New Rite of Episcopal Consecration: Valid?

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Why is New Advent saying this when all I have ever heard is that internal intention does not affect the Sacrament as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Then find another reference to copy and paste?

You seem to have time.  Want to do the honors?

[LausTibiChriste]

Why is New Advent saying this when all I have ever heard is that internal intention does not affect the Sacrament as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Then find another reference to copy and paste?

You seem to have time.  Want to do the honors?

You're the copy paster, don't pawn it off on others. Get to work.

[Baylee]

The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm

I read the article this comes from and sure enough, it is saying that for the validity of the Sacraments,  "the common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required."

Why is New Advent saying this when all I have ever heard is that internal intention does not affect the Sacrament as long as the priest intends to do what the Church does?

I think practically speaking one could NEVER know what the minister's intent just by what he was thinking.  It would HAVE to manifest externally in some other way.  And if it does not, then the presumption is that the intention was to do what the Church does. So we end up going back to the form and matter of the Rite.  The Catholic rite determines validity.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

I think practically speaking one could NEVER know what the minister's intent just by what he was thinking.  It would HAVE to manifest externally in some other way.  And if it does not, then the presumption is that the intention was to do what the Church does. So we end up going back to the form and matter of the Rite.  The Catholic rite determines validity.

No, this is confused and wishful thinking.  One's inability to know the minister's intent is a completely separate issue and would not have any bearing on validity, only one's own culpability.

A man would never be culpable for assisting at Mass offered by a well-hidden secret apostate, but that doesn't affect the question at hand.

[Baylee]

I think practically speaking one could NEVER know what the minister's intent just by what he was thinking.  It would HAVE to manifest externally in some other way.  And if it does not, then the presumption is that the intention was to do what the Church does. So we end up going back to the form and matter of the Rite.  The Catholic rite determines validity.

No, this is confused and wishful thinking.  One's inability to know the minister's intent is a completely separate issue and would not have any bearing on validity, only one's own culpability.

A man would never be culpable for assisting at Mass offered by a well-hidden secret apostate, but that doesn't affect the question at hand.

I'm not talking about joe schmo being culpable for assisting at an invalid mass, etc.  I'm talking about knowing whether a bishop/priest is valid or that his mass is valid or that his absolution is valid. The presumption is that they are valid if the Catholic rites were used.  There is absolutely no way to know the intention of the minister.

This thread isn't about whether someone is culpable for assisting at an invalid mass by an invalid priest/bishop if they were unaware.  It's about determining whether the New Rites are valid based on the changed forms.  Please don't change the purpose of this thread.  And if that's not what you're doing, then I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[awkward customer]

Here's what Fr Fr Cedaka says about the NO Consecration Rite, from the article posted in the OP.

The question is - does the new form confer the sacrament?

VI. Power of the Episcopacy?

Question: Does the new sacramental form univocally signify the sacramental effects — the power of Order (the episcopacy) and the grace of the Holy Ghost?  These are the criteria Pius XII laid down for the sacramental form. Here again is the new form of Paul VI to which we will apply them:

"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."

The form does seem to signify the grace of the Holy Ghost.  But "governing Spirit"? Lutheran, Methodist and
Mormon bishops also govern. Can such a term univocally signify the power of Order conferred — the fullness of the priesthood?

The expression governing Spirit — Spiritus principalis in Latin — is at the heart of the dispute over the
validity of the new rite, for if it does not signify the fullness of the priesthood that constitutes the episcopacy, the sacrament is invalid.

https://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

What is the 'governing Spirit'?

[Bonaventure]

@ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez

I researched sacramental intention heavily when I looked into the validity of the "Thuc bishops."

Mario Derksen's Open Letter to Bishop Kelly contains a plethora of sources on this matter.

As with many other issues, a common "party line" pushed by the SSPX (modernists don't have the right intention) has seemingly infected Tradistan.

Derken's work, with copious footnotes, proves the opposite.

Page 31 of his letter:

Dr. Ludwig Ott explains the "mental state" requirement in a bit more detail:
The human minister is a creature endowed with reason and freedom. The act involved in the execution of the administration of the Sacrament must therefore be an actus humanus [human act], that is, an activity which proceeds from understanding and free will.141
Fr. DeSalvo, likewise, ties the full command of reason to performing a human act:
All theologians agree that the confection of the sacraments is a human act insofar as man has a role in their confection, and this human act is necessarily one which must be per- formed by a minister who has the full use of reason and applies it to the work at hand.142
In order to confer a sacrament validly, then, the minister must form an intention that proceeds from knowledge and free will, and this he can only do if he has the full command of reason. In other words, he must know what he is doing and will to do it. The bare minimum such intention is called "virtual intention." Fr. Davis, whom you quote frequently in TSTP, confirms this explicitly: "[A] virtual intention suffices, for this suffices for a human act, and therefore for the sacramental act."143
But what is a virtual intention? "A virtual intention," says Dr. Ott, is "that disposition of the will, which is conceived before the action and which continues virtually during the action."144 In other words, a virtual intention is present when we perform an intended action while being distracted and somewhat inattentive.145 Msgr. Pohle gives the following example: "f a minister begins with an actual intention [i.e., an intention with full advertence of the intellect], but is distracted while administering the Sacra- ment, he has a virtual intention."146 Fr. Jone illustrates: "A virtual intention is had, e.g., if one, for the purpose of saying Mass, goes to the sacristy, vests, etc., but is completely distracted, even voluntarily, at the subsequent consecration."147

