The ORDINAL PAUL VI IS INVALID !
because it is the slavish copying of the Anglican Ordinal.
"The ordination does not transmit the priesthood, but only the mission"
Bishop said Vilnet (modernist)
Study of the priesthood. By the Abbe Henri Mouraux. †
Matter and form of the Catholic priesthood.
Theologians have always sought to determine, in the many rituals of the priesthood, What were those who constituted the material and form the Sacrament ... Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution of 30 November 1947, using his supreme and infallible settled definitely and manner unreformableThe conditions of validity a ordination ... He decreed that the MATERIAL the sacrament was the imposition of the silent hand of the consecrating bishop , The FORMThe words of the Preface, such as tradition has provided us.
Here is the preface from the authentic translation of 1927: " Please, O Father Almighty give your servants that here the dignity of the priesthood. Sprinkle again in their souls the spirit of holiness. May they get you, O God, the office of second merit! May they do penetrate the reformation of manners by example of their conduct! May they show prudent cooperators of our Order! That holiness in all its forms, resplendent in their lives, so that when reporting the Ministry entrusted to them, they get a reward, the bliss. "
At these words consecration addition of essential complements representing a collation of the powers Body of Christ that is to say mass, First; powers on " Mystical Body "Christ on the other hand, that is to say the faithful, namely, administration of sacraments.
Pius XII did not change the rite of ordination millennium. It has even forbidden to change anything: "No," he writes has the right to alter this Constitution by us given, or oppose a reckless audacity.
Paul VI. However, Paul VI was the boldness and this temerity publishing a new Ordinal. Is it valid? The men ordained since its publication, that is to say, since 1968, they priests or Simple lay as claimed by Bishop Vilnet? Question I am very serious attempt to resolve, Remembering that JB Montini in the seminary, was attracted by a lively sympathy for Anglicanism. Became Pope, he has shown in giving his ring to the Anglican Primate (layman) and inviting him to bless the crowd.
The Anglican ordinal is invalid.
However, this "Primate" was neither priest nor bishop. Pope Leo XIII has, in effect, decreed a manner infallibleIn his encyclical "Apostolicae Curae" of September 13, 1896, which (says the Pope) will still valid in full force That the Anglican Ordinal is completely INVALID. - Now the Ordinal of Paul VI and the Anglican Ordinal as feather-twin brothers. Compare them to the light of sound Catholic theology.
The holy Council of Trent. teaches us a way infallible that in all the sacraments - in the sacraments of the College in particular - alongside the material and formWhich are essential the transmission of the priesthood, the ritual context that surrounds them, said by theologians "signs assistants" must necessarily proclaim and illustrate the sacred meaning of matter and form. Certainly, says the barrel 2 of the Twenty-first session, the Church has the power to change, depending on the circumstances sacramental sign, but has NO POWER on MEANING must represent the transmission of the priesthood. In determining the final shape and material of the Order, Pius XII recalled this gun.
However, if the liturgical context surrounding area and form contradicts, or distracts from their senses this matter and this form they are supposed explain and illustrateIt is obvious that matter and form are MODIFIED ? So that the sacrament is invalid. It is precisely modification of this liturgical context by the Anglicans that Pope Leo XIII was pressed to declare their ordinations null . (Con. of Trent Sess. 7, Canon 12; Sess. XXI)
Listen to Pope Leo XIII "Apos. Curae" The minister of the sacrament is not the owner, but the servantIt has nothing to add or subtract the rite, he just want to give their words obvious meaningAnd do what does the Church. The holy Cure of Ars baptized or coronation as unworthy Talleyrand, if they obey the rite, the sacrament is validly given. Therefore, some say if a validly ordained minister fully respects material and form the sacrament of order, using the Anglican Ordinal Kramer, the priest is validly ordained. Well NO! Leo and it proclaims that negative. Because, says the Pope, in addition to other reasons, ceremonies adjacent surrounding the matter and form of the ordinal make invalid. Why? Because that they mean gift of through sacrificial. They keep well Catholic words "priest" of "bishop" But they are emptied their Catholic sense.
Here is the text capital of Leo XIII: " Throughout the Anglican Ordinal not only is it made specific mention of Sacrifice, CONSECRATION of the priest, the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but even the slightest traces of these institutions have remained in the Catholic rite carefully removed.
Conditions of the validity of the sacrament.
The subject is very serious for too we resume it in a few sentences while the statement of the previous page, for a sacrament is valid (the College in particular), the Minister must, validly ordained (Regardless of holiness), which fully utilizes the Ordinal scrupulously respects material and form specified by Pope Pius XII and the joint ceremonies called the shape and material, not only not contradictBut express unequivocally sacrificial priesthood receives the subject ordered. If all these conditions are not met, the ordination is NIL.(See Dict.de Théol. Cath, Volume XI, p. 1175, 1182).
A very serious because she called the manufacture of a new Ordinal?
