THE PROBLEMS WITH THE OTHER SACRAMENTS DEPENDENT ON THE PRIESTHOOD

So offensive was this definition that Paul VI found it necessary to revise it shortly after its promulgation. Its new form reads:

"At Mass or the Lord's Supper, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice. For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst (Matt. 1:20)."

In changing the definition Paul VI was careful to point out that no doctrinal differences existed between this and the former definition, and that "the amendments were only a matter of style." The stylistic change is that the presiding priest is now acting in the person of Christ. However, his function is still that of "presiding"; it is still the "people of God" who are called together to celebrate the memorial of the Lord; and the parallel with evening family prayers is retained. True, we find the traditional phrase of the priest "acting in the person of Christ." But it should be remembered that a priest can act in the person of Christ in a variety of ways other than as a sacrificing priest (which is the essential and traditional understanding of the nature of the priesthood), as for example, when he teaches, exhorts, counsels or exorcises in the name of the Lord.^{^[27]}Does the priest in saying the Novus Ordo provide or perform any sacrifice other than that of "praise and thanksgiving" such as Protestants believe is appropriate to Sunday services? Nowhere in the General Instruction (or in the rite itself) is it made clear that such occurs. And indeed, as we shall see, all reference to the priest performing any sacrifical function (apart from praise and thanksgiving) has also been deleted from the new rites of ordination.^{^[28]}

Consideration of the other aspects of the new rite - the Novus Ordo Missae - tend to confirm its Protestant and non-sacrificial orientation. Consider the fact that the Words of Consecration are no longer called the "Words of Consecration," but only the "Words of Our Lord." While the point may seem minor, it raises the question of whether any consecration in fact occurs. Moreover these words are part of the "Institution of the Narration," (an entirely new phrase to Catholic theology). Nowhere is the priest instructed to say the words of Consecration "in the person of Christ." If one follows the rubrics of the General Instruction (such as obedience presumably requires), they are simply said as part of the history of what occured at the Last Supper. Now, the traditional Church has always taught that when the words are read as part of a narrative - as occurs when one reads the Gospel - no Consecration occurs. The priest must say the words in persona Christi, as something happening "here and now," or the Sacred Species are not confected. Truly the new mass has changed the "immolative sacrifice" into a mere "memorial."

And what of the supposed "Words of Our Lord"? I say "supposed" because these words were also significantly changed by Paul VI. The words used by Our Lord at the Last Supper are well known - they have been handed down to us by Tradition since time immemorial. These words are not exactly the same as those found in the Gospel renditions and there was absolutely no justification for changing them to bring them into line with Scripture. (And even less for bringing them into line with the Lutheran service.) It should be remembered that the true Mass existed years before the first Scriptures were written down (and long before Luther came on the scene); one can assume that the Apostles took great care to use the exact words specified by our Lord at the "Last Supper" for the Consecration. (The twelve Apostles said Mass in slightly different ways, but always preserved these words with great care - and to this day in the 80 or more different traditional rites which have been in use in various parts of the world, preserve these words exactly.) But not only did Paul VI change the words of our Lord traditionally used in the Consecration formulas, he also altered them so that they no longer even conform to those found in Scripture. The Church has throughout the ages taught that Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross was sufficient to save all men, but that on our part it does not effectually save all, but only those that cooperate with grace. Thus it is that the traditional formula for Consecrations says "for you and for many."^{^[29]} However, the new rite insistently translates this phrase as "for you and for all," thus attacking the theological (and logical) principle that distinguishes sufficiency from efficiency and leading one to assume that as a result of the historical Sacrifice of the Cross, all men are saved. Such a change of meaning in the Consecratory formula attacks the "substance" of the rite and even taken in isolation - apart from the numerous other defects indicated - certainly renders it of dubious validity.

Such then are but two or three of the ways in which the Mass inherited from the Apostles has been altered. Space does not allow for a fuller discussion and the reader is referred to the author's Problems with the New Mass for a more detailed consideration. The primary intent of the present book is not to discuss the Mass, but rather the other Sacraments - namely Holy Orders and the Sacraments dependent upon it.

CHAPTER II - THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER

We shall consider Holy Orders first because it is that Sacrament by means of which priests are ordained, that is, given the "power" to say Mass and administer the other Sacraments pertinent to their function. It is said to imprint a "sacramental character" on the recipients that provides them with the special graces necessary for them to fulfill their high calling and to act "in persona Christi." Priests are ordained by bishops who are consecrated by other bishops going back in an "initiatic chain" to the Apostles, and hence it is through the "episcopacy" that the Apostolic Succession is passed on.^{^[30]} If follows that, if the ordination rite for bishops were in some way to be nullified and rendered invalid, priests ordained by them would not be priests, and all the other sacraments dependent upon this high estate would be rendered null and void.^{^[31]} In order to place the subject under consideration in a proper perspective it will be necessary to define the "Sacrament of Order," to determine whether the rite of episcopal consecration is a true Sacrament, to specify what is required for validity, and then to examine the new rite and see whether it "signifies the grace" which it is meant to effect, and "effects the grace" which it is meant to signify.

