It is currently Sun Aug 18, 2019 9:53 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
 What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordination 
Author Message

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:21 am
Posts: 55
Location: California, USA
New post What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordination
Is this rite doubtful or invalid? Do vernacular translations matter, or does doubt/invalidity exist even in the original Latin?


Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:53 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
Phillipus Iacobus wrote:
Is this rite doubtful or invalid? Do vernacular translations matter, or does doubt/invalidity exist even in the original Latin?


I have done considerable research on this issue. Also, Mr. John Daly has written extensively on it, as has Fr. Cekada, and another man, Mr. John Pfeiffer, who belongs to the SSPX, whom we ran across on the web while searching for information about this matter, has written two very well-done papers about it.

In short, the concensus is that, apparently, only one word was changed by "Pope" Paul VI and his crew in the rite for priestly ordination. Due to this, there is considerable debate as to whether or not this change invalidated that rite, and it matters not whether it is in the original Latin or in English, although it is in the original Latin.

I believe Mr. Daly holds that this one-word change completely invalidates the rite, although you should ask him about that. Fr. Cekada, if I am not mistaken, is not certain whether it does or not. Mr. Pfeiffer (who is, I believe, a lawyer) again, if I am not mistaken, is also unsure about this.

However, the Novus Ordo rite for the "ordination" of a Bishop (notice that the word "consecration" is NOT used), is patently invalid! Period! Whether in the original Latin or in English, and all of those I have mentioned above agree on this.

Therefore, it really doesn't matter to us whether the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination is invalid or not: since these men are not bishops (at least not in the Catholic sense) then any man they attempt to ordain is still a layman.

This is why my small circle of aquaintances, and my entire family, believes that in order to be safe, we cannot accept as valid any man "ordained" after 1969.

Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, long before he died, repeatedly told people that "...the Novus Ordo will allow the Tridentine Mass when there are no longer any valid priests to offer it."

Mr. Pfeiffer ended up being in considerable difficulty once he realized the result of his own research, since this proved to him that Ratzinger could not possibly be a "real" bishop. He and I and my wife discussed whether or not it was mandatory that the Pope be a bishop. He indicated to us that he thought that a man could be the pope, continuously, without being a bishop. We tried to disabuse him of this notion. I am not sure we succeeded, but in our opinion, Mr. Pfeiffer is an unusually good and honest man, so we continue to pray for him.

"Come, Lord Jesus"

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:47 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:21 am
Posts: 55
Location: California, USA
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
I ask this question because of "conservative" true bishops, such as Cardinal Siri, who ordained men in the new priestly rite.


Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:28 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
I am posting this article from maeta.com


??? AM I A PRIEST ???
(a theological treatise to be given to Novus Ordo priests)

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L. © February 2007 MAETA

Fr. John Muddy who was ordained in 1990 called me the other day pointing out that he agreed with me that the newer bishops who themselves were ordained priests after 1970 aren’t bishops since they aren’t priests. With this in mind he claimed he was really ordained, and Fr. Charles Trenchy, who was ordained in 2005 wasn’t ordained since Charles was ordained by Bishop Bill Beady who himself was ordained a priest in 1972.

"Fr." John is "doubly wrong." He is "Mr." John. His self-justifying argumentation is erroneous. Why? Throughout church history, "matter and form" determine validity. If the matter or form is "wrong," then the sacrament is not confected, even if a pope does it. [I know a man "ordained priest" by the pope himself (after 1980) who decided he should be (conditionally) ordained or really ordained – that’s how much he believed in the core teachings of Catholicism.]

Therefore, anyone, including Mr. Muddy, who was "ordained" in the "Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Rite" after 1970 (or so) is still a layman. A layman even when episcopally commissioned to preside over or facilitate "non-Masses" (Novus Ordo Community Celebrations) and to be an episcopal collaborator is and remains a layman. He is not a Holy Ordered Catholic Priest.

Novus Ordo Rite of "Commissioning" Validates Our Contention

Here is how the alleged Office of the Priesthood is formally explained by the Bishop according to the 1978 rite (which finalized for the time being the 1970 changes). Here is the address to be given by the "bishop" – the address which discloses what he is about to do:


My son, you are now to advance to the order of the presbyterate. You must apply your energies to the duty of teaching in the name of Christ, the chief Teacher. Share with mankind the word of God you have received with joy. Meditate on the law of God, believe what you read, teach what you believe, and put into practice what you teach … In the memorial of the Lord’s death and resurrection, make every effort to die to sin and to walk in the new life of Christ.

