Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations  (Read 8975 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline epiphany

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3535
  • Reputation: +1097/-877
  • Gender: Male
Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
« Reply #45 on: July 14, 2022, 05:48:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: AMDGJMJ on July 14, 2022, 04:22:37 PM
    a priest can be given special orders and privileges to bestow Confirmation at least in the Eastern Rites.
    Called "dispensation" in Roman rite.
    Logged

    Offline ServusInutilisDomini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 529
    • Reputation: +249/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
    « Reply #46 on: July 15, 2022, 04:45:36 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 14, 2022, 07:50:28 AM
    Well, it's not considered part of the essential form of the Rite to enumerate all the powers of the priesthood.

    I have more of an issue with the "minimally-changed" words of the essential form.  This is actually a red light to me that they only removed a single word.  Why?  How does the removal if this one word "improve" or "modernize" the form?  It doesn't.  So why did they do it?

    That "ut" that was removed is very important.  Of the essence of a valid ordinate Rite is that the Sacramental effect must be indicated.

    TRADITIONAL RITE:  "Renew within them the Spirit of holiness, SO THAT [i.e. with the effect that] they might hold the office"
    NOVUS ORDO RITE:  "Renew within them the Spirit of holiness. [stop].  May they hold the office..."

    In the Traditional, there's the invocation of the Holy Spirit to confer the office upon them.

    In the NO, there's a generic invocation of the Holy Spirit.  But to do what?  Holy Spirit is active in all the Sacraments and in many other ways outside the Sacrament.  Then there's another prayer which says, "May they hold the office ..."

    So in the one case you have an invocation of the Holy Spirit [in order] to confer the office.

    In the second case, you have a generic invocation of the Holy Spirit, followed by a prayer asking (someone?  God? Holy Spirit?) that they might hold the office.  They are not asking the Holy Spirit TO confer the office upon them.

    Why did they tamper with this one relatively harmless word, "ut", "so that"?  IMO it was deliberately done to invalidate the Sacrament, and they figured it would go unnoticed or would be trivialized as a "minimal change".  It's ONLY one two-letter word.  What harm could that do?  It completely changes the meaning of the essential form.
    YES! The meaning is what counts and some people feel stupid saying a mere two-letter word changes the meaning but it DOES.

    Why on earth would they remove this supposedly inconsequential word? No way they removed it just because, the only possible motive is to invalidate the sacrament.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47468
    • Reputation: +28079/-5242
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
    « Reply #47 on: July 15, 2022, 06:04:33 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ServusInutilisDomini on July 15, 2022, 04:45:36 AM
    YES! The meaning is what counts and some people feel stupid saying a mere two-letter word changes the meaning but it DOES.

    Why on earth would they remove this supposedly inconsequential word? No way they removed it just because, the only possible motive is to invalidate the sacrament.

    What I bolded in your comment there demonstrates an intent to vitiate the form.  It would be one thing had they rewritten it entirely, but the remove of a two-letter word is a huge red flag.  There's no compelling reason to "bother" with it otherwise.
    Logged

    Offline ElwinRansom1970

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1075
    • Reputation: +821/-158
    • Gender: Male
    • γνῶθι σεαυτόν - temet nosce
    Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
    « Reply #48 on: July 15, 2022, 06:24:32 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: epiphany on July 14, 2022, 04:30:06 PM
    Only Rome has the authority to approve an annulment.  Once given, it must be accepted. 
    No, this is not correct. A decree of nullity is declared by a diocesan tribunal (court of the first instance) following investigation into a matrimonial case. Formerly, a case was sent to a court of second instance, usually the tribunal of another diocese within the same ecclesiastical province, often the metropolitan see itself. However, this second step of a secobd court was eliminated in the 1984 Code of Canon Law by procedural changes enacted by Bergoglio a few years ago. But, no, "Rome" does not alone have the authority to "approve" an annulment. This is a power of an ordinary (diocesan bishop or equal to diocesan bishop in jurisdiction) that is exercised through a canonically-constituted tribunal. The Roman Rota is a court of appeals for matrimonial cases for decisions rendered at the local level. It is not a court of first instance. Nor does the Holy Father serve as a judge of first instance, but only as an appellate judge (at least in canonical practice).
    Logged
    "I distrust every idea that does not seem obsolete and grotesque to my contemporaries."
    - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

