The novus ordo liturgy isn't Catholic. That means it's not "real". A real pope can't promulgate a catholic but flawed liturgy, sacraments, nor make statements in his capacity as pope that teach anything opposed to what the Catholic Church has always handed down- which is known as tradition. In Syracuse they should have never gone to the building used by the diocese.
A link and short excerpt regarding "problems" with the novus ordo sham.
“The Post-Conciliar Rite of Holy Orders” - an essay by Rama P. Coomaraswamy (studiesincomparativereligion.com) (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn1)
By the middle of the 17th century, both as a result of printing and the increase in international travel, scholars became familiar with the ordination rites in use throughout the world. In 1665, Jean Moran, a French Roman Catholic theologian, published a work in which he set out a large collection of ordination rites of both the Eastern and Western Churches. Following the principle that the matter and form must be something which was held in common by all these valid rites, he concluded that for matter what was required was the imposition of hands,[19] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn19) and that all the forms agreed in requiring that the office conferred must be specified. To quote him directly:
Let Protestants search all Catholic rituals not only of the West, but of the East; they will not find any one form of consecrating bishops (or priests), that hath not the word bishop (or priest) in it, or some others expressing the particular authority, the power of a bishop (or priest) distinct from all other degrees of holy orders.
This of course was a private opinion and theologians continued to debate as to whether it was sufficient that the office conferred be mentioned in the other parts of the rite—the so-called principle of “significatio ex adjunctis.” Further, as already mentioned, Protestant sects who had in earlier times avoided the word “priest” like the plague, began to reintroduce the word “priest” within the context of their rites—understanding by the term “priest,” not a “sacrificing priest,” but an individual elected by the community to preach the Word of God. In a similar manner they reintroduced the term “bishop”—but understood in a purely juridical or administrative sense and often translated as “overseer.” This particular issue—namely, the need to mention the office of the ordinand within the “form”—was seemingly settled by Leo XIII’s Apostolicae curae, which criticized the Anglican form prior to 1662 for lacking this specification, and criticized the Anglican form after 1662 for using the terms priest and bishop in other than the Catholic sense.
The Definition of Pius XII
As a result of the work of Jean Moran, Catholic theologians shifted the grounds of their objection to Protestant ordination rites. Two things became clear: 1) the fact that they had no “tradition of the instruments” could no longer be said to invalidate them; and 2) the prayer, “Accept the Holy Ghost,” which the Anglicans used in their Episcopal ordinations and which they claimed transferred the sacramental power, was not universally used, and hence could not be said to constitute an essential part of the rite. Debate on the issue of the “form” continued until 1947 when Pius XII determined for all future times just what the matter and the form for the sacrament of Orders was.
His definition is to be found in the Decree Sacramentum Ordinis,[20] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn20) which docuмent has, according to such renowned theologians as J.M. Hervé and Felix Capello, all the characteristics of an infallible definition.[21] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn21) According to Fr. Bligh, “its purpose was not speculative…but practical.” The rite itself was in no way changed, and, indeed, Pius XII insisted that it should not be. His aim was “to put an end to scruples about the validity of Orders received by priests who felt that some possibly essential part of the long and complicated rite had not been properly performed in their cases.” For the future it intended “to remove all disputes and controversy: the character, Graces, and powers of the sacrament are all conferred simultaneously by the imposition of hands and the words Da, quaesumus.… The other ceremonies—the vesting, anointing, tradition of instruments, and second imposition of hands—do not effect what they signify; they signify in detail what has already been effected by the matter and the form.”
Form And Essential Words For Ordaining Priests
(PIUS XII)
Pius XII stated that “the form consists of the words of the Preface, of which these are essential and required for validity”: “Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hos famulos tuos presbyterii dignitatem. Innova in visceribus eorum spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineant; censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuent” (Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, to these Thy servants, the dignity of the priesthood; renew the spirit of holiness within them so that they may obtain the office of the second rank received from Thee, O God, and may, by the example of their lives inculcate the pattern of holy living).
Similarly, in the ordination of bishops, the same infallible docuмent states that “the form consists of the words of the Preface of which the following are essential and therefore necessary for validity”: “Comple in sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summum, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctific” (Fill up in Thy priest the perfection [summum can also be translated “fullness”] of Thy ministry and sanctify him with the dew of Thy heavenly ointment, this thy servant decked out with the ornaments of all beauty).