Davis said:

Some attention is necessary in conferring the Sacraments as in every human act. In internal attention, there is usually full advertence to what one does. So much is, obviously, not necessary, for we do many things and act in a human way without this advertence. A lesser degree of attention is therefore sufficient and this is called external attention, which, though internal in itself, is very vague, but is sufficient to carry us through a human act, provided we do nothing that is incompatible with a full internal attention if it were suddenly required. It would be an error to call this act purely automatic. Such external attention is present when one assists at Mass without conscious advertence to what is going on, but at the same time without engrossing the mind with things that are not compatible with true attention to Mass. It is possible, for example, to recite the Rosary and attend to Mass; it is not possible to concentrate the mind on an abstruse mathematical problem and at the same time to attend to Mass. This kind of external attention, as it is called, is sufficient in prayer, in reciting the divine office, in hearing Mass, in receiving the Sacraments, and in conferring them. It is not necessary, therefore, to have actual attention to what is being done in conferring the Sacraments, but as some attention is necessary in every human act, the most that can be required is that amount and degree of advertence to what we do which is not incompatible with what we do.149

Source: Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 3, p. 20;

The main source may be found here:

http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf

[awkward customer]

As with many other issues, a common "party line" pushed by the SSPX (modernists don't have the right intention) has seemingly infected Tradistan.

In order to confer a sacrament validly, then, the minister must form an intention that proceeds from knowledge and free will, and this he can only do if he has the full command of reason. In other words, he must know what he is doing and will to do it. The bare minimum such intention is called "virtual intention." Fr. Davis, whom you quote frequently in TSTP, confirms this explicitly: "[A] virtual intention suffices, for this suffices for a human act, and therefore for the sacramental act."

But what is a virtual intention? "A virtual intention," says Dr. Ott, is "that disposition of the will, which is conceived before the action and which continues virtually during the action."144 In other words, a virtual intention is present when we perform an intended action while being distracted and somewhat inattentive.145 Msgr. Pohle gives the following example: "f a minister begins with an actual intention [i.e., an intention with full advertence of the intellect], but is distracted while administering the Sacra- ment, he has a virtual intention."146 Fr. Jone illustrates: "A virtual intention is had, e.g., if one, for the purpose of saying Mass, goes to the sacristy, vests, etc., but is completely distracted, even voluntarily, at the subsequent consecration."147

Thanks, I now understand what is meant by virtual intention.

When I raised the subject of intention, it wasn't in relation to the kind of situation described above which concerns a pre-Vatican II priest doing what the pre-Vatican Church does.  It concerned a Novus Ordo priest doing what the Conciliar Church does. 

Because it's not really about the priest and a defect of intention on his part.  He may be fully attentive and entirely sincere in his intention to do what the Church does, by which he means the Conciliar Church. My question was about whether the defect of intention exists within the NO Rite itself and surely that depends on whether or not the NO Rite is Catholic.

Meanwhile, if the NO Episcopal Rite of Consecration is invalid, the question of defect of intention hardly matters.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

@ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez

I researched sacramental intention heavily when I looked into the validity of the "Thuc bishops."

Mario Derksen's Open Letter to Bishop Kelly contains a plethora of sources on this matter.

As with many other issues, a common "party line" pushed by the SSPX (modernists don't have the right intention) has seemingly infected Tradistan.

Derken's work, with copious footnotes, proves the opposite.

Page 31 of his letter:

