Rites of ordination

[jeff417]

So, I live in close contact with a thriving Sedevacantist community. Today, I was approached by a “religious Brother” in that community who said that the new rites of ordination of Bishops is invalid due to changes in the form of the sacrament. I did not have time to question him about these changes as I was at work. Can anyone tell me of a place to find the pre-Vatican 2 ordination rites and the current ordination rites so I can compare them. Also, I suspect that there have been several rites over the centuries given the different rites within the Church as a whole. Any help will be much appreciated. Thank you and God Bless

 

[Theophorus]

I haven’t seen an online version specifically relating to the bishop but if memory serves, it is similar in nature to the priestly ordination.
I would imagine you would have to get something like the ceremonial for Bishops or Peter Elliot’s: Ceremonies of the modern Roman Rite or Fortescue, O’Connell, and Reid: The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described in order to compare
A British Author and Traditional Catholic, Michael Davies, wrote a defence of the new rite of ordination some years ago which argued that although changes were made the new rite is still valid.
This is a book is available at: pdfone.com/view/18_keywordangeluspress/the-order-of-melchisedech-a-defence-of-the-catholic.html

There is also a comparison on scribd from the traditionalist POV if yo have any interest:
scribd.com/doc/15442729/Comparison-of-Old-and-New-Consecration-Rites

Hope that helps God Bless

 

[cathguy]

So, I live in close contact with a thriving Sedevacantist community. Today, I was approached by a “religious Brother” in that community who said that the new rites of ordination of Bishops is invalid due to changes in the form of the sacrament. I did not have time to question him about these changes as I was at work. Can anyone tell me of a place to find the pre-Vatican 2 ordination rites and the current ordination rites so I can compare them. Also, I suspect that there have been several rites over the centuries given the different rites within the Church as a whole. Any help will be much appreciated. Thank you and God Bless

I didn’t have time to read all the posts, so don’t know if someone answered this already or not.

Best book on the subject is by Michael Davies: Order of Melchisedech: Defence of the Catholic Priesthood

Get the newer edition which Davies edited later in life.

As a snap-shot: after a thorough and scholarly look at the evidence, Davies, a traditionalist and author of the “Apology Pro Marcel Lefevbre” concluded that the new ordination rite, while efficacious, valid, and licit, is objectively inferior to the old ordination rite. After reading Davies book I was convinced by his arguments.

“The gates of hell will never prevail against the Church.” The SSPX has put out some good stuff refuting the sedes, but Michael Davies is one of the greatest scholars in the history of the English speaking Church, and there is no need to go further than his book.

Priests ordained in the new rite ARE priests forever, in the order of Melchisedech

I hope this helps!

 

[Yggdrasil]

So, I live in close contact with a thriving Sedevacantist community. Today, I was approached by a “religious Brother” in that community who said that the new rites of ordination of Bishops is invalid due to changes in the form of the sacrament. I did not have time to question him about these changes as I was at work. Can anyone tell me of a place to find the pre-Vatican 2 ordination rites and the current ordination rites so I can compare them. Also, I suspect that there have been several rites over the centuries given the different rites within the Church as a whole. Any help will be much appreciated. Thank you and God Bless

I haven’t read Michael Davies’ book, but I’ve added it to my reading list. He was a reliably excellent and informative writer.

If you want the sedevacantist perspective on this, there are few so engaging and thorough as Fr. Cekada’s essay, Absolutely Null & Utterly Void. Just a disclaimer: the link is to a sedevacantist website, and the essay contains a few mildly insulting jabs at the post-conciliar popes. On page three you will find the essential sacramental forms (both old and new) that are in dispute.

As a sedevacantist myself, I’ll concede that the argument against the new form of Holy Orders isn’t quite as crystalline or persuading as the argument against the sacramental validity of the vernacular form in the new Mass.

Prima facie, the Pauline form of episcopal consecration appears almost legitimate, and the sedevacantists are left (as they often are) looking like overzealous fundamentalists try to pick a fight wherever they can find one. But (as is often the case), if followed closely and ingested with consideration, their argument begins to take on a certain gravity and power of conviction. You might supplement the Davies book with Fr. Cekada’s essay if you’d like to get both sides.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

18* And I tell you, you are Peter, * and on this rock * I will build my church, and the powers of death * shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 16:18

It would appear that they believe that the gatesw of death have prevailed and are calling Jesus a liar. I’ll let them argue that out with Him when the time comes.