Considerable perplexity arises from the fact that while the Sacrament of Order is one, it is conferred in stages. In the Western Church these are divided into seven steps - the "Minor Orders" of acolyte, exorcist, lector and doorkeeper; and the "Major Orders" of the subdeaconate, deaconate and priesthood. Almost at once confusion enters the picture, for some of the ancient texts list six, others eight and nine. In the Greek Church, the rites of which are considered unquestionably valid, subdeacons are listed in the "minor" category. In all the Churches that recognize Orders as a Sacrament (The Protestants - which category includes Anglicans - do not) we find both Deacons and Priests are "ordained" and that the Episcopate or rank of Bishop is included under the heading of Priests; it is in fact called the "summum sacerdotium" or the "fullness of the priesthood." Higher ranks in the Church such as Archbishop, Cardinal or Pope, are considered administrative and not Sacramental. Thus once a Pope is elected he is installed with appropriate ceremonies, but not with a sacramental rite.^{^[32]}

For the sake of completeness it should be noted that 1) An ordinand (an individual about to be ordained) to any order, automatically receives the graces pertaining to a lesser order. (This principle is called per saltum, or "by jumping"). Thus if an individual were consecrated to the priesthood without receiving the lesser orders, he would automatically receive all the power and graces that relate to the lesser orders, such as, for example exorcism. The post-Conciliar Church has abolished many of the minor orders, but if this Church validly ordains priests, then these priests automatically receive the powers that pertain to these lower and "abolished" orders. However, when it comes to Bishops, almost all theologians hold that they must already be ordained priests, lacking which the Episcopal rite conveys nothing. The Church has never infallibly pronounced on this issue and contrary opinion - namely that the Episcopal rite automatically confers on the recipient the character of priestly orders - exists.^{^[33]} So critical is the Apostolic Succession that it is the customary practice of the Church to ordain a bishop with three other bishops. The rule is not absolute, for validity only requires one, and innumerable examples of where this custom has been by-passed can be given.

It is of interest that many traditional theologians have questioned whether the elevation of a Priest to the rank of Bishop is a sacramental or juridical act. The point is important because 1) it implies that an ordinary priest has the ability (not the right) to ordain (make other priests), and because 2), if the episcopal rite involves no "imprinting of a sacramental character," the question of validity can hardly arise. However, in so far as the ordination of Bishops has a "form" and a "matter," the greater majority hold that it is in fact a Sacrament - or rather that it is the completion of the Sacrament of Orders and confers upon the ordinand the "Fullness of priestly powers" and functions. Leo XIII clearly taught that such was the case. To quote him directly: "the episcopate, by Christ's institution, belongs most truly to the Sacrament of Order and is the priesthood in the highest degree; it is what the holy Fathers and our own liturgical usage call the high priesthood, the summit of the sacred ministry" (Apostolicae curae).

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE PRIEST AND THE BISHOP

In the traditional ordination rite of the priest, the Bishop instructs him that his function is "to offer sacrifice, to bless, to guide, to preach and to baptize." (In the post-Conciliar rite this instruction has been deleted and the priest is consecrated to "celebrate" the liturgy which of course means the Novus Ordo Missae.^{^[34]}) Such an instruction is not all-inclusive, for it mentions nothing of the power of absolution - its intent being to specify the principal functions of the priest. The power to absolve is however clearly specified in other parts of the traditional rite. (Again, the post-Conciliar rite has abolished the prayer that specifies this power.)

One would have thought that this statement by Pius XII had settled the issue once and for all. Not so! Only 20 years later we find Paul VI issuing his Apostolic Constitution entitled Pontificalis Romani (June 23, 1968) in which he retains the matter - the laying on of hands - but in which he specifies that the form for ordaining bishops is to be:

"et nunc effunde super hunc electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto filio tuo Jesu Christo, quem ipse donavit sanctis apostolis, qui constituerunt ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indificientem nominis tui - So now pour forth 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 found the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name."^{^[61]}

We have then two forms, or more precisely two groups of "essential" words wherein the substance of the form is to be found, and both of which are stated to be required for validity. How are we to explain this apparent disparity. We know that the Church has the right to change the wording of the form for Holy Orders, but only in so far as she doesn't change their "substance" or meaning. The problem to be resolved then, is whether both forms mean the same thing. Several approaches are possible.

1) 1)We can compare the wording of the two forms and find those words or phrases held in common. Doing this however yields the following common element: the single word "et" which means "and." Now, obviously "and" cannot represent the substantial aspect of these two forms and such an approach must be rejected as absurd.

2) Another way to determine the substance of the form is to consider the various consecratory prayers in use throughout the universal Church (Eastern and Western). This was indeed done by Jean Moran, and still later, by the English bishops in their "Vindication of the Bull" Apostolicae curae."^{^[62]}

"In each of the rites which the Catholic Church has recognized, the 'essential form' is contained in a 'consecrating prayer' to accompany the imposition of hands, and these prayers are in all cases of the same type, defining in some way or other the Order to which the candidate is being promoted, and beseeching god to bestow upon him the graces of his new state."^{^[63]}

They then proceed to give a list of these prayers which includes the ancient Leonine Sacramentary "still preserved in the modern Pontifical," the Greek, the Syro-Maronite (which is also the Syro-Jacobite), the Nestorian, the Armenian, the Coptic (or Alexandro-Jacobite) and the Abyssinian, together with the ancient Gallican, the rite in the Apostolic constitutions, and the "Canons of St. Hippolytus." They proceed to list the significant words respectively in each - the "High Priesthood" (summi sacerdotii), the "Pontifical dignity," the term "Bishop,:" the "perfect (or complete) priest," and the "Episcopate." This specification is to be found in all the known used forms (i.e., in the essential words of the various Western Catholic and Orthodox Churches).^{^[64]} It is even found in the Canons of Hippolytus. The form of Paul VI does not fill these requirements. Present in the words specified by Pius XII, it is conspicuous by its absence in the post-Conciliar form. Neither the rank, nor the power, nor a clear equivalent is present. And as Leo XIII made clear in his Apostolicae curae, the mentioning of the Holy Ghost - if "Governing Spirit" is in fact the Holy Ghost - is insufficient.

3) Another way to determine what is substantial is to consider the opinions of the theologians during the post-Reformation period. They are reviewed in some detail by Paul Bradshaw in his history of the Anglican Ordinal. One such individual was the Benedictine Wilfrid Raynal who stated that a valid form must express the distinctive character of the order being conferred in one of three ways: a) An allusion to the type found in the ancient Testament of the order conferred; b) The mention of some spiritual power which is the distinctive privilege of the order to which the candidate is raised; or c) The actual mention made of the office under the name which from earliest times has become attached to it, viz summus sacerdos for Bishop or Sacerdos secundi ordinis for Priest. He further added that the actual mention of the words Bishop and priest must really and truly bear the meaning attached to them by the Universal Church. A formal denial of the distinctive character of these two sacred offices must vitiate the Intention, and would render the ordination null and void. Now, as Bradshaw points out, "all the Western and Eastern forms fulfilled these requirements." The new rite of Paul VI does not.

