Author Topic: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968) (Read 4687 times)

Deusvult · « **on:** December 31, 2024, 09:23:12 AM »

Hey guys! I'm new here and I'm glad to join this catholic forum.

I know this has probably been discussed before, but since I can't find it, I wanted to know if people here believe in the validity of the new rite. Objectively speaking, if we rely on the criterion of validity given infallibly by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis, the formula seems completely invalid. But how can we really be sure? If it were invalid, it would mean that the sedevacantists have the true position, given the impossibility for a true pope to promulgate an invalid rite. But I could be wrong, I don't want to be wrong, this is too important a question to make a hasty decision. Could someone here tell me what they think? I am only looking for the Truth. May God enlighten us with His divine light.

Yeti · « **Reply #1 on:** December 31, 2024, 10:45:03 AM »

Fr. Cekada (RIP) discussed this at great length. You can see a lot of his research here, as well as a video of him explaining the problems with the new rite of episcopal consecration.

The question of "Can we be completely sure it is invalid?" is irrelevant, since it is gravely sinful to use a sacramental norm that is even doubtful unless one is in danger of death and there is no other alternative.

Deusvult · « **Reply #2 on:** December 31, 2024, 10:58:55 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on December 31, 2024, 10:45:03 AM

Fr. Cekada (RIP) discussed this at great length. You can see a lot of his research here, as well as a video of him explaining the problems with the new rite of episcopal consecration.

The question of "Can we be completely sure it is invalid?" is irrelevant, since it is gravely sinful to use a sacramental norm that is even doubtful unless one is in danger of death and there is no other alternative.

Thank you for your answer. When you say that it is gravely sinful to use a sacramental norm that is even doubtful, we can have two conclusions, and both would be right. For example:
1. If Paul VI is a true pope, it is irrelevant to doubt the validity of the rite, since a true pope could never promulgate an invalid sacrament
2. If the sacramental form is doubtful, it is irrelevant to be questioning if it is valid or not, and it is surely invalid.

That being said, both of these conclusions are true, and it seems that we can just past to one to another one without being sure of nothing in the end of the day. And saying that almost every priests or bishops in the world are actually not priests and bishops is not a small affirmation. You need to be 100% sure of what you are saying because it is sooooo grave. I've listened to a couple of Cekada video, but sometime he compares the baptismal form (witch is fixed by our Lord) with the ordination form, witch can be changed. So I'm still not convinced.

Giovanni Berto · « **Reply #3 on:** December 31, 2024, 11:00:37 AM »

If you use the search function you will find many discussions on this subject.

My opinion is that it is possibly invalid and certainly doubtful.

As the Church does not allow us to attend doubtful masses and receive doubtful sacraments, there is no difference between doubtful and invalid in practical terms. The only exception would be in danger of death, as far as I am aware.

In short, stay away from priests whose ordination depends upon the validity of the new Episcopal Consecration rite and you will be fine.

This is not an issue in most Sedevacantist groups. I mean the well-known ones like Bp. Pivarunas's, Bp. Sanborn's and Bp. Dolan's (RIP). In the SSPX this is a problem, since they mix Novus Ordo priests with traditional ones. The resistance is the same as the SSPX, as far as I know.

Johannes · « **Reply #4 on:** December 31, 2024, 12:56:01 PM »

Quote from: Deusvult on December 31, 2024, 09:23:12 AM

this is too important a question to make a hasty decision. Could someone here tell me what they think? I am only looking for the Truth. May God enlighten us with His divine light.

It seems to me that you may be coming at this from the wrong end (but it is common that most people start from that point, because they are most concerned with maintaining a sacramental life and less concerned with the purity of their doctrine, information overload, etc.).

