By Bro. Michael Dimond, O.S.B.
The
New Rite of Ordination
The new rite of Holy Orders (bishops, priests,
deacons) was approved and imposed by Paul VI on June 18, 1968. The following information is absolutely
critical for all Catholics to know, since it concerns the validity of basically
every “priest” ordained within the diocesan structure since approximately 1968;
and consequently, it concerns the validity of countless confessions, indult
Masses, etc.
On Nov. 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued an apostolic
Constitution called “Sacramentum Ordinis.” In this Constitution, Pope Pius XII declared,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, the words that are necessary for
a valid ordination to the priesthood.
Pope Pius
XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947: “But regarding the matter and form in the
conferring of every order, by Our same
supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: … In the
ordination of priests, the matter is the first imposition of the bishop’s hands
which is done in silence… But the form
[of Ordination] consists of the words of the preface of which the following are
essential and so required for validity:
Grant,
we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your
servants, the dignity of the Priesthood (presbyteriii
dignitatem); renew the spirit of holiness within
them, so that they may hold
from You, O God, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the
example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.” (Denzinger 2301)
The New Form in the New Rite of Ordination of priests
Here is the form of the New
Rite of Ordination of Priests:
Grant, we
beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants,
the dignity of the Priesthood; renew within them the spirit of holiness. May they hold from You,
the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their
behavior afford a pattern of holy living. (The
Oratory Catechism, Published by the Oratory of Divine Truth, 2000, p. 340)
The difference between the two forms is that the Latin word “ut” (which means “so
that”) has been omitted in the new rite. In Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII declared that this word was essential
for validity. This omission of “so that”
gives rise to a relaxation of the reference to the clear naming of the
sacramental effect (conferring the office of the second rank). This change presupposes an ordination which
has already taken place, but not taking place, so that the last sentence
thereby has become meaningless for the form of ordination. (The Oratory Catechism, p. 340)
If the New Rite claims to be
the Roman Rite, then this removal of the word “ut”
(so that) renders the New Rite invalid or of gravely doubtful validity at best.
Other Problems with the New Rite of Ordination
But the change to the essential form is not the only problem with the
New Rite of Ordination promulgated by Paul VI.
The following points are just as significant, because the Sacrament of Order, although instituted by Our Lord Jesus
Christ, was not instituted by Our Lord with
a specific sacramental form – unlike the Sacraments of the Eucharist and
Baptism, which were instituted by Our Lord with
a specific sacramental form – so
that the form of words in Ordination is given its meaning and significance by
the surrounding rite and ceremonies.
In his famous Bull, Apostolicae Curae, Sept.
13, 1896, Pope Leo XIII solemnly declared that Anglican Ordinations are
invalid. This means that the Anglican sect
doesn’t have valid priests or bishops.
Pope Leo
XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept.
13, 1896: “Wherefore, strictly adhering in this matter to the decrees of the
Pontiffs Our Predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were,
renewing them by Our authority, of Our
own motion and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that Ordinations
carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null
and utterly void.”
In making this solemn
pronouncement it must be understood that Leo XIII was not making Anglican Ordinations invalid, but rather he was declaring
that they were invalid due to defects in the Rite. But
what were those defects or problems which Leo XIII saw with the Anglican Rite,
which contributed to its invalidity?
Pope Leo
XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made
use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the
sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a
sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the
other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing
another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does,
and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament,
then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the
sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the
sacrament.”
Here we see Pope Leo XIII
teaching that if a minister uses the Catholic rite in conferring the Sacrament
of Order, with the correct matter and form, he is considered for that very
reason to have intended to do what the Church does – intending to do what the
Church does is necessary for the validity of any Sacrament. On the other hand, he tells us, if the rite is changed, with the manifest
intention of introducing a new rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting
what the Church does, then the intention is not only insufficient but is
destructive of the Sacrament.
And what were the things that
Pope Leo XIII described as showing the destructive intention of the Anglican
rite of Ordination?
Pope Leo XIII,
Apostolicae Curae, Sept.
13, 1896: “For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient
for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let
this argument suffice for all: from them has been deliberately removed whatever
sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That form consequently cannot be considered
apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to
signify.”
