|
| |||||
|
|
|
| ||
False Rites, SSPX False Traditional Catholics
|
| John Paul II with the Dalai Lama telling him his is a great religion. The leaders of this occult religion believe that they are reincarnated from their predecessors. Those who profess to be catholic and worship in any other religion may as well practice witchcraft and give homage to the devil such as John Paul who violated the First Commandment countless times. A Heretic is a baptized person who rejects an authoritative teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. A schismatic is a person who refuses communion with a true Pope or refuses communion with true Catholics. An apostate is a person who rejects the Christian faith completely. All heretics, schismatics and apostates sever themselves from the Catholic Church automatically (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943). Therefore, if one is a heretic he is not a Catholic (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896). And most heretics convince themselves that they are not denying any dogma when they actually are. The Heresy of the Week changes every Friday. (All emphasis, such as bolding, underlining, and italicization is not necessarily that of the quoted author.) *All Heresies from Benedict XVI used in past Heresy of the Week columns are found in the Heresies of Benedict XVI File. Other past Heresies of the Week are probably found in either the Heresy of the Week Archive or the "Some of the Recent Articles" section. Michael and Peter Dimond's site and information is sold at low prices and also you may be able to watch dvds on their website of such things as the Amazing Heresies of Benedict XVI and Why John Paul II Cannot Be The Pope. There are problems with the Society on a mass of issues. They are not the true church of Christ and many of them are professing heresies or denying the truth that makes them heretics. They have done much good in the past but when they do things or profess things against the truth we must attack them for their evils and errors. I rightfully call anyone a manifest or formal heretic in traditional catholic organizations if they call John Paul and Benedict valid popes for instance. You are a heretic if you think they are real popes and that the redhats and bishops are true leaders of the church. They are leaders of a anti-catholic church a whore a pig and it is not the Catholic Church they head or have authority in. I stress what a material heretic is though some traditional catholics will define it another way. A material heretic is someone in a catholic church of tradition or of the novus ordo that in ignorance of a dogmatic teaching, scripture truth or a defined truth of the pre-Vatican II fake church. If you ignore or hold on to the belief something in full or part is not in conformity with that church teaching you are material. You are in a state of sin usually mortal and can die in that state. Some heresies are more aggravated than others but you will or can be judged outside the church if you hold this deception. It can or will lead to the loss of your eternal salvation. *to be continually updated* newest articles: Bishop Tissier De Mallerais of SSPX says Benedict XVI has taught heresies and more. Bishop Fellay of the SSPX rejects Catholic dogma by teaching that Hindus can be saved. Introduction to the positions of the SSPX: Important Articles pertaining to the positions of the SSPX: Other short news bulletins and very short comments pertaining to the SSPX: Introduction to the positions of the SSPX: The SSPX is a traditionalist order of priests founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The SSPX has many traditional Mass locations around the world, and is a major force influencing and providing sacraments for those who profess to be traditionalist-minded Catholics. We want to emphasize that the SSPX does many good things; it has been an avenue by which many have been introduced, and come back, to the traditional Catholic Faith. However, in various areas the SSPX’s positions are unfortunately heretical and contrary to the Catholic Faith. The SSPX holds and teaches that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions, which is totally heretical. Fr. Schmidberger, Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 10: “Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions, that is to say, if they are in invincible error.” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.” These statements constitute blatant heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Yet, they are printed in the very best-selling materials of the SSPX. Also, while resisting the Vatican II apostasy, the SSPX maintains an allegiance to the manifestly heretical “Bishops” of the Novus Ordo/Vatican II Church. At the same time, however, the SSPX doesn't operate in communion with what it calls “the New Church” – the Novus Ordo Church – the Church of the Vatican II “Bishops” and “Popes” (who are actually Antipopes). Their position is a contradiction. It's an affront to Catholic teaching on three counts: 1) They recognize manifest heretics (the Novus Ordo Bishops and the Vatican II Antipopes) as Catholics who possess authority in the Church, which is heretical. St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: "Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.” St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." 2) The SSPX obstinately operates outside of communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy, even though it recognizes it as the Catholic hierarchy. This is schismatic. In fact, the SSPX boldly refuses communion with the Novus Ordo Church (see below), even though it recognizes the Novus Ordo hierarchy as the true Catholic hierarchy! Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Declaration of August 2, 1976: “For a grave problem does, after all, confront the conscience and faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate. How can a Pope, true successor to Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, preside over the destruction of the Church, the deepest and most excessive of her history, in so short a space of time, what no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? All those enter into schism who cooperate in this realization of this upheaval and adhere to this new Conciliar Church, as His excellency Bishop Benelli designated it in the letter he addressed to me in the Holy Father's name last June 25th.” (Quoted in Sacerdotium) Fr. Franz Schmidberger, former Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X: “We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and identifies itself with the Novus Ordo Missae... the faithful indeed have a strict right to know that priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church.” (Quoted in Sacerdotium) The Angelus, Official publication of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX): “This current of renewal has given birth to a new church within the bosom of the Catholic Church, to that which Msgr. Benelli himself called ‘the conciliar church,’ whose limits and paths are very difficult to define... It is against this conciliar church that our resistance stands. We do not refuse our adherence to the Pope as such, but to this conciliar church, for its ideas are foreign to those of the Catholic Church.” (The Angelus, May 2000, p. 21.) Thus, by its recognition of the Vatican II “Popes” and “Bishops” as the Catholic hierarchy, the SSPX is in communion with this “counterfeit Church.” At the same, the SSPX is in schism with this “counterfeit Church” because it blatantly refuses communion with the members of this Church, as we see above. (If it sounds contradictory and absurd, that's because it is.) The position is schismatic. Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.” St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, (A.D. 110): “He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clean conscience.” (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers,, Vol. 1:50) For decades now the SSPX has been obstinately working outside of communion with the Bishops and “Pope” it deems to constitute the Catholic hierarchy. This is schismatic. St. Jerome, Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus, (A.D. 386): “Between heresy and schism there is a distinction made, that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the Bishop. (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2:1371a) 3) The SSPX holds that the Catholic Church has become a “New Church,” a modernist sect – a non-Catholic sect which is rife with heresy and apostasy – which is impossible. The Church is the immaculate Bride of Christ which cannot officially teach error. Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.” Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 22), Dec. 11, 1925: “Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.” Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, ex cathedra:“... knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren (Lk. 22:32).’” For instance, the SSPX even rejects the solemn canonizations of the Vatican II “Popes” it recognizes. This position is terribly schismatic, for it asserts that a true Pope and the Catholic Church have officially erred in canonizing saints. St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23:“To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.” Since so many have a high regard for the SSPX, they have been led into the same schismatic position. Important Articles pertaining to the positions of the SSPX: Bishop Fellay of the SSPX rejects Catholic dogma by teaching that Hindus can be saved. Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water... And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.) The SSPX rejects John Paul II's "Canonization" of Josemaria Escriva, thus revealing its Schism Fr. Peter Scott, Nov. 1, 2002, from SSPXs Holy Cross Seminary in Australia:“A typical example of this was the shameful and highly questionable canonization of Msgr. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer last October 6... ‘After having pointed out that the process was uncanonical and dishonest, they had this to say: 'It (the canonization) will offend God. It will stain the Church forever. It will take away from the saints their special holiness. It will call into question the credibility of all the canonizations made during your Papacy. It will undermine the future authority of the Papacy'... Their letter will certainly turn out to be prophetic, for in time they will be proven to be right in their assessment concerning Escriva ... For all the reasons that they give, we cannot possibly consider this ‘canonization’ as a valid, infallible Papal pronouncement. We trust that he is in heaven, but we cannot possibly regard as a Saint this herald of Vatican II....” (SOUTHERN SENTINEL - No. 3 - November 2002) Since they recognize that John Paul II was a true Pope, to reject his solemn “canonization” is clearly schismatic. Bishop Richard Williamson of the SSPX says John Paul II was a “good man” and says the SSPX's religion is not the same as the Vatican II “Popes” it recognizes! A. Bishop Williamson: I was a little surprised, at first, because some people had said he wasn't really in the running. After that, to tell you the honest truth, I don't expect a great deal from Rome as it stands. They are too far gone in the “New Religion,” and the “New Religion” is too radically different and distant from the True Religion. Rome is Rome, though, and I do believe there the popes are, and there are the cardinals, and that is where the official structure of the Church is to be found. But, I’m afraid, for the defense of the Faith, you've got to wait for some grave event to shake Rome and/or to drive the true cardinals out of Rome to start again somewhere else. I'm afraid that Rome is too deeply in the grips of the enemies of God. This article shows that Bishop Williamson of the SSPX boldly states that he doesn’t have the same religion as the “Pope” and “Bishops” he recognizes as the Catholic hierarchy! This, ladies and gentlemen, sums up the completely ridiculous – and schismatic – position of the SSPX, which is (for lack of a better description) so obstinately inconsistent that it is correctly labeled THEOLOGICAL PUKE. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.” The SSPX – an explanation of its heretical positions Was Vatican II infallible? This refutes their position that they can reject Vatican II while accepting the Vatican II Antipopes. Paul VI says that the New Mass and Vatican II are binding This also blows away one of the biggest false traditionalist myths which is held by the SSPX, that Vatican II and the New Mass were never imposed by the Vatican II Antipopes. Since Vatican II is heretical, and the New Mass is a false “Mass,” this is powerful proof that Paul VI was not the Pope. A Critique of Is Feeneyism Catholic? by Fr. Francois Laisney (SSPX) and the other SSPX books on salvation and baptism. This critiques a number of the SSPX’s books on salvation and baptism, including Is Feeneyism Catholic? In this outrageous work, the SSPX actually asserts the blatant lie and falsehood that the Council of Florence teaches baptism of desire! Canonizations Are Infallible This article further refutes the SSPX's position, and includes a section on the apostasy of Mother Theresa of Calcutta. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais of SSPX says Benedict XVI has taught heresies. “A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: It was when he was a priest. When he was a theologian, he professed heresies, he published a book full of heresies... Yes, sure. He has a book called Introduction to Christianity, it was in 1968. It is a book full of heresies. Especially the negation of the dogma of the Redemption.” This article also shows that Bishop Tissier rejects the concept of Church communion. Other short news bulletins and short comments pertaining to the SSPX: The Society of St. Pius X's book Most Asked Questions about the Society of St. Pius X says the Vatican II “Popes” CANNOT teach infallibly Most Asked Questions about the Society of St. Pius X, Question 7: But shouldn't we be following John Paul II?, pp. 38-40: “The Pope is infallible primarily in matters of faith and morals, and secondarily in matters of discipline (legislation for the Universal Church, canonizations, etc.) to the extent that these involve faith and morals (cf. Principle 4), and then only when imposing for all time a definitive teaching. “Now ‘infallible’ means immutable and irreformable (Principle 6), but, the hallmark of the conciliar Popes, like the Modernists, is a spirit of evolution. To what extent can such minds want irreformably to define or absolutely to impose? They do not and, in fact, ‘they cannot...' (Archbishop Lefebvre, Econe, June 12, 1984.) Cf. Question 15, n.3.” (Angelus Press, 1997) The Society of St. Pius X is not merely stating here that John Paul II did not fulfill the requirements to speak infallibly; the SSPX (writing during the reign of John Paul II) stated that he (the man they considered to be the true Pope) cannot speak infallibly. For those who are for some reason not grasping the impact of this statement by the SSPX, allow us to summarize it: the SSPX correctly points out that an infallible teaching by a Pope on faith or morals is irreformable, as Vatican I declared (Denz. 1839). But according to the SSPX, the Vatican II “Popes” are such Modernists that they believe in the evolution of doctrine; they don't believe that anything is irreformable. So, according to the SSPX, even though they are valid Popes, the post-conciliar “Popes” CANNOT teach infallibly! This is a rejection of Papal Infallibility. Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: “...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.” By definition, a Pope is the Bishop of Rome who possesses supreme jurisdiction in the Church and who CAN teach infallibly, if he fulfills the requisite conditions. If he is incapable of speaking infallibly, he is perforce not a valid Pope. To state that one can be a valid Pope and be incapable of speaking infallibly, as the SSPX does, is like stating that one can be a valid Pope and not hold supreme jurisdiction in the Church. It's a contradiction in terms, a rejection of one of the divine protections given to the occupants of the Papal Office, as defined by Vatican I. All of these schismatic positions (e.g, the SSPXs rejection of “Canonizations” proclaimed by their “Pope”) and perversions of the Papal Office are a result of the SSPX's failure to see the truth of the sedevacantist position (i.e., that the Vatican II “Popes” are not Popes at all, but Antipopes). Benedict XVI personally tells SSPX that it must accept Vatican II In his recent Conference in Denver in 2006 (carried in the recent article in The Angelus), Bishop Fellay of the SSPX mentioned a very important point. He admitted that, in his personal meeting with Antipope Benedict XVI, the Antipope made it very clear to him that the SSPX must accept Vatican II. Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Feb. 18, 2006: “Then he [Benedict XVI] went to the second level. And he said that the second level is the acceptance of the Council...' ... The Pope clearly indicated in the words he used during audience, that for him, it is impossible to accept someone in the Church, at least in his, let's say, modern way of looking at the Church, who would not accept the Council. He was very clear. When I heard these words there, and especially one word afterwards, for me, the big fight we will have under this pontificate will be the fight about the Council.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 15.) How many times does this have to be proven? The false traditionalists need to give up their impossible position. They must reject Vatican II and the non-Catholic Antipopes who enforced it. Regarding the claim of SSPX supporters that they just live a Catholic life, attend the SSPX (or some other independent chapel) and don't get involved with these issues, such as sedevacantism. We frequently hear from people, especially supporters of the SSPX, that they are just laypeople who cannot get involved in these issues, such as the sedevacantist issue. They just go to Mass at the SSPX, support them and try to be good, spiritual people who live the Faith. This is the response of many SSPX supporters when confronted by sedevacantist arguments. Okay, if that's the case – if you don't have the authority to get involved with these issues and you are just a “simple layman who goes to Mass” and tries to live the Catholic Faith – THEN YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ATTEND THE SSPX OR ANOTHER INDEPENDENT CHAPEL. IF YOU ARE TOO SIMPLE TO “FIGURE THIS STUFF OUT” AND YOU CANNOT GET INVOLVED WITH THESE ISSUES – IF THAT IS YOUR POSITION (WHICH GOD FORBID) – THEN ACCEPT YOUR LOCAL NOVUS ORDO CHURCH, GO TO THE NEW MASS, AND ACCEPT VATICAN II, WHICH IS THE RELIGION APPROVED BY THE LOCAL NOVUS ORDO BISHOP. But “no,” the would-be “simple” layman who “just goes to the SSPX and tries to live a good life” and doesn't get involved in “these issues” all of a sudden gets involved in the issues and becomes a “theologian.” He “knows” that he cannot accept the New Mass and his local Novus Ordo religion. He thus condemns himself out of his own mouth, refutes his own argument and shows his hypocrisy by only “getting involved” where he wants to get involved. For the bottom-line is that if one can accept the New Mass and Vatican II religion and save his soul then there is no justification whatsoever for going to an independent chapel or the SSPX. It's all a matter of preference, in that case. But if one holds that Faith obliges him to reject the New Mass and the Vatican II religion as something which will cause the loss of his salvation (which is the truth), then the local church and the New Mass (and the authorities who imposed it) cannot represent the Catholic Church. That leads one inescapably to the sedevacantist position, for the Holy Catholic Church can never lead us to hell. So, the person must either: 1) return to the local Novus Ordo authorities or 2) correctly conclude that they don't represent the Catholic Church – the sedevacantist position. If he obstinately refuses, in the face of evidence and arguments, to come to appropriate conclusion that the Novus Ordo authorities who offer him this false religion are not Catholic and hold no authority in the Church (the sedevacantist position), this person condemns himself as a schismatic for going outside the diocese to the SSPX. His excuse that he is too simple “to get involved in all of these issues” and that he “just goes to Mass” and follows the SSPX priests obviously will not be accepted by God because then he would have been justified before God by simply following his local Novus Ordo parish. All of this hopefully shows us again that the only Catholic position is, of course, the sedevacantist position, and that all the other false positions are heretical and schismatic, including the false position of the SSPX. *Since the SSPX promotes heretical positions which are inconsistent with Catholic teaching, no Catholic can financially support them under pain of mortal sin. Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: "Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics." Absolutely Null and Utterly Void, The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration “Once there are no more valid priests they'll permit the Latin Mass.” “Keep the shell, but empty it of its substance.” V.I. Lenin IN THE 1960'S Catholics who were upset by the post-Vatican II liturgical changes had already begun to worry whether sacraments conferred with the reformed rites were valid. A defining moment in the United States came in 1967 when Patrick Henry Omlor published the first edition of his study, Questioning the Validity of Masses using the All-English Canon, a work that, even before the promulgation of the Novus Ordo in 1969, galvanized the then-tiny traditionalist resistance. As the modernist “reformers” overhauled the other sacramental rites — Confirmation, Penance and Extreme Unction — traditionalists questioned the validity of these sacraments as well, and sought out priests who offered the traditional Mass and used the old rites. Holy Orders was the one sacrament that traditionalists did not seem to worry about. Sure, there were no vocations. But since few laymen had ever even seen an ordination — still less knew what made an ordination valid — how or whether the liturgical changes affected the validity of Holy Orders was a topic that went unexamined. I encountered the issue by chance during my first year (1975-76) at the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) seminary at Econe, Switzerland. I went to ask Archbishop Lefebvre about whether conservative friends from my former seminary could work with the Society after ordination. The Archbishop explained that the new form (essential formula) in the rite for priestly ordination was doubtful because one word had been subtracted. The new form for episcopal consecration, the Archbishop continued, was completely different and thus invalid. Despite the gravity of the question, only a few traditionalist writers examined the post-Vatican II ordination rites, even after Tridentine Indult Masses started to multiply. Increasingly, these were offered by priests ordained by bishops consecrated in the new rite, and belonging to groups such as the Fraternity of St. Peter. If their ordaining bishops were invalidly consecrated, the sacraments these priests confected would likewise be invalid. After Benedict XVI was elected in 2005, however, the issue resurfaced. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, appointed an Archbishop and Cardinal by Paul VI, had been consecrated with the new rite on May 25, 1977. Was he, apart from the sede vacante controversy, even a real bishop? In the summer of 2005, a French traditionalist publisher, Editions Saint-Remi, published the first volume of Rore Sanctifica,2 a book-length dossier of documentation and commentary on the Paul VI Rite of Episcopal Consecration. The study, featuring on its cover side-by-side photos of Ratzinger and SSPX Superior General Mgr. Bernard Fellay, concluded that the new rite was invalid. This naturally caught the attention of higher-ups in the SSPX in Europe, who were by then negotiating with Benedict XVI to obtain special status in the Vatican II church. How could SSPX superiors rally traditionalists to a pope who may not even be a bishop? The Dominicans in Avrille, France, a traditionalist religious order in the SSPX orbit, immediately took up the task of trying to make a convincing case. The only widely-circulated study in English I know of is R. Coomaraswamy, “The Post-Conciliar Rite of Holy Orders,” Studies in Comparative Religion 16.2-2. 