Study this official statement of intent. It is evident from this statement of intent that everyone "ordained" after 1970 (or so) was commissioned or reminded to be a good catechist, a good religion teacher, a good contemporary episcopal policy-enforcer; a good "share-care-bear;" a good meditator; and, (as a final resort, to be holy) "a good guy" (one who tries to die to sin and to imitate Christ). Read over the "Novus Ordo Ordinal Introduction" as already cited. This official text proves our point. Also, read The Order of Melchizedek by Michael Davies for citations or conclusive proof texts.

One caution must be given. You should disregard Davies’ ridiculous theology. In effect, he contends [as in the translation of "multis" (which recently has been changed to mean "many" by Pope Benedict XVI)] that black is not black or that the evidence doesn’t lead to its logical conclusion since (then as in recent times) the "Church" said black is white and the "Church" can’t err. However, it remains clearly logical and conclusive that you weren’t ordained to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead as I was in 1966. Otherwise, black can be white by episcopal or papal decree!

Truly Catholic Ordination Deliberately Excluded

All Newchurch Novus Ordo presiders, liturgical facilitators and episcopal collaborators (wrongly referred to as "priests") were made so in such a way as to deliberately exclude the conferral of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Why do I say so? Their (Newchurch’s) ordinal goes out of its way "to say so."

"Every prayer in the traditional rite which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead has been removed" (from the ordinal). The Order of Melchizedek, Michael Davies

With "invalidating and malicious intent," prayers such as the following were deleted for only one reason – to insure that the Revolting Bishops’ "New Mass" presiders and collaborators would not receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders:


"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." (Abolished)


"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." (Abolished)


"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." (Abolished)

Obviously, the "Bishops’" collaborators, presiders or facilitators are not ordained as Holy Ordered Priests. The "bishop" has explicitly said so in his official opening address. Therefore we agree with Cardinal Gasquet:


"Today we find men of intelligence and good faith claiming to have the same Christ-given sacrifice and the same sacrificing priests as the Catholic Church, while they are using a new man-made liturgy from which, of set purpose, every notion of Oblation and Sacrifice has been ruthlessly removed, and their ministers are ordained by an Ordinal, which designedly was composed to express the rejection of the sacrificial character of the Catholic priest. The prayer for Christian Unity must go up from every heart, but if it is to be something more than sentiment, facts must be faced and resolved honestly." - Cardinal Gasquet, 4th Advent Sermon, at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, in 1913, Chairman of Commission which composed Apostolicae Curae (which officially decreed the "far less apostate" Anglican Ordinal and Service to be "null and void" or invalid.)
See The Abbot and Me on Liturgy. Also, read "New Mass" Is Conclusively Invalid, both from Maeta, @ 1-888-577-4428.

Cardinal Gasquet composed the dogmatic Apostolicae Curae for Pope Leo XIII (the encyclical which dogmatically condemns the Anglican and Protestant liturgies). He, along with Pope Leo XIII employed a simple yet dogmatically binding principle: Ordinal defines Service; and Service defines Ordinal. This principle is "self-evident" as well as dogmatic. Therefore, if either Ordinal or Service substantially or "religion-wise" is incongruous with the Church’s Ordinal or Service, then both Ordinal and Service are invalid.

Pope Leo XIII in a formal way dogmatically condemned Episcopalian services and ordinals. Newchurch’s Services as well as Newchurch (Novus Ordo) Ordinals are far, far worse than or more heretical than the Episcopalian services (see New Mass is Conclusively Invalid for irrefutable "line by line" or detailed proof of such a statement). Therefore, a fortiori we must conclude that the Novus Ordo Ordinals and Services are invalid; and ipso facto sacrilegious.

Acid Test

"Fr. John, what was your first ‘Mass?’" It was concelebrated (hint, hint). What Service did you first pray after being "ordained?"

Was it a canonized and Apostolic Mass or was it one of the set of episcopal-Bugnini devised or implemented Services? Don’t be deceived -- Newchurch’s alleged "Roman Canon" is fake, fake, fake! – so it is no more a Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy than a dog is a monkey-wrench. This "canon" is a misnomer for one of the Novus Ordo Services inflicted upon the church by the Episcopal Liturgical Revolt of the 1960s.

