The apostolic succession crisis and the sacrament of order in relation to the 20th century apostasy to the church of Rome
by
Eugène Howson
Whether the apostasy of the Catholic Church which manifested itself to the world with the opening of the Second Vatican Council on the 11th of October, 1962 is the great apostasy foretold by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Thessalonians 11, Chapter 2 and by the Prophet Daniel, Dan. 11, 31, is a matter of speculation, but that it is a great apostasy, is a fact beyond question. Without doubt it had its roots further back in the 19th century in the greatest of all heresies, modernism, or maybe even further back still, in the Protestant Reformation.
Among the changes brought about by the revolutionists of Vatican II, the most important was the destruction of the priest¬hood by changing the rite used in the Sacrament of Order, and the deletion of the power of the Episcopacy to transmit that Sacrament, which was given to the Apostolic Church founded by Christ so that it could continue until the end of time, as He Himself promised. This satanic destruction was the first on the list of reforms, being more important than the destruction of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, for as long as the priesthood, and the power to transmit it remained with the hierarchy, there might come a time when the Holy Sacrifice would be restored, but with the destruction of the priesthood and its powers, the return of the Mass would be merely an empty shell, a charade, and a sacrilegious one, as is seen today, when it is celebrated by men ordained under the invalid rite of Paul VI.
Unfortunately attention has been focussed more on the destruc¬tion of the Mass, by gradual changes instituted by John XXIII, and completed by Paul VI, when he imposed his Novus Ordo in Advent 1969. This was a Protestant communion service, his mass being defined by him as "An assembly of the people, over which the priest presided, to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord's Supper. One of the most significant changes, with the intention of abolishing transsubstantiation, was to replace the words of Consecration with a "narration of the words of institution". But not content with this, the very words were changed, and when the vernacular was brought in, in place of the words "which shall be shed for many" in the Latin, it was changed to "which shall be shed for all men", thus committing a blasphemous sacrilegious lie, by attributing to Christ words which He never said, and which the Council of Trent proclaimed lie never said and why.
By reason of the gradual destruction between 1962 and 1969, the majority of England were not aware, that the Mass which St. Augustine brought from Pope Gregory the Great, in 592 had been taken from them. Only God can judge the motives of the clergy who in almost their entirety, throughout the world followed in what appears to be servile obedience. There were a few exceptions such as Fr. Oswald Baker, Parish Priest of Downham Market, Norfolk, and a handful of others who recanted, and returned to the Mass for which they were ordained. In France the number who refused to apostatize was considerably higher. As for the Hierarchy, apart from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, who after a protest, retreated, only one, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, of the Holy Ghost Fathers, eventually stood up, and on the 24th of December, 1971 again celebrated the Mass, proclaimed by St. Pius V. in 1570 to be valid and lawful for any priest, in perpetuity. Of course there may have been others, but publicly they were silent, and only Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended for refusing to accept the new religion.
The sacrament of order
The new Roman Pontifical containing the rites for the priest¬hood and the episcopate were promulgated on the 18th of June, 1968, and at least as fair as the priesthood is concerned, made compulsory from the 6th of April, 1969.
In St. Luke's Gospel Chapter XXII, v. 17 and following the follow¬ing is an account of the Institution of the Sacrament of Order.
"And having taken the chalice, He gave thanks and said: Take and divide it among; you."
"And taking bread, He gave thanks and brake, and gave to them saying:THIS IS MY BODY, which is given for you. Do this in commemoration of me."
"In like manner the chalice also, after He had supped saying: THIS IS THE CHALICE, THE NEW TESTAMENT OF MY BLOOD, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOK YOU."
The Council of Trent in Canon 2 of the XXII Session states: "If anyone shall say that in the words 'Do this in commemoration of me' Christ did not make His Apostles priests, or did not ordain so that they and other priests should offer up His Body and Blood, let him be anathema."
This is one of the few instances where the Church has solemnly defined the meaning of a passage of Scripture.