1st you yourself must come to moral certitude that you are yourself even Catholic (no heresy) - you can do this by studying and praying to determine what positions are potentially heretical and why. A process of elimination if you will:

Do you believe V2 was heresy?
Do you believe that one can recognize the Novus Ordo church and popes/hierarchy as legitimate and yet resist their heresies essentially becoming one's own magisterium and judge of the popes' teachings and those of the ordinary and universal living magisterium - thus implicitly denying infallibility?
Do you believe Sedevacantism is heresy by implicitly denying the indefectibility of the Church, judging the popes to not be popes, denying the universal acceptance of a man as pope?
Do you believe in BOD? BOB? Or do you think one or both are heresy? Or is it an open question to be resolved by a future pope?
Etc., etc., etc. Basically, you have to ask doctrinal questions 1st, sacramental theology comes 2nd.

Once you think you have established what you think are the current heresies (according to what you think are the Church's teachings and logic/reasonable conclusions) then you can rule out going to those groups that you believe are heretics for Sacraments (outside the danger of death perhaps), because who cares if one can get valid sacraments (past baptism) if they are administered by heretics - they would still be objectively displeasing to God even though valid (such as the case with the Eastern Orthodox). Communicating with heretics in spiritual things is forbidden by ecclesiastical law (outside of absolution in danger of death) and this is based on Divine law. The whole reason anyone exists is based on living a life that is pleasing to God, not ourselves - so, ideally (Providentially) if He doesn't want something then we should be willing to give it up, if He wants something then we should be willing to do it.

After all that - if anyone is left that lines up with what you have discovered to be in line with the Catholic Faith - then assuming you have formed your conscience correctly in these matters you could go to them for Sacraments. Though don't get too comfortable because you never know when the next wave of heresy will hit and how that may affect where you go and what you then have to do as a result. Plus, you may change your position/understanding of what is displeasing to God and against the faith as you grow spiritually (there is always that to).

Who is that a picture of for your avatar - Sister Lucy?

Angelus · « **Reply #5 on:** December 31, 2024, 12:57:27 PM »

Quote from: Deusvult on December 31, 2024, 10:58:55 AM

Thank you for your answer. When you say that it is gravely sinful to use a sacramental norm that is even doubtful, we can have two conclusions, and both would be right. For example:
1. If Paul VI is a true pope, it is irrelevant to doubt the validity of the rite, since a true pope could never promulgate an invalid sacrament
2. If the sacramental form is doubtful, it is irrelevant to be questioning if it is valid or not, and it is surely invalid.

That being said, both of these conclusions are true, and it seems that we can just past to one to another one without being sure of nothing in the end of the day. And saying that almost every priests or bishops in the world are actually not priests and bishops is not a small affirmation. You need to be 100% sure of what you are saying because it is sooooo grave. I've listened to a couple of Cekada video, but sometime he compares the baptismal form (witch is fixed by our Lord) with the ordination form, witch can be changed. So I'm still not convinced.

Traditionally, in Roman Catholicism, the episcopal "office" was not part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

As you might have heard, there are seven "levels of Order" listed in Catholic sacramental theology. The episcopal "office" is not one of those seven "levels of order" pertaining to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. You can read about that below:

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.IIISup.Q37.A2

Aquinas explains exactly how the episcopal "order" (the hierarchical office) differs from the true "Sacrament of Order" (the indelible character) here:

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.IIISup.Q40.A5

If we agree with Aquinas, then a change made to the episcopal formula will not affect the Sacrament of Holy Orders per se. Therefore, if the change proposed by Paul VI to the formula of episcopal ceremony was defective in some way, it would not be a Sacramental defect.

Any sacramental defect in the person's claiming to be a Catholic bishop will be found in their lack of being a true Priest because of the changes that were made to the New Rite of Priestly ordination.

If read carefully, the New Rite ceremonies remove what was considered essential the Old Rite priest, making this new priest into a recipient of a merely hierarchical office. In the Old Rite ceremony, the true Priest received the true Sacrament of Holy Orders because he was given the power to confect the Eucharist.