Yes, you, Mr. John, just as "Mr." Charles, are not ordained. Both of you said a Novus Ordo Service at "ordination" or at your commissioning. Both of you are glorified laymen.

You both were commissioned presiders or facilitators for community celebration (as well as episcopal collaborators). Your first such community celebration, according to dogmatically established principles was not a Mass. What did your "bishop" commission you to be or to do? Obviously and primarily, he commissioned you to preside at "community celebrations" (usually, of the community’s sinfully presumed "Christ-ed-ness").

"Holy Ordered" Ordination

What is the immutable and sine qua non essence of Holy Ordered Priesthood? Why is a man made a priest in the Catholic Church?

Answer: Primarily, "uniquely" and essentially, a man receives Holy Orders to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and administer the priest-depended sacraments. The traditional Rite of Ordination explains this clearly and makes it crystal clear that this is what it accomplishes.

In the Church-given words of the Bishop to the ordinand, the office of the priesthood (before 1970) was explained according to the traditional understanding of what a priest should be. The ordaining bishop had a "validating intention" before 1970, before the canonized Latin Rite Ordinal (read Quo Primum) was most sinfully discarded, "trashed" and sacrileged by episcopal decrees in the revolting 1960s. Here are the words of Holy Orders used before 1970 to clearly "ordain" the ordinand:


"Dearly beloved son, as you are now about to be consecrated to the office of the Priesthood, endeavor to receive it worthily, and when you have received it, fulfill its duties blamelessly. The Priest is ordained to offer Sacrifice, to bless, to guide, to preach and to baptize. With great awe should one advance to so high a state…"

(At the end of the Catholic Ordinal, the ordinand is explicitly given the power to forgive sins sacramentally – this power is not given to Newchurch commissioned "fake priests").

Most significantly, I and all others who were ordained in the Latin Rite Patriarchate (to say Canonized Latin Rite Mass Liturgies) were explicitly ordained "TO OFFER THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS FOR THE LIVING AND THE DEAD…"

My final and abiding "Holy Orders" challenge – after I was ordained was to come to know more and more what I do (agnosce quod agis) [ever strive to understand more deeply the Divine Liturgy]; and, to ever strive to imitate Him Whom I bring among us and handle. Imitate Quem tractas – imitate Him Whom you "bring from Heaven to earth."

Awesome Conclusion


"In brief, it is impossible for any unbiased mind to compare the ancient Canon of the Holy Mass with the New Liturgy, without seeing that both in spirit and substance it was conceived (like the Bishops’ New Mass) with the desire of getting rid of the Catholic Mass altogether." - (Abbot Gasquet)

We agree with the composer of Apostolicae Curae. Do you?

We are led to conclude that alleged Novus Ordo "priests," are "fake, fake, fake!" By conveying the impression they are saying Mass they seriously violate the first three Commandments of God’s Law. They become sacrileges who commit sacrilege. If you are such, wake up, see the awesome truth, confess your sins and repent.

(A "Novus Ordo fake priest" might contend that my argumentation is too simplistic. All the more does it condemn him as "fake priest!" If one rejects this simplistic and irrefutable argumentation – what good would it do to get any more complex, with the "pharisaical likes of such dissenters?")

May Almighty God bless you. May the Holy Ghost agitate you to be dissatisfied with your Newchurch Ordinal/Services. May God direct your inquiries to remove your dissatisfactions. Among other things, may God lead you to honestly compare Newchurch services with the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy (as is done in New Mass Is Conclusively Invalid, Maeta). Finally, may God grace and inspire you to renounce being a sacrilege committing sacrileges.

Radical Solutions

Radical, fundamental or essential problems of such "infinite magnitude" require radical solutions. Simply stated, anyone of sane mind and "decent conscience" will either abandon the Novus Ordo Farce OR he will seek true orders.

The first solution is self-explanatory. The second solution can be attained by contacting a valid "extra-ecclesially ordained" priest who was made a bishop. To obtain or reinforce proper convictions, I suggest one read my books, books such as Latin Mass Prayers Explained; Apocalypse of the Mass; My Basic Missal; The Mass that Made Padre Pio; etc. (MAETA 1-888-577-4428)


Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:28 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
Phillipus Iacobus wrote:
I ask this question because of "conservative" true bishops, such as Cardinal Siri, who ordained men in the new priestly rite.