It is the teaching of the Church, that two of the essential elements for a valid sacrament are what is called the Matter, and the Form or words which accompany the act of giving the matter, and thereby determine the meaning of that action. In this Sacrament, Trent has dogmatically declared that the Form used by Christ to ordain His priests, was contained in the words, "Do this in commemoration of me" The implication of these words, was that by instructing His Apostles to do this Act, He gave them the Power to do so. What were they to do? To change the Matter, the bread and wine which He had handed to them, into His Body and Blood. Now it is evident that the Apostles when they in turn transmitted this power to others, could not use the words "Do this in commemorance of Me", but they could and it is reasonable to assume that they would have used the same Matter, for after all, if whatever form of words they used to transmit the power, or grace, on both rational and theological grounds the rite must clearly sig¬nify the grace to be conferred, what could be more suitable for the matter than what Christ used? It is taught by theologians moreover that the Church has no power to change the substance of any of the Sacraments as instituted by Christ.
What is a priest?
The English Bishops in their Explication of Apostolicae Curae, the Papal Bull of Pop Leo XIII concerning Anglican Orders, defined the Priesthood as follows: "A priest is one who offers sacrifice; and as is the sacrifice,
so is the priest. Since then our sacrifice is the Sacrifice of the Mass, our priest is one appointed to offer up that sacrifice one therefore who has received from God the power by means of the words of Consecration to cause the Body and Blood of Christ to become present under the appearance of bread and wine, and to offer them up sacrificially."
It is this power which Christ gave to His Apostles when He instituted the Sacrament of Order on Maundy Thursday.
The English Bishops in their Vindication of the Bull of Pope Leo XIII go on to say.
"He may have other powers annexed to this office such as the Power to forgive sins..... but they are superadded and consequent. They are suitably annexed to the priesthood, but they are not of its essence. The priest would not have been less a priest, if they had been withheld from him. Nor is he more a priest because Our Lord has thought fit to communicate them to him. He is a priest solely because he has the office and power of effecting the real objective Presence on the Altar of the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and thereby offering Him up in Sacrifice."
This added or annexed power to forgive sin was given to the Apostles when Christ instituted the Sacrament of Penance after His Resurrection, as recorded by St. John in his Gospel, Chapter XX.v.21-23.
"He said, after lie had breathed on them: "Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."
Commenting on this passage in his New Testament, Fr. Hugh Pope, O.P. writes:
"For absolving from sin a twofold power is requisite, that of order, and that of jurisdiction: the former is alike in all priests, not the latter. Consequently when the Lord gave to all His Apostles, the power of remitting sin, this is to be referred to the power of Order, when in the ordination of priests the words given in St. John's Gospel are said."
Fr. Pope is incorrect when he says that the Lord gave the power to All His Apostles, because St. Thomas, according to St. John was not with them when Jesus came. How or when he was given the power to forgive, we do not know; maybe one of the others communicated it to him, as does the bishop, after he has ordained a priest, following the procedure carried out by Christ. The essential thing is that the power be given, in some way or another - and it is of course the power of order which we are concerned with.
From the Scriptures we have very clear evidence as to how and when Christ conferred two important powers on the men He chose as His Apostles. The power which is the essence of the priesthood, to cause the Body and Blood of Christ to become present on the altar, under the appearance of bread and wine, is given in the Sacrament of Order, just as Christ did when He instituted the Sacrament, and afterwards, as we have noted, the power to forgive sin.
The Council of Trent is very specific as to haw this power to forgive sin is conferred on the priest by the bishop, a power which can be given only to a priest. It states: "Finally the bishop imposes for a second time his hands on the person he has made a priest saying: Receive the Holy Ghost, sins will be remitt¬ed to whom you remit them: They will be retained to those to whom you have retained them. By these ceremonies and by these words, he communicates, the Divine Power of remitting and retaining sins, which was given by Our Lord to His disciples."
The Rite used in the Catholic Church until its suppression by the apostate Paul VI when he introduced his new rite in 1968, and made compulsory from the 6th of April, 1969, followed that clear distinction in the conferring of these two powers, in accord¬ance with the example given by Christ. The new rite abolished all reference to the giving of the power to forgive sins.
In 1947 Pope Pius XII issued a decree called Sacramentum Ordinis concerning, as its title indicates, the Sacrament of Order. In this Decree Pius XII stated that "The final imposition of the hands and the words 'Receive the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins, etc, is not part of the matter for the priesthood.'
