VII reforms destroy the priesthood with an invalid rite of consecrating bishops

[awkward customer]

Could it really be that bad?

According to Fr Anthony Cekada, the Vatican II Rite for consecrating bishops is invalid.  No bishops means no priests in a generation or two and the elimination of the Catholic priesthood.

Since it is impossible that the Church can defect, if Fr Cekada was right, the Conciliar Church cannot be the Church and the Vatican is occupied territory.

I'll post more below.  Meanwhile, could it be that soon the only bishops and priests left will be Trad?

[awkward customer]

Here's what Fr Fr Cedaka says about the NO Consecration Rite.

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

[Bonaventure]

Meanwhile, could it be that soon the only bishops and priests left will be Trad?

These men would be sacramentally priests and bishops, but they possess no ordinary jurisdiction. They have no valid offices, sees, or really any authority over the laity. The only reason for their existence would be to tend to the faithful.

This opens up another can of worms that is, in my opinion, the biggest weakness of Sedevacantism as expressed by a Fr. Cekada: the solution.

The independent sede/sspx/resistance clergy cannot recreate ordinary jurisdiction.

As I recently posted in another thread:

Whether it is well-willed earnestness or ill-willed hyper-criticism that moves certain individuals to posit the ecclesiological and Canonical questions pertinent to the above-mentioned controversies is of little consequence: for the fact remains that these questions which elucidate upon the problematic predicament of the present day clergy in light of the norms of the Sacred Canons are quite legitimate, precisely because the Apostolic See is vacant and therefore no living cleric can claim both formal and material apostolicity: only the latter can be ascribed to them[2] without infringing the ecclesiological doctrines taught by the theologians and manualists of past ages and enshrined in the Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917; A.A.S., vol. IX, pars II).

The central question here is: How are the faithful of the sedevacantist persuasion to reconcile the supreme reverence and unquestionable obedience due to the Apostolic See and the office of the Roman Pontiff alone, with the fact that they are paying obedience and entrusting the pastoral care of their souls, together with those of their families, to the clerici acephali, the episcopi vagantes, who have attained to Holy Orders without Apostolic mandate and are bereaved of a Canonical mission, and therefore do not hold ecclesiastical offices nor are they incardinated in lawfully established dioceses?

The non-sedevacantist or anti-sedevacantist polemicists readily see such an apparent contradiction, and avail themselves of their resources to point out how the sedevacantist explanation of the present-day crises within the Church is profoundly problematic and puzzling. This is especially the case when the sedevacantist clerics themselves behave in such a way so as to substantiate these polemicists' arguments against the sedevacantist thesis.

The sincere and earnest Catholic of the sedevacantist persuasion cannot answer the above-mentioned polemicists' arguments until he himself undertakes a ruthlessly realistic examination of the state of affairs in which the sedevacantist clergymen find themselves. The ratings and knee-jerk reactions of party-liners do no good but rather great harm to whatever position is being defended or attacked. An honest and informed conscience, especially after one has had recourse to prayer and spiritual counsel, can never fail but to lead individuals closer to the truth, and to Truth Himself: the Word Incarnate.

In the eyes of many, Bps. Pivarunas, Slupski, Petko, Neville, McKenna, Dolan, Sanborn, etc., are in the very same predicament. All these persons may have ostensibly imperiled their salvation in risking the possibility of incurring serious censures and scandal, as well as committing sacrilege and mortal sin in having attained to the sacred Episcopacy contrary to the norms of Canon Law ( cf. Can. 953,[3] Can. 2370[4]), for they have been consecrated as Bishops, and have themselves consecrated other Bishops, without Apostolic mandate. However, because of a salutary and necessary application of the principles of epikeia, there is no moral culpability to be imputed to them in this regard.

The difference between these Bishops lies in nothing more but the assent whereby the faithful, whose souls they have entrusted to their pastoral care, have justified the existence of their ministries in making them fit subjects of the principles of epikeia, despite the fact that they have, strictly speaking, no proper ecclesiastical office nor inherent ordinary jurisdiction in the external forum since they lack the requisite Canonical mission (cf. Can. 147[5]). It must be emphasized that the sacred Episcopate is subordinated unto the Supreme Pontiff in the order of jurisdiction (cf. 108, § 3;[6] Can. 109[7]). Although the magisterial authority of the Bishops is dependent upon the jurisdictional and magisterial primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff, the Bishops are truly doctors and teachers for those souls whose pastoral care they have undertaken or have been given by the authority of the Pope (cf. Can. 1326[8]). Moreover, Holy Mother Church, since the Sacred Council of Trent (session XXIII, de reformatione, caps. 11, 13, 16), has ordained that all clergy are to incardinated into a diocese or ingress unto Holy Religion (cf. Can. 111, § 1[9]). Therefore, all the present day traditionalist clerics are clerici vagi.

