|
| |||||
|
|
|
| ||
Dead Rites
|
| Anti-pope Paul VI giving a masonic handshake to present anti-pope John XXIII. Montini was made a redbird by Roncalli. Utterly invalid, null and void. Masons are ipso facto excommunicated. Even if you associate with one and know they are masons you are excommunicated by the church, canon law, and by heaven. Repent and come out of the evil and the dark world of those pigs they call the masons. (1) Identity of Author? The Jesuit expert on Eastern liturgies, Jean-Michel Hanssens, devotes nearly one hundred pages to trying to identify Hippolytus: Was he the same Hippolytus associated with an Easter computation table? The one represented by a statue? The one reputed to be a native Roman? Or the Egyptian one? The pope’s counselor? Or the anti-pope? The priest Hippolytus? Or a bishop? Or the martyr? Or one of the several saints in the martyrology? The best we can manage is scholarly conjecture. (2) Origin? Where did The Apostolic Tradition come from? Some say Rome; others say Alexandria, Egypt. More conjecture. (3) Age? How old is it? “Usually” dated around 215 AD, but “the section dealing with ordination may have been retouched by fourth-century hands in order to bring it into line with current doctrine and practice.” Note: “retouched.” More scholarly conjecture is needed to tell us which parts of the document were retouched. (4) Manuscript Authority? How much confidence can we put in the originals? Well, we don't even have them: “The Greek original of the document has not survived, except in the form of a few isolated fragments. [I]t has to be reconstructed from an extant Latin translation and from later Coptic, Arabic and Ethiopic versions, as well as from the use made of it by compilers of later Church orders, which increases the difficulty of determining exactly what the author wrote.” Hence, the subtitle of Dom Botte’s 1963 edition: An Attempt at Reconstruction. At least a half-dozen other scholars (Connolly, Dix, Easton, Elfers, Lorentz, Hanssens) have made similar attempts. Reconstruction, said Dom Botte, can “bring us back only to an archetype, and not the original.” So, we have only more conjecture, but this won't even get us the original. (5) Liturgical Use? Does the text accurately reflect actual use? “It is not easy to distinguish what represents a real usage from the ideal,” said Dom Botte in 1963. 37. La Liturgie d'Hippolyte: Ses Documents, Son Titutlaire, Ses Origines et Son Charactere (Rome: Oriental Institute 1959), 249–340. 38. P. Bradshaw, Ordination Rites of the Ancient Churches of East and West (New York: Pueblo 1990), 3. 39. Bradshaw, 3–4. My emphasis. 40. “Essai de Reconstituton.” 41. La Tradition...Essai, xxxiii-iv. 42. La Tradition...Essai, xiv. prayers The Apostolic Tradition contains were given as “models, and not as fixed formulas.” And finally, said Dom Botte, in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, “Its origin, whether Roman or Egyptian] is not really important here. Even if it is a Roman document, it should not be viewed as the Roman liturgy of the 3rd century, a time when the liturgy left a great deal of room for a celebrant to improvise.” And so, multiple volumes of scholarly works produce a model for an episcopal consecration prayer that was not necessarily followed word-for-word anyway. This does not exactly build our confidence. B. Apostolic Constitutions? An impressive title, to be sure. However, it is "a composite revision" of three earlier Church orders. The Constitutions appears to have originated in Syria, “and is generally thought to be the work of an Arian [heretic] who was to some extent composing an idiosyncratic idealization rather than always reproducing exactly liturgical practice with which he was familiar.” A composite dreamed up by a heretic? C. Testament of Our Lord? An even more impressive title! Alas, it “probably” dates from the 5th century and “seems” to have been composed in Syria. Moreover, “Although originally written in Greek, it is extant only in Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic versions. Like the Apostolic Constitutions, it is doubtful how far it represents actual historical practice.” Doubtful historical practice? D. No Proof of Approved Use. The question that began this section was: Was the new form employed as the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy in some other rite in the past that enjoyed at least tacit approval from the Church? Our answer: We have absolutely no idea, because: We have no definitive original texts. We have “reconstructed” texts based on nothing more than the authority of scholarly theories about which readings were correct. We do not know whether these texts were actually used to consecrate bishops. We have no record of Church approval. So, one cannot argue on the basis of these texts that the Paul VI form is valid. None of them have been. La Tradition...Essai, xvi 44. Louvain conference notes, July 1961, “Le Rituel 'Ordination dans la 'Tradition Apostolique' d'Hippolyte, Bulletin du Comite 36 (1962), 5. 45. Bradshaw, 4. 46. Bradshaw, 4–5. “accepted and used by the Church in that sense,” so there is no guarantee of validity on this basis either. VI. Power of the Episcopacy? Question: Does the new sacramental form univocally signify the sacramental effects — the power of Order (the episcopacy) and the grace of the Holy Ghost? These are the criteria Pius XII laid down for the sacramental form. Here again is the new form of Paul VI to which we will apply them: “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.” The form does seem to signify the grace of the Holy Ghost. But “governing Spirit”? Lutheran, Methodist and Mormon bishops also govern. Can such a term univocally signify the power of Order conferred — the fullness of the priesthood? The expression governing Spirit — Spiritus principalis in Latin — is at the heart of the dispute over the validity of the new rite, for if it does not signify the fullness of the priesthood that constitutes the episcopacy, the sacrament is invalid. A. Early Doubts about Validity The casual reader will of course be tempted to dismiss this as some crackpot traditionalist fever dream. But forty years ago, even before the new rite was promulgated, a member of the study group that created the new rite of episcopal consecration raised just this issue. In an October 14, 1966 memo, Bishop Juan Hervas Benet (1905-1982), the Ordinary of Ciudad Real (Spain) and a promoter of Opus Dei, wrote to fellow study group members: “It would be necessary to establish undeniably that the new form better and more perfectly signifies the sacramental action and its effect. That is to say, that it should be established in no uncertain terms that it contains no ambiguity, and that it omits nothing from among the principal charges which are proper to the episcopal order.... A doubt occurs to me concerning the words 'Spiritus principalis'; do these words adequately signify the sacrament?” 