We agree that this is not part of the matter for the priesthood, but it is ambiguous, because according to Trent, and example of Christ, this or some similar ceremony is necessary for the communication of the power to forgive sins. The Conciliar Church and those who support it, have used this text to justify their "absolutions" for which there is absolutely no evidence that they have such a power, even if one assumes that they are valid priests.
Not only does human reason demand that some words, some ceremony be used to bestow a power on someone, but it is the teaching of the Church theologians, that the act, the matter and form, as they term it, must clearly signify the grace that is to be conferred. Thus in baptism for example, there could be no absolution from original sin, or in the Sacrament of Penance, if some words, and some ceremony were entirely absent. Yet the supporters of these invalid absolutions, claim that somehow the power is given, in the making of a priest, an argument contrary to reason, contrary to the teaching of Trent, and above all contrary to the way chosen by Christ the Son of God. If the ordination to the priesthood automatically and in complete silence conveyed the power to absolve, then this must have happened on Maundy Thursday, and what Christ did after His Resurrection, was pointless, and absurd.
Fr. Henry Davis in Vol. 4 of his Moral and Pastoral Theology writes:
"The third imposition of the hands is not essential for the priesthood, but probably is for the power of forgiving sin."
His book written in 1943 rightly distinguishes between the two powers of the priesthood.
Although Our Lord, the Son of God, deemed it necessary to convey this power to forgive sins, by means of a ceremony, (breathing on His Apostles) and laying the words already mentioned, and although this was confirmed by Trent, the advocates of the conciliar religion, maintain, but without producing any valid argument, that all this was and is quite unnecessary. They do also say, as does the Catholic Dictionary by Addis and Arnold, published in 1931, on page 604: "The last imposition of hands in the Roman Pontifical with the words 'receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you remit, they are remitted' etc., were unknown, according to Morinus and Chardon, even in the West for 1,200 years. How then was this power conveyed? They say in contradiction to the teaching of the English Bishops, in contradiction to reason, in contradiction to the means chosen by Christ that it is automatically given, in silence both as to ceremony and words, when the priest is ordained: i.e. given the power which is the essence of the priesthood, to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
To argue that a power or grace can be given without any mention or indication whatsoever, is not only the height of folly, it is irrational, the human mind rejects it, and makes theology ridiculous. How can such nonsense be reconciled with the rational claim that "The Sacraments, in so far as they are perceptible and efficient signs of invisible grace, signify the grace they produce."?
The lack of the power to forgive sins, in the Novus Ordo priests assuming they are true priests for the sake of argument, since this is a power which can only be given to properly ordained Catholic priests, is confirmed by the new consecration rite for the Conciliar bishops. The first of the powers asked for from the Holy Ghost, is that of forgiving sins. If as priests they had it, as do all catholic priests, then not only would it be illogical to ask God for this again, but it would be sacrilegious. In actual fact as has been demonstrated on many occasions by many writers, they are not priests, merely clergymen, or Presidents as Paul VI defined them.
Some claim that the oriental rites, accepted as valid by the Catholic Church, do not contain any reference to the power to forgive sin. Our reply is that unless some form of words, and maybe some ceremony, is used either at the ordination of a priest, or some time later, as happened when Our Lord conferred this power, then no such power is or can be given. And if the argument that the use of these words instituted by Christ was absent, that is to say never used, or some equivalent for 1200 years, then the sacrament of Penance was lost forever. The power has to be trans¬mitted or it dies. This questions the divine origin of the Church.