Pope Leo
XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13,
1896: “So it comes to pass that, as the
Sacrament of Orders and the true sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood] of Christ were utterly
eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium [priesthood] is in no wise
conferred truly and validly in the Episcopal consecration of the same
rite, for the like reason, therefore, the Episcopate can in no wise be truly
and validly conferred by it; and this the more so because among the first
duties of the Episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist
and sacrifice.”
Pope Leo
XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “Being fully cognizant of the necessary
connection between faith and worship, between ‘the law of believing and the law of praying,’ under a pretext of
returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the liturgical order in many
ways to suit the errors of the reformers.
For this reason in the whole
Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration,
of the sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood], but, as we
have just stated, every trace of these things, which had been in such prayers
of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately
removed and struck out. In this way the
native character – or spirit as it is called – of the Ordinal clearly manifests
itself. Hence, if vitiated in
its origin it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that
in the course of time it could become sufficient since no change had taken
place.”
Dear reader, these things described above by Pope Leo XIII as the
downfall of the Anglican rite of Ordination – the
systematic removal of reference to the sacrifice of the Mass, consecration and
the true sacrificing priesthood – are
exactly the things that occurred in the New Rite of Ordination promulgated by
Paul VI! In his book The Order of Mechisedech,
despite his false conclusions on this and other matters, Michael Davies is
forced to admit the following:
“As the
previous section made clear, every
prayer in the traditional rite [of Ordination] which stated specifically the
essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice
for the living and dead has been removed [from the New Rite of Paul VI]. In most cases these were the precise prayers
removed by the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely the same there are
clear parallels.” (Michael Davies, The
Order of Melchisedech, p. 83)
“…there is not one mandatory prayer in the
new rite of ordination itself which makes clear that the essence of the
Catholic priesthood is the conferral of the powers to offer the sacrifice of
the Mass and to absolve men of their sins, and that the sacrament imparts a
character which differentiates a priest not simply in degree but in essence
from a layman… There is not a word in it that is incompatible with Protestant
belief.” (Michael Davies, The Order
of Melchisedech, p. xix)
Here are some of the specific
prayers and ceremonies which set forth the true nature of the priesthood in the
Traditional Rite which have been specifically eliminated from the New Rite of
Ordination of Paul VI. (The following information is found in Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
Harrison, NY: Roman Catholic Books, 1993, pp. 79 and following.)
In the Traditional Rite, the
Bishop addresses the ordinands and says:
“For it is a priest’s duty to offer
sacrifice, to bless, to lead, to preach and to baptize.”
This admonition has been abolished.
The Litany of the Saints then
follows in the Traditional Rite. It has
been cut short in the New Rite.
The New Rite abolishes the following unecumenical
assertion:
“That Thou
wouldst recall all who have wandered from the unity of the Church, and lead all
believers to the light of the Gospel.”
Later on in the Traditional
Rite, after pronouncing the essential form, which has been changed in the New
Rite (see above), the Bishop says another prayer, which includes the following:
“Theirs be the task to change with blessing undefiled, for the
service of thy people, bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Thy Son.”
This prayer has been abolished.
In the Traditional Rite, the
Bishop then intones the Veni Creator Spiritus. While anointing each priest he says:
“Be pleased, Lord, to consecrate and
sanctify these hands by this anointing, and our blessing. That whatsoever they
bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and
sanctified in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
This prayer has been abolished. And this prayer was so significant that it was
even mentioned by Pius XII in Mediator
Dei #43:
“… they
alone [priests] have been marked with the indelible sign ‘conforming’ them to
Christ the Priest, and that their hands alone have been consecrated, ‘in order that whatever they bless may be blessed, whatever they consecrate may become
sacred and holy, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.’”
Notice that Pius XII, in
speaking of how the priests have been marked in Ordination, makes reference to
this very important prayer which was specifically abolished by Paul VI’s new
1968 Rite.
Shortly after this prayer in
the Traditional Rite, the Bishop says to each ordinand:
“Receive the power to offer sacrifice
to God, and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord.”
This exceptionally important prayer has been abolished in the New Rite.
In the Traditional Rite, the
new priests then concelebrate Mass with the Bishop. At the end, each new priest kneels before the
Bishop who lays both hands upon the head of each and says:
“Receive the Holy
Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive,
they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they
are retained.”