47. ICEL translation. “Et nunc effunde super hunc Electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio Tuo Jesu Christo, quem Ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui. 48. German Liturgical Institute (Trier), Kleinheyer file, B 117; cited Pierre-Marie, “Why the New Rite...” (Jan. 2005), 15. My emphasis. Whether he received an answer is not recorded. But consider what the bishop's question implied at the time for anyone with serious theological training: Will introducing this expression in the form expose the sacrament to the risk of invalidity? After Paul VI promulgated the new rite for Holy Orders in June 1968, it had to be translated into various modern languages. The expression Spiritus principalis immediately caused problems. The first official English translation rendered it as "excellent Spirit"; French, as "the Spirit that makes chiefs" or "leaders"; German, as "the spirit of a guide." These expressions probably led some of the more conservative bishops at the time to fear for the apostolic succession, because Rome suddenly issued two declarations on the translation of sacramental forms within three months (October 1973 and January 1974). The latter declaration from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, moreover, was reprinted in Notitiae (the official publication of the Congregation for Divine Worship), accompanied by a rather strange commentary. The author, a Dominican, specifically mentioned Pius XII's 1947 Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, the “substance of the sacraments,” how each new sacramental formula “continues to signify the special grace conferred by the sacrament,” and the need to “preserve the validity of the sacramental rite.” A coincidence? In the same issue of Notitiae, about a dozen pages later, we come across a short article by Dom Bernard Botte OSB explaining the meaning of — surprise! — Spiritus principalis. Clearly, this Latin expression had a lot of people worried. B. Governing Spirit = Episcopacy?... Dom Botte's explanation of Spiritus principalis was essentially as follows: The expression “raised several difficulties” and led to various translations. It occurs in Psalm 50:14, but its meaning there is not necessarily linked to what the expression in the consecration prayer meant for the 3rd-century Christian. “Spirit” designates the Holy Ghost. 49. SC Divine Worship, Circular Letter Dum Toto Terrarum, 25 October 1973, AAS 66 (1974) 98–9; SC Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Instauratio Liturgica, 25 January 1974, AAS 66 (1974), 661. The second document explained that when the Holy See approves a translation, it judges that it “rightly expresses the meaning intended by the Church,” but that it also stipulates that the translation “is to be understood in accord with the mind of the Church as expressed by the original Latin text.” This statement is bizarre. A translation either conveys the substantial meaning of the Latin or it does not. If the latter, it is invalid no matter what anyone "stipulates" — except Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass: 'When I use a word... 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” 50. B. Douroux, “Commentarium,” Notitiae 10 (1974), 394-5. “purche la nuova formula continui a significare la grazia speciale conferita dal sacramento.” But what did the Greek word hegemonicos and its Latin equivalent principalis mean in the Christian vocabulary of the 3rd century? It meant this: Each of the three Holy Orders has a gift of the Holy Ghost, but not the same for each. Deacons = “spirit of zeal and solicitude,” priests = “spirit of counsel.” Bishops have the “spirit of authority.” The bishop is both leader who must govern and high priest of the sanctuary. He is the ruler of the Church. So the word hegemonicos/principalis is understandable. Spiritus principalis therefore means the “gift of the Spirit proper to a leader.” After this statement appeared, various vernacular translations were adjusted, and the official English translation became governing Spirit. C. ... or Governing Spirit = Who Knows? So, it was a very erudite-sounding explanation. Unfortunately, it was false — a typical case of the brazen double-talk modernists excel at when they are caught out. Spiritus principalis can mean many things, but the “power of Order” proper to the episcopacy isn't one of them. This becomes clear after a brief survey of what governing Spirit can signify, in either its Latin form (Spiritus principalis) or its interchangeable Greek form (hegemonicos). (1) Dictionaries. Latin and Greek dictionaries render the adjective governing as, respectively, “Originally existing, basic, primary... first in importance or esteem, chief... befitting leading men or princes,” and “of a leader, leading, governing” or “guiding.” There is a related noun, hegemonia, which in general means “authority, command,” and in a secondary sense means “rule, office of a superior: episcopal... of a superior of a convent... hence of sphere of bishop's rule, diocese.” But even in this sense, it does not connote the power of Order (potestas Ordinis), just jurisdiction potestas jurisdictionis, especially since the definition mentions a monastic superior. (2) Psalm 50. In ecclesiastical Latin or Greek, the first text usually cited for governing is King David's prayer in Ps 50:14, where it is used with spirit. The expression is translated into English as a perfect spirit, 51. B. Botte, "'Spiritus Principalis' Formule de l'Ordination Episcopale," Notitiae 10 (1974), 410–1. “c'est le don de l'Esprit qui convient a un chef.” 52. P. Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon 1994). Similarly: A. Forcellini, Lexicon Totius Latinitatis (Padua: 1940); A. Souter, Glossary of Later Latin to 600 AD (Oxford: Clarendon 1949); C. Lewis and C. Short, A New Latin Dictionary (New York: 1907). 53. G. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon 2000). F. Gingrich and F. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University Press 1957). 54. Lampe, 599. which commentators explain as “a 'generous' or noble spirit.” Despite Dom Botte's claim that the meaning of governing Spirit in the Psalm was unrelated to its supposed 3rd century meaning in the prayer for episcopal consecration, a Greek patristic dictionary directly links both passages and even quotes the Greek excerpt from Hippolytus. (3) Church Fathers. They construe governing Spirit in various ways, as referring to the Father, the Holy Ghost, the virtue of fortitude, a mighty power that strengthens against temptations, etc. (4) A Dogmatic Treatise. In his work on the Trinity Msgr. Pohle says that governing Spirit in the Psalm does not mean the Holy Ghost Itself, but nothing more than an “external divine effect,” a “supernatural spirit of rectitude and self-control, i.e., a good disposition.” (5) A 1962 Commentary on Hippolytus. The ancient prayer for episcopal consecration, says Roger Beraudy, presents the bishop as both leader and high priest successively. Governing Spirit appears in the section of the prayer that presents the bishop as “leader of the Church,” rather than in the following section that Beraudy identifies as presenting “the bishop as high priest.” (6) Non-Sacramental Ceremonies. The Coptic Rite, apart from its sacramental prayer for episcopal consecration, also employs the expression governing Spirit in two non-sacramental ceremonies. a. In the Coptic Church, as in the Catholic Church, an abbot is not a bishop, but merely a simple priest who is the head of a monastery. When a Coptic abbot (hegoumenos) is installed, the bishop imposes his hand on the priest's head and says a prayer that God will grant the priest “a governing Spirit of gentleness and love and patience and graciousness.” b. For the promotion of a Coptic bishop to the rank of archbishop (metropolitan), in which it is prayed that God pour forth his governing Spirit, “the knowledge which is Thine, which he hath received in Thy holy Church.” 