Rites vs Sacraments

[Rara_Avis]

The Church has no authority to change a sacrament. Jesus chose Holy Orders to be what they are; who are we to argue with Him?

hmmmmm??? If this is so then why have all the sacraments changed since VII

 

[Rara_Avis]

The Council of Florence described the elements necessary for the validity of the sacraments: "All these sacraments are brought to completion by components; by things as matter, by words as form, and by the person of the minister effecting the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. And if any of these three is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.

Once again, contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church for nearly 2,000 years, Vatican II introduced changes to the essence of the sacramental rites. Several sacraments even have new names: Initiation (Baptism), Reconciliation ( Penance) and Anointing of the Sick (Extreme Unction). Because several of the sacraments have been modified extensively, their validity is in no way guaranteed.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

hmmmmm??? If this is so then why have all the sacraments changed since VII

The Sacraments haven’t changed since Vatican II or Trent or Florence for that matter.

 

[Rara_Avis]

The Sacraments haven’t changed since Vatican II or Trent or Florence for that matter.

Ok which one would you like to discuss … how bout we start at the beginning with Baptism - The Sacrament cleanses our souls from original sin, making us adopted children of God and heirs of heaven. As a result of Vatican II, the sacrament has been significantly changed. The new ceremony, called the Rite for the Christian Initiation of Infants, was introduced on June 1, 1970.

Teilhard de Chardin was a French Jesuit priest who attempted to reconcile Christianity with Darwin’s evolutionism and Hegel’s philosophy - Teilhard could not accept the definite and detailed Catholic doctorines on creation, the explanation of miracles, the existence of Original Sin, the personal responsibility for actual sin, the Resurrection and personal Life Everlasting. In his “Cosmic Christ” concept "the person of Christ is dissolved into the universe and Christ no longer has a personal identiy. Some priests and deeacons have adopted the erroneous teachings of Chardin regarding Original Sin. This has caused them to have false views of Baptism.

1- The prayer of exorcism and the anointing with oil of catechumens are omitted.

1. a saint’s name is no longer required.
2. Baptized non-Roman Christians are rarely baptized conditionally.
3. In place of a second Catholic baptismal sponsor, a Christian of a Protestant denomination who may be a relative or friend of the family may serve as a Christian witness of the baptism with a Catholic sponsor. A Catholic, incidentally, can do the same for a member of a Protestant denomination.
4. An even closer participation is permitted when the person to be baptized is a member of one of the separated Eastern Churches. A member of one of these churches may be a godparent, together with a Catholic godparent, at the baptism of a Catholic infant or adult.
5. In the new rite of reception of baptized Christians into full communion with the Catholic Church the requirement of absolution from excommunication is now suprressed and no abjuration of error is made.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax tecum!

Rara,

Just because the way in which a Sacrament is done is changed, that doesn’t mean that the Sacrament itself has changed. Look at the Eucharist–the Novus Ordo is done differently than the Tridentine Mass, and the Eucharist is no different as a Sacrament. Look at Marriage–the ceremony is no longer performed at the doors of the church with the blessing taking place at the altar, as it was in the Middle Ages (at least in England), but the Sacrament itself is no different. Look at the Annointing of the Sick–it is no longer done only before death, but anytime someone is seriously ill, but the Sacrament itself is no different.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Ok which one would you like to discuss … how bout we start at the beginning with Baptism - The Sacrament cleanses our souls from original sin, making us adopted children of God and heirs of heaven. As a result of Vatican II, the sacrament has been significantly changed. The new ceremony, called the Rite for the Christian Initiation of Infants, was introduced on June 1, 1970.

Teilhard de Chardin was a French Jesuit priest who attempted to reconcile Christianity with Darwin’s evolutionism and Hegel’s philosophy - Teilhard could not accept the definite and detailed Catholic doctorines on creation, the explanation of miracles, the existence of Original Sin, the personal responsibility for actual sin, the Resurrection and personal Life Everlasting. In his “Cosmic Christ” concept "the person of Christ is dissolved into the universe and Christ no longer has a personal identiy. Some priests and deeacons have adopted the erroneous teachings of Chardin regarding Original Sin. This has caused them to have false views of Baptism.

1- The prayer of exorcism and the anointing with oil of catechumens are omitted.

1. a saint’s name is no longer required.
2. Baptized non-Roman Christians are rarely baptized conditionally.
3. In place of a second Catholic baptismal sponsor, a Christian of a Protestant denomination who may be a relative or friend of the family may serve as a Christian witness of the baptism with a Catholic sponsor. A Catholic, incidentally, can do the same for a member of a Protestant denomination.
4. An even closer participation is permitted when the person to be baptized is a member of one of the separated Eastern Churches. A member of one of these churches may be a godparent, together with a Catholic godparent, at the baptism of a Catholic infant or adult.
5. In the new rite of reception of baptized Christians into full communion with the Catholic Church the requirement of absolution from excommunication is now suprressed and no abjuration of error is made.

