1P5 Article: The New Rite of Consecration is Valid.

[Xavier]

One Peter Five just published an article I sent, with a few edits, on the validity of the New Episcopal Rite of Consecration. Link below.

From: https://onepeterfive.com/new-rite-consecration-valid/ God Bless.

The New Rite of Episcopal Consecration Valid, albeit deficient and problematic

In fall 2005, Rev. Fr. Pierre Marie of the SSPX, a traditional Dominican Priest in Avrille, France, published a detailed and excellent study (which is now online here) in Sel de la Terre documenting that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration (in use in the Latin Church since 1969) is in itself valid (albeit problematic for other reasons).[1] More recently last fall, on Aug 27, 2021, the SSPX put out a video, "Are Novus Ordo Priests and Bishops validly ordained" where Fr. Mcfarland thoroughly shows that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is indeed a valid rite for Consecrating Bishops.



In the 2005 study, Fr. Marie wrote,

This comprehensive study was compiled to settle a debate that has been circulating in traditional Catholic circles. Some writers have examined the new rite of episcopal consecration and concluded that it must be invalid. Since this would cause manifest problems if it were true and due to the heightened awareness of such a theory, we present a study of this question concluding that it is valid.

Since many are new to the subject, and since some of the issues involved are complex, we present here below a brief summary of the study.

The main arguments for the validity of the rite are as follows:

(1)    It is found in an ancient work called the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome.

(2)    It appears to be largely derived from two Eastern Rites, the Coptic and West Syrian.

(3)    The Indefectibility of the Catholic Church is against 50+ years now of invalid consecration.

Valid Forms, East and West

This is how Pope Paul VI explained his rationale for the change by quoting Vatican II:

By episcopal consecration is conferred the fullness of the sacrament of Orders, that fullness which in the Church's liturgical practice and in the language of the holy Fathers of the Church is undoubtedly called the high priesthood, the apex of the sacred ministry. But episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and governing. These, however, of their very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college. For from tradition, which is expressed especially in liturgical rites and in the practice of the Church both of the West and of the East, it is clear that, by means of the imposition of hands and the words of consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is so conferred, and the sacred character so impressed, that bishops in an eminent and visible way undertake Christ's own role as Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest, and that they act in his person (Lumen Gentium, 21).

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

The Roman Pontiff then comments on the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus:

To these words must be added many other admirable points of doctrine concerning the apostolic succession of the bishops as well as their tasks and offices which, although they are already contained in the Order of episcopal consecration, ought to be expressed, it seems, in a better and more accurate way. For the better attainment of this end it has been judged opportune to take from the ancient sources the prayer of consecration found in what is called the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, written at the beginning of the third century and which is still preserved, in great part, in the liturgy of Ordination of the Copts and of the Western Syrians. In this way the agreement of both Eastern and Western tradition with regard to the apostolic task of the bishops will be borne witness to in the act of Ordination itself.

Setting aside questions of legitimacy, fittingness, and pastoral concerns, there is nothing which invalidates the Sacrament of orders by replacing one valid form with another valid and traditional form. The aforementioned Fr. Marie examined these claims of the Paul VI in a clear tabular comparison which shows that these assertions are indeed accurate.

In his first interview book, His Excellency Athanasius Schneider commented on this controversy in the following way:

Pope Paul VI changed the sacramental form only of the episcopal consecration. The sacramental form of the priestly and diaconal ordination remained the same. To administer a sacrament validly there is necessary valid matter, valid form, and the intention to do what the Church does. In this case, the question is only of the form. Actually, Paul VI took the sacramental form of the episcopal ordination from of the Byzantine Rite [sic., i.e. eastern rites]. The popes always through history recognised the validity of the Byzantine episcopal consecration. I don't see a doctrinal problem in the sacramental form of episcopal ordination, introduced by Paul VI. The same Pope took the sacramental form of the sacrament of Confirmation from the Byzantine rite. However, the Catholic Church always recognised the validity of the Confirmation in the Byzantine church. Hence, the theory that says the new rite of episcopal ordination is invalid is without foundation and is not serious.[2]

... [read more in the link]

[Nazianzen]

From your SSPX link:  "Soon, Archbishop Lefebvre would no longer tolerate participation at Masses celebrated in the new rite except passively, for example at funerals."

Just be honest.  Honesty is a virtue.  Lying by omission is still lying.  It's a sin. 

[Xavier]

Naz,

That's not the topic, first of all. The topic is the Validity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration. What did +ABL say about that: As late as 1988, +ABL believed:

"I. TEXT OF THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Society of St. Pius X founded by me:  Promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops ... Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II".