All debate is resolved by the statement of Pius XII in his Sacramentum Ordinis. As the renowned theologian J.M. Hervé, who considers this definition infallible, states: "forma vero, quae et una est, sunt verba, quibus significatur effectum sacramentale, silicet potestas Ordinis et gratia Spiritus Sancti - the true form (i.e., the substance of the form) is that which signifies the sacramental effect, which is to say the power of "orders (i.e., priest or bishop) and the grace of the Holy Spirit."^{^[65]}

Consider once again the form specified by Paul VI:

“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."

It is perfectly clear that in no place is it specified that the rank or dignity of a Bishop has been conferred. The request that God give the "governing Spirit" (Spiritum principalem - whatever that is) "whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy Apostles" may imply that he is raised to the rank of the Apostles, but it doesn't clearly so state. The sacramental effect is not clearly specified and at best we are left with another post-Conciliar ambiguity. Again, in the former, the grace of the Holy Spirit is clearly indicated by the time honored phrase "Coelestis unguenti rore" while in the latter we are left with a phrase entirely new to sacramental theology - spiritum principalem. In so far as some will argue that this phrase (or the phrase "eam virtutem quae a te est, Spiritum Principalem) suffices for the substance of the form, and indeed, in so far as it is the only phrase in the new form for which such a claim could be made, it behooves us to examine it in detail.

SPIRITUM PRINCIPALEM - WHAT IS IT?

Apart from the concoction ascribed to Hippolytus (discussed below) the phrase "spiritum principalem" is not to be found in any known ordination rite, as can be seen by referring to either "Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolic curae,' or Bishop Kendrick's book on "The Validity of Anglican Ordinations," both of which list all the known episcopal rites. The phrase is found in only one place in Scripture - Psalm 50, verse 14 - "redde mihi laeitiam salutaris tui et spiritu principali confirma me - restore unto me the joy of thy salvation and strengthen me with a governing (or upright) spirit.." The context is that of David asking God's forgiveness for his adulterous relationship with Bathsheba and the strength to control his passions, and thus can be applied to any individual.^{^[66]}

What does the word Principalem mean? Cassell's New Latin Dictionary translates it as 1) first in time, original; first in rank, chief; 2) of a prince; 3) of the chief place in a Roman camp. Harper's Latin Dictionary also translates it by the term "overseer." Now this latter term is of great interest because it the one used by the Reformers to distort the true nature of a Bishop. As the Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae' points out:

“The fact that the Anglicans added the term Bishop to their form did not make it valid because doctrinally they hold the bishop to have no higher state than that of the priest - indeed, he is seen as an 'overseer' rather than as one having the "fullness of the priesthood."

It is pertinent that post-Conciliar theologians have recognized the difficulty of adequately translating this phrase into the vernacular. Prior to 1977 it was rendered in English as "Perfect Spirit," but since then Rome has officially insisted on the phrase "governing" or "ruling" Spirit, and in French, "the Spirit of Authority."^{^[67]} Father B. Botte, O.S.B., the individual (apart from Montini) primarily responsible for the creation of this new rite for Ordaining Bishops, tells us in the semi-official journal Notitiae that the meaning of the phrase need not necessarily be drawn from its Scriptural use. Indeed, he states that in the third century it probably had a meaning quite different from that used during the time of David and that in Hippolytus's document it almost certainly meant Holy Spirit. He explains that meaning in the following words:

"The expression has, for the Christian of the third Century (the time of Hippolytus) a theological meaning which has nothing in common with the thought of the king of Judah [David] twelve centuries earlier. Even assuming that "principalis" is a mistranslation, it is not important here. The only problem is to know what meaning the author of the prayer (Hippolytus) wanted to give the expression."

The statement as applied to a Sacramental form is a quite extraordinary new force. It admits that not only are we unsure of the meaning of "principalis" but that the word itself may be a mistranslation. It further admits that this critical word is not derived from either Christic or Apostolic sources. But even more, Father Botte, with exquisite historical insight (some seventeen centuries after the fact), proceeds to tell us just what Hippolytus did mean!

“The solution must be sought in two directions: the context of the prayer and “The solution must be sought in two directions: the context of the prayer and the use of hegemonikos (Greek for principalis) in the Christian language of the third century. It is clear that "spirit" means the person of the Holy Ghost. The whole context so indicates: everyone keeps silent because of the descent of the "Spirit." The real question is why among other relevant adjectives, has principalis been chosen? The research must be widened here."

Father Botte then proceeds to give us a truly innovative theological interpretation of the primary function of the different members of the hierarchy in orders, and moreover one which the new rite incorporates.

"The three hierarchies have the gift of the Spirit, but it is not the same for each of them. For the bishop it is the 'Spiritus Principalis'; for the priests who are the counsellors of the bishops, it is 'Spiritus Consilii'; for the deacons who are the right hand of the bishop it the 'Spiritus zeli et sollicitudinis.' It is evident that these distinctions are made in accord with the functions of each rank of minister. It is clear then that principalis must be understood in relation to the specific function of the bishop. One only has to reread the prayer to be convinced of this... God has never left his people without a chief, nor his sanctuary without ministers... The bishop is the chief of the Church. Hence the choice of the term hegemonikos is self explanatory. It is the gift of the Spirit that pertains to the chief. The best translation would seem to be "the Spirit of Authority."^{^[68]}

Those unfamiliar with Catholic teaching will perhaps not be shocked by this statement made by the person who was the principle architect of the new rite of Holy Orders. Suffice it to say that the primary function of the Bishop is to ordain priests; the primary function of the priest is to offer the immolative sacrifice. Without this power, the power to forgive sins cannot be received. It is a common saying among Catholic theologians that the priest must receive first the power over the real Body of Christ, and only afterward over the mystic body of Christ or over the Christian people whose sins he forgives or retains. Nowhere in the new rite for ordaining priests is it made clear that he is given the power to offer sacrifice, and no where in that of bishops that he is given the power to ordain!