55. B. Orchard ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Nelson 1953). 457. 56. Lampe, 599. “Ps 50:14: cf. Hipp.trad.ap.3.3”; 57. Origen, In Jer Hom. 8, PG 13:336. 58. Origen, Comm. In Ep. Ad Rom. 7, PG 14:1103. “sed in his principatum et dominationem hunc Spiritum sanctum, qui et principalis appelatur, tenere.” Cyril of Alexandria, Dubia de Trinitate 9, PG 77:1140. Basil the Great, Adv. Eunomium 5.3, PG 29:753. 59. Cyril of Alexandria, Expl. In Psalmos 50:14, PG 69:1100-1. 60. Athanasius. Ep. Ad Amunem Mon., PG 26:1176. 61. J. Pohle, The Divine Trinity: A Dogmatic Treatise, 2nd ed. (St. Louis: Herder 1915), 97. 62. R. Beraudy, “Le Sacrement de l'Ordre d'apres la Tradition Apostolique d'Hippolyte,” Bulletin du Comite 36 (1962), 341, 342. 63. Tr. Burmester, Ordination Rites...Coptic,” “hegemonicon pneuma.” Also RO 2:17. “spiritum hegemonicum.” 64. Tr. Burmester, Ordination Rites...Coptic,” 118. “hegemonicon pneuma. Also RO 2:34. “in spiritu tuo hegemonico. I do not believe the novus ordo consecration validates the sacrament in the use of adoration. I do believe we all must pray daily and it is no sin to pray in a novus ordo chapel or parish. The sin is to believe the new order rite confects the real presence. It is not a sin to pray there if such presence does not manifest itself either. Find empty chapels and churches, catholic at least in name to be alone. Pray in solitude and silence that is what saints did, and seek to be holy by fervent suffering prayer, Vatican II and the novus ordo will not make you holy but deluded that you are holy. |
| On April 3, 1969, Paul VI issued his constitution entitled Missale Romanum which marked the publication of the New Order of Mass (the Novus Ordo). Much has been said and discussed about the New Mass since its implementation approximately 30 years ago. Many people in various languages have pointed out the glaring doctrinal problems with the New Mass, and its startling differences from the Roman Rite - the Latin Tridentine Mass. Some of these discussions have focused on the legality of implementing a New Mass, while other authors have delved into the question of validity. We will focus very briefly on validity in this sheet. 1. Matter, Form, Minister and Intention. A sacrament is valid if it takes place. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is valid if the bread and wine become the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. A sacrament is licit if it takes place lawfully. For example, the Eastern Schismatics celebrate Mass validly but illicitly, since they are not Roman Catholics. For a sacrament to be valid certain things are required. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, "Exultate Deo": "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." (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown Univ. Press, Vol. 1, p. 542; Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, no. 695) As we can see, for a sacrament to be valid you need matter, form, minister and intention. The matter are the "things" which are necessary to confect the sacrament. For example, in the Sacrament of Baptism, the matter is real and natural water. The form are the "words" which are necessary to confect the sacrament. In Baptism, the form is "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," or words which mean precisely the same thing, such as: "Such a one is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." The minister of most sacraments is a validly ordained priest. However, in a state of necessity, anyone can act as a minister of baptism; and in marriage, the parties administer the sacrament to one another with the priest acting as an official witness. The intention necessary to confect a sacrament is the intention "to do what the Church does." 2. The Form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The form of words necessary to confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the Roman Rite, that is, the words of consecration, have always been the same. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, "Cantate Domino": "However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians in respect to THE FORM OF WORDS which the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord's Body and Blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."(Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 581) Therefore, in the original Latin, the words of consecration, which are the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, are these: Hoc est enim Corpus meum. Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. A correct English translation of these words is, once again: For this is my Body. For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. Long before the dogmatic definition of the Council of Florence, St. Thomas Aquinas taught the same in his Summa Theologica. The following quote is one example of St. Thomas' clear belief that the form of the consecration of the Precious Blood includes all of the words cited above. The reader will notice that the following citation makes no mention of the words "This is My Body," for here St. Thomas is dealing specifically with the words which are needed in the consecration of the Precious Blood. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 78, A. 3: "I answer that, there is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words 'This is the chalice of My blood belong to the substance of the form, but not those words which follow. NOW THIS SEEMS INCORRECT, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood: consequently they belong to the integrity of its (i.e., the form's) recitation." One could also cite St. Thomas in Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum (dist. 8, Q. 2, a. 2, p. 1, ad 3) and I Cor. XI, lect. 6, where he teaches that all the words cited above constitute the form of consecration; however the quote from the Summa Theologica should suffice. Now, we will quote Pope St. Pius V in the De Defectibus section of the Roman Missal, promulgated on July 19, 1570, in the famous bull Quo Primum. Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: "The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament." This authoritative teaching of the Roman Missal on the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is right in line with the teaching of the dogmatic Council of Florence. Furthermore, Pope St. Pius V in De Defectibus explains in the most clear terms how any change or removal of the words of consecration would render the Sacrament invalid, if the meaning were not preserved. This teaching appeared in the front of every Roman Altar Missal from 1570 to 1962, spanning the Pontificates of some 36 Popes who gave either their silent or explicit approval to this document. This is why all of these words are bolded in all Traditional Roman Altar Missals, and why the Roman Missal instructs priests to hold the Chalice until the completion of all of these words. Further, as said already, without "the intention to do what the Church does," it is impossible to effect a sacrament (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence). In his dogmatic Bull, Apostolicae curae, Sept. 13, 1896, Pope Leo XIII teaches that a minister who uses the proper matter and form in effecting a sacrament "is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does." On the other hand, a minister who does not use the correct matter or form is not presumed to have intended to do what the Church does, but rather to have a defective intention. This defective intention, which is present in a priest who does not use the correct form of consecration, would exist at the moment when he says, "This is My Body," and therefore he could not consecrate the Lord's Body. 3. The New Mass has a defective Form. In Paul VI's New Mass, the Traditional Form of consecration as defined by Pope Eugene IV and Pope St. Pius V has been drastically altered. In almost all vernacular translations around the globe, including all of the New Masses in English, the form winds up reading like this: For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins FOR ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN. Here we can identify an incredible change in the form of consecration. Without explanation, the New Mass has changed the word "many" to the word "all." (The New Mass has also removed the words “the mystery of faith” from the Consecration.) For an analysis of how changing the word “many” to “all” in the Consecration alters the meaning of the sacrament, we turn to St. Alphonsus De Liguori, a Doctor of the Church, and The Catechism of the Council of Trent, published by order of the Council of Trent. St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on the Holy Eucharist: "The words pro vobis et pro multis (for you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault... This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by [Pope] Benedict XIV." (St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on The Holy Eucharist, Redemptorist Fathers, 1934, p. 44) The Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist: "The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. WITH REASON, THEREFORE, WERE THE WORDS FOR ALL NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation." (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, TAN Books, 1982, p. 227.) Authority and reason tell us that the word "all" does not mean the same thing as the word "many" in the formula of Consecration. If you focus in on the phrase, “shed for you and for MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS” the whole “many vs. all” debate becomes clear. Christ did not shed His Blood for all UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. In fact, in Book II, Chapter XV, par. 11 of his work De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio, Pope Benedict XIV makes reference to St. Thomas Aquinas to explain how the word "many" in the consecration does not mean "all." He is referring to St. Thomas' teaching in the Summa Theologica (Pt. III, Q. 78, A. 3), where St. Thomas refutes objection 8 which claims that the words of consecration should include the word "all." Therefore, two things are clear: 1) The changes to the form of consecration in the New Mass change its meaning; 2) If anything is removed or changed in the form of consecration, in such a way that the meaning is altered, the sacrament is invalidated (Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, Chap. 5, Part 1). The New Mass is therefore invalid. Further, even if one is not convinced that the New Mass is definitely invalid, no one can deny that grave doubts do exist as to its validity. The Church has always condemned the idea that a Catholic can go to a doubtfully valid Mass or receive doubtful sacraments. This has always been considered by the Church to be a mortal sin. In fact, Pope Innocent XI, Decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679 (Denz. 1151), even condemns the idea that Catholics can receive "probable" sacraments. In other words, even if one believes that the New Mass is probably valid, one is forbidden to attend it under pain of mortal sin. Sacraments may only be received when matter and form are certainly valid. And in light of the above information, no one can say that the form of the New Mass is certainly valid without contradicting the authoritative pronouncements of the Catholic Faith. This other portion was added some there is some duplicative information on the new rites. Short, Irrefutable and Devastating proof from a new angle that the word “all” in place of “many” renders the New Mass invalid. Recently, various writers have continued to assert that the change in the Traditional Formula of Consecration from “many” to “all” does not render the New Mass invalid. The fake traditionalist and heretic Bob Sungenis and his ridiculous arguments immediately come to mind. Unfortunately, people are still listening to these lying teachers and continuing to attend the New Mass as a result. In our material we have shown how, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, such a change does result in invalidity. We have demonstrated this simply by quoting the Council of Florence's decree on the words of Consecration, in conjunction with Pope St. Pius V's reiteration of those words and his statement that any change of meaning results in invalidity. However, there is, in our opinion, an even stronger and more devastating way to show why the use of "all" in place of “many” renders the New Mass invalid. We have never discussed it before in our material, so we present it now. Note: other writers have brought this devastating argument out and expanded upon it at length, but unfortunately their treatments of this are often very long and complex – so that, unfortunately, only those willing to read their long treatises and think about them in detail grasped the nevertheless devastating point of the argument. The following hopefully simplifies this argument – an argument which, in reality, is very simple – so that more people will internalize how it totally devastates any claim that the word “all” can validly replace “many” in the words of Consecration. This is by far the strongest argument on this particular matter. In his famous Bull, Apostolicae Curae in 1896, Pope Leo XIII teaches: “All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify.” The Sacraments must signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify. If it does not signify the grace which it effects and effect the grace which it signifies, it is not a sacrament – period. So, what is the grace effected by the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? The Council of Florence, the Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas all teach the same on this matter. