By 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre considered all Novus Ordo ordinations to be doubtful. His judgement did not arise from problems with the matter or the new form, but with the intention.Great post, keep fighting!
The intention "to do what the Church does" is always presumed if everything seems alright. The Church does not try to look into the bishop's soul. Positive doubt arises when the bishop says something which contradicts what the Church has defined about the sacrament.
When a certain bishop publicly taught that Confirmation does not give the Holy Ghost, Archbishop Lefebvre declared all of his following confirmations to be certainly invalid by defect of intention. The bishop himself had manifested by his teaching that he did not intend to administer the Holy Ghost in Confirmation.
In the earlier years of the crisis, some bishops began teaching new concepts of the priesthood, including some things that directly contradict what the Church teaches about the priesthood. Archbishop Lefebvre publicly questioned if it was possible for these specific bishops to ordain priests anymore. His investigations into Novus Ordo priests coming to the SSPX will have included this consideration.
At least by 1988, these new concepts of the priesthood were no longer isolated in occasional statements by the most progressive bishops. They had become generally accepted. Most bishops will have had a seminary under his responsibility where these ideas were being taught to the seminarians. Any bishop who didn't speak out for the true nature of the priesthood while the new errors were triumphant around him was at least suspicious for his silence. These considerations led the Archbishop to recognize a situation of "universal doubtful intention" regarding ordinations by bishops un-separated from Modernist Rome.
Can someone in the SSPX furnish a quote after '88 displaying a retreat from this attitude? Will any of them explain why they have departed from their founder's spirit?
Not sure who concocted this nonsense, but to the extent that +Lefebvre adhered to it, he was wrong.http://www.archbishoplefebvre.com/10th-may-2014.html
Ministers need merely intend to do what the Church does and not to intend what the Church intends. Doesn't matter a lick if some bishops ordains a priests while not believing that ordination confers a character or has any ontological effect. That's why a faithless atheist can validly baptize.
Pope Leo XIII taught quite clearly that the intention is always presumed and that it belongs properly to the internal forum, but SSPX invented this fakery, the sleight of hand.
Bogus Ordo Ordinations are utterly null and absolutely void ... per the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, with the BS from these Modernist trolls notwithstanding. This has been demonstrated repeatedly and cannot be refuted ...
... and all we get is these clowns with their "muh Lefebvre" position.
Leo XIII stated that the intention of the ministers belongs to the internal forum, cannot be known by the Church, and is always presumed to be there. Theologians, furthermore, add that the requisite intention is simply to do what the Church does. If the minister is conscious of the fact that, "yep, this is the Catholic Rite, and, yeah, I'm putting on my vestments now, and am going to go out there to do it" ... he has the requisite intention. Nor is SSPX in any position to "investigate" squat, since even the Church doesn't presume to know the internal forum.
SSPX pretend that doing a conditional can only be justified if one has conducted an investigation with the same rigor as one might investigate a marriage annulment. That's ridiculous. Any prudent doubt suffices, and nobody's required to spend hundreds of man-hours "investigating" something that can't be investigated anyway.
It's entirely certain that there's positive doubt about the Novus Ordo Rite of Ordination. Period. And there's no reason NOT to perform conditionals on all Novus Ordo presbyters ... except that the SSPX are playing politics and subjecting the faithful to invalid Sacraments from fake priests who go around simulating Masses.
It's entirely certain that there's positive doubt about the Novus Ordo Rite of Ordination. Period. And there's no reason NOT to perform conditionals on all Novus Ordo presbyters ... except that the SSPX are playing politics and subjecting the faithful to invalid Sacraments from fake priests who go around simulating Masses.From where does this positive doubt arise? If not intention, as Bishop Williamson suggested, then where?
From where does this positive doubt arise? If not intention, as Bishop Williamson suggested, then where?This is all explained in the "sspx fake priests" thread. Pope Pius XII defined the form of ordinations/consecrations. The new rites differ from what Pius XII defined. Ergo, there's doubt.
This is all explained in the "sspx fake priests" thread. Pope Pius XII defined the form of ordinations/consecrations. The new rites differ from what Pius XII defined. Ergo, there's doubt.Fantastic Pax!
From where does this positive doubt arise? If not intention, as Bishop Williamson suggested, then where?"One can say a Catholic sacrament involves five elements : Minister, Intention, Matter and Form are essential for validity, the Rite surrounding the Form can be important for validity by its sudden or gradual bearing on the Minister's Intention. For priestly Orders, the Minister has to be a validly consecrated bishop ; the Intention is his sacramental (not moral) intention, in ordaining, to do what the Church does ; the Matter is his laying of both hands on the head of the man to be ordained (women cannot be validly ordained to the priesthood of Christ) ; the Form is the crucial formula or series of words in the rite which express the conferring of the priesthood ; the Rite is all the other words surrounding that Form, and prescribed in the ceremonial rite of Ordination.
"One can say a Catholic sacrament involves five elements : Minister, Intention, Matter and Form are essential for validity, the Rite surrounding the Form can be important for validity by its sudden or gradual bearing on the Minister's Intention. For priestly Orders, the Minister has to be a validly consecrated bishop ; the Intention is his sacramental (not moral) intention, in ordaining, to do what the Church does ; the Matter is his laying of both hands on the head of the man to be ordained (women cannot be validly ordained to the priesthood of Christ) ; the Form is the crucial formula or series of words in the rite which express the conferring of the priesthood ; the Rite is all the other words surrounding that Form, and prescribed in the ceremonial rite of Ordination.Positive doubt comes from two sources. The new form of ordination and the new rite of episcopal consecration.
In a new rite Ordination, if both hands are laid on the head, the Matter is no problem. The new Form in Latin is, if anything, stronger for validity than the old Form in Latin (by the « et » instead of an « ut »), but vernacular translations need to be checked to make sure that they clearly express the grace of the priesthood to be conferred. Most of them surely do." Bishop Williamson, 2009, EC 121
Positive doubt comes from two sources. The new form of ordination and the new rite of episcopal consecration.I posted Bishop Williamson's words to help put to rest the Diamond Brother's nonsense about the change of the word 'ut'.
The new rite reflects a new theology. That alone creates objective doubt. When both priesthood and episcopacy are uncertain, the doubt is doubled.
Conditional ordination is not optional. It is required for the validity of the sacraments and the peace of souls.
There is no room for ambiguity. Double doubt demands absolute certainty.
I posted Bishop Williamson's words to help put to rest the Diamond Brother's nonsense about the change of the word 'ut'.You sound like the post-Bishop-Tissier and post-Fr-Scott, new-sspx. And you're 100% wrong. Just like you were on the other thread.
With regards to your proposal, I understand what you are saying, however, canonically, a positive doubt - in both cases, must first be established. Otherwise, according to Church Law, to re-ordain without an established positive doubt, is to commit a sacrileges act. And rightfully so because you are calling into question an official Rite of the Catholic Church. I'm not arguing against Re-ordinations - at times they are absolutely necessary and the Church allows for this - but what I am high-lighting is that from a very early stage, if not the beginning, the SSPX practiced a cautious policy on only re-ordaining where a positive doubt existed; that they did not automatically do so simply because a priest had been ordained via the New Rite - of which they formerly ruled was indeed valid. This is the same prudent policy that the SSPX exercises today. As Catholics, and as traditionalists who follow and maintain Archbishop Lefebvre's 'Recognise and Resist' position, we are obliged to follow Church law as it has always been instituted. We cannot enact new laws out of personal fear and assumptions. We must be careful that we do not over-step the line for the good of the over-all Church. With regards to the essential elements, it had been concluded by the early leadership of the SSPX that they is no ambiguity in the New Rite of Ordination. If you believe me to be wrong on this point, please submit your evidence for us to consider. Thank you.
"One can say a Catholic sacrament involves five elements : Minister, Intention, Matter and Form are essential for validity, the Rite surrounding the Form can be important for validity by its sudden or gradual bearing on the Minister's Intention. For priestly Orders, the Minister has to be a validly consecrated bishop ; the Intention is his sacramental (not moral) intention, in ordaining, to do what the Church does ; the Matter is his laying of both hands on the head of the man to be ordained (women cannot be validly ordained to the priesthood of Christ) ; the Form is the crucial formula or series of words in the rite which express the conferring of the priesthood ; the Rite is all the other words surrounding that Form, and prescribed in the ceremonial rite of Ordination.:facepalm: This is only concentrating on the ordination rite, and it ignores the issue in bold, which is that 99.9% of bishops today (which aren't Trad) are ordained in the NEW rite, which makes them doubtful.
In a new rite Ordination, if both hands are laid on the head, the Matter is no problem. The new Form in Latin is, if anything, stronger for validity than the old Form in Latin (by the « et » instead of an « ut »), but vernacular translations need to be checked to make sure that they clearly express the grace of the priesthood to be conferred. Most of them surely do." Bishop Williamson, 2009, EC 121
"When God calls me – no doubt this will be before long – from whom would these seminarians receive the Sacrament of Orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments?"Good point. Do you have the reference?
"One can say a Catholic sacrament involves five elements : Minister, Intention, Matter and Form are essential for validity, the Rite surrounding the Form can be important for validity by its sudden or gradual bearing on the Minister's Intention. For priestly Orders, the Minister has to be a validly consecrated bishop ; the Intention is his sacramental (not moral) intention, in ordaining, to do what the Church does ; the Matter is his laying of both hands on the head of the man to be ordained (women cannot be validly ordained to the priesthood of Christ) ; the Form is the crucial formula or series of words in the rite which express the conferring of the priesthood ; the Rite is all the other words surrounding that Form, and prescribed in the ceremonial rite of Ordination.
In a new rite Ordination, if both hands are laid on the head, the Matter is no problem. The new Form in Latin is, if anything, stronger for validity than the old Form in Latin (by the « et » instead of an « ut »), but vernacular translations need to be checked to make sure that they clearly express the grace of the priesthood to be conferred. Most of them surely do." Bishop Williamson, 2009, EC 121
p.s. +Williamson conditionally consecrated +Vigano precisely because the episcopal consecrations are highly doubtful.
I posted Bishop Williamson's words to help put to rest the Diamond Brother's nonsense about the change of the word 'ut'.:facepalm: You are such a liberal snake. Bishop Tissier (among many other clerics, both sede and non-sede) have written about the problems of the 'ut'. Not just the Diamond Bros.
With all due respect to Bishop Williamson ... he got this wrong. Evidently you've got nothing but your argumetns "from authority". I can repost the opinions of a dozen other people who say otherwise.I see. So its Bishop Williamon's personal opinion verses your personal opinion verses a dozen more?
Nevertheless, Bishop Williamson made it quite clear that this was his opinion, but acknowledged that others may prudently arrive at a different conclusion.
.....................
I see. So its Bishop Williamon's personal opinion verses your personal opinion verses a dozen more?That's the whole point about a doubt....it is based on an opinion....a reasonable opinion from a reasonable person...and that's all that's required.
So who is right?
The one that yells the loudest and posts the longest?
Speaking of which, I better go and mow the lawn - beautiful day and all that - (and in my skirt!) but I will return and have a look at your long,long post :)
:facepalm: You are such a liberal snake. Bishop Tissier (among many other clerics, both sede and non-sede) have written about the problems of the 'ut'. Not just the Diamond Bros.You are correct, Pax John Daly wrote an entire book, which is excellent, on the"ut" issue.
Either quit bending the truth or go do some reading before posting.
I see. So its Bishop Williamon's personal opinion verses your personal opinion verses a dozen more?
So who is right?
The one that yells the loudest and posts the longest?
Speaking of which, I better go and mow the lawn - beautiful day and all that - (and in my skirt!) but I will return and have a look at your long,long post :)
You are correct, Pax John Daly wrote an entire book, which is excellent, on the"ut" issue.As John Daly is a die-hard Sede-vacantist, it is no surprise he wrote a whole book outlining his opinion of this detail.
As John Daly is a die-hard Sede-vacantist, it is no surprise he wrote a whole book outlining his opinion of this detail.Neither Bishop Tissier nor Fr Scott (nor many other sspx priests) are sedevacantist. And they all agree the new rites are doubtful.
He also covers why the New Episcopal Consecration is also valid - which I found extremely enlightening because I never knew it resembles the VALID rite of the Catholic Eastern Church (Coptic),Doesn't matter what the Coptic rite says...Pope Pius XII already defined the form for the LATIN CHURCH. You can't mix-n-match rites; they are different.
including the usage of the word 'governing spirit', and that this in itself renders the New Episcopal Consecration valid. There is also an explicit reference to the office of bishop; the intended sacrament. Worth considering.This is a bogus argument and a half-truth. One can read Fr Cekada's analysis on the episcopal consecrations (or go read what Bishop Tissier said) and see that the use of the term 'governing spirit' is for the installation of a patriarch, who is ALREADY A BISHOP.
..............This is why.
1) the argument of the New Rite of Ordination can hardly be considered standalone anymore, since there are practically no active priests left who had been ordained in the New Rite of Ordination by a Bishop who had been consecrated in the Old / Traditional Rite. So it's almost a moot argument. When you look at what they did to the Episcopal Rite of Consecration, even SSPX admit that it's radically different.
2) Despite gratuitious assertions, no one has ever refuted the "ut" problem, which is very real. Instead they simply gaslight about the "two-letter word". Well, "is" is also a two-letter word, and "not" a 3-letter word, and yet their obvious significance from the standpoint of logic should be self-evident. Length of the words means nothing, so that when people throw that out there, it's a clear indication of bad will. In fact, if the word were SO trivial, then it's actually a strong argument for the opposite view, since WHY was this little, insignfiicant, two-letter word in their way. Did removing it somehow greatly modernize the meaning, making it oh-so-much-more "relevant to modern man"? "ut" indicates cause and effect. Removing the "ut" means that you're explicitly severing the cause-effect relationship between what comes before it (the cause) and what comes after it (the effect). When Pope Pius XII taught about the essential form in Sacramentum Ordinis, he stated that two things were required, 1) invocation of the Holy Ghost, and 2) indication of the Sacramental effect of said invocation. That's precisely where the "ut" fits in, and while one might argue that the cause-effect is still "implied", that's not obvious, especially for someone who isn't imposting the prior meaning into it.
3) Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican Ordinations null due to the vitiated intention of the MISSAL (note, not the minister), where he states that the removal of all references to sacrifice indicate an attempt to be in conformity with the errors of the "reformers". EXACTLY THE SAME THING pertains to the Novus Ordo Rite, where every reference to the priest's power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been extirpated, with the express intention of no longer having the Rite classh with the self-same errors of the "reformers". Pope Leo XIII stated that due to this defective intention of the Missal, even IF the essential form had remained intact or been corrected, the Ordinal would STILL be invalid.
Between ...
1) Pius XII teaching that essential form had to express Sacramental effect.
2) Conciliar Rite removing the explicit linking between the Holy Ghost and said effect.
3) Leo XIII declaring that the removal of all references to the priest's power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass invalidated the Anglican Ordinal.
4) Concilar Rite ... removing all references tot he priest's power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
with the above four, THERE'S CLEAR AND PRESENT POSTIIVE DOUBT regarding the New Rite of Ordination, even absent any reference to the problematic Rite of Episcopal Consecration.
So, the question remains ... SSPX ... what HARM would it to to confer conditional ordination, since the changes above, combined with the changes to the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, clearly suffice to establish at least prudent doubts about these Sacramental Rites?
In doing a Pros and Cons analysis, the Pro is obvious, that the faithful now can be morally certain that they're receiving valid Sacraments, and can assist at SSPX Masses with complete peace of soul (which is what Fr. Robinson claimed that video was all about). Instead of constantly priest-splaining the SSPX position, how about just providing peace of soul to the faithful by ... performing conditional ordination as a matter of routine?
So, what's are the Cons of performing conditional ordinations?
That they take an extra half hour of some bishop's time? Much more time goes into just producing these gaslighting videos.
See, there really isn't one.
SSPX DELIBERATELY conflate the fact that a repetition of RE-ADMINISTRATION of the "character" Sacraments would constitue sacrilege, and thereby set up a false premise for why they feel that they MUST engage in some rigorous investigation before they are even permitted to conditionally ordain. In doing so, Father Robinson actually muddled up the basic theological terms, by claiming that you can re-administer a character Sacrament only if there's positive doubt (then claiming there isn't any). Well, that's simply untrue. You can NEVER re-administer a character Sacrament. That is precisely why the CONDITIONAL form was developed, where there's no re-administration if the prior attempt had in fact been valid. But they try to pretend that this would be what happens, a sacrilegious repetition of the Sacrament. That's absolutely false.
As Canon Law states, any prudent doubt suffices to justify conditional administration fo the Sacraments. Now, if conditional administration were performed willy-nilly by some scrupulous individual with OCD neurosis on anybody that had a pulse, yes, that would constitute a grave disrespect for the Sacrament in a broader sense, but that is CLEARLY not what's going on here. We have an unprecedented Crisis in which various malefactors and bad agents have bastardized the Mass, turning it into the spitting image of a Prot-heretical service, and have undermined the Traditional Magisterium, etc. AND these same actors have tampered with the Rites intended to confer Holy Orders. So now we're to TRUST these same people not to have vitiated the Rites? Ridiculous. At the very least, the crisis itself, and then the fact that they changed these Rites, that ALONE suffices to establish a prudent doubt that would justify condtional ordination, i.e. at least PERMITTING conditional ordination. Now, most of us would argue that there's clear positive doubt as well, but let's put that aside for now.
Given that there's clearly at least some positive indication that might lead a reasonable Catholic to have prudent doubts about their validity, it's most certainly PERMITTED to confer conditional.
Then WHY NOT?
This is why.Boru, give me a break. If you’re arguing that the V2 popes created the new rites IN GOOD FAITH, for good purposes, you’ve lost all credibility. You keep “begging the question” that new-Rome is the Church. And everything they’ve done is holy and pleasing to God.
1/ The new Rite of Episcopal Consecrations is indeed different from the Old Rite. But, it closely resembles the old rite of the Catholic Eastern Rite church including similar terminology and clear references and prayers to consecrating a priest to the Office of bishop. As it was the Church who formulated the Rites in the first place, it is the Church who has the authority to change them if they so wish as long as the meaning of the form remains the same.
2/ The New Rite of ordinations is so similar in wording to the Old Rite, it's hard to believe that anyone can claim a problem. More-over, the meaning and sense remain exactly the same. This is something both the SSPX and Bishop Williamson have agreed upon.
"When Pope Pius XII taught about the essential form in Sacramentum Ordinis, he stated that two things were required, 1) invocation of the Holy Ghost, and 2) indication of the Sacramental effect of said invocation." Well both requirements can be found in the New Rite. Your stipulation that a 'cause and effect' between the two requirements must be spelt out in words before it can be valid is your stipulation, not Pope Pius XII's.
3/In his famous Bull, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896, Pope Leo XIII solemnly declared that Anglican Ordinations to be invalid as “the form and intention of the Church,” not having been observed.
Two points:
The Pope declared; not the faithful. ONLY the Pope has this authority to declare on a fundamental so serious.
With regards to the Catholic new Ordination rite, the form and the intention of the New Rite are present. The form - in is meaning and sense - is exactly the same. This is quite an interesting subject so I shall return to this at a latter date.
So, what's are the Cons of performing conditional ordinations?
To call into question the Rites of the Church is a very serious business. Not only does one undermine the authority of the Church but one calls into question the very words of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ: "Upon this rock (the Papacy) I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Moreover, re-ordaining without an established positive doubt, constitute a sacrileges act (according to Canon Law) and opens the door wider for further rebellion against the Catholic Church.
This is why.Where do you attend Mass?
1/ The new Rite of Episcopal Consecrations is indeed different from the Old Rite. But, it closely resembles the old rite of the Catholic Eastern Rite church including similar terminology and clear references and prayers to consecrating a priest to the Office of bishop. As it was the Church who formulated the Rites in the first place, it is the Church who has the authority to change them if they so wish as long as the meaning of the form remains the same.
2/ The New Rite of ordinations is so similar in wording to the Old Rite, it's hard to believe that anyone can claim a problem. More-over, the meaning and sense remain exactly the same. This is something both the SSPX and Bishop Williamson have agreed upon.
"When Pope Pius XII taught about the essential form in Sacramentum Ordinis, he stated that two things were required, 1) invocation of the Holy Ghost, and 2) indication of the Sacramental effect of said invocation." Well both requirements can be found in the New Rite. Your stipulation that a 'cause and effect' between the two requirements must be spelt out in words before it can be valid is your stipulation, not Pope Pius XII's.
3/In his famous Bull, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896, Pope Leo XIII solemnly declared that Anglican Ordinations to be invalid as “the form and intention of the Church,” not having been observed.
Two points:
The Pope declared; not the faithful. ONLY the Pope has this authority to declare on a fundamental so serious.
With regards to the Catholic new Ordination rite, the form and the intention of the New Rite are present. The form - in is meaning and sense - is exactly the same. This is quite an interesting subject so I shall return to this at a latter date.
So, what's are the Cons of performing conditional ordinations?
To call into question the Rites of the Church is a very serious business. Not only does one undermine the authority of the Church but one calls into question the very words of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ: "Upon this rock (the Papacy) I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Moreover, re-ordaining without an established positive doubt, constitute a sacrileges act (according to Canon Law) and opens the door wider for further rebellion against the Catholic Church.
"One can say a Catholic sacrament involves five elements : Minister, Intention, Matter and Form are essential for validity, the Rite surrounding the Form can be important for validity by its sudden or gradual bearing on the Minister's Intention. For priestly Orders, the Minister has to be a validly consecrated bishop ; the Intention is his sacramental (not moral) intention, in ordaining, to do what the Church does ; the Matter is his laying of both hands on the head of the man to be ordained (women cannot be validly ordained to the priesthood of Christ) ; the Form is the crucial formula or series of words in the rite which express the conferring of the priesthood ; the Rite is all the other words surrounding that Form, and prescribed in the ceremonial rite of Ordination.
In a new rite Ordination, if both hands are laid on the head, the Matter is no problem. The new Form in Latin is, if anything, stronger for validity than the old Form in Latin (by the « et » instead of an « ut »), but vernacular translations need to be checked to make sure that they clearly express the grace of the priesthood to be conferred. Most of them surely do." Bishop Williamson, 2009, EC 121
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."]
24. In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, the latter being usually called the “matter and form”. All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the “matter and form”, it still pertains chiefly to the “form”; since the “matter” is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the “form”. And this appears still more clearly in the Sacrament of Order, the “matter” of which, in so far as we have to consider it in this case, is the imposition of hands, which, indeed, by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several Orders and for Confiirmation.
25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).
26. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.
27. In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons when show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican life, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That "form" consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.
This is why.
1/ The new Rite of Episcopal Consecrations is indeed different from the Old Rite. But, it closely resembles the old rite of the Catholic Eastern Rite church including similar terminology and clear references and prayers to consecrating a priest to the Office of bishop. As it was the Church who formulated the Rites in the first place, it is the Church who has the authority to change them if they so wish as long as the meaning of the form remains the same.
2/ The New Rite of ordinations is so similar in wording to the Old Rite, it's hard to believe that anyone can claim a problem. More-over, the meaning and sense remain exactly the same. This is something both the SSPX and Bishop Williamson have agreed upon.
"When Pope Pius XII taught about the essential form in Sacramentum Ordinis, he stated that two things were required, 1) invocation of the Holy Ghost, and 2) indication of the Sacramental effect of said invocation." Well both requirements can be found in the New Rite. Your stipulation that a 'cause and effect' between the two requirements must be spelt out in words before it can be valid is your stipulation, not Pope Pius XII's.
3/In his famous Bull, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896, Pope Leo XIII solemnly declared that Anglican Ordinations to be invalid as “the form and intention of the Church,” not having been observed.
Two points:
The Pope declared; not the faithful. ONLY the Pope has this authority to declare on a fundamental so serious.
With regards to the Catholic new Ordination rite, the form and the intention of the New Rite are present. The form - in is meaning and sense - is exactly the same. This is quite an interesting subject so I shall return to this at a latter date.
So, what's are the Cons of performing conditional ordinations?
To call into question the Rites of the Church is a very serious business. Not only does one undermine the authority of the Church but one calls into question the very words of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ: "Upon this rock (the Papacy) I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Moreover, re-ordaining without an established positive doubt, constitute a sacrileges act (according to Canon Law) and opens the door wider for further rebellion against the Catholic Church.
In any case, as I've repeatedly stated, I cannot definitively judge who's right. I opine that +Williamson is wrong on this matter. Ultimately only the Church can decide the matter, with the degree of authority required to impose the decision on consciences. That's the bottom line, and Bishop Williamson agrees with ME on that point, not with YOU. He clearly state that there was no reason to withhold conditional ordination precisely because many intelligent, sincere, and orthodox Catholics have come to the opposite conclusion.
But we don't have to prove that we're right, as the threshold for our position is very low ... merely to explain who there's something we can point to (positive) that can cause doubt. You can hop up and down all day lot in your "skirt" claiming the contrary ... and repost the same things over and over again, but none of that can meet the standard of proof, which is moral certainty to the point or exclusing all positive or even prudent doubt.
I have never seen a woman going so deeply into a theological or logical argument like this. Something about it seems very masculine to me.Agree. Either Boru is a man or she’s an avatar for a man. She keeps “copy-pasting” stuff from somewhere and has yet to make any kind of response or argument. She’s just a propaganda tool.
Something is off here.
Boru,My intention was not to present an over-all analysis but to highlight that the Old SSPX did not give the Sede-vacantist 'ut' theory any credence.
You (and others) have missed a critical piece of what Bp. Williamson discussed in the quote you provided.
Where do you attend Mass?I attend a SSPX chapel.
My intention was not to present an over-all analysis but to highlight that the Old SSPX did not give the Sede-vacantist 'ut' theory any credence.I love how you post an out-of-context +W quote, but you ignore the more complex analysis of Fr Scott and +Tissier, who were against the new rites.
However, you have raised a relevant point which I shall respond to once I have read it and considered it against works of authority on this subject. Thank you for posting.
I have never seen a woman going so deeply into a theological or logical argument like this. Something about it seems very masculine to me.
Something is off here.
My intention was not to present an over-all analysis but to highlight that the Old SSPX did not give the Sede-vacantist 'ut' theory any credence.
However, you have raised a relevant point which I shall respond to once I have read it and considered it against works of authority on this subject. Thank you for posting.
Neither Bishop Tissier nor Fr Scott (nor many other sspx priests) are sedevacantist. And they all agree the new rites are doubtful.
Here's the best way to look at it.
What's the worst thing that can happen with either opinion if you happen to be wrong?
WORST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IF YOU'RE WRONG WITH --
PRO VADLIDITY POSITION: -- if you happen to be wrong, then souls are being deprived of the Sacrament, and possibly even being lost, since perhaps some were unable to make a perfect act of contrition, but could have nevertheless been restored to a state of grace and ultimately saved through Sacramental absolution, for which imperfect contrition suffices. That's to say nothing of troubling the consciences of many lay faithful, who could otherwise simply assist at Mass in peace with the moral certainty of receiving valid Sacraments.
PRO POSITIVE DOUBT POSITION: -- you administer a conditional ordination that fails to have any effect. No, you do not commit sacrilege, since the Sacrament would not have been re-administered. Given the chaos in the Church and the crisis, and a motivation to at least appease the consciences of the faithful, I'm sure that God would not be offended by the action, and might actually be pleased (even if you're wrong), since you're bringing about peace of soul among the faithful. Some bishop might have "wasted" 30 minutes having to administer the conditional ordination.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN MORE OF A NO-BRAINER HERE AS TO THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEST.
So, it's precisely for this reason that the SSPX have engaged in the duplicity of conflating the notion that the re-administration of a "character" Sacrament would entail a sacrilege, and effectively turning the tables so that someone who has a doubt about validity would almost have to prove with certainty the existence of positive doubt and then gratuitouslyi denying that this requirement has been met (even if it clearly has), when it's quite the other way around, that those defending validity must prove that there's no prudent doubt ... when clearly they cannot, since there most certainly is.
Ah, yes, wait ... I almost forgot.
If it's true that the Bogus Ordo Sacraments are invalid, or even doubtful, to say so would jeopardize their rapprochement with the Conciliar heretics. And NOW we get to the real motivation for their position. On top of that, they and those who "agree" with them also want to appease and quiet their troubled and guilty consciences in case the negative consequences of the "PRO VALIDITY POSITION" above just so happen to be true.
He also covers why the New Episcopal Consecration is also valid - which I found extremely enlightening because I never knew it resembles the VALID rite of the Catholic Eastern Church (Coptic), including the usage of the word 'governing spirit', and that this in itself renders the New Episcopal Consecration valid. There is also an explicit reference to the office of bishop; the intended sacrament. Worth considering.Well, he's 100% wrong and I'll explain why.
The form is the words determining the application of the matter, by which the sacramental effects are univocally signified -- namely the power of Orders and the grace of the Holy Spirit." In other words the words of the form must specify what power of orders is given and that the grace of the Holy Ghost is given.Yes, the Episcopal Rite does call on the "governing spirit" (page 25). But that alone doesn't make it valid because you need to say WHAT you are intending the Holy Spirit to do (Fulfil in thy priest... ). BOTH have to be invoked to be valid, and this is in EVERY rite, even the Eastern. So the "it's a new rite, you can't apply SO to it" argument from Fr. Hesse doesn't count.
The Church's position is that the term "high priesthood" (summi sacerdotii) in the context of the New Testament and apostolic succession does signify the episcopacy. Furthermore, the combination of phrases—being chosen for the "office of bishop," being a "shepherd," receiving the "high priesthood," and having the apostolic power to "loose every bond"—taken together, sufficiently and univocally signifies the order being conferred.
Okay, try to think this through as hard as you can: If Pius XII says that a Catholic rite has to "unambiguously signify the specific sacramental power being conferred" and I have to do spiritual gymnastics in order to read what powers it confers - is the new Rite valid or not.
1. "Unambiguous" Means Clear in the Mind of the Church: "Unambiguous" does not mean "obvious to any person who reads it in a vacuum."
(aka "you're not a theologian, don't question us)
1. The Pope Provides the Clarity: The supreme authority of the Pope himself removes the ambiguity. When Pope Paul VI promulgated the new rite his apostolic authority is the ultimate guarantee of its meaning and validity. (just lol, circular reasoning)
2. The "Gymnastics" Are Simply Theology: The terms are not ambiguous to the Church. (lol again)
3.1. "High Priesthood" (Summi Sacerdotii): This term has been used for centuries to refer to the episcopacy. The Council of Trent used it. (Correction: the Catechism of the Council of Trent uses it, yes - but it's still not defining the powers)
3.2. The Context Creates Unambiguity: It is prayed over a man who has been presented "for the office of bishop." The combination of being chosen for the episcopacy and receiving the "fullness of the high priesthood" creates a context that is, for the Church, sufficiently and univocally clear. (ah yes, it's so clear that we have hundreds of hours of debates)
4. Conclusion: The New Rite is valid because the supreme authority on Earth has declared it to be so. (lololololol)
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.
Well, he's 100% wrong and I'll explain why.
...
It should be noted also that the new Preface (Consecration prayer) does not surgically remove the Catholic understanding of what a priest does either. Let us compare the words of the Old and New:
Old: " Thus you poured out in abundance of the paternal fullness of Aaron's sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, so that ministers of the priesthood were sufficient for the sacrificial victims and for frequent officiating of the Sacrament."
