Why can't trads get along?

[Sbyvl36]

This piece on NO Watch is full of absolute nonsense and illogic along with doctrinal incorrectness:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sad-case-zuhlsdorf.htm

and I am no fan of Father Zuhlsdorf.

I visited the page you linked.  On it I found a lengthy criticism of Fr. Z, random criticisms of other priests (as if guilty by association), and some loaded language in general.  While I agree that it's yellow journalism (my term), which in itself tends to undermine the credibility of any such material, can you enumerate which "doctrinal errors" N.O.Watch has engaged in here or in previous content?

(Not matters of opinion, naturally, but assertions which are doctrinally at odds with Sacred Tradition?)

P.S. I do not subscribe or otherwise contribute to this website.  I don't have a particular side to promote.  I'm just looking for precision as to the doctrinal matters.

Keep looking, because I can't find any.

[Older Salt]

This piece on NO Watch is full of absolute nonsense and illogic along with doctrinal incorrectness:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sad-case-zuhlsdorf.htm

and I am no fan of Father Zuhlsdorf.

You are not providing specifics.  What in that article contradicts Catholicism?

For one, calling an ordained Catholic priest a "Mr"

The New Rite of Ordination is invalid, so "Fr." Z is a layman.

Prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt as you must to make such an absurd statement.

[Older Salt]

This piece on NO Watch is full of absolute nonsense and illogic along with doctrinal incorrectness:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sad-case-zuhlsdorf.htm

and I am no fan of Father Zuhlsdorf.

I visited the page you linked.  On it I found a lengthy criticism of Fr. Z, random criticisms of other priests (as if guilty by association), and some loaded language in general.  While I agree that it's yellow journalism (my term), which in itself tends to undermine the credibility of any such material, can you enumerate which "doctrinal errors" N.O.Watch has engaged in here or in previous content?

(Not matters of opinion, naturally, but assertions which are doctrinally at odds with Sacred Tradition?)

P.S. I do not subscribe or otherwise contribute to this website.  I don't have a particular side to promote.  I'm just looking for precision as to the doctrinal matters.

Keep looking, because I can't find any.

It is full of them if you eyes to see and a well formed conscience.

[Miriam_M]

This piece on NO Watch is full of absolute nonsense and illogic along with doctrinal incorrectness:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sad-case-zuhlsdorf.htm

and I am no fan of Father Zuhlsdorf.

I visited the page you linked.  On it I found a lengthy criticism of Fr. Z, random criticisms of other priests (as if guilty by association), and some loaded language in general.  While I agree that it's yellow journalism (my term), which in itself tends to undermine the credibility of any such material, can you enumerate which "doctrinal errors" N.O.Watch has engaged in here or in previous content?

(Not matters of opinion, naturally, but assertions which are doctrinally at odds with Sacred Tradition?)

P.S. I do not subscribe or otherwise contribute to this website.  I don't have a particular side to promote.  I'm just looking for precision as to the doctrinal matters.

Keep looking, because I can't find any.

It is full of them if you eyes to see and a well formed conscience.

Are you suggesting that I do not have a well-formed  conscience?  On what grounds do you say that?  Or are you addressing Sbyvl?

Again, I visited the page, and was put off by the hyperbolic and ad hominem tone of it, so I skimmed it until I got to the list of other priests being marginalized.  If someone asked me to summarize, I would say that the author(s) condemn current mainstream Catholicism and the entire adulation of personalities, including the so-called "conservative" Catholics whose vocations have so far (allegedly) focused mostly on themselves.  Although I agree with the implication that much of mainstream Catholicism today is shallow and focused on cult of personalities, the page is not light but heat:  not, per se, an argument about specific doctrines.  When asked to provide specifics, you haven't given us more than this page.  I'm always happy to read about and discuss fallacious doctrine. 

Is the surrounding of clerical titles in quotation marks the doctrinal matter you're objecting to?

Separately and O/T, regarding pages to visit, I find this perhaps more salient for exposing the profit motive and the 'personal glory' impulse  in today's mainstream Catholicism:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/right-on-the-money.htm

[Older Salt]

No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.

Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.

This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.

It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.

[Roland Deschain2]

No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.

Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.

This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.

It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.

But therein lies the rub. If you look at the two prayers, which comprise the form, side by side comparing the old and the new Episcopal consecration rites, we should all be able to agree that the two prayers have very little in common.