Taken from: https://fsspx.org/en/protocol-agreement-may-5-1988

Secondly, regarding +ABL's stance on the New Mass, Michael Davies, who knew the Archbishop personally and was on speaking terms with him, attests that this was his stance in 1980:

"I had the opportunity of a long interview with the Archbishop a few weeks later when we discussed the matter. He was kind enough to summarize his considered opinion for me in writing (dated 9 May 1980). It read as follows: Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass."

Taken from. https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm Recently, Bishop Williamson has made similar statements about the NOM. +ABL's nuanced views on the NOM were not those of Fr. Wathen.

Here's an article defending +ABL from the Indult Traditionalist perspective:

No wonder Cardinal Oddi said the drama with Archbishop Lefebvre is that he has "too much Faith." He understood well the treasure of our faith, and thus the treasure of our Tradition.

Cardinal Oddi's words show the Roman Church regards Archbishop Lefebvre as one of Her faithful sons, though he made a few mistakes.

We cannot forget two of perhaps the greatest and strongest traditional Catholic bishops in the Church today, Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Bishop Carlo Maria Vigano, have had words of appreciation, esteem and praise for Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X.

Taken from: https://onepeterfive.com/in-praise-of-archbishop-lefebvre-and-defense-of-the-sspx/

God Bless,
Xavier.

[Michael Wilson]

The above article and your post omitted to mention that Fr. Pierre Marie O.P. The author of the cited article, has since then modified his position and advocated the re-ordination of all those priests ordained in the new rite because of the doubtful nature of the new rite of Episcopal Consecration.
As Pope Leo XIII stated in Apostolicae Curae:

... On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.

A whole new religion was inaugurated at Vatican II along with new prayers, sacraments, catechisms, laws and morals. The new sacraments reflect this new anti-Catholic religion of the man making himself God.
Here is the quote from Paul VI, provided by Goldfinch:

"For it is not a matter merely of collecting and spreading the council's teachings, but of transforming oneself into the image of the conciliar Church [l'Eglise conciliaire], renewed in its prayer, in the expression of its faith and hope and in the clarity of its dialogue with all Christians and all men. In that way, each Catholic will be able to help his brother believe in Christ and recognize Him in His Church." (Saint Paul VI).

[andy]

From your SSPX link:  "Soon, Archbishop Lefebvre would no longer tolerate participation at Masses celebrated in the new rite except passively, for example at funerals."

Just be honest.  Honesty is a virtue.  Lying by omission is still lying.  It's a sin.

This is my open letter to Xavier in this regard: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27616.0

[Michael72]

The novus ordo church approved the vernacular translation of pro multis, i.e. "for you and for all men", in the consecration of the Chalice from Advent 1968 until Advent 2011 (43 years). Relying on prior Church teaching, this fails to express the effect of the sacrament of Holy Communion, thus rendering it invalid.

The same novus ordo church also produced this new rite of episcopal consecration, the form of which does not meet the criteria laid out as necessary for validity by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis, because it does not univocally express the grace of the Holy Ghost and the order being conferred.

Archbishop Lefebvre was careful to make clear in 1988 that he was not establishing a parallel Church with its own magisterium. Therefore, the official position of the SSPX, which exists for diplomatic purposes, is not binding upon the Faithful who attend their chapels.

[Xavier]

The novus ordo church approved the vernacular translation of pro multis, i.e. "for you and for all men", in the consecration of the Chalice from Advent 1968 until Advent 2011 (43 years). Relying on prior Church teaching, this fails to express the effect of the sacrament of Holy Communion, thus rendering it invalid.

The same novus ordo church also produced this new rite of episcopal consecration, the form of which does not meet the criteria laid out as necessary for validity by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis, because it does not univocally express the grace of the Holy Ghost and the order being conferred.

Archbishop Lefebvre was careful to make clear in 1988 that he was not establishing a parallel Church with its own magisterium. Therefore, the official position of the SSPX, which exists for diplomatic purposes, is not binding upon the Faithful who attend their chapels.

Christ disagrees with your opinion that 43 years of Masses (there are some 350,000 Masses offered every day, as Mal 1:11 implies and requires, so 43 years of Masses would be roughly 55 Billion Invalid Masses) were Invalid. The TLM is Superior to the NOM, and obtains more Graces from Heaven, and in the NOM itself, "For Many" is better than the incorrect translation "For All", but that incorrect translation does not invalidate the Mass. I'll post a snippet of Fr. G-L on this if I find it later on here.