Where did you get the information that Siri did any such thing? I contend that none of what you say and imply in the above statement can be proven.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Last edited by Ken Gordon on Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:53 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
csibf wrote:
I am posting this article from maeta.com


??? AM I A PRIEST ???
(a theological treatise to be given to Novus Ordo priests)

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L. © February 2007 MAETA


All that the good Father says here is of value. However, it somewhat misses the point. What we were discussing is the rite itself, not so much those accretions to it: i.e., those ceremonials that surround it.

For example, the Church has seen fit to surround the Sacrament of Baptism with several very important ceremonials: the exorcisms, etc. But none of these are absolutely essential to the validity of the Sacrament. We all (or should) know the absolute minimum essentials for that.

The same is true for any Sacrament: there are ceremonials that the Church has seen fit to surround the administration of various Sacraments, which are NOT essential for validity.

Pope Pius XII in his encyclical "Sacramentum Ordinis" carefully laid down what those essentials are for all the Sacraments, including that of Orders.

What Mr. John Daly, Fr. Cekada, and Mr. Pfeiffer were discussing were those essentials. They all found them wanting. As I said, in the case of priestly ordination, since only one word in those essentials has been changed, opinion on the validity of Novus Ordo priestly ordination is divided.

However, all agree that the essentials for the consecration of a Bishop, or "ordination" of a "Bishop" in the Novus Ordo, are fatally damaged. There is no doubt amongst those three, and I agree with them, that that essential rite is completely invalid.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
Phillipus Iacobus wrote:
I ask this question because of "conservative" true bishops, such as Cardinal Siri, who ordained men in the new priestly rite.


I would also like to add that if you would read many, many of the (even very recent) articles in Italian secular newspapers which concern him, you would find that Cardinal Siri, in particular, was absolutely intransigent against all those things that came out of Vatican II. He absolutely forbid communion in the hand as long as he was in power in his diocese. He demanded that his seminarians study Thomistic Philosophy, he said flatly, "I did not sign the decrees of Vatican II, therefore I do not have to follow any of them."

If you wish to be given references to those articles, I will be happy to provide some of them.

However, you would have to be able to read Italian.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:54 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:21 am
Posts: 55
Location: California, USA
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
Ken,

Cardinal Siri ordained men and "consecrated" well after the Pauline rites were introduced in 1968. See this:

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bsiri.html

One of the men he ordained, Fr. Antonio Filipazzi, was consecrated by Benedict XVI recently.

I have a lot of respect for the late Cardinal (may he rest in peace), and wish Pope Pius XII had named him pope expressly so that a conclave in 1958 would have been unnecessary. He may have tried to keep things as conservative or traditional as possible, but as far as I know, did not keep his diocese as Bishop de Castro Mayer did in Campos, Brazil. See this to see the Cardinal saying the Novus Ordo:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Revolu ... Siri-1.htm


Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:59 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
Phillipus Iacobus wrote:
Ken,

Cardinal Siri ordained men and "consecrated" well after the Pauline rites were introduced in 1968. See this:

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bsiri.html


If I am not mistaken, that site is owned and operated by one Timothy Boyle, who is a rabid sedeplenist. His site has been shown repeatedly to be full of errors, mistakes, and downright wrong information. Although I dislike calling him a liar directly, he seems to be working very hard to prove that anyone who believes these last few men to be anti-popes are literally insane.

Phillipus Iacobus wrote:
One of the men he ordained, Fr. Antonio Filipazzi, was consecrated by Benedict XVI recently.


So what? Many valid priests and bishops have accepted higher ranks in the NO since the time of VCII.

Phillipus Iacobus wrote:
I have a lot of respect for the late Cardinal (may he rest in peace), and wish Pope Pius XII had named him pope expressly so that a conclave in 1958 would have been unnecessary. He may have tried to keep things as conservative or traditional as possible, but as far as I know, did not keep his diocese as Bishop de Castro Mayer did in Campos, Brazil.


Bishop de Castro Mayer was in South America where he had considerably more autonomy, for one thing. The two situations are not equivalent.

