Thank you for your answer. When you say that it is gravely sinful to use a sacramental norm that is even doubtful, we can have two conclusions, and both would be right. For example:
1. If Paul VI is a true pope, it is irrelevant to doubt the validity of the rite, since a true pope could never promulgate an invalid sacrament
2. If the sacramental form is doubtful, it is irrelevant to be questioning if it is valid or not, and it is surely invalid.
That being said, both of these conclusions are true, and it seems that we can just past to one to another one without being sure of nothing in the end of the day. And saying that almost every priests or bishops in the world are actually not priests and bishops is not a small affirmation. You need to be 100% sure of what you are saying because it is sooooo grave. I've listened to a couple of Cekada video, but sometime he compares the baptismal form (witch is fixed by our Lord) with the ordination form, witch can be changed. So I'm still not convinced.
Traditionally, in Roman Catholicism, the episcopal "office" was not part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
As you might have heard, there are seven "levels of Order" listed in Catholic sacramental theology. The episcopal "office" is not one of those seven "levels of order" pertaining to the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
You can read about that below:https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.IIISup.Q37.A2Aquinas explains exactly how the episcopal "order" (the hierarchical office) differs from the true "Sacrament of Order" (the indelible character) here:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.IIISup.Q40.A5If we agree with Aquinas, then a change made to the episcopal formula will not affect the Sacrament of Holy Orders
per se. Therefore, if the change proposed by Paul VI to the formula of episcopal ceremony was defective in some way, it would not be a Sacramental defect.
Any sacramental defect in the person's claiming to be a Catholic bishop will be found in their lack of being a true Priest because of the changes that were made to the New Rite of Priestly ordination.
If read carefully, the New Rite ceremonies remove what was considered essential the Old Rite priest, making this new priest into a recipient of a merely hierarchical office. In the Old Rite ceremony, the true Priest received the true Sacrament of Holy Orders because he was given the power to confect the Eucharist.
So, this essential difference in the New and Old Rites is found in the distribution of powers (called "characters" by Aquinas) effected by those Rites. The New Rite merely bestows on the man the grace to be a co-worker under his bishop, doing whatever that bishop tells him to do. The Old Rite primarily bestows on the man not only the grace as in the New Rite but also the supernatural power to consecrate the Eucharist, specifically defined as such by Aquinas in this way (
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.IIISup.Q37.A2.C.8):
For the power of order is directed either to the consecration of the Eucharist itself, or to some ministry in connection with this sacrament of the Eucharist. If in the former way, then it is the order of priests; hence when they are ordained, they receive the chalice with wine, and the paten with the bread, because they are receiving the power to consecrate the body and blood of Christ.
The words bestowing on the Priest the explicit "power to consecrate the body and blood of Christ" was removed from the New Rite of Priestly Ordination ceremony. This is very important when one considers the words of Leo XII in the
Nullity of Anglican Orders, where he says:
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.
Using the above principle of Leo XIII, one can say that if a Sacrament does not "signify" a grace/power in its "formula," then that grace/power is not "effected." Since the New Rite does not say anything about "the power to consecrate the body of blood of Christ," then we can conclude that the grace/power to perform that action has not been effected by that New Rite. The New Rite "priest" is then equivalent to the Anglican minister.
Whatever that New Rite Priest has been "ordained" to do, it is not the same as what the Old Rite Priest was "ordained" to do. This is what makes the New Rite "Sacrament of Holy Orders" doubtful, not concerns about changes made to the New Rite of Episcopal Ordination.
Topic: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968) (Read 18698 times)