Vatican II and valid ordinations

[Monica4316]

Hello

I read how some sedevacantists were saying that Vatican II destroyed Holy Orders and there are now no validly ordained priests, nor Sacraments, nor can there ever again be a validly elected Pope… and that the Church exists without a Pope…

the reason they gave is that one of the requirements in VII for electing a Pope, is that the Cardinals must be under the age of 80 to vote. (does anyone know why?). They were saying that this apparently eliminated all the Cardinals who were ordained according to the old Traditional rite. (But I thought that at the time of VII, the bishops under 80 were ALSO ordained in this way?)

Has anyone heard this argument? is there a good way to refute it?

(here’s the rule about the Cardinals:

“Note: Cardinals that reach the age of 80 before the Holy See becomes vacant may not vote in a conclave. 107 Cardinal Electors of 179 living Cardinals. This table was last updated on 19 Jul 10.”)

what also bothers me is this private revelation…

**Marie-Julie Jahenny, (1850-1941), Mystic of the Holy Catholic Church **

On November 27, 1902 and May 10, 1904, Our Lord and Our Lady announced the conspiracy to invent the “New Mass”:

“I give you a WARNING. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas and under the influence of the enemy of souls a MASS that contains words that are ODIOUS in My sight.”

“When the fatal hour arrives when the faith of my priests is put to the test, it will be (these texts) that will be celebrated in this SECOND period… The FIRST period is (the one) of my priesthood which exists since Me. The SECOND is (the one) of the persecution when the ENEMIES of the Faith and of Holy Religion (will impose their formulas) in the book of the second celebration… These infamous spirits are those who crucified me and are awaiting the kingdom of THE NEW MESSIAH.”

Here is more about her life: communityofhopeinc.com/Prayer%20Pages/Saints/marie%20julie.html

At first, I thought, if this is true, it’s talking about the incorrect translation… but the Sacraments and Holy Orders are still valid… and Rome has just approved a better translation. And for all we know it might be possible that some people in VII were working towards their own agenda.

But sedevacantists are saying that the Sacraments aren’t real anymore and neither is the priesthood…

what do you think? Does anyone have any information? I’ve always believed that it’s Jesus that I receive in the Eucharist…I was surprised that anyone has these views

thanks

 

[Monica4316]

I found these links, and I don’t know how to refute these points, I’m afraid that they might be true

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/new_rite_invalid.html

(I know it’s from the “most holy family monastery” website, but I don’t know how to argue the points)

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM

calefactory.org/misc-v2-v2ritesaretheyvalid.htm

sedevacantist.com/novus_ordo_ordinations_fr_scott.html

 

[Joe_5859]

If you start to have questions, just remember the words of the Lord in Matthew 16:18:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

The Church is not going to be destroyed.

Remember, private revelation should not contradict the teaching of the Church. If it does, that means it is not reliable. No further investigation is necessary.

Personally, I wouldn’t spend that much time concerned with what mostholyfamilymonastery.com has to say about anything related to the Catholic Church. (I would recommend staying far away from that site if it causes you distress.) Some ideas are so full or error that it’s tough to even no where to begin to refute all the false information. It’s like trying to refute Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism or Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code: you’d need to fill volumes to respond to every error.

I always ask, what do you think is more likely:

1. 
   *]that Jesus lied, the Holy Spirit failed, and every single priest, bishop, and pope over the last 45 years is an abject heretic?; or
   *]that this fringe website run by a handful of people are the only ones who have it right?
   
   When you look at it that way, it seems rather silly. All it is is modern-day gnosticism. They have this secret knowledge that the rest of the world needs or else they are doomed to perish. I would encourage reading Scripture rather than visiting their website.

 

[greenmoira]

I agree with Joe. If you believe what Our Lord Jesus Christ said to St Peter regarding His Church withstanding the assaults of Hell, then there is no question. There have been, and probably will be, priests, bishops, and popes that were immoral, heretical etc. Theologians have said that those actions did not negate their priestly orders or position. It is pointless to attempt to get involved in theological discussions if one is not schooled in Theology. We will drown spiritually if we try. We do have the obligation to study our faith but we must be wise enough to take our questions to legitimate clerics for guidance. If we follow Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church (Tradition & Magisterium) we will not falter in Faith. However we have to expect Satan and his demons to attack the Church when and where they can. So leave it up to God to give us the grace to learn and know what we need to. Pray to Our Lady of Good Counsel for help. Say the daily Rosary. Know that God has things in hand. Do Not Despair!! God bless you.

 

[Robert_Burns]

If you start to have questions, just remember the words of the Lord in Matthew 16:18:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

The Church is not going to be destroyed.

Remember, private revelation should not contradict the teaching of the Church. If it does, that means it is not reliable. No further investigation is necessary.

