Priestly Ordination:
The New Rite  Vs.  The Old Rite
STRANGE CHANGES

On June 18, 1968, Pope Paul VI promulgated a new rite for the priestly ordination.

The matter and the form of the sacrament [1] remained almost the same as in the rite promulgated by Pope Pius XII in November 1948. There are only two small changes in the form, which do not however affect the meaning of the sacrament; in fact, they specify it better.

The novelty and danger of the new rite consists especially in the abolition of the two ceremonies by which the bishop clearly explains the powers of the Catholic priest:

1)  In relation to the power to offer Mass:

Old Rite

“Receive the power to offer the Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead.”


New Rite

“Let our Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Father anointed by the Holy Ghost and by fortitude, guard you in order that you may offer the sacrifice to God and sanctify the Christian people.”

2)  In relation to the power to hear confession:

Old Rite

The second imposition of hands along with a quote of Our Lord Himself:  “Receive  the Holy Ghost, whose sins you  shall  forgive, they are forgiven them, and  whose  sins you shall retain, they are retained.”(John 20:22)


New Rite

Abolished completely
These two ceremonies in the traditional rite of ordination indicated clearly that the priest has two powers:

1.  The first, on the physical Body of Christ, consisting in offering the Sacrifice for the living and the dead.

2.  The second, on the mystical Body of Christ i.e. the sanctification of the faithful, especially by the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of Confession.

While these two powers are mentioned in the new formulas, it is not done very clearly:

-  The Sacrifice is no longer for the living and the dead.

- The sanctification of the faithful does not come firstly by the forgiveness of sins, which puts souls in the state of grace.

WHY WERE THESE CHANGES MADE?
It is now manifest that the intention leading all these changes in the new rite of ordination is the same intention which lead all the changes in the new order of Mass, i.e. the desire to get closer to the Protestant doctrines.

For Luther, founder of Protestantism, “To be a Christian means to have the Gospel and to believe in Christ.  This faith brings forgiveness of sins and divine grace.” [2]

·  Also for him, the Mass is only a simple commemoration of the Last Supper, and not the unbloody renewal of the unique Sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross, applying the merits of the Passion for the remission of sins.  All of this is useless according to him because faith is sufficient in order to be saved.

·  There is no need of the Sacrament of Penance because our faith in Christ is sufficient to obtain the forgiveness of sins.

·  And the priest is a simple preacher.

To answer these errors of Luther, the Council of Trent promulgated the following anathemas:

·        “If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one, or that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities, let him be anathema.”  (Canon 3 on the Sacrifice of the Mass)

·        “If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine Mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.” (Canon 12 concerning justification)

            The abolition of this precision in the new rite of the priestly ordination (even if the rite remains valid in itself by the unchanged matter and form) makes the doctrine expressed by the new rite dangerously close to the Protestant doctrine.  This is not surprising since the end of all the liturgical reforms after the Vatican II Council was ecuмenism.

            Something else, which is also not surprising, alas, is that now, many new priests do not know anymore what the priesthood is.  Consequently, this leads to all priestly problems, such as married priests (at least 70,000 priests have abandoned their priesthood since the last Council).

          And do the bishops themselves know well what a priest is?  We hope so, because with this new rite, some bishops could have an intention opposite to the intention of the Church when they ordain priests, and in that case the ordination would be invalid, or at least doubtful.

[1]The matter of a sacrament is the sensible thing made use of in effecting the sacrament.  For the priestly ordination, it is the first imposition of the hands made by the bishop. The form is the words, which are pronounced in order to effect the sacrament.  For the priestly ordination, it is some of the words of the consecratory preface.

[2]The Facts About Luther, by Msgr. O’Hare, TAN Books, p.101

Here is the best simple explanation I have ever seen in a docuмent showing why we should never trust the novus ordo ordinations of a priests...

Even though the actual "ordination" words are only changed minimally, the part of the Ordinations where the priest is given his "powers of the priesthood " are omitted and/or changed so much that it must be questioned as to whether novus ordo priests have these powers.

https://sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1998/December/Priestly-Ordinations-New-Vs-Old-Rite.htm

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.

Well, they're BOTH issues.  In the early yeas following Vatican II, the vast majority of bishops had been consecrated in the Traditional Rite.  So if only the Rite of Episcopal Consecration had been invalidated, then you'd have valid priests being ordained well into the 1970s, 1980s, and even 1990s by the bishops that had been consecrated before the changes.  This way, starting in 1969, you had no more valid priests.

Yes, they're both issues, but the NREC is the main issue.  I think the NREC is probably invalid, whereas I think the NRPO is doubtful at best. 

The SSPX is now bringing in NO bishops without consecrating them in the Traditional Rite, so there will be more and more invalid priests there.

Well, it's not considered part of the essential form of the Rite to enumerate all the powers of the priesthood.

This.

Isn't NO bishop Huonder the only NO bishop who has "joined" the SSPX?

He is probably a legit priest, having been ordained in 1971 by bishop Johannes Anton Vonderach who was consecrated in 1957.

He is probably not a legit bishop, having been consecrated by +Amedee Grab in 2007 who was, in turn, consecrated bishop by the infamous +Pierre Mamie in 1987.

I am pretty sure there is at least another one from NY who joined the Ridgefield, CT SSPX location.  I can't remember the name...I'll try to research here on CI because I know we talked about years ago [and the NO bishop was part of my Archdiocese in NY].

Got it:  James Byrne....My mistake though...he is a NO monsignor never conditionally ordained. For some reason I thought he was bishop.

I agree that we should concentrate on the essential form.

If the essential form has problems, the rest becomes almost irrelevant.

If we try to envision the consequences of these problems, we could have a new kind of Sedevacantism. I mean, a layman can be elected Pope, but to be actually a Pope he needs to be a Bishop, right? I imagine that some traditional theologian has adressed this issue.

So, if Benedict XVI was only a Priest (his espiscopacy comes from the new rite), and Francis is a layman (both his priesthood and episcopacy comes from the new rites), then, John Paul II was the last Pope.

This is probably why the SSPX published that super long article back in 2006, I believe, saying that the new rites are valid. It was written by a Dominican from Avrille.

Could you provide a link to that article?  I'd be interested to see their line of reasoning.

I know Father Stark personally, though we haven't been in contact in quite some time.  I'd be interested to know his reasoning as well.

So, if Benedict XVI was only a Priest (his espiscopacy comes from the new rite), and Francis is a layman (both his priesthood and episcopacy comes from the new rites), then, John Paul II was the last Pope.

This is probably why the SSPX published that super long article back in 2006, I believe, saying that the new rites are valid. It was written by a Dominican from Avrille.

It was actually Fall of 2005 [I believe November].  Yes, isn't the timing of their change in position interesting given Ratzinger was elected months earlier?