Nothing Lacking for Validity: On the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration

[gladius_veritatis]

Neglecting to address his point and attacking his credibility is ad hominem.  It appears to be a diversion tactic, and I'm sure he'll recognize it and reiterate what he's been saying, perhaps with an even larger font.

I am sure he will react as he sees fit.  He actually has no credibility as a sacramental theologian (which is not an ad hominem, but a simple fact), and my main point is that he does not understand the issue at hand as well as the men (from both sides) who did the studies (even if they are not the best studies ever made, which I grant).

 

 Fr. Cekada is not... infallible.   Prove that Fr. Cekada hasn't made a mistake, that would be a good contribution to this thread.

 

No doubt, and he may have written a sub-standard article.  He may even be wrong about the issue at hand.  However, it is not my job to prove anything.  More often than not, it is useful to take the time to explain things for those who seem both reasonable and receptive (if I happen to know something about the matter at hand, that is), but with Matthew's current attitude (displayed in multiple threads), bothering to explain anything (as best I can) would be as useful as taking the time to make a right-footed and left-footed shoe for a one-legged man - it is wasted effort.  If others were genuinely interested in this matter, and would like to know my thoughts, I would be happy to offer them (for whatever they may be worth).  Otherwise, I am perfectly content to let it go, leaving Matthew to say whatever he would like about the matter - or about my person, for that matter.

[Pat]

I am sure he will react as he sees fit.  He actually has no credibility as a sacramental theologian (which is not an ad hominem,  but a simple fact), and my main point is that he does not understand  the issue at hand as well as the men (from both sides) who did the  studies (even if they are not the best studies ever made, which I  grant).

It is an ad hominem fallacy in the  context of a debate. I think you know some Latin, so you should know ad  hominem means to the person. When you attack a person's credibility,  disregarding whatever potentially valid points he may have, that is ad  hominem. Now if you demonstrated how he fails to understand Pope Pius  XII's apparently clear statement, then that would be fine, but this is  not what you're doing.
 
 Another dodge. I think everyone can  see that you're not addressing his point. I think it's perfectly valid,  yet you don't disagree, you just say he's utterly incompetent to make  such an observation. Do see why this is wrong? You don't have to be a  mathematician to know calculus, you don't have to be a philosopher to  understand Aristotle. Even the untrained can make arguments in subjects  they have never earned a degree or certificate in. You've done this  plenty of times in theological subjects, yet you never pondered that  you don't have a degree in theology? It seems you're putting others to  a higher standard than you put yourself.

[lumengentleman]

No offense to Matthew, but the issue of whether or not the Church can change the stuff of the sacraments is somewhat beside the point.  I don't think Fr. Cekada based his argument on the fact that Paul VI changed the rite, and that therefore the rite is now invalid just because it was changed.

 

Certainly, I think, all admit that the Church has power in these matters.  The question, as Fr. Cekada has framed it, is whether in the act of changing the form of the sacrament the necessary signification has been lost.

 

For example, the Church could change the form of Baptism, but the form would still have to properly express and signify the essence of the sacrament - changing the form to "I exonerate you, N., in the name of all that is good and holy," would probably invalidate the sacrament just a little bit.  :smile:

 

But the debate is over whether the new consecration formula for bishops properly expresses what it needs to express.

 

Ultimately, that's a question that only the Church can answer, and that's why we'll always be at loggerheads - the sedevacantist doesn't acknowledge any reigning authority right now that can answer that question, so it will always be a matter of one man's opinion against another.

[gladius_veritatis]

Maybe, in another few years, they will declare that the form is: "Roses are red, violets are blue, I am a bishop, now you're one, too."  

 

Pat, I see your point, and it is somewhat well made.    However, I still exercise my right to not answer Matthew (for the moment), as I think it would be a waste of time - he is currenlty on some ax-grinding "warpath", and the best argument in the world would fall on deaf ears, imo.   Lumen also seems to realize that the point he is making is not really ad rem, as no one is disputing whether or not the Church has a certain degree of latitude over those Sacraments not determined in specie (like Holy Orders, etc.).

[Matthew]

No offense to Matthew, but the issue of whether or not the Church can change the stuff of the sacraments is somewhat beside the point.  I don't think Fr. Cekada based his argument on the fact that Paul VI changed the rite, and that therefore the rite is now invalid just because it was changed.

 

Certainly, I think, all admit that the Church has power in these matters.  The question, as Fr. Cekada has framed it, is whether in the act of changing the form of the sacrament the necessary signification has been lost.

 

For example, the Church could change the form of Baptism, but the form would still have to properly express and signify the essence of the sacrament - changing the form to "I exonerate you, N., in the name of all that is good and holy," would probably invalidate the sacrament just a little bit.  :smile:

 

But the debate is over whether the new consecration formula for bishops properly expresses what it needs to express.

 

Ultimately, that's a question that only the Church can answer, and that's why we'll always be at loggerheads - the sedevacantist doesn't acknowledge any reigning authority right now that can answer that question, so it will always be a matter of one man's opinion against another.