So, this essential difference in the New and Old Rites is found in the distribution of powers (called "characters" by Aquinas) effected by those Rites. The New Rite merely bestows on the man the grace to be a co-worker under his bishop, doing whatever that bishop tells him to do. The Old Rite primarily bestows on the man not only the grace as in the New Rite but also the supernatural power to consecrate the Eucharist, specifically defined as such by Aquinas in this way (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.IIISup.Q37.A2.C.8):

Quote

For the power of order is directed either to the consecration of the Eucharist itself, or to some ministry in connection with this sacrament of the Eucharist. If in the former way, then it is the order of priests; hence when they are ordained, they receive the chalice with wine, and the paten with the bread, because they are receiving the power to consecrate the body and blood of Christ.

The words bestowing on the Priest the explicit "power to consecrate the body and blood of Christ" was removed from the New Rite of Priestly Ordination ceremony. This is very important when one considers the words of Leo XII in the Nullity of Anglican Orders, where he says:

Quote

All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify.

Using the above principle of Leo XIII, one can say that if a Sacrament does not "signify" a grace/power in its "formula," then that grace/power is not "effected." Since the New Rite does not say anything about "the power to consecrate the body of blood of Christ," then we can conclude that the grace/power to perform that action has not been effected by that New Rite. The New Rite "priest" is then equivalent to the Anglican minister.

Whatever that New Rite Priest has been "ordained" to do, it is not the same as what the Old Rite Priest was "ordained" to do. This is what makes the New Rite "Sacrament of Holy Orders" doubtful, not concerns about changes made to the New Rite of Episcopal Ordination.

Twice dyed · « **Reply #6 on:** December 31, 2024, 01:31:40 PM »

Allo! Welcome to Cathinfo...where Charity, Culture and Crucible extend one's knowledge, K I N Dda...

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/fr-calderon's-2014-study-on-the-new-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-in-english/msg930376/#msg930376

Fr. Calderon's conclusion, paraphrased, : 'New rite of consecration is illegitimate, but probably valid'

If you have +Lefebvre's book: Open letter to confused Catholics, page 50, he asks the question re: new rite of consecration(?) "...Can we reconcile these references....Gandhi,Mo hammud, with the evident intention of doing what the Church intends?"

So the intention is the million dollar question so to speak. We can't read the hearts of others, and we shouldn't, but then we have to be prudent.

So why did the neoSspx give high praise for +Huonder? He had been president of Communauté de travail des Eglises chrétiennes , with an Anglican "pastor", as the vice-p., so ecuмenical...And in 2011 he was founding the "dies judaicus", which encourages the "sinagogue of satan" to design the mass of the day? Still exists today BTW.

On Sept. 16, 2019 a big welcome for him at Goffingen at the German SSPx nuns' novitiate. Finally a solemn Funeral for him. Buried in the special"vault ".
Was he conditionally consecrated using the Certain rite of Tradition?
Did he consecrate the Holy Oils in 2023? Something is bizarre .
Next thing you know is that some 'trads ' will become cookie worshippers...it is that serious!

Pray.

Giovanni Berto · « **Reply #7 on:** December 31, 2024, 01:42:19 PM »

Quote from: Twice dyed on December 31, 2024, 01:31:40 PM

Allo! Welcome to Cathinfo...where Charity, Culture and Crucible extend one's knowledge, K I N Dda...

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/fr-calderon's-2014-study-on-the-new-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-in-english/msg930376/#msg930376

Fr. Calderon's conclusion, paraphrased, : 'New rite of consecration is illegitimate, but probably valid'

If you have +Lefebvre's book: Open letter to confused Catholics, page 50, he asks the question re: new rite of consecration(?) "...Can we reconcile these references....Gandhi,Mo hammud, with the evident intention of doing what the Church intends?"

So the intention is the million dollar question so to speak. We can't read the hearts of others, and we shouldn't, but then we have to be prudent.

So why did the neoSspx give high praise for +Huonder? He had been president of Communauté de travail des Eglises chrétiennes , with an Anglican "pastor", as the vice-p., so ecuмenical...And in 2011 he was founding the "dies judaicus", which encourages the "sinagogue of satan" to design the mass of the day? Still exists today BTW.