 

[cathguy]

Matthew 16:18

It would appear that they believe that the gatesw of death have prevailed and are calling Jesus a liar. I’ll let them argue that out with Him when the time comes.

I think they would argue over the definition of “Church.” They might say that the gates of hell would never prevail against “spiritual Rome” or “historical Rome” as opposed to the current institutional Roman Church.

I think, respectfully, that their argument is weak on this score, and far stronger when they limit their critique to the new Mass. However, even there, the new Mass is valid, and the new ordination Rites valid. Michael Davies, a traditionalist if there ever was one, came to this conclusion himself as well.

I for one have no qualms in stating a) the ordinary form of the Mass is perfectly valid, licit, and efficacious, and b) the extraordinary form of the Mass is all of these, and objectively superior and more pleasing to God than the ordinary form as it is commonly celebrated today.

I do not think I am contradicting myself when I say the above.

I think the same thing goes for the rite of ordination as well.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\I think they would argue over the definition of “Church.” They might say that the gates of hell would never prevail against “spiritual Rome” or “historical Rome” as opposed to the current institutional Roman Church.\

**This is nothing more than the same old “invisible Church” false teaching used by Protestants, with different terminology (“Eternal Rome” contrasted with “Conciliar Rome”).

sanctamissa.org has (at least) the Pre-V2 Latin rite of Ordination to the Priesthood.

But remember that in the 1950’s, Ven Pius XII defined that the major orders of Deaon, Presbyter, and Bishop were conferred by the Impostion of Hands with the appropriate forumula–which is NOT the same as in the Byzantine tradition, which you can see by looking here to compare them:**

anastasis.org.uk/ordinations.htm

anastasis.org.uk/presbyter.htm

 

[cathguy]

This is nothing more than the same old “invisible Church” false teaching used by Protestants, with different terminology (“Eternal Rome” contrasted with “Conciliar Rome”).

Agreed… to an extent.

sanctamissa.org has (at least) the Pre-V2 Latin rite of Ordination to the Priesthood.
bpbasilphx;6260290:

But remember that in the 1950’s, Ven Pius XII defined that the major orders of Deaon, Presbyter, and Bishop were conferred by the Impostion of Hands with the appropriate forumula–which is NOT the same as in the Byzantine tradition, which you can see by looking here to compare them:

anastasis.org.uk/ordinations.htm

anastasis.org.uk/presbyter.htm

The validity of sacraments has to do with form and intent. In as much as the Byzantines INTEND to do what ordination does when they ordain, and in as much as their liturgy and rites are both ancient and apostolic and have undergone only organic development, it is clear that they enjoy valid orders.

 

[cathguy]

Absolutely Null & Utterly Void. Just a disclaimer: the link is to a sedevacantist website, and the essay contains a few mildly insulting jabs at the post-conciliar popes. On page three you will find the essential sacramental forms (both old and new) that are in dispute.

As a sedevacantist myself, I’ll concede that the argument against the new form of Holy Orders isn’t quite as crystalline or persuading as the argument against the sacramental validity of the vernacular form in the new Mass.

Prima facie, the Pauline form of episcopal consecration appears almost legitimate, and the sedevacantists are left (as they often are) looking like overzealous fundamentalists try to pick a fight wherever they can find one. But (as is often the case), if followed closely and ingested with consideration, their argument begins to take on a certain gravity and power of conviction. You might supplement the Davies book with Fr. Cekada’s essay if you’d like to get both sides.

Thank you kindly for this charitable, well written, and humble contribution! I appreciate your suggestion for further reading.

I agree that Michael Davies is a great scholar and a gift to the Church.

I cannot agree with the idea that the seat is vacant. But still, thank you for stating your belief clearly and charitably.

Peace!

 

[puzzleannie]

. Any help will be much appreciated. Thank you and God Bless

the best help I can give you is to choose, you are a schismatic, or you are Catholic. Pick one. Worship at a Catholic parish headed by a Catholic priest ordained by a Catholic bishop in union with the Pope in Rome without whose authority no priest or bishop can claim to teach, define validity of Sacraments of the Church, and mislead the faithful. Jesus had harsh words for those who teach falsely.

 

[cathguy]

the best help I can give you is to choose, you are a schismatic, or you are Catholic. Pick one. Worship at a Catholic parish headed by a Catholic priest ordained by a Catholic bishop in union with the Pope in Rome without whose authority no priest or bishop can claim to teach, define validity of Sacraments of the Church, and mislead the faithful. Jesus had harsh words for those who teach falsely.

