ARE POST CONCILIAR RITES VALID?
I. THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS
by
Tomás Tello Corraliza
This is a thorny and burning issue, a frightening question, the mere mention of which is chilling and causes a genuine scandal. Thus, I would like to approach my work with sensitivity and caution, and emulate, whenever possible, the impartial emotion of a robot or a computer. Of course, a human being could never approximate, the geometric rational coldness of those instruments, in the exposition of certain facts. This is simply a "desideratum."
These are the facts. In accordance with the morbid bias of Vatican II (this is the most benign adjective that comes to mind) to innovate, renovate and reform everything, without any exception whatsoever, in respect to the multi-secular structures of the Church, a profound, drastic and dangerous reformation of each and every one of the sacramental rites was carried out.
That destructive task, was inexorably implemented, and with indomitable tenacity it was entrusted to an organism, created "ad hoc," on February 29, 1964 (that is, three months before the approval of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy); it was called the "CONSILIUM AD EXSEQUENDAM CONSTITUTIONEM DE SACRA LITURGIA."
Thus it happened that, step-by-step, hastily and without cessation, in accordance with the guidelines of the aforementioned Constitution: "quam primum," (N° 25), "cum urgeat" (N° 40) one by one, all the traditional rites of the Roman Catholic Liturgy were dismantled, and gradually the new post-conciLiar rites emerged. In fact, the first to be promulgated were the rites pertaining to the Sacrament of the Holy Orders, on June 18, 1968. Those rites would be put into effect on April 6, 1969.
On June 8, 1969, after the promulgation of the New Order of the Mass, the "CONSILIUM" disappeared under that appellation. On that date, Paul VI issued his constitution "SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO," and in this document he substituted the Sacred Congregation of Rites with another two congregations: one for the Causes of Canonization, and the other for DIVINE WORSHIP. The latter absorbed the "CONSILIUM." Cardinal Lercaro was replaced by Cardinal Gut; but the Secretary remained the same as in the "CONSILIUM," Annibale BUGNINI.
Thus, the "CONSILIUM" disappeared solely in name and not in reality; it continued to operate, under another appellation, and with the advantage of having been freed from the obstacles and difficulties, previously imposed by the suspicious vigilance of the former Congregation of Rites. Therefore, it continued its reforming endeavor of the sacramental rites which, until its nominal disappearance, it had not had time to elaborate...
All the faithful of a certain age are cognizant of the alteration of rites as a reality; but what not everybody knows is that from the very beginning there was strong opposition to the same, as well as a refutation of the renovated rites.
In terms of the former, it must be asserted that the new rites were not peacefully recived in the Church. As a witnesses to the shock with which they were received, as they were being promulgated, and of the rejection of the same, by denying or doubting their validity, we may cite l'Abbe Georges de Nantes, staunch defender of their validity and a furious enemy of those who sustain their invalidity. For this author, simply to question their validity, and to reject them for this reason, is a SIN AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT, and the consummation of a schism (Cf. ist C.R.C. # 77, p. 2: 107, p. 14: 109. pp. 1-2)
In terms of the latter, after the initial, instinctive, impassioned reaction, the scientific or scholarly reaction emerged, and serious studies were published on each and all the renewed sacraments. These were compared to the traditional sacraments, all their variations were analyzed in light of the doctrine both of Theology and of the "Magisterium" and the conclusion was reached that, at a minimum, the validity of all of them was dubious. There are authors who, based on powerful objective reasons, refuse to acknowledge the validity of the majority of these. The only two sacraments which are untainted by doubt are that of Baptism and Matrimony. Moreover, in respect to Matrimony, Dr. Rama COOMARASWAMY believes that it is virtually impossible to invalidate it, if both the Christian persons entering into it have the proper intention of entering into holy matrimony.
However, the same author leaves the door opened to doubt about the validity of Baptism, based on questions that, in the past, were repeatedly presented to the Holy See. In response to which the Holy See provided an exposition of Church doctrine on this issue (Cf. D.S. 3100-3102, and 3126). Church doctrine affirms, as the general norm, that given those assumptions,' its validity should be presumed, without any doubt, except in a specific cases where there is proof of invalidity.
In accordance with Church doctrine, an objective conclusion is imposed. Whenever the proper matter and form of Baptism are correctly and seriously applied - which may be achieved with the traditional Rite of Baptism, as well as with the new rite - we may presume that the Minister holds the other essential element for its validity, that is, the proper intention, as long as the contrary is not demonstrated.
Hence, we should not be categorical and alarmists, on inconsistent bases; because, in addition to being ridiculous, it would solely generate a concomitant blind rejection and dismissal of legitimate conclusions about the other sacraments. I mention this because there are some authors who stubbornly defend their own ideas, and unequivocally deny the validity of Baptism, yet they support the repetition of the sacrament, risking the possibility of sacrilege.
Having clarified these points (which I believed to be necessary), let us continue with the main idea of the discourse concerning the opposition to the new rites. The promulgation of the N.O.M. (Novus Ordo Missae) caused a very tempestuous and bitter polemic, which gave rise to the BRIEF CRITICAL EXAMINATION of the same, signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, thus, the debate concerning the new rites of the other sacraments was relegated to a secondary position. The furor of the upheaval caused by the N.O.M. silenced the minor clamor produced by the opposition to the other post-conciliar rites, which were being promulgated at the time.
It is high time that something be known about this transcendental matter, which gave rise to numerous studies and vociferous debates in some nations. This is my objective. Having completed the requisite foregoing introduction, we should proceed with the concrete theme of the present study.
Although the title of this work refers to all the sacramental rites, we should limit this ambitious and extensive plan, and concentrate on the Rites of the Holy Orders, to which the subtitle of this work refers. Even within this scope, we must limit our study to the two ranks within the priesthood: presbyterate and episcopacy. We will do so for the following three reasons:
1) due to the immeasurable scope of the theme, which could provide sufficient material for several lectures
2) because, with the exception cf the theme of the N.O.M. (the extensive bibliography of which I am quite familiar with) I lack sufficient information to expound competently on the others;
3) because it is logical to give priority to the study of the rites of Ordination and Consecration: since the conclusion concerning their validity or invalidity goes directly to the core of this issue. If they are invalid all the other sacraments are invalid, except Baptism and Matrimony, due to the lack of valid ministers necessary to administer the sacraments. Hence, it will not be necessary to study their validity, because of their dependency on the Sacrament of the Holy Orders.