The new form also asks that this "Governing Spirit" that is given to the ordinand be the same that was given to the Holy Apostles. It should be clear that such a request in no way states that the ordinands are themselves raised to the rank of the Apostles. (It would after all be legitimate to ask God to give any Catholic layman the same Holy Spirit that was given to the Apostles.) Now, Leo XIII makes note of the fact that the Anglican rite has the phrase "Receive the Holy Ghost" but that this "cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify." And so, even if we grant that this governing Spirit could be the Holy Spirit, the form lacks sufficient "power" to function in a sacramental manner. What is more, its use thrusts the sacramental form into a totally Protestant setting.

THE PROTESTANT UNDERSTANDING OF THE EPISCOPAL RANK

Many Protestant sects retain the title of "bishop" among their clergy. This is true for the Lutherans in Germany, but not in America. It is also true of the Anglicans, the Episcopalians, and certain Baptist sects. Yet all of these denominations deny that either the priesthood or the episcopacy involves any imprinting of a sacramental character. In what sense then do they understand the function of their bishops?

^{^[1]} Cf. The author's The Problems of the New Mass, TAN, Rockford Ill., 1990.

^{^[2]} As will be explained, Baptism can be administered by even a non believer, providing he uses the correct words and intends to do what the Church or Christ intends. With regard to Marriage, the priest acts as a witness on the part of the Church. In marriage the "matter" is the parties to the "contract," and the "form" is the giving of consent.

^{^[3]} "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord... let him be anathema" (Denz. 844)

^{^[4]} It is unfortunate that the Modernists used the term "symbol" to specify the reflection in doctrine of the beliefs of the faithful - beliefs which they held arose in the collective or individual subconscious - beliefs which were subject to change as man "evolved" and "matured." They misused this term because the early creeds were called "symbols." If one accepts their interpretation, it is obvious that "symbols" would have to change as beliefs changed. (The Modernist confuses the meaning of symbols and signs; signs can be arbitrary and can legitimately be used to indicate different meanings.) This idea and misuse of the term "symbolism" was rightly condemned by Saint Pius X in his Encyclical Pascendi, a situation which has given the term a bad connotation. True symbols are material (verbal, visual) representatives of realities that never change which is the sense in which the Church applied the term was applied to the creeds in post-Apostolic times. Just as natural laws are the manifest reflection of God's will, so all natural phenomena are in one way or another symbolic of higher realities. Nature, as St. Bernard said, is a book of scripture, or to quote the psalms, "Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei - the heavens declare the glory of God."

^{^[5]} The Greek Orthodox still use this word to describe the Sacraments. The primordial sense of the term is found among the classic Greek writers, and especially as used with reference to the Mysteries of Eleusis. In vesting with the stole before Mass, the priest says, "...quamine indignus accedo ad tuum sacrum Mysterium...," meaning of course the Mystery of the Mass.

^{^[6]} The Latin word sacramentum had several meanings: 1) the sum which two parties to a legal suit deposited - so called perhaps because it was deposited in a sacred place. Its meaning was often extended to include a civil suit or process. 2) it was used to describe the military oath of allegiance and by extension, any sacred obligation. 3) Tertullian used the word to describe the neophyte's promises on entering the Church at the time of baptism; he also used it with regard to "mysterious communications" on the part of what we would now call a religious sister who "conversed with the angels." 4) Finally, he used it with regard to Baptism and the Eucharist.

^{^[7]} Quoted from Elizabeth Frances Rogers, Peter Lombard and the Sacramental System, New York, 1917.

^{^[8]} Such would occur if for example a layman or a priest not properly ordained were to attempt to say Mass.`

^{^[9]} Those seeking a more detailed review are referred to The Dictionnaire de la Théologie Catholique, Letouzey, Paris, 1939. Scriptural usage followed much the same pattern. The Greek Mysterion was translated as Sacramentum and as such the term is found 45 times - some 20 times in the writings of St. Paul alone. According to Father F. Prat, it is used in three contexts: 1 Secrets of God relative to the salvation of man by Christ, that is, secrets the meaning of which became clear with the New Covenant; 2) the hidden sense of an institution; and 3) hidden action, as in the mystery of the Resurrection to come.

^{^[10]} Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908.

^{^[11]} An excellent discussion of this topic is available in Father Barbara's Fortes in Fide, No. 9, (1991 series) available from F.J. Christian, 758 Lemay Ferry Road, St. Louis, Mo., 63125.

^{^[12]} To avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, it should be clear that one must live a life in accord with the teachings of the Church - Baptism, which wipes away the stain of original sin, in no way guarantees that the individual will not fall from the "state of grace" produced by this Sacrament. The issue of Baptism of Desire is discussed in an article by the present author in an 1992 issue of The Reign of Mary, (North 8500 St. Michael's Road. Spokane, WA 99207-0905).

^{^[13]} One could say that the Sacraments depending on Orders are not necessary in an absolute sense, but that, given the condition of fallen man, they are indispensable by a necessity of convenience or expedience.

^{^[14]} Brother Andre of Quebec likened the priest to a seller of clothes. The salesman's personal morals had no effect on the clothes he sold.

^{^[15]} This principle is well expressed by the phrase that members of the teaching Church (the hierarchy) must first of all be members of the believing Church.

^{^[16]} In hospitals, nurses often baptize infants in danger of death. However, to baptize outside the case of necessity is to usurp a priestly function.

^{^[17]} Strictly speaking, the priest is the witness on the part of the Church to this contractual Sacrament. This is further confirmed by the fact that in countries or locations where a priest is not available for long periods of time, a couple can marry, and when the priest arrives, the marriage is "solemnized." Again, a valid Protestant marriage is not repeated when the parties become Catholic.