This ceremony and prayer has been abolished.
In the Traditional Rite:
“the new
priests then promise obedience to their bishop who ‘charges’ them to bear in mind that
offering Holy Mass is not free from risk and that they should learn
everything necessary from diligent priests before undertaking so fearful a
responsibility.”
This admonition has been abolished.
Finally, before completing the
Mass, the Bishop imparts a blessing:
“The
blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, come down
upon you, and make you blessed in the priestly Order, enabling you to offer propitiatory
sacrifices for the sins of the people to Almighty God.”
This blessing has been abolished.
Conclusion: It is totally obvious from
these facts that there is no intention in the New Rite of Ordaining a true
Sacrificing Priest. Every single mandatory reference to the true sacrificing priesthood was
deliberately removed, just like in the Anglican Rite – which was
declared invalid for that very reason by Pope Leo XIII.
“As the previous section made clear, every prayer in the traditional rite [of
Ordination] which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man
ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been
removed [from the New Rite of Paul VI].
In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant
reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.”
(Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 83)
“…there is not one mandatory prayer in the
new rite of ordination itself which makes clear that the essence of the
Catholic priesthood is the conferral of the powers to offer the sacrifice of
the Mass and to absolve men of their sins, and that the sacrament imparts a
character which differentiates a priest not simply in degree but in essence
from a layman… There is not a word in it that is incompatible with Protestant
belief.” (Michael Davies, The Order
of Melchisedech, p. xix)
Thus, the following words
declared by Pope Leo XIII apply exactly to the New Rite of Paul VI.
Pope
Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept.
13, 1896: “For this reason in the whole
Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration,
of the sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood], but, as
we have just stated, every trace of these things, which had been in such
prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was
deliberately removed and struck out. In
this way the native character – or spirit as it is called – of the Ordinal
clearly manifests itself. Hence,
if vitiated in its origin it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was
impossible that in the course of time it could become sufficient since no
change had taken place.”
Pope
Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made
use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the
sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a
sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the
other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing
another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does,
and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament,
then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the
sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the
sacrament.”
The New Rite fits this
description precisely. Could anyone deny this fact? No, to do so one would have to bear false
witness. The New Rite of Ordination
specifically eliminated the sacrificing priesthood. The intention it manifests is therefore
contrary to the intention of the Church and cannot suffice for validity.
Pope
Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept.
13, 1896: “For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient
for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let
this argument suffice for all: from them has been deliberately removed
whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic
rite. That form consequently cannot
be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought
essentially to signify.”
Michael Davies proves the New
Rite is invalid
In his book, The Order of Melchisedech,
Michael Davies makes statement after statement which proves that the New Rite of Ordination must be considered invalid just
as the Anglican Rite. Here are a
few:
Michael
Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
p. 97: “If the new
Catholic rite is considered satisfactory, then the entire case put by Apostolicae Curae [of Leo
XIII] is undermined… If the new
Catholic rite, shorn of any mandatory prayer signifying the essential powers of
the priesthood, is valid, then there seems no reason why the 1662 Anglican rite
should not be valid too, and still less can there be any possible
objection to the 1977 Anglican Series III Ordinal.”
Michael
Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
p. 99: “As a final comment on the
new Catholic ordinal, I would like to
quote a passage from Apostolicae Curae and
to ask any reader to demonstrate to me how the words which Pope Leo XIII wrote
of Cranmer’s rite cannot be said to apply to the new
Catholic Ordinal, at least where mandatory prayers are concerned.”
Michael
Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
p. 109: “... the differences between the 1968 Catholic rite and the new Anglican
Ordinal are so minimal that it is hard to believe that they are not intended
for the same purpose… It will be
found that every imperative formula which could be interpreted as conferring
any specifically sacerdotal power denied to the faithful at large has been
carefully excluded from the new rite.”
Michael
Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
pp. 94-95: “When the changes [to the
Rite of Ordination] are considered as a whole it seems impossible to believe
that any Catholic of integrity could deny that the parallel with Cranmer’s reform [the Anglican reform] is evident and
alarming. It is quite obvious
that there are powerful forces within the Catholic Church and the various
Protestant denominations determined to achieve a common Ordinal at all costs…
The sixteenth century Protestants changed the traditional Pontificals
because they rejected the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood. Archbishop
Bugnini and his Consilium changed the Roman
Pontifical in a manner which makes it appear that there is little or no
difference between Catholic and Protestant belief, thus undermining Apostolicae Curae [of Leo
XIII].”
