This chapter is absolutely essential for a deeper understanding of "The Crisis in the Church".
> Pius XII Sacramentum Dis-ordinis
> This whole chapter will be devoted to a brief apostolic constitution written by Pius XII on November 30, 1947. Most Catholics are completely unaware of even the existence of this momentous, though short, work, which perhaps largely explains the crisis in the Church today. This docuмent concerns the sacrament of Holy Orders
> without which, of course, we would have no hierarchy, and no continual sacrifice. One might think that even the possibility any authority might tamper with this sacrament would give theologians reason to tremble where they stood. After all, consider how Americans approach tax day. For many, filing is akin to a religion, and they are most astute that every jot and tittle be perfect. Either they tediously do the work themselves, or they seek for a preparer of the highest reputation. The mere thought of an audit causes more fear than eternal hellfire, and so most astutely is everything prepared, checked, and rechecked, especially when itemizing. If only Catholics would give the same attention to their spiritual life, such would cause the earth to flourish. But excuse this digression.
> Excuse is asked in advance for some of the tediousness which will follow. Since this subject is so important, and since Pius XII warns in so many words, for us not to dare to question this work, it will be quoted in full, so that nobody, nowhere, nohow can claim things are being taken out of context, or that the intentions of the work are being misinterpreted.
> So, without any further ado, here is the first paragraph work: “The Catholic Faith professes that the Sacrament of Order instituted by Christ, by which are conferred spiritual power and grace to perform properly ecclesiastical functions, is one and the same for the universal Church; for, just as Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to the Church but one and the same government under the Prince of the Apostles, one and the same faith, one and the same sacrifice, so too He gave her but one and the same treasury of efficacious signs of grace, that is, Sacraments. For these Sacraments instituted by Christ Our Lord, the Church in the course of the centuries never substituted other Sacraments, nor could she do so, since, as the Council of Trent teaches , the seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the substance of the Sacraments,
> that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs.”
> This first part is a beautiful exposition of Catholic theology, concise though it might be, and no faithful disciple has the slightest reason to question any aspect. Pius XII even references the Council of Trent, enough to put any pious mind at ease. But where have we seen this before? And where will one here it again? One recalls quotes from Vatican II such as: "No changes of the liturgy may occur unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires it." And these are designed to assure us nothing is amiss with vernacular liturgies, Communion in the hand, and altar girls. As Pius X remarked in Pascendi: "One paragraph might have been written by Thomas Aquinas. But turn the page, and you might think you were reading from the Masonic lodges." Well, the same thing is true here, because the next paragraph is a doctrinal train wreck:
> “As regards the Sacrament of Order, of which We are now speaking, it is a fact that, notwithstanding its unity and identity, which no Catholic has ever dared to question, in the course of time, according to varying local and temporal conditions, various rites have been added in its conferring; this was surely the reason why theologians began to inquire which of the rites used in conferring the Sacrament of Order belong to its essence, and which do not; it also gave rise to doubts and anxieties in particular cases; and as a consequence the humble petition has again and again been addressed to the Holy (SEE) that the supreme Authority of the Church might at last decide what is required for validity in conferring of Sacred Orders.”
> The alarms should be flashing and the klaxons blaring. The very first sentence is classical modernism, particularly the following phrase: "in the course of time, according to varying local and temporal conditions, various rites have been added in its conferring." Let us dissect this specimen and put it under the teleological microscope. "The course of time" is a reference to the law of entropy, which states that everything is running down and wearing out. Now, while the law of entropy, as one of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, is validly applicable to all and sundry of the created order, from millipedes to ancient bristle cone pine trees, Pius XII seems to be forgetting that Our Lord Jesus Christ founded His church to be eternal and the Holy Ghost has sustained it as such. "The course of time", then, has no bearing on the Church as such, as Our Lord said "Behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world." The next phrase is loaded with assumptions. The first part is what, in logic, is called a tautology. This is a highfalutin' way to say that a statement is always true. For example: "It is raining or it is not raining" is always true, but tells a person nothing about the world about
> him. The whole phrase above is akin to an expanded version along these lines: "It is raining or it is not raining, and if it is raining it is cloudy." Pope Pius XII has expended fifty some words and told us essentially nothing, but has broadly hinted that, somehow, the current rite of ordination is somehow deficient, and somehow this condition has either gone unnoticed or not been resolved after two millennium of church history. One must notice that the pope fails to mention who questioned what, when, or where. We are given absolutely no specifics. And exactly who is petitioning the Holy See? Are they priests in doubt of their ordination? Bishops who might have been remiss in their duties? Orthodox prelates who wish to enter union with Rome? Not that it is of any moment to the arguments to come, but right away the reader is in a fog for lack of clarity and exposition.