Phillipus Iacobus wrote:
See this to see the Cardinal saying the Novus Ordo:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Revolu ... Siri-1.htm


Yes. That site has, as one of its primary supporters, Marian Horvat. She also has published incorrect information, and when called to account for it, pointedly and totally ignored the man who pointed her published errors out to her, and she has never retracted even one of those.

Also, Attila Sinke Guimares, if he is still alive, is heavily involved with that site.

Although there is much that is good on that site, I have had at least one "discussion" with one of those who run that site, and he did not respond, to put it as gently as I can, in a "gentlemanly manner" as those here do. His response to me was arrogant in the extreme.

Lastly, I have seen that photo (and many others somewhat like it), and it proves nothing, any more than the movie on youtube which shows Padre Pio offering Mass facing the people proves that he was offering the NO. From other sources, we know that 1) Padre Pio offered Mass facing the people exactly ONCE in his entire life and absolutely refused to do it ever again, and 2) he never offered the NO...ever. It appears that he was more or less tricked into that incident depicted on youtube in an attempt to prove that he approved of VCII, when we know he did not.

Have you ever heard of PhotoShop? What photos can we really accept as incontrovertible proof of anything now-a-days?

That photo you accept as "proof" that Siri offered the NO is no proof at all. Examine it closely and then tell me that it provides absolutely incontrovertible proof that he offered the NO. It could have been any Mass, or no Mass at all just as easily. And does that photo include an exact recording of every word, and every movement he made? I somehow doubt it.

Don't be so trusting of those who are untrustworthy.

Let me assure you that I am not saying that Siri never offered the NO. I have no incontrovertible proof he did not. However, no one I have yet seen has offered completely convincing proof that he did, either.

FYI, I have read some of his writings, and translated some of those, and I have read many articles from Italian newspapers and magazines, written about him, and interviews with him. In every single one of those, there is nothing he says, or that is said about him, that indicates in any way that he was anything but completely orthodox. Many of them are disapproving of him in the sense that he was too traditional, and make him out to be very reactionary, in fact.

I am firmly convinced that none of us will know the complete story of this passion of the Mystical Body of Christ. It will come to light long after all of us here are dead, unless God does something almost unimaginable to straighten out the mess.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
Quote:
I am firmly convinced that none of us will know the complete story of this passion of the Mystical Body of Christ. It will come to light long after all of us here are dead, unless God does something almost unimaginable to straighten out the mess.


My sentiments exactly, which is why I no longer have the patience to read arguments about the crisis in the church any more. We won't find out the whole story until we die.


Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:40 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
Lorraine wrote:
Quote:
I am firmly convinced that none of us will know the complete story of this passion of the Mystical Body of Christ. It will come to light long after all of us here are dead, unless God does something almost unimaginable to straighten out the mess.


My sentiments exactly, which is why I no longer have the patience to read arguments about the crisis in the church any more. We won't find out the whole story until we die.


Yes. In fact, I call "male bovine fertilizer" on any such attempts since those who publish such arguments cannot possibly know the whole story. :x

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:21 am
Posts: 55
Location: California, USA
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
Ken and others:

How would you respond to the claim that the Leonine Sacramentary lacked the ut, so the new rite must be valid? I have not researched this claim myself, but let's grant that it's true just for the sake of discussion.


Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:35 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
Phillipus Iacobus wrote:
Ken and others:

How would you respond to the claim that the Leonine Sacramentary lacked the ut, so the new rite must be valid? I have not researched this claim myself, but let's grant that it's true just for the sake of discussion.


I will have to go back to my research to be certain, but as I remember it (and since I will be 70 years old next month, my memory may be off) it is not the LACK of the "ut" that is important: it is that the NO rite changed one word FOR "ut", thereby changing the meaning.

If what I say here is true, then the previous statement is typical of those who support the NO: they lie by half-truth.

Mr. John Daly, who did the best job on this aspect of the problem I have yet seen, can answer your question far better than I can, if he has time.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:17 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
Does the change in the minor orders and the subdiaconate have any bearing on this question? I mean does the elimination of the minor orders and the subdiaconate have any impact on the validity of the Novus Ordo ordination rite?