New: "In this way, you poured out in abundance of the paternal fullness on the son's of Aaron so that for the sacrifices of the tabernacle, which were a shadow (symbolic) of future goods, the merits (ministers) was sufficient according to the Law of the Priests."
Could you say, as a positive doubt, that the two signify two different meanings? Or is it a probable opinion based on our distrust of the subtle changes of terminology?
...
Don't let Borat the Troll suck you in, as these clowns try to dishonestly shift the burden of proving invalidity onto those who assert positive doubt. We need only demonstrate positive doubt ... which is amply demonstrated to any but the most intellectually dishonest liars. Borat gives reasons for why the Rites MIGHT be valid, but that does not suffice, not only to eliminate positive doubt, but much less to make it so that conditional ordinations would somehow be illicit. Borat and his/her ilk must prove that the Rite are valid beyond any prudent or reasonable doubt in order to hold that conditional ordinations would not be licit. So, the mere fact that these threads debating the issue go on for pages clearly demonstrate a reasonable and prudent foundation for doubt, rendering conditional ordinations quite licit, and even mandatory.I am sorry to chime in here but I just want to set the record straight on the skirt issue. There was a discussion about women wearing pants. See https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/womens-pants/ On that thread some of the men said that if you wear a pants in any situation then you are a feminist. Boru works with horses and sometimes might wear pants for very specific things. She was just commenting on the fact that she does wear a skirt most of the time, even while mowing the lawn. Unlike guys, women have a tendency to relate everything to everything. See https://www.cathinfo.com/teen-catholic-hangout/a-tale-of-two-brains/
Even if they're merely licit, give the catastrophic consequences if they're wrong and also given the turbulence they're creating among the consciences of the faithful, there's no justification whatsoever for NOT performing the conditional ordinations.
Bottom line is just that they're desperate to get regularized by the Conciliar Sect. That's it. That's the only reason. Then they proceed to make up all kinds of excuses and justifications for it after the fact.
With regard to consecrations, the term "governing spirit" is meaningless and nonsensical, but even if out of desperation you try to claim that it's some kind of concatenation of the Holy Spirit who then provides some power to govern to someone else, episcopal consecration doesn't inherently require the transmission of any type of episcopal authority, as auxiliary (chor) bishops lack any governing. In fact, as Father Cekada points out, the closest similarity to the Eastern Rites actually is to the installation of a Patriach, who's generally presumed to already be a bishops (as it would have been rare for someone to go from priest to Patriarch without a stop at bishop first).
Borat could very well be a neo-SSPX priest, and one of those aforementioned presbyters himself, and perhaps also a member of the lavender mafia, thus explaining the LARPing as a female and making a big deal out of wearing a skirt. :laugh1:
In either case, it's 100% certain that Borat has some personal vested interest in the position he's promoting and isn't merely following the dictates of reason and logic, which heavily favor those asserting positive doubt.
The change in the language of the Preface (quoted above) reflects a move from direct and clear signification in the traditional Rite toward indirect and ambiguous signification in the New Rite.
And you have the "probable opinion"/"positive doubt" issue backwards. There is no doubt at all about the traditional Rite. It is valid. It is not my "probable opinion" that this is the case. It is dogmatically certain. This is what the Church has always taught. I don't have to prove this.
You are the one holding a "probable opinion" that the Novus Ordo is valid. You think your opinion is probable because, as you say, Jesus would not "leave us orphans" (which is true but you misapply the phrase to this case). The burden of proof that the Novus Ordo is valid is on you. Until you can prove this with a dogmatic statement from the Church, you theory can be nothing more than a "probable opinion."
The Church says that I don't need to prove my "opinion" that the New Rites are invalid. The fact that they are significantly different from the Traditional Rites casts sufficient, "positive doubt" on the New Rites. I don't need to have certainty about the New Rites. I am required to avoid them simply because they signify something substantially different from the traditional Rites.
So, in order to follow the requirements of Catholic moral theology, we must ordinarily receive the Sacraments from a minister who is certainly valid (the traditionally-ordained Priest), and only in extraordinary circuмstances should we consider receiving Sacraments from a minister who is only probably valid.
But you flip this on its head because of your "leave us orphans" theory. You naively accept that the Church (the true Roman Catholic Church) is identical to the entity infiltrated by Freemasons who inexplicably changed the traditional Rites. You are living in a false reality.
The Novus Ordo is a test, allowed by God. You are failing that test because of your human attachments and lack of clear reasoning. Please pray about this and ask for God to give you the humility to see the Truth before it is too late.
We had a young seventeen-year-old young lady who was just conditionally baptized this last week our traditional chapel. She says that the custom in Oregon where she is from is to say, "We baptize you..." Apparently, that is the NO thing out there among some of the priests. I bet some of the SSPX crowd would chime in, "Don't worry, its valid."
Yep ... since its inception the Novus Ordites have had this general attitude of being "creative", where unless you can adlib stuff for the situation, then you were stale and lame. Such attitudes are curtailed by using a Sacred Language as well as having the mentality of requiring formal adherence to ritual. Conciliarists had adopted the Prot-heretical attitude where the Sacraments are not some "magic" things (aka don't work ex opere operato but only ex opere operantis). For them, when you get baptized, it's more about your own personal dispositions, repentance, etc. and the water is just symbolic of it. So who cares what you say, right? This idea of there needing to be a fixed essential "form" for the Sacrament was dismissed as medieval mumbo jumbo and superstition. In addition, the Novus Ordo has been polluted by this mentality that the priest is just a PRESIDER and a representative of the COMMUNITY, and it's the latter that accomplishes or effects what is going on. I've had Jesuit priests (valid) tell me that there's no Mass if just the priest offers it privately, without a congregation. Similarly, the Sacrament of Confession was regularly characterized as being reconciled with the COMMUNITY, and it's the COMMUNITY that's welcoming you back, i.e. where a "priest" could easily say "We absolve you ..." or just "We forgive you ..." or "Welcome Back ..." Now, this attitude is probably slightly less likely with the Rites for Holy Orders, but not necessarily, as I've heard of bishops messing with the essential form of "confirmation", and can easliy see one of them tampering with Holy Orders to make it more "meaningful" or "relevant".I saw a post online a couple months back where a convert was baptized, prior to his conversion, with a form that went something along the lines of "It is now my pleasure to baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". His NO parish director told him he did not need a conditional baptism..
I personally believe that any and all Sacraments performed by the Conciliar Church are open to conditional re-administration. Now, that might be a case where some investigation might be in order, where maybe you check the background of the priest and see if he was PRONE to that sort of thing, but even then you don't know, as many priests had phases, where they went Hippie for a while, and then came back. Given the pervasive trainwreck the Novus Ordo is, I think that conditionals of any Sacrament they confer would be acceptable ... AND you could even use those notorious incidents of invalid Baptisms to "smooth over" any talks with Rome if that's you're motivation, just referring them to those notorious cases and saying that you just don't have the time and resources to go investigate every Sacrament. This tendency in the Conciliar Church combined with a legitimate complaint regarding lack of resources to do a proper investigation, and in many cases the priests / bishops are now deceased, and no videos exist, so there's no reason to impose this burden.
Let's say we heard of this Protestant sect that sometimes validly baptized, but very often did not. If somone came over from that sect, would you be required to investigate their ceremony? Who has the time for that, and then even if you did spend the time and effort, there's a good chance you'd never get to the truth of it anyway. No, the fact that that sect played loosey goosey with their "Sacraments" suffices to create a prudent doubt.
Now, if someone came over from the Orthodox, where they're pretty strict about adhering to their Rites ... and they believe that the form + matter are required to confect a Sacrament ... that's a different story.
I bet some of the SSPX crowd would chime in, "Don't worry, its valid."
I saw a post online a couple months back where a convert was baptized, prior to his conversion, with a form that went something along the lines of "It is now my pleasure to baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". His NO parish director told him he did not need a conditional baptism..
This would definitely be doubtful, right? The administer of the baptism was just stating that he had the "pleasure" of baptizing him.. not that he was, at that moment, baptizing him
.....
First of all, the point is NOT the priesthood ordinations, but the bishop consecrations. Invalid bishops -> invalid priests.
Here is a PDF of the episcopal consecrations:
https://de.scribd.com/doc/15442729/Comparison-of-Old-and-New-Consecration-Rites
The important part is on page 25 and 26:
.....
What does Pius XII say?
The form is the words determining the application of the matter, by which the sacramental effects are univocally signified -- namely the power of Orders and the grace of the Holy Spirit." In other words the words of the form must specify what power of orders is given and that the grace of the Holy Ghost is given.
Yes, the Episcopal Rite does call on the "governing spirit" (page 25). But that alone doesn't make it valid because you need to say WHAT you are intending the Holy Spirit to do (Fulfil in thy priest... ). BOTH have to be invoked to be valid, and this is in EVERY rite, even the Eastern. So the "it's a new rite, you can't apply SO to it" argument from Fr. Hesse doesn't count.
1. Does the New Rite call on the Holy Spirit?
- "bless him [the elected] with spiritual power" (that's not the Holy Spirit)
- "pour out thy holy blessing" (not the Holy Spirit either)
- "by thy gracious word, bless him" (not the Holy Spirit again)
- "From the beginning of the Church you have chosen ministers" (Protestant understanding of "bishop" as administrator)
- "pour out the governing spirit" (page 25 - okay let's presume this means Holy Spirit)
Let's presume "yes".
2. Now, what powers do they call on the "governing spirit" for? What should the Holy Spirit do?
- "Through the power of the spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood" - (okay let's presume they somehow mean the Holy Spirit, okay let's go...)
- "grant him the power to forgive sins" (the bishop-elect, if he is a valid priest, already has this power, useless and confusing prayer)
- "grant him the power to assign ministries" (that's not the intention to make a Catholic bishop, but a Protestant minister)
- "grant him the power to loose every bond given by the apostles etc." (that's not the proper power of a bishop either!)
So, the New Rite, while maybe, calling on the "power of the spirit" as Holy Spirit, it completely misses the essential: to define WHAT you're calling on the Holy Spirit for (if you're calling him at all)! It mentions the word "office of bishop", yes, but Anglicans have "bishops" too, with invalid orders. So the word alone doesn't make it valid.
The best argument against this is "the context form can supplement", but in the New Rite, that makes it even worse, since the entire explanation of "what is the purpose of a bishop" (present in the Old Rite) or even the interrogation "are you even Catholic" for the bishop is abolished. The only thing that is left in in terms of duties of a bishop is "obeying the pope" (obviously they had to leave that in, can't miss a psychological jab against those 1988 schismatics).
If the new rite just said "God please pour out the Holy Spirit to consecrate this guy a bishop, so that he has the power to ordain priests to continue the sacrifice of Christ" - it may be very colloquial, but still definitely valid. The best explanation is that they are mentioning the "high priesthood", but that's just a regular priest in the context of the Old Testament. A "high priest" is not a bishop in the Old Testament. So even the best-case interpretation fails.
Throughout the entire rite, they refer to the bishop as a "guide of the flock", "guardian" and "minister-appointer". Then they, for some reason mention "loosening bonds" and "assigning ministries" as one of the bishops core tasks, which any Catholic would understand that a regular priest already has this power.
If someone is spazzing out about the Thuc bishops being definitely invalid because of some rumored "withheld intention" to Guerard des Lauriers, but at the same time accepting Novus Ordo "ministers" as definitely valid because some liberal SSPX priest said "well they're calling on the Holy Spirit, so it must be valid" - then we've hit hyprocrisy central.
Fr. Hesse only defended the new Rite of priesthood ordination (which only has two sentences changed and none of the essential form). So yes, Fr. Hesse was a valid priest, as he was ordained by an Old-Rite bishop with the correct intention. But here, we are not talking about "ut" and "et", we are talking about a rite, where 100% of the prayers are completely rewritten and the bishop is consistently mentioned as having the power to "appoint people" (Protestant intention).
The strongest pro-NO argument ist 3.1. - "Summi Sacerdotii" (high priesthood) appears in the Catechism of the Council of Trent as a synonym for "high priest / bishop".
Now, you agree that the Holy Ghost is being evoked in the new Rite. "So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit" is a accepted term used by the Eastern Rite ChurchYou're a bad-willed, stubborn, moron...This has already been explained to you.
and it is immediately qualified in the Rite by the following definition: "...the spirit given by (Christ) to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple...".Office of a patriarch, not a bishop.
We all agree that the New Rite is not a patch on the Old Rite; that not only is it missing many beautiful prayers and ceremonies but it lacks the clarity of the Old rite and is so stripped down it appears almost more Protestant than Catholic.So the Holy Ghost can give His Bride, the Church, a protestant rite? You're a heretic.
However, the Church is her great wisdom, has a safety net to dispel certain doubt: From the very beginning Christ said to his bishops "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18). What this means is that the Church has the God-given authority to alter and change the matter and form,Heresy. No, the Church cannot change the matter/form of sacraments. The pope can't either. No human on earth can, because these were created by Christ. The matter/form of sacraments = Divine origin. The Church cannot change Divine things; She can only bind/loose human laws.
and it is Her and Her alone, that determines what constitutes as a valid or invalid form. Writes Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis (No.4): "...that which the Church has established, she can also change and abrogate"The Church can decide if the matter/form is essentially the same as Christ created and the Apostles handed down. But the Church cannot change the matter/form.
keeping in mind, as the council of Trent qualifies, that the substance laid down in scripture by Christ, is always to be maintained within these changes.Yeah, this substance = matter/form.
(This scriptural, pre-determined, substance, of course, applies only to Baptism and the Holy Eucharist).:laugh1: Says who?
For the other five Sacraments, Christ has left it to the supreme authority of His Church to decide which words and signs would effect the sacramental grace.:laugh1: What?!
So far, whenever any of the Sede minded posters refer to the 'Old' SPPX in support of their "invalid" stance with regards to New Rite Ordinations etc, they have asked me to read what Fr. Peter Scott of the SSPX had to say on the subject or His Lordship Bishop Tissier de Mallarais. So, in the name of fairness, I went on a hunt, and well, it proved to be a rather unsuccessful endevour. Perhaps these posters would like to share some concrete evidence that they have that is not on the internet?
I have read the 2016 sermon by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais - which was very good - so I will comment on that when I have more time.
The change in the language of the Preface (quoted above) reflects a move from direct and clear signification in the traditional Rite toward indirect and ambiguous signification in the New Rite.Your first point is correct. However, your follow on - that this equates to a positive doubt - is incorrect. The essential form is there - stripped of the many beautiful traditional prayers - but it is there. Moreover, the very fact that none of you can agree of why its invalid and where it's invalid, and that you home in on words that have been changed but maintain the same meaning, proves that you do not have a positive doubt. You are hazarding guesses and personal opinions that originate from a prejudice and preconceived standpoint: that the Catholic Church no longer exists; that all of it is fake.
And you have the "probable opinion"/"positive doubt" issue backwards. There is no doubt at all about the traditional Rite. It is valid. It is not my "probable opinion" that this is the case. It is dogmatically certain. This is what the Church has always taught. I don't have to prove this.
You are the one holding a "probable opinion" that the Novus Ordo is valid. You think your opinion is probable because, as you say, Jesus would not "leave us orphans" (which is true but you misapply the phrase to this case). The burden of proof that the Novus Ordo is valid is on you. Until you can prove this with a dogmatic statement from the Church, you theory can be nothing more than a "probable opinion."
The Church says that I don't need to prove my "opinion" that the New Rites are invalid. The fact that they are significantly different from the Traditional Rites casts sufficient, "positive doubt" on the New Rites. I don't need to have certainty about the New Rites. I am required to avoid them simply because they signify something substantially different from the traditional Rites.
So, in order to follow the requirements of Catholic moral theology, we must ordinarily receive the Sacraments from a minister who is certainly valid (the traditionally-ordained Priest), and only in extraordinary circuмstances should we consider receiving Sacraments from a minister who is only probably valid.
But you flip this on its head because of your "leave us orphans" theory. You naively accept that the Church (the true Roman Catholic Church) is identical to the entity infiltrated by Freemasons who inexplicably changed the traditional Rites. You are living in a false reality.
The Novus Ordo is a test, allowed by God. You are failing that test because of your human attachments and lack of clear reasoning. Please pray about this and ask for God to give you the humility to see the Truth before it is too late.
Your first point is correct. However, your follow on - that this equates to a positive doubt - is incorrect. The essential form is there - stripped of the many beautiful traditional prayers - but it is there. Moreover, the very fact that none of you can agree of why its invalid and where it's invalid, and that you home in on words that have been changed but maintain the same meaning, proves that you do not have a positive doubt. You are hazarding guesses and personal opinions that originate from a prejudice and preconceived standpoint: that the Catholic Church no longer exists; that all of it is fake.
My view of the Church - which is the view of the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre - correlates perfectly with scripture and the teachings of the Church. I do not believe the Church has failed because Christ said it would not. That IS the reality. Historically, the rites have been changed down through the ages. It is not a new thing. And what sounds foreign to our ear now has been used before. More importantly, the Church teaches that the words of the rite mean what the Church has always intended them to mean. So as long as the Holy Ghost is evoked, and the Sacrament being conferred is mentioned, it is valid. Yes, certainly, what happened to the Church is a test; a test of loyalty. She has been whipped and scoured and deserted by many - even St. Peter has denied her. She has lost much of her former glory. But as it was the same visible Christ, it is the same visible Church. There is no other. Judases and all.
25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).
69. Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws. Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end. As the Divine Redeemer sent the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, who in His name should govern the Church in an invisible way, so, in the same manner, He commissioned Peter and his successors to be His personal representatives on earth and to assume the visible government of the Christian community.
For starters the only information I could pull up about Fr. Scott is the following: "Fr. Peter Scott has pointed out that a positive doubt about the per se validity of the 1968 form of ordination as promulgated does not exist, for the strictly essential part of the form is practically identical to that defined by Pope Pius XII in 1947. It may be invalid in specific cases, he said, owing to defect of intention or poor vernacular translation. " This is a comment summarising Fr. Scott's outline in the 2007 edition of the Angelus.Must priests who come to Tradition be re-ordained?
As for His Lordship, the only one I could find was his Ordination Sermon of June 29, 2016, published by the SSPX UK as an "unofficial translation". Now this sermon is expressed with great clarity. He opens with "...We remember the beautiful words of Pius X 'To restore all things in Christ'...especially by the Catholic priesthood." He then proceeds to outline what a priest is - a mediator between God and man - and how this is symbolized in the ordination ceremony. It is when he begins to outline the three rites that are performed after the candidate has been ordained a priest, that the New Ordination Rite is first mentioned: "...my dear faithful, this wonderful anointing of the priest's hands was (tampered with - 'truque') by the conciliar Church for the past 46 years. Paul VI instituted other words which do not speak of consecration or sanctification. This is why we preciously safeguard the treasure of these ordination prayers." This was followed later by " But this prayer (concerning the Chalice and Paten), once again, was tampered with...we cannot accept this new, tampered with ordination rite, which casts doubts on the validity of numerous (NOTE not all) ordinations according to the new rite....this new rite of ordination is not Catholic.":facepalm: Nobody but the Church can declare a rite invalid. Why is this such a hard concept? Nobody who is against the new rites is saying they are invalid.
Strong words indeed! And he was right in every thing he said. But what he did not say was that the New Ordination Rite itself was invalid.
The thrust of his comparison was to show how the modernists had stripped back a beautiful teaching rite, rich in symbolism, to the 'bare-bones' of what the Rite was enacting - which in turn, has lead to many priests losing a sense of who and what they are; stripping it back to the point it no longer projects a clear Catholic spirit.
There is no doubt that His Lordship had doubts. But, as far as I have found, he has never declared them positive doubts.:facepalm: A "positive doubt" is one based on facts. You can point to something and say, "Hey, this is a problem." As you explained above, the idea that a new rite "no longer projects a clear catholic spirit" is a positive doubt, because anyone can read the new rites and (as Bishop Tissier) explained "is not Catholic".
1. The quotes you provided from Bp. Tissier prove that they acknowledged that they had "doubts" about the New Rites. The mistake those men made is that they were, apparently, unaware of the prior Church teaching that one must take the Tutiorist position when it comes to the ordinary reception of the Sacraments. They, like you, flip the script. You say that those who have objectively-based doubt (aka positive doubt) about the New Rites must PROVE invalidity. No, you are not following Church teaching. If I have to prove invalidity of the New Rite that would be a certainty. There would be no doubt in that case. You need to read more about the definitions of positive vs negative doubts, as Church theologians defined those terms. You can't just make up your own definitions, which is exactly what you are trying to do.Bishop Tissier de Mallais seemed to indeed have doubts. However, as an educated man, I'm sure he understood the meaning of Positive Doubt which is why he skirted near the edge but never formerly crossed the line. Positive Doubt: there must be something specific that is missing from the essentials that could render it's validity doubtful. Without this type of doubt, the Church teaches we are to treat the Sacraments as valid.
2. You say "so long as the Holy Ghost is evoked." No, absolutely wrong. Read Apostolicae Curae (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13curae.htm). Leo XIII says precisely that that exact phrase will not cut it. Here are his words from AC, 25:
3. The true Church is not the "whore of Babylon." The true Church is that is visible is defined by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm), 69:
Notice how the faithful members of the Church are made "externally manifest" (visible):
a. profession of the same faith
b. sharing of the same sacred rites
c. participation in the same Sacrifice
d. practical observance of the same laws
Then notice how in the next sentence he changes gears. He says that it is necessary that the Pope be "visible to the eyes of all." This part is directed to those who reject the doctrines of papal supremacy and infallibility. He is not saying there if there is no Pope (because of an interregnum) there is no Church. There have been many periods of Sede Vacante throughout history. The Church does not disappear when a Pope dies. So the discussion of the Papacy in this section is not absolutely necessary for "visibility."
Now, look again at Pius XII's requirements for visible membership (a through d above). Then ask yourself. Does the New Church and its members hold to substantially the same faith, sacred rites, same Sacrifice, same laws as the Saints like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, etc.? If you say yes, then you are very confused and unable to distinguish the key cleavages between the Faith and heresy.
The members of the New Church are happy to proclaim that the Church as "evolved" in its understanding in the areas of dogma. Death penalty is never okay. The divorced and remarried can receive the Sacraments. Active ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs need to be accepted and welcomed and BLESSED. Not only that, they changed the traditional Rites with no reason given. The never mention that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a renewal of Jesus's Sacrifice on Calvary every time it happens. They never tell those in the pews that they need to go to confession before receiving Communion.
If you say that is the Roman Catholic Faith, you are very confused woman. You have an upside down view of the final struggle we are going through. The visible Church that is being whipped is the tiny remnant who rejects the changes made in the 1960s because they are a rejection of the perennial Faith, Sacraments, and Disciplines of the True Church, which includes the Saints in heaven who died fighting against pagans and heretics.
Bishop Tissier de Mallais seemed to indeed have doubts. However, as an educated man, I'm sure he understood the meaning of Positive Doubt which is why he skirted near the edge but never formerly crossed the line. Positive Doubt: there must be something specific that is missing from the essentials that could render it's validity doubtful.:facepalm: Bishop Tissier said:
Bishop Tissier de Mallais seemed to indeed have doubts. However, as an educated man, I'm sure he understood the meaning of Positive Doubt ,,,
:facepalm: Bishop Tissier said:
"...my dear faithful, this wonderful anointing of the priest's hands was (tampered with - 'truque') by the conciliar Church for the past 46 years. Paul VI instituted other words which do not speak of consecration or sanctification.
Uhh....I think this is specific enough.
You're setting up a strawman, wherein because +Tissier didn't use the term 'positive doubt' then he didn't have it. :facepalm: It just goes to show you don't know what you're talking about. A doubt with is based on facts = positive doubt.
The fact that hundreds of clerics since 1970, and millions of Trads left the Church due to V2 and the doubts about the new church, are the strongest doubt that can exist. Traditionalism wouldn't exist unless positive doubts existed about new-rome.
...
3. I see. So you are calling the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican and its hierarchy, "the whore of Babylon". These are the same words Luther used against the Church.
You wrote: "He is not saying if there is no Pope (because of an interregnum) there is no Church. There have been many periods of Sede Vacante throughout history. The Church does not disappear when a Pope dies."
No, the Church does not disappear when a Pope dies. What is your point? Other than you are trying to play your position down and pretend that it has a historical basis. The definition of Sede-vacantism as a theory and all you believe it to be, is not a short interregnum between Popes. You know it is not. They are two totally different concepts. You believe that there is no Pope - because we have had 47 years of fake Popes - and that the Church is now- what? - a headless 'loose association' of revolutionaries answerable only to their own opinions? Again like Luther.
Your biggest failing in all this is your misconception of the Church. You treat it as a human institution which can rebelled against if you don't like it. It is the Body of Christ. Visible and Eternal. Which means Pope Leo is Pope Peter; the unbroken chain of the Papacy. The rock upon which Christ built his Church. In other words, the two are inseparable. And have been inseparable since the beginning. As the Mystici Corporis teaches: "...our Savior Himself sustains in a divine manner the society which He founded." (52) and "On the contrary, as Christ, Head and Exemplar of the Church “is not complete, if only His visible human nature is considered. . ., or if only His divine, invisible nature. . ., but He is one through the union of both and one in both . . . so is it with His Mystical Body” (121) (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm#easy-footnote-bottom-121-357).
"Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws. Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end. As the Divine Redeemer sent the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, who in His name should govern the Church in an invisible way, so, in the same manner, He commissioned Peter and his successors to be His personal representatives on earth and to assume the visible government of the Christian community." (69)
Your concept of the Church no longer represents Christ. You have doubted His promise to protect His Church and substain it. And why? Because Christ has been scourged and stripped bare. And thus the mystical body is no longer to your liking. And instead of uniting yourself to Him and offering up this suffering with Him, you are deserting Him to go it alone and trying to convince others to desert Him also.
"And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members." (66)
With regards to the following:
a. profession of the same faith
b. sharing of the same sacred rites
c. participation in the same Sacrifice
d. practical observance of the same laws
A. The teachings of the Catholic Church have not changed. It is the same profession of faith. Same dogmas and doctrines.
B. We share the same rites - albeit the new version of the rites have been scourged and stripped but still effects what Christ intended them to do. Moreover, in His mercy Christ raised up Archbishop Lefebrve to protect and maintain the original rite WITHIN His Church.
C. Same sacrifice.
D. Practical Observance of the same Laws. Canon Law has not changed in its substance. This is not to be confused with the hierarchy's bad example and personal interpretations. See (66).
Yes, the spirit that tampered with the Mass and the Sacraments is bad. The Judus who betrayed the Church is bad. But the Sacraments of the Church themselves are divine and despite all this tampering still effect what Christ intended them to effect because HE is the Church.
Your "conception" of the Church is bizarre. You believe that the institutional hierarchy can do and say anything they please, and, as long as they claim to be "Roman Catholic," they are Roman Catholic in your eyes.
We all know the terms, and the terms are quite clear, and there's CLEARLY positive doubt. This idiotic and wicked troll needs to be banned. She/he has some personal connection to or stake in the outcome, as only that could justify such copious amounts of obvious bullshit.Firstly, none of what I say is in malice. I'm simply a Catholic who loves the Church and who has a lot of gratitude to the SSPX who lead me to the traditional understanding of the Church. You do not seem to have such gratitude but I guess, that's your affair.
POSTIVE just means NOTHING MORE THAN THAT YOU CAN POINT TO SOMETHING SPECIFIC, and is easily defined by opposition with NEGATIVE DOUBT, which means that you have a doubt due to the mere absence of proof for validity. Since I have no proof that it's valid, therefore I doubt whether the Sacrament took place. I didn't HEAR Father say the words of consecration, therefore I doubt whether he actually did or not.
That's it, and doesn't require the beskirted troll-splaining from Borat here.
There are actual and real changes to the Rites, thereby there's something concrete involved, and that by definition constitutes positive doubt.
Of course, the positive doubt must be prudent, which simply means it's not nuts, and you're not crazy, and imagining things, or exaggerating matters.
Ordination ...
1) essential form changed, dropping the "ut", which explicitly makes the cause and effect relationship between the invocation of the Holy Ghost and the Sacramental effect, the two things Pius XII explicity stated were the core aspects of the essential form
2) they removed every single clear reference to the priest's power to offer sacrifice, which Pope Leo XIII taught vitiated the Catholic intention of the Rite when the Anglicans did it, rendering the Ordinal "absolutely null and utterly void", even IF the essential form happened to be correct
In fact, base done those two points, that nearly constitutes moral certainty that the Rite of Ordination is absolutely null and void. Now, the difference is that we don't have the authority to impose this opinion on consciences, so instead of absolutely conferring ordination, as we would with the Anglican Ordinal, we would use the conditional formula until another ruling came from the legitimate and trustworthy Catholic authority.
Episcopal Consecration ...
1) essential form radically changed into something completely new and without precedent, bearing only some vague similarity to an Eastern Rite for installing a patriarch (which assumes that the man is already a bishop, as it would have been extraordinary for a priest to get installed as such)
2) extremely problematic, vague, and confusing essential form (and grammatically ambiguous), this "governing spirit". With the gerund "governing", does that mean the Spirit IS the one governing, or is the Spirit conferring some gift of governing. If the latter, then it's most certainly not the obvious sense of the grammar. Secondly, governing refers to jurisdiction more than to the Order, a completion of the priesthood. Auxiliary Bishops and Chor Bishops do not have jurisdiction when they're consecrated, so no "governing" is being communicated there. Similar to the installation of a Patriach, this phrase also seems to confirm that someone is just being given jurisdiction rather than an elevation of Holy Orders, where a former Auxiliary Bishop is now being installed as the Bishop of a Diocese, i.e. put in charge and made a GOVERNING bishops vs. a NON-GOVERNING bishop.
I mean only a wicked lying troll like Borat would claim that this does not rise to the level of positive doubt.
Secondly, even if one claimed it did not, you don't have to definitivel prove positive doubt either to justify use of the conditional administration of the Sacrament. That becomes sinful only if there's just no reason whatsoever, it's based on negative doubt, scruples, or some neurosis that does harm to the dignity of the Sacrament, where someone might baptize everyone with a pulse "just in case [Father got it wrong]". But to use it for these types of situations, there's clearly no sin at all, AND when you add to it the requirement of charity to quiet the consciences of the faithful, those requirements of charity resolved the doubt immediately in favor of conditional ordination being necessary.
AND, on top of it, the mere unreasonable burden of requiring an investigation of every case, where Traditional Catholics bishops and priests have neither the time nor the resources, and even if they did, would often find themselves unable to draw a conclusion, since the minister had already passed away or his dispositoins at the time could not be ascertained, and his internal inforum intentions not discovered. +Lefebvre said exactly that about confirmation where, since the Concilars were so loose with matter and form, that alone sufficed his conditional Confirmations, since nobody had time to investigate every one of them and even if they did could not likely arrive at a solid conclusion one way or the other.
Finally, when you take the worst case scenario of being wrong on either side of the debate, the consequences of being wrong about the validity of the NO Sacrament absolutely eclipse the consequences of being wrong about there being positive doubt.
This is SUCH a no brainer that only wicked malice can explain the promotion of this terrible and damnable error.