On Sept. 16, 2019 a big welcome for him at Goffingen at the German SSPx nuns' novitiate. Finally a solemn Funeral for him. Buried in the special"vault ".
Was he conditionally consecrated using the Certain rite of Tradition?
Did he consecrate the Holy Oils in 2023? Something is bizarre .
Next thing you know is that some 'trads ' will become cookie worshippers...it is that serious!

Pray.

Fr. Calderon's conclusion is largely "unscientific". There's negative and positive doubt in Sacramental Theology. There's no "probably valid". In my opinion, Fr. Cekada's work is very superior to Fr. Calderon's.

Either way, if you consider the rite doubtful or if you question the intention of the Modernists bishops, you cannot receive sacraments from Novus Ordo priests, however pious they are.

MiracleOfTheSun · « **Reply #8 on:** December 31, 2024, 02:04:52 PM »

Quote from: Giovanni Berto on December 31, 2024, 01:42:19 PM

...if you question the intention of the Modernists...

I've always thought it's strange that this part of the equation is basically ignored, and to me it's probably the most important point. With all we know - Modernism is the 'synthesis of all heresies', Modernist theologians ran VII, the Alta Vendita, etc. - why would anyone go anywhere near the New Religion with its New Theology, New Priesthood, New Sacraments?

Giovanni Berto · « **Reply #9 on:** December 31, 2024, 02:46:06 PM »

Quote from: MiracleOfTheSun on December 31, 2024, 02:04:52 PM

I've always thought it's strange that this part of the equation is basically ignored, and to me it's probably the most important point. With all we know - Modernism is the 'synthesis of all heresies', Modernist theologians ran VII, the Alta Vendita, etc. - why would anyone go anywhere near the New Religion with its New Theology, New Priesthood, New Sacraments?

If the rite itself is doubtful, then we can ignore this part, since it's irrelevant.

If we had a unquestionably valid rite, then I agree that it would make sense to question the intention. I mean, even if they are all Modernists, we have to know if the orders are valid or not.

We hold that the orders from the Eastern Rite catholics are valid, even though they all accept the council. I have never seen anyone questioning their intentions. Should we?

MiracleOfTheSun · « **Reply #10 on:** December 31, 2024, 03:50:53 PM »

Quote from: Giovanni Berto on December 31, 2024, 02:46:06 PM

We hold that the orders from the Eastern Rite catholics are valid, even though they all accept the council. I have never seen anyone questioning their intentions. Should we?

I've never looked into those but I'd say, are they ambiguous or created by enemies of the Church?

Angelus · « **Reply #11 on:** December 31, 2024, 04:27:27 PM »

Quote from: MiracleOfTheSun on December 31, 2024, 02:04:52 PM

I've always thought it's strange that this part of the equation is basically ignored, and to me it's probably the most important point. With all we know - Modernism is the 'synthesis of all heresies', Modernist theologians ran VII, the Alta Vendita, etc. - why would anyone go anywhere near the New Religion with its New Theology, New Priesthood, New Sacraments?

MOTS, there are good reasons that "the intention of the minister" is typically ignored in the most situations where of sacramental validity is in doubt. When the correct matter and form are properly applied and the Priest has not externally indicated that he has a contrary intention at the time of performing the Rite, the question of "ministerial intention" is irrelevant. The Church cannot and does not try to read the minds of Priests. Neither can we or should we.

From Leo XIII in the Nullity of Anglican Orders:

Quote

The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse)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.

So, any SSPX-trained priest (like Fr. Calderon) who claims that "ministerial intention" can be discerned from the minister's general doctrinal approach, or his heresies (or whatever they come up with) is contradicting Leo XIII (and all of the doctors of the Church who hold the same position as he does).

For example, you can see Aquinas's discussion of the same topic by following the link below:

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q64.A10

Deusvult · « **Reply #12 on:** December 31, 2024, 04:29:25 PM »

Quote from: Johannes on December 31, 2024, 12:56:01 PM

It seems to me that you may be coming at this from the wrong end (but it is common that most people start from that point, because they are most concerned with maintaining a sacramental life and less concerned with the purity of their doctrine, information overload, etc.).