    Offline epiphany

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3535
    • Reputation: +1097/-877
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
    « Reply #49 on: July 15, 2022, 07:05:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: ElwinRansom1970 on July 15, 2022, 06:24:32 AM
    No, this is not correct. A decree of nullity is declared by a diocesan tribunal (court of the first instance) following investigation into a matrimonial case. Formerly, a case was sent to a court of second instance, usually the tribunal of another diocese within the same ecclesiastical province, often the metropolitan see itself. However, this second step of a secobd court was eliminated in the 1984 Code of Canon Law by procedural changes enacted by Bergoglio a few years ago. But, no, "Rome" does not alone have the authority to "approve" an annulment. This is a power of an ordinary (diocesan bishop or equal to diocesan bishop in jurisdiction) that is exercised through a canonically-constituted tribunal. The Roman Rota is a court of appeals for matrimonial cases for decisions rendered at the local level. It is not a court of first instance. Nor does the Holy Father serve as a judge of first instance, but only as an appellate judge (at least in canonical practice).
    Only the pope has authority to annul.  He can delegate the authority to someone else, but he has ultimate responsibility for their actions.
    Logged

    Offline epiphany

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3535
    • Reputation: +1097/-877
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
    « Reply #50 on: July 15, 2022, 09:44:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: epiphany on July 15, 2022, 07:05:33 AM
    Only the pope has authority to annul.  He can delegate the authority to someone else, but he has ultimate responsibility for their actions.
    Let me clarify, i hope, so terminology doesn't get in the way.

    The Pope has authority to judge dissolution.  Only God can annul.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47468
    • Reputation: +28079/-5242
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
    « Reply #51 on: July 15, 2022, 12:05:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: epiphany on July 15, 2022, 09:44:58 AM
    Let me clarify, i hope, so terminology doesn't get in the way.

    The Pope has authority to judge dissolution.  Only God can annul.

    Well, God doesn't actively annul marriage either.  It's more a question of God knowing the fact that the marriage was never legitimate in the first place.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47468
    • Reputation: +28079/-5242
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
    « Reply #52 on: July 15, 2022, 12:18:17 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Yeti on July 14, 2022, 02:53:27 PM
    .
    Actually, a priest is forbidden to give the sacraments to a public sinner, such as an adulterer.

    The priest could say to such person, "The Church teaches that when two people get up in front of a priest and exchange matrimonial promises, that creates a spiritual bond that lasts until death. In any doubt as to whether that bond was formed, it must be presumed to have been formed unless the contrary is proved. Your statement from modernists whom everyone agrees are untrustworthy provides proves nothing since both you and we agree that they are untrustworthy with regard to the Faith. So we cannot accept your annulment here, and you must go back and live with the person you originally married, or we must consider you to be an adulterer."

    Right, but the determination that any given person is an adulterer is what's at issue.  He does not have the authority to judge and then impose his judgment on consciences.  Only the Church has the authority to judge the matter.
    Logged

    Offline epiphany

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3535
    • Reputation: +1097/-877
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
    « Reply #53 on: July 15, 2022, 01:08:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 15, 2022, 12:05:43 PM
    Well, God doesn't actively annul marriage either.  It's more a question of God knowing the fact that the marriage was never legitimate in the first place.
    Thank you for the clarification.
    Logged

