I like the old wording better but i dont think that invalidates the sacrament. Id assume that the minimum needed for a vailid ordination is for the bishop to anoint the man, lay hands on him, and charge him with the duty and permission to sacrifice and forgive sin. The exact wording shouldnt affect validity. much like the crucial part of the concecration is the matter and saying “this is my body/blood” sure anything outside the normal form is wildly illicit and a horrible thing to do, but the sacrament is still confected.
The Rite of Ordination is a “Rite”; and, the Consecration is a part of the “Rite” of the Mass…
The purpose of a “rite”, at least as I understand it, is to harness the spiitual power of the participants and enable it to be directed the obtaining of some supenatural effect …
For a rite to be efficacious, every aspect of it has to be formed in a certain way, and, choreography, timing, the positioning and function of the participants, and the positioning and function of the instruments to be used in the rite, etc., etc., are of the utmost importance, if that rite is to have the desired effect.
Now, the words in rites, I understand, are vocal “formulae”, which are especially chosen and especially positioned in the rite to, as well as teach by their content, cause a particular resonant vibration, which itself is meant to aid the particpants to achieve focus and harmony in the task of their spiritual quest.
Therefore, the altering of the rite, in its words, in leaving parts out, in the position and function of the participants, in the position and function of the instruments, etc., etc., is to render the rite in question “disharmonious”, and thus inefficacious … its “power” is taken away … or, at the very least, diminished …
This, I understand to be true for all rites …
The protestants believed that, for Catholics to believe that, at each Mass, the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ was repeated, and that the bread and wine were transsubstantiated, becoming the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, was itself sacrelige, and even pagan.
They, in their “protest”, said that the Communion should be a “celebratory meal”, and that the very idea of Sacrifice was inappropriate.
The New Order Rite of Ordination removes any mention, I understand (at least in any substantial way) the very mention of sacrifice, and that is only one of the changes to the rite…
Changes to any rite at best diminishes its efficaciouisness …
In the Gospel, and repeated infallibly by more than one Pope, I understand, at the Last Supper, Jesus Christ says: the chalice of he New and eternal testament, the mystery of fait, which shall be shed for you and for many, unto the remission of sins.
Now, as I understand it, the point of concern is that (among many other changes to the “traditional Mass” the Novus Ordo Missae, in its concecratioin, has Jesus say: the cup of the new and everlasting covenant, which shall be shed for you and for all men, so that sins may be forgiven.
[note that the very, very important “Mystery of Faith” is omitted, that “for you and for all men” is not the same as “for you and for many”, and that “unto the remissioni of sins” has a completely different meanting to “so that sins may be forgiven”.]
These are major changes to these rites, and, as major changes, they have, it is argued, major disefficacioius effects on the said rites, or completely (particularly when looked at in conjunction with all the other such “changes” -which successive Popes have specifically warned against-) neutralise them.
The argument of the Dimond brothers, as I understand it, is that this rendering the one true avenue to God (as, I understand, Catholics believe the Roman Catholic Church) a fog of disiformation and and impotence, and makes for a situation, as prophesied, where, having disempowered the Faithful through the nullifying the Holy Mass, Satan himself -in the form of the Antichrist/antichurch- sits in the Chair of Peter.
So, the words, at least by these acocunts, are more than important …
And, finally, right from its inception, even when the New Mass was, as a novelty to one who, as a child, had, sometimes forcedly, attended many “Traditional Masses”, was exciting, I always felt very uncomfortable at the allowing lay people to handle the Holy Host (in fact, I have never received the Holy Eucharist from a lay person) … but, then again, if the “bread” of the New Mass (I understand the strict rules governing its making have been relaxed by the New Order…) is known no longer to be the Body of Jesus Christ, then it does not require the specially annointed hands of a worthily ordained priest …
(I don’t know whether it is just me, but I remember the “Mass in Latin”, and the whole feel of the Sacrament had infinitely more reverence than the somewhat irrelverent disinterest I often have seen portrayed in the “celebration” that is the New Order mass … Does anybody else feel this way?)
Please be assured that, in the above, I offer no offence, but sincere enquiry, and that nothing I say should be taken as “disrespectful” to anyone in any way, rather, if suspected, just a facet of my ineptness in expressing myself properly …
Best wishes and God Bless
William