> Doubtless prayers have been added to the rite. Prayers and rites have been added to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from antiquity, and priests of old took liberties that no priest dare do today. But theologians also recognize a process of development in the church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. One of the chief recognitions of this is the "death" (that is to say, no longer used in the vernacular by any nation or tribe) of liturgical languages, the most famous example being Latin, but other examples including Greek, classic Hebrew, and "Old Slavonic". Most
> theologians recognize three great periods of liturgical development: The Apostolic, which ended with the pontificate of Pope Gregory the Great, the Medieval, which ended with the Council of Trent and Pius V, and the modern, which is ongoing. And the thing to be noted is that never, NEVER, in the universal church, were prayers
> altered in the least, nor rites changed in the least. This only began to happen under the pontificate of Pius X and greatly accelerated under the pontificate of Pius XII (more, much more, on that later). The bottom line is that Church history is not some sort of scatological series of events where the Roman Pontiffs are taking "the best of the best" and synthesizing it into Catholic Liturgy and sometimes changing it "to suit the times", but rather the whole history of the church is the ongoing actions of Rome to keep the liturgy and the Deposit of Faith pure and untainted from heresy.
> The next paragraph is as follows: "“All agree that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs which produce invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they produce and produce the grace which they signify. Now the effects which must be produced and hence also signified by Sacred Ordination to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy, namely power and grace, in all the rites of various times and places in the universal Church, are found to be sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words which determine it. Besides, every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations conferred according to the Greek rite without the traditio instrumentorum..."
> At this point some exposition is necessary. The traditio instrumentorum (the tradition of the instruments), is that part of the ordination rite where the bishop hands the ordinands that piece of matter associated with his ministry (in the case of the priest, the chalice with wine and paten with altar bread.) and pronounces the words of order (again in the case of the priest: “receive the power to offer Mass for the living and the dead").
> “...so that in the very Council of Florence, in which was effected the union of the Greeks with the Roman Church, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it the traditio instrumentorum: and it was the will of the Church that in Rome itself the Greeks should be ordained according to their own rite. It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.”
> The reader is not aware of this right at the moment, but Pius XII is employing some very, very bad logic in comparing the Latin and Greek rites. But leaving that aside for the moment, let us discuss the Council of Florence, which has long been considered one of the ecuмenical councils of Holy Mother Church. Pope Pius XII is being somewhat blithe with this assembly, because it DID have something to say about the traditio instrumentorum. Namely, it said the following: “The sixth is the sacrament of orders. Its matter is the object by whose handing over the order is conferred. So the priesthood is bestowed by the handing over of a chalice with wine and a paten with bread; the diaconate by the giving of the book of the gospels; the subdiaconate by the handing over of an empty chalice with an empty paten on it; and similarly for the other orders by allotting things connected with their ministry. The form for a priest is: Receive the power of offering sacrifice in the church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. The forms for the other orders are contained in full in the Roman pontifical. The ordinary minister of this sacrament is a bishop. The effect is an increase of grace to
> make the person a suitable minister of Christ.” Keep this paragraph in mind, because it is going to bluntly contradict what Pius XII defines in what will follow. And please, dear reader, be patient, and prayerful. This docuмent is being quoted in full so that no way, no how can the author be reproved for quoting Pius XII out of context. One trembles at what is being discussed, and the apostolic authority who is defining. But neither can one deny that, considering the magnitude of what we have here, it is fundamentally dishonest for Pope Pius XII to omit this citation of the Council of Florence, if only to refute it. Moreover, if Pius XII was ignorant of this doctrine, then in all humility he should have call a consistory of cardinals and theologians to study the matter, and what follows is, for the most part, arrogance on his part. It should be clear, however, upon reading the whole of what follows, that it is Pius XII who is citing the Council of Florence out of context.
