Saturday, August 22, 2009

Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration

Editor's NOTE:

Needless to say, the topic addressed in this piece is of monumental importance--the proper sacramental form for the consecration of Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church.

Their are many opinions on this subject among self-professed Traditional Catholics. Cekada concludes that the 1968 Pauline rite of Episcopal Consecration is invalid meaning that the sacramental orders of any Bishop consecrated and any Priest ordained by such a "bishop" are invalid.

Mr. Hutton Gibson has an extensive section on his website which addresses this issue as well. For further details proceed HERE...

I continue to study this problem very carefully and I have not yet made a final decision about validity of Episcopal Consecration since 1968. It seems absolutely vital that each person perform their proper due diligence as the implications are truly profound and frightening.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration

By: Rev. Anthony Cekada

“Once there are no more valid priests they’ll
permit the Latin Mass.”

— Rev. Carl Pulvermacher OFMCap
Former Editor, The Angelus

“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

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...

XI. Summary

WE HAVE COVERED a vast amount of material in the foregoing sections, so we will now offer the beleaguered eader 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.

(7) Before the controversy over it arose, Dom Botte himself even said that he didn’t see how omitting the expression governing Spirit would change the validity
of the rite of consecration.

(8) The new form fails to meet two criteria for the form for Holy Orders laid down by Pius XII. (a) Because the term governing Spirit is capable of signifying many different things and persons, it does not univocally signify the sacramental effect. (b) It lacks any term that even equivocally connotes the power of Order that a bishop possess — the “fullness of the priesthood of Christ in the episcopal office and order,” or “the fullness or totality of the priestly ministry.”

(9) For these reasons, the new form constitutes a substantial change in the meaning of the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy.

(10) A substantial change in the meaning of a sacramental form, as we have already demonstrated, renders a sacrament invalid.

C. Conclusion: An Invalid Sacrament

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, an episcopal consecration conferred with the sacramental form promulgated by Paul VI in 1968 is invalid.
Proceed HERE for entire article...

What to Expect of "Pope" BENEDICT XVI

Editor's NOTE:

I found this piece fascinating in that it was purportedly written at the time of Benedict XVI's papal election and some of the predictions have already come true e.g Benedict's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (no longer need special indult [permission from Bishop] in order to provide a Latin Mass) which replaced the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei of 1988 and the ongoing normalization discussions with the SSPX including the recent reversal of the prior excommunications of certain SSPX clerics.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

A Message from Novus Ordo Watch HERE... about what we believe will happen during the time Fr. Joseph Ratzinger is in the Vatican

May 20, 2005 AD
Ember Friday in Pentecost

Dear Reader:

The recent election of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger as "Pope" Benedict XVI, the new head of the Concilar Church, marks the beginning of a new era. After almost 40 years since the end of the Second Vatican Council, and over 46 years since the selection of Cardinal Angelo Roncalli as John XXIII, in order to finish its triumph over the Catholic Church, the Conciliar Novus Ordo Church must now move into its final stages to complete its work of inquity, that is, the setting up of a universal one-world religion, under the pretext of human dignity, that has abandoned all that is distinctively Roman Catholic.

Catholic traditionalists have hitherto been the last great resistance against the New Church's complete destruction of Catholicism. In order to succeed fully in implementing the New Religion, therefore, the Novus Ordo Church must once and for all break down the traditional Catholic resistance. In what follows we propose what we believe Benedict XVI has planned to bring about the demise of Traditional Catholicism. (Editor's emphasis) We put these considerations before you today, before the plan is carried out, that you may know to beware of the great dangers ahead and identify them as such as they come to pass.

(1) Benedict XVI will seek to destroy the traditional Catholic resistance not by attacking it, but by neutralizing it: he will seek to undermine its reason for being.

(2) As time goes on, Benedixt XVI will bend over backwards to appear conservative, even traditional; he will do everything in his power to reconcile with and fully regularize the Society of St. Pius X and similar traditionalist groups. He will allow all Novus Ordo priests to say the traditional Mass and perhaps even command that the traditional Mass be said on a regular basis in every Novus Ordo parish. (This reintroduction of the traditional Mass in regular parish life will be absolutely essential.) He will lure good-willed but confused and battle-weary traditionalists by letting them voice their concerns concerning Vatican II and the New Mass and fully accept their reservations concerning these. He may even reform the New Mass into a more conservative liturgy. He will say that it is time to come to the aid and comfort of the one faction in the Church still marginalized and neglected for so long, namely, the traditionalists. He will pretend to have an open mind and heart for them and do everything in his power to regularize their status, with the ultimate goal of having all traditionalists be part of the New Church, under the tacit banner, however, of "unity in diversity."

(3) After having regularized and fully accepted the formerly traditionalist priestly societies, and perhaps even erected Apostolic Administrations for them, Benedict XVI might even go so far as to ordain priests for those traditionalist groups. This will anger the ultra-modernists but at the same time be a great defeat for traditional Catholicism, for the ordinations will not be valid. They will not be valid because Benedict XVI is not a bishop. Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict's real name, was ordained a priest in 1951, but his consecration as "bishop" occurred in 1977 and took place in the new rite of consecration promulgated by Paul VI (in 1968), a rite that is clearly invalid because the words of episcopal consecration were changed so much that they no longer express that what is taking place is the consecration of a Catholic bishop. Against this, Pope Leo XIII has taught clearly and infallibly that a form that does not signify the grace it confers is unable to confect a sacrament: "That 'form' consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify" (Bull Apostolicae Curae, 1896). Therefore, any and all ordinations "conferred" by Benedict XVI are invalid. [Read a full theological study demonstrating the invalidity of the new rite here: PDF file] Hence it will not matter how many "traditional priests" he will seem to ordain, for all the "Masses" they will ever say will be invalid. Yet none of the former traditionalists then reconciled to Rome will dare speak against this, for they will necessarily recognize Benedict as the Bishop of Rome, and it is absurd, of course, to acknowledge someone as the Bishop of Rome while at the same time maintaining that he is not a bishop. All this will happen while the last few surviving bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII are dying.