Many of the authors who have studied and analyzed these rites have reached the conclusion that the same are invalid; but even those who do not dare to go so far, conclude that there is a positive doubt. The common foundation for this study is the Bull "APOSOLICAE CURAE" written by Pope Leo XIII, in which he declared the Anglican orders null, with a definitive and irrefutable statement.
In fact, if we compare the new rites with the Anglican rites for Holy Orders, we find the same errors admonished by Pope Leo XIII which led him to declare them null.
Therefore, in light of the surprising similarities between the Anglican rites and the post-conciliar rites, we must conclude, through analogy, that these are null, or at a minimum, as mentioned in the foregoing, that there is a positive doubt.
Let us proceed and conduct a succinct analysis of the new rites of Ordination and Episcopal Consecration, beginning with the former. In both these new rites we find the same errors as in the Anglican rites, that is, a defect in Form, and a lack of intention: hence, for the sake of clarity, it is indispensable to provide a subdivision into two sections.
A) DEFECT IN FORM
According to the statement of Pius XII in his constitution "SACRAMENTUM ORDINIS" (30-XI-47), the essential words of the FORM are the following: "Da, quesumus, Omnipotens Deus, in hos famulos tuos presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineant censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuent."
In the new rite form, established by Paul VI, there are two differences: one alteration and one suppression. The alteration was undertaken in the sintagma "IN HOS FAMULOS TUOS," which from the circumstantial completment or object in the accusative with the word "IN", was converted into the dative "HIS FAMULUS TUIS." The aforementioned suppression was that of the conjunction "UT".
Among Anglo authors there emerged an interesting and instructive polemic, that is, fundamental to any subsequent study, in respect to the validity or invalidity of this rite in terms of the alteration of the Form. Let us summarize.
In 1979, British author, Michael Davies writes the book "The Order of Melchizedek". Its implicit objective: the defense of the validity of the new rite. In spite of his preconceived conclusion, he is objective in his analysis. The analysis and critique of that work and the polemic that it incited, is set forth by his compatriot, John Daly.
Davies compares the vices and defects of the Anglican Orders with the new post conciliar rites, in accordance with the analysis in "APOSTOLICAE CURAE". He undertakes an exhaustive comparative analysis, and concludes b asserting without ambages: "Exactly what Leo XIII reproved within the Anglican rite, can be said of the new Catholic rite of 1968."
After setting forth this adverse statement, which for intrinsic reasons leads to the conclusion of invalidity, he presents the arguments supporting its validity. First, Davies believes he has found a good reason to support the latter argument in the identity of the Form, in both the traditional and the new rite. However, the foundation of his argument is an extrinsic reason with an apodictic value, which is, of course, also the same reason espoused by Georges of Nantes and all those who defend the validity of the same (SINCE ANOTHER DOES NOT EXIST): "The Holy Ghost would not permit the SUPREME AUTHORITY to promulgate an invalid Sacramental Rite; therefore, the underlying intention of the Rite, once it has been accepted and promulgated by the Pope, it will be valid "IPSO FACTO". On the other hand, the acceptance of the new Rite by almost the entire Church is also an irrefutable proof of its validity."
However, that "ALMOST" leaves it exposed to doubt, with the CON being proven by some events. He states: "It was imposed on the whole Church without previous consultation with the Hierarchy, and some bishops expressed serious reservations." Supporting the latter statement, he cites the case of a British bishop, who accepted the request of some men to be reordained, who felt doubt and misgivings in this respect.
In the balance of his apparent hesitation, he correctly sets forth this observation, (with which I agree): "If the new rite is valid, then the case presented in the APOSTOLICAE CURAE by Leo XIIl remains indeterminate, and vice versa. That is, if the papal statements in that encyclical are definite, then the new rite is invalid." "Hence, if we accept one, we must accept the other, and if we reject one, we must reject the other." Very ingenious, Davies!!!
Nonetheless, despite of these apparently objective reflections, he sees the light, but he closes his eyes to it, because of his a priori predilection for its validity. His attitude was manifested, leaving absolutely no doubt, in his public argument with Father William JENKINS, a North American. The debate was carried out in successive articles. There were replies and counter-replies, throughout 1981, all of which were published in The Roman Catholic a journal produced in New York.
Let us focus on the Form. He believes it to be identical to the original. Father Jenkins warns him about this error, which is also common to other authors. He says: The conjunction "UT" is missing, and Pius XII, in his infallible statement, included it as an integral part of the Ordination Form. Does the absence of it affect the substance of the meaning? All polemics are centered on this question.
Davies attempts to maintain his position and he defends the identity of meaning, despite this deletion. However, confronted with Father Jenkins' dialectic offensive, Davies vacillates, going from trench to trench until he reaches what he believes is the safer refuge of his arguments: the promulgation by the Supreme Authority and the acceptance by ALMOST (my emphasis) the entire Church. Father Jenkins does not consider this counter-reply to be adequate; however, this restrains him from going further, and reaches solely the conclusion of a reasonable positive doubt.
J. Daly in his work "Michael Davies - An Evaluation" (1989) summarizes the debate and participates in the same, at a time when its echoes had already been extinguished. He critiques the argument, presents interesting new points and reaches his own conclusions, with great competence and erudition.
He believes that the debate between Father Jenkins and Mr. Davies lacks theological vigor and strength. "The Form, as defined by Pius XII is infallibly valid, but it is not the only one, as it was a Form instituted 'in genere'." The Eastern Rites do not use exactly the same words. Thus, it refers only to the Latin Rite, and it is based on the Ritual, approved over centuries by the Church. Therefore, its definition was not retroactive.
After examining the arguments in favor and against the suppression of the preposition "UT," he concludes that there is a legitimate positive doubt, such that it suggests a great probability of invalidity. Prior to Daly, another author who also wrote for the magazine "The Roman Catholic", Dr. Rama COOMARASWAMY, in his work "The Post-Conciliar Rite of Orders" (1983) expounds the semantic consequences of the other variation: the dative "his famulis," instead of the accusative "in hos famulos," which Daly does not consider, and which was also circumvented by Father Jenkins. The former probably did not deal with it because this change appears only in the official promulgation, but not in the Pontificale Romanum, it does not affect the practice, and the discussion of the same may be postponed.
In respect to the deletion of "UT," Dr. COOMARASWAMY's reasoning follows very much the same lines as that of J. Daly, although the latter is more resolute in his conclusion. Dr. COOMARASWAMY concludes with these sensible words: "Despite some doubt, the question of the VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY OF THE RITE, continues to be open, and much of it depends on the reason for the suppression of the UT."
