You need to make distinctions between the Body of Christ and its members who are betraying her by subversive means. The Church itself does not teach doctrines contrary to Christ. And yes, Christ gave His Church the power to bind or loosen.
Also - I noticed in an earlier post you raised Bishop Tissier de Mallerais' concern about the changes in the new rite of ordination. Again, you have failed to make a distinction. He was speaking about the three sub-rites that take place AFTER a priest-elect has already been ordained. He was absolutely correct in his assessment of how the beautiful prayers had been stripped back, however as they are not part of the essential Form, they do not constitute as a positive doubt in the matter. I share His Lordships doubt as to the intent behind those changes, but I also trust that as the Church is a divine institution, it cannot promote invalid sacraments; that the reformers failed in their attempt.
The ordination of the Priest requires not only the "essential" part of the Form. It requires other elements of the Rite that "signify the grace effected," what you are calling the "sub-rites." Those "sub-rites" are part of the single, proper, traditional (handed down) Rite of Ordination of a Priest. They cannot be dispensed with or changed willy nilly.
Here is what Pius XII says about this in
Sacramentum Ordinis:
6. 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.
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; on the contrary We order that all the prescriptions laid down in the said Roman Pontifical be religiously observed and performed.
Your conception of ordination contradicts what Pius XII says. You are saying that those "sub-rites" don't really matter. That they can just as well be omitted. They do nothing at all, in your opinion. Wrong! Pius XII did not say that. No apparent Catholic authority has said that.
In
Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII was clarifying the precise matter and form of the Sacrament. But he did not enter into the details about the elements of the Rite related to "
significatio ex adjunctis." He did not go into those details because that was not his purpose in writing
Sacramentum Ordinis. He conserved the traditional "
significatio ex adjunctis" in the bolded part that I just quoted. Why, because it is absolutely necessary in order to "signify the grace that is effected" by the Sacrament, as Leo XIII and Pius XII himself stated.
In your conception, you have reduced the Rite of Ordination to a vague job promotion. This will not cut it. It is "equally essential" (in Leo XIII's words) to signify precisely what that new job allows this Priest to do.
Traditionally, the key power distinguishing the Priest from all other Sacred Orders is "to offer the Body and Blood of Christ for sins". Not just offer a "sacrifice." There is also a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" in the Mass. That is different from the propitiatory sacrifice that can only be accomplished by the Double Consecration that occurs in the Canon of the Mass. Even the laity can offer the sacrifice of praise. But only the Priest can offer the Body and Blood in propitiation for sins.
Therefore, your attempt to salvage the "
significatio ex adjunctis" in the New Rite by using the mention of a "spiritual sacrifice" is misplaced. The key words of the Traditional Rite that that were removed from the New Rite were as follows:
...may they change by the holy words of consecration bread and wine into the Body of Blood of Thy Son as the homage of Thy people...
I ask you Boru? Why would the infiltrators remove those words from the Rite? Those words come directly after the "essential form." Those words signify the meaning of the "essential form," which alone is very ambiguous. And like Pius XII said, they cannot be left out. And like Leo XIII said, they are "equally essential."
But you will say that Paul VI overruled Pius XII.
Even if he could have done such a thing, Paul VI did not do that. He didn't give details about what should be changed in the Rite.
Here are his exact words:
In presbyteral Ordination, as it is found in the Roman Pontifical, the mission and the grace of the presbyter as coadjutor of the episcopal Order is most clearly described. Nevertheless, it seems necessary to reduce the whole rite; which, before this was divided into a number of parts, to a greater unity, and to place the .central part of the Ordination, that is, the imposition of hands and the prayer of consecration, in a more vivid light.
Note that he did not command the editors of the Pontifical to dispense with the key signification of the sacerdotal priesthood (offering the Body and Blood). But that is exactly what happened. This is a sleight of hand maneuver. Typical of the NuChurch. Its purpose? Supposedly, to appease the Protestants. Realistically, to invalidate the Rite of Ordination to the Priesthood.
And by your defending this wicked Rite, you are supporting the Protestantized conception of the Priesthood. That of a minister who is part of the "priesthood of all believers" and nothing more.
Topic: Universal doubtful intention (Read 82069 times)