Without hesitation, the answer NO. He was 20 years since Pope Pius XII had on the question of Ordination responded to the aspirations of the Church. Besides these reforms are extremely rare in the Church, they are always the answer to a need for reasonable lead the new text by the pope reformer. Thus did Pope Urban VIII, June 17, 1644, not distortingBut CONFIDENT in a single ritual rites of ordination. Paul VI, himself, any factory parts, regardless of TraditionA Ordinal steeped in innovation, marked by astonishing deletions, June 16, 1968, and gave none no justification ... WHY The answer flows from the photograph published by the official DC No. 1562 dated May 3, 1970, where we see Paul VI surrounded by heretics, with whom he built a new "Ordo Missae" ...
The ordinal created two years ago was the basis of the new heretical "Mass" called "Eucharist" ...The deletion of the new Ordinal Minor orders prelude to the entry of women in sanctuary ; Removal of the sub-deacon was the beginning of the clérogamie practiced by Protestants, and sought after progressive. The abolition of the public port of ecclesiastical costume, imposed secretly, Completed the fog that surrounds the Ecumenical Ordinal by Paul VI.
Compare the work of Paul VI to the Ordinal of Kramer, in the eyes of Leo XIII (Apostolicae Curae)
Let us chase the cloud and down with Leo XIII in the depths of the Ordinal of Paul VI.
It keeps unchanged the material the Catholic Ordinal. But changes the shape in two places: hos en famulos " becomes "In His famulis" The conjunction UT disappears "C acceptum.
UT means: "To ensure that ... that ...". By removing this conjunction, it destroyed all the consequence relation and cause linking the two capitals of the text sentences of consecration, that is to say: " Please, Father Almighty give your servants that here the dignity of the priesthood, pour back into their soul the Spirit of holiness ... UT ... (= So that ...) they can get from you, O God, the office of second merit (= the priesthood).
UT here that both the meaning imperative and causal the Ordinance requires "Spirit of holiness"Which will be the cause and prelude obtaining the priesthood (Second merit). However, perfect chastity is the route most sour holiness. It is linked to subdeacon precisely that Paul VI DELETED. This deletion is Paul VI face ravaged, The visible expression of his tendencies and his secret life. Failure to "live like we believe, we believe as we live.
The second change in the form is grammatical. It seems trivial, yet it is serious. Present the sentence, and the change of regime "Watch therefore, O Father Almighty ... ... innovation in HOS (= To enter them), accusative of motion that indicates that reality of outside penetrates inwardly an object, so that here grace of the priesthood and character join and enter the baptismal character of the subject.
Instead, the formula of Paul VI: in HIS which is an ablative is something in its place without having said that there had been a prior transfer to the Subject. So the text of Paul VI in HIS simply indicates that computers are situation of priests ... There lies the "Mission Bishop Vilnet, and also the design of the priest that Bishop Hubert Barbier present in the "Mail Savoyard" of June 21, 1991, namely: The priest is a man like any other free gifts or special consecration a community leader named Bishop as part of a religious group with which he identifies.
In front of this ruse of regime change IN, There are two things dear to Paul VI, ambiguity and his love of Anglicanism Protestant. The Anglicans, indeed, as the Bishop Barber, Annecy, make a priesthood Office plated on an individual recipient who leads the liturgy. Is the "President" conciliar celebrations. We are the antithesis of "Sacerdos alter Christus" (= The priest is another Christ).
Conclude with the Encyclical "Apostolicae Curae.
What we have outlined above is enough to prove that the Ordinal of Paul VI invalid . This certainty is affirmed when, faithful to the teaching of Leo XIII, we realize with amazement that the Catholic texts surrounding the collation of the association and must gave his opinion, have disappeared. Were driven among others: "Receive the Holy Spirit, the sins will be given to those to whom you are forgiven, accepted those who get "..." you retain the power to celebrate Mass for the living and the dead" etc. .. . These omissions are not oblivion But, as in the Anglican Ordinal, formal commitment deprive the material and form the sacrament of Catholic serviceTo which it wishes to substitute ecumenism. These deletions such as those made Kramer, makes NIL The Ordinal of Paul VI. Word sacrifice kept in the text is a standard clause, a sham.
Study of the Episcopate
Truth of faith.
The sacred Council of Trent teaches that the priesthood is single sacrament, which is realized in two states, one plenaryIs Bishops And the other small, it is priesthood ...In the first part of this study it became clear that the Catholic faith explained by Pope Leo XIII says INVALID ordination of a priest made with the Ordinal. What about the consecration of a bishop?
The Church - we repeat - has the power to amend the terms of the form a sacrament, therefore the Episcopate. But it must do so for extremely serious and reasons for the good of the Church which postulates. When Pope Paul VI touched prior to the form of a sacrament, he explained the reasons. Paul VIIn contrast, without giving any explanation, Fabricated a new form of the episcopate, retaining the ancestral form as the conjunction AND.
Here is the form deleted by the ordinal of Paul VI: " Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam and ornaments totius glorificationis instructum, coelestis unguenti rore sanctification ". What makes the French way:" Finish the priest in the fullness of his ministry, and adorned with ornaments of the highest honor, sanctify it by the dew of heavenly unction ". No doubt about the validity of this formula which expresses that the first candidate to the episcopate a priest (Which is not the case if it was ordered with the Ordinal of Paul VI), which then says he will receive the fullness of the priesthood (Ministerii summam tui ") and, finally, the fullness of grace (" coelestis unguenti rore ").