This post, while perhaps well meaning, I think is problematic because it minimizes people’s real concerns with the new rites, which caused a massive loss of faith and decline in the Church.

Now, independent scholarly analysis and logic and reason cause me to conclude that the new rites ARE valid, ARE licit. However, the old rites are arguably superior (speaking objectively here) and therefore people have very legitimate grounds on which to question all the changes.

I think if we drop the hammer and say “choose, are you a schismatic???!!!” people might conclude the following:

“Well, none of the Bishops in my “schismatic” group proclaim false doctrine (see prominent examples), give communion to men dressed up as nuns in a homosexual group (San Francisco), deny the Church’s teaching on contraception etc. etc. Plus the liturgy is transcendent and beautiful. And now THESE people are “schismatic.” Well… by their fruits you shall know them.”

I REALLY think we need to use logic, reason, and be Catholic when addressing one another’s concerns. Never since the Council has Tradition had such a friend in the Successor of Peter. Now, more than ever, we have to speak TO each other, rather than AT each other.

This is exactly what is happening right now in the doctrinal talks between the SSPX and Rome, and thank God, in their wisdom, the participants are keeping the contents of that talk entirely secret, as the inflamed passions of those of us who post on forums such as this and write in newspapers could well undo much good and important work for Christ and the Church.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This post, while perhaps well meaning, I think is problematic because it minimizes people’s real concerns with the new rites, which caused a massive loss of faith and decline in the Church.

This is a false concern. It is derived from a conscience that is not properly formed.

The Church can not Teach error. If the Ordination rites were broken in such a manner then the Church would end which Jesus said would not happen.

This is just more conspiracy theories. It is a way to justify disobedience and schism.

There is no need to work to refute these arguments as it will most likely do nothing to convert the believer of them, especially if they are a religious.

I would also look at my self in this, is this a near occasion of sin for me? Is this something that could lead me away from the Church? Maybe having close contact with them might not be such a good idea.

 

[cathguy]

This is a false concern. It is derived from a conscience that is not properly formed.

The Church can not Teach error. If the Ordination rites were broken in such a manner then the Church would end which Jesus said would not happen.

This is just more conspiracy theories. It is a way to justify disobedience and schism.

There is no need to work to refute these arguments as it will most likely do nothing to convert the believer of them, especially if they are a religious.

I would also look at my self in this, is this a near occasion of sin for me? Is this something that could lead me away from the Church? Maybe having close contact with them might not be such a good idea.

Thank you for your post, and for your (not so gentle) correction!

I do appreciate your point.

However, I point out, in my defense, that the Holy Father, the Successor of Peter who is the Pope, has taken a different tone with the SSPX and with those who have had great difficulty with the changes. Perhaps you should follow his lead?

Consider his outreach to the TAC as an example of how he reaches out to Traditionalists who are schismatic. Does he say “CHOOSE!” or does he follow a different approach?

Consider his outreach to the SSPX. Does he say “CHOOSE!” or does he follow a different approach.

Also, please remember the forum rules. I read them carefully and I found there that I had to treat people with respect, civility, and if I was hostile to traditionalists, I should refrain from posting here.

All the above, taken together, seems to me that my conscience may not be as poorly formed as you indicate.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thank you for your post, and for your (not so gentle) correction!

I do appreciate your point.

However, I point out, in my defense, that the Holy Father, the Successor of Peter who is the Pope, has taken a different tone with the SSPX and with those who have had great difficulty with the changes. Perhaps you should follow his lead?

First, the SSPX are not Sedevacantist.

Second, the discussions between the SSPX and the Church are being done by the Church and the SSPX not by a single member of the SSPX community and someone who has close contact with them.

Nothing binding can come from the type of discussion the OP is talking about except for a possible confusion on his part.

 

[cathguy]

First, the SSPX are not Sedevacantist…

Is it possible you are misreading me, or did not read the posts carefully?

It is certainly true that the SSPX are NOT Sedevacantist. My only point is that we need to adopt a more gentle and respectful tone. Heat is the enemy of light.

The traditional Anglican Communion in many ways has been like the Sedevacantists, in that they rejected Roman authority and the authority of the Pontiff. Again, what is the tone the Pope has taken towards those in schism who love tradition? Is it “TURN OR BURN!” or something else?

Second, the discussions between the SSPX and the Church are being done by the Church and the SSPX not by a single member of the SSPX community and someone who has close contact with them.