> At this point the remark should also be made that the pontiff only cites the three orders of diaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy. He makes not one reference to the minor orders. Are they important? The Council of Trent thinks so: "If any one saith, that, besides the priesthood, there are not in the Catholic Church other orders,
> both greater and minor, by which, as by certain steps, advance is made unto the priesthood; let him be anathema."Trent is not saying that these orders are absolutely necessary for the priesthood, but neither is it saying they are unimportant. What it is saying is that the received traditions of the church are not to be changed or questioned.
> As any Catholic should know, each sacrament requires matter and form. For baptism both are simple, the matter is water and the form "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost". This holds true in all places and all rites. But for Orders, things are vastly more complicated, and the author is not going to even try and pretend he understands all the subtleties involved. But everybody knows that two and two are four, and even if a math scholar with a doctorate in calculus were to try and convince us otherwise he would be laughed out of the classroom. The same applies here. I cannot at one and the same time be a wolf and a sheep. It is one or the other. Any educated person knows a contradiction when he sees one.
> Continuing: "“Wherefore, after invoking the divine light...” Stop! This is not how the Catholic Church operates! The pope does not have some sort of "hotline" to the Holy Ghost to which he is privy. That is Pentecostalism, pure and simple. The Holy Ghost operates in the Church by bringing to the minds of the authorities the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostolic Traditions. That is the whole point of the Ecuмenical Councils of the Church. They are not democratic legislatures where laws are passed, but judicial quorums where questions are expounded,
> particularly questions concerning the doctrine and traditions of the Church. The role of the councils has always been to denounce heresy. The Holy Father has exposed no heresy here, nor cited any controversy. He is, in what follows, going to unilaterally legislate. And that is what follows:
> "...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. "As to the matter and form in the conferring of each Order, We of Our same supreme Apostolic Authority decree and provide as follows: In the Ordination to the Diaconate, the matter is the one imposition of the hand of the Bishop which occurs in the rite of that Ordination. The form consists of the words of the 'Preface,' of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:'Emitte in eum, quaesumus, Domine, Spiritum Sanctum, quo in opus ministerii tui fideliter exsequendi septiformis gratiae tuae munere roboretur.'
> "In the Ordination to the Priesthood, the matter is the first imposition off 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.'] Finally in the Episcopal Ordination or Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator. The form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity: 'Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.' ['Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.'] All these things are to be done as was determined by Our Apostolic Constitution 'Episcopalis Consecrationis' of 30 November, 1944. In order that there may be no occasion for doubt, We command that in conferring each Order the imposition of hands be done by physically touching the head of the person to be ordained, although a moral
> contact also is sufficient for the valid conferring of the Sacrament."
> Now, this whole series of decrees is based upon the very, very bad logic cited above. And what is that logic? Way above, Pope Pius XII states that, since the Eastern Rites do not contain the traditio instrumentorum it is not necessary for the Latin Rite. But is this logic valid? Let us apply this same "least common denominator" approach to the Sacrament of Confirmation. In the Roman Rite the form of this sacrament is: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross and I confirm thee with the Chrism of salvation: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” In one Eastern Rite it is as follows: “(Receive)...the seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Now, both forms are certainly valid, but the only words they have in common are “Holy Ghost”. Does anybody believe that the two words “Holy Ghost” signify or confer this sacrament? That would be an absurdity. Logic which produces
> absurdities is bad logic, plain and simple. When this is applied to Sacamentum Ordinis, everything just falls apart.
> But things get still worse. Consider this phrase: "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." But earlier the pope said: " '...the Church has no power over the substance of the Sacraments' (quoting the Council of Trent)."Now, the pope cannot have it both ways. Either he can abolish the "tradition of the instruments" or he cannot. But
> what he appears to be doing is saying that the "tradition of the instruments" is not necessary but if anybody said it was necessary I overturn that. One is permitted to suspect that Pius XII may have been aware of citations from the Council of Florence even if he did cite them specifically. Along the same lines, one suspects that the reason the pope does not cite any other orders, including that of subdeacon, which is considered a major order, is because they have ONLY the traditio instrumentorum and no imposition of hands.