This is the question (I add) concerning the entire matter: it would be necessary to investigate the motive or the REASON for those small modifications introduced in the sacramental FORM. Hence, the minimal relative importance which I relegate to the debate over those slight verbal variations, considered in isolated Form. I do not, however, assert this because of the apparent insignificance of the modification. A sintagma or a particle, or even a simple phoneme could be the basis for reformers to introduce errors and heresies, as occurred in the well-known case of the introduction of "IOTA" by the semi-Aryans. The infiltration of heterodoxy depended on an "IOTA." Thus, orthodoxy repudiated it.
For example, if in the administration of Baptism, the traditional Form is altered, and a Form without the conjunction "et" (and) is used; that is "Ergo te baptizo in nomine Patris, Filii, Spiritus Sancti," the baptism would be null, because it could be interpreted as a profession of the Sabellian heresy, which does not recognize the distinction between the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.
Fr. Aldama states in respect to the integral words of the Form defined by Plus XII: "Evidens est..." That is, it is evident that the Pontifical Document does not refer to the material word, but rather to their formality; that is, the Form should be expressed with the words that mean the grace of each sacrament. Therefore, my personal opinion is that, in spite of my doubt due to the absence of the preposition "UT," it does not approach the degree to which Daly extends it. I prefer and approximate the judgement of Dr. COOMARASWAMY.
To decide if the modification, deletion or addition of a word nullifies the Sacrament, it is insufficient to exclusively focus on the material fact of the modification, but rather to examine the reasons or circumstances that brought such a alteration. Sometimes, only the Magisterium can resolve the question. Hence, since the absence of "UT" cannot, without question, be considered the cause of the invalidity, or even a probable cause, from my perception, we must proceed to examine the intention underlying the modified Rite.
B) The "SIGNIFICATIO EX ADJUNCTIS," as proof of the OBJECTIVE OR INTENTION OF THE RITE.
The Form determines and specifies the Matter, which is determinable in and of itself, and whose unity in its application, should offer the UNEQUIVOCAL meaning of grace and power of the Sacrament that is administered.
The Forms of the Sacraments were instituted by Christ, some "in specie," and others "in genere." The former are words uttered by Christ Himself. Their expression is restrictive, unequivocal and with well-defined limits, that cannot be altered by the Church: "Ego te baptizo..." "Hoc est enim Corpus meum."
In respect to the Baptismal Form, there was the objection that in the Greek Rite it is formulated in the passive voice. "Baptizatur servus talis.. . This objection was resolved magisterially in its theological aspect by St. Thomas Aquinas (Cf. III, q. 66, a. 5). In addition, we must assert that the active and the passive voices both express the same idea, semantically, although in different ways; thus, the meaning is not substantially affected.
However, in respect to the Forms instituted "in genere," Christ conferred upon His Church the power of expressing it according to its best judgement; as well as to modify or adapt it, provided the substance of the meaning of the Sacrament is not altered.
Therefore, due to the nature of these kinds of Forms (among them, those pertaining to the Sacrament of Holy Orders), they are not always expressed in a fully unequivocal way, considered in and of themselves, to be outside the ritual context. Normally, they lend themselves to equivocations. However, the forms of the Sacraments must be UNEQUIVOCAL in order to produce there sacramental effect ("APOSTOLICAE CURAE"). Plus XII in his Constitution "SACRAMENTUM ORDINTS" states: "The Form is the words that determine the application of the Matter, and by them unequivocally, the meaning of the sacramental effects."
Hence, the great importance of the different parts of the rite and the secondary ceremonies in unequivocally determining the kinds of Forms "in genere" which, in their isolated expression, could be equivocal. This is the reason why all the authors agree on outlining the importance of the ritual context, in which the Form of a sacrament is inserted.
Thus, they meticulously examine and analyze what Itas been termed "SIGNIFICATIO EX ADJUNTIS" or LITURGICAL CONTEXT, universally-accepted expressions; as well as "EXPLANATORY RITES" of which Werner writes, and "TOTAL FORM" to which Dr. Wendland refers. Father Aldama, in a footnote, refers to the manner in which the Form is considered, according to San Augustin, as the aggregate of all the ceremonies that are performed in the administration of a sacrament (p. 25).
This theory is supported, on the one hand, by disciplinary practice. "Maximum interest" was always placed on the observance, with absolute fidelity, of the text and the ceremonies of the rites performed, to ensure the validity of the Sacrament.
The British Catholic Bishops of the Westminster Ecclesiastical Province, who wrote "A Vindication of Bull 'Apostolicae Curae'", stated in respect to the same: "The Church... has guarded the prayers and ceremonies which have been transmitted to her from the earliest ages, taking special care not to omit nothing for by adhering rigidly to the transmitted rite, we can always be certain of its validity; whereas, if we omit or alter anything, we could, perhaps, be abandoning just that element which is essential." That fidelity to the rite was recommended in these verses:
"Nisi Formae demas / Nihil addas, nihil variabis.
Transmutari cave / corrumpere verba, morari."
This respect for the textual and ceremonial integrity of the rite has always existed in all religions. Among the pagans, the accuracy in the recitation of the traditional forms (rites emanate from immemorial antiquity) bordered on the superstitious, considering ritual words as something magical. Among the Romans, the simple error in one word, made obligatory the entire repetition of the form.
Nonetheless it should be clarified that, in the Catholic Church, the faithful observance of the rites was always urged, under the possibility of committing a sin if the same are not adhered to (Cf. Several canons of the CIC, and the very severe Canon of the Council of Trent, D. 856): that is, the full accuracy of prayers, ceremonies and rubrics; but this fidelity never reached a degree of superstitious exaggeration.
In terms of the foregoing, the missal norms established by St. Plus V in his treatment of DEFECTIBUS IN CELEBRATIONE MTSSARUM OCCURRENTIBUS, are very instructive. An incorrect pronunciation, if it is not on purpose, but due to ignorance or a "lapsus linguae" does not nullify a sacrament (however, St Thomas clarifies this as follows: "si sit tanta corruptio quae omnino auferat sensum locutionis non videtur perfici Sacramentum..."). That was the solution proffered by Pope St. Zachary to St. Boniface in respect to the validity of the Baptism performed by a priest, who was ignorant of the Latin language and when Baptizing said: "in nomine Patria et Filia..." (Cf. D. 297). However, it is something very different to make an alteration with the objective of introducing an error or a heresy, "non errorem aut haeresim," a verbatim citation of the aforementioned response.