If I am reading you correctly, I agree with this statement entirely. The discussions between the SSPX and the Holy See are being done by those with the authority and competence to do so and have been rightly delegated by both sides. These discussions are secret, which is a VERY good thing, because the sort of people (myself included) who post on websites like this and write in the press tend to throw more heat than light and tend to be very rash.

Nothing binding can come from the type of discussion the OP is talking about except for a possible confusion on his part.

Absolutely agreed. My post, which you took exception to, was in response to someone who basically gave the “turn or burn” line as opposed to engaging in discourse in comportment with the forum rules, and with the rules of civility.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The validity of sacraments has to do with form and intent. In as much as the Byzantines INTEND to do what ordination does when they ordain, and in as much as their liturgy and rites are both ancient and apostolic and have undergone only organic development, it is clear that they enjoy valid orders.

That is a consideration, to be sure: valid form, matter, minister, and intent.

And all these conditions ar met by the PostV2 revised rites of ordination.

The Church, by her nature, cannot promulgate invalid and ineffectual rites.

 

[Yggdrasil]

That is a consideration, to be sure: valid form, matter, minister, and intent.

And all these conditions ar met by the PostV2 revised rites of ordination.

That is one opinion. There exists, however, a controversy over this. The other opinion, naturally, is that the aforementioned conditions are not met.

The Church, by her nature, cannot promulgate invalid and ineffectual rites.

There are two ways to look at this, then. Should the Church promulgate an apparently heretical rite (or rites) with a defective form, there are two options:

1. 
   *]The new liturgy is valid and effectual simply because it was given by the Church. End of story; do not question. (By this logic, even a “black mass” would be valid and effectual if it “came from the Church”).
   
   *]The rites themselves being demonstrably invalid, skepticism must then turn to whether or not indeed they truly come from the Church (which, "by her nature, cannot promulgate invalid and ineffectual rites.) The solution, in such an instance, is that a majority of the hierarchy has likely apostatized and is thusly no longer “the Church.” The minority of the hierarchy which rejects the dubious rite and maintains a traditional liturgy therefore constitutes the living Apostolic Church (albeit sede vacante).

 

[jeff417]

Let us not forget that this is Christ’s Church, one which he promised to be with and protect until “the end of the age.” A “black mass” would never come “from the church.” That is a ridiculous analogy. Christ told us that there would be sinners mixed in with the saints (parable of the wheat and the chaff) but let us remember who is ultimately in charge. If the church is the Bride of Christ, would He not keep his promise? We, as imperfect sinners can fall into error, but with Christ all things are possible. He can, and does use imperfect creatures for His greater glory. Have faith in Christ and His ability to protect His Church from the evil one.
God Bless

 

[jeff417]

Incidently, this thread has gotten off the topic of comparing the pre- and post- V2 rites of ordination of Bishops. Also, if anyone knows, what exactly is the point of contention for sedes?

 

[Yggdrasil]

Let us not forget that this is Christ’s Church, one which he promised to be with and protect until “the end of the age.” A “black mass” would never come “from the church.” That is a ridiculous analogy.

I don’t think it’s a ridiculous analogy; I fear you’ve missed the point. Of course a “black mass” would never come from the Church—that’s the whole idea. If a pope ever promulgated such a blasphemy, such an action would betray him as a heretic, ergo he would not be the pope. It wouldn’t mean the end of Christ’s Church; it would simply signify the apostasy of any hierarchy which attempted to fob it off.

Kindly consider that I used the “black mass” as an analogy because the sedevacantist perspective is that the Novus Ordo is similarly repulsive to Catholic sensibilities. The liturgy should resemble neither the ritual of the Satanist nor that of the Protestant. The sedevacantist contention is also that the new rite has a defective form in the vernacular translation, which renders it idolatrous. And since it is a mark of the Church that she is Holy, it is impossible for the Church to invalidate the sacrament of the Eucharist, or to surround it with heretical trappings. Therefore, the spiritual authority of its promulgators is doubtful.

Incidently, this thread has gotten off the topic of comparing the pre- and post- V2 rites of ordination of Bishops. Also, if anyone knows, what exactly is the point of contention for sedes?

The point of contention is the allegedly defective form in the new rite. I offered a link earlier from a noted sedevacantist priest. It’s sixteen pages long, but if you are willing to print it out, brew a cup of tea, and sit down with it patiently, I think it will nicely delineate the sedevacantist perspective for you.

Best of luck discussing it with your sedevacantist neighbors. May the peace of Our Lord be with you always.