1st you yourself must come to moral certitude that you are yourself even Catholic (no heresy) - you can do this by studying and praying to determine what positions are potentially heretical and why. A process of elimination if you will:

Do you believe V2 was heresy?
Do you believe that one can recognize the Novus Ordo church and popes/hierarchy as legitimate and yet resist their heresies essentially becoming one's own magisterium and judge of the popes' teachings and those of the ordinary and universal living magisterium - thus implicitly denying infallibility?
Do you believe Sedevacantism is heresy by implicitly denying the indefectibility of the Church, judging the popes to not be popes, denying the universal acceptance of a man as pope?
Do you believe in BOD? BOB? Or do you think one or both are heresy? Or is it an open question to be resolved by a future pope?
Etc., etc., etc. Basically, you have to ask doctrinal questions 1st, sacramental theology comes 2nd.

Once you think you have established what you think are the current heresies (according to what you think are the Church's teachings and logic/reasonable conclusions) then you can rule out going to those groups that you believe are heretics for Sacraments (outside the danger of death perhaps), because who cares if one can get valid sacraments (past baptism) if they are administered by heretics - they would still be objectively displeasing to God even though valid (such as the case with the Eastern Orthodox). Communicating with heretics in spiritual things is forbidden by ecclesiastical law (outside of absolution in danger of death) and this is based on Divine law. The whole reason anyone exists is based on living a life that is pleasing to God, not ourselves - so, ideally (Providentially) if He doesn't want something then we should be willing to give it up, if He wants something then we should be willing to do it.

After all that - if anyone is left that lines up with what you have discovered to be in line with the Catholic Faith - then assuming you have formed your conscience correctly in these matters you could go to them for Sacraments. Though don't get too comfortable because you never know when the next wave of heresy will hit and how that may affect where you go and what you then have to do as a result. Plus, you may change your position/understanding of what is displeasing to God and against the faith as you grow spiritually (there is always that to).

Who is that a picture of for your avatar - Sister Lucy?

Thank you for your very detailed response. The saint is blessed Dina Bélanger (or not blessed is JP2 is not pope) She is I would say the little Teresa of Quebec. Very wonderful pure life. As Saint Teresa of Avila, she has done the « most perfect vow » .

Giovanni Berto · « **Reply #13 on:** December 31, 2024, 04:47:18 PM »

Quote from: MiracleOfTheSun on December 31, 2024, 03:50:53 PM

I've never looked into those but I'd say, are they ambiguous or created by enemies of the Church?

I am not an expert obviously. One would need to know several languages to be able to study this issue more deeply, but, as far as I know, the rites remain unchanged.

MiracleOfTheSun · « **Reply #14 on:** December 31, 2024, 04:57:46 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on December 31, 2024, 04:27:27 PM

MOTS, there are good reasons that "the intention of the minister" is typically ignored in the most situations where of sacramental validity is in doubt. When the correct matter and form are properly applied and the Priest has not externally indicated that he has a contrary intention at the time of performing the Rite, the question of "ministerial intention" is irrelevant. The Church cannot and does not try to read the minds of Priests. Neither can we or should we.

When the rite is a Catholic one then it's assumed the priest is doing what the Church intends, of course. Otherwise, every altar server would have to be a watchdog, listening for the Consecration then gauging if it's done correctly. What we're talking about is the motivation to overhaul basically every Sacrament with ambiguous language. Why? Who would do that? Modernists would and did. So at that point their intent becomes paramount.

Author Topic: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968) (Read 4687 times)

Deusvult

About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)

Yeti

Re: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)

Deusvult

Re: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)

Giovanni Berto

Re: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)

Johannes

Re: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)

Angelus

Re: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)

Twice dyed

Re: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)

Giovanni Berto

Re: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)

MiracleOfTheSun

Re: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)

Giovanni Berto

Re: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)

MiracleOfTheSun

Re: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)

Angelus

Re: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)

Deusvult

Re: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)

Giovanni Berto

Re: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)

MiracleOfTheSun

Re: About the new rite of episcopal consecration (1968)