St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica,
Pt. III, Q. 60, A. 5: “… intention is essential to the
sacrament, as will be explained further on.
Wherefore if he intends by such
addition or suppression to perform a rite other from that which is recognized
by the Church, it seems that the sacrament is invalid; because he seems not
to intend to do what the Church does.”
It is also worth noting that Cranmer, in creating the invalid Anglican Rite, abolished
the Subdiaconate and minor orders and replaced them
with a ministry in three degrees – bishops, priests, and deacons. This is exactly what Paul VI did in changing
the Catholic rites.
The New Rite does mention that
the candidates for ordination are to be elevated to the “priesthood” – but so
does the invalid Anglican. The fact is
that Pope Leo XIII explained in Apostolicae Curae that if an ordination rite implies the exclusion
of the power to offer propitiatory sacrifices, as the New Rite does, then it is
necessarily invalid, although it may express or mention the word “priest.”
Michael Davies,
The Order of Melchisedech,
p. 60: “Since the Second Vatican Council, Catholic teaching on the priesthood
and the Mass has been insidiously and inexorably undermined from within the
Church. An endless stream of books and
articles casting doubt on or openly denying the traditional teaching has
appeared in every Western country, with sanctions rarely if ever taken against
the authors. Some of those authors
occupied and still occupy official positions in the post-conciliar
body of the Church in the West. Those writings have been reflected in, and
to a certain extent endorsed by, the postconciliar
reform; not simply in its illegal abuses (rarely followed by sanctions) and
heterodox but official translations of the new texts, but by the officially
promulgated Latin texts themselves… the existence of a priesthood, distinct not
simply in degree but in essence from that of the faithful, has been obscured
even in the official texts.”
Michael
Davies, The Order of Melchisedech,
p. 54: “Had Cranmer continued to use the Catholic
rite, even his known heretical belief might not have been sufficient to
invalidate his ordinations, but by
introducing a rite intended to exclude the essence of the Catholic priesthood
he made manifest and public his intention to do other than the Catholic Church
does.”
Dr. Francis Clark, quoted by Davies, The
Order of Melchisedech, p. 35: “In the Bull Apostolicae Curae of 1896, pronouncing Anglican
orders invalid, Pope Leo XIII singled out one factor as vital; on it his
central argument depends. It is the
‘native character and spirit’ of the Ordinal, the anti-sacerdotal and
anti-sacrificial connotation, which, he declared, the new rite acquired
from the circumstances of its origin and which rendered its wording incapable
of serving as a sacramental form for ordination.”
In fact, The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the
Sacraments admitted that the Catholic theology of the priesthood was not
made explicit in the 1968 rite. (Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. xxii.)
The fact is that the New Rite of Paul VI is an entirely new
rite, which rejects what the Church does, by rejecting what by the institution
of Christ belongs to the nature of the Sacrament [the Sacrificing Priesthood], so
it is clear that the necessary intention manifested by this rite is
insufficient, and even adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament of Holy
Orders (Leo XIII). These facts prove
that the New Rite of Ordination of Paul VI cannot be considered valid, but must
be considered invalid.
Conclusion: This means that any Confessions made of grave
sins to “priests” ordained in the New Rite must be Confessed
again to a validly ordained priest who was ordained in the Traditional Rite of
Ordination by a Bishop Consecrated in the Traditional Rite of Episcopal
Consecration. If one
cannot remember which sins were confessed to New Rite “priests” and which were
forgiven by a priest ordained in the Traditional Rite, then a Catholic must
make a General Confession mentioning all grave sins (if there were any) that
may have been confessed to a “priest” ordained in the Rite of Paul VI (the New
Rite).
Obviously, no Catholic may
lawfully approach any such “priest” ordained in the New Rite of Paul VI for
either “Communion” or Confession or any other Sacrament requiring a valid
priesthood under pain of grave sin, since they are not valid priests.