Personally, I wouldn’t spend that much time concerned with what mostholyfamilymonastery.com has to say about anything related to the Catholic Church. (I would recommend staying far away from that site if it causes you distress.) Some ideas are so full or error that it’s tough to even no where to begin to refute all the false information. It’s like trying to refute Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism or Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code: you’d need to fill volumes to respond to every error.

I always ask, what do you think is more likely:

1. 
   *]that Jesus lied, the Holy Spirit failed, and every single priest, bishop, and pope over the last 45 years is an abject heretic?; or
   *]that this fringe website run by a handful of people are the only ones who have it right?
   
   When you look at it that way, it seems rather silly. All it is is modern-day gnosticism. They have this secret knowledge that the rest of the world needs or else they are doomed to perish. I would encourage reading Scripture rather than visiting their website.

1. 
   “that this fringe website run by a handful of people are the only ones who have it right?”
   
   Jesus and 12 Apostles? Not that I am arguing - but this is a weak argument.

 

[CWBetts]

I would start by asking them to produce VAtican documents that support their position. “avatican II says…” does not wash. There were sixteen conciliar documents. We need a title and section number. This will usually expose their fraud.

 

[Monica4316]

Hi,

thanks for the replies, but I’m still confused about this… it says on the website that the words of the ordination were changed, even though in the 40s, the Pope said they should not be changed. How is this explained?

 

[Monica4316]

I did find this quote in the encyclical…

If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM

So maybe the new Ordination rite is valid, because the Church itself made this change? The change also seems very small… (one word)

as for how they got rid of the references to sacrifice, etc, that I think is unfortunate, but it doesn’t look like it affects the validity of Holy Orders. Maybe the new Mass, new rites, etc, aren’t as perfect in form as the other ones, but are still valid…

what do you think?

 

[DorianGregorian]

The first argument that could be made is that the Traditional Rites of Ordination date back to about 1000 AD, so that form cannot possibly be the only valid form.

Secondly different sui juris Churches have different Rites of Ordination. The Byzantines have a different one from the Romans, a different one from the Copts. Because the Bible only lays out the matter (laying of hands), the Church has the power to determine the form. It is likely that the early Church used very simple forms, the laying of hands being the most important.

Thirdly, if it was the mission to “destroy Holy Orders” then they failed as the Eastern Rite has remained unchanged.

 

[Monica4316]

However, I found out that even Archbishop Lefebvre considered the ordinations to be valid…

Despite such firm words, the Archbishop has this to say: “The ‘matter’ of the sacrament has been preserved in the laying on of hands which takes place next, and likewise the ‘form,’ namely the words of ordination” (ibid., p. 51). The destruction he is speaking about is of the Mass as it ought to be, and of the priesthood as it ought to be. His intention is, consequently, to point out that it is the Catholic notion of the priesthood that is destroyed, not necessarily the validity of the sacrament of holy orders.

sedevacantist.com/novus_ordo_ordinations_fr_scott.html

They also comment on the form for episcopal consecration…

The very erudite article of Father Pierre-Marie, O.P., published in The Angelus, December 2005 & January 2006, establishes that the form is in itself valid. Although radically different from the traditional Latin form, and although only similar, but not identical, to the forms used in the eastern rites, it is in itself valid, the meaning designating sufficiently clearly the Catholic episcopacy. For the form of Holy Orders is variable and changeable, this being one of the sacraments established only in general terms. The substance is consequently retained for as long as the words have essentially the same meaning.

Maybe the sedevacantists I spoke to had more extreme views of this?

It seems that most sedevacantists think that the ordinations are valid, but since their form has been changed/corrupted, it’s not always clear in meaning, and some priests/bishops who are more liberal can err in intention - and this can also happen in the Mass. if that’s true, that’s very unfortunate, but it doesn’t mean that holy orders in the Church have disappeared - it just means it’s important for priests to know the faith very well.

 

[Monica4316]

The first argument that could be made is that the Traditional Rites of Ordination date back to about 1000 AD, so that form cannot possibly be the only valid form.

Secondly different sui juris Churches have different Rites of Ordination. The Byzantines have a different one from the Romans, a different one from the Copts. Because the Bible only lays out the matter (laying of hands), the Church has the power to determine the form. It is likely that the early Church used very simple forms, the laying of hands being the most important.

Thirdly, if it was the mission to “destroy Holy Orders” then they failed as the Eastern Rite has remained unchanged.

that is true…

I think that the article I quoted above makes some good points on why the new ordinations are still valid… but what it says about intention does worry me a bit, - they’re saying that the new text isn’t very clear or detailed, so it’s possible for a bishop to not have the right intention when conferring the Sacrament. (which is important for the Sacrament). The good thing about the traditional rite is that it’s less ambiguous.