2. Rore Sanctifica: Invalidite du Rite de Consecration Episcopale de 'Pontificalis Romani' (Editions Saint-Remi 2005) rore-sanctifica.org. Fr. Pierre-Marie OP, produced a lengthy article in favor of it that the Dominicans published in their quarterly, Sel de la Terre. Thilo Stopka, a former SSPX seminarian in Europe, challenged Fr. Pierre-Marie's conclusions, and in turn published a great deal of valuable research on the Internet to refute them. Meanwhile, the SSPX's official U.S. publication, The Angelus, promptly translated Fr. Pierre-Marie's article into English, publishing it in two successive issues (December 2005, January 2006) under the title “Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid.” I find it ironic and particularly sad that such an article appeared in The Angelus. In August 1977 I visited an old-line traditionalist in Upper Michigan, Bill Hanna. He passed along a favorite quote from Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, a Capuchin who worked with SSPX and would later edit The Angelus: “Once there are no more valid priests, they'll permit the Latin Mass.” Father Carl, it seems, had a bit of the prophet in him. In his Angelus article, Fr. Pierre-Marie argued that the Paul VI Rite of Episcopal Consecration is valid because it uses prayers to consecrate bishops that are virtually the same as those (a) used in the Catholic Church's eastern rites, or (b) once used in the ancient Church. Please note: Paul VI made these same two claims when he promulgated the new consecration rite in 1968, and both are demonstrably false. It is appalling that the SSPX superiors recycled them to market the validity of that same rite to an unsuspecting traditionalist laity. To support this argument, Fr. Pierre-Marie offered several tables that compare various Latin texts. These we will discuss in an appendix. As for the rest of his article, most readers probably came away from it utterly baffled. For although Fr. Pierre-Marie said he would “proceed according to the Scholastic method so as to treat the matter as rigorously as possible,” he never managed to focus clearly on the two central questions: (1) What principles does Catholic theology employ to determine whether a sacramental form is valid or invalid? (2) How do those principles apply to the new rite of episcopal consecration? We will answer both questions here, and draw the appropriate conclusions. Our discussion may be a bit technical at times — so I have provided a summary (sect. XI) Sel de la Terre 54 (Fall 2005), 72–129. Bewildered by talk of Copts, Maronites, Hippolytus and the mysterious governing Spirit. I. Principles to Apply PRIMARILY for the benefit of lay readers, we will review some principles that are used to determine whether a sacramental form is valid. The concepts are not complicated. A. What is a Sacramental Form? In catechism class we all learned the definition of a sacrament: “An outward sign, instituted by Christ to give grace.” “Outward sign” in the definition refers to what we see and hear when a sacrament is conferred — the priest pours the water on the baby's head and he recites the formula “I baptize you,” etc. Catholic theology teaches that in every sacrament this outward sign consists of two elements joined together: Matter: some thing or action your senses can perceive (pouring water, bread and wine, etc.) Form: the words recited that actually produce the sacramental effect (“I baptize you...” “This is My body...," etc.) Each sacramental rite, no matter how many other prayers and ceremonies the Church has prescribed for it, contains at least one sentence that either Catholic theologians or authoritative Church pronouncements have designated as its essential sacramental form. B. Omitting the Form All Catholics know verbatim at least one essential sacramental form: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” If at a baptism, the priest says all the other prayers and performs all the other ceremonies, but omits this one formula when he pours the water, the sacrament is invalid (does not “work”), the grace promised by Christ is not conferred and the baby is not baptized. This much should be obvious. C. Changes in the Form But another question arises: What if the wording of a sacramental form is changed? How does this affect validity? The answer depends on whether a change in meaning also results. Theologians distinguish between two types of change: (1) Substantial. (Meaning changed = invalid.) This occurs “when the meaning of the form itself is corrupted... if the words would have a meaning different from that intended by the Church.” Or put another way: If the form “is changed in such a way that the meaning intended or willed by Christ is no longer completely and congruently expressed through it.” A substantial change in a sacramental form is introduced through adding, omitting, corrupting, transposing, or exchanging words in the form, or by interrupting them in such a way that the form no longer retains the same sense. Here are two examples: Corruption of words: A modernist priest says: “I baptize you in the name of the Mother, and of the Son...” He has introduced a new word that changes the meaning of one of the essential elements of the form — Father. The baptism is invalid. Omission of words: A nervous young priest who has not memorized the form says: “I baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son...,” omitting the word you. Or alternately, he says the word you, but omits the word baptize. Since a sacramental form must express in some way who is receiving the sacrament as well as the sacramental action itself, omitting the you or the baptize changes the meaning and renders the form invalid. (2) Accidental. (Meaning same = still valid.) This is a change that does not alter substantial meaning. Example: Instead of saying “I baptize you...,” the priest says “I cleanse you in the name of the Father...” Because he has merely substituted an exact synonym for one of the words in the form (“baptize” is Greek for “cleanse”), the meaning remained the same. The change was therefore only accidental. The baptism was valid. This distinction between a substantial and an accidental change will be a key concept in examining the validity of the 1968 form of episcopal consecration. If the new form constitutes a substantial change in meaning, it is invalid. D. Using an Eastern Rite Form The forms the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church use to confer sacraments sometimes differ greatly in wording from those the Latin Rite uses. But the substantial meanings are always the same. Example: The Ukranian Rite uses the following form for Baptism: “The servant of God N. is baptized. 4. H. Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis 8th ed. Montreal: Desclee 1949) 3:20. “Quando ipse sensus forma corrumpitur... habeat sensum diversum a sensu intento ab Ecclesia.” 