Dr. Ludwig Ott explains the "mental state" requirement in a bit more detail:
The human minister is a creature endowed with reason and freedom. The act involved in the execution of the administration of the Sacrament must therefore be an actus humanus [human act], that is, an activity which proceeds from understanding and free will.141
Fr. DeSalvo, likewise, ties the full command of reason to performing a human act:
All theologians agree that the confection of the sacraments is a human act insofar as man has a role in their confection, and this human act is necessarily one which must be per- formed by a minister who has the full use of reason and applies it to the work at hand.142
In order to confer a sacrament validly, then, the minister must form an intention that proceeds from knowledge and free will, and this he can only do if he has the full command of reason. In other words, he must know what he is doing and will to do it. The bare minimum such intention is called "virtual intention." Fr. Davis, whom you quote frequently in TSTP, confirms this explicitly: "[A] virtual intention suffices, for this suffices for a human act, and therefore for the sacramental act."143
But what is a virtual intention? "A virtual intention," says Dr. Ott, is "that disposition of the will, which is conceived before the action and which continues virtually during the action."144 In other words, a virtual intention is present when we perform an intended action while being distracted and somewhat inattentive.145 Msgr. Pohle gives the following example: "f a minister begins with an actual intention [i.e., an intention with full advertence of the intellect], but is distracted while administering the Sacra- ment, he has a virtual intention."146 Fr. Jone illustrates: "A virtual intention is had, e.g., if one, for the purpose of saying Mass, goes to the sacristy, vests, etc., but is completely distracted, even voluntarily, at the subsequent consecration."147

Davis said:

Some attention is necessary in conferring the Sacraments as in every human act. In internal attention, there is usually full advertence to what one does. So much is, obviously, not necessary, for we do many things and act in a human way without this advertence. A lesser degree of attention is therefore sufficient and this is called external attention, which, though internal in itself, is very vague, but is sufficient to carry us through a human act, provided we do nothing that is incompatible with a full internal attention if it were suddenly required. It would be an error to call this act purely automatic. Such external attention is present when one assists at Mass without conscious advertence to what is going on, but at the same time without engrossing the mind with things that are not compatible with true attention to Mass. It is possible, for example, to recite the Rosary and attend to Mass; it is not possible to concentrate the mind on an abstruse mathematical problem and at the same time to attend to Mass. This kind of external attention, as it is called, is sufficient in prayer, in reciting the divine office, in hearing Mass, in receiving the Sacraments, and in conferring them. It is not necessary, therefore, to have actual attention to what is being done in conferring the Sacraments, but as some attention is necessary in every human act, the most that can be required is that amount and degree of advertence to what we do which is not incompatible with what we do.149

Source: Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 3, p. 20;

The main source may be found here:

http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf

This deals with the question of whether an inattentive, absent-minded, or distracted priest can validly confer a sacrament.  It does not deal with the question of whether a confirmed apostate/heretic who does not believe in the sacraments can validly confer them.

[Bonaventure]

Sigh, I'm doing the research for everything now!

Leo XIII

Concerning the mind or intention, insomuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but insofar as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it. Now if, in order to effect and confer a Sacrament, a person has seriously and correctly used the matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. It is on this principle that the doctrine is solidly founded which holds as a true Sacrament that which is conferred by the ministry of a heretic or a non-baptized person [as in Baptism] as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite.

Aquinas:

Since the minister works instrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his own, but by God's power. Now, just as charity belongs to a man's own power, so also does faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does not require that the minister should have charity, and even sinners can confer the sacraments, so neither is it necessary that he should have faith, and even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament, providing that the other essentials be there... Even if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believes that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Church intends to confer a sacrament by thai which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices

Aquinas again:

if a man be suspended from the Church, or excommunicated or degraded, he does not lose the power of conferring sacraments, but the permission to use this power. Wherefore he does indeed confer the sacrament, but he sins in so doing.

Fortescue:

People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament... The 'implicit intention of doing what Christ instituted' means so vague and small a thing that one can hardly help having it — unless one deliberately excludes it. At the time when everyone was talk- ing about Anglican orders, numbers of Catholics confused in- tention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is. (This was the error of St Cyprian and Firmilian against which Pope Stephen I [254–257] protested.) A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament and yet confer or receive it quite validly.

S. Many, Praelectiones de Sacra Ordina- tione [Paris: Letouzey 1905], 586

Error in faith, or even total disbelief, does not harm this in- tention; for concepts of the intellect have nothing in common with an act of the will.

[awkward customer]

Sigh, I'm doing the research for everything now!

Leo XIII

Concerning the mind or intention, insomuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but insofar as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it. Now if, in order to effect and confer a Sacrament, a person has seriously and correctly used the matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. It is on this principle that the doctrine is solidly founded which holds as a true Sacrament that which is conferred by the ministry of a heretic or a non-baptized person [as in Baptism] as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite.

But is the Novus Ordo Mass a Catholic Rite? That's the point.

The quotes you and others produce on this subject, all assume that no matter what the disposition of the priest, the Sacrament is conferred provided the Catholic Rite is used.  And I'm not disputing this. I agree with it.

My question is - would the esteemed theologians and Popes being quoted have recognised the Novus Ordo as "the Catholic Rite"?









 

[Baylee]

Sigh, I'm doing the research for everything now!

Leo XIII

Concerning the mind or intention, insomuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but insofar as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it. Now if, in order to effect and confer a Sacrament, a person has seriously and correctly used the matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. It is on this principle that the doctrine is solidly founded which holds as a true Sacrament that which is conferred by the ministry of a heretic or a non-baptized person [as in Baptism] as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite.