Thu Jul 17, 2014 2:29 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
ClemensMaria wrote:
Does the change in the minor orders and the subdiaconate have any bearing on this question? I mean does the elimination of the minor orders and the subdiaconate have any impact on the validity of the Novus Ordo ordination rite?


No, not at all. They are not even regarded as sacraments by most of the theologians.

And even if they were, they are "parts" of the diaconate in the sense that when getting the diaconate they get all the minor orders and subdiaconate.

Theologians usually agree that you can´t receive episcopal orders if you are not a priest, and there is some doubts about receiving priestly orders without first receiving the diaconate.

I never read any canonist or theologian extending this discussion into the minor orders or subdiaconate.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:17 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: What should we think of the New Rite of Priestly Ordinat
This is among many topics that I am going over at the moment, and the evidence is beyond damning.

To answer your question plainly, yes it is invalid. There are multiple reasons, I think MHFM does a good job in bringing out some of the points but I think they missed many of them. So if you could look for their more recent video, which is an update of a previous video with more recent comments.

The rite of Ordination was not a specific form given to us by Our Lord Jesus Christ. So the surrounding rites and ceremonies is important to determine the validity. All the important Catholic theological points were removed, and the only ones that remained 100% intact were those which the Protestants did not change back when they changed their own rites. Apostolicae Curae proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the commentary on that is also very important. After it was written, many Anglicans wrote to Rome and received responses to their objections. I would suggest to get the text and read it, they were definitely enlightening for me. It completely refutes the opinion of the SSPX, and all the arguments they make are the same arguments the Anglicans were making. They were resorting to Eastern Rites, and making a verbatim the same arguments you see the sedeplenist make.

What is properly called a sacrament is the diaconate, priesthood and Bishop. You need to receive each one to advance to the next, if any of them are invalid you can't simply move on. So that a good rite of ordination does not fix a defect in form in the diaconate rite. So the problem of the New Rites is that you need to prove that ALL three of them are valid, not just the consecration and ordination of priest, but also the rite of deacons. If you study the rite of deacons, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt EVEN more clearly invalid then the other two rites. It is the most pathetic of them all, and it really clearly is invalid. Neither the Rite or surrounding ceremonies signify the sacrament they are going to effect, all you know is that deacons will be ordained. You are not told that they are going to baptize, preach the Gospel, bless marriages and pretty much nothing relating to what is going to happen to them. Thus, there is not even a doubt in my mind that they are completely UTTERLY null and void, because all it takes is for one of them to be invalid and you will not have the continuation of the Apostolic line, which is why the Vatican II Roman rite clergy are just laymen, after a certain point. It is the opinion of St. Thomas which was enshrined in Canon Law, and was always the practice of the Church in both East and West (so no one can even make that argument they usually do of resorting to the Eastern Rites to prove something in the Novus Ordo is true, even that argument is not a valid one anyways), that ONE must be ordained a deacon before you are ordained a priest. The minor orders, although very important as St. Thomas explains could be skipped in rare circumstances. I believe this was done with St. Thomas Becket and a few other famous saints. Now of course none of this was controversial before, because they would have never even thought that such a case scenario was possible!

Avoid them like the plague, this is one of the most egregious errors of the SSPX and it really is a more recent problem. They used to be so much more clear about this. Before they used to effectively tell all the faithful that they lean towards invalidity and that the faithful should follow that doubtful sacraments are to be treated as invalid. More recently the Dominicans defended the validity, and it was necessary because as time keeps moving forward the question becomes more and more pressing. Bishop Fellay and his Econites, then spread this as Gospel to the rest of the faithful. As if the matter is now settled...

Even if the new Rite would have retained the word "ut", it would still be invalid. But since it did not retain the word ut, it compounds the evidence against it. Remember we are also talking about the original Latin, the problem becomes worse because 99% of the ordinations that happen are done in the vernacular. Even in Rome, most of them are done in the Italian, so that the theoretical sacrosanct Latin text is just an academic exercise. The REAL argument then compounds interest, because we all know how horrible the ICEL translation and other similar vernacular translations are. ALSO to add even more salt to the wound, there are several options that a "Bishop" could choose. When these people defend the new Rites they assume the most "orthodox" options and thus once again the theoretical argument does not hold water against the reality. This is the problem of trying to divorce the text from the men who promulgated it, no text can self-interpret itself. You have to look at the men who created it, and the clear intent of Montini was to destroy the Church for good. What is the best way in which you can be able to do that? Destroy the priesthood, after all St. Vianney said take away the priest and people in 20 years will worship beasts... Look at how big the pantheistic New age, environmental movement is. They care more about the seals in the north pole then actual human beings, their solution to the problem is get rid of humans and this is beyond evident from their own writings. Now you have the Vatican II sect, preaching the same message of a sin against "the environment" etc... Its all about being Politically correct now.