You are mixing Sacraments and Rites. Sacraments are celebrated within Rites, all the extra and changable things surrounding the actual celebration of the Sacrament. Which is quite plain and simply proper (Form, Matter and Intent). The Rite of Reconciliation, The Rite of Infant Baptism, The Rite of Marriage, etc.

Of course in the Church there are also Rites which have no Sacraments celebrated within them, Funeral Rites, Profession Rites, The Rite of Acceptance, etc.

1. In the new Rite of Baptism the Prayer of exorcism and anointing with the oil of Catechumens is not omitted.
2. A Saints name is only required when a the person has a clearly pagan name.
3. Baptism can only be received once, once validly received it cannot be repeated.
4. Only one Catholic Godparent was ever required for licitness, never validity.
5. ?
6. A non-Catholic validly Baptized Christian is required to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation before making a profession of Faith in the Catholic Church and being received into full communion, by Confirmation and Holy Communion.

All of which (1-6) have nothing to do directly with any validity Sacraments.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

This thread was initiated by splitting it off from another into its own discussion

 

[puzzleannie]

hmmmmm??? If this is so then why have all the sacraments changed since VII

that’s news to me and I have been in religious education for 20yrs, yup just checked the catechism, there are still 7, they still have the same signs instituted by Christ, still have the same graces and effects. What am I missing?

 

[Rara_Avis]

1. In the new Rite of Baptism the Prayer of exorcism and anointing with the oil of Catechumens is not omitted.

According to ICEL, The Rites of the Catholic Church as Revised by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Vol. I p. 423

it has!

And I agree none of the above are directly related to matter, form or intention … but the point is Why did they change it! Why did they mess with it! What was the purpose?

And clearly the end result of messing with the sacraments has been abuse upon abuse. So that you can not trust anymore the validility of the Sacrament.

People on here complain and complain about this abuse or that abuse - and for some silly reason everyone thinks the Bishop doesn’t know about these abuse - when clearly as I know in my diosease The Bishop not only knows … he is behind it!!!

So why would you think that just because someone is called a Priest that a valid sacrament has taken place?

They do what they want … they mess with the word, the matter and VERY VERY CLEARLY for many priest the intention is warped - all you have to do is read a newspaper!

All I know is I had all my children re baptised - why because people (priests) don’t believe in “Original Sin” I have sat through many a baptism and listened to the priests explaination of the ceremony … and really it is usually quite fruity.

The messaged that has crept into VII is that Original Sin - like all bible stories are cute … but not something we base our religion on… I don’t need anyone to tell me this is not so because I have heard it out of the mouths of many priests.

 

[Rara_Avis]

Lets move on to Holy Orders … How Valid is the priest?

Completely disregarding Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution, Paul VI approved new ordinations rites for deacons, priests, and bishops in his Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani. The revised rites went into effect in 1970. The Motu Proprio of Paul VI of August 15, 1972 eliminated the rite of Tonsure and the orders of Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte and Subdeacon. On June 29, 1989, the ordination rite was again altered.

Paul VI changed the form of the ordination rite of priests:
“Almighty Father, grant to these servants of yours the dignity of the priesthood. Renew within them the spirit of holiness. As co-workers with the order of bishops many they be faithful to the ministrythat they receive from you, Lord God, and be to others a model of right conduct.”

The essential words of the new rite are similar to the traditional form although the Latin word ut, which means “in order that” is omitted, thus breaking the link between the graces of the office and the order of the priesthood. To many, this may seem an insignificant change, but it has serious ramifications.

The deletion of the word ut (meaning “so that”) removes the causal relationship between the two sentences. No longer is it made clear that the ordinand receives the “office of the second rank” as a result of the “renewal of the Spirit of Holiness” Whether or not this invalidates the rite is open to question and much depends on the reason why ut was deleted.

 

[Rara_Avis]

that’s news to me and I have been in religious education for 20yrs, yup just checked the catechism, there are still 7, they still have the same signs instituted by Christ, still have the same graces and effects. What am I missing?

Well here than is some more interesting news … the catechism is also no longer the same … but totally messed with!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

According to ICEL, The Rites of the Catholic Church as Revised by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Vol. I p. 423

it has!

And I agree none of the above are directly related to matter, form or intention … but the point is Why did they change it! Why did they mess with it! What was the purpose?

And clearly the end result of messing with the sacraments has been abuse upon abuse. So that you can not trust anymore the validility of the Sacrament.

People on here complain and complain about this abuse or that abuse - and for some silly reason everyone thinks the Bishop doesn’t know about these abuse - when clearly as I know in my diosease The Bishop not only knows … he is behind it!!!

So why would you think that just because someone is called a Priest that a valid sacrament has taken place?