C) THE DOCTRINE
St. Pius V, addressing the defective Form in the aforecited work, asserts that, if something is omitted or modified (diminueret vel immutaret), it could affect the meaning of the same; hence, the consecration would not occur. However, he goes on: "if something is added that does not alter the meaning, the sacrament would still be valid, but 'gravissime quidem peccaret'." That is, the omission "sciens ac volens," of "ENIM" would constitute a very serious sin.
Pius XII in addition to infallibly defining the Form of the Sacrament of the Holy Orders, resolutely commands the preservation, with all accuracy, of the text and the ceremonies of the Rite received. However, the most elucidating argument, is the teaching of Leo XIIl, in the aforementioned Bull.
Leo XIIl rejects the primitive Form of the Anglican Orders, because its words ("minime significant definite ordinem sacerdotii vel eius gratiam et potestatem") precisely meant neither the priestly order or its grace and power. However, a century later the Anglicans modified it, upon the realization that their form was empty and ineffective, but Leo XIIfl, even while admitting its validity within a Catholic rite, also rejects it, because of the liturgical context in which it is inserted; since the Anglican liturgy semantically had corrupted the Catholic concept of the priesthood. It is in this, that we have the most sound foundation for affirming the theory that the liturgical context or "Significatio ex adiunctis" may invalidate a Sacrament, even though the Form used may be correct in the integrity of its words.
What is meant by SIGMIFICATIO EX ADIUNCTIS, LITURGICAL CONTEXT, etc.? J. Daly efines it as "all the factors and circumstances associated with the sacramental Form and, therefore, they can provide extrinsic determination to an intrinsically indeterminate Form." Father Francis Clark affirms: "The sacramental meaning of an Ordination is not necessarily limited to a sentence or a formula, however, it can be clearly inferred from many sections of the rite. These other sections can contribute individually, or as a whole, in determining the sacramental meaning of the effective formula in an unequivocal sense." This may even be influenced by the CONNOTATION of the ceremony as a whole, in the relictious context of the time (In The Catholic Church and Anglican Orders CTS. 1962, quoted by Mr. Dales in his work).
As one may infer from the foregoing, those factors not only make reference to the literary and ceremonial context (intrinsic factors), but likewise, encompass what is called a situational context; that is the circumstances of their genesis, proposed objectives, time, connotations, etc. (extrinsic factors).
Some illustrative examples. A word may have two or more meanings, and only the context will make it clear. For example, the word "story" may refer to a floor of a building or to a tale. There is no question as to its meaning if I say: "You must go the tenth story of the building," or if I say: "Let me read you an interesting story." Also, the word "course" could be a school subject of the path of a runner, or the different dishes of a dinner. The context is absolutely necessary to identify its meaning.
However, there is an intermediate level, where a word may be ambiguous, regardless of the context. This is the deficiency of human language. The philosopher Ortega y Gasset stated: "Not every word expresses what we mean. It would be illusory to believe that they can. Language cannot be that rich."
However, these unavoidable ambiguities may be fortuitous or unfortunate, due to the deficiency of human language, or utilized, entirely intentionally, as a strategy to attain ignominious goals.
Let us apply this to our subject. We have already stated that the Forms of the Sacraments instituted "in genere" (and these constitute the majority) tend to be vulnerable in this aspect, that is, they may become ambiguous in their expression or formulation, when considered in isolation. On the other hand, we know that, as is dogmatically required, the Form should UNEQUIVOCALLY express the effect intended in a particular Sacrament. However, the difficulty posed by the intrinsic ambiguity of those forms is clarified by the liturgical context.
Hence, even when the Form retains all its constituent words, its meaning could be corrupted and falsified by the liturgical context. Therefore, the best means of ascertaining the semantic content and the underlying intention in these new rites is the guideline set forth by Leo XIII in his APOSTOLICAE CURAE.
Said Bull censures deletions, changes, mutilations and implications by omission in the prayers and elements of the ceremonial that are theologically explicit in the literary and ceremonial context (the intrinsic factors) of the Anglican Ordinal: "De ipsis CONSULTO detractum est quidquid in Ritu catholico DIGNITATEM et OFFICIA SACERDOTII perspicue designat..." Meaning that everything that clearly denoted the dignity and functions of the Priesthood in the Catholic Rite were DELIBERATELY eliminated. Therefore, he concludes: "Non igitur esse Formam aptam..." That is, a form cannot be adequate and sufficient for the administration of a Sacrament if it suppresses what represents the distinctive essence of said Sacrament. Well, this is exactly what occurs in the new postconciliar rite.
All the authors agree on this point, beginning with Michael Davies whose objective was, as mentioned in the foregoing, to defend the validity of the new me. Davies openly recognizes these same defects:
"The Traditional Rite has been drastically remodeled, following Cranmer's example; this was primarily achieved by the deletion of prayers and ceremonies, previously utilized to concretize priestly power in a clear and explicit way."
In fact, the new rite eliminated the clear references to the sacrifice of the Mass, which are unequivocally made in the traditional rite. The Priesthood and Sacrifice are intimately united. The primary and essential function of the priest is the offering of sacrifices. And the priesthood is defined by the Sacrifice... It is, thus, affirmed in Catholic Doctrine (Epistle to the Hebrews; Tridentine Canon, D. 957). Moreover, it is confirmed in the Encyclical of Pius XI "AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII": "The essential power of the Priest consists of his power to CONSECRATE, OFFER, and ADMINISTER THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, and his secondary and supplementary powers are the forgiveness of sins, and the preaching of the Word of God..." ACCIPE POTESTATEM OFFERERE SACRIFICIUM DEO.
The Form, considered in isolation, can be equivocal, by signifying the Priesthood in general "DIGNATATEM SACERDOTII... et SECUNDI MERITI MUNUS," said power is specifically Catholic and is concretized in other parts of therite: "SACERDOTEM ETENIM OPORTET OFFERRE, benedicere, praesse, praedicare et baptizare" meaning, "the Priest is granted the power to offer, etc." "Quatenus mortis Domini mysterium celebrantes... Et in obsequium plebis tuae, PANEM ET VINUM IN CORPUS ET SANGUINEM FILII TUI immaculata benedictione TRANSFORMENT." Which means: "To transform the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of your Son..." MISSAMQUE CELEBRARE TAM PRO VIVIS QUAM PRO DEFUNCTIS .... That is "Receive the power to offer God the Sacrifice and to celebrate the Mass for the living and for the dead." "Et Oferre PLACABILES HOSTIAS PRO PECCATIIS ATQUE OFFENSIONIBUS POPULI OMNIPOTENTI DEO." Which means, "And offer Almighty God propitiatory offerings for the sins and transgressions of the people."