It should be stressed that Pius XII in no way changed the rite—indeed, he stressed that the rite was to remain intact. At the end of the docuмent he states:
We teach, declare, and determine this, all persons not withstanding, no matter what special dignity they may have, and consequently we wish and order such in the Roman Pontifical.… No one therefore is allowed to infringe upon this Constitution given by us, nor should anyone dare to have the audacity to contradict it.
The Problem of Significatio ex Adjunctis
According to the majority of theologians, “Catholic theology teaches that if a properly constituted minister of a sacrament uses due matter and form, with at least the minimum personal intention necessary, his sacrament is valid, even if he adheres to a sect which is openly heretical.”[22] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn22) Now if this is the case, it would seem that the remainder of the rite—the so-called “ceremonial” part—is not essential for validity. (As has been pointed out elsewhere, a priest who uses these criteria within a non-Catholic rite is guilty of sacrilege, but sacrilege as such does not necessarily invalidate the sacrament.)
Despite this principle, Pope Leo XIII taught that the revised 1662 form of Anglican Orders is invalid (among other reasons) because the terms “priest” and “bishop” mean vastly different things to Anglicans than they do to Catholics. This, he said, is made clear from the other parts of the Anglican rite which deliberately delete every reference to the sacrificial nature of these exalted states. To quote him directly:
In the whole [Anglican] ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice, but, as We have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not only entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out (Apostolicae curae).
In the traditional Catholic rite innumerable references make it clear that the primary function of the priest is to offer the sacrifice; his other functions are also delineated. (So also with the bishop.) The fact that other parts of the rite make the meaning of the form quite clear is termed significatio ex adjunctis. It would seem that while a positive significatio ex adjunctis may not be essential for validity, a negative one—as for example when every reference to the sacrificial nature of the priesthood is deliberately omitted—may invalidate the form.[23] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn23)
The Post-Conciliar Rite for Ordaining Priests
The issue of significatio ex adjunctis becomes critical in evaluating the validity of the post-Conciliar rite for ordaining priests. Like its Anglican prototype, the new Latin “form” contains the word “priest,” but like its Anglican prototype, the remainder of the new rite fails to specify the sacrificial nature of the priesthood.[24] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn24) Thus it would appear to suffer from precisely the same defects that Leo XIII pointed to in the Anglican rite.
It is interesting to consider Michael Davies’ assessment of the new rite.[25] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn25) He points out that, while the “form” used in the new rite is not greatly different from that specified by Pius XII, it nevertheless contains nothing “to which any Protestant could take exception,” and nothing that “is in the least incompatible with Protestant teaching.” Now, if the form is “indeterminate,” and if the remainder of the rite fails to specify that it intends to ordain sacrificing priests, then the new rite suffers from exactly the same defects as its Anglican prototype. The fact that Leo XIII’s pronouncement irreformably condemned the Anglican rite on just these grounds obviously justifies raising questions about the validity of the post-Conciliar result.
According to Michael Davies:[26] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn26)
Paul VI promulgated the new ordination rites for deacon, priest, and bishop with his Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani recognitio of 18 June 1968. Where the rite for ordaining a priest is concerned, the first point to make is that the matter and essential form designated by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis remain unchanged. [This is not strictly speaking true as the next section points out.] This is a point in favor of the new rite. It is the only point in its favor. The traditional rite of ordination has been remodeled “in the most drastic manner,” and following Cranmer’s example, this has been achieved principally by the subtraction of “prayers and ceremonies in previous use,” prayers and ceremonies which gave explicit sacerdotal signification to the indeterminate formula specified by Pius XII as the essential form. This formula does indeed state that the candidates for ordination are to be elevated to the priesthood—but so does the Anglican. Within the context of the traditional Roman Pontifical there was not the least suspicion of ambiguity—within the new rite there most certainly is. While the new rite in no way suggests that it is not intended to ordain sacrificing priests, where (and if) it does refer to the sacrifice of the Mass it does so in muted tones, and with considerable stress laid on the ministry of the Word—a change in emphasis well calculated to please the Protestants.… Cranmer’s reform has been followed not simply in the composition of the new Ordinal, denuded of almost every mandatory reference to the sacrifice of the Mass—the very term “sacrifice of the Mass” does not occur in either the Latin or vernacular.