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” On the Eucharist, 1439: “Finally, this is a fitting way to signify the effect of this sacrament, that is, the union of the Christian people with Christ.” Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 2: “He (Christ) wished, furthermore, that this (the Eucharist)... be a symbol of that one ‘body’ of which He Himself is the ‘head’, and to which He wished us to be united, as members, by the closest bonds of faith, hope and charity...” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 73, A. 3: “Now it was stated above that the reality of the sacrament [of the Eucharist] is the unity of the mystical body, without which there is no salvation...” As the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas and many other theologians teach, the grace effected by the Eucharist is the union of the faithful with Christ; in other words, the Mystical Body of Christ. Note: the grace effected by the Eucharist [the union of the Mystical Body] must be carefully distinguished from the Eucharist itself: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Since the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body is the grace effected by the Sacrament of the Eucharist – or what is also called the reality of the Sacrament (Res Sacramenti) or the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist– this grace must be signified in the Form of the Consecration for it to be valid, as Pope Leo XIII teaches. Okay, so we must look at the Traditional Form of Consecration and find where this grace – the union of the faithful with Christ – is signified. The Traditional Form of Consecration as declared by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence and Pope St. Pius V in De Defectibus is as follows: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Note again: we are looking for that part of the Form which signifies that the person who receives this sacrament worthily becomes united or more strongly united with Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body. Do the words “FOR THIS IS MY BODY. FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD” signify the union of the faithful with Christ the Mystical Body? No. They signify the true Body and Blood of Christ, which become present when this Sacrament is confected; but these words don’t signify the union of the faithful with Christ or the Mystical Body, which is the grace effected by the Eucharist. Again... Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” On the Eucharist, 1439: “Finally, this is a fitting way to signify the effect of this sacrament, that is, the union of the Christian people with Christ.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 73, A. 3: “Now it was stated above that the reality of the sacrament [of the Eucharist] is the unity of the mystical body, without which there is no salvation...” Do the words “OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT” signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body? No. These words do not signify the Mystical Body either, but rather they contrast the temporary and prefiguring sacrifices of the Old Law with the eternal and propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Do the words “THE MYSTERY OF FAITH” signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body? No. These words signify the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as Innocent III teaches; they do not signify the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Do the words “WHICH SHALL BE SHED” signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body? No. These words denote true sacrifice. The only words left in the Form of Consecration are: “FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.” The remission of sins is necessary for incorporation into the Mystical Body, and remission of sins is an indispensable component of true Justification, by which one is fruitfully united to Jesus Christ. The words “for you and for many” denote the members of the Mystical Body who have received such remission. Thus, we can see that the words “FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS” are the words in the Form of Consecration which signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the union of the Mystical Body of Christ – which is the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Now, if we look to the Novus Ordo Form of Consecration, do we find the Mystical Body/the union of the faithful with Christ [the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist] signified? Remember, the Form must signify the Mystical Body in order for it to be valid. Here is the form of Consecration in the New Mass or Novus Ordo: This is my body. This is the cup of my blood, of the new and eternal testament. It shall be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Is the union of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ signified by the words “for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven”? No. Are all men part of the Mystical Body? No. Are all men part of the faithful united with Christ? No. We can see very clearly that the New Mass or Novus Ordo most certainly does not signify the union of the Mystical Body [the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist], and therefore it is not a valid sacrament! Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896:“All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify.” Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896: “That form cannot be considered apt or sufficient for a Sacrament which omits that which it must essentially signify.” Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence: "...this is a fitting way to signify the effect of this sacrament, that is, the union of the Christian people with Christ." One does not have to say anything more... the New Mass is not valid! It is very interesting to note that in all the formulas of Consecration in the Catholic Church, the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body is signified in the words of Consecration. And no liturgy that has ever been approved by the Church has used the word “all” in the Formula of Consecration. The Formula of Consecration in all these liturgies signifies the union of the faithful with Christ the Mystical Body of Christ. But the Novus Ordo says, “for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven,” and this does not signify the Mystical Body, since all do not belong to the Mystical Body. Thus, the Novus Ordo does not signify the grace which the Eucharist effects. It is not valid. Thus, a Catholic cannot attend the New “Mass” under pain of mortal sin. Those who persist in doing so are committing idolatry (worshipping a piece of bread). Jesus Christ is not present there. The host is merely a piece of bread, not Our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. The Church has always taught that to approach a doubtful sacrament (which employs doubtful matter or form) is mortally sinful. In fact, Pope Innocent XI, Decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679 (Denz. 1151), even condemns the idea that Catholics can receive "probable" sacraments. And the New Mass is not merely doubtful, it is clearly invalid, since it does not signify the grace it is supposed to effect. It is actually worse than a Protestant service; it is an abomination, which falsifies the words of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith. THERE IS NO FRUIT FROM THE NEW MESS OR VATICAN II, POST CONCILIAR ANTI-POPES, GAY BISHOPS AND RABID REDHATS. PERHAPS ONLY GARBAGE, NO HOLINESS CAN DERIVE FROM THE NEW ORDER CULT ANTI-CATHOLIC CHURCH. This is why the fruits of the New Mass are so bad, so rotten, so evil, so destructive to the Faith. The facts above totally refute those deceived teachers who tell us that “all” can be substituted for “many” in the words of Consecration. These men are deceiving Catholics and leading them to Hell. Please be evangelistic and spread this information far and wide to inform as many people as possible why no one can attend the Novus Ordo and why it is certainly invalid. Please spread this information to silence the defenders of the validity of the New “Mass.” Appendix Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: "The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament." Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, "Cantate Domino": "However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians in respect to THE FORM OF WORDS which the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord's Body and Blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."(Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 581) St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 78, A. 3: "I answer that, there is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words 'This is the chalice of My blood belong to the substance of the form, but not those words which follow. NOW THIS SEEMS INCORRECT, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood: consequently they belong to the integrity of its (i.e., the form's) recitation." St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on the Holy Eucharist: "The words pro vobis et pro multis (for you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault... This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by [Pope] Benedict XIV." (St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on The Holy Eucharist, Redemptorist Fathers, 1934, p. 44) The Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist: "The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. WITH REASON, THEREFORE, WERE THE WORDS FOR ALL NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation." (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, TAN Books, 1982, p. 227.) Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, "Exultate Deo": "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." (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown Univ. Press, Vol. 1, p. 542; Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, no. 695) |
| We began this section with a question: Was the new form employed in a Catholic Eastern Rite as the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy? The answer is no, because: The Paul VI form is not identical to the Eastern Rite forms. In particular, the lengthy Eastern Rite forms mention either perfecting the priesthood or specific sacramental powers proper to a bishop alone (ordaining priests, etc.). The Paul VI form does not. In the Maronite and Syrian Rites, the prayer that most closely resembles the Paul VI consecration preface is not the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy, but a non-sacramental prayer for installing a Patriarch, who is usually already a bishop when he is appointed. So, one cannot argue that the Paul VI form is valid because it is in use as a sacramental form “in two certainly valid Eastern Rites.” It is not among the words “accepted and used by the Church in that sense,” and there is no guarantee of validity on this basis. V. Another Approved Form? Question: Was the new form employed as the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy in some other rite in the past that enjoyed at least tacit approval from the Church? Such evidence, though not as strong a proof for validity as use in a Catholic Eastern Rite, would add at least some weight to the argument that the new form is valid. Above, we mentioned that the Paul VI Preface for Episcopal Consecration was taken nearly verbatim from an ancient prayer for consecrating a bishop that appears in Dom Botte's 1963 edition of The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus. It also has parallels in other ancient texts such as The Apostolic Constitutions and the Testament of the Lord. Fr. Pierre-Marie also employed these texts as evidence to argue that the new rite is valid. How much certitude can we have that (1) these texts themselves were actual sacramental forms used to confer the episcopacy, and (2) they received at least tacit approval from the Church as such — that even in a broad sense they were “accepted and used by the Church in that sense”? Alas, if by "certitude," we mean the certitude Catholic moral theology requires for conferring or receiving a valid sacrament, our answer must be: None at all. For we immediately descend into the mystifying world of scholarly debates over the authorship, origin, dating, reconstruction and deciphering of 1700-year old texts. A. Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus? Here are some of the preliminary problems we discover: (1) Identity of Author? The Jesuit expert on Eastern liturgies, Jean-Michel Hanssens, devotes nearly one hundred pages to trying to identify Hippolytus: Was he the same Hippolytus associated with an Easter computation table? The one represented by a statue? The one reputed to be a native Roman? Or the Egyptian one? The pope's counselor? Or the anti-pope? The priest Hippolytus? Or a bishop? Or the martyr? Or one of the several saints in the martyrology? The best we can manage is scholarly conjecture. (2) Origin? Where did The Apostolic Tradition come from? Some say Rome; others say Alexandria, Egypt. More conjecture. (3) Age? How old is it? “Usually” dated around 215 AD, but “the section dealing with ordination may have been retouched by fourth-century hands in order to bring it into line with current doctrine and practice.” Note: “retouched.” More scholarly conjecture is needed to tell us which parts of the document were retouched. (4) Manuscript Authority? How much confidence can we put in the originals? Well, we don't even have them: “The Greek original of the document has not survived, except in the form of a few isolated fragments. [I]t has to be reconstructed from an extant Latin translation and from later Coptic, Arabic and Ethiopic versions, as well as from the use made of it by compilers of later Church orders, which increases the difficulty of determining exactly what the author wrote.” Hence, the subtitle of Dom Botte's 1963 edition: An Attempt at Reconstruction. At least a half-dozen other scholars (Connolly, Dix, Easton, Elfers, Lorentz, Hanssens) have made similar attempts. Reconstruction, said Dom Botte, can “bring us back only to an archetype, and not the original.” So, we have only more conjecture, but this won't even get us the original. (5) Liturgical Use? Does the text accurately reflect actual use? “It is not easy to distinguish what