> We are now going to cite four pesky pests for Pius XII, pests whom the prosecution cannot dismiss as "armchair theologians". The first is St Hippolytus referring to minor orders as coming from the Apostles. The Council of Carthage states: 'When a subdeacon is ordained, as he does not receive the imposition of hands, let him receive from the Bishop an empty paten, and an empty chalice.” This is not a “development of dogma” or an “insertion of rites” as Pius XII would have it, but a defense of Apostolic Tradition against innovation, which has threatened the
> Church from the date of her founding. And now we are going to cite a long, pesky quotation from the Council of Trent: "For the sacred Scriptures make open mention not only of priests, but also of deacons; and teach, in words the most weighty, what things are especially to be attended to in the Ordination thereof; and, from the very
> beginning of the church, the names of the following orders, and the ministrations proper to each one of them, are known to have been in use; to wit those of subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper; though these were not of equal rank: for the subdeaconship is classed amongst the greater orders by the Fathers and sacred Councils, wherein also we very often read of the other inferior orders... That the functions of holy orders, from the deacon to the janitor,-which functions have been laudably received in the Church from the times of the apostles,
> and which have been for some time interrupted in very many places,-may be again brought into use in accordance with the sacred canons; and that they may not be traduced by heretics as useless; the holy Synod, burning with the desire of restoring the pristine usage, ordains that, for the future, such functions shall not be exercised but by those who are actually in the said orders... Since a Sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing, and since the outward action in this consecration denotes the grace and power bestowed on him who is consecrated, it becomes clearly evident that Order must be truly and properly regarded as a Sacrament. Thus the Bishop, handing to him who is being ordained a chalice with wine and water, and a paten with bread, says: Receive the power of offering sacrifice, etc. In these words, pronounced along with the application of the matter, the Church has always taught that the power of consecrating the Eucharist is conferred, and that a character is impressed on the soul which brings with it grace necessary for the due and proper discharge of that office, as the Apostle declares thus: I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands; for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of sobriety." And, finally, another quotation from that pesky Council of Florence: "The forms for the other orders (Minor orders and subdiaconate) are contained in full in the Roman
> pontifical. The ordinary minister of this sacrament is a bishop. The effect is an increase of grace to make the person a suitable minister of Christ."
> By now one should see the flies buzzing about this pontiffs head. He is undeterred, for the most part: "Finally, what We have above declared and provided is by no means to be understood in the sense that it be permitted even in the slightest detail to neglect or omit the other rites which are prescribed in the Roman Pontifical...” (Here, Pius XII is acknowledging that he has opened a whole “can of worms” and insists on keeping the “genie in the bottle” despite what he knows is a contemporary atmosphere of experimentation and innovation..) “... on the contrary We order that all the prescriptions laid down in the said Roman Pontifical be religiously observed and performed.” Did Pius XII really think that the innovators of his time were going to follow this advice? Given the rampant liturgical disobedience of especially European priests at this time, giving grist to the mill hardly seems prudent, especially in retrospect.
> “The provisions of this Our Constitution have not retroactive force; in case any doubt arises, it is be submitted to this Apostolic See.”
> The word "retroactive" is extremely important. It indicates, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this series of “decrees” has done violence to the sacrament of Holy Orders. Something has changed, and we will subsequently docuмent that this did not occur without notice.
> “These things We proclaim, declare, and decree, all things to the contrary notwithstanding, even those worthy of special mention, and accordingly We will and order that in the Roman Pontifical they be clearly indicated. Let no man therefore infringe this Constitution which We have enacted, nor dare to contravene the same.
> Given at Rome from Saint Peter's, on the thirtieth of November, Feast of Saint Andrew the Apostle, in the year nineteen hundred and forty-seven, the ninth of Our Pontificate.”