(4) Benedict XVI will seem conservative and traditional not only in words but also in deeds. He will move to excommunicate the more obvious ultra-modernists in the Novus Ordo Church. He will strike down the left-wing dissidents against his Novus Ordo magisterium. He will not tolerate openly homosexual organizations that claim to be Catholic, such as "Dignity USA." He will perhaps provoke a schism with "Cardinal" Roger Mahony of Los Angeles to further make people believe that he, Benedict, is an orthodox anti-modernist, the "great Pope" to "save the Church," and that Mahony and his ilk are liberals and modernists. He will be uncompromisingly against abortion and euthanasia--and the death penalty.

(5) Benedict XVI will be very successful in this endeavor. He will be successful mainly because many traditionalists are tired of fighting. They are worn out from the battle. They will welcome the illusion of a "traditional Pope" who will finally "restore the Church." Benedict will take advantage of this unique moment.

(6) But all of this will be facade. It will serve only one purpose: to lure the faithful Catholic remnant into the New Church and invalidate the last valid Latin-rite sacraments, all while the last Catholic bishops are dying. This tactic will reveal itself as extremely cunning and successful, for there is no better way to destroy traditionalism than by apparently acceding to its every demand. Thus they will succeed in deceiving everybody, except for the elect, which is impossible (see Matthew 24:24). The few faithful Catholic souls who will then still have refused to join the New Church will be easy to deal with, for their number will be small. They will be marginalized, ostracized, and persecuted in ways without precedent. They will be derogated as "extreme right-wing lunatics" and "rabid fundamentalists" who are "very uncharitable" and "can never be pleased." They will be denounced as enemies of the Catholic Church, even though they are but the enemies of the New Vatican II Church. They will be put on a par with the followers of the David Koresh cult. They will be denounced as left-overs from the Inquisition and witch-burning times. They will be denounced as antisemitic. Quite possibly, even publications formerly known as traditionalist will join in the bashing. Once this has succeeded, everything will be in place; the last stage of the Great Persecution of the Holy Catholic Church will have begun.

Pray hard, therefore, for the Novus Ordo hierarchy will move swiftly to smash that last outpost of Catholicism, that last bastion they so far still haven't been able to demolish. "They [the faithful] must pray above all for the Church of Darkness to leave Rome," counseled the visionary Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich on August 25, 1820 (qtd. in Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy, TAN Books, p.64). So do not be surprised if this comes to pass. We are telling you beforehand. (News stories confirming these predictions will be marked "SWTYS" -- "See, we told you so.") The remaining true Catholics, however, will be consoled by the fact that "Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to a handful, are the true Church of Jesus Christ" (St. Athanasius), and that Our Lady of Fatima promised that "in the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph."

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
St. Pius X, pray for us.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Traditional and Conciliar Church Compared Continued

Some readers assert that the differences between the Traditional Roman Catholic Church and the conciliar church just don't seem that great. One suspects that such a view is only possible for someone who either had no personal experience with the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church or otherwise has extremely limited knowledge of it.

In an attempt to compare and contrast some of the more obvious differences I produced this list. There are many more which could be included. I encourage readers to add to what is found here--construct your own and try to somehow without abandoning first principles and logic to account for the contradictions. After each number the traditional feature is to the left while the corresponding conciliar feature is found to the immediate right.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

1.) Theocentric/ Anthropocentric
2.) Latin Language Mass/ Vernacular Language "Mass"
3.) Traditional Mass (St. Pius V)/ Novus Ordo Missae
4.) Traditional Morality/ Moral Depravity
5.) Heterosexual Priesthood/ Homosexual Priesthood
6.) No Divorce/Re-Marriage/ Annulments/Remarriage Common
7.) Traditional Scriptural Exigesis/ Higher Form Criticism of Scripture
8.) Monarchical/ Democratic
9.) Highly Disciplined/ Poorly Disciplined
10.) Thomism Embraced/ Thomism Rejected, Modern Phil. Embraced
11.) Adam and Eve 2 Literal First Parents/ Polygenism Encouraged
12.) Gen. 1-12 actual human history/ Gen. 1-12 completely allegorical
13.) No Salvation Outside RCC (EENS)/ Universal Salvation,False Ecumenism
13.) Roman Catholicism Protected by State/ Religious Freedom Espoused
14.) Papal Primacy/ Collegiality Replaced Papal Primacy
15.) Formal Church Documents Precise/ Formal Church Documents Ambiguous
16.) Need for Frequent Confession Stressed/ Need for Confession Virtually Ignored
17.) Eucharistic Devotion Stressed/ Eucharistic Devotion Virtually Ignored
18.) Marian Devotion Stressed/ Marian Devotion Virtually Discouraged
19.) Missionary Activity Plentiful/ Missionary Activity Virtually Ceased

What/Where is the Roman Catholic Church?

In light of Traditional Catholic dogma/doctrine, how should the Second Vatican Council be viewed ? Is it consistent with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and prior Magisterial teaching?

What explains the tremendous amount of "bad fruit" which has been forthcoming since the close of the Council in 1965? “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16)

This site explores these questions and more in an attempt to place the Second Vatican Council in proper perspective.