All these clear and unequivocal expressions about the essential power and primary function of the priesthood, and about the celebration of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass for the living and for the dead, have disappeared in the new Rite; similar to the manner in which they disappeared in the Anglican Rite. Let us consider an example.
In the ceremony of handing over the chalice with wine and water, and the paten with a host to those who are being ordained, the old Rite states: "Receive the power to offer the sacrifice to God and to celebrate masses for the living, as well as for the dead, in the name of the Lord."
In the new Rite this ceremony has been truly maintained, but let us examine the formula of the delivery: "Receive the offering of the holy people to offer it to God." ("ACCIPE OBLIATIONEM PLEBIS SANCTAE DEO OFFERENDAM"). In the Spanish translation the error is augmented, and the verb "offer" has been translated as "present."
As one may observe, absolutely nothing (and even less so in the vernacular languages) here indicates the propitiatory Sacrifice: the offering of which was the essence of the Catholic priesthood. The delivery of the chalice with the wine and the paten with a host would be the most auspicious moment for an unequivocal reference to the Holy Propitiatory Sacrifice, an unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, and not a simple commemoration, as Protestants attempt to do.
Hence, from the literary and ceremonial context (that is, the intrinsic factor) the nullity of the Ordination must be concluded, through analogy. Let us now consider and examine the extrinsic factors or circumstances to discover the underlying intention of the same.
As everybody knows, the proper intention, together with Matter and Form, are the "sine quo non," for the validity of a Sacrament. However, the intention, since it is internal, cannot be judged by the Church; but Leo XIII emphasizes that the Church can and should judge the intention when it is manifested in external signs. As was taught by St. Thomas (III, q. 64, a.q.).
Therefore, Leo XIII adds, that when a Minister, even if he is a heretic or a schismatic, seriously administers the Sacrament in accordance with the Rite, SERIO AC RITE, solely by this fact, it is judged that he had the intention of doing what the Church does. On the other hand, if alterations are introduced into the Rite with the manifest purpose of establishing a differant Rite, not received by the Church, and with the objective of rejecting what the Church does, it then demonstrates, not solely a lack of the proper intention, but an antithetical intention that contradicts the Sacrament.
With the objective of ascertaining the underlying intention of the altered rite, Leo XIII recommends the examination of the extrinsic factors and circumstances that could adulterate the intention of the Church. "Ad rectam, plenamque... aestimationem..." That is: "For a fair and complete evaluation.., in addition to the prior observations (that is, those that refer to intrinsic factors), the circumstances (that is, extrinsic factors) should, likewise be taken into account." The Pope offers an open list, because "longum est singula persequi, neque est necessarium," meaning, "it would be tendious and unnecessary to record all the circumstances in detail."
Let us examine some of those circumstances and apply them to the new rites of Holy Orders.
1. First, Leo XIII refers to the authors and their attitude toward the Church "cuius animi essent in catholicam Ecclesiam Auctores Ordinalis..."
To determine the character of the authors and supporters of the new Rite, there is nothing better than beginning with the basic work: "The Liturgical Movement" by Father Bonneterre. The director of the orchestra was A. BUGNINI, who is presumed to be a freemason. His predecessors, who had recommended the changes for more than half a century, were freemasons and modernists. They had their own very clear conception of the Sacraments, as was manifest in the 13 propositions condemned by St. Pius X, in the LAMENTABIILI Decree. Among the aforementioned precursors, one of the most prominent was Dom L. BEAUDUIN, a true spawn of Satan, and innumerable neo-liturgists, whose errors were condemned by Pius XII in MEDIATOR DEl.
The progressive forces dominated the decisions of the Second Vatican Council from the beginning. This is not solely something I propound; we also have the testimony of a qualified witness, Msgr. LEFIEBVRE: "It was, thus, that the Commissions formed, with two-thirds of them comprised of progressive members."
2. Their OBJECTIVES: "Quo demum consilia sun referent." What were their objectives?, I ask. What were Bugnini and his collaborators' intentions in this endeavor? Well, they had what they needed to have; nothing more, nothing less. Those men could not have had an orthodox intention because they were based in the error, which made them intrinsically incapable of this. Only a divine miracle like the miracle of Balaam and his donkey, could have changed their wicked intention. However, one should not usually expect those miracles, or ask them of God. Doing so, would be to tempt Him. OPERARI SEQUITUR ESSE.
In addition, we need neither analyze the intentions, nor undertake an exercise in conjecture. The revolutionary principles are openly proclaimed. Let us go to the origin. The section of the Conciliar Constitution dedicated to the Liturgy, solemnly begins by proclaiming the fundamental objective and principle, with these words: "Sacrosanctum Concilium cum sibi proponat..." What is proposed? What are its objectives? Let us listen.
1) To augment the Christian Life among the faithful, day by day.
2) To better adapt the institutions that may be subject to change, to the needs of our time.
3) To promote everything that may contribute to the UNION of all who believe in Christ.
4) To strengthen what is efficacious in inviting all humans to the bosom of the Church.
Behold, the beginning of the beginnings, the LEITMOTIV, which explains everything, a concoction consisting of one measure of Catholic lime, and three measures of heterodox modernist sand; in accordance with their tactic, as we were reminded by St. Pius X, in his encyclical PASCENDI.
I respectfully yield to the commentary of a more authoritative pen than mine. "What are the subversive elements?" Read them carefully.
A) Objective 2) "To adapt the institutions subject to change." Said institutions are neither described nor listed. This is an open door to universal cacophony, which is what was offered to us.
B) Objective 3) To foster everything that may contribute to the Union of all who believe in Christ, etc. This is an ecumenical principle, immoral, in and of itself. That "EVERYTHING" encompasses, beforehand, the abandonment of everything. And
C) 4) To strengthen... This is a principle of missionary bearing, but only apparently. We are not dealing with conversion, but with an opening to the world... When this principle is applied to the liturgy, it entails the adoption of a profane style... (Cf. Mysterium Fidei, N° 48, 4 Quarter, 1979)
The work was undertaken, guided by these corrosive principles; and the progressive leaders confessed this openly. They considered the outline of the Liturgical Constitution a Framework Law, wherein, through a coherent evolution, all the aberrations of the Revolution would gradually enter. Therefore, Msgr. DWYER, Archbishop of Birmingham, a frequent speaker at European Symposiums, said in 1967: "The liturgical reform is, in a very profound sense, THE KEY TO THE AGGIORNAMENTO. Make no mistake about it: it is there that the REVOLUTION begins." Words pronounced in Rome at the First Synod of Bishops (Cf. ¿QUE PASA? N° 313, 12-27-69, taken from LA CROIX 10-25-67).