It is the salvation of souls that is the supreme law of the Church, so therefore it is now given to the faithful to evaluate each Priest and Bishop on an individual basis in order to ascertain if they are sincere in the work for the salvation of souls, since there is no Supreme Pontiff, and consequentially no Canonically legitimate hierarchy with ordinary jurisdiction in the external forum, by whose authority the above-cited Canons can be implemented. Supplied ordinary jurisdiction and jurisdiction in the internal forum are all that the present clerics can claim due to the principles of epikeia, lest they transgress the limitations of their competence and exacerbate their problematic Canonical predicament any further. It is precisely because the present day clerics do not have a Canonical mission that they cannot publicly bind individual consciences to their private opinion or practical judgments, save insofar as they conform with the doctrines and customs sanctioned by Holy Mother Church; nor can they ascribe to themselves the dignities and prerogatives of the Bishops and Priests that ruled over the faithful in ages past by authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

Some Practical Principles

The question arises, how are the faithful to choose which independent Priest or Bishop is to have the care of their souls?

Although the faithful owe reverence to the clergy (cf. Can. 119[10]), these clerics must prove themselves worthy of the pastoral care of souls before the faithful for whom the intend to care with whatever supplied jurisdiction the Church can give, and this onus is all the more grave precisely because of the sanctity of Holy Orders. These clerics are to draw to themselves the layfolk and demonstrate their competence to work as Pastors of souls with the perfection of their interior lives as manifested in good works and a comportment that undoubtedly proves the possession of the sanctity and supernatural charity that rightly become the clerical state, together with their prudence and learning in the sacred sciences, as the Sacred Canons dictate (cf. Can. 124[11]). A traditionalist cleric must demonstrate that he is possessed of the competence, learning, and sanctity that are demanded by his sacred state, so that his whole self may be a living sermon, the eloquence thereof being that of the Holy Ghost rather than that of his own finite efforts, in order to efficaciously draw the faithful to his ministry. He truly ought to be a servant to the souls that have been committed to his pastoral care by the inscrutable designs of Divine Providence in these tumultuous times, and exercise meekness and humility before the terrifyingly unnerving reality that he is in a very strange Canonical predicament.

If the vagrant clergy prove themselves unworthy or incompetent by manifest abuse, injustice, immorality, imbecility, &c., then they lose the right to be reverenced merely because of the sacredness of their Orders until they do penance and restitution for their misdeeds, just as a violated Church cannot be licitly used for Holy Mass and other sacred rites (cf. Can. 1173, § 1 [12]) until it is reconciled according to the rites of the Roman Pontifical or Ritual (Can. 1174, § 1 [13]): for even the Oriental schismatics have valid Orders, and yet the faithful are not to compelled to reverence them for that reason alone, much less to have recourse to their ministries.

If they pretend to go beyond their competence, exceedingly limited by their problematic Canonical predicament, such clerics commit an aberration and stand in danger of losing their credibility before the faithful and thereby find themselves bereft of the opportunity of exercising the supplied jurisdiction that they do have. For without the laity to whom to administer the Sacraments, what reason is there for the "independent" clerics to exist at all?

This is most especially true regarding the sedevacantist Bishops, who attained to the sacred Episcopacy with the claim that it has been the exigencies of present circuмstance that have compelled them to do so, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls, during the vacancy of the Apostolic See. If they are earnest and of good will in their intentions, then it follows that they ought to recognize the perilous position wherein they find themselves as episcopi vagantes in the eyes of Canon Law and are to comport themselves with all decorous humility and self-abnegation, applying to themselves with a very salutary and strict scrupulosity the words of Our Lord, "You know that the princes of the Gentiles overrule them; and they that are the greater, exercise power against them. It shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister: and he that will be first among you, shall be your servant. Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many" (St. Matt., ch. xx., 25-28). They, above all, must be servants of both clerics and layfolk: no one forced them to take on the Episcopacy, yet they did so, despite the problematic Canonical issues, in order to serve the faithful. Normally, the Bishops and Priests would be given unquestionable credibility and authority, but, because the Roman Pontiff is out of the equation, such can no longer be the case. In doing otherwise one would perhaps substantiate the anti-sedevacantists' claims that the sedevacantist faithful discard the reverence and veneration due to the Papacy alone, whilst adhering to the vagrant clerics in an irony that is bereft of the "sensus Catholicus." If these Bishops fail to comport as they ought in light of the principles enunciated above, they run the risk of being criticized as cultists, and rightly so.