represents a real usage from the ideal,” said Dom Botte in 1963. The cited Pierre-Marie, “Why the New Rite...” (Jan 2005), 15. My emphasis. (7) Another Expert. And in 1969, before it became a matter of controversy, we find at least one expert who said that omitting the expression governing Spirit wouldn't even necessarily alter the validity of the rite: “If one were to omit inadvertently the words spiritum principalem, I don't see what that would change.” The expert? Dom Bernard Botte. (8) Who Knows? Our brief survey, then, uncovered a dozen possible meanings for governing Spirit: Originally existing spirit. Leading/guiding spirit. Perfect spirit like King David. Generous or noble spirit. God the Father. God the Holy Ghost. An external divine effect. Supernatural spirit of rectitude/self control. Good disposition. For a Coptic abbot: gentleness, love, patience and graciousness. For a Coptic archbishop: divine knowledge, received through the Church. Some quality whose omission wouldn't change validity anyway. None of these specifically signify either the episcopacy in general or the fullness of Holy Orders that a bishop possesses. D. Univocally Signify the Effect? We now begin to apply a few more of our criteria from section I. Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis declared that the form for Holy Orders must “univocally signify the sacramental effects — that is, the power of the Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.” The new form fails on two of these points. (1) Not Univocal. The expression governing Spirit is not univocal — that is, it is not a term that signifies only one thing, as Pius XII required. Rather, as we demonstrated above, the expression is ambiguous — capable of signifying many different things and persons. We do, among its various meanings, find one meaning connoting the Holy Ghost — but not in a sense exclusively limited to bishops. Coptic abbots, King David, and virtuous leaders can all receive this governing Spirit. B. Botte, “L'Ordination…” 123. "mais si on ommetait par inadvertance les mots 'spiritum principalem' je ne vois pas ce que cela changerait." Botte, a typical modernist, devotes two pages of this article to dismissing the standard safeguards for the validity of an episcopal consecration that had been introduced based on the principles of moral and dogmatic theology. Sacr. Ord. DZ 2301. #4. "quibus univoce significantur effectus sacramentales — scilicet potestas Ordinis et gratia Spiritus Sancti." 67. Forcellini, Lexicon 8:869. "proprie de eo qui unius est vocis... cui multivocus vel plurivocus opponitur.... 'Univoca (sunt) quae sub eodem nomine et sub eadem substantia continentur." 68. F. Hurth, "Commentarius ad Cons. Apostolicam Sacramentum Ordinis,” Periodica 37 (1948) 2. “plenitudinem sacerdotii Christi in munere et ordine episcopali.” "'summa seu totalitas' ministerii sacerdotalis." 69. Merkelbach, 3:20. 70. Coronata, 1:13. "non amplius per ipsam complete et congruenter exprimatur." VIII. An Invalid Sacrament Question: How does this substantial change of meaning in the form affect the validity of the sacrament? A substantial change in the meaning of a sacramental form, as we have seen in section I, renders a sacrament invalid. This leads us inexorably to our conclusion: Accordingly, an episcopal consecration conferred with the form promulgated by Paul VI in 1968 is invalid. We proceed to two objections. IX. Saved by Context? Objection: Even if the essential part of the sacrament were insufficiently determined, it would nevertheless be adequately specified by the phrase "grant... that he show forth to Thee a high priesthood without blame” that occurs later in the context. Fr. Pierre-Marie briefly raised this objection. But one could make such an argument only if: (1) The new sacramental form contained both elements required by Pius XII (the grace of the Holy Ghost and the power of the Order), and (2) The form signified one of those elements equivocally rather than univocally. One could then at least argue that the form indeed contained the element that Pius XII required and that the context adequately specified it. However: A. Certitude... or Opinion? No matter how convincingly formulated, such an argument could never produce moral certitude that the new sacramental form was valid, only a probable opinion that it was. For the weighty counter-argument would always be that Pius XII required that the form be univocal, period. It is not permissible in the administration and reception of sacraments to follow a mere probable opinion about validity. To do so is a mortal sin against religion, charity and (for the minister) against justice. Further, this would hold all the more true regarding the administration of Holy Orders, because of the irreparable harm — invalid Masses, absolutions and Last Rites — that would result from its invalidity. One could therefore neither confer nor receive Orders based on an opinion that the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid, nor function as a priest based on such an opinion. 71. De Ordinatione Episcopi, Presbyterorum et Diaconorum, ed. typ. alt. (Rome: Polyglot 1990), 25. "Da... ut... summum sacerdotium tibi exhibeat sine reprehensione." 72. "Why the New Rite..." (Jan 2005), 10. 73. Cappello 1:25–6. B. A Counter-Argument And the argument from context, in any case, cuts both ways. Other reconstructions of the episcopal consecration prayer in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus contain a petition to God that the bishop would receive "the power... to confer orders according to your bidding." The Paul VI Consecration Preface at this point instead asks that he receive the power to “distribute gifts (or offices) according to Thy command.” The official English translation renders it as "assign ministries as you have decreed." A Mormon bishop with his own governing Spirit can assign ministries, and even Santa Claus can distribute gifts. The notion of conferring Holy Orders — the distinctive power that characterizes the fullness of the priesthood — has been eliminated from the new Preface. That the omission was deliberate is clear from the Coptic Rite form for episcopal consecration that Dom Botte consulted to reconstruct the text of Hippolytus. It further specifies after the foregoing phrase that the bishop is to provide clergy “for the priesthood... to make new houses of prayer, and to consecrate altars.” The removal of the power to ordain from the Anglican form for episcopal consecration was among the reasons adduced by Leo XIII for declaring Anglican orders invalid, “because among the first duties of the episcopacy is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.” C. Not Just Equivocal, but GONE However, one may not even make the argument from context in favor of validity, because the new form does not even equivocally signify one of the elements Pius XII said the sacramental form must contain — the power of the Order being conferred. That element is missing, so there is nothing for the context to determine or specify. Trying to do so is a futile effort. If I recite all the prayers and perform all the ceremonies that the Rituale Romanum prescribes for a baptism, yet — God forbid — omit the word "baptize" when I pour the water on a baby's head, the sacrament is invalid. All the prayers in the surrounding context — no matter how much they speak about baptism, cleansing, and the life of grace. 