During Our Lord's life on earth, some of the scribes, questioned Him, when as recorded in St. Mark's Gospel 11, v. 5. He said to the man sick of the palsy. "Son thy sins are forgiven thee" What did Christ do to prove that He had this power? Did he just do nothing, or say nothing? No. He replied: "But that you may know that the son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins, He sayeth to the sick of the palsy: "I say to thee, take up thy bed and go into thy house, and immediately he arose, and taking up his bed, went his way in the sight of all." The charge of the scribes against Christ was, that He not having the power to forgive sin, was blaspheming when he said "Son thy sins are forgiven thee" So are the Novus Ordo priests. The Catholic priest who, has this power can like Christ show proof that this has been given to him. if he cannot then he has no such power, even though he could be a true priest, i.e. one to whom has been given the power, the essence of the priesthood, to change the bread and wine into the Body arid Blood of Christ, and to offer Him in Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Let us now look at another aspect of the theology of the Sacrament of Order. The essential power of changing the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the only power given by this Sacrament. It is not only a God-given power, but one where the priest stands in the place of God. "This is my Body. This is my Blood." The annexed power to forgive sin, is given separately, to one who is already a priest, as Christ did to His Apostles. Here again the priest stands in the place of God. "I absolve thee" Only God can forgive sin, but He has conferred His power to certain men. The priest has other powers, but they are different in nature, being administrative, as for example in the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.
On the 3rd of March, 1547, the Council of Trent proclaimed in Canon 1. the following:
"If anyone saith that the Sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord: or that they are, more or less than seven to wit: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order and Matrimony, or even that any of these is not truly and properly a sacrament, let him be anathema".
In spite of this dogmatic decree, writers who are theologians use terminology when discussing this Sacrament of Order, which either increases the number beyond seven, or splits the unity and oneness of the Sacrament into parts, due to a confusion between a Sacrament which gives one grace only, principally by means of what they term Matter and Form, and graces or powers which are given by similar rites, but which are not Sacraments, and cannot be, by reason of the Infallible decree of Trent. Thus the giving of the power to forgive sin, whilst transmitting a sacramental, power to the priest is not a Sacrament. The Sacrament of Order we repeat, gives one power and one only, the power to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and to offer Him in sacrifice. To quote the English Bishops once more, a priest is one who offers sacrifice, and in the case of a Catholic priest, it is the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Often the Sacrament is referred to the Sacrament of Orders as though at each stage or order towards the priesthood, the person who whilst receiving graces or powers which we do not dispute, is receiving just a part of the Sacrament, which is absurd, and probably arises from the inadequate definition of what a sacrament is. When Christ instituted this Sacrament, lie did not do it by stages, but once, and ^e gave them one Power, as stated above. The usual definition of a sacrament as being an outward sign by which grace is given to our souls, must be qualified at least by stating exactly what grace is being given, and by a reference to it being instituted thus by Christ. There is no justification or rationality in this fragmentation of the one Sacrament.
Let us quote an example of this confused and misleading thought from the Catholic dictionary by Addis and Arnold, published by Virtue & Co. Ltd., of London, in 1931. Page 603.
"This however seems the fitting place to discuss the theological question as to the essential matter and form of the orders in which the sacrament is undoubtedly given viz the orders of bishop, priest, and deacon."
As there is only one Sacrament of order, this implies fragmentation.
On page 605 of the same Dictionary, there is another assertion showing, confusion and a lack of logical reasoning. It speaks of ordination to a higher order of a person who has not received a lower order, and claims that in the giving of the higher order, the lower order powers are included. This may be true as far as the four minor, and two major orders, prior to the Priesthood, which is the object of the Sacrament of Order is concerned, but it reasons the realms of absurdity, when stretched as Michael Davies does in the publication Approaches No 71, 1980 when he defends the validity of Archbishops ordination by Cardinal Liénart, and he writes "that there is only one Sacrament of Order, and episcopal consecration has the effect of giving it to the Bishop in its fulness. He is stating that even if the Archbishop's ordination was invalid, he became a priest just, merely by the fact of the rite of Consecration to the Bishopric. This is nonsense: nothing can give the "fulness" to something if that something does not already exist.
Davies goes on the say "Indeed, in the early centuries those chosen as bishops were consecrated without priestly ordination." "We give no examples, nor reasons to justify such an assertion, which we contend if true, means that these so-called bishops, would not have co power to transmit to others, the powers of the priest, which they did not and could not possess. Morinus denies that antiquity furnishes any instance of a person who was not already a priest, being consecrated a bishop. The fulness of the priesthood can only be given to a priest.