The sedevacantist Bishops are the only Catholics to whom one may say, "There is no such thing as excessive scruples." Would to God that all sedevacantist clerics work out their salvation seized with devout terror and trembling (Phil., ch. ii., 2), that they may be endued with greater light and grace and thereby lead the layfolk over whom they presume to exercise pastoral care to Christ all the more efficiently, instead of lording over them as if they had the competence and jurisdiction of the clergy who ruled and shepherded the faithful by authority of the Apostolic See and the local Ordinaries in times past.

The faithful need to be aware of whatever problems and possible culpability may be imputed to the present day clerics in order to arrive at a prudent and well-informed choice when it comes to the practical aspect of certain key praxes immediately pertaining to the faith: for example, what Chapel to attend, to which Seminary to send their sons, to which collection basket to give what amount of money, &c. Without the ability to make such practical judgments, one cannot have the stability necessary in order to cultivate the interior life, especially when there is danger of scandal that will either tempt one to despair and abandon the faith, or lull one into a Quietist and apathetic torpor that will merely perpetuate the sort of mediocrity that had allowed laxity amongst the earlier generations that led to the heresies and errors of "Vatican II."

Oftentimes, certain interior souls have admonished me to not enter into polemical and controversial exchanges pertaining to the scandals of the present day traditionalist clergy, and attempt to substantiate their counsel with the examples of the exceeding great reverence wherewith St. Francis of Assisi honored the Priests. Yes, the example of St. Francis is to be imitated, because Holy Orders confers upon a man a dignity that is wholly hallowed and ontologically superior to even the dignity of the Angelic choirs. However, St. Francis never faced the possibility of reverencing episcopi vagantes, clerics who attained to Sacred Orders without a Papal mandate, much less those who seem to take advantage of the vacancy of the Apostolic See so that they may conveniently lord their mitres and birettas over the faithful whom they have terrorized or trained into some sickening form of the Stockholm Syndrome whereby a number of traditionalists have somehow perverted the virtue of obedience into a Pavlovian catatonia that profanes reason enlightened by faith in degrading the virtue of religion into a cult of personality.

A Concrete Example

Here is a concrete example of how complex the situation really is. There was an article written by Rev. Fr. Anthony Cekada entitled "Untrained and Un-Tridentine: Holy Orders and the Canonically Unfit." The article does contain good arguments and information, and does merit the consideration of all serious traditionalists. However, in light of recent controversies, particularly those regarding Most Holy Trinity Seminary, the following question may be considered legitimate: Who amongst the sedevacantist clerics is invested with the authority and competence to determine what exactly constitutes "Canonical training" in the present day?

If the reports of the Pristina Liturgica blog site [14] are accurate (and they are according to the interviews I myself have conducted), it does seem that the rectors and faculty of Most Holy Trinity Seminary are certainly not the ones who can claim such competence and authority. In light of recent controversies, one may legitimately posit the possibility that the arguments as set forth in the above-mentioned article may have been used, and may still be used, in order to aggrandize and exalt certain particular organizations; to place them authoritatively above others as having a sort of "Canonical credibility" (for lack of a better term) in order to assure that these organizations alone will receive the assent of the faithful, to the detriment of other clerics whose determination of "unfit and untrained" may have been determined arbitrarily and motivated by partisan divisiveness.

The sedevacantists should be the last individuals to insist upon such matters in such an absolutist way, because the truth is that there is necessarily, although unfortunately, a certain relativity when it comes to the application of certain prescripts of Canon Law by reason of the fact that the present-day crisis is utterly obfuscating to us all and no central authority is universally recognized in sedevacantist circles

[awkward customer]

Fr Cekada's thoughts on the identity of 'the governing Spirit', from the same article as above.

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 change validity 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.

(2) 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

[awkward customer]

Bonaventure, the length and density of the article you posted above makes my head spin.

Is it basically saying that no-one has the right to question the validity of the Conciliar Church and its Rites?

[Bonaventure]

Bonaventure, the length and density of the article you posted above makes my head spin.

Is it basically saying that no-one has the right to question the validity of the Conciliar Church and its Rites?

No. It's discussing the lack of office and role that the SV, sspx, and many trad clergy have, based on a premise of sede vacante.

[Bonaventure]

You mentioned in another thread, that a lot of other issues (Apparitions, NO, etc) were distractions, but I think it is also safe to say even validity is a distraction.

Even if Paul VI did not change the rites in the Roman Rite:

1. Paul VI was consecrated and ordained unquestionably validly.
2. So was JP2.

Per SV, they lost offices.

Recently, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, who was consecrated in 1968 right before the New Rite was implemented, died at age 94.

No one would say he had any authority as a successor to the Apostles.

The "mystery" is still there, valid clergy or not.

[awkward customer]

Bonaventure, the length and density of the article you posted above makes my head spin.

Is it basically saying that no-one has the right to question the validity of the Conciliar Church and its Rites?

No. It's discussing the lack of office and role that the SV, sspx, and many trad clergy have, based on a premise of sede vacante.