Boru's reasoning works backwards. He first analyses the consequences, and them adapts the principles.Christ founded His VISIBLE Church in Rome (Vatican), upon the Papacy, beginning with St. Peter. He promised the gates of hell would never prevail against it and that He would sustain it always. This same said Church, has remained steadfast throughout the ages, despite many attacks from its enemies. Both scripture and the teachings of Popes all state that the Church is an inseparable union of both the invisible (divine) and visible (human) like the earthy body of Christ Himself. Then you and your ilk come along and say 'No, Christ is wrong. The scriptures are wrong. The Holy Popes are wrong. That that institution in Rome is no longer the Church. It has ceased. Or at best, separated into a human 'Conciliar' Church and a 'divine' 'loose association'. That is your novel premise. That is why you will not have it that the Sacraments are valid. You have to justify your decision for stepping outside of the Church like a Protestant. My traditional premise, on the other hand, is what the Church has always taught. That the Body of Christ is an eternal union of both God and man that cannot be separated: The Hypostatic union. That is why I hold that the Sacraments are valid - despite the human enemy within attacking it - because the Church cannot change. It is eternal. It is divine. And thus, yes, it is impossible for the Church to give us defective sacraments. And there is no twisting of words either. The Rites clearly contain the essential elements as stipulated by the Popes.
On his mind: the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church, so it means that the rite it promulgates are mandatorily valid. So, now I have somehow to twist the theological principles to say that the words on the new rite form are ok, since, as they come from the Church, it is impossible for them to be defective.
Christ founded His VISIBLE Church in Rome (Vatican), upon the Papacy, beginning with St. Peter. He promised the gates of hell would never prevail against it and that He would sustain it always. This same said Church, has remained steadfast throughout the ages, despite many attacks from its enemies. Both scripture and the teachings of Popes all state that the Church is an inseparable union of both the invisible (divine) and visible (human) like the earthy body of Christ Himself. Then you and your ilk come along and say 'No, Christ is wrong. The scriptures are wrong. The Holy Popes are wrong. That that institution in Rome is no longer the Church. It has ceased. Or at best, separated into a human 'Conciliar' Church and a 'divine' 'loose association'. That is your novel premise. That is why you will not have it that the Sacraments are valid. You have to justify your decision for stepping outside of the Church like a Protestant. My traditional premise, on the other hand, is what the Church has always taught. That the Body of Christ is an eternal union of both God and man that cannot be separated: The Hypostatic union. That is why I hold that the Sacraments are valid - despite the human enemy within attacking it - because the Church cannot change. It is eternal. It is divine. And thus, yes, it is impossible for the Church to give us defective sacraments. And there is no twisting of words either. The Rites clearly contain the essential elements as stipulated by the Popes.But Jesus did not say how the Church would be sustained. Some people suspect that the Church will mimic Christ's life and death. This time period is reflection of the body in the tomb before the resurrection. We can assume that on "Good Friday" Jesus's soul was separated from his body. That is what appears right now. Jesus's body what is visible in Rome is separated from his soul what is essentially invisible. That is the simplistic way that I understand it. Someone better at this scholarly stuff can probably explain it a lot better.
Christ founded His VISIBLE Church in Rome (Vatican), upon the Papacy, beginning with St. Peter. He promised the gates of hell would never prevail against it and that He would sustain it always. This same said Church, has remained steadfast throughout the ages, despite many attacks from its enemies. Both scripture and the teachings of Popes all state that the Church is an inseparable union of both the invisible (divine) and visible (human) like the earthy body of Christ Himself. Then you and your ilk come along and say 'No, Christ is wrong. The scriptures are wrong. The Holy Popes are wrong. That that institution in Rome is no longer the Church. It has ceased. Or at best, separated into a human 'Conciliar' Church and a 'divine' 'loose association'. That is your novel premise. That is why you will not have it that the Sacraments are valid. You have to justify your decision for stepping outside of the Church like a Protestant. My traditional premise, on the other hand, is what the Church has always taught. That the Body of Christ is an eternal union of both God and man that cannot be separated: The Hypostatic union. That is why I hold that the Sacraments are valid - despite the human enemy within attacking it - because the Church cannot change. It is eternal. It is divine. And thus, yes, it is impossible for the Church to give us defective sacraments. And there is no twisting of words either. The Rites clearly contain the essential elements as stipulated by the Popes.The Church has never defined “the gates of hell shall not prevail”. Your OPINION in what God will allow is not doctrine.
Christ founded His VISIBLE Church in Rome (Vatican), upon the Papacy, beginning with St. Peter. He promised the gates of hell would never prevail against it and that He would sustain it always. This same said Church, has remained steadfast throughout the ages, despite many attacks from its enemies. Both scripture and the teachings of Popes all state that the Church is an inseparable union of both the invisible (divine) and visible (human) like the earthy body of Christ Himself. Then you and your ilk come along and say 'No, Christ is wrong. The scriptures are wrong. The Holy Popes are wrong. That that institution in Rome is no longer the Church. It has ceased. Or at best, separated into a human 'Conciliar' Church and a 'divine' 'loose association'. That is your novel premise. That is why you will not have it that the Sacraments are valid. You have to justify your decision for stepping outside of the Church like a Protestant. My traditional premise, on the other hand, is what the Church has always taught. That the Body of Christ is an eternal union of both God and man that cannot be separated: The Hypostatic union. That is why I hold that the Sacraments are valid - despite the human enemy within attacking it - because the Church cannot change. It is eternal. It is divine. And thus, yes, it is impossible for the Church to give us defective sacraments. And there is no twisting of words either. The Rites clearly contain the essential elements as stipulated by the Popes.
Firstly, none of what I say is in malice. I'm simply a Catholic who loves the Church and who has a lot of gratitude to the SSPX who lead me to the traditional understanding of the Church. You do not seem to have such gratitude but I guess, that's your affair.
Right, down to business: When we speak of Positive Doubt in relation to the Sacraments, we are speaking about whether the essential form (the essential words in the form that effect the Sacrament) are present or not; whether there is an absence of proof of validity within THE FORM. That is the 'Specific'. You have had some Seminarian training, would you not agree to that? Therefore when His Lordship Bishop Tissier de Mallarais says "...my dear faithful, this wonderful anointing of the priest's hands was (tampered with - 'truque') by the conciliar Church for the past 46 years. Paul VI instituted other words which do not speak of consecration or sanctification..." we can all agree - make the distinction - that he was not speaking about the Essential Form but rather the three sub-rites that take place after the priest-elect is already ordained a priest.
Ok. Back to the Form: Pius XII said there must be two essential elements to make it valid: evoking the Holy Ghost and naming the Sacrament you are conferring. Like Baptism whose basic form (template if you will) was given to us by Christ: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Those words are contained within a long ceremony but it is those words, and those words alone, that effect the validity of the Sacrament. Now you agree that the Holy Ghost is evoked, and you agree that the Sacrament being conferred is mentioned. What you are hung up on is that they have slightly re-arranged the words so that the Latin word 'ut' meaning 'so that' is no longer used. You claim this changes the intention. Yet when you read the words in the new Rite - which are almost identical to the traditional rite - the sense and meaning is exactly the same. Both the SSPX and Bishop Williamson have publicly stated this to be so. The promise of the Eternal Church states this to be so.
Regarding your point 2: Pope Leo XIII"s ruling on the Anglican Ordination rite has NO relevance to the new Catholic Rite and is continually being taken out of context. Yet you continually hold on to it like a lifebelt. Well, let us take a more in depth look at it: Your argument is that, what was lacking in the Anglican rite is also lacking in the new Catholic rite. It therefore follows, so you claim, that if the Anglican rite is invalid, so too must be the new Catholic rite. Apart from the glaring fact that you have NO authority to make such an assumption, what was lacking in the Anglican rite?
Pope Leo XIII outlined three reasons: (1) The primary reason was the Form which he declared defective due to a clear defect in the words, which was supported by (2) the absence of certain surrounding language (the significatio ex adjunctis), and (3) that the Anglicans introduced a new rite without the mandate of the Church who alone has the authority to declare what is valid or invalid. This made it clear, beyond doubt, that the Anglicans did not intend to do what the Church does. Writes Pope Leo: " ...if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament." - Apostolicae Curae, No. 33.
As Pope Leo makes clear: "With this inherent defect of Form is joined the defect of 'intention' which is equally essential to the Sacrament."
Ok. So let us look at why the essential words for validly were defective: In the original Anglican rite the words "Receive the Holy Ghost" were used, but the Sacramental reason why they were receiving the Holy Ghost is missing. There was no mention of conferring a Priestly order like the apostles. None. In other words of the two essential elements of the Form, only one was present. Clear defect. Clear positive doubt. In later versions of the Anglican rite the words 'for the work and office of priest/bishop' were injected however again, the Sacramental reason why - the conferring of a Sacrament - is still missing. Moreover, it was clear by their intent and teachings and refusal to follow the authority of Rome, that they did not mean to do as the Church does.
So in the Anglican rite: the Form is defective/missing an essential element, the surrounding prayers supporting the understanding of a sacrificing priesthood is completely missing and the Intention to do what the Church does is missing.
Let us compare this to the New Ordination Rite of the Catholic Church:
1. The Form is not defective. The Holy Ghost is evoked and the Sacrament being conferred is stated. Two essential elements present.
2. The surrounding prayers, while stripped down in comparison to the traditional rite, do still clearly define the sacrificial and sacramental nature of the priesthood: eg: : "(This new priest-elect) is called to share in the priesthood of the bishops and to be molded into the likeness of Christ, the supreme and eternal Priest. By consecration he will made a true priest of the New Testament, to preach the gospel, sustain God's people, and celebrate the liturgy, above all, the Lord's sacrifice." Also " Your ministry will perfect the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful, the sacrifice which is offered sacramentally through your hands....(also) when you baptize, you will bring men and women into the people of God. In the sacrament of penance, you will forgive sins in the name of Christ and the Church. With holy oil you will relieve and console the sick." And in the words of the bishop "Are you resolved to celebrate the mysteries of Christ faithfully and religiously as the Church has handed down to us for the Glory of God and the sanctification of Christ's people."
3. The Form, Matter, Surrounding Prayers, and the Intention to do what the Church intends, is all there.
I repeat: Writes Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis (No.4): "...that which the Church has established, she can also change and abrogate" keeping in mind, as the council of Trent qualifies, that the substance laid down in scripture by Christ, is always to be maintained within these changes. (This scriptural, pre-determined, substance, of course, applies only to Baptism and the Holy Eucharist). For the other five Sacraments, Christ has left it to the supreme authority of His Church to decide which words and signs would effect the sacramental grace.
This brings us to the most important element of this issue: the authority of the Church. The words of the form (the substance) mean exactly what the ETERNAL Church means them to mean regardless of how you, I or a modernist understands them. In other words, in terms of validity, the authority of the Catholic Church ensures that any ambiguity in the official form will always mean what it has always been intended to mean in a Catholic sense and understanding. Because the Holy Roman Catholic Church is eternal and its teachings cannot change.
The surrounding prayers (significatio ex adjunctis), while stripped down in comparison to the traditional rite, do still clearly define the sacrificial and sacramental nature of the priesthood.
But Jesus did not say how the Church would be sustained. Some people suspect that the Church will mimic Christ's life and death. This time period is reflection of the body in the tomb before the resurrection. We can assume that on "Good Friday" Jesus's soul was separated from his body. That is what appears right now. Jesus's body what is visible in Rome is separated from his soul what is essentially invisible. That is the simplistic way that I understand it. Someone better at this scholarly stuff can probably explain it a lot better.Yes, I agree, as the Church IS the Body of Christ (the Hypostatic Union) it certainly will be - or is being - scourged and stripped, and there will come a time when this Body is crucified by Her enemies and hidden from sight for three and a half days. Scripture tells us this in Revelation:
So ... now, finally, you actually make a valid point, that the Catholic Church, i.e. a legitimate Pope, cannot promulgate invalid or even doubtful Sacraments. That is in fact the Sedevacantist position.It's very late my end so I'll have to be content with this for now (there is a lot of woffle in your post to sift through): That the Catholic Church and its Vicar of Christ cannot promulgate invalid Sacraments is true. That this is the Sede-vacantist position is false. You have inverted its meaning to mean that the Sacraments are not valid because the visible Catholic Church and the Vicar of Christ in Rome are false.
....since you've made no secret about your hatred for sedevacantists.
Yes, I agree, as the Church IS the Body of Christ (the Hypostatic Union) it certainly will be - or is being - scourged and stripped, and there will come a time when this Body is crucified by Her enemies and hidden from sight for three and a half days. Scripture tells us this in Revelation:It is hard to interpret scripture as God intended.
"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and it was said to me: Arise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar and them that adore therein.
2 But the court, which is without the temple, cast out, and measure it not: because it is given unto the Gentiles, and the holy city they shall tread under foot two and forty months (three and half years):
3 And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred sixty days (roughly three and half years), clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks, that stand before the Lord of the earth....
And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast, that ascendeth out of the abyss, shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified (Jerusalem).
9 And they of the tribes, and peoples, and tongues, and nations, shall see their bodies for three days and a half: and they shall not suffer their bodies to be laid in sepulchres.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry: and shall send gifts one to another, because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt upon the earth.
11 And after three days and a half, the spirit of life from God entered into them. And they stood upon their feet, and great fear fell upon them that saw them." - Rev. 1:11.
The Olive trees mean 'Anointed Ones' and traditionally believed to be the Holy Father and an Earthly Catholic king.
This means the visibly Body that has always been there, will be hidden from sight for three and half days for there is no Church, no Body of Christ without the Papacy, its head, as Pope Leo XIII teaches.
Keep in mind, Jesus was both God and man. So while he died as a man and 'gave up his human spirit', He never died as God. The divine nature - His divine soul - remained with the Body.
So far, whenever any of the Sede minded posters refer to the 'Old' SPPX in support of their "invalid" stance with regards to New Rite Ordinations etc, they have asked me to read what Fr. Peter Scott of the SSPX had to say on the subject or His Lordship Bishop Tissier de Mallarais. So, in the name of fairness, I went on a hunt, and well, it proved to be a rather unsuccessful endevour. Perhaps these posters would like to share some concrete evidence that they have that is not on the internet?I highly recommend reading Archbishop Lefevbre's "Letter to Confused Catholics". Here is a link to read it for free online. (He talks about the changes of the novus ordo to the various Sacraments): https://archive.org/details/AnOpenLetterToConfusedCatholics (https://archive.org/details/AnOpenLetterToConfusedCatholics)
For starters the only information I could pull up about Fr. Scott is the following: "Fr. Peter Scott has pointed out that a positive doubt about the per se validity of the 1968 form of ordination as promulgated does not exist, for the strictly essential part of the form is practically identical to that defined by Pope Pius XII in 1947. It may be invalid in specific cases, he said, owing to defect of intention or poor vernacular translation. " This is a comment summarising Fr. Scott's outline in the 2007 edition of the Angelus.
As for His Lordship, the only one I could find was his Ordination Sermon of June 29, 2016, published by the SSPX UK as an "unofficial translation". Now this sermon is expressed with great clarity. He opens with "...We remember the beautiful words of Pius X 'To restore all things in Christ'...especially by the Catholic priesthood." He then proceeds to outline what a priest is - a mediator between God and man - and how this is symbolized in the ordination ceremony. It is when he begins to outline the three rites that are performed after the candidate has been ordained a priest, that the New Ordination Rite is first mentioned: "...my dear faithful, this wonderful anointing of the priest's hands was (tampered with - 'truque') by the conciliar Church for the past 46 years. Paul VI instituted other words which do not speak of consecration or sanctification. This is why we preciously safeguard the treasure of these ordination prayers." This was followed later by " But this prayer (concerning the Chalice and Paten), once again, was tampered with...we cannot accept this new, tampered with ordination rite, which casts doubts on the validity of numerous (NOTE not all) ordinations according to the new rite....this new rite of ordination is not Catholic."
Strong words indeed! And he was right in every thing he said. But what he did not say was that the New Ordination Rite itself was invalid. The thrust of his comparison was to show how the modernists had stripped back a beautiful teaching rite, rich in symbolism, to the 'bare-bones' of what the Rite was enacting - which in turn, has lead to many priests losing a sense of who and what they are; stripping it back to the point it no longer projects a clear Catholic spirit. There is no doubt that His Lordship had doubts. But, as far as I have found, he has never declared them positive doubts. And he has always held that the Popes since 1958 were indeed Popes.
Home (https://sspxasia.com/index.htm) | Newsletters (https://sspxasia.com/Newsletters/index.htm) | Library (https://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/index.htm) | Vocations (https://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/Vocations/index.htm) | History (https://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/index.htm#History) | Links (https://sspxasia.com/Links.htm) | Search (https://sspxasia.com/Search/index.htm) | Contact (https://sspxasia.com/Contact.htm) |
It is hard to interpret scripture as God intended.Vatican II was opened with good intent. Unfortunately it was overseen by a weak-minded Pope who had been influenced by the Liberal faction lurking within the Church. They knew this and took advantage. Every one of the 16 docuмents put forward was a fight between traditional Catholics and liberal minded "Catholics". These liberals literally bullied their way into making the changes in wording that they did. But they could only go so far. The traditional periti fought back. No outright rejections of the faith were implemented at Vatican II but rather time-bombs of ambiguity - especially in Religious Liberty - had been planted for later use by these same Liberals.
I just have a couple more questions. Is Pope Leo xiv the pope with full authority of the Catholic Church? Would you attend a Faternity of St. Peter Mass? If yes, why are you with the SSPX?
Pope Leo XIV is going to use his authority to make "St" John Henry Newman a doctor of the Church. What is your opinion on this?
We can try to understand different parts of the Church and try to make sense of specific things, but the problem is that it all needs to make sense in a unified way. I don't believe we can accept the changes in the Sacraments (all we're changed after V2, see the book "lex orandi" by Daniel Graham) not accept the making of Saints (forgot the term) and Doctors. We have to accept those, too.
It is very frustrating times for most of us. We find our little corner of tradition and we hang tight. People have many different opinions, but we know that we can find Church teaching in the Saint's writings and Church teachings before Vatican 2. At some point in time, God will restore the Papacy, so their will be no more confusion. The time is not now.
Vatican II was opened with good intent. Unfortunately it was overseen by a weak-minded Pope who had been influenced by the Liberal faction lurking within the Church.No, it wasn't. And John23 was most likely a mason. The liberal media HATED Pius XII but loved John23, whom they called "Good Pope John". That should send off warning bells.
I began my traditional journey with the Fraternity of St. Peter. I had never heard of the SSPX at that time. After much study, and much prayer, I made the great leap of faith into a SSPX chapel once I reached the conviction that Archbishop Lefebvre was still in union with the Church.Honest question -- How can you say that Lefebvre is "in union" with new-rome, if new-rome excommunicated him? Pope Benedict never lifted the excommunication...
The second reason is because they are wholly traditional, will not compromise on their stance, and yet remain united with Rome - which ties in with the first reason. That said, I would still attend a Fraternity Mass if I could not get to a SSPX.As you have experience in both the sspx and the fssp...why do you call the sspx "wholly" trad, but the fssp isn't?
Your "conception" of the Church is bizarre. You believe that the institutional hierarchy can do and say anything they please, and, as long as they claim to be "Roman Catholic," they are Roman Catholic in your eyes.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.
No! Those people who claim to be a members of the Body of Christ and teach doctrines contrary to Christ's are NOT members of His Mystical Body. They are hypocritical heretics. They cut themselves off from His Mystical Body.
.................
Vatican II was opened with good intent. Unfortunately it was overseen by a weak-minded Pope who had been influenced by the Liberal faction lurking within the Church. They knew this and took advantage. Every one of the 16 docuмents put forward was a fight between traditional Catholics and liberal minded "Catholics". These liberals literally bullied their way into making the changes in wording that they did. But they could only go so far. The traditional periti fought back. No outright rejections of the faith were implemented at Vatican II but rather time-bombs of ambiguity - especially in Religious Liberty - had been planted for later use by these same Liberals.I understand your post and where you are coming from. I also started with the FSSP. I have been in this mess for 20+ years.
I write this to emphasis that the Church was hijacked by infiltrators who rode roughshod over the rest of the Catholic clergy - and even the Pope through Collegiality - to get what they wanted. They have taken the Church captive so to speak. But it is the same Church, with the same authority, and the same doctrines and dogmas.
As we discussed, the Church IS the Body of Christ. And the Vicar of Christ is the head of that body. You cannot separate the Head from the body. The two are one as Leo XIII makes very clear. And if the Church, prior Vatican II. was the Church in 1962 - and the Church is eternal and divine - then it is the same Church after Vatican II in 1965. To say it disappeared is to claim it was never divine in the first place. This is a Protestant mentality.
Given the history, and what happened at Vatican II, it is important for us to make these distinctions. The Church is the Church - it still has the 4 visible marks of recognition - One (united under one authority with the same faith), Holy (dogmas and doctrines have not changed), Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic (Vicar of Christ) Church - but there are infiltrators in high places who are using these time-bombs to strip the Church of her former glory. But they can only go so far for Christ promised He would sustain His Church. What does this mean? It means the Church was set up by Christ to give us the Sacraments which give us divine life. That is the primarily reason. And that is what sustaining means. And we know God is in control because just at the point when the infiltrators were at the height of their destruction, He raised up Archbishop Lefebvre, WITHIN His Church, to preserve all the traditional ways in order to lead the Church back to solid grounding. I do not advocate the New Mass. I do not go to a New Mass. Not because it is not valid, nor because I doubt its validly in itself, but because the Traditional Mass is far, far, more reverent and beautiful and yes, because it makes it clear that it is the Sacrifice of Calvary. And because the Traditional rite IS and has always been, the rite of the Catholic Church. And in most cases, contains none of the abuses being allowed at many New Rite Masses.
Now to answer your questions: Firstly, Scripture is to be interpreted according to how it has always been interpreted. Christ is both God and man, and that although His Human soul died, His divine soul never separated from His human body - just as the the divinity of the visible human Church can never be separated from it. When I find the correct Church reference to this, I will post it for you.
I began my traditional journey with the Fraternity of St. Peter. I had never heard of the SSPX at that time. After much study, and much prayer, I made the great leap of faith into a SSPX chapel once I reached the conviction that Archbishop Lefebvre was still in union with the Church. This was supported by my local parish priest, a Holy Ghost father himself, who gave me permission to be married in a SSPX chapel. Why the SSPX and not the Fraternity? Two reasons: I came to admire Archbishop Lefebvre very much. And appreciate the enormous personal sacrifice he made for the good of the Church. And one could identify with him. His sufferings were our sufferings - the fear, the doubts, the confusion - and the long hours of studying trying to make sense of it all in a Catholic light. The second reason is because they are wholly traditional, will not compromise on their stance, and yet remain united with Rome - which ties in with the first reason. That said, I would still attend a Fraternity Mass if I could not get to a SSPX.
With regards to Pope Leo XIV making Cardinal Newman a Doctor of the Church - well the Pope has the authority so I accept it. I see you do not recognize him as a saint. As this is outside my competence, I myself reserve judgement. It does not effect my faith so I simply await for a time when the whole question of the new Canonizations is clarified by the Church.
As I said, I do understand your doubts about everything - I wrestled with them myself - so none of this is meant as a personal attack, but rather a defense of the SSPX from those - who with mouths of sewers like Luther - have turned on her and attempt to bully others into turning on her too.
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.
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.
...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...
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.
My next question to you though is since you are strongly in the camp you are in, why did you come to CathInfo? Are you trying to save us from our own opinions on the matter? Do you think if you can get us all to see what you have learned that we will all come back to the SSPX? Do you think that if this part of the Catholic flock returns, then God will abolish the sick and dying parts of the Church?Cathinfo is advertised as a traditional forum for SSPX and SSPX-Resistance and other Traditional Catholics. My horse in the race is the attacks on the SSPX. What stance you choose is up to yourselves, but if you are going to attack my stance - and that seems to be the religion for many Sede's here - I have a right to defend myself and defend the Church I love. Also, I care. It worries me when faithful detach themselves form the Pope and the Church. Especially when it is based on so much misinformation. And especially when it is a teaching of the Church to stay united to the Papacy. And in answer to your last question - yes, I believe that if traditionalists all hold together - united to the Head of the Mystical Body - in whatever capacity or chapel they choose, we can help heal the damage done.
This is a really hard battle, and I do believe that God is putting all His Soldiers exactly where they need to be for a GREAT RESTORATION. We just have to pray and watch and hold tight to the Truth.
Cathinfo is advertised as a traditional forum for SSPX and SSPX-Resistance and other Traditional Catholics. My horse in the race is the attacks on the SSPX. What stance you choose is up to yourselves, but if you are going to attack my stance - and that seems to be the religion for many Sede's here - I have a right to defend myself and defend the Church I love. Also, I care. It worries me when faithful detach themselves form the Pope and the Church. Especially when it is based on so much misinformation. And especially when it is a teaching of the Church to stay united to the Papacy. And in answer to your last question - yes, I believe that if traditionalists all hold together - united to the Head of the Mystical Body - in whatever capacity or chapel they choose, we can help heal the damage done.
Cathinfo is advertised as a traditional forum for SSPX and SSPX-Resistance and other Traditional Catholics. My horse in the race is the attacks on the SSPX. What stance you choose is up to yourselves, but if you are going to attack my stance - and that seems to be the religion for many Sede's here - I have a right to defend myself and defend the Church I love. Also, I care. It worries me when faithful detach themselves form the Pope and the Church. Especially when it is based on so much misinformation. And especially when it is a teaching of the Church to stay united to the Papacy. And in answer to your last question - yes, I believe that if traditionalists all hold together - united to the Head of the Mystical Body - in whatever capacity or chapel they choose, we can help heal the damage done.Except I see that people have different ideas on what the Head of the Mystical Body looks like. The SSPX, the SSPX-Resistance, the SSPV, the RCI, the CMRI, and all the independents that are out there that are trying to follow the Church pre-Vatican 2 are trying to do just that. We are all looking through the same Kaleidescape and seeing different pieces of a bigger picture, and only a truly and completely Catholic Pope will unite us all. It is better to give the benefit of the doubt to those trying to love God with all their heart, soul, and strength.
Cathinfo is advertised as a traditional forum for SSPX and SSPX-Resistance and other Traditional Catholics. My horse in the race is the attacks on the SSPX. What stance you choose is up to yourselves, but if you are going to attack my stance - and that seems to be the religion for many Sede's here - I have a right to defend myself and defend the Church I love. Also, I care. It worries me when faithful detach themselves form the Pope and the Church. Especially when it is based on so much misinformation. And especially when it is a teaching of the Church to stay united to the Papacy. And in answer to your last question - yes, I believe that if traditionalists all hold together - united to the Head of the Mystical Body - in whatever capacity or chapel they choose, we can help heal the damage done.
Fr. Hesse's talk starts off with NO Ordinations:I'm not sure of the background of this Fr. Hesse. He was ordained in the New Rite at the Vatican in 1981, worked in their secret archives for a bit, received a doctorate in Sacred Theology and Canon Law and then suddenly returned to Austria where he freelanced as a translator. What does that mean? Did he get a dispensation? Did he leave the Church? There seems to be some mystery to him. Perhaps someone here can fill me in.
The Problems of the Novus Ordo Sacraments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKtO1Vq9lFA&ab_channel=rosariumpio
I'm not sure of the background of this Fr. Hesse. He was ordained in the New Rite at the Vatican in 1981, worked in their secret archives for a bit, received a doctorate in Sacred Theology and Canon Law and then suddenly returned to Austria where he freelanced as a translator. What does that mean? Did he get a dispensation? Did he leave the Church? There seems to be some mystery to him. Perhaps someone here can fill me in.Fr Hesse is a doctor in both theology and canon law. But you said he's wrong. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
Anyway, from the very opening of his talk he made an error in relation to the matter being used in Catholic Sacraments. He talks about wine always being used in the Holy Eucharist, he mentions water always being used in Baptism, and then he talks about Olive Oil always being used as a Holy Oil. He then proceeds to state that when Pope Paul VI gave permission (1972) - in cases of necessity - for clergy to use another plant based oil if they couldn't get olive-oil, he was rendering those Sacraments invalid. This is incorrect on a number of levels. Christ instituted water for baptism, and Christ instituted wine for the Eucharist. However, it was the Church that instituted olive-oil for Holy oils. This makes a difference and I will come back to this shortly. Now. Fr. Hesse goes on to state that the Council of Trent doctrinal docuмent on the Sacraments in general, passes an anathema on any pastor of the churches - and he claims this includes the Pope - who changes the rites of the sacraments. He then applies this to Pope Paul VI for the changes he made to the sacraments and the Mass.
First of all, that the Pope is subjected to this decree, is Fr. Hesse's erroneous assumption. Because this assumption is negated by the following: "...the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognise and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification." - Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei.
Pope Pius XII further supports this in Sacramentum Ordinis (4) "...that which the Church has established, she can also change and abrogate' meaning that what Christ has instituted she cannot change, but what the Church has instituted she can - such as making an exception, in a case of necessity, the type of Holy Oils used. Fr. Hesse failed to make this distinction from the beginning and ends up being led up the wrong path.
However, it was the Church that instituted olive-oil for Holy oils.Proof?
There are other bizarre things in his talk which come from his own imaginings - I've never heard them anywhere else -It's schismatic because Quo Primum (which Benedict said was still in force) forbids the use/attendance of any other rites, besides the Tridentine.
where Pope Paul VI's ordination rite must be considered a schismatic rite
and therefore not subject to the criteria of Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae on Anglican Rites. This therefore means the New Rite is valid.I agree, his opinion on this is bizarre. It's his way of supporting his own, new-rite ordination. (Though, he was ordained by an old-rite bishop, so the doubt is much less).
Apart from the fact that this criteria on Anglican rites has no relevance to Catholic rites, this line of reasoning defies logic. It has been concocted to please those who think the new ordination rite doubtful, and to justify the validity of his own new rite ordination.This makes no sense. He was supportive of new rites, as valid (if an old-rite bishop was involved). But he still thought they were all illicit, due to Quo Primum.
Fruits show the truth. Unless the man nominated is a Catholic, he can not be nominated. Does this so-called pope say the New order mess? Yes. Is it heritical, yes.No-one else can pass judgment on a Pope as a heretic other than another Pope or a Council of Bishops. That is the teaching of the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas calls it 'judgement by usurpation' and states that it is unlawful (ST, II-II, q60,a.2).
He shows to be no pope. He does not uphold what Christ founded. He has no authority. We wait for the next prophesies of Daniel 12. We wait for God to come with Our Lady, when the latter times are done, we go to the Church Triumphant.
We hope to see you there.
No-one else can pass judgment on a Pope as a heretic other than another Pope or a Council of Bishops.The key word js “judgment”, which means the Church makes a decision which is binding on all the faithful. This would be a LEGAL and DISCIPLINARY judgement.
The key word js “judgment”, which means the Church makes a decision which is binding on all the faithful. This would be a LEGAL and DISCIPLINARY judgement.
But prior to all this, we can call a heretic a heretic, even if he’s the pope. It’s called making a moral judgement. Or Catholic common sense.
The former judges a pope personally. The latter judges his actions.