In fact, Pope Innocent XI, Decree
of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679 (Denz. 1151),
condemns the idea that Catholics can receive "probable"
sacraments. In other words, even if one believed that the New Rite of
Ordination is probably valid (which is clearly false, since it is clearly invalid), one is still forbidden
to receive sacraments from those “ordained” in it under pain of mortal
sin. Sacraments may only be received
when matter and form are certainly valid.
These facts mean that all indult Masses celebrated by
“priests” ordained in the New Rite of Paul VI (1968 Rite) are invalid and
cannot be attended.
The Society of St. Pius X also
occasionally has men join their Society who were “ordained” in the New Rite of
Ordination, and they don’t always have them conditionally ordained. The “Masses” offered by such “priests” would
be invalid, of course.
Thus, those priests who were
“ordained” in this New Rite of Paul VI who are open to the truth must be
re-ordained by a validly Consecrated Bishop in the Traditional Rite.
This also necessarily means
that the Novus Ordo Missae (the New
Mass), without even considering its own problems which render it invalid, is of
course invalid if celebrated by any “priest” ordained in the New Rite of
Ordination.
These facts should really not be that surprising to those familiar with
the
“Fr.” Gregory Hesse has publicly attempted to defend the validity of the
New Rite (he was ordained in the New Rite in 1980) by saying that it is not a
Catholic rite, but a non-Catholic rite of a heretical sect (the Vatican II
sect). Thus, he argues that the criteria
declared by Pius XII necessary for Ordination in the Roman Rite do not
apply. In conclusion on this point of
ordination it is necessary to respond to this claim.
The fact that the New Rite
deliberately removes every reference to the specifically sacrificial nature of the
priesthood renders it invalid by that very fact, as Leo XIII says. It is invalid because its “native character”
or “spirit” is manifestly contrary to that which the Church does. This fact invalidates the rite even if the form declared by Pius XII were
adhered to.
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept.
13, 1896: “For this reason in the
whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of
consecration, of the sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood],
but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things, which had been in
such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was
deliberately removed and struck out. In
this way the native character – or spirit as it is called – of the Ordinal
clearly manifests itself. Hence,
if vitiated in its origin it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was
impossible that in the course of time it could become sufficient since no
change had taken place.”
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept.
13, 1896: “For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient
for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let
this argument suffice for all: from them has been deliberately removed
whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic
rite. That form consequently cannot
be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought
essentially to signify.”
Further, if the New Rite is
considered to be the Catholic Roman Rite, it is defective because it is missing
the word “ut” (so that), declared by Pius XII as
necessary for validity. And if it is
considered a non-Catholic rite, as Gregory Hesse
says, then it is invalid on the same grounds that Leo XIII mentioned with
regard to the non-Catholic Anglican rite – abolishing every reference to
sacrifice, etc. (as explained above).
So, no matter what way one looks at the 1968 New Rite of Ordination of
Paul VI, it is invalid.
The goal and intention of this
new rite is not to ordain a sacrificing priest (a true priest), but the presider of an assembly.
The New Rite of Consecration of Bishops
Now I will briefly discuss Paul
VI’s New Rite of Consecration of Bishops.
This is also a very important issue, since groups like The Fraternity of
St. Peter, the
In Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947, Pius XII also declared what is the essential form for
the Consecration of Bishops:
Pope Pius
XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov.
30, 1947: “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We
decree and establish the following:… in the Episcopal ordination or
consecration… the form consists of the words of the ‘Preface,’ of which the
following are essential and so required for validity:
Complete
in Your Priest the fullness of Your ministry, and
sanctify him, adorned (as he is) with the ornament of all glorification, with
the dew of heavenly anointing. (Denzinger 2301)
The Form in the New Rite for
the Consecration of Bishops
The form in the New Rite of
Paul VI for the Consecration of Bishops is radically different from that which
was declared essential for validity by Pius XII. Here it is:
“And now
pour out upon this chosen one the power that comes from You, the excellent
spirit You gave Your beloved Son Jesus Christ, which He Himself gave the Holy
Apostles, who built the Church in every place as Your Sanctuary for the
everlasting glory and praise of His name.” (The
Oratory Catechism, p. 339)
The two forms only have one thing in common, the single word “et,” which
means “and.” In the Traditional Rite, with its expression
“the fullness of Your ministry” and “ornament of all
glorification,” the purpose of Consecration is clearly defined since both can
refer only to the bishop. In the new
rite, an unambiguous description of the effect of Episcopal Consecration is
missing.
