Unholy Orders:
Paul VI's Modernist Ordination Rite Turns 45

On June 18, 1968, Bp. Giovanni Battista Montini - then the head of the Vatican II Sect and known as "Pope" Paul VI - signed an "apostolic constitution" to change the Roman Catholic rite of ordination. These changes touched not only some of the more peripheral ceremonies but the very substance of the sacrament itself. The very words which Pope Pius XII, in 1947, had definitively decreed were necessary for the validity of the sacrament of holy orders, were changed by Paul VI in such a way as to render the ordination of priests doubtful and the consecration of bishops definitely invalid. (Even a doubtful rite, however, must be considered invalid in practice, per Catholic teaching.) Since all sacraments (other than baptism and holy matrimony) ultimately depend on valid bishops, invalidating the rite of episcopal consecration was all the Modernists needed to do to ensure Catholics would eventually be deprived of most of the sacraments, especially the Holy Mass and absolution in the confessional.

    Antipope Paul VI, "Apostolic Constitution" Pontificalis Romani (1968), original Latin
    Antipope Paul VI, "Apostolic Constitution" Pontificalis Romani (1968), English Translation

We provide links to prove the invalidity of Paul VI's ordination rite below, but just to give you a sneak preview, see for yourself how badly Montini butchered the essential form of the consecration of bishops, thus totally destroying the sacrament:

Traditional Roman Catholic Form, per Pope Pius XII (1947):

    "Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica."
    [Translation:] "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."

Modernist Novus Ordo Form, per Antipope Paul VI (1968):

    "Et nunc effunde super hunc Electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio Tuo Iesu Christo, quem Ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui."
    [Translation:] "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."

Not only does the bogus Novus Ordo form totally replace the words decreed by Pius XII as essential to validity, they do not even in any way express that what is taking place is the consecration of a bishop! They do not even ask the Holy Ghost to make the ordinand into a bishop! Instead, even if one were to say that the totally abstruse phrase "Spiritum principalem" ("Governing Spirit") is a clear reference to the Holy Ghost, the fact remains that it is not stated just what the Holy Ghost is supposed to be doing. God the Father is being asked to "pour out" the Holy Ghost (or at least that "Governing Spirit") - but to do what? To what end? We're not told. The Holy Ghost is poured out also in baptism, in confirmation, and in ordinations of deacons and priests. Paul VI's claim that he was introducing these changes "in order to restore the texts of the rite to the form they had in antiquity, to clarify expressions, or to bring out more clearly the effects of the sacraments" (Pontificalis Romani) is beyond laughable; it is, in fact, insulting to the intelligence of the informed reader.

A sacramental form that does not express what it is supposed to accomplish is definitely invalid, as the articles about the invalidity of the Novus Ordo holy orders below demonstrate.

In addition to changing the sacramental form of priestly and episcopal ordination, in his docuмent Pontificalis Romani Paul VI abolished the major order of subdeacon and all of the minor orders (acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter), none of which are sacraments, but whose denial was condemned by the Council of Trent and flies in the face of the Modernists' favorite lie to seek to restore things to "antiquity":

    "...from the very beginning of the Church the names of the following orders and the duties proper to each one are known to have been in use, namely those of the subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, rector, and porter, though not of equal rank; for the subdiaconate is classed among the major orders by the Fathers and the sacred Councils, in which we also read very frequently of other inferior orders" (Council of Trent, Session 23, Ch. 2; Denz. 958)
    "If anyone says that besides the priesthood there are in the Catholic Church no other orders, both major and minor, by which as by certain grades, there is an advance to the priesthood: let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Session 23, Canon 2; Denz. 962)

Rome has spoken; the case is closed.

But before anyone suggests that somehow Paul VI's docuмent "isn't binding", we must point out that in it he clearly invokes his supposed (but non-existent) "apostolic authority" and requires that this new rite be used in place of the prior, Catholic one:

    "By our apostolic authority we approve this rite so that it may be used in the future for the conferral of these orders in place of the rite now found in the Roman Pontifical. It is our will that these our decrees and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment." (Paul VI, Pontificalis Romani)

According to a decree of the Novus Ordo "Sacred Congregation of Rites" dated August 15, 1968, Montini's new rite of ordination became obligatory for the entire Latin church as of Easter Sunday, April 6, 1969. So we know for sure that since this date, the Novus Ordo church has not validly consecrated a single bishop in the Latin rite, and probably not ordained a single valid priest, either.