So much is this the case that Michael Davies believes that the strongest—and perhaps only—argument in favor of its validity is that it was promulgated by, in his mind, a valid Pope (Paul VI). While the principle that a valid Pope cannot promulgate an invalid sacrament is correct, Michael Davies seems oblivious to the possibility that his argument can be inverted. If the rite is shown to be invalid, or for that matter, even doubtful, one is forced to question the legitimacy of the Pope.[27] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn27)
Michael Davies is of course mistaken when he states that the post-Conciliar “form” for ordaining priests is unchanged. Consider once again the words specified by Pius XII: “Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hos famulos tuos presbyterii dignitatem. Innova in visceribus eorum spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineant; censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuent” (Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, to these Thy servants, the dignity of the priesthood; renew the spirit of holiness within them so that they may obtain the office of the second rank received from Thee, O God, and may, by the example of their lives inculcate the pattern of holy living). The sacrosanct character of the substance of a sacramental form has already been discussed. Pope Pius XII specified that for validity the sacrament of Orders must clearly specify the sacramental effects involved. These are, in the rite under consideration, the power of Orders and the Grace of the Holy Ghost (Sacramentum Ordinis).
If we examine this new formula we see that the first part expresses the power of the priestly order, but not the Grace of the Holy Ghost. The word “priesthood,” however, has lost its specifically Catholic meaning during the past few centuries, so that the second sentence fulfills two functions: it specifies that the priesthood is an “office of the second rank,” and further specifies that the “Grace of the Holy Ghost” accompanies the sacrament.
When we come to the post-Conciliar form, confusion reigns. In the Latin, the form specified in Paul VI’s official promulgation (found in the Pontificalis Romani Recognitio) uses the phrase “in his famulos tuos” (similar to the traditional form and Pius XII), while the Acta Apostolica—equally official—uses the phrase “his famulis tuis.” Further, regardless of which post-Conciliar form is considered “official,” both delete the word “ut.”
What do these changes signify? The deletion of the word “ut” (meaning “so that”) removes the causal relationship between the two sentences. No longer is it made clear that the ordinand receives the “office of the second rank” as a result of the “renewal of the spirit of holiness.” Whether or not this invalidates the rite is open to question and much depends on the reason why ut was deleted.
By changing in hos famulos tuos (on these Thy servants) to his famulis tuis, not only are the words of Pius XII further altered, but their sense is changed. In hos famulos tuos implies giving something to the ordinand in such a manner that it enters into him and becomes interior to him. To specify his famulis tuis has the sense of giving something to someone merely as an external possession—without the idea of it entering into him and becoming part of him. The significance of this difference should hit home, as Fr. Jenkins points out, when we remember that we are speaking here of the order of priesthood, which involves the indelible character imprinted upon the very soul of the recipient. This idea is clearly conveyed in the traditional expression, but not in the new form created by Paul VI.[28] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn28) Rather, the new formula communicates the idea that the priesthood is an external office (such as the “Presidency”), and such as Reformers believed in. Such a change in meaning is thus clearly “substantial.”
Things are made even more confusing when the vernacular is used. The “provisional” ICEL (English) translation used between June 1968 and June 1970 asked that the ordinand be given “the dignity” of the “presbyterate.” Now the term “presbyter” has been used throughout history by the Reformers to designate their non-sacrificing and non-ordained “ministers.” As I have clearly shown above, the term in English can in no way be considered as equivalent to “priest”—indeed, it signifies just the opposite, and even the High Anglicans reject its use.[29] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn29) This casts still further doubt on validity—as is recognized by the fact that after 1970 the ICEL translation no longer used it, but reverted to “priesthood.” However, the innovators seem determined to maintain the doubtful status of the rite. Even though in 1970 they changed “presbyter” back to “priesthood,” they also changed the meaning of the second part of the formula by mistranslating and changing “the office of the second rank” (the importance of which was demonstrated above) to “co-workers with the order of bishops.” Needless to say, this latter phrase is completely indeterminate and can mean almost anything except “office of the second rank.”
Highly significant of the post-Conciliar presidential “ordination” is the omission or rather deletion of the phrase which states that a priest is ordained according to the Order of Melchisedech, for Melchisedech who is both king and priest, is a figure of the Messiah who offers a sacrifice of bread and wine.[30] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn30)
Consider some of the other deletions. In the traditional rite the Bishop addresses those about to be ordained stating that, “It is a priest’s duty to offer the sacrifice, to bless, to lead, to preach and to baptize.” This admonition has been abolished in the new ceremony. In the traditional rite, while the men to be ordained lie prostrate on the floor, the Litany of Saints is sung: “That thou wouldst recall all who have wandered from the unity of the Church, and lead all unbelievers to the light of the Gospel.” This unecuмenical petition is excluded. Again, in the traditional rite, after the newly ordained priests are vested with stole and chasuble, the bishop recites a long prayer including the words, “Theirs be the task to change with blessing undefiled, for the service of Thy people, bread and wine into the body and blood of Thy Son.” This prayer has been abolished.