> Many of those "things to the contrary notwithstanding", we have already cited. But here are some more pests: Abundant evidence exists that the "preface" that Pope Pius XII cites may be one of those rites which may have been added "in the course of time, according to varying local and temporal conditions" and may not be of Apostolic origin. If so, just how was the Apostolic succession conferred before then? Pius XII also fails to mention that the imposition of hands occurs TWICE in the traditional Latin rite of ordination. Is that to make sure just in case the sacrament was not conferred the first time? Sorry for the jest, for this is no laughing matter. But the point is, is that, in the whole history of the Church, is there any mention of an "ordinatio brevis" for times of persecution? Or is that just another consideration to be tossed down the "pontifical memory hole"? When one considers the momentous declarations Pius XII is making, one is appalled at the arrogance of such extensive pontificating without having consulted history, fellow prelate, or theologian. Not one reference to St thomas Aquinas is given, and one suspects it is because this premiere doctor of the church considers the traditio instrumentorum as part and parcel of the substance of the sacrament.
> Here is the quote: "“I answer that, The matter employed outwardly in the sacraments signifies that the power which works in the sacraments comes entirely from without. Wherefore, since the effect proper to this sacrament, namely the character, is not received through any operation of the one who approaches the sacrament, as was the case in Penance, but comes wholly from without, it is fitting that it should have a matter, yet otherwise than the other sacraments that have matter; because that which is bestowed in the other sacraments comes from God alone, and not from the minister who dispenses the sacrament; whereas that which is conferred in this sacrament, namely the spiritual power, comes also from him who gives the sacrament, as imperfect from perfect power. Hence the efficacy of the other sacraments resides chiefly in the matter which both signifies and contains the divine power through the sanctification applied by the minister; whereas the efficacy of this sacrament resides chiefly with him who dispenses the sacrament. And the matter is employed to show the powers conferred in particular by one who has it completely, rather than to cause power; and this is clear from the fact that the matter is in keeping with the use of power...If we admit this assertion, the reason for it is clear from what we have said; for since the power of order is received from the minister and not from the matter, the PRESENTING OF THE MATTER is more essential to the sacrament than contact therewith. However, the words themselves of the form would seem to indicate that contact with the matter is essential to the sacrament, for it is said: 'RECEIVE THIS OR THAT... This sacrament consists chiefly in the power conferred. Now power is conferred by power, as like proceeds from like; and again
> power is made known by its use, since powers are manifested by their acts. Wherefore in the form of order the use of order is expressed by the act which is commanded; and the conferring of power is expressed by employing the imperative mood...” To make a long story short, St Thomas is saying that the power of Orders resides in the minister, not in the matter as in the other sacraments. At first blush he seems to be confirming the theology of Pius XII. But note that for St Thomas Aquinas, the FORM has for its first word "receive", which is found with the
> traditio instrumentorum, and nowhere does he mention the imposition of hands. St Thomas is merely concerned here with whether the ordinand must physically receive the instruments at the hand of the bishop, or whether mere moral contact is necessary. Thus, there is no contradiction between him and the Council of Trent.
> At this point, perhaps the reader is asking: why all the hubbub? Before answering that, let us inquire whether anything really has substantially changed regarding the sacrament of Holy Orders. Here is the opinion of Fordham University: "This text (an excerpt from Sacramentum Ordinis) is included to clarify for any modern Catholic readers, current teaching on the matter and form of the sacrament of orders. Pius XII here specifically had to address the mistake made at the Council of Florence in reference to the 'handing over of the instruments of office' as the matter of the sacrament. In stating the matter was the 'laying on of hands' he was returning to a more ancient tradition. As Neusner-Dupuis note, he did not pronouncing on the historical question whether the rite did in fact undergo a substantial change in the Western Church..." Of course, these people are putting words in PIus' mouth. The pontiff never said the council made a mistake nor that he was restoring a "more ancient tradition". Modernists, obviously, have no problem squaring circles. A more traditional source, The Fundamentals of catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott, had this to say: "The Minor Orders and the subdiaconate are not of Divine institution but were only gradually introduced by the Church to meet special requirements." This sentence appears right below this one: "The Apostolic Constitution 'Sacramentum Ordinis' of Pius XII (1947) obviously favours the view (That the minor orders are not sacramental) that only the Orders of diaconate, priesthood and episcopate are the stages of sacramental consecration as only those three are mentioned." But, above, the Council of Trent, as regards sacramental efficacy, makes no distinction between minor and major orders. Moreover, they anathematize anybody who would say that the minor orders are not necessary! "If anyone says that besides the priesthood there are not in the Catholic Church other orders, both major and minor, by which, as by certain steps, advance is made to the