^{^[18]} There was a bishop in South America who was strongly prejudiced against ordaining "native" clergy. On his deathbed he confessed that when it came to native clergy he had always withheld his intention. The priest who heard his confession refused him absolution unless he gave permission for this fact to be exposed to the proper authorities. This permission was granted. All the native clergy involved were re-ordained. Such episodes are extremely rare in the history of the Church, and for obvious reasons not normally made public.

^{^[19]} See Catholic Encyclopedia, v. 13, p. 299.

^{^[20]} An illustration of this is the phrase "Hoc est enim corpus meum" (For this is my body) from the traditional Mass. The elimination of the word "for" (enim) would not change the meaning of the phrase. Hence it would not lead to a substantial change. It follows that "for" is not an "essential" word. The "integrity" of the form however requires that it be used, and the priest sins gravely if he intentionally fails to use it.

^{^[21]} A widower can of course receive Holy Orders. Married individuals who have fulfilled their obligations to the state of marriage, may , with their wife's permission, by special dispensation, (and taking the vow of celibacy) receive Holy Orders. Similarly, older couples may, by mutual consent, both enter the religious state. The Eastern Church allows for married (non celibate) priests. Eleven of the Twelve Apostles were married. Cf. St. Paul=s Epistle to Timothy, Chap. III, 1-7.

^{^[22]} Patrick Henry Omlor, Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the New, All-English Canon, Reno, Nevada: Athanasius, 1969

^{^[23]} Fr. Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology (London: Sheed and Ward, 1936) v. 2, p. 27.

^{^[24]} Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D., The Problems with the New Mass, TAN, 1990.

^{^[25]} In similar manner, many other Protestant and Anglican groups either use the Novus Ordo Missae or have brought their own rites into concordance with it.

^{^[26]} DOL refers to Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979, published by The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn., 1982. This text provides official translations of the innumerable post-Conciliar documents related to liturgical matters. This defenition is to be found in paragraph 7 of the General Instruction that accompanies the Novus Ordo Missae, an instruction which explains its meaning and the rubrics attached to it.

^{^[27]} A further addition was made in the definition given in paragraph 7 of the new General Instruction. After the quotation from Matthew it added:

"For the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross, Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently present under the eucharistic elements."

Once again, there is nothing in these ambiguous phrases that would really offend a Protestant. Nowhere are we informed that the celebration involved is other than a memorial - and the very word "memorial," like the phrase "the Lord's Supper," is another 16th century Protestant Reformation term used to distinguish a Protestant service from the Catholic Mass. There is a very striking similarity between this new phraseology and the condemnation of the declaration of the Jansenist Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia which stated:

"After the consecration Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of the bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances."

This proposition was condemned by the Bull Auctorum Fidei as "pernicious, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic Truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, and favoring heretics." (Denzinger, 1529). The reason it was condemned is that "it entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation or the conversion of the entire substance of bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of wine into the Blood which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith..."

And finally, this addition states that Christ is "really" present, as much in the assembly as in the priest and in His (Christ's) words. There is nothing within the "new" General Instruction to suggest to us that He is any more present in any other parties or "elements" then He is in the assembly of the people.

^{^[28]} Michael Davies assures us that we can ignore the General Introduction and be secure with the validity of the New Mass. This is just another example of his picking and choosing which magisterial documents he likes. What priest would ever ignore De Defectibus which discusses the rubrics of the traditional Mass.

^{^[29]} While the Latin Multis is preserved, in almost all the translations, the approval of which specifically rested with Paul VI, the word multis has been translated by all.

^{^[30]} Apostolic Succession is to be distinguished from "Apostolicity." The Bishops are the spiritual descendents of the Apostles, and hence the Apostolic Succession is passed on through them. Apostolicity however is one of the qualities of the true Church, not only because it preserves the Apostolic Succession, but also because it teaches the same doctrines and uses the same rites that the Apostles did.

^{^[31]} The phrase "null and void" was used with regard to Anglican Orders by Pope Leo XIII.

^{^[32]} Sacramentally speaking there is no higher rank than that of Bishop. Such a statement in no way denies or repudiates the teaching of the Church on the Primacy of Peter.

^{^[33]} Cardinal Gasparri in De Sacra Ordinatione, and Lennertz in his De Sacremento Ordinis both hold that the recipient of Episcopal Orders automatically receives - if he does not already have it - the powers of the priesthood. It is difficult to see why this should not be the case since he receives the summum Sacerdotium or fullness of the priesthood. The issue is discussed in Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention by Francis Clark, S.J. (subsequently laicized) Longmans, Green: London, 1956.

^{^[34]} Those who would question this statement would do well to read the Vatican Instruction entitled Doctrina et exemplo on The Liturgical Formation of Future Priests (Documents on the Liturgy, No. 332, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn.) They will find no recommendation that seminarians be taught anything about the Sacrificial nature of their function or about the Real Presence.

^{^[35]} John Bligh, S.J., Ordination to the Priesthood, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956.

^{^[36]} It is of interest that during the present century 12 priests of the Russian Orthodox Church, not wishing to be under state approved (KGB) Bishops, gathered together and ordained a priest.

^{^[37]} Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, January 28, 1948

^{^[38]} Section on "Orders," The Catholic Encyclopedia, New York: Appelton, 1911,(Vol. XI).

^{^[39]} Hippolytus was a schismatic bishop at the time that he compiled this text. Subsequently he was reconciled and died a Martyr. His situation and the nature of this text is discussed in greater detail below. The reader is reminded that prior to the later part of the fourth century, the Church was under persecution. Documentations during this era are, as a result, sparse.

^{^[40]} Walter B. Clancy, The Rites and Ceremonies of Sacred Ordination, (A Historical Conspectus and a Canonical commentary), The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 1962.