The Catholic Dictionary referred to, states that St. Cyprian after being ordained a priest, was then made a bishop, without passing through the lower grades, and says the same of St. Augustine. There is nothing wrong with this. All the orders prior to the priesthood were manmade. The Apostles did not pass through these, and nearly all of them, have been abolished by the Conciliar Church. This confirms the absurdity of the expression "the Sacrament of Orders". Furthermore the rite used for the consecration of bishops at least in modern times, has no intention or reference to producing the grace and character of the priesthood, nor is it a sacrament. It is a rite as we shall discuss later, to give additional powers to the priest. There is one Sacrament and one only of Order, the Priesthood.
In a book entitled "The Teaching of the Catholic Church" edited by Canon George Smith, D.D. Ph.D, published in 1948 there is an article by C. Cronin which reveals the same confusion. On page 1046 he writes. "The Presbyterate is therefore a sacrament. The Episcopate too, though it is not a distinct Order from the Presbyterate, is also a Sacrament. This makes eight Sacraments in defiance of the Decree of Trent. He then adds further confusion, by saying "The Presbyterate and the episcopate however are not two distinct Sacraments, nor do they produce in the soul, two distinct sacramental characters." Does one conclude that the one Sacrament is split in two? Cronin goes on to say "the Presbyterate only receive an incomplete, imperfect, immature character". These are just words, no explanation is given as to what this character is, nor how or why God confers an imperfect, immature, and only half a sacrament. Is this what Christ did when he institutes the Sacrament on Maundy Thursday. Does this mean that the greater part of the clergy during nearly two thousand years, have only had an imperfect, immature sacrament? It is so irrational and absurd that it hardly merits further thought. The real facts we contend, is that the priest receives the Sacrament of Order whole and entire, that is he receives the grace or power to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and to offer Him up in sacrifice. The bishop in this sense is no more a priest than one who is not a bishop. What distinguishes him, is that by a separate rite, he is given among other things the power to transmit the power of the priest, to others, and likewise the power to pass on the power to forgive sin, thus ensuring the continuance of these two Sacram¬ents, the Eucharist, and Penance. By having the power of transmission of two essential powers which he possesses as a priest, he the bishop has the fullness of the priesthood, he is the High Priest. The rite which gives him these powers or graces, is not a sacrament, and cannot be, in the light of the Decree of Trent, even though the means whereby this is done, contain what the theologians call Matter and Form.
For a sacrament to be valid, at least three essential elements are required: matter, that is to say some material sign, such as the imposition of hands, the giving of the chalice with wine, and the bread, accompanied with appropriate words, such as: Receive the power to offer sacrifice, so that the grace or power conferred is clearly signified in the Matter and the Form, which constitutes the words accompanying the material act. Should this meaning not be sufficiently clear in the Matter and Form, it must be so, somewhere in the body of the rite. It was this failure on the part of the Reformers in the 16th century, to say precisely what they meant by the word "priest" which was the foundation for the declaration by Pope Leo XIII that the ordinat¬ions under this rite of theirs was "Null and Void."
The Council of Trent in Session VII stated:
"The seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the substance, that is to say, over those things which as is proved from the sources of Divine Revelation, Christ Our Lord established to be kept as Sacramental signs."
What were the Sacramental signs which Christ used when He instituted the Sacrament of 0rder as divinely revealed in the Scriptures?
In St. Luke's Gospel Chap. 22, v. 17 we read:
"And having taken the chalice, He gave thanks and said: Take and divide it among you."
And in verse 19 we read:
"And taking the bread, He gave thanks, and brake and gave to them saying."
"This is my Body which is given for you. Do this in commemoration of me"
The Council of Trent declared under anathema, that the words "Do this in commemoration of me" constituted the institution of the Sacrament of Order.
It seems to us most clear that the Matter of the Sacrament as instituted by Christ, was the giving of the chalice, containing the wine, each Apostle taking a portion, and likewise the bread. The Form as decreed by Trent were the words quoted above.
It is obvious and rational to conclude that the words or Form which Christ used could not be used by the Apostles or their successors, but surely the Matter, the giving of the chalice and the wine therein, and the bread must be of the substance as instituted by Christ?, and which according to the teaching of the Council of Trent the Church has no authority to change?