In the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration, basically every reference to
the specifically Catholic understanding of the Episcopate has been deleted,
just like in the New Rite of Ordination.
In fact, there is not one unambiguous statement about the intended
sacramental effect of Episcopal Consecration that can be found.
In
the Traditional Rite of Consecration, the Consecrator instructs the bishop
elect in the following terms:
"A bishop judges,
interprets, consecrates, ordains,
offers, baptizes and confirms."
This has been abolished.
In the Traditional Rite, the
Bishop-to-be is asked to confirm his belief in each and every article of the
Creed.
This has been abolished.
In the Traditional Rite, the
Bishop-to-be is asked if he will "anathematize every heresy that shall
arise against the Holy Catholic Church."
This has been abolished. The deletion of this requirement to
anathematize heresy is significant, for this is indeed one of the functions of
a Bishop.
In the Traditional Rite, after the consecratory
prayer, the functions of a Bishop are once again specified in these words:
"Give him, O Lord, the keys of the
This entire prayer has been abolished in the New Rite.
Conclusion: Paul VI’s New
Rite of Episcopal Consecration has a radically different form than what Pius
XII declared was necessary for validity.
Further, other references to the specifically Catholic understanding of
the Episcopate, such as that the Bishop is empowered to ordain, were
deliberately abolished. The words of Leo
XIII against Anglican Orders again prove relevant.
Pope Leo
XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made
use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the
sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a
sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the
other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing
another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does,
and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament,
then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the
sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the
sacrament.”
Thus, the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration cannot
be considered valid. All “priests”
ordained by such “Bishops” consecrated in this Rite, even if the Traditional
Rite of Ordination was used, such as with most of the Fraternity of St. Peter
priests, Institute of Christ the King priests, etc. cannot be considered valid
priests.
These facts also show that the Novus
Ordo Missae (the New Mass),
besides its own inherent problem of a changed form of consecration, is not
valid when offered by such a “priest” or “Bishop.”
Objection – But Paul VI approved these
New Rites; therefore, I accept them because he was the Pope.
Answer – It is not within the scope
of this article to show why Paul VI was definitely not the Pope, but a Satanic infiltrator who tried to change every aspect of the
Church that he possibly could. I refer
you to our video Vatican II: Council of
Apostasy and the articles on our website to prove this assertion. But it should be noted that if one accepts as
valid and sure his New Sacraments just because Paul VI approved them, then one must also accept as valid and
without blemish the documents of
But if all of those other things contain denials of
the Faith (as they clearly do), then the New Rites of Ordination of Paul VI
also are not sure and could be invalid – as, in fact, they are. The changes to the Rites of Ordination and
Episcopal Consecration followed precisely the pattern of the Anglican
Reformers: a deliberate attempt to remove the specific Catholic understanding
of these things from the rites. No
sincere person can deny this. The rites
are therefore invalid on the same grounds.
The truth is that Paul VI was not the Pope, but a
non-Catholic Antipope, as our material proves.
Only those who obstinately blind themselves to the truth can fail to see
what is going on here – an enemy of the Catholic Church in Antipope Paul VI who
tried to destroy the sacraments, the Faith and the holy priesthood; who changed
the rites to all 7 seven sacraments; abolished the Oath Against Modernism;
abolished the Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent; abolished the Index
of Forbidden Books, etc., etc., etc.
Frankly, only a foolish person would unfailingly accept his New Rites of
Ordination and Consecration when we consider the man, what he believed, the
dubious nature of his “election,” and how, among other things, he was publicly
and repeatedly seen clothed in the vestment of a Jewish high priest and
Freemason (see picture of Paul VI wearing Jewish rationale on our
website).
The fruits of Paul VI’s new Vatican II “priesthood”
are clear for all to see – mind-bogglingly sick and bad, because his New Rites
of Ordination and Consecration are simply not valid, just like Vatican II is
fraught with heresy and was an invalid robbers’ council filled with denials of
the Catholic Faith.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com