^{^[41]} "Tradition" in this context means "passing on" or "handing over."

^{^[42]} As Pope Pius XII pointed out in his Sacramentum Ordinis, the Church at the Council of Florence did not demand that the Greek Church adopt the tradition of the instruments. Hence it followed that the Decree to the Armenians was not meant to define the tradition of the instruments as being substantial to the rite for ordaining priests. St Alphonsus and Pope Benedict XIV were of the opinion that Eugene IV did not intend to determine the essential matter of the sacrament but desired simply to present a practical instruction to the Armenian Church concerning the use of the delivery of the instruments, and in no way sought to settle the question. (Clancy, op. cit., #32) Father P. Pourrat comments: "The Decretum ad Armenos is the official document of the Church, that treats of the binary composition of the sacramental rite. It was, as we know, added to the decrees of the Council of Florence; yet it has not the value of a conciliar definition (Father Pourrat's italics). It is "merely a practical instruction" intended for the United Armenians, and not for the whole Church. Hence, although the decree is worthy of great regard, still it does not impose itself on our faith." (Theology of the Sacraments, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1914, p. 51.) Also Cf. section on Orders in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit.

^{^[43]} It is never the common people - the laity - who desire changes. On the contrary, the majority of people prefer the security of stability, especially in religious matters. And in fact, it is vertually impossible for the laity to have wished for changes in the Sacrament of Orders in so far as their use was restricted to those in religion.

^{^[44]} The Episcopalians use this ordinal. Prior to the American Revolution they were American Anglicans. However, the Anglican Church recognizes the King or Queen of England as the head of their church and such would have been inappropriate in America after 1776. Doctrinally however they are virtually the same ecclesiastical body. Thus for example, Episcopalians adhere to the same "39 articles" which among other things deny that the Mass is an immolative Sacrifice, or that the priesthood is a sacrament.

^{^[45]} The Reformers "loved" the term presbyter which literally translated from the Latin meant "elder." This allowed them to use a Latin word meaning priest in an altered sense in English. (The early Church avoided using the term sacerdos or priest because of confusion with the pagan priesthood that might result.)

^{^[46]} For the sake of completeness the form in the Edwardine Ordinal for the Anglican Priesthood is: "Receive the holy ghost: whose synnes thou doest forgeue, they are forgeuen: and whose synnes thou doest retayne, they are retayned: and bee thou a faithful dispensor of the word of God, and of his holy Sacraments. In the name of the father and the sonne and the holy ghost. Amen."This was changed in 1662 to: "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive etc."

For the Episcopate: "Take the Holy Goste, and remember that thou stirre up the grace of God, which is in thee, by imposicion of hands: for God hath not geuen us the spirite of feare, but of power and loue and of sobernesse."This was altered in 1662 to: "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of hands; In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And remember that thou stir up etc."Several theologians have stated their opinion that the 1662 forms would be valid "if used in a Catholic setting or in orthodox circumstances." (Why are Anglican (Episcopalian) Orders Invalid? by Ref. M.D. Forrest, M.S.C. St. Paul, Minn.: Father Rumble and Carty's Radio Replies Press.)

^{^[47]} Because the matter has become a contended issue in recent time, it should be noted that while usual practice involves the extension of both hands, it suffices if only one is extended over the head of the ordinand. Cf. Discussion in Dictionaire de la Théologie Catholique, Letouzey: Paris.

^{^[48]} Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, January 28, 1948.

^{^[49]} Hervé, J.M., Man. theol Dog., Tom. iv, ed nova A Orentino Larnicol C.S. Sp. Recognita, 1962: "Atque Pius XII, in Const. Apostl. "Sacramentum Ordinis," ut omnino videtur, loquitur ut Pator et Doctor Supremus, et vere definit doctrinam de fide vel moribus (doctrinam de essentia sacramenti Ordinis, quae intime connectitur cum aliis veritatibus revelatis), ab universa Ecclesia tenendum." Similarly, Mgr. G.D. Smith argues that when the Church defines what is and what is not sufficient to confer a Sacrament, such decisions involve an implied infallibility. (The church and her Sacraments, in Clergy Review, April 1950, and referred to by Father Francis Clark in his Anglican Orders and Defect in Intention, op. cit. above). Father Clancy (op. cit., #32) gives many other authorities that concur in this opinion. to quote Francisco Miranda Vincente, Auxiliary Bishop of Toledo: "This Apostolic Constitution is a true and solemn dogmatic declaration, and at the same time, as the terms used in the fourth and fifth point indicate, it is a doctrinal and disciplinary decree."

^{^[50]} Francis Clark S.J., Les ordinations anglicaines, problème oecumenique, Gregorianum, vol. 45, 1964. In essence, his address to the Fathers at Vatican II on this topic. See also his review of Michael Davies,' The Order of Melchisedech.

^{^[51]} The importance of significatio ex adjunctis is a confusing issue in so far as the Church teaches that "form, matter, valid orders and intention are all that are required for validity of the sacraments" (Council of Florence). Clearly, for a priest to fulfill these criteria in an inappropriate setting (as for example, a Satanic Mass), however sacrilegious, is possible. With regard to Anglican Orders, Leo XIII discussed the importance of the defects of the rite surrounding the form, but left the issue confused. As Francis Clark, S.J. points out, theologians have given seven different interpretations to his words (Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention). Francis Clark defines significatio ex adjunctis in the following terms: "the sacramental signification of an ordination rite is not necessarily limited to one phrase or formula, but can be clearly conveyed from many parts of the rite. These other parts could thus contribute, either individually or in combination, to determining the sacramental meaning of the operative formula in an unambiguous sense. Thus the wording of an ordination form, even if not specifically determinate in itself, can be given the required determination from its setting (ex adjunctis), that is, from the other prayers and actions of the rite, or even from the connotation of the ceremony as a whole in the religious context of the age" (The Catholic Church and Anglican Orders, CTS, 1962, quoted by Michael Davies in his Order of Melchisedech). The term "negative" significatio ex adjunctis is not hallowed by theological usage and is a phrase of convenience. Francis Clark lays great stress on this concept without using the term - cf. his Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention, op. cit. A clearer way of demonstrating negative significatio ex adjunctis is the following: a priest saying the proper words of Consecration in the Mass follows them with a statement or intention that negated the meaning of those words. The deliberate removal of all references to the sacrificial nature of the priesthood (or of ordaining for bishops) in the Anglican ordinal is equivalent to denying the purpose for which a man is ordained.