Why bring this up when the thread is about the validity of the NO rite for consecrating bishops?

[Bonaventure]

I felt like it.

In this thread:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?msg=631270

You brought up the issue of sacramental validity, when the OP was only speaking about the Novus Ordo Missae.

Am I not allowed to do the same as you?

It also directly relates to your words of:

Meanwhile, could it be that soon the only bishops and priests left will be Trad?

Being a sacramental bishop does not mean that these men have the same rights, prerogatives, etc as a bishop in 1957.

[awkward customer]

You mentioned in another thread, that a lot of other issues (Apparitions, NO, etc) were distractions, but I think it is also safe to say even validity is a distraction.

Even if Paul VI did not change the rites in the Roman Rite:

1. Paul VI was consecrated and ordained unquestionably validly.
2. So was JP2.

Per SV, they lost offices.

Recently, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, who was consecrated in 1968 right before the New Rite was implemented, died at age 94.

No one would say he had any authority as a successor to the Apostles.

The "mystery" is still there, valid clergy or not.

No-one is claiming to have any Authority.  They are only stating their opinions. And every one of the Modernist reformers of Vatican II was ordained and consecrated validly, which means what, exactly?

On the subject of the thread - in your opinion, does Fr Cekada's claim that the NO rite for consecrating bishops is invalid hold water?  Is he right or wrong?   

[awkward customer]

I felt like it.

In this thread:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?msg=631270

You brought up the issue of sacramental validity, when the OP was only speaking about the Novus Ordo Missae.

Am I not allowed to do the same as you?

It also directly relates to your words of:

Meanwhile, could it be that soon the only bishops and priests left will be Trad?

Being a sacramental bishop does not mean that these men have the same rights, prerogatives, etc as a bishop in 1957.

You can, but I started this thread after Kaesekopf's intervention in the other thread, precisely to discuss this one subject.  And it surprised me that you would intervene with a mammoth sized post on only a vaguely related topic.

Your second point is fair enough though and raises some important questions.  What would happen in such a situation?

Meanwhile, that particular situation is only possible if the NO rite for consecrating bishops isn't valid.

What's your opinion on this?  Does Fr Cekada have a point?  Is he right?

[Bonaventure]

In my opinion, I think he makes a strong case that it at possibly dubious/invalid.

The issue for me is, and then what?

Pastor Aeturnus of Vatican I infallibly declared that the Holy Roman Church shall have pastors and shepherds forever. A pastor and shepherd is a sacramental bishop with ordinary jurisdiction.

If we concede that Bergoglio and the Conciliar Popes and Hierarchy are not this, this is still a huge issue.

You said:

While everyone is distracted by arguments over the liturgical reforms, Latin, whether the Pope is the Pope, women in trousers, the consecration of Russia etc, the elimination of the Episcopacy carries on quietly, without anyone noticing.

I've been trying to work out how long it would take destroy the priesthood in this way - a generation at the most.  How long before the only valid bishops and priests in the world are Trads?

I respond:

While everyone is distracted by the question of whether or not the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid or not, the elimination of Ordinary Jurisdiction and Successors of the Apostles carries on quietly, without anyone noticing.

Only 10 men consecrated validly consecrated and appointed by a pope or impostor who had perhaps ordinary jurisdiction through common error are still alive (per: https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.htm). How long before any man who could reasonably claim to have valid sacramental orders and ordinary jurisdiction is even alive?

[Bonaventure]

I felt like it.

In this thread:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?msg=631270

You brought up the issue of sacramental validity, when the OP was only speaking about the Novus Ordo Missae.

Am I not allowed to do the same as you?

It also directly relates to your words of:

Meanwhile, could it be that soon the only bishops and priests left will be Trad?

Being a sacramental bishop does not mean that these men have the same rights, prerogatives, etc as a bishop in 1957.

You can, but I started this thread after Kaesekopf's intervention in the other thread, precisely to discuss this one subject.  And it surprised me that you would intervene with a mammoth sized post on only a vaguely related topic.

The owner intervened to say that the discussion regarding indefectibility should be kept in the SV subforum. That is where we are having this conversation.

[Kaesekopf]

No-one is claiming to have any Authority.  They are only stating their opinions.

This has always struck me as a cop-out when offered by the sedevacantist. 

[Kaesekopf]

Only 10 men consecrated validly consecrated and appointed by a pope or impostor who had perhaps ordinary jurisdiction through common error are still alive (per: https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.htm). How long before any man who could reasonably claim to have valid sacramental orders and ordinary jurisdiction is even alive?

Isn't this then a moot point because these men lost their office when they offered the imposter M*ss and "threw in" with the Conciliar Church? 

So, the Church has been without (visible) shepherds for an entire generation.