They do what they want … they mess with the word, the matter and VERY VERY CLEARLY for many priest the intention is warped - all you have to do is read a newspaper!

All I know is I had all my children re baptised - why because people (priests) don’t believe in “Original Sin” I have sat through many a baptism and listened to the priests explaination of the ceremony … and really it is usually quite fruity.

The messaged that has crept into VII is that Original Sin - like all bible stories are cute … but not something we base our religion on… I don’t need anyone to tell me this is not so because I have heard it out of the mouths of many priests.

The Rites Vol1 Pg 423, is the: Rite of Baptism for Children Administered by a Catechist When No Priest or Deacon is Available.

It is not solemn Baptism, so the full Rites of Baptism may not be used, however they may be supplied later by a pastor. You will also note that there is no Anointing with Sacred Chrism after the Baptism.

 

[Rara_Avis]

The Rites Vol1 Pg 423, is the: Rite of Baptism for Children Administered by a Catechist When No Priest or Deacon is Available.

It is not solemn Baptism, so the full Rites of Baptism may not be used, however they may be supplied later by a pastor. You will also note that there is no Anointing with Sacred Chrism after the Baptism.

So if this correct than why has it been omitted at Baptisms I have been to?

 

[jmcrae]

So if this correct than why has it been omitted at Baptisms I have been to?

I have never seen anything omitted at Baptism, either for infants or for adults.

But I have seen the priest do things very quietly, without announcing NOW I AM PUTTING OIL ON THE KID - LOOKY LOOKY!! or LOOK EVERYBODY, NOW I AM DOING THE PRAYER OF EXORCISM - he just does it very sotto voce - if you are standing at the back of the church, then you might not see or hear him do these things, but he does do them.

 

[CRW]

According to ICEL, The Rites of the Catholic Church as Revised by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Vol. I p. 423

it has!

And I agree none of the above are directly related to matter, form or intention … but the point is Why did they change it! Why did they mess with it! What was the purpose?

And clearly the end result of messing with the sacraments has been abuse upon abuse. So that you can not trust anymore the validility of the Sacrament.

People on here complain and complain about this abuse or that abuse - and for some silly reason everyone thinks the Bishop doesn’t know about these abuse - when clearly as I know in my diosease The Bishop not only knows … he is behind it!!!

So why would you think that just because someone is called a Priest that a valid sacrament has taken place?

They do what they want … they mess with the word, the matter and VERY VERY CLEARLY for many priest the intention is warped - all you have to do is read a newspaper!

All I know is I had all my children re baptised - why because people (priests) don’t believe in “Original Sin” I have sat through many a baptism and listened to the priests explaination of the ceremony … and really it is usually quite fruity.

The messaged that has crept into VII is that Original Sin - like all bible stories are cute … but not something we base our religion on… I don’t need anyone to tell me this is not so because I have heard it out of the mouths of many priests.

The state has the right to change speed limits. The Holy See is the authority to make changes as the Church grows in wisdom. As long as the minister is ordained, he follows the current instructions and teaching of the Church, the Sacraments remain the same. The difference is some question the authority of the Church.

 

[AJV]

Lets move on to Holy Orders … How Valid is the priest?

Completely disregarding Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution, Paul VI approved new ordinations rites for deacons, priests, and bishops in his Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani. The revised rites went into effect in 1970. The Motu Proprio of Paul VI of August 15, 1972 eliminated the rite of Tonsure and the orders of Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte and Subdeacon. On June 29, 1989, the ordination rite was again altered.

Paul VI changed the form of the ordination rite of priests:
“Almighty Father, grant to these servants of yours the dignity of the priesthood. Renew within them the spirit of holiness. As co-workers with the order of bishops many they be faithful to the ministrythat they receive from you, Lord God, and be to others a model of right conduct.”

The essential words of the new rite are similar to the traditional form although the Latin word ut, which means “in order that” is omitted, thus breaking the link between the graces of the office and the order of the priesthood. To many, this may seem an insignificant change, but it has serious ramifications.

The deletion of the word ut (meaning “so that”) removes the causal relationship between the two sentences. No longer is it made clear that the ordinand receives the “office of the second rank” as a result of the “renewal of the Spirit of Holiness” Whether or not this invalidates the rite is open to question and much depends on the reason why ut was deleted.

The sacramental form without ‘ut’ can be found in many older Roman liturgical books. See for example, the Leonine Sacramentary from which that prayer was taken. The removal of ‘ut’ does not in any way affect the validity, else most of the bishops and Popes from the past centuries would have not been bishops.

In order for a defect of intention, the minister must have a positive act of will not to do what the Church intends. Repeating a sacrament is a grave action- it may be better if you feel so strongly that there was a defect of intention to give a conditional baptism.

I cannot think of a sacrament where the matter has been altered. Which one is it?