74. Bradshaw, 107. 75. De Ord. Ep., 25. "ut distribuat munera secundum praeceptum tuum." 76. Burmester, Ordination Rites, 111. 77. Apostolicae Curae, 13 Sep 1896, DZ 1965. "eoque id magis, quia in primis episcopatus muniis scilicet est, ministros ordinandi in sanctam Eucharistiam et sacrificium." form valid. An essential element was missing from the form, so there is nothing – not even an equivocal term — for the context somehow to render specific. So too, here. The power of Order is gone from the form, and context cannot bring it back. All that remains is governing Spirit, which may refer to the Holy Ghost, or one of His effects, or the Father, or knowledge, or Coptic abbot-like virtues. X. Approved by the Pope? Objection: Even if the essential sacramental form did not univocally signify one of the sacramental effects (the power of the Order of the episcopacy), approval by Paul VI would nevertheless guarantee that the form was valid. This is the last and weakest argument for validity, not only because it assumes that authoritative declarations in the Church need no coherent theological justification, but also because it wrongly attributes to the pope a power he does not possess. A. No Power to Change? In the beginning of Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII, reiterating the teaching of the Council of Trent, states: “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.” As regards Holy Orders, “The Church possesses no power over the meaning of the form, because it pertains to the substance of the sacrament instituted by Christ.” Christ Himself prescribed that for Holy Orders the Church use signs and words "capable of expressing... the power of Order." The new form for episcopal consecration does not express this power, even equivocally. It therefore changes the substance of a sacrament as established by Christ. No pope would have the power to render such a form valid. B. Or a Change Means No Power? If faith tells us that the Church has no power to change the substance of a sacrament, and we conclude. Nothing could be further from the truth. The theologians who prepared Pius XII's 1947 declaration on the matter and form for Holy Orders studied the question for 40 years, and took great pains to insure that rigorous theological reasoning consistent with tradition supported every word of the draft. When it appeared, the head of the commission wrote a 50-page commentary to demonstrate this. 79. DZ 3201. "Ecclesia nulla competat potestas in 'substantia Sacramentorum,' id est in ea quae, testibus divinae revelationis fontibus, ipse Christus Dominus in signo sacramentali servanda statuit." 80. Merkelbach 3:720. "Quantum ad sensum formae, quia pertinet ad substantiam sacramenti a Christo instituta, Ecclesiae nulla competit potestas." 81. Merkelbach 3:18. "determinavit... quod ab Ecclesia adhiberentur signa et verba idonea ad exprimendum characterem et gratiam propriam Confirmationis, vel potestatem Ordinis." that Paul VI has in fact changed the substance of a sacrament — rendering it invalid in the process — we can arrive at but one conclusion: He was not a true pope. The invalid Rite of Episcopal Consecration Paul VI promulgated, then, is just one more piece of evidence confirming the defection from the faith and resultant loss of authority by the Popes of Vatican II. That the man who occupies the See of Rome is not a true bishop, moreover, should be ample proof that neither is he a true pope. XI. Summary WE HAVE COVERED a vast amount of material in the foregoing sections, so we will now offer the beleaguered reader a summary. A. General Principles (1) Each sacrament has a form (essential formula) that produces its sacramental effect. When a substantial change of meaning is introduced into the sacramental form through the corruption or omission of essential words, the sacrament becomes invalid (=does not “work,” or produce the sacramental effect). (2) Sacramental forms approved for use in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are sometimes different in wording from the Latin Rite forms. Nevertheless, they are the same in substance, and are valid. (3) Pius XII declared that the form for Holy Orders (i.e., for diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy) must univocally (=unambiguously) signify the sacramental effects — the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost. (4) For conferring the episcopacy, Pius XII designated as the sacramental form a sentence in the traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration that unequivocally expresses the power of the order that a bishop receives and the grace of the Holy Ghost. B. Application to the New Form (1) The new form for episcopal consecration that Paul VI promulgated does not seem to specify the power of the Order supposedly being conferred. Can it confer the episcopacy? To answer this question, we apply the foregoing principles. (2) The short Paul VI form for episcopal consecration is not identical to the lengthy Eastern Rite forms, and unlike them, does not mention sacramental powers proper to a bishop alone (e.g., ordaining). The Eastern Rite prayers that the surrounding Paul VI consecration Preface most closely resembles are nonsacramental prayers for the installations of the Maronite and Syrian Patriarchs, who are already bishops when appointed. In sum, one may not argue that the Paul VI form is “in use in two certainly valid Eastern Rites” and therefore valid. (3) Various ancient texts (Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions, the Testament of Our Lord) which share some common elements with the Paul VI consecration Preface have been “reconstructed,” are of doubtful provenance, may not represent actual liturgical use, etc. There is no evidence that they were “accepted and used by the Church as such.” Thus they provide no reliable evidence to support for the validity of the Paul VI form. (4) The key problem in the new form revolves around the term governing Spirit (Spiritus principalis in Latin). Before and after the promulgation of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration the meaning of this expression provoked concerns about whether it sufficiently signified the sacrament. (5) Dom Bernard Botte, the principal creator of the new rite, maintained that, for the 3rd-century Christian, governing Spirit connoted the episcopacy, because bishops have “the spirit of authority” as “rulers of the Church.” Spiritus principalis means “the gift of a Spirit proper to a leader.” (6) This explanation is false and disingenuous. Reference to dictionaries, a Scripture commentary, the Fathers of the Church, a dogmatic treatise and Eastern Rite non-sacramental investiture ceremonies reveals that, among a dozen different and sometimes contradictory meanings, governing Spirit does not specifically signify either the episcopacy in general or the fullness of Holy Orders that the bishop possesses. |
| Site Tools |
|
|
|
|
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