____________

On a different note Ken are you denying that Cardinal Siri did indeed never celebrate the New Mass? Said the new rites for Sacraments. There is so much first hand witnesses, pictures of this stuff. That to deny it, is to deny the existence of the moon. We also have several times him making the prostrations to anti JP II, and the other false popes. Now we are assuming here that he knew he was the true Pope, yet STILL he makes an act of apostasy according to St. Cyprian, "To adhere to a false Bishop of Rome [a false "pope"] is to be out of communion with the Church." Now we are assuming he knew he was a false Bishop, yet he still showed on every single occasion he was ever asked whether he was a Pope. He kept adamantly denying it and denying it, celebrated the new mass multiple times. There is so much testimony on this issue, so many close people who lived with him that also testify to this. Was he withdrawing his intention? You see some other people were operating under ignorance, but Siri more than anyone was well aware that these men were infiltrators and apostates. Yet, he still celebrated the new Rites sure he had preference for the Old Rite, but that was it. A personal preference, not a theological stance that the other one is wrong, invalid, illicit etc...

You have the Institute of Christ the King, several FIRST hand witnesses of Cardinal Siri (of priest he ordained) that said that Cardinal Siri BEGGED Bishop Lefebvre to come back in communion with Rome. In tears, and on his knees begging. Now if I was under duress, I would have to say he was the BEST actor anyone has ever seen on the planet. Talk about role playing for the enemy! So let me guess, we have to presume that Cardinal Siri was under constant threat if he was not super vocal for Vatican II, and trying the FEW Catholics who are not under the thumb of the Conciliar Church he tried to bring them into the fold of something he knew was a schismatic sect.

In order for me to believe this, I have to believe the most ridiculous things... The word of one priest, against ALL observable objective evidence that proves to the contrary. The problem amounts even greater when you take into consideration even assuming best case scenario what he did amounts to the worst possible type of schism. It is even worst then giving grains of incense to false gods, he would have definitely been judged among the worst of the lapsi. While so many Bishops were operating under good faith, assuming the Siri Thesis is correct he was completely knowledgeable of everything that was going on.

Now what did a real Pope do when presented under such circumstances? Pius XII had pre-signed a letter of resignation in case the Fuhrer took him hostage. He would rather have resigned for the good of the Church then to be used as a puppet by the enemies of the Church. Now lets go back and examine what Siri did? He was the sole reason the Conciliar Church has survived this long, for if he would have joined Lefebvre, he would have been the greatest hero of Catholic tradition EVER. The real St. Athanasius, but no instead we are supposed to believe that his silence "was heroic" etc... Pure madness.

I too wish such a fantasy story could possibly be true, he was a good man, but the level of courage that was needed was supernatural courage, none of which he had. He was a real prince of the Church, very loved by Pius XII. Yet a man is not defined until the end of his life, whatever good he did before did not translate into his post Vatican II decisions. He was a thorn in the Church, not someone who was lifting the dark veil. He was just theologically conservative, having such great renown we could only speculate how much good he could have done for the Church... He showed no signs of going back on his decision, he was consistent the whole way. So that whichever supposed Pope he appointed, would fall under the anathema that Siri fell under. He would thus fall under the Roman maxim, a dubious claim like that is no claim at all. No Catholic is obligated to obey such a crypto-secret Pope, where no one knows his name. No one can read his writings, except a few thousand Catholics who are worthy enough to hear him, after their censures have been lifted. It might sound harsh what I am saying, but I am being truthful. The idea is supported by not even theological speculation, it is beyond a total novelty it is TOTALLY foreign to the Church. And why is it that people stick to such an idea? Because they think that somehow having a headless Church for x period of time, is against Divine and Catholic faith. Which is absurd, no such thing they would have to prove how the Church after any Pope dies somehow dissolves and the gates of Hell have prevailed against her.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:08 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.