In the light of this clear Scriptural account of what took place when Christ instituted the Sacrament of Order, what has history to say of this
The Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, published in Paris in 1931 contains an article on the Sacrament of Order by Fr. J. Perinelle O.P. which in column 1316 states:
"The history of the Sacrament of Order shows that in the first nine centuries, the porrection ( the handing of the instruments i.e. the chalice containing the wine, and the paten containing the host) was totally unknown in the rite of ordination, The Decree of Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence in 1437, made it essential it not the one essential of the Sacrament of Order. On the other hand, Pontifical acts have accepted as valid, ordinations in the East, made without the porrection of instruments."
Although the author speaks of the Sacrament of Order, and not Orders, it is not absolutely clear that he is talking of the Priesthood, which we maintain is the one and only Sacrament of Order, but there is no doubt whatsoever that Pope Eugene IV was speaking of the priesthood, and this was in accordance with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, nearly two centuries earlier.
The article give no evidence in support of the claim that the porrection of the instruments was unknown for the first nine centuries, nor any details of the Eastern ordination rites. Nor are we able to dispute these statements. The Council of Florence however in no way indicates that its decree is related to only a four centuries old ceremony, nor does the author explain why in the light of the Gospel account of the institution of the Sacrament, and the giving of the instruments, the chalice cont¬aining the wine, and the bread, the use of this ceremony was not known for a nine centuries after its first use?
According to Suarez, the Decree of Florence was an infallible one, "emanating from the Solemn and Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church." The Dictionnaire also states, but gives no details, that "the greater part of authors of the 16th and 17th century centuries thought likewise."
The Catholic rite in use, from the tenth century until its abolition by Paul VI in 1968, contained the ceremony of the handing, over of the instruments, with the accompanying prayer: "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".
In volume 2 of the Dictionnaire column 1320, it states, (contrary to its previous statement) that the "porrection of the instruments was unknown for the first nine centuries, that Dominique Soto, Gregory of Valencia, Estius and Others claim that the perfection of the instruments goes back to Apostolic Times, or at least the equivalent can be found. Unfortunately no evidence is given to support this, nor for the claim by Gormache and Jean Cabass, that the imposition of hands, is the rite instituted by Christ, and that the Church has the right to add conditions for validity, of which the tradition of the instruments would be one."
The use of instruments, in orders, other that the priesthood, and the confused thought and writings, as to what constitutes the Sacrament of Order, leads to serious uncertainty as to what a writer is referring to, whether it be in reference to the Catholic of Eastern rites.
On the basis one must presume, that the decree of Pope Eugene IV was not an infallible one, Pope Pius XII issued in 1947 his Decree, Sacramentum Ordinis.
If the solemn Decree of Florence can be changed, one must presume that that of Pius XII can be also, in fact he claimed the right of the Church to change the rules, and this has been done in respect of his own Decree by the Conciliar Church.
Sacramentum Ordinis also implies the fragmentation of the Sacrament, because it speaks of the Sacrament of Orders, and in so far as the handing over of the instruments is concerned, it appears to apply to orders, other than the Priesthood, as well.
Sacramentum Ordinis states:
"Now it is evident that the Sacraments of the New Law in so far as they are perceptible and efficient signs of invisible grace should signify the grace they produce ... Power and grace are found sufficiently signified in all rites of the Universal Church of different periods and places, by the imposition of hands and the words determining it ..., the Roman Church has always held as valid the ordinations conferred in the Greek rite, without the handing over of instruments, so that in the Council of Florence itself, in which union with the Greeks and the Roman Church was affected, the Greeks were not required to change the rite of ordination, or to insert therein the handing over of instruments. Indeed the Church desired that in Rome itself, the Greeks be ordained according to their own rite. From this it follows that according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself did not require the handing over of the instruments for the substance and validity of this Sacrament."
If this is true of the Council of Florence, how does it come about that its decree was regarded as an infallible one as we have quoted?
How does it explain away, the use of the instruments as revealed in the Scriptures by Christ? If this is of the substance and Trent says the substance cannot be changed, why did not Florence say so, or alternatively decree to the contrary, that the handing over of the instruments was not necessary and that the imposition of the hands was sufficient? If the instruments were not the substance of the Sacrament what was? If in accepting the validity of the imposition of the hands, by the Greeks, why did not Florence make its ruling uniform?