^{^[52]} Cf. Footnote #26.

^{^[53]} Taken from his Order of Melchisedech which strongly defends the validity and legitimacy of the new rite.

^{^[54]} Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, Devon, England: Augustine, 1979, p. 75. Michael Davies "as if" which he places in parenthesis, is highly significant, for in the new rite, the priest is not ordained as a sacrificing priest, but in order to "say the liturgy" which is of course, the novus ordo missae.

^{^[55]} It should be noted that Sacramental rites have never been considered valid because they were instituted by a Pontiff, but because they were instituted by Christ. A Pontiff may, when doubt arises, specify what it was that Christ intended. A pope cannot create a new Sacrament. Hence it is important to know whether the claim that the post-Conciliar Sacraments are substantially the same as the traditional ones becomes important. If they are, then why the changes; if they are not then are they Sacraments? In the secnd edition of The Order of Melchisedech Michael Davies considers it a "fundamental doctrine" that "any sacramental rite approved by the Pope must certainly be valid..." In essence, this means that should the pope say "green apples" is a valid sacramental form," we must accept it.

^{^[56]} Father William Jenkins has discussed this issue in great detail in The Roman Catholic, Vol III, No. 8 and 11 (1981) Oyster Bay Cove, N.Y., N.Y. 11771. Still further confusion results from consulting The Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979 (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press) Document 324 tells us that the Latin taken from AAS is in hos famulos tuos, but the current official English translation is "Grant to these servants of yours" rather than "confer on these Thy servants."

^{^[57]} Rama P. Coomaraswamy, Once a Presbyter, Always a Presbyter, The Roman Catholic, Vol. V, No. 7, August 1983.

^{^[58]} The significance of this omission is clarified when we read in Psalm 109 that Athe Lord swore and will not repent: thou art a priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedek. St. Paul refers to this in Hebrews VII: 21 when he says AFor those [Jewish] priests were made without an oath by Him who said unto Him@ the Lord swore....@ by so much was Jesus made the surity of a better priesthood. It further distinguish the priesthood of Christ in which the Catholic priest shares, from the Aaronic priesthood which terminated with the Crucifixion. Cf. Rev. J.M. Neal and R. F. Littledak, Commentary on the Psalms, Vol Iii, p. 450, Masters, London, 1874.

^{^[59]} It is pertinent that the "Bishops" selected for ordaining the priests of the Society of St. Peter ("The Pope's own Traditional Order") are Ratzinger and Meyer. Both of these received their episcopal "consecration" by the new rites to be discussed in the body of this text. If they are in fact not bishops, all the priests they ordain - even if they use the traditional rites as they state they intend to do - are no more priests than any layman.

^{^[60]} As Pius XII stated in his Apostolic Constitution: "Those things which We have above declared and established regarding the matter and the form are not to be understood in such a way as to make it allowable for the other rites as prescribed in the Roman Pontifical to be neglected or passed over even in the sligntest detail; nay, rather We order that all the prescriptions contained in the Roman Pontifical itself be faithfully observed and performed."

^{^[61]} Pius XII said that the words in his form were "essential" and required for validity. Paul VI states that the words that constitute his form "belong to the nature of the rite and are consequently required for validity." He further states in the same document that "it is our will that these our decrees and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those requiring particular mention and derogation." (Pontificalis Romani, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, July 29, 1968.)

^{^[62]} A Vindication of the Bull 'Apostlicae curae', A Letter on Anglican Orders by the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Province of Westminster in reply to the Letter Addressed to them by the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York, N.Y.: Longmans, Green and Co., 1898; Also to be found in Bishop Peter Richard Kendrick's The Validity of Anglican Ordinations," Phil.: Cummiskey, 1848

^{^[63]} "It is not essential to express the word, "deacon," "priest," or "bishop," but the form must at least express some clear equivalent. Thus "the order of the Blessed Stephen" is a clear equivalent of the order of Deacon. It is not essential to express the main power of the priest or the bishop in the form, but if this main power were expressed, it too would be an equivalent. However, it is essential to express either the order or its main power, and if the main power is not only left out, but positively excluded, then the right name, though kept, is not the right name in reality but only a shadow. Now, the main power of a true priest is to offer a true sacrifice, and at least one of the main powers of a bishop is to make priests. Semple, H.C., S.J., Anglican Ordinations, N.Y.: Benzinger Broth, 1906.

^{^[64]} Taken from Semple's book (op.cit.) the following are the various presumed consecratory forms for bishop (presumed as the Church never so specified prior to Pius XII:

Ancient Roman and Ancient Gallican: "...and therefore to these Thy servants whom Thou has chosen to the ministry of the HIGH PRIESTHOOD."Greek: "DO Thou O Lord of all, strengthen and confirm this Thy servant, that by the hand of me, a sinner, and of the assisting minsters and fellow-Bishops, and by the coming, the strength, and grace of the Holy Ghost... he may obtain the EPISCOPAL DIGNITY."Maronite: "Thou who canst do all things, adorn with all virtues... this Thy servant whom Thou has made worthy to receive from Thee the sublime ORDER OF BISHOPS."Nestorian: "We offer before Thy Majesty... this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen and set apart that he may be a BISHOP."Coptic: "Or Lord, God, Almighty Ruler... bestow, therefore, this same grace upon Thy servant N., whom thou has chosen as BISHOP."

Armenian: "The Divine Grace calleth this N. from the Priesthood to the EPISCOPATE. I impose hands. Pray that he may become worthy of the rank of BISHOP."