Note that the Eucharistic Miracle below, in Pope Francis' own former Diocese in Buenos Aires, took place in the 90s before the correction of pro multis back to "for many". If the Catholic Church has made 100s of millions adore bread, She defected and died long ago, and our entire religion is a farce. Of course, that is not true, but that is the implication of the SVist argument.

From: https://dowym.com/voices/5-incredible-eucharistic-miracles-from-the-last-25-years/

1) Argentina 1992, 1994, 1996
Where: The parish of Saint Mary in Buenos Aires

What happened: While both other miracles are definitely worth finding out about, the most interesting and comprehensive study was done with the 1996 Eucharist. It began bleeding when consecrated and part of it became human tissue. After several intense studies, it was found that the tissue was part of a heart, a muscle of the myocardium, the left ventricle, the muscle that gives life to the whole heart and body.

The tissue revealed further that it belonged to a person who had gone through intense pain, experiencing extended periods of time where he could barely breathe, had immense strain put on the heart (both common feature of crucifixion) and had been stabbed in the left side. What was most insane was that despite the fact this should have killed the person, the tissue showed signs of being 'alive'.

This was evidenced by intact white blood cells being found in the tissue. This showed the heart sample was pulsating as elsewise the white blood cells would have disintegrated roughly 15 minutes outside of a living body.

Interesting fact: The Archbishop who commissioned the research was none other than the now Pope Francis!

[Xavier]

From the conclusion to the article:

Next the foremost expert on hear pathology was consulted: Professor Federico Stigibe from New York City's Columbia University. His report is sent on March 26, 2005, declaring "It is heart tissue. It has degenerative changes of the myocardium and these are due to the cells being inflamed and it is the left ventricle of the heart." Dr. Stigbe says that the patient from whom these samples come had suffered a lot (he did not know that these samples came from a host), because they have stuck him at the chest and caused a heart attack.

Even more bizarre is the existence of white blood cells. If a person's blood is drawn, within 15 minutes the white blood cells disintegrate. So how is it possible that until 2005 white blood cells remain in the sample that was taken in 1996?

And so Our Lord, by miracles that could only come from Him, clearly settles the question. The new rite is unquestionably valid, although we may say it is deficient for other reasons.

To our sedevacantist friends: there is no doubt that the new sacramental rites are valid and that the Roman Catholic Church still continues to this day. As mentioned in a previous article, all the Bishops appointed to office by Pope Ven. Pius XII have now died. Therefore, if Pope Ven. Pius XII was the last Pope, the Church would have lost Ordinary Jurisdiction, Formal Apostolicity, and defected. The Holy Roman Catholic Church does not continue in the schismatic sedevacantist sects, which are not Roman Catholic because they are not united with Rome, but it continues in the Visible Church, with thousands of bishops around the world comprising the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church. We pray you one day come back to Her.

[Michael Wilson]

Xavier,

Christ disagrees with your opinion that 43 years of Masses (there are some 350,000 Masses offered every day, as Mal 1:11 implies and requires, so 43 years of Masses would be roughly 55 Billion Invalid Masses) were Invalid. The TLM is Superior to the NOM, and obtains more Graces from Heaven, and in the NOM itself, "For Many" is better than the incorrect translation "For All", but that incorrect translation does not invalidate the Mass. I'll post a snippet of Fr. G-L on this if I find it later on here.

Of course the TLM is 'superior' to the N.O.M. The first is a Catholic rite and a true sacrifice; the second a Protestant meal, per its own self definition.

Note that the Eucharistic Miracle below, in Pope Francis' own former Diocese in Buenos Aires, took place in the 90s before the correction of pro multis back to "for many". If the Catholic Church has made 100s of millions adore bread, She defected and died long ago, and our entire religion is a farce. Of course, that is not true, but that is the implication of the SVist argument.

"By their fruits you shall know them"; if the N.O.M. Was valid and fruitful, one would witness the flourishing of the faith; instead we are living through the greatest crisis in the history of the Church, with a massive loss of faith in both the laity; clergy and religious. There is no doubt that the N.O.M. (as Msgr. Lefebvre attested), destroys the faith.

[Santantonio]

The novus ordo church approved the vernacular translation of pro multis, i.e. "for you and for all men", in the consecration of the Chalice from Advent 1968 until Advent 2011 (43 years). Relying on prior Church teaching, this fails to express the effect of the sacrament of Holy Communion, thus rendering it invalid.

Pro multis only became an issue in Church history due to the use of the vernacular; because there is no perfect translation of the Greek.
The confusion arises when one surmises that "for many", should be taken to mean "not for all", contradicting the declaration in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 that Christ died for all, though not all choose to avail of the redemption won for them by the shedding of Christ's blood.