Alignment with the Anglican Ordinal.
In place of this text eminently Catholic, Paul VI substituted a form of pace Anglican and foreign the fullness of the priesthood. Here it is: " And in hunc nunc effunde electum eam virtutem who you are, spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio tuo, Jesu Christo, quem ipse donavit sanctis apostolic constituerunt Ecclesiam per rental singularitiesUt tuum sanctuarium in gloriam nominis tui and LAUDEM indéficientem ... " I translated word for word. "And now spread on this elected this strength which is in you, own mind to those who commissionThat you gave your Son, Jesus Christ, and which he himself bestowed the holy apostles, who established the Church in each place as your sanctuary for the unceasing praise and glory of thy name.
For those who can read this text provides a elected not explicitly priest which will give the rite, not the fullness of the priesthood, but Spirit Leader is "Characteristic of those who command.
It is not in this form the Holy Spirit. The Evidence: Pau LVI has borrowed this term "spiritu principalem "(= Spirit leader) to the vocabulary of the Roman army. This "Spirit" should be that of Head of Senior in the line of battle. What is that intruders in a sacrament.
But we will say in verse 14 of Psalm 50, we find the term "spiritu principalii. Even so, the meaning given to that place of Scripture, should be very ill to the "spirit" that must be a Catholic bishop if we are to believe St. Paul. In fact, in Psalm 50 David cries out his grief at having committed a murder to satisfy his passion adulterous. As commentators "spiritu principali" reflect " Spirit noble prince who avoids falling into crime ". In some Hebrew texts, the phrase means " control oneself "In other" spirit of hegemony . Finally, Paul VI calls for the future " elected "Mastery of his passions. It is very commendable. But this prayer must be that of every baptized, And does no the grace of the episcopate ... However, in its etymological and historical, the term "spiritu principali" is perfectly suited to Anglican bishops are primarily officials appointed by the king and removable by him alone. They are not regarded as having a power higher order than the simple priest, NO, they are a vivid example of the word " bishop "Etymologically "Supervisor"And this under the eye of political power.
Thus Paul VI identifies the Roman Catholic bishop in the Anglican bishop false. The Modernists have so well understood that one of the leaders of the Ordinal P. Botte, wrote a text tortuous trying to give "spiritu principalem" the meaning of the "Holy Spirit" He starts with a text equivocal written by the priest Hipolyte which, Disappointed ambition founded under the pontificate of Calixtus a schismatic sect of which he became the Pope. To his disciples he wrote a Pontifical where Fr Boot draw came to justify the unjustifiable term "spiritum principalem" and equiparation to "Spiritus Sanctus-". We can bring our readers in the refutation of P. Boot: it was masterfully done by an American author (see Burton Scott Easton, The Apostolic Tradition of Hipolytus.)
Suffice it to say that it is the defenders of the Ordinal of Paul VI are very poor arguments to fetch, to XIX centuries after the text of a schismatic, otherwise quite clear, in order to tell "spiritum principalem" "Holy Spirit"! Poor P. Boots has engaged in a scholarly research that does not lack of relationship with a conjuring trick. But looking totally futile, because the Pope Leo XIII, in the conviction of the Anglican Ordinal, said that words so clear and obvious that " receive the Holy Spirit "Are "Far from signifying a precise manner the priesthood as College, and the grace he gives"If in parallel the priesthood and the blessings he gives are not EXPLICITLY served "A shape that has been intentionally removed everything in the Catholic rite, shows clearly the dignity and duties of the priesthood can not be a proper and sufficient form of priesthood" (Leo XIII).
The key words are missing.
If now we consider the problem from another angle, we ask whether key words found in all forms of valid episcopal consecration used over the ages in the Church be found in the Ordinal of Paul VI? ... Here are the characteristics of these words: "Summus sacerdos" (= Priest); " Dignitas Pontificalis " (= Papal dignity); "Episcopus" (= Bishop); "Sacerdos plenus" (= Perfect priesthood) ... However, the Ordinal of Paul VI has not NO.
Voltaire was a master of deception has made his approach: "Lies! Lies! There will always be something" ...I do not know if Paul VI had read Voltaire. But I find it strangely takes his ease with the truth when he dares to write in his Apostolic Constitution "Romanus Pontificalus" "That has revised the Ordinal to improve and clarify the expression of several important points of doctrine, and it was necessary to add, delete or change some things ... to make expressions clearer and better explain the effects of the sacrament.
For anyone who compares the Ordinal Catholic and that of Paul VI, it becomes obvious that the underlined words in the text above the constitution, "Romanus Pontificalus" are lies.
Cardinal Consalvi in endless discussions with Napoleon for the preparation of the final text of the Concordat was a proud day this reply: "Sire, the sovereign courts may lie, but the Holy Father, he would lose all authority in the exercise of its highest office for any lie. " However, the Conciliar Church revels in ambiguity until the sacraments, and falsehood when he is the priesthood.