The repercussions are unfathomable - but they explain a lot about the state of the New Church. The sacraments are largely gone, so there is simply no grace there, and it shows. But the true Catholic Church cannot give evil or harmful or invalid sacramental rites to her faithful. Such an idea would contradict the promises of infallibility and indefectibility by Our Blessed Lord. This is further evidence that the Vatican II Sect in Rome is not the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors. Consider the following clear teachings:

    "Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors." (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, par. 66)
    "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments.... If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible." (Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, 1908, p. 258)
    "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7)

Try to apply this to the Novus Ordo Church, and you realize very quickly that it's impossible. The Vatican II Church has defected, has given evil, has destroyed the sacraments, has been a scandal to the faithful rather than the embassy of salvation. In the Catholic Church, however, the Pope is "the citadel and bulwark of the Catholic faith" (Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Qui Nuper, par. 3). No one could seriously say this about the Antipopes of the Vatican II Church. Paul VI - Giovanni Montini - was not a true Pope, but an impostor, as well as his predecessor John XXIII, who started the false church, and his successors John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis I.

The many links we provide below will help you as you research these issues.

As the late Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, OFM Cap., is sometimes quoted as saying, "Once there are no more valid priests, they'll permit the Latin Mass." Think about that!

Invalid: The Unholy Orders of the Vatican II Church:

    Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration [PDF] by Fr. Anthony Cekada
    Examines the criteria for validity, Eastern Rite formulas, ancient Christian texts, early doubts about validity, "governing Spirit" vs. "fullness of the priesthood," substantial change, arguments from context, papal approval. Answer to SSPX/Angelus and Sel de la Terre articles by Fr. Pierre-Marie favoring validity. Extensive bibliography.
    Why the New Bishops are Not True Bishops [PDF] by Fr. Anthony Cekada
    A two-page summary of the above-linked study "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void".
    Still Null and Still Void: Replies to Objections [PDF] by Fr. Anthony Cekada
    Replies to objections from Br. Ansgar Santogrossi, OSB, Fr. Pierre-Marie de Kergorlay, OP, and Fr. Alvaro Calderon, SSPX, against the above-linked study "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void".
    New Bishops, Empty Tabernacle [PDF]
    Response to an editorial by Abbé Grégoire Celier which employs some novel and bizarre principles to defend the validity of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration.
    Saved by Context? The '68 Rite of Episcopal Consecration [March 2012]
    Rejoinder to the popular objection that the larger context provided by the 1968 rite of bishops' ordination gives clear expression to the sacramental form and hence suffices for validity.
    The New Ordination Rite: Purging the Priesthood in the Conciliar Church [PDF] by Fr. William Jenkins
    A response to certain arguments advanced by Michael Davies in his book The Order of Melchisedech, this article examines the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination in light of Catholic theology and concludes that it is doubtful at best and therefore must be considered invalid in practice. Contains shocking information about how the "reform" of the rite came about.

.

Yet another reason that H.E. was not tolerable among the Menzingen-denizens.  Can you imagine +Fellay writing anything close to this today?  Can you imagine him writing anything close to any of the EC's?  And yet, when asked, +F could not give a single example of any error or point of doctrine that any one EC contained that he thought was inappropriate.  

Notice also, +W doesn't say that any Newpriest is obviously not a priest because of any specific defect.  He says there is a reason for doubt.  And the conditional re-ordination removes the doubt.  

There is something else he doesn't get into in this short treatment.

When a priest with doubtful ordination hears confessions and gives absolution, is it valid, or is it rather doubtful?  When he later gets conditionally re-ordained then what about all the previous absolutions he had been giving before that time?  Don't they have to be called into question?  Wouldn't each penitent have to come and re-confess their sins and obtain a repaired absolution?  What if all the penitents could not be found?  Would they have been absolved inadequately and then had gone ahead for perhaps years receiving the Eucharist with mortal sins and not knowing it?  How would that not be another sin, even if it was not deliberate?  How could it be "wrong" without being a sin?

There is another question to be addressed.  When, in the history of the Church, has any tribunal found that a particular sacerdotal ordination in the past had been invalid?  Can anyone find one case of one invalidly ordained priest, ever, in any century?

.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Notice also, +W doesn't say that any Newpriest is obviously not a priest because of any specific defect.  He says there is a reason for doubt.  And the conditional re-ordination removes the doubt.

Mgr Williamson says there is reason to doubt these men are priests because they were ordained in the new rite. And yet Mgr Williamson consistently states there is no reason to doubt that Benedict or Francis (consecrated in the same rite) are valid popes?

This makes no sense.

Excellent EC....I really do think the SSPX is under a spiritual curse until/if they rectify the mistreatment of Bp. Williamson and bring back the dozens of excellent priests that have been exiled the past couple of yrs..Have you seen the Confirmation schedule? Bp Fellay is going everywhere and Bp DeMallerais is going to 4 locations..well that's one way to control the message...