    Offline ElwinRansom1970

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1075
    • Reputation: +821/-158
    • Gender: Male
    • γνῶθι σεαυτόν - temet nosce
    Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
    « Reply #54 on: July 15, 2022, 01:30:23 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: epiphany on July 15, 2022, 07:05:33 AM
    Only the pope has authority to annul.  He can delegate the authority to someone else, but he has ultimate responsibility for their actions.
    Nope. That is ultramontanist drivel! Ordinary bishops have the power and authority to judge the validity and liceity of sacraments by virtue of his ordination and office. Non-episcopal ordinaries have the same power and authority by virtue of office alone. Your ecclesiology would strip bishops of their powers derived from divine right, reducing them to mere vicars of the Office of Peter. Nope. Bad, bad ecclesiology! I hope that you are happy with your elevated concept of the Papacy that effectively reduces the 23 Eastern Catholic Churches to mere ritual peculiarities and elevates Francis-Bergoglio to a global God-Emperor. You must also LUV Vatican II since its docuмents belong to the Ordinary Magisterium (and are thus binding on the faithful) as evidenced by Paul-Montini's signature on the 16 conciliar docuмents.
    Logged
    "I distrust every idea that does not seem obsolete and grotesque to my contemporaries."
    - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4180
    • Reputation: +2442/-529
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
    « Reply #55 on: July 15, 2022, 04:47:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 15, 2022, 12:18:17 PM
    Right, but the determination that any given person is an adulterer is what's at issue.  He does not have the authority to judge and then impose his judgment on consciences.  Only the Church has the authority to judge the matter.
    It's not the priest doing the binding, though. He's saying that someone who gets up in front of a priest and professes marriage promises to another person is bound to that person until death. That is Catholic dogma.

    The "annulled" person is the one making a claim to fall outside this general rule. They are the ones that have to prove their case. And they cannot prove their case in a place in which what comes from Rome is not considered automatically correct, i.e. any traditional chapel. It makes no sense for a person to attend a trad chapel at all if they think what comes from Rome is binding. So such a person's argument that a priest must give him the sacraments is just a contradiction of his own principles and practices.

    Besides, if a person comes in claiming the priest has to give him the sacraments, despite the priest believing that person is an adulterer, then it's that person that's trying to bind the priest's conscience, not the other way around.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47468
    • Reputation: +28079/-5242
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
    « Reply #56 on: July 15, 2022, 07:20:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Yeti on July 15, 2022, 04:47:20 PM
    It's not the priest doing the binding, though. He's saying that someone who gets up in front of a priest and professes marriage promises to another person is bound to that person until death. That is Catholic dogma.
    ...
    Besides, if a person comes in claiming the priest has to give him the sacraments, despite the priest believing that person is an adulterer, then it's that person that's trying to bind the priest's conscience, not the other way around.

    That doesn't make any sense.  Of course marriage is indissoluble and that's dogma.  That's not the issue.  What's at issue is whether or not a particular relationship was in fact a marriage in the first place.  It has to do with the application of dogma to a particular situation.

    Let's assume it's pre Vatican II.  Couple has an annulment.  But the priest decides it's no good (issued in error) and refuses the Sacraments to the couple.  According to your line of reasoning, that would be permissible.  Applying your first argument, he's not binding anything.  And applying your next point, it's the couple trying to bind the priest's conscience, and not the other way around, by approaching him for the Sacraments.  Would this be appropriate?  Of course not.  According to Canon Law, the faithful have a right to receive the Sacraments, so this priest would be unjustly withholding the Sacraments from them based on his private judgment.

    And the same applies to post Vatican II annulments.  Trad priests have no jurisdiction whatsoever, much less do they have the authority to make any determination regarding the validity or nullity of a given marriage.  They can form an opinion, but they cannot impose it on the consciences of others who have a different opinion by punishing them for it by withholding the Sacraments.

    I'll give you another example.  I believe that NFP is a grave evil and that Pius XII was mistaken in his speech to the midwives when he opined that it was licit.  If a couple came to me who were practicing NFP, I would advise them of my opinion that they were committing grave sin and jeopardizing their souls, and would make my case for for that opinion.  But if they were not persuaded based on their argument that "Pius XII said it was permissible." (prescinding now regarding the vague notion of what constitute "serious" enough reason to use it), I would respond finally that, just make sure (examine your consciences) that you really believe that it's OK vs. rationalizing it to yourself by appealing to Pius XII, but at the end of the day I would not refuse them the Sacraments because they decided to use NFP.  That would be for me to impose my own conscience and my own conclusions on them.  Without the judgment of the Church behind such opinions, the priests overstep their bounds and unjustly impose their consciences on the faithful.