5. M. Coronata, De Sacramentis (Turin: Marietti 1953) 1:13. “modificatur ita ut sensus a Christo intentus seu volitus non amplius per ipsam complete et congruenter exprimatur.” F. Cappello, De Sacramentis (Rome: Marietti 1951) 1:15. Cappello 1:15, “forma irrita est, si nova vox ex corruptione in substantialibus inducantur.” Cappello 1:15, “detractione: forma irritatur, si tollantur verba exprimentia actionem sacramentalem aut subjectum.” 9. E. Regatillo, Jus Sacramentarium (Santander: Sal Terrae 1949), “Transmutatione, adhibitis verbis synonimis: si sint omnino synonima et usu communi recepta, forma valet.” in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” This preserves each concept that theologians say must appear in a valid form for baptism: the minister (at least implicitly), the act of baptizing, the recipient, the unity of the divine essence, and the Trinity of persons expressed under distinct names. In the case of an Eastern schismatic group that has submitted to the pope, moreover, the Church has examined the prayers and ceremonies of its sacramental rites to insure that they were free from doctrinal error and contained everything necessary for conferring true sacraments. So, if a bishop or priest confers a sacrament using a sacramental form identical to one contained in a duly approved Eastern Rite ritual book, one can be certain that the sacrament will be valid. This principle will figure in our discussion as well, because Fr. Pierre-Marie bases much of his argument for the validity of the new rite on elements supposedly common both to Eastern Rite episcopal consecration forms and the new form of Paul VI. It was also this same claim by Father Franz Schimdberger — the new form was “Eastern Rite” — that led Archbishop Lefebvre to abandon his original position that the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid. E. Requirements in a Form for Holy Orders What specifically are we looking for in the new rite of episcopal consecration? What must the words of a form for conferring Holy Orders express? Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, laid down the general principle when he declared that for Holy Orders these must “univocally signify the sacramental effects — that is, the power of the Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.” Note the two elements that it must univocally (i.e., unambiguously) express: the specific order being conferred (diaconate, priesthood or episcopacy) and the grace of the Holy Ghost. So we must therefore ascertain whether the new form is indeed “univocal” in expressing these effects. F. Episcopal Consecration in Particular In the same document, having laid down a general principle, Pius XII then declared that the following. 10. Quoted Cappello 1:777. 11. See Merkelbach 3:127. 12. Bishop Donald Sanborn relates the following: In an early 1983 conversation with the Archbishop and Fr. Schmidberger over the SSPX/Vatican negotiations then taking place (plus ca change...), he asked how the Society could accept any solution at all, since the Archbishop had told us many times that he considered the new rite of episcopal consecration invalid. The Archbishop replied, “Apparently, it is valid,” and made a gesture for Fr. Schmidberger to speak, who then said, “It's Eastern Rite.” 13. Const. Apost. Sacramentum Ordinis (30 November 1947), DZ 2301. 4. “quibus univoce significantur effectus sacramentales — scilicet potestas Ordinis et gratia Spiritus Sancti.” The words, contained in the consecratory Preface for the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, were the essential sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy: “Complete in thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.” This form univocally signifies the sacramental effects as follows: (1) “The fullness of Thy ministry,” “raiment of all glory” = power of the Order of episcopacy. (2) “The dew of heavenly anointing” = grace of the Holy Ghost. The question is whether the new form does the same. II. Origin of the New Rite IN 1964 PAUL VI entrusted implementing the liturgical changes prescribed by Vatican II to a new Vatican agency known as the “Consilium.” This organization was composed of several hundred clergymen, divided according to their areas of expertise into thirty-nine “study groups.” The Secretary of Consilium and its real head was Fr. Annibale Bugnini, a liturgical modernist a Freemason, who had written the Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Study Group 20 had the task of “reforming” the rites for Holy Orders. Its head was the Benedictine monk Dom Bernard Botte (1893–1980), a specialist in Oriental liturgical languages and another liturgical modernist. His most famous academic achievement was a new scholarly edition of The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus, a collection of ancient Christian liturgical texts. One of these would become the New Mass's Eucharistic Prayer II — minus its original references to the devil, hell, the salvation of just believers alone, and the sacrificing priest. Dom Botte proposed that another text from this same collection be introduced into the Rite of Episcopal Consecration to replace the traditional consecratory Preface. The old Preface, he said, had “poor doctrinal content,” was oriented “almost exclusively towards the bishop's liturgical role,” was a “hybrid formula, poorly balanced.” Something was needed that better expressed the theology of Vatican II. The prayer for episcopal consecration from Hippolytus, said Dom Botte, survived in “more evolved” versions in the Syrian and Coptic Eastern Rites. Used in the Roman Rite, he said, it also “would affirm a unity of outlook between East and West. Sacr. Ord. Dz 2301. 5. “Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica.” 15. La Tradition Apostolique de Saint Hippolyte: Essai de Reconstitution, 2nd ed. (Munster: Aschendorff 1963). 