What more do we want? When there is an overt confession, proof abounds. Hence, the underlying intention in the postconciliar rite is perverse, it is not Catholic.
We must take into account that this gibberish and rivers of ink, arguing about whether they are greyhounds or hound dogs, exists only among the traditionalists. The progressives are perfectly certain that their intentions have become reality, even implicitly. Moreover, the Protestants, with astute intuition, have realized that the entire liturgical reform is on their side. Thus, the Superior Council of the Confessional Church of Alsace-Lorraine stated: "We are interested in using the new eucharistic prayers, in which we find, and which have the advantage of adorning the theology of the sacrifice that we used to attribute to Catholicism." In respect to references about sacramental rites, in general, Professor KNUTSON, speaker of the Lutherans stated:
"There is an enthusiastic interest in the liturgical renewal among the Protestants," underscoring that, "The theological thought of the Catholic Church, in certain realms, such as that of the Sacraments, has progressed considerably. This evolution demonstrates that Lutheran and Catholic thought are closer and converging" (Mysterium Fidei N° 49, March 1980). The foregoing are sufficient examples.
3. RETURN TO THE SOURCES.
Another of the circumstances enumerated by Leo XIII is the pretext of the return to the sources ("specie quidem redintegrandae eius formae primaevae"). The return to primitive simplicity is present as a pretext among the innovators and heretics throughout history, since Vigilantius in the fourth century created the first liturgical heresy. opposing triumphalism and praising the return to primitive simplicity. This is a deleterious archeologism, condemned by Pius XII in his MEDIATOR DEl, and which is nothing more than a revolutionary method to break with tradition, for which they profess to have such great appreciation. The traditional rites, established by the Church centuries ago, are unequivocal, and allow for neither semantic fraud, nor the manipulations to which primitive rites lend themselves.
I will conclude with a quote in support of the avowed perfidy of the innovators work: "The AMIBIVALENT (the capitalization is my emphasis) writing will favor us. We express ourselves in a diplomatic manner, but after the Council, we will reach the implicit conclusions..." Confronted with this exhibition of shamelessness by a member of the Doctrinal Commission, the famous liberal theologian SCHILLEBEECKX became upset and exclaimed: "I CONSIDER IT DISHONEST" (Cf. Rev. BAZUIN, 48, 1965, p. 4; cited in MYSTERIUM FIDEl, N° 48, 1979. p.18).
4. Another circumstance cited in the open list established by Leo XIIl refers to the collaborators invited ("quos adscivennt ... fautores ab heterodoxis sectis...") from various different sects. This same circumstance also occurred in the development of the new rites. It is a notorious and public fact, that six members of different Protestant sects intervened as "OBSERVERS" in the creation of the N.O.M. However, according to Dr. COOMARASWAMY, Michael Davies provides us with all the evidence necessary to affirm that some of those ho participated in the reform of the Mass, also intervened in the reform of the Sacrament of the Holy Orders.
On the other hand, it must be clarified that the role of said guests was not that of mere spectators, who only assented, but rather, they actively intervened. Let us hear two testimonies. A Catholic, Msgr. BAUM, who wrote in 1967: "They are not there as mere observers, but rather as experts; and they FULLY (the capitalization is my emphasis) participate in the discussions about liturgical renewal." The other testimony emanates from one of the Protestant guests, the Anglican JASPER, who declared in 1977: "In fact, we were authorized to comment, criticize, and make suggestions." (Cf. ITINERARIES, N° 212, April 1977, cited by Raffard de Briennes, in LEX ORANDI)
CONCLUSION
The Anglican Rite demonstrated the true intentions of those who created it. In the formulation of the new rite, the same circumstances existed.
In the context of the traditional Roman Pontifical, there is not the slightest ambiguity about the essential power of the Catholic priest. There is certainly ambiguity in the new one, however, and this is a circumstance that invalidates any sacrament. Therefore, as an accurate and definitive conclusion, I find the words of J. DALY quite sensible and well-balanced:
"It is conclusive that the validity of the new rite is, at least, questionable. Its validity should be proven, not merely assumed, because it is an obvious fact that the postconciliar rite is similar in its vices to those of the Anglican Rite, condemned by Leo XIII, and which, for this reason, were declared null. It is proven to be dubious. To what extent? To the degree of maximum probability, approaching moral certitude."
I agree. This reality obliges us to assume an unequivocal, practical attitude. The Church is tutiorist (that is, it follows the most probable path in case of doubt) where the validity of the Sacraments is concerned. Hence, between a probable opinion about the validity of a Sacrament, and another that is even more probable, we must choose the latter (D. 11511). Which should be adhered to: a rite of questionable validity or a rite that is dogmatically incontrovertible? Even a mere discussion of this is entirely untenable.
***
II. EPISCOPAL CONSECRATION
A) Intrinsic Factors
In my analysis of the new rite of Consecration, I will proceed inversely; that is, beginning with the liturgical context.
In terms of the situational context or extrinsic factors, everything has been stated, since they are common for all the rites of priestly ordination and for the Episcopal consecration.
In respect to intrinsic factors, it must be stated that one discerns errors and deficiencies similar tc those found in the Rite of the Holy Orders, but apparently to a lesser extent. In the traditional rite, the spiritual power, "POTESTAS SPIRITUALIS," is clearly specified, as are the proper functions of the episcopacy: "EPISCOPUM, oportet iudicare, interpretari, CONSECRARE, ORDINARE, offene, baptizare et CONFIRMARE." Among the enumerated functions, the specific differences of the "PLUS" - the power of the bishop over that of a simple priest - are unequivocally indicated; particularly, the power to ordain new priests, and the consecration of a new bishop to ensure the continuation of apostolic succession, and of the Church as a Sacred Institution of Salvation. These are specifically: CONSECRARE, ORDINARE (and "confirmare" as the ordinary minister).
These words express the exclusive "Powers" of the High Priesthood, and these have been eliminated in the new rite. What was asserted about the simple priesthood, is applicable here, citing Leo XIII: "De ipsis CONSULTO detractum est..." They DELIBERATELY eliminated everything that in the Catholic Rite that designated, with all clarity, the dignity and the special functions of the Bishop.