> priesthood, let him be anathema." Anybody, therefore, who attempts to diminutate the minors orders as unnecessary risks separating himself from the mind of the Church. But back to Ludwig Ott. "The Apostolic Constitution of Pius XlI decides only the question of what is required in future for the valid administration of the Orders named. The question remains open whether Christ instituted the Sacrament of Holy Orders in genere or in specie, as does the question dependent on this, whether the imposition of the hands was always the sole matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the past also." This is an interesting statement. Essentially what Ott is saying is
> that we do not know whether Our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instituted the Sacrament of Orders by words and actions along with specific directions, or whether Our Lord told St Peter, in so many words: "Create your own rite of ordination, just include an imposition of hands and mention the Holy Ghost." IF the former is true, then all bets are off for Sacramentum Ordinis. Continuing: "Starting from the assumption that all grades of Order were sacramental, the majority of the Scholastic Theologians wrongly regarded the traditio as the matter of the Sacrament of Order. In this traditio instrumentorum there is symbolized the service of the individual grades of Order. This opinion was also taken over from St. Thomas in the Decretum pro Annenis and by the Union Council of Florence (1439). [for those who are keeping score: Council of Florence, St Thomas, and Council of Trent: three, Pius XII: one] D 701; cuius (sc. ordinis) materia est id, per cuius traditionem confertur ordo. However, the Decretulll is not an infallible doctrinal decision. [notice that there is no reference for this assertion, but that what immediately follows is a regurgitation of the logic of Pius XII] The Greeks were not required, on the occasion of the union accomplished at the Council, to change their rite of Order, or to incorporate into it the handing over of the instruments.
> "Pius XII declared in the Apostolic Constitution "Sacramentum Ordinis" that the handing over of the instruments at least in the future, is not necessary. This declaration leaves open the possibility that in the past the handing over of the instruments, even if this was done in part of the Church only, was requisite for the validity of the consecrations named, whether as a constituent part of the matter or as the sole matter, which is conceivable on the presupposition that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Holy Orders in genere, or as a condition for valid administration superimposed by the Church.
> "The handing over of the instruments in the sacramental grades of Order can be demonstrated since the 1Oth century on!y. [notice the lack of docuмentation, moreover this contradicts the Councils of Trent and Flourence] In the case of the non-Sacraluental grades of Order it goes back to antiquity (St. Hippolytus, Statuta
> Ecclesiae antiqua; D 153 et seq.). The imposition of the Book of the Gospels in the Order of bishops which was in existence in antiquity (D ISO), did not represent a ' handing over of the instruments.' "
> Now, the work of Ludwig Ott is considered to be one of the most thorough expositions of Catholic dogma since St Thomas Aquinas, and one can see what hoops he was required to jump through to reconcile Catholic Tradition with Sacramentum Ordinis.
> But why would Pius XII, from seemingly out of nowhere, want to "clarify" the Sacrament of Orders? Why would he singlehandedly undertake such a daunting task? The solution might lie with the "reforms" of Vatican II. Was it mere coincidence that Sacramentum Ordinis removed a major hurdle for the idea of priest as mere "presider" over the assembly? What more conforms to the idea of presider? This: "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." or this "Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead, in the name of the ..." Is it mere coincidence that in the "New Rite of Ordination" the former was preserved while the latter was stricken from the text? Like in so many other things, this aspect of the pontificate of Pius XII was the perfect precursor to the upheaval of Vatican II. IF A FREEMASON HAD WANTED TO ATTACK THIS ALL-IMPORTANT ASPECT OF CATHOLIC SACRAMENTOLOGY AND THEOLOGY, AND PAVE THE WAY FOR THE "POST VATICAN II REFORMS" HE COULD NOT HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB!
Topic: Wisdom from the Desertmonk... (Read 640 times)