At the end of the day, it's about people who want to have their pope and eat him too, where they can pay enough lip service to make themselves feel better, but then reserve the right to rip him to shreds on a daily basis. You really have to pick. If he's definitely the Pope, no questions, I would absolutely just go back to the Conciliar Church, maybe hide out in an Eastern Riter or some Motu situation ... and in that case I would even agree with Borat here that the New Rites must be valid, since the Church cannot promulgate valid Rites. But if there's enough smoke that the likelihood of fire is not insignificant, and things are bad enough where I cannot in good conscience stay in union with the Conciliars ... then that would be tantamount to a defection of the Church lest I at least hold the V2 papal claimants to be in doubt.I don't understand you. Why would you have to hide out in an Eastern rite? The Church allows the Latin Rite. God continued it in a miraculous way. The Church of 1965 is the same Church as 1962. The only difference is the the infiltrators gained a foothold in places of authority and used this to hijack the Council for their anti-Catholic purposes. But they could only do so much - they didn't foresee Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer and others like Ottavani fighting back. I agree with everything His Lordship Tissier de Mallerais said in his 2016 sermon - the surrounding prayers do make you question the intention behind the changes of the Ordination rite - it was not a Catholic spirit at work here - however, the changes are not enough to render it invalid with a positive doubt. The surrounding prayers are still very Catholic even if they do not compare to the beauty and clarity of the old rite. The infiltrators failed. And if you couple this will the fact that, as you said, the Church cannot promulgate invalid Sacraments, then we Catholics can be assured that they are indeed valid.
But they don't want the one OR the other, but both, where they can feel good about themselves by putting Prevost's mug up in the vestibule, and that way you pretend that "look we obey the pope", and also you won't scare off new visitors, thereby increasing your collection take. But when they issue various Encyclicals or whatnot, they'll be like "Here goes Bergs with another Recyclical. I wonder what heresy he's going to spew this time." Either you respect the Pope or you don't. If you think he's the Pope, at the very least you don't cop that kind of shitty attitude, but you try to give him the benefit of the doubt but then disagree with the utmost respect if you just can't accept something he teaches, kindof like with your father. If your father is in grave error (about a matter of conscience), then you cannot obey, but that doesn't give you the right to start mocking and deriding him to his face ... not unless it's motivated 100% by charity and you're doing it because you think it has a better chance of snapping him out of it, but that's clearly not what's going on here.
I agree with everything His Lordship Tissier de Mallerais said in his 2016 sermon - the surrounding prayers do make you question the intention behind the changes of the Ordination rite - it was not a Catholic spirit at work here - however, the changes are not enough to render it invalid with a positive doubt.You are still using the invalid/doubt terms wrong. Your understanding is bad. That’s why your conclusions are horrid and erroneous.
Still don’t understand how Boru says she switched from FSSP to the new-sspx because +ABL was “in union” with new-Rome. The same new-Rome who excommunicated +ABL. I mean, excommunication is the DEFINITION of non-union. :laugh1:As you have asked nicely for a change - I'll answer. But it is not a short answer. The excommunication stopped me going to the SSPX for a number of years. Then someone gave me a bundle of Michael Davies' books. There I learnt about Pius V's Quo Primum and how the Fraternity was a break away from the SSPX; that this Archbishop Lefebvre was the founding father of preserving tradition and standing up against the liberalism being pushed during the Vatican II Council. The more I read about this Archbishop, the more I came to admire him. What drew me to him was his humility and quiet strength and his respect for the Church and the Holy Father. It was clear that he was a loyal son of the Church and considered himself to be in union with the Pope. But, of course, this was not enough - the Church did not consider him to be union with them! Then I began researching what obedience to the Papacy meant and whether Canon law allowed for what the Archbishop did - the illicit consecrations of four bishops. Once I was convinced Canon Law did allow for such "a case of emergency" and that Archbishop Lefebrve had broken no Church Law other than not having a mandate, I began asking clergy around me what they thought. Some said "stay away" and some said, including the local parish priest, "it was an eternal problem but you are allowed to attend their sacraments." It was all very confusing. So I stayed away a little while longer. What clinched it for me was the famous three 1996 letters written by Msgr. Perl, who wrote on behalf of the Vatican's Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. In it he stated that it was permissible to attend the Society's Sacraments without incurring any penalty and that the SSPX were not considered outside the Church. Finally convinced, I attended my first SSPX Mass and it was amazing. The sermon was amazing. And I learnt more in that one sermon than I had in numerous Fraternity sermons. The rest is history.
So how does Quo Primum/canon law allow +ABL to consecrate new bishops (which it does) but…Quo Primum also forbids any new rites in the strongest language possible. And canon law forbids assistance at questionable rites.You are correct - Quo Primum did forbid any rites (under 200 years old) to be used other than the "new" one that he had codified. States the Quo Primum: "Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world."
So you see the issue? You follow QP in one instance but not in another. This is the hypocrisy that we’re calling out in the new-sspx.
You are correct - Quo Primum did forbid any rites (under 200 years old) to be used other than the "new" one that he had codified. States the Quo Primum: "Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world."Quo Primum did not establish the TLM as the "normative Liturgy," Quo Primum established the TLM as the Only Liturgy of the Roman Rite - forever.
There is no doubt that Quo Primum decreed the Tridentine Mass as the normative liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. And that it was to be applied "now and forever".
However the bull of one Pope can be superseded or modified by a future Pope. This is traditional Church teaching; a Sovereign Pontiff is not subject to the ruling of a previous Pope.
Pope Pius XII wrote in his Mediator Dei (58):"It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification." This was followed by (59): "The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circuмstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded."
We also have a precedent: St. Pius X changed the Divine Office and Breviary that St. Pius V had also fixed with same penalties.
Quo Primum was part of my journey into understanding what we had lost but judging from the above, Pope Paul VI was technically within his right to make modifications to the Tridentine Mass (so no heresy here) and at the same time, because of its ancient usage, the original Tridentine Mass could not be abrogated. Thus it is not hypocrisy but rather your lack of understanding in this matter. I do not claim to be an expert either however, there is enough there to prove that the issue is a lot more complex than you give it credit for.
…… The Mass of the Roman Rite, there is only one, Pius V said that there could never be but one, and he had the authority to impose this for all time.I think you will like to add this to your journey, it's a talk from 1974 (https://tinyurl.com/mrxc4k5n)given by Fr. Altenbach (https://tinyurl.com/mrxc4k5n) all about Quo Primum. Just for the record, he gave this talk about a decade before he became a sede bishop, he died about a year after he became a sede bishop. At any rate, what he says agrees with what Fr. Wathen states above.
If he did not have the authority to do so, even to the extent of binding all his successors, then this is to say that he, the pope, did not even know the limits of his own authority. This is to say that this pope attempted to do something which he had no authority to do.
And we say well then if he did not have that authority, then his authority was limited. We say that if his authority is limited, then all his successors authority is limited also.
We say yes, the authority of the pope is limited, but it is not limited to establishing the liturgy of the Mass for all time, [rather] it is limited to where a successor cannot discard this Mass because of a whimsy or a deviation in Catholic belief, and there has to be a deviation in Catholic belief on the part of pope Paul VI who would introduce such a mass as what we have, the Novus Ordo Missae….
No, it’s not a lack of understanding on my part. Your hubris is amazing.I think it is a lack of understanding on all our parts. I read through Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio and it states this:
Here’s the thing, Paul6 didnt alter the Tridentine rite. He created a new one. Nor did he alter the law of Quo Primum. Arguably, he could’ve adjusted QP, but he didn’t.
So this means that QP is still law and in force. Which Benedict confirmed in his 2005 motu.
If QP is still law then:
1. The allowance of the Tridentine rite is still law.
2. It is commanded, under penalty of sin, to only attend/say the Tridentine rite.
3. No other rites can be used. (Except for those 200 yrs old as of 1571).
4. No changes, alterations, edits or additions can be made to the rite.
5. No one can be forced to say/attend any rites other than Tridentine.
All of this under penalty of sin.
This is why Fr Hesse said the new rites are illicit. Because they violate Quo Primum every which way there is. Even if valid.
And illicit masses are grave sins, which damn to hell. Not an insignificant issue.
Thank you, I'll certainly take a look :)
As Fr. Wathen explains (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/did-'quo-primum'-exclude-the-possibility-of-additional-missals/msg848343/?topicseen#msg848343)....I think you will like to add this to your journey, it's a talk from 1974 (https://tinyurl.com/mrxc4k5n)given by Fr. Altenbach (https://tinyurl.com/mrxc4k5n) all about Quo Primum. Just for the record, he gave this talk about a decade before he became a sede bishop, he died about a year after he became a sede bishop. At any rate, what he says agrees with what Fr. Wathen states above.
By the way, Fr Hesse had a doctorate in theology and canon law.So he says. Has his background been checked out? I'm getting very curious about this self proclaimed mystery man.
I think it is a lack of understanding on all our parts. I read through Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio and it states this:Well, when it first came out, there were many priests who immediately knew that the new mass was in no way, shape or form the same lex orandi as the true Mass. With the benefit of hind site, for us, *we all* now know with certainty that either PBXVI lied or was mistaken. For me, I believe what he said above could be nothing other than a bald face lie.
"Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/index.htm) is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/index.htm) is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite."
...and then in 1970, it was greatly revised by Pope Paul VI. Now, as we have established, a Pope has the power and authority to modify rites and liturgy. The Pope IS the the Holy Roman Church and thus what she has decreed she can change. Yes, Pope Paul the IV never abrogated Quo Premum, however what he did do is greatly modified this universal Roman Tridentine rite while maintaining its essentials.The new mass was not revised, the new mass is new and per PPVI, a novelty, as PPVI said in one of his allocutions, the new mass was intended to replace the true mass. That was the intention behind it and the whole reason it was perpetrated - to get rid of the true mass. IOW, they wanted to completely erase the true mass, even from memory. Why? Because inherent in the true mass are doctrines that contradict the new religion of V2.
Sorry, with all due respect to his office, I have no time for Fr. Hesse. He is a man who cannot make distinctions as I have already shown and is sowing much confusion. Tell me, Pax, what is his background? Why did he leave the Vatican? Whose authority was he under? Did he practice as a priest? What do you really know about him?I thought like you at first, but you are not understanding what he says. I will say that once you do, you will find he is an excellent trad theological source. He woke up some time after he was ordained, left the conciliar religion and spoke vehemently against it the rest of his life, he died in the true faith. He was not an SSPX priest, but he helped and wholly supported them. He said he listened to and read everything +ABL ever wrote or said, he was definitely one of the good guys.
In short, find me a more trustworthy source of information.
So he says. Has his background been checked out? I'm getting very curious about this self proclaimed mystery man.Fr. Hesse is well known among most trads. Here is a bunch of his talks (https://archive.org/details/FatherHesse). There are a lot of his videos on youtube, some have been shortened or like the one below, edited for time.
Also, we know that there are a number of priests who have a doctorate in theology and canon law who support women priests etc. It makes a priest worthy of consideration to be sure, but a guarantee that they are right? No.
I trust Cardinal Ottaviani so I will re-read his analysis (its been a while since I studied all this stuff - its been good to revise). Quo Primum still stands - I agree with you - and I agree Pope Paul's revisions of THIS Mass "were a striking departure from the Catholic theology ...of Trent." Where we part ways is on the question of the Pope's authority - which you only recognise when it suits your argument.
Cardinal Ottaviani, a top theologian in the 60s, said —-
the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.
Paul6’s law didn’t not amend, change or revise QP. He could’ve but he didn’t. Therefore Quo Primum’s anathemas on new usages/liturgies still stands.
Trads have been arguing this for 40 years. Benedict finally confirmed it. QP is the law of the Latin Church. V2 rites are prohibited.
Fr. Hesse is well known among most trads.I see. What is his background then? What authority was he under? Did he practice as a priest?
I see. What is his background then? What authority was he under? Did he practice as a priest?See, you are of the mindset that the pope has limitless authority and can legitimately change on a whim whatever he wants just because he can, this is altogether wrong.
I appreciate all the trouble you have gone to - I sincerely do - but after listening to his first talk that you posted I question his motives. The reason being is that he twists the most basic theological understanding to suit his narrative. And yet he supposedly holds a doctorate in theology and canon law:
From my earlier post: "...from the very opening of his talk he made an error in relation to the matter being used in Catholic Sacraments. He talks about wine always being used in the Holy Eucharist, he mentions water always being used in Baptism, and then he talks about Olive Oil always being used as a Holy Oil. He then proceeds to state that when Pope Paul VI gave permission (1972) - in cases of necessity - for clergy to use another plant based oil if they couldn't get olive-oil, he was rendering those Sacraments invalid. This is incorrect on a number of levels. Christ instituted water for baptism, and Christ instituted wine for the Eucharist. However, it was the Church that instituted olive-oil for Holy oils. This makes a difference and I will come back to this shortly. Now. Fr. Hesse goes on to state that the Council of Trent doctrinal docuмent on the Sacraments in general, passes an anathema on any pastor of the churches - and he claims" this includes the Pope - who changes the rites of the sacraments. He then applies this to Pope Paul VI for the changes he made to the sacraments and the Mass.
First of all, that the Pope is subjected to this decree, is Fr. Hesse's erroneous assumption. Because this assumption is negated by the following: "...the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognise and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification." - Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei.
Pope Pius XII further supports this in Sacramentum Ordinis (4) "...that which the Church has established, she can also change and abrogate' meaning that what Christ has instituted she cannot change, but what the Church has instituted she can - such as making an exception, in a case of necessity, the type of Holy Oils used. Fr. Hesse failed to make this distinction from the beginning and ends up being led up the wrong path."
§ 1. The holy oils that are used in the administration of certain Sacraments must be blessed by the Bishop on the [Holy Thursday] immediately before; older [oils] shall not be used unless necessity urges.
§ 2. In case of an insufficient supply of blessed oil, the non-blessed oil of olives can be added, [and] even [added] again, though in an amount less than [was] the original.
The holy oils required in the administration of several of the Sacraments, must have been blessed by the bishop on the preceding Holy Thursday, nor are the old ones to be used except in case of necessity. When the holy oils are about to give out, other olive oil that has not been blessed may be added, even repeatedly, but always in smaller quantity than theAnyway, so that's why Fr. Hesse correctly said what he said.
holy oils. (Canon 734.)
780. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction must be administered by the sacred anointings with properly blessed olive oil and pronouncing the words prescribed in the rituals approved by the Church. (Canon 937.)
788. The olive oil to be used in Extreme Unction must be blessed for that purpose by a bishop, or by a priest who has the
faculty for this blessing from the Holy See. (Canon 945.)
Quo Primum's penalties do not extend to another Pope who is equal in rank and authority. The vicar of Christ holds the power to "bind and loosen".That’s the whole point. QP “bound” the Latin church to the Tridentine rite (and a few old variations).
You agree that PPVI never abrogated QP, which means QP is (was) still the law of the Roman Liturgy. Being that's the case, what PPVI did was against the law, making the new rite at least illegal, which is to say the new mass is at least illicit. This is indisputable - per QPI'm afraid I disagree. Pope Paul VI did not go against Quo Primum, because as Pope, he is not subject to this bull. Everyone else is, but he - by the power of his office - is not. Bulls are subject to the Pope's authority. You make a good point though about how this "new" Rite was viewed. I agree - it was so stripped back one cannot be blamed for doubting its validity - and certainly calling into question the intent of the spirit behind it. But no case for a positive doubt has been officially established yet - lots of varying opinions, theories, debates, sure - which means, on a practical level, we are to treat the Mass as valid according to the stipulations of the Church. It doesn't mean you have to go to it, but you cannot publicly declare it invalid or counsel other faithful to seriously doubt its validity.
That’s the whole point. QP “bound” the Latin church to the Tridentine rite (and a few old variations).I think our differences hinge on the understanding of the law as a whole: No Church law is an island; they work in conjunction with all the Church laws. In establishing a "new" Tridentine Mass rite to unify "the clans", Quo Primum established liturgical directives that are, in themselves, disciplinary and thereby subject to change by papal authority. That is a given. An automatic right.
Paul6 had the power to “loose” QP but he didn’t. Benedict confirmed he didn’t. Logically (and legally) if you don’t “loose” a law, then you (even the pope) are still “bound” to it.
According to your argument, a pope isn’t bound by another pope. This is true, but legal ACTIONS still matter. If the pope wants to change something, he still has to follow the law and issue a change. Otherwise, according to St Thomas, then the law isn’t valid.
A pope, in theory, could change any law. But…he can’t ignore laws which he doesn't like. He either has to follow the law or change it. If he doesn’t change it, then he has to follow it.
Your argument is that a pope can do whatever he wants, ignoring any and all laws, and not worrying about legal rules or docuмentation. This is utter chaos. You’re describing a dictator. That’s not how the Church works.
See, you are of the mindset that the pope has limitless authority and can legitimately change on a whim whatever he wants just because he can, this is altogether wrong.My point was that as the Church instituted the use of Olive Oil for Holy oils, the same Church has the authority to change that decree or make exception to that decree. It is not scripture based. Water for Baptism and Wine for the Eucharist IS scripture based. Therefore they cannot be changed for Christ Himself has set down what matter is to be used. However Christ left it up to His Church to decide the matter on the other Sacraments.
The reason Fr. Hesse says only olive oil, is because that is the only oil that the Church has ever used - until PPVI. Our Lord established the sacraments, not PPVI. In case of necessity, the blessed oil can be diluted with non-blessed olive oil. This is what the Church has always taught - until PPVI.
IOW, using olive oil is something no pope can change, anymore than PPVI can decide that it's ok to use milk for baptism.
1917 Canon Law 734:
From The Commentary on 1917 Canon Law:Anyway, so that's why Fr. Hesse correctly said what he said.
because as Pope, he is not subject to this bull. Everyone else is, but he - by the power of his office - is not.He is bound to follow ALL church laws, UNLESS he decides to change them. Yes, he is subject to QP. Your understanding is wrong. Law is law. A law is in force (for all Catholics) until it’s changed.
So again, Pope Paul Vi was within his legal right to modify the Tridentine Mass.But the new mass is NOT Tridentine. And never claimed to be. Ottaviani said it was anti-Trent. The new mass is a new rite, unrelated to history, unrelated to Trent, u related to Apostolic tradition. No one has ever claimed it was Tridentine. That’s ridiculous.
I'm afraid I disagree. Pope Paul VI did not go against Quo Primum, because as Pope, he is not subject to this bull. Everyone else is, but he - by the power of his office - is not. Bulls are subject to the Pope's authority. You make a good point though about how this "new" Rite was viewed. I agree - it was so stripped back one cannot be blamed for doubting its validity - and certainly calling into question the intent of the spirit behind it. But no case for a positive doubt has been officially established yet - lots of varying opinions, theories, debates, sure - which means, on a practical level, we are to treat the Mass as valid according to the stipulations of the Church. It doesn't mean you have to go to it, but you cannot publicly declare it invalid or counsel other faithful to seriously doubt its validity.Well, I cannot, do not and will not bind anyone to what I believe is totally obvious, namely, that the new mass was purposely perpetrated against the law and as an integral part of a new religion which, like Satan himself, certainly apes the true mass and Catholic religion, making the NO mass sacrilegious for all who go to it. Again, this is what I believe, this is my opinion.
However Christ left it up to His Church to decide the matter on the other Sacraments.Wrong. You’ve yet to provide proof for this Protestant claim. You keep citing Scripture but ignoring Tradition.
My point was that as the Church instituted the use of Olive Oil for Holy oils, the same Church has the authority to change that decree or make exception to that decree. It is not scripture based. Water for Baptism and Wine for the Eucharist IS scripture based. Therefore they cannot be changed for Christ Himself has set down what matter is to be used. However Christ left it up to His Church to decide the matter on the other Sacraments.Our Lord instituted Olive Oil when He instituted the sacrament. There was no Crisco or Wesson Oil back then and the pope does not have the authority to change it for no other reason than for the sake of changing it. By your reasoning, the pope could have done away with oil altogether, or made it crude oil for that matter - because after all he's the pope. Which is of course absurd.
There is a clear distinction to be made here and Fr. Hesse fails to make it and now you have failed to make it because of him.
Wrong. You’ve yet to provide proof for this Protestant claim. You keep citing Scripture but ignoring Tradition.Show me in Scripture where Christ instituted olive oil. It is a Church decision. All Matter and Form, outside of the Holy Eucharist and Baptism, is instituted by the Church. As such, the Church can use her common sense and "loosen" an Apostolic Matter when a case of necessity arises.
Christ created ALL 7 sacraments, which means He gave the Apostles the matter/form for ALL of them. Just because it’s not in scripture doesn’t mean anything. Catholics believe in Apostolic Tradition.
My point was that as the Church instituted the use of Olive Oil for Holy oils, the same Church has the authority to change that decree or make exception to that decree. It is not scripture based. Water for Baptism and Wine for the Eucharist IS scripture based. Therefore they cannot be changed for Christ Himself has set down what matter is to be used. However Christ left it up to His Church to decide the matter on the other Sacraments.This smacks of Protestatnism. If Olive Oil is part of oral tradition, then who cares if it has Scriptural support or not. Oral tradition has just as much authority as written tradition in the Church. When the priest comingles water with wine at Mass, we see nothing about this in Scripture, at least as far as I remember. Yet it is a long-known tradition in the Mass. And the question must be asked, "How do you know that Christ did not institute olive oil as necessary matter?" And besides, if by the time of the death of St. John, circa 100, olive oil was the universal custom, then it is Christ who institutes the custom, because the Depositum Fidei closed with the death of St. John.
There is a clear distinction to be made here and Fr. Hesse fails to make it and now you have failed to make it because of him.
This smacks of Protestatnism. If Olive Oil is part of oral tradition, then who cares if it has Scriptural support or not. Oral tradition has just as much authority as written tradition ... And the question must be asked, "How do you know that Christ did not institute olive oil as necessary matter?" And besides, if by the time of the death of St. John, circa 100, olive oil was the universal custom, then it is Christ who institutes the custom, because the Depositum Fidei closed with the death of St. John.
Our Lord instituted Olive Oil when He instituted the sacrament. There was no Crisco or Wesson Oil back then and the pope does not have the authority to change it for no other reason than for the sake of changing it. By your reasoning, the pope could have done away with oil altogether, or made it crude oil for that matter - because after all he's the pope. Which is of course absurd.You do an injustice to the Pope. He made an exception in a case of necessity. Perfectly allowable. And within his authority. And yet it has been blown up as if he had blown the Church up. To my mind, this very example amplifies the Sede-vacantist position. Super reactive and fear based. You look for any change at all and then, recoil in horror, crying 'Heretic, heretic!' You do not consider the teachings of the Church as a whole, but rely on a mysterious free-range priest (Hesse) and a former Jєωιѕн Hindu (Coomaraswamy) to scare you into renouncing your allegiance to the Pope. Certainly these two men seem to be a major early source for all these Sede beliefs and I intend to do a lot more research into their background.
Sorry I haven't read the whole thread. But olive oil is very , extremely rich in its uses and more so in symbolism. Even the olive branch carried by the dove to Noah is HUGE... It meant the reconciliation between God's heaven and mankind. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10, 29 - 30, Jesus mentions olive oil to heal the wounded man. Our Lord's agony in the Garden of Olives.Absolutely correct. This is why Olive Oil was chosen by the Church. But the Pope still has the authority to make an exemption in cases of necessity. Anything liturgical is within his domain. It's allowed. Not because the Modernists say so but because traditional Popes say so. Regarding Our Lady's Assumption, yes, Pope Pius XII defined it as a dogma in 1950. The Church made that decision because the Church was given the power to.
...5 foolish virgins ran out of oil for their lamps...they couldn't meet the bridegroom(they were refused Paradise)
The list goes on and on...
Don't trust the Modernists in Rome...their spirit is against Tradition, Truth - they are Taunters.
***
AI.
No, Jesus did not specifically “command” olive oil in the sense of a direct command. However, olive oil is mentioned in several contexts in the Gospels and has important symbolic meaning, particularly in passages where it is used for anointing.
+++++++++
Plus, The Assumption of Our Lady isn't in the Holy Bible, now a dogma.
I think it is a lack of understanding on all our parts. I read through Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio and it states this:
"Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/index.htm) is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/index.htm) is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite."
This would make for an interesting discussion: Are they two different rites or merely different versions of the same rite?
Pius V codified the Roman Tridentine rite in order to unify all the different types of rites being used around the world. He said in Quo Primum it was the Mass for all time and could never be abrogated:"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches..."
Ok. Pope Pius V, as Vicar of Christ ,is speaking for the Church saying the Missal codified by the Church (Vatican) is the one that the rest of the world must now use with the exception of rites older than 200 years and other dispensations.
This was because, since the reformation, all sorts of odd liturgies were being used and introduced. In 1962 this same said Rite was revised by Pope John XXIII, and then in 1970, it was greatly revised by Pope Paul VI. Now, as we have established, a Pope has the power and authority to modify rites and liturgy. The Pope IS the the Holy Roman Church and thus what she has decreed she can change. Yes, Pope Paul the IV never abrogated Quo Premum, however what he did do is greatly modified this universal Roman Tridentine rite while maintaining its essentials.
Was it a good idea? NO! It was a terrible idea and proved a great danger to the faith. Was it heresy? No.
But wait, Quo Primum states: "We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure."
Yes, no one else can change it BUT what the Holy Roman Church has decreed, she - and she alone - can change. Each Pope is one and the same authority: St. Peter.
Sorry, with all due respect to his office, I have no time for Fr. Hesse. He is a man who cannot make distinctions as I have already shown and is sowing much confusion. Tell me, Pax, what is his background? Why did he leave the Vatican? Whose authority was he under? Did he practice as a priest? What do you really know about him?
In short, find me a more trustworthy source of information.
50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised...
58. A new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and inserted into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal.
The recent Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council, in promulgating the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, established the basis for the general revision of the Roman Missal: in declaring "both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify";(4) in ordering that "the rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished";(5) in prescribing that "the treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's Word";(6) in ordering, finally, that "a new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and incorporated into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal."(7)
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.
Absolutely correct. This is why Olive Oil was chosen by the Church. But the Pope still has the authority to make an exemption in cases of necessity. Anything liturgical is within his domain. It's allowed. Not because the Modernists say so but because traditional Popes say so. Regarding Our Lady's Assumption, yes, Pope Pius XII defined it as a dogma in 1950. The Church made that decision because the Church was given the power to.You keep saying this yet you have provided zero (0) docuмentation that it was the Church who chose olive oil to be the essential matter for sacraments which require it.
CANON I.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema
Trent, Session VII, On The Sacraments In General
All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected
Council of Florence
Trent is clear: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, let him be anathema” (Sess. VII, Canon 1; Denz. 844). And Pius XII said the same in Sacramentum Ordinis: “The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments” (para. 5).
Show me in Scripture where Christ instituted olive oil. It is a Church decision. All Matter and Form, outside of the Holy Eucharist and Baptism, is instituted by the Church. As such, the Church can use her common sense and "loosen" an Apostolic Matter when a case of necessity arises.
Of course, there are limits to Church authority: the Catholic Church cannot and will not change (1)universal natural moral laws and (2) positive divine commands. Eg. only a validly ordained priest can confer the sacrament of the Eucharist. Outside of this, Ecclesiastical laws and rules can be changed, and the Pope has the authority to change them. The Pope's authority is derived from Christ, and he serves a higher power.
Once again: Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis (4) "...that which the Church has established, she can change and abrogate". How is that Protestant?
Absolutely correct. This is why Olive Oil was chosen by the Church. But the Pope still has the authority to make an exemption in cases of necessity. Anything liturgical is within his domain. It's allowed. Not because the Modernists say so but because traditional Popes say so. Regarding Our Lady's Assumption, yes, Pope Pius XII defined it as a dogma in 1950. The Church made that decision because the Church was given the power to.Olive oil is traditional sacramental matter, but the Pope cannot change the substance of a sacrament. Trent anathematizes anyone who alters the received and approved rites (Sess. VII, Canon 13; Denz. 856). Dogmatic definitions like the Assumption are a separate exercise of infallible teaching and do not grant authority to alter sacramental substance.
Quote from: Boru (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg996045#msg996045) 2025-08-16, 11:34:58 AMTrent anathematizes anyone who changes the received and approved rites (Sess. VII, Canon 13; Denz. 856), yet the Novus Ordo altered essential prayers and stripped or modified the Eucharistic prayers, obscuring the sacrificial nature of the Mass. +Archbishop Lefebvre warned that these changes can prevent the priest from properly intending to offer the true Sacrifice of Calvary, creating positive doubt. Even if matter, form, and intention are technically present, the rite is illicit, departs from Tridentine sacramental theology, and gives faithful Catholics every reason to question its validity while presuming it only canonically.
I'm afraid I disagree. Pope Paul VI did not go against Quo Primum, because as Pope, he is not subject to this bull. Everyone else is, but he - by the power of his office - is not. Bulls are subject to the Pope's authority. You make a good point though about how this "new" Rite was viewed. I agree - it was so stripped back one cannot be blamed for doubting its validity - and certainly calling into question the intent of the spirit behind it. But no case for a positive doubt has been officially established yet - lots of varying opinions, theories, debates, sure - which means, on a practical level, we are to treat the Mass as valid according to the stipulations of the Church. It doesn't mean you have to go to it, but you cannot publicly declare it invalid or counsel other faithful to seriously doubt its validity.
Show me in Scripture where Christ instituted olive oil. It is a Church decision. All Matter and Form, outside of the Holy Eucharist and Baptism, is instituted by the Church. As such, the Church can use her common sense and "loosen" an Apostolic Matter when a case of necessity arises.In this day and age how could a Bishop cry necessity pertaining to olive oil? It's available world wide. Maybe in the middle ages for England or Japan it was hard to get, but not now.
Once again: Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis (4) "...that which the Church has established, she can change and abrogate". How is that Protestant?
Show me in Scripture where Christ instituted olive oil. It is a Church decision. All Matter and Form, outside of the Holy Eucharist and Baptism, is instituted by the Church. As such, the Church can use her common sense and "loosen" an Apostolic Matter when a case of necessity arises.Missed this. Applying the texts I posted from Trent and Florence to what you are saying here, you believe something contrary to what the Church teaches. Being that there is essential matter and form for all sacraments, and that Our Lord instituted all sacraments, Our Lord defined the essential matter and form for all sacraments.
Trent is clear: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, let him be anathema” (Sess. VII, Canon 1; Denz. 844). And Pius XII said the same in Sacramentum Ordinis: “The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments” (para. 5).You have taken both of these out of context. No one is saying that Christ did not not institute the sacraments. What we are talking about is the liturgical rite that confers them. Only the Form and Matter of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist were stated clearly by Christ what they were to be. The Form and the Matter of the other five sacraments were left to the Church to decide. With regards to what Pope Pius XII stated, you left out the rest of the sentence that qualifies it (most naughty of you): "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." In other words Baptism and Holy Eucharist. Their form and matter are the only two that Christ set down in Scripture.
In this day and age how could a Bishop cry necessity pertaining to olive oil? It's available world wide. Maybe in the middle ages for England or Japan it was hard to get, but not now.Apostles = Church.
For the more learned here, could you tell me in which ancient docuмent the Church instituted or established the use of olive oil? To institute or establish means to start something. The Church never started using olive oil, she just continued/confirmed to use what the Apostles used. She accepted that which was handed down to her.
Missed this. Applying the texts I posted from Trent and Florence to what you are saying here, you believe something contrary to what the Church teaches. Being that there is essential matter and form for all sacraments, and that Our Lord instituted all sacraments, Our Lord defined the essential matter and form for all sacraments.Wrong. Only Baptism and Holy Eucharist.
Quote from: Boru (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg996093#msg996093) 2025-08-16, 5:20:02 PMTrent makes it clear that all seven sacraments were instituted by Christ and anathematizes anyone who claims otherwise (Sess. VII, Canons 1, 13; Denz. 844, 856). +Pius XII confirms in Sacramentum Ordinis that the Church can regulate discipline or rubrics but has no power over sacramental substance. The matter and form of every sacrament are divinely fixed and cannot be altered. Claims that only Baptism and the Eucharist matter or that the Church can freely decide the form and matter of the other sacraments misunderstand both Trent and Pius XII and collapse under the weight of Catholic teaching.