Pius XII goes on to say:
"But if this has been sometimes also necessary for validity through the will and rule of the Church, all know that the Church is also able to change and to abrogate what she has established."
He is of course referring to the hanging of the instruments, but this leaves unanswered the question. Was it Christ or the Church who used the instruments as the Matter?
Whilst not contesting the right of the Church to change the things which she has established, a change requires a reason, and Pius XII gives no reason for changing the handing of the instru¬ments to the imposition of the hands.
Pius XII says as we have quoted that "the Power and grace are sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands, and the words which accompany it. These words are "We pray Thee, Almighty Father confer the dignity of the Priesthood on these Thy servants. Renew in their hearts the spirit of holiness, that, they may obtain the office of Second Rank received from Thee O God, and may by the example of their lives, inculcate the pattern of holy living." They are certainly not so clear in their signification as the handing of the chalice with the wine and the altar bread, and the words, not sometime after, as the above, but immediately with the handing over. "Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, etc. to celebrate Mass, both for the living arid the dead in the name of the Lord." We question if they are sufficiently clear They do not indicate what is meant by the word Priesthood, and we are once again in the situation of the Anglican Orders. In our criticism, let us emphasize again, that we are discussing only the priesthood, not any of the minor or major orders leading up to it.
Pius XII ended up with the following:
"Finally, what we have declared and provided is by no 'means to be understood in the sense that it be permitted even in the slightest detail to neglect or omit the other rites which are prescribed in the Roman Pontifical: On the contrary, We even command that all the prescribed details of the Roman Pontifical be religiously observed and carried out."
The only reason for this command that we can see, is that the imposition of hands, and the determining words, do not signify cleanly and beyond doubt, the grace and power produced, namely to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and to offer Him in the Sacrifice of the Mass. The handing of the instruments and the accompanying prayer do. They clearly signify what is the meaning of priesthood.
Was this decree of 1947 the first step in the destruction of the Priesthood? The Reformers of Vatican II seized on it as did their supporters, to justify the validity of their new rite of ordination. "All that is needed for validity is the proper Matter and Form? the handing of the instruments and the prayer, was left, out, among other things. They treat this teaching of Matter and Form, as though it was some kind of magic word like Abracadabra, whether it means anything or nothing. We suggest that the meaning of any ceremony or prayers is absolutely essential, as did Pope Leo XIII when he condemned Anglican Orders.
In leaving out the handing of the instruments, and the prayer, the Catholic meaning of the priesthood disappeared. And their intention to destroy the Catholic priesthood, (one who offers the Sacrifice of the Mass) was demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt, when Paul VI defined what he and the other apostates meant both by the Mass, and the Priest, as follows:
"The Supper of the Lord is the sacred Gathering of the assembly of the People of God, reunited under the Presidency of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord"
Compare this with the definition of the Catechism:
"The holy Mass is the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, really present on the Altar under the appearance of bread and wine, and offered to God for the living and the dead."
Reformers used the same matter, the imposition of hands, and the same Form, or words which Pius XII stated "sufficiently signified the power or grace conferred". This is clearly not true, and it is the changed meaning of what a priest is, that reveals the external intention, as Leo XIII termed it, to bring another, and non-Catholic rite. It is this which lies at the heart of the case for condemning the rite of Paul VI as invalid. In addition as can be seen from the above definition, not only is the priest, only a President, but the Sacrifice of the Mass is now only a Celebration of the Memorial of the Lord's Supper. And the words of Consecration became merely a narrative of the word of institution,
What made Pius XII issue a decree contrary to the Council of Florence? What made him open the door for the Reformers? Was he tainted with Modernism? Was this why he brought in the liturgical reforms for Holy Week in 1947? Until all the questions which we have raised about the Sacrament of Order, rationally and therefore satisfactorily, then integrity of Catholic theology on this Sacrament, is in doubt.
The Episcopacy
Whether the Apostles received the authority to transmit two fundamental powers, that of Changing the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and the power of absolution, just from the fact that they were given these powers by Christ, or whether, some other rite took place, is unknown. That is certain is that the Apostles had to have the right to transmit these powers, in order that the two Sacraments of the Eucharist, and Penance, could continue after their deaths. It would seem nevertheless that from early days, certain priests, called bishops, were given this authority arid power, and that others, the majority were not.