 

[Gregorianman]

Hello

I read how some sedevacantists were saying that Vatican II destroyed Holy Orders and there are now no validly ordained priests, nor Sacraments, nor can there ever again be a validly elected Pope… and that the Church exists without a Pope…

the reason they gave is that one of the requirements in VII for electing a Pope, is that the Cardinals must be under the age of 80 to vote. (does anyone know why?). They were saying that this apparently eliminated all the Cardinals who were ordained according to the old Traditional rite. (But I thought that at the time of VII, the bishops under 80 were ALSO ordained in this way?)

Has anyone heard this argument? is there a good way to refute it?

(here’s the rule about the Cardinals:

“Note: Cardinals that reach the age of 80 before the Holy See becomes vacant may not vote in a conclave. 107 Cardinal Electors of 179 living Cardinals. This table was last updated on 19 Jul 10.”)

what also bothers me is this private revelation…

Here is more about her life: communityofhopeinc.com/Prayer%20Pages/Saints/marie%20julie.html

At first, I thought, if this is true, it’s talking about the incorrect translation… but the Sacraments and Holy Orders are still valid… and Rome has just approved a better translation. And for all we know it might be possible that some people in VII were working towards their own agenda.

But sedevacantists are saying that the Sacraments aren’t real anymore and neither is the priesthood…

what do you think? Does anyone have any information? I’ve always believed that it’s Jesus that I receive in the Eucharist…I was surprised that anyone has these views

thanks

Pope Paul VI put the “Age 80 Rule”, into effect in 1975, when he wrote the Apostolic Constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis. The rule is in the introduction of the document. I do not recall that Vatican II had anything to do with it.

 

[CWBetts]

Hi,

thanks for the replies, but I’m still confused about this… it says on the website that the words of the ordination were changed, even though in the 40s, the Pope said they should not be changed. How is this explained?

here we are talking about form, but not matter. Words of any liturgy can change, provided that the words changed are not direct quotes from the Scriptures. Many sedevacantists fail to see that the form a liturgy takes is malleable, and has changed many tomes over the centuries

 

[Chatter163]

Pope Paul VI put the “Age 80 Rule”, into effect in 1975, when he wrote the Apostolic Constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis. The rule is in the introduction of the document. I do not recall that Vatican II had anything to do with it.

You are confused. John Paul II wrote Universi Dominici Gregis in 1996. Paul VI wrote Romano Pontifici Eligendo in 1975. Both contain the age 80 rule, which first appeared in the latter.

 

[excubitor]

I found these links, and I don’t know how to refute these points, I’m afraid that they might be true

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/new_rite_invalid.html

(I know it’s from the “most holy family monastery” website, but I don’t know how to argue the points)

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM

calefactory.org/misc-v2-v2ritesaretheyvalid.htm

sedevacantist.com/novus_ordo_ordinations_fr_scott.html

We really should not be reading this kind of material. Of course everybody thinks that they are mature enough in the scriptures and in the faith to resist power deceptions. However this is NOT the case. These web sites ruin and destroy souls. I really don’t understand why Catholic Answers allows links to these diabolical web sites.

It is primarily because the arguments are so powerful in their favour that they should be avoided. This is basically the way the argument goes.

1. The church has experienced a massive fracture where the liturgy and the rites have been compromised
2. The Popes resided over these shocking fractures and have done nothing to stem the tide of liturgical abuse.
3. Therefore the Popes cannot possibly be true Popes.
4. Therefore we should leave the church and disavow the imposter Popes.

However through the course of this logic only the material which suits the sedevacantist purpose is presented in order to establish each point. Only the negative stuff which implicates the Pope and the church is presented.
For example one of the tactics regarding the various rites is to show comparisons between the new rites and the old rites. Then they highlight all the things that have been taken out of the new rite which were in the old rite. Shock Horror. How could such wonderful words be taken out of the new rite. There must be a conspiracy to destroy the church. how else could they take out the words? Why would they take out those words if they are not trying to implement heresy?
The fact is though that over the centuries liturgies become bloated. Its far easier to add in excellent and worthy words than it is to take them out. It gets to the point where the liturgy becomes a burden and not a joy. It becomes repetitive and kind of dead and stultifying. Its like hymns. There are some wonderful hymns from 300 years ago with hymn books. But really. Are we going to use the same hymn book for the next 1000 years.

Firstly, here is the intent of Sacrosanctum Concilium vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
"The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times. "
Now here are some important rules in this document.
“3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority”
How many priests today disobey this rule? And conversely if the Council was bent on promoting modernism why would they include this comment?

Now here is an interesting section
37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.

Do we really expect Nigerians to say the Latin Mass and all the rites in Latin? Latin is the bedrock of the West but there is no background of Latin in Nigeria. We have scores of rites today in various ancient languages simply because the church never mandated a particular language. Even the Latin Mass is said in the Latin Vulgate which was the common vulgar tongue of the People.