Using the analogy of the condemned errors of the Anglican Ordinal, the same conclusion concerning the validity of the priestly order would have to be reached.
B) The Form
Here I will quote Virgil's words which open the second part of The Aeneid: "MAlUS OPUS MOVEO", that is, "I undertake a more arduous enterprise."
To embark upon this analysis, let us transcribe both Forms, the traditional and the new, and compare.
Traditional Form: "COMPLE in sacerdote tuo MINISTERII SUMMAM et Ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum, coelistis unguenti rore SANCTIFICA' (Cont. SACRAMENTUM ORDINIS, DENZ 3860). In English: "Complete in your priest, the fullness of your ministry, and adorned with the graces of your glory, sanctify him with the dew of the heavenly ointment."
New Form: "Et nunc effunde super hunc Electum, eam virtutem quae a te est. SPIRITUM PRINCIPALEM, quem dedisti Filio tuo Jesu Christo, quem ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecciesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui" Translation: "And now, pour on this elected one that power, which emanates from you, the PRINCIPAL (or Main) SPIRIT, that you gave to Your Son Jesus Christ, and that He, in turn, gave to his Holy Apostles, who founded the Church everywhere, as your sanctuary, for the glory and perpetual praise of your name" (AAS, LX, (7), July, 29, 1968).
As anyone may observe, the latter is pure gibberish. It has been asserted in the foregoing, that "in genere" forms tend to lend themselves to ambiguities; hence, it is necessary that, in the ritual context, its meaning be completely accurate, so that it will produce the sacramental effect. However, it is no less true, that, even if all the ambiguities are eliminated from the ritual context, if at the time of applying the form, it is expressed in a sense that, "ad rem non pertinet", the semantic emptiness in regard to its meaning would render the sacrament invalid.
But, let us not hasten. Let us analyze and compare the new and the traditional forms. The first thing we notice is the quantitative difference between one and the other. The modern form almost triplicates the traditional in the number of words. It must, logically, contain, at least, a lot of hot air.
The forms of the Sacraments tend to be very concise; all superfluous words are avoided. In fact, the Forms of the Sacrament of the Holy Orders is the most extensive, due to the nature of the same, which must express not only the grace, as in the other Sacraments, but the specific Spiritual Power, "Spiritualis Potestas" of each degree of Orders. Nevertheless, the superfluous words do not invalidate the Sacrament, if they are limited to a mere magnification, and they do not erode the proper meaning of the sacramental effect. It is thus affirmed by St. Thomas: "quaecum que fiat additio vel substractio vocum..." That is: "every addition or subtraction of words that do not corrupt the proper meaning of the Sacrament, do not invalidate it" (Cf. III, q. 60, a.8, ad. 2).
Let us now examine the quantitative aspect. Immediately we realize that the differences between one form and the other are profound. First and foremost, between the 16 words of the traditional form, and the 43 words of the modern form, the authors only detect one word in common, the conjunction "ET" which is something I reject. There is not a single identical word; and even the material coincidence of "ET," formerly considered, is not the same. The "ET" in the new form is not symmetrical with its use in the old one. In the traditional form, "ET" is a link between sentences, that serves to delineate the two effects produced by the Sacrament of Holy Orders: the Power and the Grace: "Comple in sacerdote tuo... ET sanctifica."
On the other hand, in the new Form, "ET" is not a sentence link, but rather a link between words: "in gloriam ET laudem." That is, even if it were the case that the unitary expression in the new form were not gibberish, it would solely express the effect of the grace, but not of the Power ("POTESTAS'): hence, it is an impaired, inane and useless form, and it cannot produce the sacramental effect. It is not a mere elaboration, but rather an elimination of the fundamental meaning.
Therefore, we cannot speak of a light alteration, a small and unimportant touch, as can be said of the form of the priestly Ordination. In the latter, it represents a small hole; in the former, it is an entire cave. In the Form of the Ordination, the hole could be relatively easily eluded, allowing us to walk ahead with dialectical haughtiness on the firm path of other words, which were common to both forms. However, in respect to the Episcopal consecration we cannot take a single step without getting stuck in the marshy cave.
I do not believe that it is possible for anyone who studies the new form in-depth, to consume that potpourri without nausea, or without retching with doubt. Hence, it is not strange that Dr. COOMARASWAMY and Daly, along with myself, suspected that M. Davies, who studied the new rites for the deaconate and for priestly ordination in order to defend their validity, would not even dare touch the subject of Episcopal Consecration. There is simply no viable dialectic, short of Lucifer transforming himself into the angel of light, to successfully defend this case.
Therefore, by studying these forms, all hesitation disappears. This emerged when considering the Form of the priestly ordination, where doubt was feasible. However, all the authors who analyze the form of the Episcopal consecration, agree with the affirmation, without the slightest doubt, concerning the semantic vacuousness of this form, and hence, its absolute nullity.
The final conclusion, is that from the date the new rite was imposed in each diocese of the Catholic Church, no new Catholic bishops have been consecrated in the Latin Rite of the Official Church. This is incredibly frightening and distressing, because the bishops are the transmitters of Apostolic Succession. Without bishops, who are the first link in the ecclesiastical structure, and the primary members of the Church, according to Pius XII in his MYSTICI CORPORIS all the other sacraments fail, except Baptism and Matrimony, as we have proven. The bishops, according to the teaching of Leo XIII, are the fundamental base of the Church: "Since, by their Ministry, not only children are begotten, but also Fathers, that is priests, to rule her and nourish her" (Cf. DIVINUM ILLUD MUNUS, DS 3328).
With invalid sacraments the salvation of innumerable souls is jeopardized; hence, is indispensable, that this matter be clarified with effort and diligence. With the tactics of ostriches, we will get nowhere.
With these words, I could have concluded my exposition; however, I will follow the example of authors who, in a display of good will, placed great interest and effort into getting to the bottom of the meaning of the most relevant, the most impacting expression in the gibberish of the new form - an endeavor that I consider useless, based on the evidence - the mysterious reference to the "SPIRTTUM PRLNCIPALEM."
Said expression is found in Psalm 50 ("Miserere") when David asks forgiveness for his double sin: adultery and murder. The repentant king uses this phrase. What is the meaning of that expression? I have consulted more than a dozen translations. These are the following: "my spirit," "a magnanimous spirit," "voluntary, principal noble," or "spirit of nobility." The expression that prevails in the modern translations is "a generous spirit," which is the one used in the new translation of the Psalter, carried out under the direction of Cardinal Bea.