 

Well, I believe that it is extremely important.  One can certainly discuss this matter from the viewpoint of proper signification -- and I think Fr. Cekada fails on this count as your paper and the essay from the Society theologians so adequately points out.  But from the ultimate point of view, namely the issue of whether the Church can change what what was once valid to something else, the whole discussion crumbles. 

 

Here is a key point: This pertains only to the Sacrament of Order, therefore it seems to me that it is a non sequitur to bring up any other sacramental form.  Jesus did not establish the form of this Sacrament as He did the others, therefore it rests soley upon the Church's authority to decide what validates the Sacrament.  It follows that one must first deny the authority of the Pope prior to even discussing the matter or else admit that the Church is impotent in provided at least valid sacraments.   

[Matthew]

Gladius, that "certain degree of latitude" extends to the entire validity of the form.  That is, the Church is not bound by any one particular form which must be properly signified such as in Baptism or the Eucharist. 

[DominusTecum]

Maybe, in another few years, they will declare that the form is: "Roses are red, violets are blue, I am a bishop, now you're one, too."  

 

 

-Sorry, I'm afraid I've not made a very good contribution to the thread, but I couldn't help it, I've been chuckling for the last 5 minutes.

 

 

[HMiS]

It is very clear from the entire Preface of the Roman Pontifical (1969) of Paul VI, that we're dealing with a transmission of the Holy Ghost, and by the Holy Ghost, of the summum sacerdotium, which is the expression used by the ancient Fathers of the Church to describe the episcopacy. 

 

There is no discussion possible. The Eastern rites don't have defined succinct essential forms, like Pius XII for the first time defined for THE ROMAN PONTIFICAL ONLY in 1947.

 

The Preface aptly describes the sacrament transferred, the fullness of the priesthood.

 

A comparison with Anglican Orders is null and void, as the Anglican Orders lacked initially even the word bishop, and after this was inserted, there was no mentioning of summum sacerdotium. No mentioning of offer the gifts (munera) of the Church, like the new rite has, and which is not ambiguously, but an ancient Latin form for the eucharistic sacrifice: see the Roman Canon (dating back to at least the 2nd century AD in essentials): haec munera, haec sacrosancta sacrificia illibata.

 

And we all know: it is not necessary that a rite summons up all functions of a bishop: to ordain, to consecrate, to bless. That's not obligatory. And the theologians differ on whether a priest already can validly ordain another priest (though ecclesiastically unlawful), as he can confirm validly.

 

The rite for the ordination to the diaconate, the essential form of Pius XII, valid ad valorem, does not even specify what "ministry" is meant! Yet it is valid. All by significatio ex adjunctis.

 

The problem is: no sedevacantist will admit this, as this is a first crumbling down of their theories. The problem is the lack of reasonability, even shown in this thread.

 

I have read (Rev.? I know he was ordained a priest by a bishop of the Thuc line) Rama Coomaraswamy's study and Rore Sanctifica, but both were not convincing, instead, they left out the whole preface, denied significatio ex adjunctis, or skipped it, only said what was left out in comparison to the old rite, not what new prayers were inserted expressing the sacerdotium and summum sacerdotium. It was a bit intellectually unfair, especially considering the fact, that they had cared to intensively elaborate other parts of their studies. It shows, that in fact these allegations are for propagandistic reasons only.

 

In that aspect, Rev. Fr. Cekada's short article is honest and clear. He at least gives in a bit, as he said it might be a probable opinion, that the new rite is valid. Thus there is evidence pro. So the "absolutely null and void" slogan he later uses, is invalidated automatically.

[HMiS]

I would not give too much authority to priests trained only at a seminary (Ecône; both Fr. Cekada and Fr. Pierre Marie O.P.), not really at universities, as was usual from 1900 up to the 1970s for trad Roman Catholic priests; afterwards and long before they have become intolerable. I have had philosophy fundamentals at university, but that is not even important in this discussion.

 

The doctrine of the CHurch is important. And to say the new rite is like the Anglican rite is a lie, a gross distortion and simply untrue. I have read every word of Apostolicae Curae, and it gives as reason for the invalidity of the anglican Edwardian and Charlian ordinal, that the summum sacerdotium is nowhere mentioned! It also says the new rites don't express power to offer sacrifice, which is untrue. On top of that: sacerdotium itself, by sacerdos, means the offerer of a propitiatory sacrifice.  "Presbyter" would not, yet Presbyterii dignitatem suffices to describe the power of the order conferred according to Pope Pius XII! Remember that. Then Spiritum episcopalem would do so too. And Spiritum principalem=Spiritum episcopalem. Ministry of the apostles would in fact suffice, I think. If episcopus suffices in other rites, merely meaning overseer translated, then sure episcopalem suffices in the new rite. And directly afterwards the summum sacerdotium is mentioned!

[Kephapaulos]

Is there any way of seeing the texts of the Old Rite and New Rite, if not side-by-side, anywhere online? Or is it possible please for someone here to post them for us all in order to clearly see the similarities and differences?