In the Apostolic Constitution Cum Occasione of 31 May 1653 Pope Innocent X declared that it is heresy to say that Christ did not die for all men, confronting the Jansenists who taught that to maintain Christ died for all men was a Semi-Pelagian heresy. Although this is to be understood as a ruling against predestination beliefs, it does also mean that the offering of salvation is made to all men.

From Christ's own words, another time He used the same word is when He said we are worth more to the Father than "many sparrows". It is the same exact word. Therefore, one would have to believe that if the word (see link) presented as "many" did not mean "all", that we are NOT worth more than all sparrows, but only SOME of the individual sparrows; other sparrows are indeed worth more to the Father than we are. Or, just as strange, the concept that there is a certain NUMBER of sparrows which are not worth as much to the Father as a man is, after which that number of sparrows is indeed worth more than a man. https://biblehub.com/greek/pollo_n_4183.htm

Still, it was indeed a superior good to translate the Greek root, pollon, via the Latin multis, into "many" and not "all" in the Consecration, the problem being not the proper understanding (as in 2 Corinthians) but rather because it could be misunderstood to suggest universal salvation.

The same novus ordo church also produced this new rite of episcopal consecration, the form of which does not meet the criteria laid out as necessary for validity by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis, because it does not univocally express the grace of the Holy Ghost and the order being conferred.

This has been claimed but is it true? Here I will link you to a previous discussion on this, here at SD. Perhaps you could take a look at it and the priestly rite of consecration .pdf, then be more specific. https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23386.msg493025;topicseen#msg493025

[Michael72]

I come here often to read but rarely comment, because there are many here who are far more learned than I.

But then I run into someone whom I thought knew better, and read this.

How is it that you are unaware of the basic teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent?

"The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine."

[Michael72]

Note that the Eucharistic Miracle below, in Pope Francis' own former Diocese in Buenos Aires, took place in the 90s before the correction of pro multis back to "for many".

We are warned about following after miracles?

2 Thessalonians 2:9 "Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders"

[Santantonio]

I come here often to read but rarely comment, because there are many here who are far more learned than I.

But then I run into someone whom I thought knew better, and read this.

How is it that you are unaware of the basic teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent?

"The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine."

If you're talking to me, I am aware, but it would seem perhaps you are not, or the author of that piece, whom selectively truncated the Catechism for her purpose, was being disingenuous! Her article, from which you're pasting, in which she retorts B16, appears on traditioninaction and on cmri.org. She does not appropriately reference the source, for the source is not the Council itself, it is the Catechism, and in the Catechism of the exact same paragraph, she deliberately omits this line:


"we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all"

"Form Of The Eucarist", "Explanation Of The Form Used In The Consecration Of The Wine":
Catechism / From the Decree of the Council of Trent For Parish Priests /Issued by Order of St. Pius V, Supreme Pontiff
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/cattrent.htm

And, in the Trent document itself:

CANON vil—lIf anyone saith that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him be ana- thema.

https://archive.org/details/canonsdecreesofs0000coun/page/54/mode/2up

[Michael Wilson]

The Catechism teaches that here Our Lord was not speaking of the "sufficiency" of His Passion and death i.e. It was infinitely meritorious to save all men. But rather of its "efficacy", only those who co-operated with the graces of Christ's Passion would be saved.
To say that Christ's Passion was efficacious for all men, is to hold that all men are saved. The Catechism expressly stated that for this reason Our Lord did not use the words "for all" in this place.

[Santantonio]

The Catechism teaches that here Our Lord was not speaking of the "sufficiency" of His Passion and death i.e. It was infinitely meritorious to save all men. But rather of its "efficacy", only those who co-operated with the graces of Christ's Passion would be saved.
To say that Christ's Passion was efficacious for all men, is to hold that all men are saved. The Catechism expressly stated that for this reason Our Lord did not use the words "for all" in this place.

Right, but He still did shed His precious blood for all; what was required for sufficiency, regardless of it not being efficacious for some, or perhaps even for many. Think of His Sacrifice as being for (as many as will receive it), so at the moment, it was for an indefinite sum, of all the living, dead, and yet to come. To maintain otherwise was condemned at Trent. It is a Calvinist heresy.
The Koine Greek and the Latin "pro multis" does not connotate a sum, by limit or by unlimit. It simply denotes an undefined but very large number. For example, "the multitude" is of the same root. Ergo, like I mentioned in the other post about the sparrows.. it does not define a sum, or it wouldn't make sense. Thus, it was a perfect translation, and should not have been altered.