You have taken both of these out of context. No one is saying that Christ did not not institute the sacraments. What we are talking about is the liturgical rite that confers them. Only the Form and Matter of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist were stated clearly by Christ what they were to be. The Form and the Matter of the other five sacraments were left to the Church to decide. With regards to what Pope Pius XII stated, you left out the rest of the sentence that qualifies it (most naughty of you): "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." In other words Baptism and Holy Eucharist. Their form and matter are the only two that Christ set down in Scripture.
Wrong. You’ve yet to provide proof for this Protestant claim. You keep citing Scripture but ignoring Tradition.Apostolic tradition = Church.
Christ created ALL 7 sacraments, which means He gave the Apostles the matter/form for ALL of them. Just because it’s not in scripture doesn’t mean anything. Catholics believe in Apostolic Tradition.
Wrong. Only Baptism and Holy Eucharist.In case you missed it:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema
Trent, Session VII, On The Sacraments In Genera
All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected
Council of Florence
This smacks of Protestatnism. If Olive Oil is part of oral tradition, then who cares if it has Scriptural support or not. Oral tradition has just as much authority as written tradition in the Church. When the priest comingles water with wine at Mass, we see nothing about this in Scripture, at least as far as I remember. Yet it is a long-known tradition in the Mass. And the question must be asked, "How do you know that Christ did not institute olive oil as necessary matter?" And besides, if by the time of the death of St. John, circa 100, olive oil was the universal custom, then it is Christ who institutes the custom, because the Depositum Fidei closed with the death of St. John.The point is that it was not set down in Scripture by Christ - which means - it is the Church's domain. It most likely is based on its traditional value, but it was the Church that decided it would be the oil used for Holy oils. And as the Church decreed this as the universal matter, the Church can made exceptions in its use when necessary. This is lawful. That's the point.
Apostolic tradition = Church.So then the church can change anything the apostles did?
Quote from: WorldsAway (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg996098#msg996098) 2025-08-16, 5:29:28 PMBoru has placed themselves in a serious position because the Church clearly teaches that Christ instituted all seven sacraments with defined matter, form, and ministerial intention. To deny this is to contradict Trent, +Pius XII, and the Council of Florence; assent to this teaching is required.
In case you missed it:
Christ instituted all seven Sacraments.
A sacrament consists of three essential elements: matter, form, and intention.
A sacrament is not a sacrament if it is lacking essential form and matter. So, as Christ instituted all seven Sacraments, He defined essential matter and form for all seven. Because, again, if you say Christ did not define the matter and form, then He did not institute all seven Sacraments. To deny that He did is contrary to Church teaching
You have taken both of these out of context. No one is saying that Christ did not not institute the sacraments. What we are talking about is the liturgical rite that confers them. Only the Form and Matter of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist were stated clearly by Christ what they were to be. The Form and the Matter of the other five sacraments were left to the Church to decide. With regards to what Pope Pius XII stated, you left out the rest of the sentence that qualifies it (most naughty of you): "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." In other words Baptism and Holy Eucharist. Their form and matter are the only two that Christ set down in Scripture.Strike two for "smacks of protestantism". :facepalm: Sacred Tradition, besides Scripture, is also one of the "sources of divine revelation"
In case you missed it:Sigh. Christ defined essential Matter and Form for all seven sacraments? Go for it - prove this to me scripturally.
Christ instituted all seven Sacraments.
A sacrament consists of three essential elements: matter, form, and intention.
A sacrament is not a sacrament if it is lacking essential form and matter. So, as Christ instituted all seven Sacraments, He defined essential matter and form for all seven. Because, again, if you say Christ did not define the matter and form, then He did not institute all seven Sacraments. To deny that He did is contrary to Church teaching
Sigh. Christ defined essential Matter and Form for all seven sacraments? Go for it - prove this to me scripturally.Strike three for "smacks of protestantism". I already proved it using teachings from Church Councils
Boru has placed themselves in a serious position because the Church clearly teaches that Christ instituted all seven sacraments with defined matter, form, and ministerial intention. To deny this is to contradict Trent, +Pius XII, and the Council of Florence; assent to this teaching is required.So you say. Bring on the evidence :) Educate me :)
Strike three for "smacks of protestantism". I already proved it using teachings from Church CouncilsReally? - oh dear, I must be getting forgetful in my not so old age. Lay it out clearly.
Quote from: Boru (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg996103#msg996103) 2025-08-16, 5:37:08 PMQuote from: Boru (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg996103#msg996103)Quote from: Boru (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg996103#msg996103)Christ instituted all seven sacraments, but with a key distinction. Baptism and the Eucharist were instituted directly by Christ on earth, with matter and form explicitly given in Scripture. The other five, Confirmation, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony, were instituted by Christ through His Church, His Mystical Body, with their matter, form, and ministerial intention divinely preserved. Trent, Session VII, Canons 1 and 13, Denz. 844, 856, anathematizes anyone who denies that Christ instituted all seven, and +Pius XII confirms in Sacramentum Ordinis, para. 5, that the Church cannot alter sacramental substance. All seven sacraments are divinely fixed, binding, and valid. Scripture explicitly attests two, and the Church safeguards the others under Christ’s authority.
Sigh. Christ defined essential Matter and Form for all seven sacraments? Go for it - prove this to me scripturally.
Really? - oh dear, I must be getting forgetful in my not so old age. Lay it out clearly.
CANON I.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema
Trent, Session VII, On The Sacraments In General
All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected
Council of Florence
Christ instituted all seven sacraments.No silly, we are talking about the type of Matter and Form you claim Christ instituted for the other five sacraments. May I have them and your source of reference.
Sacraments are comprised of three essential elements: matter, form, intention
In instituting the sacraments, Christ defined the matter and form, because they are essential parts of the sacraments. The sacraments do not exist without essential matter and form.
If Christ did not define the essential matter and form for all seven sacraments, then all seven Sacraments were not instituted by Christ. However, we know that they were, therefore He defined the essential matter and form for all seven Sacraments :facepalm:
Show me in Scripture where Christ instituted olive oil. It is a Church decision. All Matter and Form, outside of the Holy Eucharist and Baptism, is instituted by the Church. As such, the Church can use her common sense and "loosen" an Apostolic Matter when a case of necessity arises.Let's break this down, simply.
Of course, there are limits to Church authority: the Catholic Church cannot and will not change (1)universal natural moral laws and (2) positive divine commands. Eg. only a validly ordained priest can confer the sacrament of the Eucharist. Outside of this, Ecclesiastical laws and rules can be changed, and the Pope has the authority to change them. The Pope's authority is derived from Christ, and he serves a higher power.
Once again: Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis (4) "...that which the Church has established, she can change and abrogate". How is that Protestant?
Apostles = Church.:facepalm: No. Apostolic Tradition = what the Apostles learned from Christ, as priests, for the 40 days post Resurrection to the Ascension. As St John says in Scripture, the world could not contain all the books that it would take to write down all that Christ said and did.
The point is that it was not set down in Scripture by Christ - which means - it is the Church's domain.Where in the world did you get this idea? Scripture is only part of the Faith. The other part is Apostolic Tradition, which is ORAL TEACHINGS FROM CHRIST, TO THE APOSTLES.
Sigh. Christ defined essential Matter and Form for all seven sacraments? Go for it - prove this to me scripturally.:facepalm: The Catholic Faith is not based on Scripture alone.
:facepalm: The Catholic Faith is not based on Scripture alone.Pax, we are talking about the Form and Matter Christ specifically laid down for the Sacraments. It is only found in scripture. If you know of another source, present it.
Pax, we are talking about the Form and Matter Christ specifically laid down for the Sacraments. It is only found in scripture. If you know of another source, present it.Apostolic Tradition!! Which is FROM CHRIST, through the Apostles. But NOT FROM THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES.
No silly, we are talking about the type of Matter and Form you claim Christ instituted for the other five sacraments. May I have them and your source of reference.
Christ instituted all seven sacraments, but with a key distinction. Baptism and the Eucharist were instituted directly by Christ on earth, with matter and form explicitly given in Scripture. The other five, Confirmation, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony, were instituted by Christ through His Church, His Mystical Body, with their matter, form, and ministerial intention divinely preserved. Trent, Session VII, Canons 1 and 13, Denz. 844, 856, anathematizes anyone who denies that Christ instituted all seven, and +Pius XII confirms in Sacramentum Ordinis, para. 5, that the Church cannot alter sacramental substance. All seven sacraments are divinely fixed, binding, and valid. Scripture explicitly attests two, and the Church safeguards the others under Christ’s authority.At last, yay! No one is denying that Christ instituted the Sacraments so no fear of being anathematized, and yes, the Church cannot altar the substance as laid down in scripture. All seven Sacraments are divinely fixed - thumbs up - and again, yes, Scripture explicitly attests two, and the Church safegaurds the others. Another thumbs up. My question to you: Who decided the Form and Matter of these other five?
At last, yay! No one is denying that Christ instituted the Sacraments so no fear of being anathematized, and yes, the Church cannot altar the substance as laid down in scripture. All seven Sacraments are divinely fixed - thumbs up - and again, yes, Scripture explicitly attests two, and the Church safegaurds the others. Another thumbs up. My question to you: Who decided the Form and Matter of these other five?Wrong. The Church cannot alter either scripture...or...sacred/apostolic Tradition. Both Scripture/Tradition are DIVINE.
No silly, we are talking about the type of Matter and Form you claim Christ instituted for the other five sacraments. May I have them and your source of reference.What do you mean by "type"? The matter is the matter and the form is the form for each sacrament. These are essential to the sacraments, as taught by Florence. Meaning the sacrament does not exist without them. Christ instituted all of the sacraments, as taught by Trent. Therefore, Christ defined the matter and form for each sacrament, as there is no sacrament without matter and form. When Christ instituted the sacraments requiring holy oils as matter, He defined what oil to be used..because that is essential to the sacrament.
Quote from: Boru (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg996119#msg996119)Christ willed that His Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, would establish and safeguard the matter and form of Confirmation, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. Scripture does not give the precise matter and form of these sacraments, but the Church, acting under Christ’s authority, ensures they are divinely fixed, valid, and binding. Trent, Session VII, Canons 1 and 13, Denz. 844, 856, affirms that Christ instituted all seven sacraments. +Pius XII confirms in Sacramentum Ordinis, para. 5, that the Church cannot alter sacramental substance. Christ commanded that the Church preserve these sacraments exactly as He intended, even where Scripture does not specify the precise matter and form, guaranteeing the faithful that all seven sacraments are instituted, divinely safeguarded, and eternally efficacious.
At last, yay! No one is denying that Christ instituted the Sacraments so no fear of being anathematized, and yes, the Church cannot altar the substance as laid down in scripture. All seven Sacraments are divinely fixed - thumbs up - and again, yes, Scripture explicitly attests two, and the Church safegaurds the others. Another thumbs up. My question to you: Who decided the Form and Matter of these other five?
You are unable to provide any evidence that the Church either, A) decided one day to use exclusively Olive oil, or B) ever used any oil other than olive oil. This is because the Church has always taught that olive oil is required for holy oils.Correct. Olive oil goes back to the Old Testament rituals. The Apostles and Christ, as Jews, would’ve continued to use the same olive oil as the Israelite religion.
You do an injustice to the Pope. He made an exception in a case of necessity. Perfectly allowable. And within his authority. And yet it has been blown up as if he had blown the Church up. To my mind, this very example amplifies the Sede-vacantist position. Super reactive and fear based. You look for any change at all and then, recoil in horror, crying 'Heretic, heretic!' You do not consider the teachings of the Church as a whole, but rely on a mysterious free-range priest (Hesse) and a former Jєωιѕн Hindu (Coomaraswamy) to scare you into renouncing your allegiance to the Pope. Certainly these two men seem to be a major early source for all these Sede beliefs and I intend to do a lot more research into their background.Well, he is only a mysterious priest to you, a priest that you would do good familiarize yourself with.
I think the main argument should be whether Pope Paul IV went too far in his modifications, whether these modifications destroyed the validity of the rites or not, and was it Pope Paul's intent to do this.
Quote from: Stubborn (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg996169#msg996169) 2025-08-17, 9:55:19 AMWe must pray for Boru. She is getting close, but like many of us once were, she stands at the crossroads. If she does not decide, as St. Jerome warns, one wakes up one day and finds oneself Arian. In the same way, Boru will one day find herself conciliar or sedevacantist if she does not abandon the now Neo-SSPX and stand with the true resistance. And what is this resistance? It is nothing new, nothing extreme. It is simply the position of the Society before 2012, the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, the position of eternal Rome, the position Christ gave to Peter and handed down without compromise.
Well, he is only a mysterious priest to you, a priest that you would do good familiarize yourself with.
You are still in the same mindset as NOers - who went NO because the pope said so, or on the other end, sedes, who dethrone him believing that popes cannot do such a thing.
The pope can no more change the matter of the sacrament - even in an emergency - than he can change the sabbath day, which btw was already changed by a previous pope to Sunday from Saturday.
You need to remove from your mind this false idea of extending the popes' authority to be without limit because it is wrong and does no one any good.
The pope's duty as this world's representative of Christ, is to preserve what has been handed down, even if that means dying a martyr's death to preserve it, not change for no reason that which has been handed down. Canon law says in an emergency, either olive oil may be diluted with unblessed olive oil, or unblessed olive oil may be used - that is what the Church already decided for emergency situations. No pope can change the matter of the sacraments, he does not possess that authority.
Correct. Olive oil goes back to the Old Testament rituals. The Apostles and Christ, as Jews, would’ve continued to use the same olive oil as the Israelite religion.https://ofonetree.com/the-life-and-legacy-of-pope-gregory-xv/
The Garden of Eden and Liturgical/Symbolic Connections
- Biblical Symbolism: In the Bible and Catholic tradition, the olive tree is deeply symbolic, representing God's covenant and unity with humanity. There's a tradition holding that the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden might have been an olive tree. The Garden itself is sometimes seen as a foreshadowing of the Temple and liturgy, representing a place where the earthly and divine realms meet and where humanity can reconnect with God.
- The Garden of Gethsemane: This significant biblical location is an olive grove where Jesus prayed before his crucifixion. The Franciscans continue to cultivate and harvest olives there, with the oil being blessed and used in the ..."
We must pray for Boru. She is getting close, but like many of us once were, she stands at the crossroads. If she does not decide, as St. Jerome warns, one wakes up one day and finds oneself Arian. In the same way, Boru will one day find herself conciliar or sedevacantist if she does not abandon the now Neo-SSPX and stand with the true resistance. And what is this resistance? It is nothing new, nothing extreme. It is simply the position of the Society before 2012, the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, the position of eternal Rome, the position Christ gave to Peter and handed down without compromise.I think she simply believes that the reason for the supreme authority of popes is so that they may change whatever they want at any time and for any or no reason at all. She cannot grasp that's exactly contrary to the actual reason God gave them the authority they have.
What do you mean by "type"? The matter is the matter and the form is the form for each sacrament. These are essential to the sacraments, as taught by Florence. Meaning the sacrament does not exist without them. Christ instituted all of the sacraments, as taught by Trent. Therefore, Christ defined the matter and form for each sacrament, as there is no sacrament without matter and form. When Christ instituted the sacraments requiring holy oils as matter, He defined what oil to be used..because that is essential to the sacrament.Christ instituted the seven Sacraments. Agreed. Now you state "Christ defined the matter and form for each sacrament." So, what I'm asking is, if CHRIST defined the Matter and Form of all the sacraments, may I have the scriptural references to all these Matter and Forms. Don't worry about Baptism or Holy Eucharist because I already know these; just the other five.
There is no simpler way to put this. What do you not understand?
You are unable to provide any evidence that the Church either, A) decided one day to use exclusively Olive oil, or B) ever used any oil other than olive oil. This is because the Church has always taught that olive oil is required for holy oils. That is called Tradition. That is Divine Revelation. This is because the sacraments were divinely instituted by Christ, and not the Church, and the Church has always upheld what Christ taught and established
Christ instituted the seven Sacraments. Agreed. Now you state "Christ defined the matter and form for each sacrament." So, what I'm asking is, if CHRIST defined the Matter and Form of all the sacraments, may I have the scriptural references to all these Matter and Forms. Don't worry about Baptism or Holy Eucharist because I already know these; just the other five.This is very, very simple. I have already posted what Trent and Florence taught several times. Christ instituted all seven Sacraments, and the sacraments consist of three essential elements: form, matter, intention.
Christ instituted the seven Sacraments. Agreed. Now you state "Christ defined the matter and form for each sacrament." So, what I'm asking is, if CHRIST defined the Matter and Form of all the sacraments, may I have the scriptural references to all these Matter and Forms. Don't worry about Baptism or Holy Eucharist because I already know these; just the other five.
With regards to Olive Oil: There is no doubt that the Church always used olive oil for Holy oils and has decreed that this is the oil to be used in Sacraments. Pope Paul VI states this to be so himself. So this is not the argument;
Pope Paul VI did not discard Olive Oil. Nor did he teach that another oil could be willy-nilly used instead.
The debate arises because Pope Paul inserted an exception to the rule that if Olive Oil cannot be found, a another plant-based oil could be used in the case of necessity.
Yet, without clarifying that this was an exception to the rule, Fr. Hesse implied that Pope Paul changed the use of olive Oil to vegetable oil - which is outrageously misleading if not a bold faced lie - and that this change of oils rendered the sacrament invalid.
Pope Paul VI (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6anoin.htm)
"Further, since olive oil, which hitherto had been prescribed for the valid administration of the sacrament, is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world, we decreed, at the request of numerous bishops, that in the future, according to the circuмstances, oil of another sort could also be used, provided it were obtained from plants, inasmuch as this more closely resembles the matter indicated in Holy Scripture...."
Christ instituted the seven Sacraments. Agreed. Now you state "Christ defined the matter and form for each sacrament." So, what I'm asking is, if CHRIST defined the Matter and Form of all the sacraments, may I have the scriptural references to all these Matter and Forms. Don't worry about Baptism or Holy Eucharist because I already know these; just the other five.CONDEMNED ---
Fr. Hesse’s teaching on the holy oils and the sacraments is fully consistent with the Church’s perennial doctrine. Olive oil is the proper matter for Extreme Unction, Confirmation, and Baptism, and the Church alone determines the instruments and words through which the sacraments are validly conferred. Any allowance for another plant-based oil in cases of necessity does not in any way invalidate the sacrament, because, as +Pius XII teaches in Sacramentum Ordinis (SO 42), the Church has the divine authority to dispense from instruments she herself has established without altering the substance instituted by Christ. Scripture provides the template—James 5:14-15 for Extreme Unction—but does not fix every detail of Matter and Form; it is the Church, guided by Tradition and the Holy Ghost, that defines these elements precisely. Fr. Hesse’s statements highlight this truth faithfully: he upholds the Church’s authority, preserves sacramental integrity, and clarifies the proper understanding of the oils without asserting any doctrinal error. Any claim that he misled or erred is entirely unfounded. The sacraments remain fully valid, the Church’s authority is absolute, and fidelity to Christ’s institution is perfectly maintained.
Here is the pertinent decree:"Further, since olive oil, which hitherto had been prescribed for the valid administration of the sacrament, is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world, we decreed, at the request of numerous bishops, that in the future, according to the circuмstances, oil of another sort could also be used, provided it were obtained from plants, inasmuch as this more closely resembles the matter indicated in Holy Scripture...."Read over what Pope Paul says again. He makes it clear that olive oil is the prescribed oil of the Church as "indicated in Holy Scripture". He makes it clear that the circuмstances pertaining to the use of another plant-based oil (that closely resembles olive oil) are only where olive oil "is unattainable or difficult to obtain". In other words, cases of necessity. As olive oil (as holy oils) was the precise Matter instituted by the Church, the Church has the power and authority to make such exceptions. Fr. Hesse, in claiming that such exceptions render a Sacrament invalid, has committed a grave error.
(https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6anoin.htm)
Fr. Hesse is speaking truth. In keeping with the ambiguity of all things V2, the pope said; "according to the circuмstances," which literally means anything anyone wants it to mean, including "use whatever plant based oil you want." In doing so, he breaks from Scripture and tradition because he decides it's good as long as it only resembles the oil used in Scripture, much the same as the new mass only resembles the True Mass.
Consider one reason for this change from using only blessed olive oil is that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction itself was changed, actually it was altogether replaced with the sacrament of "Anointing of the Sick," which is something else he could not do - but did anyway. So with the new sacrament comes new oil.
Think about it.
Fr. Hesse’s teaching on the holy oils and the sacraments is fully consistent with the Church’s perennial doctrine. Olive oil is the proper matter for Extreme Unction, Confirmation, and Baptism, and the Church alone determines the instruments and words through which the sacraments are validly conferred. Any allowance for another plant-based oil in cases of necessity does not in any way invalidate the sacrament, because, as +Pius XII teaches in Sacramentum Ordinis (SO 42), the Church has the divine authority to dispense from instruments she herself has established without altering the substance instituted by Christ.:facepalm: But that's the main question....is olive oil a substantial part of these sacraments? Based on it's spiritual significance, it's use in the Jєωιѕн law and it's use in Scripture, then I'd say "yes" there is a clear and consistent use of olive oil and this came from DIVINE ORDER (going back to Adam/Eden). It was not a rule the Church created. Therefore, the Church is not free to change it.
As olive oil (as holy oils) was the precise Matter instituted by the ChurchThere are no facts to support this claim. Olive oil, as a holy oil, was used as far back as Adam to bless things. The olive branch with the dove, to Noah. King David was annointed with olive oil. The Jєωιѕн religion only used olive oil. The Church did not invent this.
I'm afraid I disagree. Pope Paul VI did not go against Quo Primum, because as Pope, he is not subject to this bull. Everyone else is, but he - by the power of his office - is not. Bulls are subject to the Pope's authority.Is the pope subject to canon law?
:facepalm: But that's the main question....is olive oil a substantial part of these sacraments? Based on it's spiritual significance, it's use in the Jєωιѕн law and it's use in Scripture, then I'd say "yes" there is a clear and consistent use of olive oil and this came from DIVINE ORDER (going back to Adam/Eden). It was not a rule the Church created. Therefore, the Church is not free to change it.Olive oil is native to the Holy Land. As it is native it became the traditional oil to use within the Old Testament Church. It was the Church that elevated this traditional oil to effect a Sacrament in conjunction with the Form. Yes, olive oil was used down through the centuries, however it was never used as a Matter. It was the Church - the Vicar of Christ - who decreed this.
Olive oil is native to the Holy Land. As it is native it became the traditional oil to use within the Old Testament Church. It was the Church that elevated this traditional oil to effect a Sacrament in conjunction with the Form. Yes, olive oil was used down through the centuries, however it was never used as a Matter. It was the Church - the Vicar of Christ - who decreed this.Ok, then post the decree.
Is the pope subject to canon law?Yes, the Pope is subject to Canon Law. However, as the supreme authority, he has the power to interpret and modify Canon Law as he sees fit.
Yes, the Pope is subject to Canon Law. However, as the supreme authority, he has the power to interpret and modify Canon Law as he sees fit.So a pope doesn't have to modify Quo Primum (he can just ignore it and act like it doesn't exist), but he does have to modify Canon Law?
Quote from: Pax Vobis (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg996276#msg996276) 2025-08-18, 7:23:26 AMOlive oil is the proper and ordinary matter, established by apostolic and ecclesiastical authority, but it does not belong to the unchangeable substance instituted by Christ. As +Pius XII teaches, “the Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments… but the Church does have power over those things which it has established” (Sacramentum Ordinis, 42). Thus, in necessity another vegetable oil suffices, since the Church can dispense from her own determinations but never from what Christ Himself instituted.
:facepalm: But that's the main question....is olive oil a substantial part of these sacraments? Based on it's spiritual significance, it's use in the Jєωιѕн law and it's use in Scripture, then I'd say "yes" there is a clear and consistent use of olive oil and this came from DIVINE ORDER (going back to Adam/Eden). It was not a rule the Church created. Therefore, the Church is not free to change it.
Read over what Pope Paul says again. He makes it clear that olive oil is the prescribed oil of the Church as "indicated in Holy Scripture". He makes it clear that the circuмstances pertaining to the use of another plant-based oil (that closely resembles olive oil) are only where olive oil "is unattainable or difficult to obtain". In other words, cases of necessity. As olive oil (as holy oils) was the precise Matter instituted by the Church, the Church has the power and authority to make such exceptions. Fr. Hesse, in claiming that such exceptions render a Sacrament invalid, has committed a grave error.Well, what you are doing is giving meanings to his words that his words do not say, while failing to avert to what his words do say.
The changes in the Sacrament of Extreme Unction are a separate issue which I will tackle in a later post. Suffice to say, that the changes Pope Paul made were within his authority and did not invalidate the sacrament.
Ok, then post the decree.I can give you Trent: "Now, this sacred unction of the sick (note the wording) was instituted by Christ (and) recommended and promulgated to the faithful by James the apostle (early bishop of the early Church): "Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the lord: the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he is in sins, they shall be forgiven him." (Note: the words of James the Apostle, not Christ). In which words, as the Church has learned from apostolic tradition, received from hand to hand, he teaches the matter, the form and proper minister, and the effect of this salutary sacrament." Ref: 'On the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, 14, second session.
Olive oil is the proper and ordinary matter, established by apostolic and ecclesiastical authority, but it does not belong to the unchangeable substance instituted by Christ. As +Pius XII teaches, “the Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments… but the Church does have power over those things which it has established” (Sacramentum Ordinis, 42). Thus, in necessity another vegetable oil suffices, since the Church can dispense from her own determinations but never from what Christ Himself instituted.Both you and Boru are conflating terms. You say olive oil is from Apostolic AND ecclesiastical authority. ?? It cannot be both. Apostolic authority = from Christ, which cannot change. Ecclesiastical authority = Church decision, which can change.
I can give you Trent: "Now, this sacred unction of the sick (note the wording) was instituted by Christ (and) recommended and promulgated to the faithful by James the apostle (early bishop of the early Church): "Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the lord: the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he is in sins, they shall be forgiven him." (Note: the words of James the Apostle, not Christ).:facepalm: These words are SCRIPTURE! James 5:14. They are from the Holy Ghost, who inspired St James to write them. This is not from the Church, but from God.
Well, what you are doing is giving meanings to his words that his words do not say, while failing to avert to what his words do say.If you isolate it from "since olive oil...is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world" then yes, the word "circuмstances" could be interpreted any which way. However, we are not Protestants. We read the whole which is interconnected; the reason for the exception to the rule is established at the outset. That determines how we are to mean it.
As I already pointed out, he is purposely ambiguous and does not make it clear that "the circuмstances pertaining to the use of another plant-based oil (that closely resembles olive oil) are only where olive oil "is unattainable or difficult to obtain"." I admit it is easy to take it that way, but he leaves it wide open so as to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.
Again, what he does say that actually IS clear, is that he is breaking away from Scripture. To break away from Scripture is to break away from tradition. By doing this he is doing what is diametrically opposed to what popes, as Christ's representatives, are supposed to do.
As it was St. James (early Church) that promulgated the use of oil .....then it is the Church that can modify it.Do you not understand that St James' description of Extreme Unction is
:facepalm: These words are SCRIPTURE! James 5:14. They are from the Holy Ghost, who inspired St James to write them. This is not from the Church, but from God.You really have a block on this one. The precise Form and Matter of Baptism and Holy Eucharist were given to us directly from Christ. He then conferred His power and authority to St. Peter, the Pope. The precise Form and Matter on the other five sacraments were promulgated by the apostles (the Church) after this transferal of power. They are our direct source. As Christ can change His own laws, so too can the "Christ" of Rome change his own laws.
If you isolate it from "since olive oil...is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world" then yes, the word "circuмstances" could be interpreted any which way. However, we are not Protestants. We read the whole which is interconnected; the reason for the exception to the rule is established at the outset. That determines how we are to mean it.No need to isolate it, it says what it says.
Stubborn, you are being stubborn. Pope Pius XII has set down that whatever the Church instituted, promulgated, decreed, the Church can change and modify where a need arises. As it was St. James (early Church) that promulgated the use of oil (the general consensus that he meant the native oil) as the Matter in Extreme Unction (Anointing of the Sick as even Trent calls it), then it is the Church that can modify it.The Church already modified it and did so keeping with Scripture and tradition. The Holy Oil may be diluted with unblessed Olive Oil, or unblessed Olive Oil may be used.
I repeat, the use of another plant-based oil, in cases of need, does not render a Sacrament invalid. Fr. Hesse, as a lone, wandering priest of suspect background, commits a grave error in stating otherwise and commits a grave injustice to Pope Paul by implying, without any clarification, that the Holy Father changed the matter from Olive oil to any old vegetable oil.Fr. Hesse is not alone, there are many priests who said the same thing from day one. You should not assume that because you never heard of it that it is something invented by the good Fr. Hesse.
Both you and Boru are conflating terms. You say olive oil is from Apostolic AND ecclesiastical authority. ?? It cannot be both. Apostolic authority = from Christ, which cannot change. Ecclesiastical authority = Church decision, which can change.Olive oil is proper and ordinary matter because of Apostolic usage and ecclesiastical prescription, but it is not part of the divine institution of the sacrament itself. As +Pius XII teaches, 'The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments… but the Church does have power over those things which it has established' (Sacramentum Ordinis, 42).
Boru says that Paul6 admitted that olive oil is from Scripture (ie Divine origin) but then says Paul6 is allowed to change it because the Church decided it. ??
Either olive oil is:
1. From Scripture (which it is)
2. From Scripture/Apostles (yes)
or
3) the church decided on Her own.
If you say 1 or 2, then this means it is DIVINELY CREATED, which means it cannot be changed.
If Scripture is involved, it’s unchangeable. If Apostolic authority is involved, this is part of Divine Revelation, and is unchangeable.
The Church can “declare, teach, decide” that something is Scriptural or Apostolic, but that doesn’t mean She can change it. She can only change things which are of human origin (ie canon law, some feast days, etc).
No need to isolate it, it says what it says.I agree with Stubborn here.
The Church already modified it and did so keeping with Scripture and tradition. The Holy Oil may be diluted with unblessed Olive Oil, or unblessed Olive Oil may be used.
Fr. Hesse is not alone, there are many priests who said the same thing from day one. You should not assume that because you never heard of it that it is something invented by the good Fr. Hesse.
You really have a block on this one. The precise Form and Matter of Baptism and Holy Eucharist were given to us directly from Christ. He then conferred His power and authority to St. Peter, the Pope. The precise Form and Matter on the other five sacraments were promulgated by the apostles (the Church) after this transferal of power. They are our direct source. As Christ can change His own laws, so too can the "Christ" of Rome change his own laws.Yeah Boru, Pax is 100% right. You need to realize that all of Scripture is Divine Revelation, and that each Apostle was individually infallible. You even quoted (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/universal-doubtful-intention/msg996294/#msg996294) the infallible teaching from Trent: "...In which words, as the Church has learned from apostolic tradition, received from hand to hand, he (St. James) teaches the matter, the form and proper minister, and the effect of this salutary sacrament." Ref: 'On the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, 14, second session.