Both the Greek version "HEGEMONICO PNEUMATI", and the Latin version "SPIRITU PRINCIPALI" attempt to provide the meaning of the Hebrew "Nedibah," which is derived from "nadib" = prince, which would be something like "princely spirit" or "spirit of princes"... What is hermeneutically clear is that "Spiritum Principalem" does not mean the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity - which is the meaning that the authors search for, in vain.
What does tradition say? Well, very little. I consulted the commentary by St. Augustine (ENARRATIONES). The Saint limits himself to expounding what others, who had preceded him, had understood. He states, "Some believe that the Blessed Trinity was named before the Incarnation... By the "right spirit" (verse 12), whom they believe to be the Son; the "Holy Spirit" is the "Holy Ghost"; and that the "PRINCIPAL SPIRIT" is the FATHER... Others understand the "right spirit" to mean the spirit of man, which was twisted by sin; and that the "PRINCIPAL SPIRIT" is the Holy Ghost whom David asks not to be removed from him, and by whom he wants to be strengthened. And St. Augustine concludes by affirming: "None of these opinions are heretical." However, he does not proffer an opinion, he limits himself to expounding, skeptically, those two mystical meanings, set forth by others, sometimes without a sufficient literal base, and he declares that they are not heretical.
Other commentators of the Jesuit order echo the first opinion, to which St. Augustine refers, and clarify that it was introduced by Origenes, and that it had adherents in the Middle Ages. Therefore, based on Tradition, it is equally dear that "SPIRITUS PRINCIPALIS" is not the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. This is why different authors give their own version and nuance. KRÖGER: "Leading spirit or spirit of government." Egreyi: "Excellent spirit." COOMARASWAMY: "Spirit of Authority."
What is the meaning given to it by the authors of the new rite? Dom BOTTE, president of the commission in charge of the reform of the rites of Holy Orders, had to face the conjectures and suppositions about it. What did the person primarily responsible for this monstrosity do? Dom Botte attempted to explain with hesitations and contradictions, and he never clarified anything.
Let us see... the expression is found and is taken from the Rite of Consecration, written by the schismatic Hyppolitus for his sect and his followers.
Dom Botte admits - according to other authors - that not only are we uncertain of the meaning of the enigmatic expression, but those very words could be an erroneous version; and that, of course, the expression emanates neither from Jesus Christ, nor from the Apostles. (His sincerity is positive, and at the same time, he demonstrates the abyss to which we can be led by the insane archeologism, condemned by Pius XII). Nonetheless, D. Botte dares to conjecture as to the meaning given by Hyppolitus and he believes that Hyppolitus meant the Holy Ghost... However, he adds that the Gift of the Spirit is emanating from the Leader, and that the best translation would be "Spirit of Authority or of Government"... Author COOMARASWAMY concludes by citing these words stated by D. Botte: "The only problem is to ascertain the meaning given to the expression by the author of the prayer."
I leave this gibberish to the consideration of the readers, however, I conclude with this epiphonema: What an insult, what an outrage, what a derision of human intelligence, in general, and to the faithful, in particular! It was an abuse of authority, based on the assumption that faith castrates intellect. However, the case is that, with an expression that nobody, including its chief editor, can define or clarify to any degree of certainty, they attempt to validate a sacramental rite. St. Thomas, writing about the form of Baptism, tells us that just as the Matter of the sacraments is always a common and easily discernible element; the words used in the Form should, similarly, be those most commonly utilized to express those concepts; "nec in aliis perficitur Sacramentum..." He states: "If upon administering the sacrament of Baptism it is stated, 'In nomine Genitoris et Geniti et Procedentis'" despite the fact that the persons referred to are the same, the Sacrament would not have been administered (III, q. 66, a. 5). What would St. Thomas say of the enigmatic expression "SPIRITUM PRINCIPALEM;" irresolute neologism, coined by Dom Botte and his collaborators?
Let us take yet another step. Let us assume "SPIRITUM PRINCIPALEM" - making an abstraction of the hypothesis of the former paragraph - unequivocally meant the Third Person of the Holy Trinity; even in this case, it would not be sufficient to validate the new Form. Leo XIII rejected the following section of the Form of the Anglican Rite as inadequate for the validity: "Accipe 'SPIRITUM SANCTUM' et memento ut resuscites gratiam Dei, quae est in te, per impositionem manuum"... Even this form expresses unequivocally the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. Leo XIII states: "Because the words of this Form in no way clearly mean the proper Grace and 'Spiritual Power' ("POTESTAS SPIRITUALIS") of the Supreme Priesthood." And it is evident that the meaning of the principal effect ("POTESTAS SPIRITUALIS," an exclusive power of the bishop) does not exist in the hodge-podge of the Form of the new rite of Episcopal consecration.
In addition to constituting a nonsensical Form, Doctor WENDLAND detects, in the same, a hint of heresy, upon placing the Son - from whom the Holy Spirit jointly emanates - on the same level with the Apostles.
Let us just say, the shrewdness of the modernists has gone too far. One could say of them, what is stated in Psalm 9: "In laqueo isto quern absconderunt comprehensus est pes eorwm" That is, they have been trapped by their own snares... How coarsely they did it! "It was thus permitted by Divine Providence, against which the advice of the impious is futile, in accordance with what is written" (1 Cor. 1, 19).
Christ promised to assist His Church until the consummation of times... and His promise cannot fail. St. Thomas, referring to a specific case wherein a priest was invalidly ordained, states: "pie' credi potest"... One can PIOUSLY believe that the Highest Priest will not permit that a fraud of this magnitude, which could pose a danger to His Church, remain concealed, unknowable. Hence, with even greater reason, we must firmly ("FIRMITER) and not only piously believe, that in respect to facts of universal scope, Christ will not permit that a fraud of such importance remain hidden and objectively unknowable, with definitive harm for the Church and for the souls.
Therefore, and one would expect nothing less, Divine Providence has ensured that the sinister and wicked light of the deceit and emptiness of the new Form of Episcopal consecration shine with radiant splendor; with the objective of not wasting time on hesitations and interminable theological discussions; with the consequence of extremely serious harm to the Church and the faithful, who, in a state of astonishment would not know what to think. Thus, it will be inexcusable to dose one's eyes to the evidence.
Let us tremble and remedy, especially those whom it will concern. THE FOUNTAIN OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION HAS GONE DRY; and IF A FOUNTAIN IS DRY, ALL THE CHANNELS THAT EMANATE FROM IT, WILL ALSO DESICCATE.
Tomás Tello Corraliza
May 1996
|