16. B. Botte, “L'Ordination de l'Eveque,” Maison-Dieu 97 (1969), 119-20. “This was an ecumenical argument. It was decisive.” So Botte's text, lifted nearly verbatim from his 1963 work, became the new Preface for Episcopal Consecration when Paul VI promulgated it in June 1968. III. The Paul VI Form Paul VI designated the following passage in the Preface as the new form for the consecration of a bishop: “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 dispute over the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration centers on this passage. At first glance, it does seem to mention the Holy Ghost. However, it does not appear to specify the power of Holy Order being conferred — the fullness of the priesthood that constitutes the episcopacy — that the traditional form so clearly expressed. So, is this new form capable of conferring the episcopacy? To answer that, we will apply the principles outlined in section one. We proceed from stronger arguments for validity to weaker one. IV. An Eastern Rite Form? Question: Was the new form employed in a Catholic Eastern Rite as the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy? If so, this would be the strongest evidence for arguing that the new form is valid. One could demonstrate that it therefore met the criteria Pius XII enunciated regarding the form for Holy Orders, because it would already be among the words “accepted and used by the Church in that sense.” In his Apostolic Constitution promulgating the new rite, Paul VI says that new Preface for Episcopal Consecration is taken from The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (a document we shall discuss in section V), which continues to be used “in large part” for episcopacy. B. Botte, From Silence to Participation: An Insider's View of Liturgical Renewal (Washington: Pastoral 1988), 135. 18. Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani (18 June 1968), AAS 60 (1968), 369–73. 19. 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. 20. Sacr. Ord., DZ 2301, #4: “quaequae ab Ecclesia qua talia accipiuntur et usurpantur.” And indeed on this basis, Fr. Pierre-Marie argued: “The utilization of the form that is in use in two certainly valid Eastern rites assures its validity.” But is the factual claim really true? Is the Paul VI form indeed in use in two Eastern Rites? All one need do is (1) ascertain from theology books which Eastern Rite consecration prayers are considered the sacramental forms, (2) look up those texts, and (3) compare them with the Paul VI form. Two general points immediately emerge to defeat the Eastern Rite argument: (1) The sacramental form that Paul VI prescribed for conferring the episcopacy consists of merely one sentence. Eastern Rite forms, however, consist of a whole prayer, or even a series of prayers, several hundred words long. So on the face of it, the Paul VI form — a mere 42 words long in Latin — cannot be described as a form “in use in two certainly valid Eastern Rites.” (2) Nor could one even claim that the entire Paul VI Preface of Episcopal Consecration (212 words long in Latin) is somehow a form “in use in two certainly valid Eastern Rites.” The Preface does indeed contain some phrases found in Eastern Rite forms — but there are significant omissions and variations. It is still not identical to any one of them. So on both counts, the new form cannot be among the words “accepted and used by the Church” as a sacramental form for Holy Orders. Here are some of the details. A. Coptic Rite Form? This uniate group descends from monophysite heretics (= Christ has only one nature), who, after the Council of Chalcedon (451) went into schism, led by the Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt, and then went into a long decline. (See Appendix.) By the 19th century, enough Copts had renounced their errors and submitted to the pope for the Holy See to organize them into their own uniate Rite. In 1898 their Synod decreed that, for the three major orders in the Coptic Rite, “the form is the actual prayer which the ordaining bishop recites while imposing hands on the ordinand.” The 19th-century dogmatic theologian Heinrich Denzinger, best known for his Enchiridion Symbolorum, a collection of dogmatic texts, also published a collection of Eastern Rite liturgical texts, the Ritus Orientalium. In his lengthy introduction to this work, Denzinger further specifies that the sacramental form for episcopal consecration in the Coptic Rite “is the prayer Qui es, Dominator, Deus. “Why the New Rite...” (Jan 2005), 10. Quoted Cappello 4:732. “In collatione trium ordinum majorum… forma est ipsa oratio quam ordinans recitat, dum manus ordinando imponit.” Omnipotens, which in the ritual itself is called the [imposition-of-hands] prayer.” Note the following: (1) This prayer is a Preface about 340 words long in a Latin version. The Paul VI form is 42 words long. The two forms, therefore, cannot be equated. (2) This lengthy Coptic form mentions three specific sacramental powers considered proper to the order of bishop alone: “to provide clergy according to His commandment for the priesthood... to make new houses of prayer, and to consecrate altars.” Though the Paul VI Preface surrounding the new form contains many phrases found in the Coptic form (including “governing spirit,” which we shall discuss below), these phrases are missing. This omission is particularly significant, because the dispute over the validity of the Paul VI form revolves around whether it adequately expresses the power of the Order being conferred — i.e., episcopacy. B. Maronite Rite Form? In the 5th century, some Syrians became monophysite heretics, and (like the Copts) went into schism after the Council of Chalcedon. These are also known as “Jacobites,” after Jacob Baradai, who was clandestinely consecrated a bishop in the 6th century and organized their movement. Other West Syrians who opposed the monophysites came to be called Maronites (after the monastery of St. Maro, their center). Most Maronites eventually settled in Lebanon and were known for their deep devotion to the Holy See. The Maronites adopted some externals of the Roman Rite (vestments, altar style, etc.) but continued otherwise to follow the Rite of Antioch, one of the ancient patriarchal sees. According to Denzinger, the form for the episcopacy in the Maronite Rite consists of the prayers: “Deus qui universam Ecclesiam tuam per istos pontifices in manus impositione exornas, etc., Deus deorum et Dominus dominantium.” Comparing this with the Paul VI form reveals the following: H. Denziger, Ritus Orientalium, Coptorum, Syrorum et Armenorum (Wurzburg: Stahel 1863), hereafter “RO,” 1:140. “Apud Coptitias est oratio illa, Qui es, Dominator, Deus omnipotens, quae in ipso rituale eorum dicitur oratio cheirotonías.” 