In the Roman Pontifical in use until its suppression by Paul VI in 1968, the rite to bestow this power, this grace, or this authority, contained, even though it is not a Sacrament, the so-called Matter and Form. As for a sacrament, it is rational to require, that these two elements, or at the very least, the context of the rite, should signify clearly what grace or power is being conferred. In the rite referred to, was the following.
"A bishop must judge, interpret, ordain, offer, baptize, and confirm" ... Let us pray my dear brethren that the goodness of the All Powerful God, may provide for the advantage of His Church, by distributing an abundance of his graces on this Elect" "This is why we pray to you Lord to give this grace to your servant chosen by you to be raised to the ministry of the supreme priesthood." It thus defines the powers of a bishop, the most important being Ordination, and then asks God to raise the candidate to this office.
In contrast, the new rite of Paul VI, makes no reference at all to the power to ordain, in the following words it asks for three powers:
The Principal consecrator in the prayer of consecration says:
"Through the Spirit who gives the grace of the high priesthood, grant them the power
To forgive sin as you have commanded.
To assign ministries as you have decreed.
To loose every bond by the authority which you gave to your Apostles.
Just as in the rite for ordaining a priest, a new meaning is given as to what a priest is, so in this consecration rite a new meaning is given to the words high priesthood. Moreover it confirms that the priest has no power given to him to forgive sin. If he had, this plea would be blasphemous and sacrilegious.
It is incredible that experts should draw up such a rite, with no mention at all of the chief power required by a bishop. Unless as in the case of the priesthood, the intention was the same, namely to destroy entirely the priesthood. This rite like that of the priesthood is invalid, and when confronted with this charge, the conciliar Church remains silent.
This means the inevitable destruction of the Catholic Church. How then can this be reconciled with Our Lord's promise that He will be with His Church until the end of time? Maybe the end of time is nigh.
From a purely human point of view is there any hope of saving a remnant?
On the 24th of December 1971, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre a French Archbishop, and onetime Head of the Holy Ghost Fathers, celebrated once more the Catholic Mass, known as the Tridentine Mass or the Mass of St. Pius V., proclaimed by this Pope to valid and lawful in perpetuity. In 1970 he had established at Écône in Switzerland, a seminary for the training of Catholic priests in opposition to the Conciliar religion. He has thus ensured the continuance of the Catholic priesthood, during his lifetime, but bishops are necessary to ordain. Will he realize in time that. Home has apostatized, the occupier of the Throne of Peter, is a usurper, that the religion of Vatican II is not the Catholic religion, and consecrate one or more bishops? The sands of time are running out fast. Or will God save His Church, through the bishops which Archbishop Peter Martin
Ngô-dinh-Thuc, Archbishop of Hué in Vietnam, consecrated in 1981:?
Bishop Moises Carmona of Acapulco, Mexico, in Toulon, France.
Bishop Adolfo Zamora of Giernavaca, Mexico
Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, O.P. of France.
or by:
Bishop George Musey, consecrated by Bishop Carmona April 1st, 1982
Bishop Louis Vezelis O.F.M., consecrated by Bishop Musey in Buffalo, New York, on 24th August, 1983
Bishop Conrad Altenbach, consecrated by Bishop Musey on May, 24th 1984 at Milwaukee, Michigan, U.S.A.
Bishop Ralph Siebert, consecrated by Bishop Altenbach on the same day.
Bishop Günther Storck, consecrated by Bishop des Lauriers in France on the 30th of April, 1984.
At Munich, on the 25th of February, 1982, Archbishop Thuc made the following declaration.
"As a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, I declare, the See of Rome being vacant, it is my duty to do everything to assure the reservation of the Roman Catholic Church for the internal Salvation of Souls."
Will the Catholic Church be reduced to a mere handful, as Robert Hugh Benson foretold in his prophetic novel "Lord of the World", before the world comes to its end? Will the prophecy of St. Malachy, according to which there is only one more Pope to come after John-Paul II, before the last Pope of all, the Second Peter arrives for the end comes to us. And in his calculation, did St. Malachy take into account that John Paul II like his three predecessors, is an anti-pope? Time alone will tell.
|