    Logged

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4180
    • Reputation: +2442/-529
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
    « Reply #57 on: July 15, 2022, 07:54:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 15, 2022, 07:20:58 PM
    Let's assume it's pre Vatican II.  Couple has an annulment.  But the priest decides it's no good (issued in error) and refuses the Sacraments to the couple.  According to your line of reasoning, that would be permissible.  Applying your first argument, he's not binding anything.  And applying your next point, it's the couple trying to bind the priest's conscience, and not the other way around, by approaching him for the Sacraments.  Would this be appropriate?  Of course not.  According to Canon Law, the faithful have a right to receive the Sacraments, so this priest would be unjustly withholding the Sacraments from them based on his private judgment.
    Well, before Vatican II this problem didn't exist, because Catholics accepted EVERYTHING from Rome without question. So the scenario would not be plausible. But now, in trad chapels, everyone there decides what things from Rome they accept and what they don't. They accept what is traditional, and reject what is not.

    In other words, the major premise of your argument is not valid today. You're saying, "We must accept everything from Rome. But this annulment came from Rome. Therefore we must accept this annulment." Before Vatican II, that argument worked. But now, there is no major premise like that to appeal to. And if the person cannot prove that their annulment is valid, then the priest is in fact obliged to follow the default position, which is that a marriage must be accepted as valid until the contrary is proven, and the priest's conscience is in fact bound to that approach. And it is not a punishment to refuse to give the sacraments to someone publicly in mortal sin; this is in fact the law of the Church.

    Quote
    I believe that NFP is a grave evil and that Pius XII was mistaken in his speech to the midwives when he opined that it was licit.

    :facepalm: I guess that depends on whether you believe the pope is the sure guide of faith ...

    Logged

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4180
    • Reputation: +2442/-529
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
    « Reply #58 on: July 15, 2022, 08:08:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Another problem with treating annulments from the Novus Ordo Church the same way as an annulment pre-Vatican II, is that annulments today are given for reasons that they were not given for during the nearly two millennia before Vatican II. Did the sacrament of matrimony change or something? It should be obvious that for that reason alone a modernist-issued annulment lacks credibility.
    Logged

    Offline Comrade

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 204
    • Reputation: +95/-19
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations
    « Reply #59 on: July 15, 2022, 08:43:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 14, 2022, 07:50:28 AM
    Well, it's not considered part of the essential form of the Rite to enumerate all the powers of the priesthood.

    I have more of an issue with the "minimally-changed" words of the essential form.  This is actually a red light to me that they only removed a single word.  Why?  How does the removal if this one word "improve" or "modernize" the form?  It doesn't.  So why did they do it?

    That "ut" that was removed is very important.  Of the essence of a valid ordinate Rite is that the Sacramental effect must be indicated.

    TRADITIONAL RITE:  "Renew within them the Spirit of holiness, SO THAT [i.e. with the effect that] they might hold the office"
    NOVUS ORDO RITE:  "Renew within them the Spirit of holiness. [stop].  May they hold the office..."

    In the Traditional, there's the invocation of the Holy Spirit to confer the office upon them.

    In the NO, there's a generic invocation of the Holy Spirit.  But to do what?  Holy Spirit is active in all the Sacraments and in many other ways outside the Sacrament.  Then there's another prayer which says, "May they hold the office ..."

    So in the one case you have an invocation of the Holy Spirit [in order] to confer the office.

    In the second case, you have a generic invocation of the Holy Spirit, followed by a prayer asking (someone?  God? Holy Spirit?) that they might hold the office.  They are not asking the Holy Spirit TO confer the office upon them.

    Why did they tamper with this one relatively harmless word, "ut", "so that"?  IMO it was deliberately done to invalidate the Sacrament, and they figured it would go unnoticed or would be trivialized as a "minimal change".  It's ONLY one two-letter word.  What harm could that do?  It completely changes the meaning of the essential form.
    Fr. McFarland thinks the removal of "ut" is a big nothing burger. Failed logic since you can easily come up with many examples to the contrary. Also, another example of failed logic are the Cathinfo members that demand conditional ordinations and get so upset when topic of sedevacantism is discussed. 
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
    « previous next »