are able to respond!!!

Nishant · « **Reply #10 on:** October 03, 2013, 02:42:19 PM »

Well, thanks for the responses. This is going to be a bit lengthy.

The arguments drawn from similarity or lack thereof to ancient rites usually involve several claims and counterclaims. That's why I thought it was simpler to go ahead straightaway with the principles of sacramental theology which both sides accept and apply them to the new rite. But anyway.

1. Let us begin, first, with the similarity to the Maronite rite of appointment to the Patriarchate.

For example, Fr. Pierre Marie answered Fr. Cekada's objection as follows: The practice of choosing a Patriarch from a cleric who was already a bishop is relatively recent. Earlier on, a Patriarch was consecrated at the very time he was appointed to his patriarchate.

Besides, the internal wording of the rite shows a sacramental action is expected, the words office of a bishop, Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood etc are used. This is inconsistent with the notion that this was always understood as a purely non-sacramental prayer.

Second, the similarity to the Coptic and Syrian form for episcopal consecration.

Fr. Cekada had argued thus: There are about 340 words in the Coptic preface and only 42 designated by Paul VI as the essential form. So, the comparison of forms do not hold.

Fr. Calderon answered: The comparison is inaccurate, since the entire consecratory prayer (212 words in the Paul VI form) must either be compared in both cases, or the single essential part of the form (usually a single sentence) must be identified in the Coptic preface and compared with the form used in the latter.

2. To return to the rite itself, Fr. Cekada's argument is very clear: It must signify both the grace of the Holy Ghost and the power of order conferred to be valid, otherwise it is invalid. And with this the Society agrees.

But as both Fr. Marie and Fr. Calderon point out, and I think Fr. Cekada did not sufficiently address in his rejoinders, the phrase "the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to his holy apostles" undoubtedly does the same.

For two specific reasons, (1) It identifies the Spirit conferred with the Spirit given to Christ in His humanity, which is undoubtedly that of the high priesthood (the words "Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to forgive sins as you have commanded" are used later in the rite) and (2) It specifically says once more that this is the Spirit given by Christ to the Apostles, and because it is not doubtful that the Apostles were bishops, there is nothing other than the episcopacy that this can signify.

Fr. Cekada's answer to this latter point was that the words that followed in the essential form "founded the Church in every place" is a power pertaining to jurisdiction and not to order, and moreover, was specific to the Apostles. No one denies this, but this response, which was made more than once in the course of the published articles, is quite insufficient to address the point raised above.

3. All this is to say nothing of the rite of ordination. Between the essential part of the 1968 form - that part that is strictly necessary for validity, that signifies what it must effect and will effect what it signifies - retained by Paul VI and that determined by Pope Pius XII in the traditional rite in 1947 there is only about one word of difference, the Latin word ut meaning that.

If everything but this essential part was taken out, it would still be valid. If everything else was left, but the essential part taken out or substantially changed, it would be invalid. I cited Fr. Scott on this earlier

A comparison:

Quote from: Sacramentum Ordinis, Pope Pius XII, 1947, essential part of ordination form

"Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew the spirit of holiness within them, so that they may hold from You, O God, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.”

Quote from: Pontificalis Romani, Pope Paul VI, 1968, essential part of ordination form

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

In this light, affirmations like "The Pope is not even a priest" which are often stated very confidently do not correspond to reality.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #11 on:** October 03, 2013, 03:12:24 PM »

Nishant,

Do you have a side by side comparison of the essential words of a consecration of a bishop?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #12 on:** October 03, 2013, 03:29:26 PM »

Nishant, I'm not sure if you were done or not, but no where in your post did you address the fact that Governing Spirit cannot both signify the grace of the Holy Ghost AND the powers of the episcopacy without ceasing to be univocal. And if it is not univocal, it does not meet the requirements for validity of form.

2Vermont · « **Reply #13 on:** October 03, 2013, 03:35:24 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Well, thanks for the responses. This is going to be a bit lengthy.

The arguments drawn from similarity or lack thereof to ancient rites usually involve several claims and counterclaims. That's why I thought it was simpler to go ahead straightaway with the principles of sacramental theology which both sides accept and apply them to the new rite. But anyway.

1. Let us begin, first, with the similarity to the Maronite rite of appointment to the Patriarchate.

For example, Fr. Pierre Marie answered Fr. Cekada's objection as follows: The practice of choosing a Patriarch from a cleric who was already a bishop is relatively recent. Earlier on, a Patriarch was consecrated at the very time he was appointed to his patriarchate.

Besides, the internal wording of the rite shows a sacramental action is expected, the words office of a bishop, Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood etc are used. This is inconsistent with the notion that this was always understood as a purely non-sacramental prayer.

Second, the similarity to the Coptic and Syrian form for episcopal consecration.

Fr. Cekada had argued thus: There are about 340 words in the Coptic preface and only 42 designated by Paul VI as the essential form. So, the comparison of forms do not hold.

Fr. Calderon answered: The comparison is inaccurate, since the entire consecratory prayer (212 words in the Paul VI form) must either be compared in both cases, or the single essential part of the form (usually a single sentence) must be identified in the Coptic preface and compared with the form used in the latter.

2. To return to the rite itself, Fr. Cekada's argument is very clear: It must signify both the grace of the Holy Ghost and the power of order conferred to be valid, otherwise it is invalid. And with this the Society agrees.

But as both Fr. Marie and Fr. Calderon point out, and I think Fr. Cekada did not sufficiently address in his rejoinders, the phrase "the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to his holy apostles" undoubtedly does the same.

For two specific reasons, (1) It identifies the Spirit conferred with the Spirit given to Christ in His humanity, which is undoubtedly that of the high priesthood (the words "Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to forgive sins as you have commanded" are used later in the rite) and (2) It specifically says once more that this is the Spirit given by Christ to the Apostles, and because it is not doubtful that the Apostles were bishops, there is nothing other than the episcopacy that this can signify.

Fr. Cekada's answer to this latter point was that the words that followed in the essential form "founded the Church in every place" is a power pertaining to jurisdiction and not to order, and moreover, was specific to the Apostles. No one denies this, but this response, which was made more than once in the course of the published articles, is quite insufficient to address the point raised above.

3. All this is to say nothing of the rite of ordination. Between the essential part of the 1968 form - that part that is strictly necessary for validity, that signifies what it must effect and will effect what it signifies - retained by Paul VI and that determined by Pope Pius XII in the traditional rite in 1947 there is only about one word of difference, the Latin word ut meaning that.

If everything but this essential part was taken out, it would still be valid. If everything else was left, but the essential part taken out or substantially changed, it would be invalid. I cited Fr. Scott on this earlier

A comparison:
Quote from: Sacramentum Ordinis, Pope Pius XII, 1947, essential part of ordination form
"Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew the spirit of holiness within them, so that they may hold from You, O God, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.”

Quote from: Pontificalis Romani, Pope Paul VI, 1968, essential part of ordination form
Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew within them the spirit of holiness. May they hold from You, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.

And Father Cekada responded:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf

In this light, affirmations like "The Pope is not even a priest" which are often stated very confidently do not correspond to reality.

And Father Cekada responded:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf

Again, not as easy a call as one would like.