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.

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.     
 

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...".

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...".

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.

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 imposed their hands, and when they preached, the fulness of the Holy Ghost came down under visible signs on the faithful, just as, at the beginning, He came down on the apostles: hence Peter said (Acts 11:15): "When I had begun to speak, the Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning." Consequently there was no need for sacramental sensible matter, where God sent sensible signs miraculously.

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."


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).

Boru, the Church did not make a "disciplinary decision" about Chrism being the "matter" as you are trying to claim. A disciplinary decision of Church authorities can be changed in the future.

The definitive decision about Chrism as the "matter" of Confirmation was accomplished by the Apostles themselves. This is from Dionysius and St. Thomas Aquinas, not me. If the Apostles definitively decided it, it was by "Apostolic Authority." That phrase is the same phrase used by Popes when they decide something irreversibly, infallibly, forever.

The Apostles made that decision about Chrism themselves by the "divine light" of the Holy Ghost. The later Church authorities cannot change that.

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.

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.

I gave you 5 detailed examples, to show the distinctions, and you ignored the post completely.  

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.

Somehow this fact eludes you.

In your effort to reward the pope a limitless authority, you have managed to convince yourself that the Church established the sacraments, hence can change the sacraments. 

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.

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.

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.

That the "traditio instrumentorum" was "required for validity" was the prevailing opinion among Church theologians until Sacramentum Ordinis. But it was never more than a theological opinion. Neither a Pope nor a Council had definitively spoken (once and for all). Therefore, there was a long debate inside theological circles, mainly because the Eastern Rites did not include the TI.

Pius XII said the theological opinion regarding the TI had been imposed by "the will and command of the Church." That is, by a disciplinary action on a human level, not by a certain dogmatic definition following from an invocation of the divine light. One is an act of "will." The other is an act of "intellect." Divine intellect. Intellect takes precedence over the will. Divine intellect takes precedence over human intellect.

The changes made by Paul VI removed things the Pius XII said were absolutely necessary for any future ordination. Paul VI cannot use his "will" to overrule the "divine light." Therefore, Paul VI's changes are null and void.

Some aspects of the Sacraments are of Divine Institution, others of Ecclesiastical / Papal institution.  Former canot be changed.  Latter can be, AND the Church can actually impose them in such a way that failure to comply would invalidate the Sacrament.  So, for instance, requiring that thoes baptized Catholic must have a priest with some (at least pastoral) jurisdiciton witness their marriage, or otherwise it's null and void.  That's not of Divine Institution since ... there can be exceptinos, such as the unavailability of a priest, etc. as per Canon Law.  I personally do not believe that Quo Primum made the Mass and the other Sacramental Rites absolutely irreformable.  But that's entirely beside the point.

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 invalid.

Borat's opinon is also off topic, since she's arguing from principles that the SSPX do not hold, namely, the disciplinary infallibility of the Church.  On top of that it begs the question that there's certainty regarding the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.

So it's a waste of time to keep debating this individual, who really doesn't even qualify as a real Traditional Catholic, but is some smells and bells Motarian type.