The question really hinges on what is meant by spiritus principalis in the new rite and the fact that the mentioning on the perfecting or finishing of the priesthood mentioned in the old rite is absent in the new.

So the question really is: Has the essential form been maintained?

But this may take us too far afield but just to point out that you seem to have engaged in a bit of "begging the question."

[Older Salt]

No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.

Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.

This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.

It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.

But therein lies the rub. If you look at the two prayers, which comprise the form, side by side comparing the old and the new Episcopal consecration rites, we should all be able to agree that the two prayers have very little in common.

The question really hinges on what is meant by spiritus principalis in the new rite and the fact that the mentioning on the perfecting or finishing of the priesthood mentioned in the old rite is absent in the new.

So the question really is: Has the essential form been maintained?

But this may take us too far afield but just to point out that you seem to have engaged in a bit of "begging the question."

Yes sir.

You do make a good point.

It well past my "paygrade" to decide this matter as the Church decides it.

[Roland Deschain2]

No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.

Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.

This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.

It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.

But therein lies the rub. If you look at the two prayers, which comprise the form, side by side comparing the old and the new Episcopal consecration rites, we should all be able to agree that the two prayers have very little in common.

The question really hinges on what is meant by spiritus principalis in the new rite and the fact that the mentioning on the perfecting or finishing of the priesthood mentioned in the old rite is absent in the new.

So the question really is: Has the essential form been maintained?

But this may take us too far afield but just to point out that you seem to have engaged in a bit of "begging the question."

Yes sir.

You do make a good point.

It well past my "paygrade" to decide this matter as the Church decides it.

You and I both. My point was simply to show that it is a matter that has been discussed, and not for insignificant reasons.

[VeraeFidei]

No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.

Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.

This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.

It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.

OS, with all due respect, you are missing the point. Novus Ordo Watch, and sedes generally, do not dispute that doctrine one whit. They dispute that the "Supreme earthly Legislator" made those changes. There is a significant difference between those two positions.

[Miriam_M]

No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.

I think (I hope) that you forgot the second "not."   

[Older Salt]

No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.

I think (I hope) that you forgot the second "not."   

Yes.
Sorry about the mistake.

[Michael Wilson]

No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.

Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.

This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.

It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.

But therein lies the rub. If you look at the two prayers, which comprise the form, side by side comparing the old and the new Episcopal consecration rites, we should all be able to agree that the two prayers have very little in common.

The question really hinges on what is meant by spiritus principalis in the new rite and the fact that the mentioning on the perfecting or finishing of the priesthood mentioned in the old rite is absent in the new.

So the question really is: Has the essential form been maintained?

But this may take us too far afield but just to point out that you seem to have engaged in a bit of "begging the question."

The problem is worse than this: According to P. Pius XII, the form must mention the conferring of two distinct things: 1. The Power of Orders 2. The Holy Ghost.  The new form only mentions the giving of the  "spiritus principalis"; this could mean either the one or the other (take your pick); but it cannot mean both. One of the main elements of the form is therefore lacking.

[Non Nobis]

No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.

Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.

This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.

It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.

But therein lies the rub. If you look at the two prayers, which comprise the form, side by side comparing the old and the new Episcopal consecration rites, we should all be able to agree that the two prayers have very little in common.

The question really hinges on what is meant by spiritus principalis in the new rite and the fact that the mentioning on the perfecting or finishing of the priesthood mentioned in the old rite is absent in the new.

So the question really is: Has the essential form been maintained?

But this may take us too far afield but just to point out that you seem to have engaged in a bit of "begging the question."

The problem is worse than this: According to P. Pius XII, the form must mention the conferring of two distinct things: 1. The Power of Orders 2. The Holy Ghost.  The new form only mentions the giving of the  "spiritus principalis"; this could mean either the one or the other (take your pick); but it cannot mean both. One of the main elements of the form is therefore lacking.

Are these the (translated) words of the form in the old rite and new rite:  (This is from some old notes I have)

Episcopal Consecration  Ordination
OLD RITE:
"Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing."

NEW RITE:

"So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name" (Ordination Prayer).


How is the conferring of the Holy Ghost signified in the old form?  "The heavenly anointing"?