In the traditional rite, after the anointing and consecrating of the hands which are then bound together, the bishop extends to each priest the chalice containing wine and water, with a paten and host upon it for the priest to touch, while he says to each: “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead in the name of the Lord.” This has also been abolished. Again, just before the post-communion, each new priest kneels before the bishop who lays both hands upon his head and says: “Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” Again, this has been abolished. The final blessing of the bishop: “The blessing of God Almighty come down upon you and make you blessed in the priestly order, enabling you to offer propitiatory sacrifices for sins of the people to Almighty God” has been abolished. So much for the significatio ex adjunctis of the new rite.
But if all this is not enough to cast doubt on the validity of post-Conciliar ordinations, there is yet more. Obviously, one of the requirements for valid ordination of a priest is a validly ordained bishop. No matter how correct the rites used for the priesthood are, the absence of a validly ordained bishop would make the rite a farce.[31] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn31) Let us then look at what has been done for the episcopate.
Comparing the Traditional with the Post-Conciliar
Matter and Form for ordaining bishops
As noted above, Pope Pius XII, while in no way changing the rite used since time immemorial,[32] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn32) determined in a presumably infallible manner that:
In the ordination or consecration of bishops the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the consecrating bishop. The form consists of the words in the Preface of which the following are essential and therefore necessary for validity: “comple in sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summum, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica”—fill up in Thy priest the perfection (summum can also be translated “fullness”) of Thy ministry and sanctify him with the dew of Thy heavenly ointment this Thy servant decked out with the ornaments of all beauty.
Later in the same docuмent he states: “We teach, declare, and determine this, all persons not withstanding, no matter what special dignity they may have, and consequently we wish and order such in the Roman Pontifical.… No one therefore is allowed to infringe upon this Constitution given by us, nor should anyone dare to have the audacity to contradict it.”
One would have thought that this statement by Pius XII had settled the issue once and for all. Not so! Only 20 years later we find Paul VI issuing his Apostolic Constitution entitled Pontificalis Romani (June 23, 1968) in which he retains the matter—the laying on of hands—but in which he specifies that the form for ordaining bishops is to be:
et nunc effunde super hunc electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto filio tuo Jesu Christo, quem ipse donavit sanctis apostolis, qui constituerunt ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indificientem nominis tui—So now pour forth 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 found the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.[33] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn33)
We have then two forms, or more precisely two groups of “essential” words wherein the substance of the form is to be found, and both of which are stated to be required for validity. How are we to explain this apparent disparity? We know that the Church has the right to change the wording of the form for Holy Orders, but only insofar as she doesn’t change their “substance” or meaning. The problem to be resolved then, is whether both forms mean the same thing. Several approaches are possible:
1) We can compare the wording of the two forms and find those words or phrases held in common. Doing this however yields the following common element: the single word “et” which means “and.” Now, obviously “and” cannot represent the substantial aspect of these two forms and such an approach must be rejected as absurd.
2) Another way to determine the substance of the form is to consider the various consecratory prayers in use throughout the universal Church (Eastern and Western). This was indeed done by Jean Moran, and still later, by the English bishops in their “Vindication of the Bull,” Apostolicae curae.[34] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn34)
In each of the rites which the Catholic Church has recognized, the “essential form” is contained in a “consecrating prayer” to accompany the imposition of hands, and these prayers are in all cases of the same type, defining in some way or other the Orders to which the candidate is being promoted, and beseeching God to bestow upon him the graces of his new state.[35] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn35)
They then proceed to give a list of these prayers which includes the ancient Leonine Sacramentary “still preserved in the modern Pontifical,” the Greek, the Syro-Maronite (which is also the Syro-Jacobite), the Nestorian, the Armenian, the Coptic (or Alexandro-Jacobite), and the Abyssinian, together with the ancient Gallican, the rite in the Apostolic constitutions, and the “Canons of St. Hippolytus.” They proceed to list the significant words respectively in each—the “high priesthood” (summi sacerdotii), the “Pontifical dignity,” the term “bishop,” the “perfect (or complete) priest,” and the “episcopate.” This specification is to be found in all the known used forms (i.e., in the essential words of the various Western Catholic and Orthodox Churches).[36] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn36) It is even found in the Canons of Hippolytus. The form of Paul VI does not fill these requirements. Present in the words specified by Pius XII, it is conspicuous by its absence in the post-Conciliar form. Neither the rank, nor the power, nor a clear equivalent is present. And as Leo XIII made clear in his Apostolicae curae, the mentioning of the Holy Ghost—if “governing Spirit” is in fact the Holy Ghost—is insufficient.