Liturgy on the Constitutions of the Apostles: "Give O God... to this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen to the EPISCOPATE to feed Thy people and discharge the Office of PONTIFF."Canons of Hippolytus: "O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ... look down upon Thy servant N., granting him Thy strength and power, the spirit which Thou didst give to the holy Apostles, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Give to him, O Lord, the EPISCOPATE."

^{^[65]} Hervé, J.M. op.,cit. Note 36 above.

^{^[66]} Concordantiae Bibliorum Sacrorum quas digessit Bonifatius Fischer, O.S.B. published by Friedrich Fromman Verlag Gunther Holzborg, Stutgard-Bad, Germany, 1977. The translation into English is from the Douay version. The Psalm in question is the penitential song of David in response to the Prophet Nathan's chiding of him for his adultery with Bathsheba. According to Father Boylan's commentary, "Spiritu principali is, apparently parallel to the spiritus rectus of verse 12. Principalis represents the Greek Hegemonikos meaning princely, leading, or ruling. The Hebrew is n'dibhah - a spirit of 'readiness,' of 'willingness' - to learn, to do the right and good (cf. Matt. XXVI:41). - 'the spirit indeed is willing [=ready]. St. Augustine understands the verse in the following sense: "'An upright spirit renew in my inner parts' which are bowed and distorted by sinning" (Commentary on Psalm 51) Cornelius Lapide follows Bellarmine in translating the phrase as "I ask that you stabilize and confirm in the good by means of the governing spirit." Father Joseph Pohle, the well known professor of dogmatics, specificly denies that Spiritum Principalis is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. (The Divine Trinity, page 97 - translation of Arthur Preuss and familiarly known as Pohle-Preuss.)

^{^[67]} Notitiae states that the proper translation of the word principalis is "governing," and the same issue of this semi-official journal carries the "Declaration on the Translation of Sacramental Formulas" promulgated by Paul VI on January 25, 1974, a document which states that "difficulties can arise when trying to express the concepts of the original Latin formula in translation. It sometimes happens that one is obliged to use paraphrases and circumlocutions... The Holy See approves a formula because it considers that it expresses the sense understood by the Church in the Latin text."

^{^[68]} Luther defined the priesthood in these terms: "The function of the priest is to preach; if he does not preach, he is no more a priest than a picture of a man is a man. Nor does it make a man a bishop if he ordains this kind of clapper-tongued priest, or consecrates church bells, or confirms children? Never! These are things that any deacon or layman might do. What makes a priest or bishop is the ministry of the word." Elsewhere he says "Everyone who knows that he is a Christian would be fully assured that all of us alike are priests, and that we all have the same authority in regard to the word and the sacraments, although no one has the right to administer them without the consent of the members of his Church, or by call of the majority." Quoted by Father W. Jenkins, "The New Ordination Rite: An Indelible Question Mark," The Roman Catholic, VOl.III, No. 8, Sept. 1981.

^{^[69]} Father Clancy, quoting Johannes Quasten's Patrology, tells us in his Historical study of the rite of Ordination that "The Apostolic Tradition had no appreciable effect on the development of the rite of ordination in the west."

^{^[70]} Burton Scott Easton, The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, translated into English with an introduction and notes, Cambridge University Press, 1934; republished by Arenon Book, England, 1962.

^{^[71]} According to Father (subsequently Cardinal) J. Tixeront, (Holy Orders and Ordination, St. Louis: Herder, 1928) the Consecrating bishop held his hands over the ordinand's head throughout the entire prayer. According to Father Semple S.J.,(op. cit.) after asking God to give the ordinand that spirit which "Thou didst give to the holy Apostles..." Hippolytus continued: "Give to him, O Lord, the Episcopate." He adds the following note: "But if a priest is ordained, all is done with him in like manner as with a Bishop, except that he shall not sit in the chair. The same prayer shall be prayed in its entirety over him as over the Bishop, with the sole exception of the name of EPISCOPATE. A Bishop is in all things equal to a Priest except in the name of the chair, and in Ordination, which power of ordaining is not given to the latter.")

^{^[72]} Quoted from Father Brey's introduction to Patrick Henry Omlor's book, Questioning the Validity of Masses using the New All-English Canon," Reno, Nevada: Athanasius Press, 1969. This is the common teaching of moral theologians.

^{^[73]} Bernard Leeming, S.J., Principles of Sacramental Theology, London: Longmans Green, 1955.

^{^[74]} Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1935, Vol. III, p. 10. Dr. Ludwig Ott says much the same: "It is not necessary that they coincide absolutely in point of time; a moral coincidence suffices, that is, they must be connected with each other in such a fashion, that according to general estimation, they compose a unitary sign" ( Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, Ill.: TAN, 1986.)

^{^[75]} Strict adherence to this response would require that they reject the heresies of Vatican II. Under such circumstances one can question whether they would be chosen by modern Rome to be "overseers."

^{^[76]} Some liberal theologians argued that this Bull was not binding. Pope Leo XIII subsequently made it clear that the Bull was "irreformable."

^{^[77]} Francis Clark, S.J., Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation, Devon: Augustine, 1981. In his second edition of The Order of Melshisedech Michael Davies again reiterates his opinion to the effect that there can be no question about the validity of the new rites for administering Holy Orders, because they have the approval of a pope. He quotes Francis Clark with special emphasis: "The wording of an ordination form, even if not specifically determinate in itself, can be given the required determination from its setting (ex adiunctis), that is, from the other prayers and actions of the rite, or even from the connotation of the ceremony as a whole in the religious context of the age.." Such a doctrinal position means that the new Church can ignore 2000 years of sacramental theology and declare anything it wishes to be a valid sacramental rite.It could for example declare "monkey-shines" or "aba cadabra" to be a valid sacramental forms.

^{^[78]} Rev. Heribert Jone, Moral Theology, Newman: Westminster MD, 1962.