I agree with Stubborn here.Just when I was beginning to have hope for you ;)
I can give you Trent: "Now, this sacred unction of the sick (note the wording) was instituted by Christ (and) recommended and promulgated to the faithful by James the apostle (early bishop of the early Church): "Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the lord: the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he is in sins, they shall be forgiven him." (Note: the words of James the Apostle, not Christ). In which words, as the Church has learned from apostolic tradition, received from hand to hand, he teaches the matter, the form and proper minister, and the effect of this salutary sacrament." Ref: 'On the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, 14, second session.
Trent makes clear that the Matter and Form was promulgated by James the Apostle, a bishop of the Church. We have no precise Matter or Form from Christ as we do for Baptism and Holy Eucharist. We rely on the Church for this mandate.
Just when I was beginning to have hope for you ;)You are missing this - the Church did not establish the matter, rather the Church learned it through Apostolic tradition, which means from God, through St. James - just as Trent said. As such, popes do not have the authority to do what PPVI did.
Sigh.
What exactly do you agree with Stubborn about?
You wrote: "Olive oil is proper and ordinary matter because of Apostolic usage and ecclesiastical prescription, but it is not part of the divine institution of the sacrament itself. As +Pius XII teaches, 'The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments… but the Church does have power over those things which it has established' (Sacramentum Ordinis, 42).
This means that the Church can prescribe olive oil as the ordinary matter, but in necessity she can allow another vegetable oil without affecting the sacrament’s validity. Apostolic practice establishes olive oil as proper and traditional, not as essential or divinely mandated. Therefore, the Church’s authority to regulate ordinary matter does not contradict Scripture or Apostolic tradition, and olive oil’s changeable nature in necessity is fully consistent with Catholic doctrine."
Fr. Hesse claims that a change of oil will effect the validity.
Am I missing something?
In the Book of James (James 5:14), the word translated as "oil" (in the Trent quote) is the Greek work for OLIVE OIL specifically: elaion (ἔλαιον).Yes, we have established that. It was the native oil at the time. That this oil effected a Sacrament in conjunction with the From was promulgated by St. James. Our source for this sacrament is him, a bishop of the Church.
Read more about that word here: https://biblehub.com/greek/1637.htm
Yes, we have established that. It was the native oil at the time. That this oil effected a Sacrament in conjunction with the From was promulgated by St. James. Our source for this sacrament is him, a bishop of the Church.
Olive oil is proper and ordinary matter because of Apostolic usage and ecclesiastical prescription, but it is not part of the divine institution of the sacrament itself. As +Pius XII teaches, 'The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments… but the Church does have power over those things which it has established' (Sacramentum Ordinis, 42).Apostolic Tradition is SEPARATE from church authority. That’s the part you’re missing.
This means that the Church can prescribe olive oil as the ordinary matter, but in necessity she can allow another vegetable oil without affecting the sacrament’s validity. Apostolic practice establishes olive oil as proper and traditional, not as essential or divinely mandated. Therefore, the Church’s authority to regulate ordinary matter does not contradict Scripture or Apostolic tradition, and olive oil’s changeable nature in necessity is fully consistent with Catholic doctrine.
Yes, we have established that. It was the native oil at the time. That this oil effected a Sacrament in conjunction with the From was promulgated by St. James. Our source for this sacrament is him, a bishop of the Church.St James is not simply a bishop. HE'S AN APOSTLE. His authority is INFALLIBLE, because it's Apostolic. Have you even heard of 'Apostolic Tradition'? You continue to act as if it doesn't exist. :facepalm:
You are missing this - the Church did not establish the matter, rather the Church learned it through Apostolic tradition, which means from God, through St. James - just as Trent said. As such, popes do not have the authority to do what PPVI did.After all you wrote, you write this?! You have totally contradicted your former post. Gosh.
You speak of Apostolic tradition as if it were separate from the Church. They are one and the same.No, no, no!!! Apostolic Tradition is not simply Church Authority. It is on the same level as infallible Scripture.
After all you wrote, you write this?! You have totally contradicted your former post. Gosh.Apostolic tradition is the rule of the Church, without that, each successive pope could have done what PPVI and V2 did for the last 2000 years so that by now, there would be no Church at all.
I repeat: After Christ instituted the Form and Matter of Baptism and the holy Eucharist, He conferred his power and authority to St. Peter. You speak of Apostolic tradition as if it were separate from the Church. They are one and the same.
It was these apostles, these first bishops of the Church, that mandated the Matter and Form of the five other sacraments. And what they have liturgically mandated, a future St. Peter can modify as long as the traditional sense of doing what the Church intends is maintained.No, you are stuck in a rut here. It was not these first bishops that mandated the Matter etc., it was God Himself who REVEALED it to them. This is the Divine Revelation from Scripture that you cannot get into your head. IOW, God told St. James to use Olive Oil, St. James told the Church to use Olive Oil because that is what God told him to tell the Church to use.
You are missing this - the Church did not establish the matter, rather the Church learned it through Apostolic tradition, which means from God, through St. James - just as Trent said. As such, popes do not have the authority to do what PPVI did.Perhaps Michael Davies can explain it better than I:
Baptism and Holy Eucharist were instituted by Christ specifically. The other five Sacraments were instituted generally via His Apostolic Church.
Perhaps Michael Davies can explain it better than I:The substance of the sacrament is [blessed] Olive Oil. How is this not obvious I do not know. But all that was left up to the Church to establish, was the sacrament's ritual while using that oil.
"The Council of Trent declares that the Church has always possessed the power - in the dispensation or administration of the Sacraments - to determine or to change those things which she judges to be more expedient for those receiving them...An exception is made with regard to the substance of a Sacrament which the Church has no power to alter...The question immediately arises as to what belongs to the substance of a particular Sacrament...(If Our Lord) instituted it generally (in genere) he left it to the supreme authority of His Church to decide the particular signs which should signify and effect the sacramental grace. When Christ instituted a Sacrament in specie (specifically) as regards either matter or form, the Church has no power to change them." - The Order of Melchisedech, Appendix 1.
In short, the substance of a Sacrament is what Christ has instituted specifically.
Baptism and Holy Eucharist were instituted by Christ specifically. The other five Sacraments were instituted generally via His Apostolic Church.
Quote from: Pax Vobis (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg996315#msg996315) 2025-08-18, 10:52:21 AMApostolic Tradition must be distinguished: some of it is divine Revelation (unchangeable), and some of it consists of Apostolic customs and ecclesiastical prescriptions (changeable in necessity). Olive oil falls into the latter. That is why +Pius XII teaches, “The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments… but the Church does have power over those things which it has established” (Sacramentum Ordinis, 42).
Apostolic Tradition is SEPARATE from church authority. That’s the part you’re missing.
Apostolic Tradition = divine revelation = from Christ, who instructed the Apostles. This is infallible and unchangeable.
After the Apostles died, THEN we have 100% church authority.
You guys keep ignoring Apostolic Tradition's unique status.
St. Thomas Aquinas also makes this clear: while olive oil is prescribed for Confirmation, in necessity another oil can suffice, since the Church’s prescription is not the essence of Christ’s institution (ST III, q.72, a.2 ad 4). Apostolic usage makes olive oil proper and ordinary, but not essential for validity. To confuse Apostolic discipline with divine Revelation is precisely the mistake that leads to denying the Church’s authority to regulate sacramental practice.
Obj. 3: Further, oil is used as the matter of this sacrament for the purpose of anointing. But any oil will do for anointing: for instance, oil made from nuts, and from anything else. Therefore not only olive oil should be used for this sacrament.
Reply Obj. 3: These properties of oil, by reason of which it symbolizes the Holy Spirit, are to be found in olive oil rather than in any other oil. In fact, the olive-tree itself, through being an evergreen, signifies the refreshing and merciful operation of the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, this oil is called oil properly, and is very much in use, wherever it is to be had. And whatever other liquid is so called, derives its name from its likeness to this oil: nor are the latter commonly used, unless it be to supply the want of olive oil. Therefore it is that this oil alone is used for this and certain other sacraments.
Apostolic Tradition must be distinguished: some of it is divine Revelation (unchangeable), and some of it consists of Apostolic customs and ecclesiastical prescriptions (changeable in necessity). Olive oil falls into the latter.That's what we're debating. I think olive oil is part of divine revelation.
St. Thomas Aquinas also makes this clear: while olive oil is prescribed for Confirmation, in necessity another oil can suffice, since the Church’s prescription is not the essence of Christ’s institution (ST III, q.72, a.2 ad 4).
Quote from: Pax Vobis (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg996349#msg996349) 2025-08-18, 2:39:24 PMPax Vobis, I appreciate your zeal for safeguarding tradition and the sacraments. At the same time, we must distinguish between olive oil’s normative, symbolic role and the divine institution itself. St. Thomas notes that olive oil is the proper matter because of its symbolism and customary use, yet explicitly allows other oils in necessity (“unless it be to supply the want of olive oil”). This aligns with +Pius XII, who teaches that the Church cannot alter the substance instituted by Christ but does have authority over what she has established (Sacramentum Ordinis, 42). Olive oil is therefore proper and ordinary, but not unchangeably essential, and recognizing this fully respects both tradition and the Church’s authority.
That's what we're debating. I think olive oil is part of divine revelation.
:confused::confused::confused: I don't know what you've read, but St Thomas says olive oil is essential.
Article 2. Whether chrism is a fitting matter for this sacrament?
Objection 3. Further, oil is used as the matter of this sacrament for the purpose of anointing. But any oil will do for anointing: for instance, oil made from nuts, and from anything else. Therefore not only olive oil should be used for this sacrament.
St Thomas' Reply to Objection 3. These properties of oil, by reason of which it symbolizes the Holy Ghost, are to be found in olive oil rather than in any other oil. In fact, the olive-tree itself, through being an evergreen, signifies the refreshing and merciful operation of the Holy Ghost.
Moreover, this oil is called oil properly, and is very much in use, wherever it is to be had. And whatever other liquid is so called, derives its name from its likeness to this oil: nor are the latter commonly used, unless it be to supply the want of olive oil. Therefore it is that this oil alone is used for this and certain other sacraments.
Angelus already explained the Latin. It cannot be 0% olive oil. Olive oil has to be the base and then add others.
Ps. You are assuming Paul6 gave a darn about what Pius XII said. Paul6 did whatever he wanted. He was a heretical modernist from hell.
Benedikt, you have misread St. Thomas. Here is what he said (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q72.A2):Bebedikt's assessment is correct. I'm basically repeating what he says in a slightly more expansive way.
The objection states that olive oil can be replaced with any type of oil as matter of the Sacrament:
In his response, St. Thomas explains why that opinion (Obj. 3) is wrong:
The red underlined part above is what you are misinterpreting. The Latin is clear: "nisi in supplementum apud eos quibus deest oleum olivarum" [except to supplement in case of a shortage of olive oil].
but the olive oil must be the base oil used in order for the "matter" of the Sacrament to be valid.
If you look at the response to Obj. 4, it confirms my interpretation. St. Thomas is saying that even though olive oil is not found in all parts of the world. It is "enough" that it is possible to send it easily when needed. The reason for this being a non-problem is that the Sacrament of Confirmation is not necessary like the Sacrament of Baptism. Therefore, if people have to wait for this Sacrament because the oil has not arrived, it is no big deal.
Angelus already explained the Latin. It cannot be 0% olive oil. Olive oil has to be the base and then add others.By whose authority could similar oil be added? St. James only mentions Olive oil.
By whose authority could similar oil be added? St. James only mentions Olive oil.Because as long as the BASE oil is olive, then the essence/substance of the oil is still olive oil.
After all you wrote, you write this?! You have totally contradicted your former post. Gosh.Benedikt, I owe you an apology. I just realised, Stubborn answered in your stead and without looking properly I assumed it was you. I'm glad I spotted that - for a while there I thought you had developed bi-polar :laugh1: ;)!
Bebedikt's assessment is correct. I'm basically repeating what he says in a slightly more expansive way.You just butchered what St Thomas said, making it more complicated, to suit your needs. And then you ignored Angelus' explanation. All to defend Paul 6, who is arguably the WORST POPE IN HISTORY. You are a stubborn, biased, bad-willed moron.
The part that I high-lighted - may I ask, does St. Thomas Aquinas teach this (and if so where) or is this your personal opinion?
The following in the Summa is under the tile: Whether Chrism (oil) is a fitting matter for this sacrament (Confirmation):
Hoc etiam oleum proprie dicitur oleum, et maxime habetur in usu ubi haberi potest=
Moreover, this oil is called oil properly, and is very much in use, wherever it is to be had.
Quilibet autem alius liquor ex similitudine huius oleum nominatur, nec est in usu communi, nisi in supplementum apud eos quibus deest oleum olivarum. Et ideo hoc oleum solum assumitur in usum huius et quorundam aliorum sacramentorum =
However, any other liquid named after the similarity of this oil (meaning a similar oil to Olive Oil) is not in common use except when supplementing among those deficient in olive oil.
This similar oil is not in common use = inferring it is sometimes used.
But is more commonly used as a supplement when Olive Oil is deficient.
The very fact that other similar oils were allowed by the Church supports Pope Pius XII, who teaches that the Church cannot alter the substance instituted by Christ but does have authority over the substance that the Church has mandated (Sacramentum Ordinis, 42)
St. James merely states 'oil' which St. Thomas Aquinas states means the native oil, that is, olive oil. Yet, here we see that similar plant based oils being commonly used as well. Regardless of how they were used, they were used. According to your reasoning, all those early sacraments were invalid.
Reply to objection 4 refers specifically to Confirmation. As it is not as essential as Baptism, one can wait a while for the preferable Olive Oil to be got.
However this reply could not be applied to Extreme Unction and indeed, given the title, it only applied to Confirmation. So what did the Church fathers use when Olive Oil was lacking? Or did they let people die without the Sacrament while waiting for the post?
Bebedikt's assessment is correct. I'm basically repeating what he says in a slightly more expansive way.
The part that I high-lighted - may I ask, does St. Thomas Aquinas teach this (and if so where) or is this your personal opinion?
The following in the Summa is under the tile: Whether Chrism (oil) is a fitting matter for this sacrament (Confirmation):
Hoc etiam oleum proprie dicitur oleum, et maxime habetur in usu ubi haberi potest=
Moreover, this oil is called oil properly, and is very much in use, wherever it is to be had.
Quilibet autem alius liquor ex similitudine huius oleum nominatur, nec est in usu communi, nisi in supplementum apud eos quibus deest oleum olivarum. Et ideo hoc oleum solum assumitur in usum huius et quorundam aliorum sacramentorum =
However, any other liquid named after the similarity of this oil (meaning a similar oil to Olive Oil) is not in common use except when supplementing among those deficient in olive oil.
This similar oil is not in common use = inferring it is sometimes used.
But is more commonly used as a supplement when Olive Oil is deficient.
The very fact that other similar oils were allowed by the Church supports Pope Pius XII, who teaches that the Church cannot alter the substance instituted by Christ but does have authority over the substance that the Church has mandated (Sacramentum Ordinis, 42)
St. James merely states 'oil' which St. Thomas Aquinas states means the native oil, that is, olive oil. Yet, here we see that similar plant based oils being commonly used as well. Regardless of how they were used, they were used. According to your reasoning, all those early sacraments were invalid.
Reply to objection 4 refers specifically to Confirmation. As it is not as essential as Baptism, one can wait a while for the preferable Olive Oil to be got.
However this reply could not be applied to Extreme Unction and indeed, given the title, it only applied to Confirmation. So what did the Church fathers use when Olive Oil was lacking? Or did they let people die without the Sacrament while waiting for the post?
"All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.....This is very clear and very simple. Florence said the matter is blessed Olive Oil. The Church did change who blesses the olive oil from a priest to a bishop, but did not and cannot change the matter of Olive Oil, any more than it can change the matter of water for baptism.
Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments...The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold...
...The fifth sacrament is extreme unction. Its matter is olive oil blessed by a priest...."
Source (https://www.fisheaters.com/unction.html)
Please, please note that the rite surrounding this Sacrament in the Novus Ordo has been radically changed and mostly amounts now to a simple blessing (blessings for the sick are always OK, of course, but the Sacrament is reserved traditionally for those who are gravely ill, especially those in danger of death from bodily illness or injury). Some of the changes:
In the new rite, the priest asks no pardon of God for sins and the focus is on the body.
In the new rite, any oil of plant origin may be used, blessed by a priest using these words: "May your blessing come upon all who are anointed with this oil, that they may be freed from pain and illness and made well again in body and mind and soul." The Holy Ghost is no longer invoked.
In the new rite, it is given as "Through this holy anointing may the Lord in His love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up." There is no request of God to remit sins.
Yes, Stubborn, thank you for finding the information from the Council of Florence. Except, in Boru's mis-reading of Pius XII, since the Council of Florence was a church decision, then the Church can reverse Florence's decrees. As she keeps (incorrectly) quoting, "The Church has the power to change that which she established." :laugh1:I know it's crazy. PPVI did establish the conciliar sacrament of the anointing of the sick, so everything and anything about that sacrament the conciliar church can change at will.
Boru,I'm trying to get you to step outside your box and see things how the Church sees things. You are attacking a Vicar of Christ over this. Yes, the prescribed and preferred oil is Olive oil. No question. But there has been a precedent for similar oils being used in the history of the Church, when there is a case of necessity. The very fact that the Church allowed this - and allowed the mixing of oils - and allowed the mixing of balsam - when St. James prescribed only olive oil, proves that when it comes to the Matter used in Sacraments that have been determined by the Church, and by the power of the Church, the Church can make modifications as St. Pius XII outlines. That is the core point. Pope Paul VI, gave bishops special permission to bless similar oil in cases/places where it is very difficult to acquire olive oil, rather than let a Catholic die without Extreme Unction. As Pope, who Christ said can 'bind and loosen', he has the power and authority to do so. And I stress again, Christ instituted the Matter and Form for Baptism and the Holy Eucharist and then handed over His teaching authority to His Church. This is a scriptural fact. From that point on it was the Church who decided, guided by the Holy Ghost.
St. Thomas does not say that a non-olive oil is allowed to completely REPLACE olive oil. He says that another non-olive oil is allowed to SUPPLEMENT olive oil in the mixture, if and only if the supplies of olive oil are running low.
In a mixture of oils, olive oil is still present to some degree. And it is spread throughout that mixture. So the "matter" of the Sacrament is present in all of the mixed oil to some degree. No one said that the oil applied for the Sacrament had to be PURE olive oil all by itself. In fact, Chrism is a mixture of balsam and olive oil. Therefore, it is clearly not a problem if other non-oily substances are included in the mixture. So why would it be a problem to supplement a little non-olive oil in the case of necessity? It is not a problem, according to the Church and St. Thomas. The essential thing is that there must be enough olive oil in the mixture so that when the mixture is applied, there is olive oil included in that application.
As I said, in his Reply to Objection 4, St. Thomas says that the concern that olive oil might not be available in some locale is of no importance. He says that because the Sacrament of Confirmation is not a necessary Sacrament, the recipients can wait for the next shipment of olive oil rather than use a non-olive oil as a wholesale REPLACEMENT for olive oil. In other words, it would be worse to use no olive oil than to delay the reception of the Sacrament. This is because to use no olive oil in the Chrism would make it invalid matter.
Anyway, why are you arguing about this? What is your angle here? Are you just trying to be argumentative? FWIW, Abp. Lefebvre, who you seem to respect, agreed that olive oil must be used in the Chrism for the Sacrament to be valid.
I'm trying to get you to step outside your box and see things how the Church sees things. You are attacking a Vicar of Christ over this. Yes, the prescribed and preferred oil is Olive oil. No question. But there has been a precedent for similar oils being used in the history of the Church, when there is a case of necessity. The very fact that the Church allowed this - and allowed the mixing of oils - and allowed the mixing of balsam - when St. James prescribed only olive oil, proves that when it comes to the Matter used in Sacraments that have been determined by the Church, and by the power of the Church, the Church can make modifications as St. Pius XII outlines. That is the core point. Pope Paul VI, gave bishops special permission to bless similar oil in cases/places where it is very difficult to acquire olive oil, rather than let a Catholic die without Extreme Unction. As Pope, who Christ said can 'bind and loosen', he has the power and authority to do so. And I stress again, Christ instituted the Matter and Form for Baptism and the Holy Eucharist and then handed over His teaching authority to His Church. This is a scriptural fact. From that point on it was the Church who decided, guided by the Holy Ghost.No, you're not understanding the difference between the terms 'substantial' and/or 'essential'.
Writes Fr. John Bligh in his 1956 theological book 'Ordination to the Priesthood': "The official adoption of the terminology of 'matter' and 'form' had the unfortunate effect of encouraging theologians to think that the essential rites of every sacrament must be unchangeable. In the physical world whenever there is a distinction of matter and of substantial form, there are distinct bodies...that form plus that matter makes that body. Hence the terminology of matter and form, borrowed ...from the physical world (erroneously suggests) that a change of the matter and form of the sacraments would mean..new sacraments..other than those instituted by Christ...". Hence it was concluded that the Church has no power to altar the matter and form of any of the sacraments. This erroneously conclusion...".
I'm trying to get you to step outside your box and see things how the Church sees things. You are attacking a Vicar of Christ over this. Yes, the prescribed and preferred oil is Olive oil. No question. But there has been a precedent for similar oils being used in the history of the Church, when there is a case of necessity. The very fact that the Church allowed this - and allowed the mixing of oils - and allowed the mixing of balsam - when St. James prescribed only olive oil, proves that when it comes to the Matter used in Sacraments that have been determined by the Church, and by the power of the Church, the Church can make modifications as St. Pius XII outlines. That is the core point. Pope Paul VI, gave bishops special permission to bless similar oil in cases/places where it is very difficult to acquire olive oil, rather than let a Catholic die without Extreme Unction. As Pope, who Christ said can 'bind and loosen', he has the power and authority to do so. And I stress again, Christ instituted the Matter and Form for Baptism and the Holy Eucharist and then handed over His teaching authority to His Church. This is a scriptural fact. From that point on it was the Church who decided, guided by the Holy Ghost.
Writes Fr. John Bligh in his 1956 theological book 'Ordination to the Priesthood': "The official adoption of the terminology of 'matter' and 'form' had the unfortunate effect of encouraging theologians to think that the essential rites of every sacrament must be unchangeable. In the physical world whenever there is a distinction of matter and of substantial form, there are distinct bodies...that form plus that matter makes that body. Hence the terminology of matter and form, borrowed ...from the physical world (erroneously suggests) that a change of the matter and form of the sacraments would mean..new sacraments..other than those instituted by Christ...". Hence it was concluded that the Church has no power to altar the matter and form of any of the sacraments. This erroneously conclusion...".
Council of Florence states:This is very clear and very simple. Florence said the matter is blessed Olive Oil. The Church did change who blesses the olive oil from a priest to a bishop, but did not and cannot change the matter of Olive Oil, any more than it can change the matter of water for baptism.
So Boru, if Fr. Hesse is wrong, so is Pope Eugenius IV and the Council of Florence. I mean, all he did was repeat their exact same teaching.
You really should accept reality, which is that Pope Paul VI changed the matter to go along with a new sacrament...
I'm trying to get you to step outside your box and see things how the Church sees things. You are attacking a Vicar of Christ over this. Yes, the prescribed and preferred oil is Olive oil. No question. But there has been a precedent for similar oils being used in the history of the Church, when there is a case of necessity. The very fact that the Church allowed this - and allowed the mixing of oils - and allowed the mixing of balsam - when St. James prescribed only olive oil, proves that when it comes to the Matter used in Sacraments that have been determined by the Church, and by the power of the Church, the Church can make modifications as St. Pius XII outlines. That is the core point. Pope Paul VI, gave bishops special permission to bless similar oil in cases/places where it is very difficult to acquire olive oil, rather than let a Catholic die without Extreme Unction. As Pope, who Christ said can 'bind and loosen', he has the power and authority to do so. And I stress again, Christ instituted the Matter and Form for Baptism and the Holy Eucharist and then handed over His teaching authority to His Church. This is a scriptural fact. From that point on it was the Church who decided, guided by the Holy Ghost.This guy Bligh is a Modernist. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
Writes Fr. John Bligh in his 1956 theological book 'Ordination to the Priesthood': "The official adoption of the terminology of 'matter' and 'form' had the unfortunate effect of encouraging theologians to think that the essential rites of every sacrament must be unchangeable. In the physical world whenever there is a distinction of matter and of substantial form, there are distinct bodies...that form plus that matter makes that body. Hence the terminology of matter and form, borrowed ...from the physical world (erroneously suggests) that a change of the matter and form of the sacraments would mean..new sacraments..other than those instituted by Christ...". Hence it was concluded that the Church has no power to altar the matter and form of any of the sacraments. This erroneously conclusion...".
Context, dear boy, context.Ok, so your entire argument rests on the claim that the matter for Confirmation/Holy Orders is "oil" (of any kind).
"There are seven sacraments of the new Law, namely baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders and matrimony, which differ greatly from the sacraments of the old Law. The latter were not causes of grace, but only prefigured the grace to be given through the passion of Christ; whereas the former, ours, both contain grace and bestow it on those who worthily receive them."
All actions and words performed in the Old Testament did not confer grace. They have no binding relevance to the the matter and form of the New Testament.
"All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected."
Agreed. There must be a matter conveying the form with the intent to do as the Church does.
"...the sacrament is conferred if the action (matter) is performed by the minister with the invocation of the holy Trinity..."
Matter is the physical ACTION conveying the sacrament in conjunction with the words (form) and the intent to confer the Sacrament.
"The second sacrament is confirmation. Its matter is chrism made from oil and balsam blessed by a bishop, the oil symbolizing the gleaming brightness of conscience and balsam symbolizing the odour of a good reputation."
St. James did not mention balsam (gum/sap of the balsam tree). Nor is olive oil specifically mentioned as it does in Extreme Unction.
"Then they (Peter and John) laid their hands on them and they received the holy Spirit'. In place of this imposition of hands, confirmation is given in the church."
In place of? So the matter was changed from the imposition of hands to the chrism of oil and balsam...how interesting.
"The fifth sacrament is extreme unction. Its matter is olive oil blessed by a priest."
Nowhere in this docuмent - EcuмENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445) - does it say that a sacrament is rendered invalid if anything besides Olive Oil is used. YOU and Fr. Hesse are the ones saying it would be invalid. Not the Council of Florence. The Council of Florence merely states that Olive Oil is the matter chosen by the Church. The Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI states that Olive Oil is the matter of the Church. And like Pope Eugenius IV, and the Church Fathers of the past, he simply added a modification. Olive oil was chosen for its perfect symbolism, not because it has magic power to confer a Sacrament. It is the visible action of applying the Olive Oil in conjunction with the form and the right intent that confers the Sacrament. Thereby, in the case of necessity, another similar plant-based oil will also logically do the same as long as the form and intent are there.
And once again, as Pope Pius XII makes very clear, Pope Paul VI was well within his authority to make this modification: "...that which the Church has established, she can also change and abrogate." SO,4.
Quote from: Pax Vobis (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg996435#msg996435) 2025-08-19, 8:42:51 AMYou are correct: the matter for Confirmation and Holy Orders is specifically olive oil, as Scripture, Tradition, Florence, Trent, and Paul VI all confirm. It is not “just any oil.”
Ok, so your entire argument rests on the claim that the matter for Confirmation/Holy Orders is "oil" (of any kind).
Even though, the greek word used in Scripture = olive.
Even though, all throughout the Old Testament, olive oil was used EXCLUSIVELY, for annointing of all kinds, in religious ceremonies.
Even though, as pointed out, the symbolic meaning of Christ's agony in the Garden, is "mount olives".
Even though Florence says the MATTER is olive oil.
Even though Trent says that olive oil is in Scripture.
Even though Paul 6 says the matter is olive oil and it's in Scripture.
But you say "just oil". :laugh1:
Please provide evidence.
No, you are trampling on the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church made that "box" as you call it. You take the side of the modernist infiltrators against the unified voice of all the saints and Popes over the millennia.Sorry, you are in Fr. Hesse's box. Your understanding of the teachings of the Church have been distorted by him and others like him. Do you believe the Pope is the Pope? Because if you don't you should hear what the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church have to say about that. I am on the side of this eternal Church founded on St. Peter and therefore am against all infiltrators who attack her; both the ones inside the Church and those outside of it trying to get everyone to leave her. Our poor Church is fighting a war on two fronts and needs every soldier of Christ to come to her aid. We have a universal Muslim threat growing as we speak and the only thing that has any hope of keeping that checked, is the visible presence of the Church; the rallying point of all Catholics. All the monarchies have fallen so the Church is the last bastion against hell itself.
And why would anyone care what some Jesuit named Bligh has to say on the matter? Do you really think that what he says is more authoritative than various Popes, Trent, and the Angelic Doctor?
Context, dear boy, context.You crack me up, I mean that in a good way lol
Pope Paul VI (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6anoin.htm)If something is in Holy Scripture, then the Church didn't create it. The Church cannot change Holy Scripture.
"Further, since olive oil, which hitherto had been prescribed for the valid administration of the sacrament, is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world, we decreed, at the request of numerous bishops, that in the future, according to the circuмstances, oil of another sort could also be used, provided it were obtained from plants, inasmuch as this more closely resembles the matter indicated in Holy Scripture...."
Christ promised he would be with us always - The Body of Christ - the visible Church.Ok, but the Church has never defined (for all catholics) what this means, in detail. You obviously have a personal-opinion as to what this means. And it clouds your thinking, because you view everything through this pre-conceived, definition of "what Christ being with us" means. Or, you have this OPINION on "the gates of hell not prevailing", and what lines God will not let His enemies cross.
Sorry, you are in Fr. Hesse's box. Your understanding of the teachings of the Church have been distorted by him and others like him. Do you believe the Pope is the Pope? Because if you don't you should hear what the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church have to say about that. I am on the side of this eternal Church founded on St. Peter and therefore am against all infiltrators who attack her; both the ones inside the Church and those outside of it trying to get everyone to leave her. Our poor Church is fighting a war on two fronts and needs every soldier of Christ to come to her aid. We have a universal Muslim threat growing as we speak and the only thing that has any hope of keeping that checked, is the visible presence of the Church; the rallying point of all Catholics. All the monarchies have fallen so the Church is the last bastion against hell itself.
Christ promised he would be with us always - The Body of Christ - the visible Church. That is the teaching of all the Popes, Trent, and the Angelic Doctor.
Paul6 says olive oil is Scriptural (i.e. created by God). But then argues he can change it.If you notice, PPVI said:
So, since Paul6 contradicts himself, which Paul6 are we to believe?
a. His first statement, which agrees with all pre-V2 authorities and with Jєωιѕн customs of time immemorial (and with all 3 persons of the Blessed Trinity)?
b. Or with his "change", which is novel, anti-scripture, anti-Florence, anti-Trent, anti-St Thomas, etc. :laugh1:
Ok, so your entire argument rests on the claim that the matter for Confirmation/Holy Orders is "oil" (of any kind).Pax, really? You disregard every other piece of evidence I presented to home on the one personal mistake I made - and yes it was a mistake - and make it out to be my theme after everything else I have posted. That's not genuine. I said, and have always said that the matter decreed and preferred by the Church is Olive Oil. No question. But it is the Church that decreed it and thus the Church can change or makes exceptions to it:
Even though, the greek word used in Scripture = olive.
Even though, all throughout the Old Testament, olive oil was used EXCLUSIVELY, for annointing of all kinds, in religious ceremonies.
Even though, as pointed out, the symbolic meaning of Christ's agony in the Garden, is "mount olives".