24. See RO 2:23–24. It is divided into two sections. According to the rubric in the footnote, the consecrating bishop continues to hold his hand imposed during the part following the interjection of the Archdeacon. Translation in O.H.E. KHS-Burmester, Ordination Rites of the Coptic Church (Cairo: 1985), 110–1. RO 2:24 renders the “provide clergy...priesthood” phrase into Latin as: “constitutendi cleros (kleros Arabs: Clericos) secundum mandatum ejus ad sanctuarium,” giving “in ordine sacerdotali” in a footnote. RO 1:141. “Apud Syros, Maronitas et Jacobitas, forma episcopatus ex Assemano est in illis duabus orationibus vel in eorum altera: Deus, qui universam Ecclesiam tuam per istos pontifices in manus impositione exornas, etc., Deus deorum et Dominus dominantium, quae apud utrosque sequuntur, postquam episcopus manum impositam tenens dixerit: Etiam, [sic] Domine Deus etc.” The text Denzinger gives for the prayer in RO 2:195 actually begins with “Eia” rather than “Etiam.” The Maronites use both prayers. (1) The Maronite form is a Preface at least 370 words long, interspersed with impositions of the bishop's hand on the head of the candidate. It prays that the candidate receive the “sublime episcopal order,” with subsequent prayers twice begging God to “perfect” his grace and priestly ministry. This form has nothing in common with the Paul VI form. (2) On a following page of the Maronite Rite for Episcopal Consecration, there is a prayer that has some phrases in common with the Paul VI form (e.g. “governing Spirit”) and Preface (“loose bonds”) but, even though it occurs in the ceremony, this is not the Maronite sacramental form. (3) The Maronite prayer that most closely resembles the Paul VI form and Preface of Episcopal Consecration is one found in the Rite for the Consecration of a Maronite Patriarch. And indeed Fr. Pierre-Marie reproduces much of the text to support arguments for the validity of the new rite. However, this prayer is not a sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy. It is merely an installation prayer, because the Maronite Patriarch is already a bishop when he is appointed. C. Syrian Rite Form? From the 17th-19th centuries, various Syrian Jacobite bishops, including even a Patriarch of Antioch, abjured their errors and submitted to the Holy See. In the 19th century the pope set up a Syrian Rite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch headquartered in Beirut, Lebanon. (In the mid-20th century, many Syrian Rite Catholics lived in Iraq.) The Syrians, like the Maronites, follow the Antiochene Rite, but there are some differences. The form for episcopal consecration in the Syrian rite, according to Denzinger, consists of either the same prayers used by the Maronites, or another: “Deus, qui omnia per potentiam tuam,” recited after the Patriarch imposes his right hand on the ordinand's head. Once again, we compare this with the Paul VI form: (1) The Syrian form is about 230 words long, versus 42 words in the Paul VI form. Again, it is not the same. (2) In even greater detail than the Coptic form, the Syrian form enumerates specific sacramental powers considered proper to the order of bishop: May he “create priests, anoint deacons, consecrate altars. RO 2:195. “recipiat sublimem episcoporum ordinem.” RO 196-7: “perfice nobiscum gratiam tuam tuumque donum.” “perfice...sacerdotale ministerium.” RO 2:198. “Spiritum...Sanctum, illum principalem.” “expellat omnia ligamina.” 29. RO 2:220. 30. RO 1:141. “In ordine autem nostro ex codice Florentino desumpto, non occurrit nisi haec una: Deus, qui omnia per potentiam tuam.” 31. RO 2:97. churches, bless houses, call forth vocations to ecclesiastical work. And once again, even though the Paul VI form and Preface contain some phrases present in the Syrian form (e.g., “governing… Spirit,” feed” [the flock], “loose bonds”), the foregoing expressions are absent. (3) In the Syrian Rite as in the Maronite Rite, the prayer that most closely resembles the Paul VI form and Preface is the one used for “consecrating” a Patriarch. Once again, however, it is not a sacramental prayer for consecrating a bishop, and this is clear from the following: The Syrian liturgical book prescribes the same order of service and prayers for consecrating a bishop and for consecrating the Patriarch, with but one change in the text. For the consecration of the Patriarch, the presiding bishop omits the prayer designated as the form for episcopal consecration (the prayer Deus, qui omnia per potentiam tuam), and substitutes “the Prayer of Clement,” the text that resembles the Paul VI Preface. Two different terms in Syriac are used to distinguish the sacramental rite for the consecration of a bishop from the non-sacramental rite for the consecration of a patriarch. The first rite is called an “imposition of hands,” while the second is referred to with a term meaning “to confide or invest someone with a duty.” A Syrian liturgist explains: “In the first case [episcopal consecration], the ordinand receives a charism different from the one he already possesses... In the second, the Patriarch does notreceive a charism different from the one he received at the time he was made a bishop.” 32. RO 2:97. “eo fine ut... sacerdotes constituat, diaconos ungat: consecret altaria et ecclesias: domibus benedicat: vocationes ad opus (ecclesiasticum) faciat.” 33. For the prayer instituting the Patriarch, see B. DeSmet, “Le Sacre des Eveques dans l'Eglise Syrienne: Texte,” L'Orient Syrien 8 (1963), 202-4. 34. De Smet, 166-7. “Par le meme rite de la chirotonie, c'est-a-dire, les memes prieres et le meme office avec lesquelles le patriarche lui-meme sacre les metropolites et les eveques, par ces memes rites ils le sacreront eux aussi... il y a, dans le sacre du patriarche, trois elements qui lui sont propre, a savoir:... 2 L'invocation du Saint-Esprit, dont il est ecrit de Clement, et que nousdonnerons plus loin: elle est dit uniquement sur le patriarche par les pontifes qui l'etablissent.” (My emphasis. The first and third elements are the election and the manner of giving the crosier.) The episcopal consecration form and the installation prayer appear successively on pp. 202-04, where it is easy to compare the difference in contents. D. Not an Eastern Form. 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: |
| Site Tools |
|
|
|
|
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