3) Another way to determine what is substantial is to consider the opinions of the theologians during the post-Reformation period. They are reviewed in some detail by Paul Bradshaw in his history of the Anglican Ordinal. One such individual was the Benedictine Wilfrid Raynal who stated that a valid form must express the distinctive character of the order being conferred in one of three ways: a) an allusion to the type found in the ancient Testament of the order conferred; b) the mention of some spiritual power which is the distinctive privilege of the order to which the candidate is raised; or c) the actual mention made of the office under the name which from earliest times has become attached to it, namely summus sacerdos for bishop or sacerdos secundi ordinis for priest. He further added that the actual mention of the words “bishop” and “priest” must really and truly bear the meaning attached to them by the Universal Church. A formal denial of the distinctive character of these two sacred offices must vitiate the intention, and would render the ordination null and void. Now, as Bradshaw points out, “all the Western and Eastern forms fulfilled these requirements.” The new rite of Paul VI does not.
All debate is resolved by the statement of Pius XII in his Sacramentum Ordinis. As the renowned theologian J.M. Hervé, who considers this definition infallible, states: “forma vero, quae et una est, sunt verba, quibus significatur effectum sacramentale, silicet potestas Ordinis et gratia Spiritus Sancti”—the true form (i.e., the substance of the form) is that which signifies the sacramental effect, which is to say the power of orders (i.e., priest or bishop) and the Grace of the Holy Spirit.”[37] (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/The_Post-Conciliar_Rite_of_Holy_Orders-by_Rama_P_Coomaraswamy.aspx#_ftn37)
Consider once again the form specified by Paul VI:
So now pour forth 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 found the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.
It is perfectly clear that in no place is it specified that the rank or dignity of a bishop has been conferred. The request that God give the “governing Spirit” (spiritum principalem—whatever that is) “whom You gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by Him to the holy Apostles” may imply that he is raised to the rank of the Apostles, but it doesn’t clearly so state. The sacramental effect is not clearly specified and at best we are left with another post-Conciliar ambiguity. Again, in the former, the Grace of the Holy Spirit is clearly indicated by the time-honored phrase “Coelestis unguenti rore” while in the latter we are left with a phrase entirely new to sacramental theology—spiritum principalem. Insofar as some will argue that this phrase (or the phrase “eam virtutem quae a te est, spiritum principalem”) suffices for the substance of the form, and indeed, insofar as it is the only phrase in the new form for which such a claim could be made, it behooves us to examine it in detail.
Excerpt from an email I sent to a priest (translated into English):
I am convinced the rumor of June episcopal consecrations was a “probing” exercise (otherwise known as a “trial balloon”), which is a military tactic, whereby the enemy’s defenses and reactions are tested, to gauge the level of danger in preparation for the actual attack to come later.
In this case, the Huonder holy oils consecration was the first probe. Menzingen and Rome observe the reaction. Then, around the same time, a “leak” regarding episcopal consecrations is permitted. Once again, Rome and Menzingen observe. They analyze the arguments of the Resistance, as well as those from within the SSPX.
Rome and Menzingen have thereby accomplished two things (both of which are important tactical victories):
- They are ALREADY preparing the faithful for eventual consecrations by keeping the conversation in the public domain and raising expectations for their eventuality (just as +Fellay did by his constant conferences about “relations with Rome”);
- They now have time to analyze our objections, and prepare counterattacks against them.
One has to admire the tactical acuмen with which the captors of Tradition operate.”
As a friend mentions, “Cassman and Kennedy must have been pretty confident in their sources to stake their reputations on it.”
The consecrations are coming, but Rome and Menzingen are still conducting the air raid, and have judged that the time for boots on the ground is not yet propitious.
On the same subject, Fr. Dominique Rousseau (Resistance in France and Switzerland) has published a short paper making two similar and interesting observations:
1) Regarding the recent denial by Fr. Gleize (SSPX - Econe) of any impending episcopal consecrations on June 30, Fr. Rousseau says that it is Fr. Gleize himself who is fibbing in his satirical denial, since on no occassion did any Resistance source ever advance June 30 as a date for consecrations! Fr. Gleize seems to have pulled this date out of thin air, only to attack a reported date never made by a Resistance source!