Even though Florence says the MATTER is olive oil.
Even though Trent says that olive oil is in Scripture.
Even though Paul 6 says the matter is olive oil and it's in Scripture.
But you say "just oil". :laugh1:
Please provide evidence.
This guy Bligh is a Modernist. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:Why do you say that?
You crack me up, I mean that in a good way lolDon't laugh too much at my expense - what the Council of Florence said was if the matter is not used, then the sacrament is not effected. What that matter is is determined by the Church. At the time of St. Peter, it was the laying of hands. At the time of the Council of Florence it was Olive Oil. At the time of Pope Paul IV, it is Olive Oil with the exception of another similar plant-based oil in cases of necessity. Rome has an eternal voice that carries across the ages of time :)
In my previous post, Florence, IMO, is as clear as it can possibly be. Florence explicitly said: "Olive Oil is the Matter." If Olive Oil is not used, then Florence said: "the sacrament is not effected."
Roma locuta causa finita / Rome has spoken, the case is closed.
Do not be fooled, no theologian, pope or council (hell bent on destroying the Church) can do anything about it.
Don't laugh too much at my expense - what the Council of Florence said was if the matter is not used, then the sacrament is not effected. What that matter is is determined by the Church. At the time of St. Peter, it was the laying of hands. At the time of the Council of Florence it was Olive Oil. At the time of Pope Paul IV, it is Olive Oil with the exception of another similar plant-based oil in cases of necessity. Rome has an eternal voice that carries across the ages of time :)No, you are mistaken. At the time of St. Peter it was the same as at the time of St. James, it was Olive Oil, and ever since then it was Olive Oil, and it still is Olive Oil.
Anointing of the Sick is not the same sacrament as Extreme Unction, so he could have made the Matter whatever substance he wanted. As he said:Good point. Does the V2 church even consider 'anointing of the sick' a sacrament? Because it's not the same as Extreme Unction.
I said, and have always said that the matter decreed and preferred by the Church is Olive Oil. No question. But it is the Church that decreed it and thus the Church can change or makes exceptions to it:For the 53,000th time -- The.church.did.not.decree.the.matter. SCRIPTURE DID. THE HOLY GHOST DID.
This guy Bligh is a Modernist. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:The. Church. cannot. change. the. matter. and. form. because. Christ/God. created that.
Hence it was concluded that the Church has no power to altar the matter and form of any of the sacraments. This erroneously conclusion
Why do you say that?Because Dear, you mix truth with error.
Pax, really? You disregard every other piece of evidence I presented to home on the one personal mistake I made - and yes it was a mistake - and make it out to be my theme after everything else I have posted. That's not genuine. I said, and have always said that the matter decreed and preferred by the Church is Olive Oil. No question. But it is the Church that decreed it and thus the Church can change or makes exceptions to it:
"Then they (Peter and John) laid their hands on them and they received the holy Spirit'. In place of this imposition of hands, confirmation is given in the church." - Council of Florence.
In place of? So the matter was changed from the imposition of hands to the chrism of oil and balsam...how interesting.
This is my theme. The changing of matter has a precedent, as stated by the Council of Florence. That the Church has the power to change the matter it had chosen or modify it or add things to it, that is my theme.
...
697 The second sacrament is confirmation; its matter is the chrism prepared from the oil, which signifies the excellence of conscience, and from the balsam, which signifies the fragrance of a good reputation, and is blessed by a bishop. The form 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.The ordinary minister is a bishop. And although a simple priest has the power in regard to other anointings only a bishop can confer this sacrament, because according to the apostles, whose place the bishops hold, we read that through the imposition of hands they conferred the Holy Spirit, just as the lesson of the Acts of the Apostles reveals: "Now, when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that the Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For He was not as yet come upon any of them: but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them; and they received the Holy Ghost" [Acts 8:14 ff.]. But in the Church confirmation is given in place of this imposition of hands. Nevertheless we read that at one time, by dispensation of the Apostolic See for a reasonable and urgent cause, a simple priest administered this sacrament of confirmation after the chrism had been prepared by the bishop. The effect of this sacrament, because in it the Holy Spirit is given for strength, was thus given to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, so that the Christian might boldly confess the name of Christ. The one to be confirmed, therefore, must be anointed on the forehead, which is the seat of reverence, so that he may not be ashamed to confess the name of Christ and especially His Cross, which is indeed a "stumbling block to the Jews and unto the Gentiles foolishness" [cf.1 Cor. 1:23] according to the Apostle; for which reason one is signed with the sign of the Cross.
Good point. Does the V2 church even consider 'anointing of the sick' a sacrament? Because it's not the same as Extreme Unction.Yes they consider it a sacrament. Click the link and you will see that "The sacrament of anointing of the sick" (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6anoin.htm) is the title of the encyclical.
Boru,
You have misunderstood how Pope Eugene is using the phrase "in place of." Here is the Latin:
Loco autem illius manus impositionis in Ecclesia datur confirmatio.
Pope Eugene is simply saying that "we in the Church" don't call that Sacrament "the imposition of hands." Rather, we call it the Sacrament of "Confirmation." So the word "Confirmation" is used/given [datur] "in place of" the phrase "the imposition of hands" to refer to the Sacramental action.
Pope Eugene is not saying that Confirmation is something different from "the imposition of hands." The Sacrament certainly requires the "imposition of hands," which he describes later in that section as anointing on the forehead.
Here is the full quote:
No, you are mistaken. At the time of St. Peter it was the same as at the time of St. James, it was Olive Oil, and ever since then it was Olive Oil, and it still is Olive Oil.You make a valid point. Yes, St. James was around the time of St. Peter. However, as I have outlined to Angelus, the earliest form of confirmation - before oils were introduced - was the laying of hands. It was the Church - the Apostles - who decided that chrism would be used as the "matter" instead.
Boru,Pax, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing. In an earlier post - I'm too tired to look for it - I made it clear that the power and the authority of the Church has limits:
You have an over-simplistic way of understanding Church decisions. There are various levels and various degrees of Church authority. Examples
........................
Not every "church decision" is changeable. Your over-simplistic view is your main problem. Your secondary problem is your defense of V2.
You make a valid point. Yes, St. James was around the time of St. Peter. However, as I have outlined to Angelus, the earliest form of confirmation - before oils were introduced - was the laying of hands. It was the Church - the Apostles - who decided that chrism would be used as the "matter" instead.Yes, and since the Apostles decided this, then it means it came from Christ. Apostolic decisions are unchangeable.
Pax, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing. In an earlier post - I'm too tired to look for it - I made it clear that the power and the authority of the Church has limits:No, there are more. As I explained, with examples.
The two limits on the power of the Church are divine law, which is established by God and cannot be changed, and moral law, which guides the Church's actions in accordance with ethical principles. These laws ensure that the Church's authority is exercised within the framework of higher moral and divine standards.
Angelus, I concede that while I studied Latin through home-schooling, I'm definitely no scholar. That said, I do not believe I have misunderstood Pope Eugene in this instance. "Given in place of" means exactly that. Please compare the three references below:
Council of Florence:
697 "Now, when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that the Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For He was not as yet come upon any of them: but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them; and they received the Holy Ghost" [Acts 8:14 ff.]. But in the Church confirmation is given in place of this imposition of hands. Nevertheless we read that at one time, by dispensation of the Apostolic See for a reasonable and urgent cause, a simple priest administered this sacrament of confirmation after the chrism had been prepared by the bishop. The effect of this sacrament, because in it the Holy Spirit is given for strength, was thus given to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, so that the Christian might boldly confess the name of Christ. The one to be confirmed, therefore, must be anointed on the forehead, which is the seat of reverence, so that he may not be ashamed to confess the name of Christ and especially His Cross, which is indeed a "stumbling block to the Jews and unto the Gentiles foolishness" [cf.1 Cor. 1:23] according to the Apostle; for which reason one is signed with the sign of the Cross.
Summa - St. Thomas Aquinas - Confirmation
In like manner, too, when the apostles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) imposed their hands, and when they preached, the fulness of the Holy Ghost (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) came down under visible signs on the faithful (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05769a.htm), just as, at the beginning, He came down on the apostles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm): hence Peter said (Acts 11:15 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/act011.htm#verse15)): "When I had begun to speak, the Holy Ghost (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning." Consequently there was no need for sacramental sensible matter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm), where God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) sent sensible signs miraculously (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm).
However, the apostles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) commonly made use of chrism in bestowing the sacrament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm), when such like visible signs were lacking. For Dionysius (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05013a.htm) says (Eccl. Hier. iv): "There is a certain perfecting operation which our guides," i.e. the apostles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), "call the sacrifice of Chrism."
Acts 8:14-20
8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
8:19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
Note: there is no mention of chrism or oils. It was clear to Simon that this early sacrament of Confirmation was conferred by the laying of hands and a miraculous sign - most likely a tongue of fire -came down as a visible sign.
Having read through it myself again, it is clear to me that Pope Eugene is saying that this early form of Confirmation which was conferred by the laying of hands, was replaced by the Church with the sacramental formula that involved chrism (olive oil).
However, the apostles commonly made use of chrism in bestowing the sacrament, when such like visible signs were lacking. For Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv): "There is a certain perfecting operation which our guides," i.e. the apostles, "call the sacrifice of Chrism."
You make a valid point. Yes, St. James was around the time of St. Peter. However, as I have outlined to Angelus, the earliest form of confirmation - before oils were introduced - was the laying of hands. It was the Church - the Apostles - who decided that chrism would be used as the "matter" instead.Well, we are talking about the Last Rites re the link you provided on the new sacrament of anointing of the sick, not confirmation. You are trying to tie two different sacraments to the same exception. I opine that if the Church still had the Apostles as bishops instead of just their successors, then the imposition of hands would still be the matter.
The Church/pope is limited by many things. Your understanding is quite modernist. You need to de-program.
Yes, and since the Apostles decided this, then it means it came from Christ. Apostolic decisions are unchangeable.Christ "transferred" His authority to the Church after His Ascension. As the Body of Christ had a head, so too does the Mystical Body of Christ: the Pope. It's a question of authority Pax. The Church didn't suddenly develop after the apostles died. The Church didn't suddenly develop authority after all the apostles died.
Well, we are talking about the Last Rites re the link you provided on the new sacrament of anointing of the sick, not confirmation. You are trying to tie two different sacraments to the same exception. I opine that if the Church still had the Apostles as bishops instead of just their successors, then the imposition of hands would still be the matter.Stubborn, we are talking about the ability of the Holy Father to change/modify the matter of the five sacraments that the Church herself mandated. Pope Paul IV added an exception to the rule in Extreme Unction (within his authority) and the Apostles - under the authority of St. Peter the first Pope - decided on an olive oil chrism instead of the laying on hands for Confirmation. The Council of Florence merely re-enforced this. What this confirms is that the Church can change/modify the matter and form of the five sacraments that the Church itself laid down. Do you understand why Pope Pius XII wrote the Papal Encyclical 'Sacramentum Ordinis"? Read it again. After making it clear that the Church can change the form and matter of those five sacraments, he then proceeds to explain that "the humble petition has again and again been addressed to the Holy father that the supreme Authority of the church might at last decide what is required for the validity in conferring the Sacred Order." Pope Pius then goes on to state that although the 'traditio instrumentorum' (eg. passing of the chalice) had been considered "at one time necessary, even for validity, by the will and command of the Church, everyone knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established. Wherefore after invoking the divine light, We of our Apostolic Authority..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 the hands....We now decree that, in relation to the future, the 'tradito instrumnentorum' is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders...".
But you have to realize that when the Church spoke is when the Council of Florence decreed the matter to be olive oil, then the matter is olive oil for all time. When that same council decreed if olive oil is lacking that the sacrament is not effected, then without olive oil the sacrament is not effected for all time. This stands forever, nobody can modify or in any way change this. Any more than anyone can change the matter of chrism in Confirmation, or water in baptism.
The Church does not change the matter of her sacraments, the new church does this. We had our Pentecost, that was when the Church was born, the birthday of the Church. The conciliar church had their Pentecost at V2, that's when their church was born. The conciliar church is built on change, the Catholic Church is built on a rock - it don't change for nuthin' or nobody.
Boru,Yes, the use of a chrism using olive oil was instituted by the Apostles. My very point. The Apostles are the Church. The Church decided that instead of laying on the hands.
In the last part of the Aquinas quote (that you provided), he says the following:
Aquinas, using the testimony of Dionysius, says that the use of Chrism (i.e., olive oil mixed with balsam) for the "matter" came from the Apostles themselves. That agrees with what we have been telling you. The "matter" of the Sacrament was instituted by the Apostles. Anything the Apostles did, in that regard, is considered to be infallible because it is part of Sacred Tradition. The Church cannot change that because "the Church" did not institute it. The Apostles instituted that.
I have already told you what Pope Eugene meant, so I will not go back into that in detail. Pope Eugene was speaking of a change in nomenclature, not a change in the "matter."
Stubborn, we are talking about the ability of the Holy Father to change/modify the matter of the five sacraments that the Church herself mandated. Pope Paul IV added an exception to the rule in Extreme Unction (within his authority) and the Apostles - under the authority of St. Peter the first Pope - decided on an olive oil chrism instead of the laying on hands for Confirmation. The Council of Florence merely re-enforced this. What this confirms is that the Church can change/modify the matter and form of the five sacraments that the Church itself laid down. Do you understand why Pope Pius XII wrote the Papal Encyclical 'Sacramentum Ordinis"? Read it again. After making it clear that the Church can change the form and matter of those five sacraments, he then proceeds to explain that "the humble petition has again and again been addressed to the Holy father that the supreme Authority of the church might at last decide what is required for the validity in conferring the Sacred Order." Pope Pius then goes on to state that although the 'traditio instrumentorum' (eg. passing of the chalice) had been considered "at one time necessary, even for validity, by the will and command of the Church, everyone knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established. Wherefore after invoking the divine light, We of our Apostolic Authority..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 the hands....We now decree that, in relation to the future, the 'tradito instrumnentorum' is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders...".
Boru,Totally agree. A Pope cannot overturn a dogma because the dogma has its roots in scripture; divine law. As I have already said, the authority of the Church has limits, and one of those limits is Divine Law.
You have an over-simplistic way of understanding Church decisions. There are various levels and various degrees of Church authority. Examples:
1. Pope Pius XII declares that the Assumption of Our Lady is a dogma.
a. In your mind, you call this a "church decision" because the pope was involved. But that's too general of a description and incorrect.
b. This is an infallible statement, made by a pope. The pope is speaking in place of the Holy Ghost, protected by God, from error.
c. This is much, much more than a simple church decision. It's a declared doctrine, using Apostolic authority.
d. The declaration of a dogma is irrevocable. Unchangeable. Set in stone. It's an infallible decree of Divine Truth.
e. So this would be an example of a "church decision" which cannot change.
Yes, the use of a chrism using olive oil was instituted by the Apostles. My very point. The Apostles are the Church. The Church decided that instead of laying on the hands.
Summa - St. Thomas Aquinas - Confirmation
In like manner, too, when the apostles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) imposed their hands, and when they preached, the fulness of the Holy Ghost (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) came down under visible signs on the faithful (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05769a.htm), just as, at the beginning, He came down on the apostles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm): hence Peter said (Acts 11:15 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/act011.htm#verse15)): "When I had begun to speak, the Holy Ghost (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning." Consequently there was no need for sacramental sensible matter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm), where God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) sent sensible signs miraculously (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm).
However, the apostles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) commonly made use of chrism in bestowing the sacrament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm), when such like visible signs were lacking. For Dionysius (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05013a.htm) says (Eccl. Hier. iv): "There is a certain perfecting operation which our guides," i.e. the apostles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), "call the sacrifice of Chrism."
Who decided to do away with the laying of hands in Confirmation altogether? Obviously the Church decided.
States the Council of Florence:697 "Now, when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that the Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For He was not as yet come upon any of them: but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them; and they received the Holy Ghost" [Acts 8:14 ff.]. In place of this imposition of hands confirmation is given in the church."
Angelus, you read it which way you like - both ways mean the same - changing the name clearly means that that laying of hands was no longer relevant for validity. Stop being pedantic. There is absolutely no doubt that the early matter, the imposition of hands, was replaced (in place of) by a more formal formula involving chrisms (olive oil/baslam).
Totally agree. A Pope cannot overturn a dogma because the dogma has its roots in scripture; divine law. As I have already said, the authority of the Church has limits, and one of those limits is Divine Law.Not everything in Scripture is "Divine Law". Your terms are horrible. What about Our Lady's Assumption has anything to do with Law?
It is not a question of me over-simplifying Church decisions, its a question of you making distinctions between what the Church can or can't do. You treat everything almost like a dogma.
Totally agree. A Pope cannot overturn a dogma because the dogma has its roots in scripture; divine law. As I have already said, the authority of the Church has limits, and one of those limits is Divine Law.I gave you 5 detailed examples, to show the distinctions, and you ignored the post completely. :facepalm:
It is not a question of me over-simplifying Church decisions, its a question of you making distinctions between what the Church can or can't do. You treat everything almost like a dogma.
Stubborn, we are talking about the ability of the Holy Father to change/modify the matter of the five sacraments that the Church herself mandated. Pope Paul IV added an exception to the rule in Extreme Unction (within his authority) and the Apostles - under the authority of St. Peter the first Pope - decided on an olive oil chrism instead of the laying on hands for Confirmation. The Council of Florence merely re-enforced this. What this confirms is that the Church can change/modify the matter and form of the five sacraments that the Church itself laid down. Do you understand why Pope Pius XII wrote the Papal Encyclical 'Sacramentum Ordinis"? Read it again. After making it clear that the Church can change the form and matter of those five sacraments, he then proceeds to explain that "the humble petition has again and again been addressed to the Holy father that the supreme Authority of the church might at last decide what is required for the validity in conferring the Sacred Order." Pope Pius then goes on to state that although the 'traditio instrumentorum' (eg. passing of the chalice) had been considered "at one time necessary, even for validity, by the will and command of the Church, everyone knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established. Wherefore after invoking the divine light, We of our Apostolic Authority..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 the hands....We now decree that, in relation to the future, the 'tradito instrumnentorum' is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders...".So an ecuмenical council, which invokes Apostolic authority, can be changed by another pope? Wow.
Stubborn, we are talking about the ability of the Holy Father to change/modify the matter of the five sacraments that the Church herself mandated. Pope Paul IV added an exception to the rule in Extreme Unction (within his authority) and the Apostles - under the authority of St. Peter the first Pope - decided on an olive oil chrism instead of the laying on hands for Confirmation. The Council of Florence merely re-enforced this. What this confirms is that the Church can change/modify the matter and form of the five sacraments that the Church itself laid down.Pope Paul VI did not change the matter of Extreme Unction, he replaced that sacrament with Anointing of the Sick. Why? Because he could not change the substance (matter) of the sacrament, so he replaced the whole sacrament. Again, in the same way they could not change the Mass, so they replaced it with this thing they call the new mass.
Do you understand why Pope Pius XII wrote the Papal Encyclical 'Sacramentum Ordinis"? Read it again. After making it clear that the Church can change the form and matter of those five sacraments, he then proceeds to explain that "the humble petition has again and again been addressed to the Holy father that the supreme Authority of the church might at last decide what is required for the validity in conferring the Sacred Order."It does not say anything of the sort. The reason for the petition, as Fr. Hesse explains in that youtube, is because the matter of that sacrament was never clear, that's the reason for the petition. So, he clarified it.
Pope Pius then goes on to state that although the 'traditio instrumentorum' (eg. passing of the chalice) had been considered "at one time necessary, even for validity, by the will and command of the Church, everyone knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established. Wherefore after invoking the divine light, We of our Apostolic Authority..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 the hands....We now decree that, in relation to the future, the 'tradito instrumnentorum' is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders...".Because there was always a question on what was the Matter of the sacrament, he answered it, for all time.
Okay, Boru. So you acknowledge that Pius XII did "at last decide what is required for validity in conferring the Sacred Order." This means that his decision is irreversible. And it cannot be changed.
But just 25 years later changes were made that you accept.
If you want to use Pius XII as an authority against us, be consistent and see that your same logic will nullify the Novus Ordo changes. Pius XII claimed not simply to be making a disciplinary decision. He said that his decision came from the "divine light" and that it was "certain."
"Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare..."
Does the "divine light" change Its mind 25 years later? Does "certain" knowledge become "uncertain" 25 years later? No, the truth is eternal. If the change that Pius XII made came from God (from the "divine light" as he himself claims), then it is true forever and ever.
Therefore, the changes that Paul VI made to the Holy Orders violates the truth of the "divine light." Those changes made by Paul VI are null and void for those who believe in eternal truth and that a valid Pope can speak definitively as Pius XII did.
Pope Paul VI did not change the matter of Extreme Unction, he replaced that sacrament with Anointing of the Sick. Why? Because he could not change the substance (matter) of the sacrament, so he replaced the whole sacrament. Again, in the same way they could not change the Mass, so they replaced it with this thing they call the new mass.Ok, game on. Let us now discuss the wider issue because - surprise, surprise, I disagree with you. I have some things to do - spent too long here as it is and the dogs are getting wildly impatient! However, I'll return at some point if anyone is still interested ;)
Somehow this fact eludes you.
Hey, you missed the good bits. Stop skipping over what you don't want to hear:
Pope Pius then goes on to state that although the 'traditio instrumentorum' (eg. passing of the chalice) had been considered "at one time necessary, even for validity, by the will and command of the Church, everyone knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.
Which is exactly what St. Pius XII did. Angelus, there is no magic power in this physical matter. The matter is a visible sign of the sacrament being conferred. It is the authority of Holy Father which decides what this sign will be and which gives this sign its validity. And of course, before he makes such changes, he is going to pray about it, and confer with theologians and reach a certain knowledge based on everything he has studied. This goes for any Pope. Pope Pius didn't say the Holy Ghost told him directly. Only that he was invoking Him - praying to Him.
I use Cathinfo as means to learn and enrich my knowledge, in the sense, that I have to read and study in order to participate. I pride myself on being objective and reading and thinking about what you have all said (not always easy as sometimes they are too many responses to respond to). However, I do not feel this is always reciprocated. For example, Angelus, you jump on the word "divine light", interpret it out of context, and ignore what Pope Pius actually did and said.
More than likely, Pope Paul the VI prayed about it, conferred with his theologians before having decided upon this exception to the rule in cases of necessity. I can't even post a parcel these days without it going missing. Cases of necessity happen. And the Pope has the authority to decide what can be considered matter. It's that simple.
Ok, game on. Let us now discuss the wider issue because - surprise, surprise, I disagree with you. I have some things to do - spent too long here as it is and the dogs are getting wildly impatient! However, I'll return at some point if anyone is still interested ;)I know that "game on" is a phrase, but it's astonishing how many quasi-heresies you are pushing. You need to take this a LOT more seriously. You're in dangerous waters. You're a self-admitted convert to Tradition (well, actually, only a convert to the Indult). Do you not even recognize or admit that you've been programmed with V2 errors for (probably) decades? You're acting like we've never heard this stuff before. Like somehow you're going to convince us that Paul6 was allowed to do what he did with V2? You're 50 years too late for that.
Ok, game on. Let us now discuss the wider issue because - surprise, surprise, I disagree with you. I have some things to do - spent too long here as it is and the dogs are getting wildly impatient! However, I'll return at some point if anyone is still interested ;)Sure, bring it on. Try to keep on topic with one sacrament, Extreme Unction.
Novus Ordo Ordinations, the origin, history, and the intent of the Rite ... they're all identical to the factors that rendered Anglican Orders "absolutely null and utterly void" .. in addition to having changed the essential form. Pope Leo XIII's teaching is crystal clear that the NO must be considered at least to labor under postiive doubt and quite possibly to be simply invalid. There's no question, however that this causes positive doubt in an objective sense, which for all practical intents and purposes means that we are to treat them as invalidYou are mistaken. The Angelican Orders have no bearing on the Novus Ordo Ordinations. You are simply re-regurgitating Rama Coomaraswarmy's errors.
Sure, bring it on. Try to keep on topic with one sacrament, Extreme Unction.Agreed. I had things to tend to the last two days, but I'll try and come back to this this evening. I found an interesting article by a Father Juan Carlos Ceriani, written while he was still in the SSPX, which is worth commenting on and using as a template to keep my arguments in some sort of order. He, as you most likely know, was a Sedevacantist priest whose sede views came to fore even in the 1990's.
Agreed. I had things to tend to the last two days, but I'll try and come back to this this evening. I found an interesting article by a Father Juan Carlos Ceriani, written while he was still in the SSPX, which is worth commenting on and using as a template to keep my arguments in some sort of order. He, as you most likely know, was a Sedevacantist priest whose sede views came to fore even in the 1990's.So, the following is in response to an article published by SSPX Asia in March/April 1999, based on a study of Father Juan Carlos Ceriani, a sede-vacantist priest who left the SSPX in 2006. It is entitled: New Sacrament of Extreme Unction (which is known today as 'Anointing of the Sick').
To make an argument out of this one word is absurd.If this change is so meaningless, then why did the Modernists change it? For no reason? Are you that naive?
As we have already debated the exception to the rule - plant based oil - allowed by a Pope who has the authority to make such modifications:facepalm: A pope. cannot. change. Scripture.
Immediate there is an error because Vatican II did not change any doctrines of the Catholic Church.So why did +ABL need to separate from new-Rome, then? Why did Traditionalism need to start at all? So the sspx and every other Trad has been wrong for 50+ years? You’re basically arguing that Trads are schismatic.
If this change is so meaningless, then why did the Modernists change it? For no reason? Are you that naive?The Modernist mind-set was to stream-line and simplify everything for 'modern' man. The point is, despite these trimmings here, there and everywhere, the essentials for validity remained. The Holy Ghost only allowed them to go so far. I do not argue that there was a sinister agenda behind many of the post-Vatican II changes. I am only arguing that the indefectible Church of Christ is still the Church despite how hard its enemies tried to destroy it from within. I am also arguing that because of all these changes, we have become overly-sensitive to every change and are calling out 'errors' where there are none.
The Modernist mind-set was to stream-line and simplify everything for 'modern' man. The point is, despite these trimmings here, there and everywhere, the essentials for validity remained. The Holy Ghost only allowed them to go so far. I do not argue that there was a sinister agenda behind many of the post-Vatican II changes. I am only arguing that the indefectible Church of Christ is still the Church despite how hard its enemies tried to destroy it from within. I am also arguing that because of all these changes, we have become overly-sensitive to every change and are calling out 'errors' where there are none.So then, according to you, Traditionalists are wrong. +ABL was wrong. He should've been excommunicated.
The point is that PPVI changed the matter and form of the sacrament in order to change the sacrament: "We thought fit to modify the sacramental formula in such a way that, in view of the words of Saint James, the effects of the sacrament might be better expressed."Sorry Stubborn, I replied to your post and then accidentally lent on the keyboard and deleted it somehow! Arhhhhh! I'll have to come back to you later.
So then, according to you, Traditionalists are wrong. +ABL was wrong. He should've been excommunicated.You are such a chessboard Pax. It's either this or it's that. No distinctions.
If V2 didn't change doctrine,
If the new rites are valid and licit,
If the pope has the power to change all of this,
If the V2 church is the church,
If the Holy Ghost is still protecting V2,
then the only logical conclusion is that Tradition is wrong. It's schismatic. There's no other conclusion.
We know that the Church was infiltrated.Ok, but according to you, V2 was from the Holy Ghost (since a pope promulgated it). The new mass was from a pope, so it's from God. What did the infiltrators do, if not create the new mass/V2? But you say these aren't changes, but being from God, must be good/holy.
We know that Vatican II - legitimate in itself - was hijacked by these infiltrators who, unable to change the faith, planted ambiguous time-bombs for later use.If V2 is legitimate, then it was protected from error by the Holy Ghost. God is not ambiguous. The pope's infallibility CANNOT give us ambiguity.
There is a war going on WITHIN the Church; a battle between the traditionalists who clearly see the enemy at work, and the enemy who blindly thinks he can destroy what Christ divinely instituted.But you keep saying that V2 didn't change doctrine. And the new mass is valid and ok. So what is the enemy doing to destroy the Church? You've never actually explained this, you just see the problem, but can't articulate it, because you miss the MAIN problems, which are V2/new mass.
The Holy Ghost is keeping the Church intact despite these attacks,If V2/new mass are catholic and from the pope, what are these "attacks" you're talking about? The entire catholic world is following V2's direction. Most go to the new mass. So what's the problem? They are following the pope.
however all the propaganda and abuses generated by these enemies have lead the faithful astray.If the faithful attend the new mass, which is valid and holy, how can they be led astray? How can the Holy Ghost give a mass which is defective? If you say the new mass is defective, then Trent says you're a heretic.
That is why, as that 100 years drew to a close, God in His mercy sent us Archbishop LefebvreIf Paul6 was a valid pope and he was right/infallible in giving us V2/new mass, why didn't his actions lead to more holiness in the Church?
"When God calls me – no doubt this will be before long – from whom would these seminarians receive the Sacrament of Orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments?"This translation is less than precise. The Archbishop said, "Les sacrements sont TOUS douteux" The sacraments are ALL doubtful. Not some... ALL. He says ALL in the Mr. Wilson letter also.
If a priest is doing a baptism, and before the ceremony he says that baptism does not wash away Original Sin because there's no such thing, and baptism is "just an initiation into the community", then even if the matter and form are correct, the "baptism" is invalid.
This translation is less than precise. The Archbishop said, "Les sacrements sont TOUS douteux" The sacraments are ALL doubtful. Not some... ALL. He says ALL in the Mr. Wilson letter also.Video recording and a hand-written letter. May I see them? Where did this letter come from? Who is Mr. Wilson?
This discussion about the new form is extremely interesting, however the fact is that +Lefebvre did not consider the new form a problem, and when the Neo-SSPX doesn't either, you can't say they're contradicting their founder. The flagrant problem is that we have a video recording and a handwritten letter of the Archbishop saying that ALL conciliar ordinations are doubtful now (now = 1988). And then the Neo-SSPX pretends it's still 1978 and that there are still bishops around who clearly disassociate themselves from the prevailing false concepts of the priesthood.
The point is that PPVI changed the matter and form of the sacrament in order to change the sacrament: "We thought fit to modify the sacramental formula in such a way that, in view of the words of Saint James, the effects of the sacrament might be better expressed."Pope Paul VI did not change the matter and form. He slightly modified the wording however the sense is still the same. The substance - what the sacrament is - was not changed.
In the new sacrament the priest asks no pardon of God for sins, you should ask: Why? It is because the focus is strictly on the body.
You should note that this change does not at all take into account the words of St. James who says: "and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him."
If it is true that he changed the established matter and form to better express the words of St. James, then you tell me - why did they purposely remove asking pardon from sins?
You may not know that even after a long life of sin, Catholics who receive the sacrament of Extreme Unction with the appropriate dispositions go straight to heaven when they die - they enter eternity without having to go to purgatory! This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately.
This cannot be said for those who receive the NO sacrament of Anointing of the sick, that is not even it's purpose. The NO sacrament does not do this because their foundation is in their preaching, that everyone already goes to heaven.....except of course those evil traditional Catholics.
Pope Paul VI did not change the matter and form. He slightly modified the wording however the sense is still the same. The substance - what the sacrament is - was not changed.Ahh Boru, Boru, Boru, what are we going to do with you?
The Form of the new version reads as follows: "by this holy unction and His pious mercy, may god help you by the grace of the holy spirit, in order that, delivered from your sins, God may save you and restore you to his goodness."