Aren't both the Holy Ghost and the Power of Orders mentioned in the new form:  The Holy Ghost: "the governing Spirit, whom you gave" and the Power of Orders: "that power which is from you".  There are two separate things referred to: the power and the One who gave it (who is Himself also given).

Hmm, after reading more carefully, I think that: "that power which is from you" and "the governing Spirit"are talking about the same thing.  The Father gives the power/Holy Spirit to the priest, the same power/Holy Spirit whom He gave to Christ and to the Apostles. But it is not explicitly said that the power (the Holy Spirit) is given for the fullness of priestly ministry.

I read an article from Fr. Cekada on this matter but don't remember much and wasn't entirely convinced.

This argument doesn't end with an isolated consideration of the two forms - it goes on to the question as to whether the new form is in fact so close to (or derived from) other old valid (Eastern) forms that it too must be valid.

[Roland Deschain2]

No Miriam I am not saying your conscience is well formed.

Among the glaring doctrinal mistakes in that piece and almost all of that tripe is the doctrinal assertion that the Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 are invalid.

This is an absolute non truth and a huge doctrinal error.

It is a doctrine of the Church that the Supreme earthly Legislator may change a Liturgical Rite if the Matter and Form are maintained.

But therein lies the rub. If you look at the two prayers, which comprise the form, side by side comparing the old and the new Episcopal consecration rites, we should all be able to agree that the two prayers have very little in common.

The question really hinges on what is meant by spiritus principalis in the new rite and the fact that the mentioning on the perfecting or finishing of the priesthood mentioned in the old rite is absent in the new.

So the question really is: Has the essential form been maintained?

But this may take us too far afield but just to point out that you seem to have engaged in a bit of "begging the question."

The problem is worse than this: According to P. Pius XII, the form must mention the conferring of two distinct things: 1. The Power of Orders 2. The Holy Ghost.  The new form only mentions the giving of the  "spiritus principalis"; this could mean either the one or the other (take your pick); but it cannot mean both. One of the main elements of the form is therefore lacking.

Are these the (translated) words of the form in the old rite and new rite:  (This is from some old notes I have)

Episcopal Consecration  Ordination
OLD RITE:
"Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing."

NEW RITE:

"So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name" (Ordination Prayer).


How is the conferring of the Holy Ghost signified in the old form?  "The heavenly anointing"?

Aren't both the Holy Ghost and the Power of Orders mentioned in the new form:  The Holy Ghost: "the governing Spirit, whom you gave" and the Power of Orders: "that power which is from you".  There are two separate things referred to: the power and the One who gave it (who is Himself also given).

Hmm, after reading more carefully, I think that: "that power which is from you" and "the governing Spirit"are talking about the same thing.  The Father gives the power/Holy Spirit to the priest, the same power/Holy Spirit whom He gave to Christ and to the Apostles. But it is not explicitly said that the power (the Holy Spirit) is given for the fullness of priestly ministry.

I read an article from Fr. Cekada on this matter but don't remember much and wasn't entirely convinced.

This argument doesn't end with an isolated consideration of the two forms - it goes on to the question as to whether the new form is in fact so close to (or derived from) other old valid (Eastern) forms that it too must be valid.

Two issues:

1) The "Governing spirit" may be the Holy Ghost or it may not. It is not explicit what is being asked for here.

2) The new form mentions the "Governing" spirit which speaks of jurisdiction but nowhere mentions the Sacramental power of the order being conferred. Whereas the old rite explicitly mentions that the grace being received "perfects" or completes that which has already been conferred through the sacerdotal order.

[Michael Wilson]

Non Nobis stated:

This argument doesn't end with an isolated consideration of the two forms - it goes on to the question as to whether the new form is in fact so close to (or derived from) other old valid (Eastern) forms that it too must be valid.

That would have been a very strong argument; but the problem is that the new form is an almost exact duplicate of the Maronite form for the enthronement of an Archbishop.  It is not used to Consecrate bishops.  The Dominican's of Avrille in their original article,  tasked Dr. Cooramaswami for having made a blunder in publishing an erroneous version of the Maronite Consecratory form.  But it was the Dominicans that were mistaken.  The members of Rore Scientifica interviewed a Maronite doctor of Canon law and asked him if the form cited by the Dominicans had ever been used to Consecrated bishops, and he responded in the negative.