2) He also concurs with me that the Huonder holy oil consecrations were a probe/trial balloon, and that because of discreet but real resistance by SSPX priests to the use of these questionable oils (some of whom are now turning to Avrille, +Faure, and Econe for alternative sourcing), +Huonder will not be present at the June 29th Econe priestly ordinations. So the General House is stepping back, and going into "reasssurance mode" (as it has so many times in the last 15 years: two steps forward, one step back."
Regarding this technique, I once wrote:
"At particularly delicate times for the “ralliement” process of the absorption of the SSPX into conciliarism (i.e., times when revolt within the SSPX threatens to break through any containment or suppression effort), Bishop Fellay tells the world that all negotiation has fallen flat, in order to try and dissipate the outrage, and regroup.
In the summer of 2012, we had the “Letter of the Three Bishops” to Bishop Fellay and the General Counsel (and the scandalous response of the latter), shortly before a General Chapter which threatened to displace the Vatican’s man inside the SSPX (for, as Rome has said of him, “Bishop Fellay is a man we can deal with”).
Consequently, in order to salvage the capture of the SSPX, Rome backed off the accord, and Bishop Fellay announced:
“There has been a lot of back and forth, exchanges, letters and protests, but we are back to square one.”
-Bishop Fellay (Ordination Sermon, Econe, 6/29/12)
Since the 2012 “square one” ploy, we learned that the SSPX had gained jurisdiction to try its own priests in some instances; jurisdiction to hear confessions; approval to ordain priests; lost one bishop and two district superiors and several formerly allied religious communities; gained endorsements from modernist conciliar bishops and cardinals (e.g., Schneider and Brandmuller); met with the Pope personally in Rome; endorsed the sellout accord which has been on the table for years; tried to calm the nerves of parishioners and laity by claiming that such a gesture could not possibly be a trap; etc., etc.
And for the most part, the suckers (clereical and lay) have swallowed it all, hook, line, and sinker.
Now comes the latest crisis over diocesan regulated marriages in SSPX chapels (which subject both clergy and laity to diocesan control and influence). In France, marriages are rejected by some SSPX priests when couples reject the diocesan delegation; Menzingen has had to go quietly over the heads of the local pastors to avoid opposition, and obtain these delegations for all these marriages at the District level (which is how your SSPX pastor can look you in the eye, and tell you he “has received no instruction in this regard from his superiors:” They are being circuмvented).
Yet, discord continued to grow, so Bishop Fellay went back to his favorite ordinations day speech:
“It is like in the Game of the Goose. We were almost at the end and then we landed on the ‘go back to start’ square. Everything has fallen to the ground, it is necessary to begin again from square one.”
-Bishop Fellay (After ordination luncheon, Econe, 6/29/17)
When Bishop Fellay says we are back to square one, you had better hold onto your hat: It means either that the deal is almost completed (and it is, if only Bishop Fellay could betray enough of Tradition to modernist Rome to convince them to accept his signature), or, that a deluge of “progress” is about to decapitate those who have dared to stick their necks out.
“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
Bishop Williamson has observed that the crisis in the SSPX resembles in all aspects the crisis in the Church after Vatican II.
One aspect in that analogy which ought not be lost sight of is this:
If it was said of the Church after the council that it was betrayed by those who should have defended it, then surely the same thing applies to the fate of the SSPX (and all those who believe we are “back to square one”).
But as I read somewhere recently (I cannot recall the citation, but the observation is not my own), we are only back to square one when Menzingen rejects ordinary jurisdiction for confession; rejects the pastoral guidelines for marriages; repeals the 2012 General Chapter Declaration; reaffirms there can be no accord with Rome before it returns to the Faith; reinstates Bishop Williamson and all those it expelled; etc. etc. etc.
If you really believe the SSPX is back to square one in the ralliement process, you are a sucker.
Just as the crisis in the Church cannot be healed until Rome surrenders the false doctrines of Vatican II, and recovers its tradition, neither can the crisis in the SSPX be overcome until it retraces its steps, jettisons all its compromised positions, and re-embraces the tradition it has jettisoned.
But anyone should be able to see that this is nowhere near happening, and quite the contrary, all the momentum in Menzingen is heading in the opposite direction.
Back to square one?
They have a word for people who allow themselves to believe such fairy tales."
https://sodalitium-pianum.com/back-to-square-one/
PS: For those who would like to read Fr. Rousseau's short article, here is the link: https://en.saintjoseph-tradition.org/_files/ugd/543a53_355bfb2f5cca469ab117675af033fc46.pdf