Therefore it is quite appropriate that the Nigerian bishops adapt the liturgy to their local customs and culture. And look how well they have done it. I commend everyone to look up the ABC Compass program on the Nigerian priests that have been sent to Tasmania to help with the priest shortage there. This documentary shows the incredible dynamism of the Catholic church in Nigeria. In each city you can find a large church holding 2000 people and it is jam packed full with people spilling out into the sidewalks. Then you can walk ten minutes down the road and find ANOTHER huge church filled with people. The priests are highly esteemed and the seminaries are full of young seminarians. When they called for volunteers to go to Tasmania to evangelise the people (pagans) there, nobody would volunteer, as if it is some kind of leper colony like Molokai.

Now this kind of dynamic church is a product of Vatican 2 and the liturgical commission of Paul VI. If it had not been for these initiatives of the church the Nigerian church may not have boomed and flourished as it has. So even if we conclude that the New rites have not borne fruit in our western societies then it must be because of some other external societal factor and not the liturgical reforms per se. How could the same liturgical reforms produce bad fruit and wonderful abundant fruit at the same time?

I bet the sedevacantists do not produce this argument or show us how wonderful the church is in Nigeria. It does not suit their purpose is why. And their purpose is to destroy the church, drag people out of it and into their schismatic groups.
.

 

[Gregorianman]

You are confused. John Paul II wrote Universi Dominici Gregis in 1996. Paul VI wrote Romano Pontifici Eligendo in 1975. Both contain the age 80 rule, which first appeared in the latter.

You’re right. Thanks for the correction.

 

[AJV]

I found these links, and I don’t know how to refute these points, I’m afraid that they might be true

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/new_rite_invalid.html

(I know it’s from the “most holy family monastery” website, but I don’t know how to argue the points)

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM

calefactory.org/misc-v2-v2ritesaretheyvalid.htm

sedevacantist.com/novus_ordo_ordinations_fr_scott.html

No offense to you, but I would stop reading these sites and even talking about these things. They only cause disturbance in the mind, and don’t profit the spiritual life in any way. I used to involve myself in reading arguments on everything and finding rebuttals. There is a place for that, I admit, but when I look back at it, I think my time would have been better spent growing closer to God. This is a personal observation - not implying that *you *aren’t growing closer to God or anything.

The MHF arguments are somewhat weak. To begin with, the word “ut” is not found in the oldest text we have of the prayer (that’s why it was removed). That raises the probelm that if “ut” was required for validity, then those ordinations were invalid, which means all ordinations since that time are invalid.

Secondly, the MHF site plays fast and loose with things like intention and sacrifice. For example, they have no qualms about translating “offere” as “offer sacrifice” in the Traditional liturgy and accepting that as a sacrificial mention, but when the New Rite speaks says “offer sacrifice to God” (“sacrificium Deo offerendum”) - an obligatory prayer- they refuse to accept that as a sacrificial mention. Again, since 1969, priests are also required to promise to celebrate the mysteries of Christ in the “Eucharistic Sacrifice”.

The comparison with the Anglican Rites is unwarranted on several other counts, if one reads any of the detailed Catholic works produced in support of the judgment of Apostolicae Curae. In fact, the revised rites contain several items, such as the prayer after the Litany, that would have been viewed favourably, had the Anglican rites contained them.

Moreover, statements such as

In the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration, basically every reference to the specifically Catholic understanding of the Episcopate has been deleted, just like in the New Rite of Ordination. In fact, there is not one unambiguous statement about the intended sacramental effect of Episcopal Consecration that can be found.

are just manifestly silly. Leo XIII is Apostolicae Curae, which they love to quote said:

But the episcopate undoubtedly, by the institution of Christ, most truly belongs to the Sacrament of Order and constitutes the sacerdotium in the highest degree, namely, that which by the teaching of the Holy Fathers and our liturgical customs is called the Summum sacerdotium sacri ministerii summa .

The New Rite specifies that the bishop exercises the “High Priesthood” much more clearly than the old Rite itself, which did not even contain these words. For example:

Vis Deum omnipotentem pro populo sancto indesinenter orare et sine reprehensione summi sacerdotii munus explere?

Da, cordium cognitor Pater, huic servo tuo, quem elegisti ad Episcopatum, ut pascat gregem sanctum tuum, et summum sacerdotium tibi exhibeat sine reprehensione…a ut virtute Spiritus summi sacerdotii habeat potestatem…

Deus, qui summi Christi sacerdotii participem te effecit, ipse te mysticae delibutionis liquore perfundat,

 

[Monica4316]

Thanks for the replies I’ve been praying about all this and I feel better now…

I just wanted to clarify something, I don’t go looking for this information. Several sedevacantists were trying to convince me of their view. They brought up points that worried me so I went to look for more info. I would not have read sedevacantist websites otherwise.

God bless