The original wording was far better however the change of phrasing does not invalidate it. The essential meaning is still there and it is very similar to the scriptural meaning of James 5:14–15 (https://www.esv.org/verses/James 5%3A14–15/).
Canon 841: "since the sacraments are the same for the whole church and belong to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirement for their validity..."
Ahh Boru, Boru, Boru, what are we going to do with you?A number of the sacraments had "new names" during the history of the Church. And 'Anointing of the Sick" is one of them. Historically, it is more traditional than 'Extreme Unction'.
Just because PPVI did not come right out and say he was doing away with one sacrament and replacing it with another of his own invention, you do not believe that is what he actually did, he actually did that - and he gave it a new name as well, he called it The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6anoin.htm).
Now if you do not see this as two different sacraments, then I do not know what else to say.
The NO Breviary says:
The priest anoints the sick person with blessed oil.
"Free him/her from sin and all temptation" and in another place: "May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up."
In the Catholic Breviary it says:
Then, dipping his thumb in the holy oil, he anoints the sick person in the form of a cross in the parts here inscribed, adapting the words to their proper place; in this manner:
To the Eyes: Through this holy anointing and his most pious mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have committed by sight.
To the Ears:Through this holy anointing and his most pious mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned by hearing.
To the Nose:Through this holy Anointing and His most pious mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned through the perfume.
To the Mouth: Through this holy anointing and his most pious mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned in taste and speech.
To the Hands:Through this holy anointing and his most pious mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned by touch.
At the Feet:Through this holy anointing and his most merciful mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned in your walk.
A number of the sacraments had "new names" during the history of the Church. And 'Anointing of the Sick" is one of them. Historically, it is more traditional than 'Extreme Unction'.Oh it's highly abbreviated alright, to the point that it means something different than what the Sacrament it replaced says. But, if only abbreviated it still means the same thing, which it doesn't, but if it means the same thing, then why change it at all? It HAS to mean something different.
I do not have the full wording of the NO Breviary in front of me to compare, however you have quoted enough to prove that, although highly abbreviated, it means the same.
Oh it's highly abbreviated alright, to the point that it means something different than what the Sacrament it replaced says. But, if only abbreviated it still means the same thing, which it doesn't, but if it means the same thing, then why change it at all? It HAS to mean something different.I do not know who Fr. Wathen is but I would answer him the same way I answered you: Canon 841: "since the sacraments are the same for the whole church and belong to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirement for their validity...".
Speaking of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, (I changed those references for the Sacrament we are discussing), Fr. Wathen puts it this way...
"The new forms (Latin and English) must be seen to say something different from the old - because it does. 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 anoint 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 the sacrament? Why did they touch the form at all?)"
I do not know who Fr. Wathen is but I would answer him the same way I answered you: Canon 841: "since the sacraments are the same for the whole church and belong to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirement for their validity...".Fr. Wathen was one of the many priests who, from the beginning, remained faithful and never went along with the new mass and religion of V2. I learned of him just after his death in 2006 when a friend told me about him. His book The Great Sacrilege (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-great-sacrilege-pdf/) was published about 1971, when the new mass and religion was not quite everywhere just yet, it is all about the new "mass." One of his other books, "Who Shall Ascend?" is attached as a pdf. Both are well worth reading.
I would also answer - like I reminded Pax - Moderism is so insidious that a person - even Popes - do not realise that they are victims; they do not realise that they are leaning dangerously into error.:laugh1: You act like modernism is a virus that people can catch unknowingly. No, modernism is a heresy. Those who fall into it, do so if their own free will. To say that a pope, WHO HAS THE PROTECTION OF THE HOLY GHOST, could fall into heresy and BE A VICTIM of heresy without realizing it is itself a heresy. 1) you’re denying the efficacy of grace. 2) denial of conscience. 3) denial of infallibility.
:laugh1: You act like modernism is a virus that people can catch unknowingly. No, modernism is a heresy. Those who fall into it, do so if their own free will. To say that a pope, WHO HAS THE PROTECTION OF THE HOLY GHOST, could fall into heresy and BE A VICTIM of heresy without realizing it is itself a heresy. 1) you’re denying the efficacy of grace. 2) denial of conscience. 3) denial of infallibility.
But this is how women think. Everyone is a victim. Everyone is a good person who gets tricked. It’s never anyone’s fault. ….naive and immature. …and heretical.
Moderism is so insidious that a person -even Popeseven Boru - do not realise that they are victims; they do not realise that they are leaning dangerously into error.
Fr. Wathen was one of the many priests who, from the beginning, remained faithful and never went along with the new mass and religion of V2. I learned of him just after his death in 2006 when a friend told me about him. His book The Great Sacrilege (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-great-sacrilege-pdf/) was published about 1971, when the new mass and religion was not quite everywhere just yet, it is all about the new "mass." One of his other books, "Who Shall Ascend?" is attached as a pdf. Both are well worth reading.
* Thank you - I'll definitely have a read.
Also, here we avoid quoting Canon Law from the New (1983) Code. I attached a pdf of the 1917 Canon Law for you to use.....you will find that it does not have anything close to your above Canon Law quote - because all those things within the "The Divine Deposit" are unchangeable. Why? Because God ("Divine") is the one who deposited all those things in there. All those things in the "Divine Deposit (of faith)" are to be believed, preserved, defended and promulgated, not changed. Nobody can change anything within it.
* That was my point. Because sacraments are part of the divine deposit, their substance, protected by the Holy Ghost, remains unchanged.
The NO Canon Law in your quote is right when it says: "it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirement for their validity...". The sacrament's validity was previously, already approved and defined by the Supreme Authority of the Church, so what PPVI did was he made and defined his own NO sacrament, then he approved it.
* Pope Paul VI was the Supreme authority. This means he had the authority to "approve or define". He could not touch the substance - that is divinely protected - but he could lawfully make changes.
Boru's quote should have read as follows:
Moderism is so insidious that a person - even Popes even Boru - do not realise that they are victims; they do not realise that they are leaning dangerously into error.
If the Church was foundered as the Mystical Body of Christ, it cannot suddenly not be the Mystical Body of Christ simply because of human failings. Christ promised that the means of obtaining grace for our salvation would not fail.Your error is that you falsely define the Church as the pope. Or those in new-rome as the Church. Or some combination thereof.
Quote from: Boru (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg997590#msg997590) 2025-09-02, 6:55:43 PMAfter reading all of your posts, and especially this most recent one, it is EXTREMELY clear that you continue to confuse and weave together the Conciliar church with the Catholic Church. This is a grave error.
The more I learn and read, the more I see that every single one of us is infected to some degree. Modernism is incredibly insidious - it has warped everyone's understanding of what the Church is and what we are to believe or not believe. All I do know, without fear of being wrong, is that the safest course of action is to follow what the saints did: they followed and submitted to the Church of Rome - founded by Christ - and resisted the human error. Like St. Athanasius did. If the Church was foundered as the Mystical Body of Christ, it cannot suddenly not be the Mystical Body of Christ simply because of human failings. Christ promised that the means of obtaining grace for our salvation would not fail.
Also, here we avoid quoting Canon Law from the New (1983) Code. I attached a pdf of the 1917 Canon Law for you to use.....you will find that it does not have anything close to your above Canon Law quote - because all those things within the "The Divine Deposit" are unchangeable. Why? Because God ("Divine") is the one who deposited all those things in there. All those things in the "Divine Deposit (of faith)" are to be believed, preserved, defended and promulgated, not changed. Nobody can change anything within it.Yes, that's right, the sacrament of Extreme Unction does indeed remain unchanged. The sacrament of "Anointing" is not in the Divine Deposit of Faith because PPVI is not divine and cannot deposit anything in there. All those things in the Deposit of Faith are the Church's to safeguard and to use for the salvation of souls. She is the defender, protector and administer of all those things. Period. Popes do not have the power or authority to change any of those things within the deposit of faith.
* That was my point. Because sacraments are part of the divine deposit, their substance, protected by the Holy Ghost, remains unchanged.
The NO Canon Law in your quote is right when it says: "it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirement for their validity...". The sacrament's validity was previously, already approved and defined by the Supreme Authority of the Church, so what PPVI did was he made and defined his own NO sacrament, then he approved it.He completely changed the sacrament's matter, form and intention. By him doing that, what he did was he replaced the sacrament of Extreme Unction with the NO sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. As I said earlier, the true sacrament was replaced with the new sacrament in much the same way that the True Mass was replaced with the new "mass."
* Pope Paul VI was the Supreme authority. This means he had the authority to "approve or define". He could not touch the substance - that is divinely protected - but he could lawfully make changes.
After reading all of your posts, and especially this most recent one, it is EXTREMELY clear that you continue to confuse and weave together the Conciliar church with the Catholic Church. This is a grave error.I continue to weave them together because that is the teaching of the Catholic Church: A Church that is both human and divine. Do you deny this? Do you deny that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ? Both human and divine? St. Athanasius of Alexandria rejected the heresy of Arius and yet never declared the Church not the Church or the Pope not the Pope - even though the Pope embraced the Arian heresy. The Conciliar "church" (those within the Church who have submitted to Modernism) do not effect the eternal and divine deposit of faith. Think it through logically. If Christ Himself founded this visible Church in Rome - upon the Papacy - and said it would last forever, eternal and indefectible, then it is a divine institution protected by the Holy Ghost. Not even a Pope can destroy it or change the dogmas and doctrines of the Church. And they haven't been changed. Moreover, if this divine Church has the Papacy as its foundation - as its rock - then the Papacy must be eternal and indefectible as well. You cannot have one without the other; the Church and the Papacy are one. Which means that if it started out divine, it continues to be divine. And this is where we must makes distinctions: while the Office of the Papacy is divine, the human person who is Pope can still err and set bad example when not speaking in his official capacity ex- cathedra: speaking from the chair. This has happened numerous times throughout history begining with Judas who betrayed Christ and Peter the first Pope who denied Him three times.
The Conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.
Just as the Arian church in the fourth century was not the Catholic Church, even though it was filled with and even governed by bishops who had once been Catholic, so too today the Conciliar church is a false church born of Vatican II. Fallen bishops and priests, no matter how many, do not constitute the Bride of Christ when they abandon the Faith.
The Church of Christ is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Conciliar church, like the Arian church of old, lacks this mark of unity in the Faith. To equate it with the Catholic Church is to blur the very line that every faithful Catholic must defend with his life.
Quote from: Boru on September 02, 2025, 09:22:08 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/universal-doubtful-intention/msg997587/#msg997587)Yes, that's right, the sacrament of Extreme Unction does indeed remain unchanged. The sacrament of "Anointing" is not in the Divine Deposit of Faith because PPVI is not divine and cannot deposit anything in there.
* Pope Paul VI did not deposit a new sacrament. 'The anointing of the sick' - a title used in antiquity - maintains the same Matter, Form, Intention of old. The ability to effect grace is still the same even though the traditional prayers and wording has been stripped back to a more simplistic form. As I mentioned to you in a previous post, if this sacrament, in an emergency, is deemed valid with just a quick cross on the forehead and a a quick prayer expressing the intent of the sacrament, then we can rest assured that this more expansive formula is also valid.
All those things in the Deposit of Faith are the Church's to safeguard and to use for the salvation of souls. She is the defender, protector and administer of all those things. Period. Popes do not have the power or authority to change any of those things within the deposit of faith.
* The formula of all the sacraments have changed over the centuries. Different rites, different prayers, different titles. What has never changed is the essentials.
He completely changed the sacrament's matter, form and intention. By him doing that, what he did was he replaced the sacrament of Extreme Unction with the NO sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. As I said earlier, the true sacrament was replaced with the new sacrament in much the same way that the True Mass was replaced with the new "mass."
You have a misguided idea as regards papal power and authority. This must change.
* Pope Paul the VI was the Supreme authority. When he was elected Pope, he became St. Peter who God gave the power to 'bind and loosen'. As we have stated numerous times, the Pope does not have the power to change the substance instituted by Christ - what the sacrament is. But he does have the power, as outlined by Pope Pius XII, to change its formula as long as the Matter, Form, and Intention still maintain the same sense of the sacrament and its intention to do what the Church has always done.
"So many Catholics have the idea that the pope, because he is the head of the Church, has limitless authority. This is altogether wrong. He is not at all limitless in what he may do, he is strictly bound to what he must do and he is bound to adhere to what has been established. The role and the duty of the pope is not to deviate from what has been established, but to make sure that all his subjects don’t deviate from it." - Fr. Wathen
* No, the Pope does not have limitless authority. He cannot change what Christ instituted. He cannot change divine or moral law. But he can change everything else. Yes, "the role and the duty of the Pope is not to deviate from what has been established but to make sure that all his subjects don't deviate from it". Totally correct. That is the role and duty of a Pope. Unfortunately, while his office is divine, his person is not and so when he is not teaching from the chair, he can err and set bad example. Again, distinctions need to be made.
I think that if you can erase what you currently think about the pope's authority and replace it with what is bolded, you will come to understand this issue and really, this whole crisis better.
* Pope Paul VI did not deposit a new sacrament. 'The anointing of the sick' - a title used in antiquity - maintains the same Matter, Form, Intention of old. The ability to effect grace is still the same even though the traditional prayers and wording has been stripped back to a more simplistic form. As I mentioned to you in a previous post, if this sacrament, in an emergency, is deemed valid with just a quick cross on the forehead and a a quick prayer expressing the intent of the sacrament, then we can rest assured that this more expansive formula is also valid.You are in denial because it has been proven to you that PPVI replaced the sacrament of Extreme Unction. The NO sacrament's intent is to heal the sick, not forgive sins and strengthen us against the devil as well as bodily in an emergency situation. The matter and form verify this. Same as the new "mass" is in no sense of the word the same as the old mass save some changes.
* The formula of all the sacraments have changed over the centuries. Different rites, different prayers, different titles. What has never changed is the essentials.The formulas did not change to the point of replacing one sacrament with another until PPVI, which changed everything including the essentials, as has already been shown to you. The problem is that you do not believe that which you cannot deny.
* Pope Paul the VI was the Supreme authority. When he was elected Pope, he became St. Peter who God gave the power to 'bind and loosen'. As we have stated numerous times, the Pope does not have the power to change the substance instituted by Christ - what the sacrament is. But he does have the power, as outlined by Pope Pius XII, to change its formula as long as the Matter, Form, and Intention still maintain the same sense of the sacrament and its intention to do what the Church has always done.When PPXII said that, it was because, unlike all of the other sacraments, the Matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders was never clearly defined.....so he clearly defined it.
Your error is that you falsely define the Church as the pope. Or those in new-rome as the Church. Or some combination thereof.
**"Upon this rock I will build my Church." This rock is the visible foundation of the Church. We live in a rambley, old world, stone house. If we were to separate the house from its foundations, the house would collapse in a heap and be no more; because the house and its foundation are one.
You are personally defining what "the gates of hell shall not prevail" means, and then applying it to the V2 church. But Christ was not that specific. He never promised that the Church would always remain in rome, or that the pope would always remain orthodox. Theologians for centuries have said that the idea that a pope could not become a heretic is a "pious belief". Even they knew that such an idea is not a doctrine.
** I'm defining it how it has always been defined: "Upon this rock (papacy) I will build my Church. And the gates of hell, will not prevail against it." Prevail: to be greater in strength or influence; to triumph over. The meaning is clear Pax - the gates of hell will not be greater in strength than the Papal Church (the fountain of grace) - even though hell will do its best to triumph over it.
The number of people who stayed true to Christ during His passion was a handful. 11 of the 12 apostles fled. There's no doctrine which says that the Church could not succuмb to heresy to a very high %, if not most. And that +ABL and a few hundred priests around the world would be all the remnant who resisted V2 and the apostasy. There's NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE FAITH in this idea. In fact, these few hundred Trad clerics, as a % of the whole cleric world, would be akin to the handful of faithful who remained faithful to Christ.
** I agree. What you have painted in broad strokes resembles what happened during the Arian heresy. My only objection is the use of Vatican II, and the implication of the word "remnant" in your line: "and a few hundred priests around the world would be the remnant who resisted V2 and the apostasy." Modernism did not start with Vatican II and Vatican II in itself as a council, was perfectly legit. Let us keep it to resisting 'Modernism' (because one can adhere to Modernism without necessarily being an apostate). As such, we must be careful about using the word 'remnant' as if we and a handful of others were now the Church. There are many Catholics who interpret V2 in light of tradition and ignore the abuses and false interpretations. They are certainly not apostates.
We also need to qualify what it means to be faithful to Christ. Christ is the Church; that visible Roman mystical body governed by the head, the Pope, the vicar of Christ. To be a member of this mystical body - to be faithful to it - we must stay united to it.
Your entire argument for V2 rests on your false opinion that "God wouldn't allow V2 to be heretical". Or that "God wouldn't allow the Church to fall into such disarray". But scholars say that the Arian heresy engulfed 95% of catholics and that was long, long ago.
** That's not my argument. I am saying that despite this 'disarray' within the Church caused by Modernism, the deposit of faith has not been touched. The ruling authority of the Pope, Cardinals and bishops is not effected, and the divine 'fountain of grace', eternal and indefectible, continues on. I pay no heed to the smoke and mirrors caused by these Judas magicians within the Church and simply carry on living my Catholic life, of old, as if they weren't there, just like the Holy family did even though the Temple priests were corrupt and teaching erroneous man-made laws.
The historical parallels to V2 are all there; it's just V2 had the new dimension - a string of heretical popes. Or a string of non-popes who pretended to be catholic. Either way, this is a unique thing of history. But there's NOTHING IN THE FAITH WHICH SAYS THIS CAN'T HAPPEN. You (and many others) just DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT the possibility. Your entire position rests on the "pious belief" that a pope cannot become a heretic. Or that a non-pope can't sneak in and play pretend.
** There is no precedent of a Pope being condemned as a heretic in over 2000 years of its history. Clearly, during the Arian crisis, Pope Liberius condemned St. Athanasius and signed an equivocal statement which could be interpreted either in an orthodox OR an Arian way - so to all appearances this Pope was a heretic - however, as soon as he was free from duress, this Pope came out clearly in favour of orthodoxy.
Heresy, as we know, comprises of matter (a belief contrary to a formal teaching of the Church) and form (pertinacity in the will).
It has been said that Pope Honorius was a heretic, however, this is not true. He was never accused of being a heretic during his lifetime but after his death he was condemned for not stepping in to stop a heresy and thus was considered guilty of its spread. He was not condemned as actually believing or teaching the heresy in question.
But our Faith isn't based on "pious beliefs". We have to accept what is. We have to accept that God's ways are mysterious. And many times unpredictable.
** Exactly Pax, exactly.
Quote from: Boru (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg997608#msg997608) 2025-09-03, 6:31:30 AMIf the mere continuity of bishops or ecclesiastical structures were sufficient to define the Church, could the Anglican Church under Henry VIII still be called Catholic despite its formal rupture with the Faith? By the same logic, can the Conciliar Church—having formally embraced and propagated error—truly claim to be the Catholic Church, even while asserting apostolic succession? One must examine not human appearances, but fidelity to the Faith, for it is the Faith that alone renders the Church both One and Apostolic.
I continue to weave them together because that is the teaching of the Catholic Church: A Church that is both human and divine. Do you deny this? Do you deny that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ? Both human and divine? St. Athanasius of Alexandria rejected the heresy of Arius and yet never declared the Church not the Church or the Pope not the Pope - even though the Pope embraced the Arian heresy. The Conciliar "church" (those within the Church who have submitted to Modernism) do not effect the eternal and divine deposit of faith. Think it through logically. If Christ Himself founded this visible Church in Rome - upon the Papacy - and said it would last forever, eternal and indefectible, then it is a divine institution protected by the Holy Ghost. Not even a Pope can destroy it or change the dogmas and doctrines of the Church. And they haven't been changed. Moreover, if this divine Church has the Papacy as its foundation - as its rock - then the Papacy must be eternal and indefectible as well. You cannot have one without the other; the Church and the Papacy are one. Which means that if it started out divine, it continues to be divine. And this is where we must makes distinctions: while the Office of the Papacy is divine, the human person who is Pope can still err and set bad example when not speaking in his official capacity ex- cathedra: speaking from the chair. This has happened numerous times throughout history begining with Judas who betrayed Christ and Peter the first Pope who denied Him three times.
If the mere continuity of bishops or ecclesiastical structures were sufficient to define the Church, could the Anglican Church under Henry VIII still be called Catholic despite its formal rupture with the Faith? By the same logic, can the Conciliar Church—having formally embraced and propagated error—truly claim to be the Catholic Church, even while asserting apostolic succession? One must examine not human appearances, but fidelity to the Faith, for it is the Faith that alone renders the Church both One and Apostolic.The Anglican rupture was with the Pope long before the rupture with the faith. Take away the foundation and you have no Church. As for the Catholic Church, it has not formally taught or embraced any error. None. It's fidelity to the Faith is without question. Certainly, the human hierarchy has erred - that which you label the 'conciliar church' - however, the Pope, in his official capacity, has never propagated anything against the faith that we, as Catholics are bound to submit to, under pain of sin. The problem, as Cassini highlighted in one of his posts, is that the modern Church puts more emphasis on the human element of the Church at the expense of the divine. This does not mean the supernatural element is no longer there (divine = eternal), it merely means that it has been overshadowed and down played by a humanistic spirit. Funny enough, everyone here on Cathinfo make a song and dance about "what Christ has instituted can never be changed" and yet are the first ones to dismiss His institution of the Papacy. The inconsistency of thought is glaring.
Bishop Williamson would disagree with you in his later years and specifically around 2016 or so.+Williamson, in certain areas, was not theologically precise. Canon Law is clear on all of this. I've disagreed with +W on many things. Of the 4 sspx bishops, +W was the bottom 2 in theology. +Tissier was the brain in this area.
Boru, the question I have for you is - you make a distinction between V2 (theoretically good) with the abuses (practical application). But the abuses are all one sees.
I see no theoretically good new masses, etc. In fact, Cardinal Ottaviani/Bacci etc (all of whom were good friends with +ABL) in their "Ottaviani Critique" of the new mass (in its purest/theoretical form) said that the new mass was "deficient", "protestant" and "contrary to Trent". This was BEFORE THE NEW MASS WAS INTRODUCED. And the "final product" wasn't different from what +Ottaviani studied.
**I have read through the 'Ottaviani Critique'. I agree with everything in this report and it was heart breaking to actually read it. However, the report does not say that the 'new Mass' is deficient in effecting the sacrament. It states that the new Mass would please protestants, that it is deficient in conveying the true meaning of the sacrifice of the Mass, and that
Are you saying that those who follow V2/new mass are going to save their souls? And aren't Modernists? And that the "liturgical abuses" (i.e. sacrileges/blasphemies) have no effect on salvation? And no effect on grace?
** I am saying that those that participate in a new Mass that is said without abuses to the essential form, and by a priest who has the intent to do as the Church does, is receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, yes.
Whether they are Modernists or not, I cannot tell you as I cannot read into their souls. I do know of many faithful who go to daily mainstream Mass, say the rosary every day, weekly adoration, and hold bible studies for the youth using a Douay Rheims bible. Are they going to save their souls? Most likely. Do they truly understand their faith? Unlikely, but they understand enough to do the above.
Liturgical abuses do not render a Mass invalid if the the consecration is done validly, that is, the priest uses the correct Form, the correct Matter, and intends to do what the Church intends.
Canon Law forbids attendance at sacrilegious masses, or from heretic priests, or from any liturgical "abuse". Canon Law forbids participation at "abusive" liturgies. Those who participate commit grave sins.
**Does the new Mass qualify as a sacrilegious or abusive mass and are priests heretics who offer up a new Mass? No. Not in themselves.
And such have been going on for 50+ years. There's no "secret abuses". It's all out in the open. The V2 "system" is one of abuses; it's the NORM to see sacrileges, communion-in-the-hand, immodest dress, etc. The practical errors are common.
** Agreed. The abuses are horrendous. However, they do not invalidate a Mass if said correctly.
So your argument is that the THEORETICAL Church cannot be prevailed upon by hell, but the practical/street-level/day-to-day can be (and has). That's quite a statement.
** Divine and human in one body. According to the Catechism of Trent, the Church consists of two parts: the Church triumphant (gone before) and the Church militant (present on earth still facing the enemy). This Church militant is comprised of good and bad. (pg. 99). This is why we can have error inside the Church. That is the distinction. This human error or deliberate attack, however, cannot harm the divine - because whatever is of Christ is eternal and indestructible.
No theologian has ever made this distinction. In fact, as I've pointed out in the past, Christ told us to JUDGE by the FRUITS (i.e. practical effects). It's impossible for a (theoretically good) church to give/promote/condone/allow bad fruits/abusive liturgies/sacrilegious masses ON A DAILY LEVEL.
Its in the Catechism of Trent.
The V2 church is a system of error. It's a systemic, daily, monthly, DECADES-long, error. You can't apologize for it and say it's a "one off". That's ludicrous.
If one attends a known-heretic priest's mass (even if he is valid and the mass is valid), there is NO GRACE at this mass, because the priest is heretical.But more priests are at the very least material heretics due to belief in salvation outside the Church by the Church etc, or the soul of the Church heresy regarding non -Catholics.
- The priest sins.
- The laity sins.
- Any grace is impeded by sin. That's canon law.
Same thing for attendance at any illicit/schismatic masses OR masses said by illicit/schismatic priests.
- The priest sins.
- The laity sins.
- Any grace is impeded by sin. That's canon law.
Same thing (and worse) goes for immoral masses, where sacrileges/blasphemies occur.
- Immodest dress
- Irreverent liturgical actions or allowances
- Irreverent laughing, dancing, music
- communion in the hand
- any liturgical actions contrary to doctrine, theology.
- any protestant ideals or new-age "worship"
- All these things make the mass an ABOMINATION BEFORE THE LORD.
- Any grace is impeded by sin. That's canon law.
The whole idea of "Well, the mass is valid, so it's good and gives grace." is so anti-canon law and theologically stupid that it bears repeating that it's wrong.
Just because the mass MAY BE valid (in the case of V2 "priests"), that doesn't mean it's good, holy, and pleasing to God. Nor does it mean that sins of illicitness/immorality don't impede graces of this mass.
However, the report does not say that the 'new Mass' is deficient in effecting the sacrament. It states that the new Mass would please protestants, that it is deficient in conveying the true meaning of the sacrifice of the Mass,He says that “one may doubt” (positive doubt) that the new mass consecration formula (due to changes) is valid. In other words, it’s not 100% valid. We know what Pope Innocent says about doubtful sacraments.
He says that “one may doubt” (positive doubt) that the new mass consecration formula (due to changes) is valid. In other words, it’s not 100% valid. We know what Pope Innocent says about doubtful sacraments.And you swing to extremes. The "new" Mass does not compare to a black Mass or a supermarket Mass.
Secondly, a deficiency in “conveying the true meaning of the sacrifice” means it’s doctrinally flawed. The liturgy’s purpose (one of them) is to teach the Faith.
1). To say that the Holy Ghost can give a doctrinally flawed mass/sacrament is heresy. A doctrinally flawed mass is a grave sin. It’s immoral, anti-Catholic and a sacrilege.
Go read Fr Wathen’s book “the Great Sacrilege”. He explains why the new mass is immoral and anti-Catholic.
2). A doctrinally flawed mass would be illicit. That’s the entire purpose of Quo Primum— keep the liturgy pure. An illicit mass is a grave sin.
3). You keep boiling down the debate and using validity as the ONLY “litmus test” of acceptability. That’s not the case.
A black, satanic mass can be valid. Does that mean it’s holy? Pleasing to God? Does it give grace? Is it Catholic?
If a priest walks into a supermarket and gets bread, wine and says the words of consecration in aisle 2…this would be valid. Does that mean it’s a holy mass? Is God pleased? Does this give grace? Is this a Catholic thing to do?
Your hyper-fixation on validity is too myopic and misses the first for the trees. It’s also theologically a deficient way to study this topic. Validity is only ONE aspect. And even Ottaviani said the new mass is doubtful.
And you swing to extremes. The "new" Mass does not compare to a black Mass or a supermarket Mass.No, it does not compare. That's not the point i'm making. I'm pointing out the flaw in your "validity is all that matters" argument, by going to an extreme case. If validity is all that matters (it isn't), then a black/supermarket mass is holy, pleasing and glorifying to God. Obviously, this is a wrong conclusion. Which means that VALIDITY IS NOT THE ONLY CRITERIA TO USE in deciding whether a mass is holy, pleasing and glorifying. That's the point.
You claim the new Mass is not validHow many times do I have to say this isn't my argument? The argument is that the new mass/V2 church is DOUBTFUL. If you can't get my argument right, then we can't have a discussion.
Yes, I'm a legalist; I need guide-lines for my understanding. And as the Church teaches that that the Church is Christ, the eternal fountain of grace, your claim that this eternal fountain of grace dried up around 1969, does not tally with this teaching. Nor does it tally with all the verified Eucharistic Miracles since 1969, or all the pius and good-living Novus Order Catholics around the world who live more Godly lives than many traditionalists. They are getting grace, make no mistake. It is understanding that they are missing.Ok, but the Orthodox heretics also have valid sacraments. Can an Orthodox heretic make it heaven...without rejecting his heresy? (correct answer = 'no').
And this is the core defect of the "new" Mass. Having been stripped back from its former glory it not longer focuses on the sacrificial Crucifixion of our Saviour but rather focuses on the last supper.Right, which is why Ottaviani said it's anti-Trent. How can something be anti-Trent (i.e. anti-doctrine) and still be catholic? Can the Holy Ghost contradict Himself?
Which is why, although Archbishop Lefebvre did not hesitate to speak publicly on the question of the orthodoxy and validity of Paul VI’s Mass, and considered that “one cannot say generally that the New Mass is invalid or heretical” he did believe, like Ottaviani, that Pope Paul's Mass "leads slowly to heresy” where “Protestant ideas concerning the Supper would be unconsciously accepted by the Catholics.” - Ref: https://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass-30166 (https://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass-30166)But we can say generally that the new mass is doubtful. Which is what Ottaviani said.
How a Pope can promote such a Mass is a mystery we will never fully understand until the next life. What Fr. Wrath does make clear though is that "in issuing the New Mass” Pope Paul VI did not make an “ex cathedra” definition." (yes, I have started reading his book as Stubborn and yourself suggested), and that Popes can err while while maintaining their office and authority.Well, if the pope wasn't infallible when he issued the new mass (and he wasn't), then you are correct that he can err.
This brings us back to why I am "hyper-fixed" on highlighting validity. You claim the new Mass is not valid and therefore the Church - the visible Vatican Church in Rome that Christ founded - is no longer the Church. I stress the opposite.
The visible Vatican Church in Rome that Christ founded, and invested in for over 2000 years, IS still the Church as promised by Christ and therefore, the Mass and the Sacraments (the eternal divine deposit) must still be valid.Only the True Rites of the Church (i.e. those that follow Quo Primum) are part of the divine deposit, and only these are protected by the Holy Ghost. V2/new mass are human works, and not infallible.
Quote from: Pax Vobis (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=77572.msg996363#msg996363) 8/18/2025, 8:09:09 PM
Water = physically represents washing.
Olive Oil = physically represents the Holy Ghost.
Confessing Sins = physically represents contrition and needing forgiveness.
The substance of Holy Orders, Confirmation, etc is NOT simply oil. It's olive oil, for theological reasons. The olive tree is holy.