But is the Novus Ordo Mass a Catholic Rite? That's the point.

The quotes you and others produce on this subject, all assume that no matter what the disposition of the priest, the Sacrament is conferred provided the Catholic Rite is used.  And I'm not disputing this. I agree with it.

My question is - would the esteemed theologians and Popes being quoted have recognised the Novus Ordo as "the Catholic Rite"?

Yes.  It seems talk of "intention" is avoiding the real issue here: Is the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration Catholic?  Is the Form used in the rite Catholic?  So far, I've seen no posts arguing against the crux of Father Cekada's study.

All Trad groups (ie. those unattached to the conciliar church) agreed there was an issue with it to make it at least doubtful. That is, until 2005 when New Rite bishop Ratzinger was elected pope and the SSPX started to change its tune. This was when Father Pierre-Marie wrote his article trying to prove it was valid.

[awkward customer]

Yes.  It seems talk of "intention" is avoiding the real issue here: Is the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration Catholic?  Is the Form used in the rite Catholic?  So far, I've seen no posts arguing against the crux of Father Cekada's study.

All Trad groups (ie. those unattached to the conciliar church) agreed there was an issue with it to make it at least doubtful. That is, until 2005 when New Rite bishop Ratzinger was elected pope and the SSPX started to change its tune. This was when Father Pierre-Marie wrote his article trying to prove it was valid.

Didn't the SSPX publish a book which argued that the NO Rite is not a propitiatory sacrifice?  I used to have a copy about 15 years ago.

Anyway, I've been asking who or what is the 'governing Spirit' and no-one seems to know including me.

Here's what Fr Cekada has to say.

Who Knows? Our brief survey, then, uncovered a dozen possible meanings for governing Spirit:

• Originally existing spirit.
• Leading/guiding spirit.
• Perfect spirit like King David.
• Generous or noble spirit.
• God the Father.
• God the Holy Ghost.
• An external divine effect.
• Supernatural spirit of rectitude/self control.
• Good disposition.
• For a Coptic abbot: gentleness, love, patience and graciousness.
• For a Coptic archbishop: divine knowledge, received through the Church.
• Some quality whose omission wouldn't changevalidity anyway.

None of these specifically signify either the episcopacy in general or the fullness of Holy Orders that a
bishop possesses.

Univocally Signify the Effect?

We now begin to apply a few more of our criteria from section I.

Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution Sacramen␂tum Ordinis declared that the form for Holy Orders
must "univocally signify the sacramental effects — that is, the power of the Order and the grace of the
Holy Ghost."

The new form fails on two of these points.

(1) Not Univocal. The expression governing Spirit is not univocal — that is, it is not a term that signifies only one thing, as Pius XII required. 

Rather, as we demonstrated above, the expression is ambiguous — capable of signifying many different things and persons.  We do, among its various meanings, find one meaning connoting the Holy Ghost — but not in a sense exclusively limited to bishops.

Coptic abbots, King David, and virtuous leaders can all receive this governing Spirit.

No Power of Order. Among these many different meanings, however, we do not find the powerof Order (potestas Ordinis) of the episcopacy. The expression governing Spirit does not even equivocally connote the Sacrament of Holy Orders in any sense.

Still less does it connote what the theologians who advised Pius XII said the sacramental form for conferring the episcopate must express: the "fullness of the priesthood of Christ in the episcopal office and order" or the "'fullness or totality' of the priestly ministry."  One of the constituent elements for a form capable of conferring the order is therefore absent.

So, we have an answer to the question with which we began this section: Does the new sacramental form univocally signify the sacramental effects — the power of Order (the episcopacy) and the grace of the Holy Ghost?

The answer is no.

https://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

[Baylee]

Didn't the SSPX publish a book which argued that the NO Rite is not a propitiatory sacrifice?  I used to have a copy about 15 years ago.

I don't know about that book, but it sounds like it's specifically about the New MASS, not the New Rites of Holy Orders.   

[awkward customer]

Didn't the SSPX publish a book which argued that the NO Rite is not a propitiatory sacrifice?  I used to have a copy about 15 years ago.

I don't know about that book, but it sounds like it's specifically about the New MASS, not the New Rites of Holy Orders.   

I only mentioned the book as an aside and yes it is about the New Mass.

But the rest of my post refers to the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.

This is the wording in the New Rite which Fr Cekada argues does not convey the Sacrament, as I posted at the beginning of the thread. 

Paul VI designated the following passage in the Preface as the new form for the consecration of a
bishop:

"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."

The dispute over the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration centers on this passage.

The governing Spirit is the key term in the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration that concerns Fr Cekada.

So what is this 'governing Spirit'?  I keep asking but so far only Michael Wilson has replied.