A RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE IN SEL DE LA TERRE by BROTHER PIERRE MARIE (AND THE ANGELUS IN TRANSLATION) ON THE VALIDITY OF POSTCONCILIAR ORDINATIONS
One is surprised to find an official journal of the Society of Pius X coming to the defense of the post-Conciliar rite for the consecration of Bishops, a rite upon which the Apostolic succession in the Catholic Church depends. It is even more surprising that Father Schmidberger of the SSPX and the Abbe Gaudron from the Priory FSSPX were collaborators in the production.[1] All this only goes to support the contention that the SSPX and FSSPX are nothing more than conservative cults associated with the Novus Ordo establishment. Be this as it may, I find their contention that they have proven me to be in error, and that the new post-Conciliar rite for consecrating Bishops is valid, highly questionable.
It is of interest that the author(s) inform us that after the close of the Second Vatican Council, the Sacrament of Orders was the first rite that the reformers wished to “Aggionamentalize.” Truly, the reformers knew how to strike at the heart of Holy Mother Church! If the post-Conciliar Bishops are not true Bishops, then the “priests” they ordain are not priests.
Now the very idea of updating the Churches rites smells of heretical intent. There had been a perfectly adequate rite in use for some 17 centuries – and indeed as the authors point out in one of their foot-notes, the use of the traditional rite can be traced back to the Third Century, and hence is as ancient as the supposed rite of Hippolytus. The only possible reason for creating a new Sacrament of Orders was to introduce new and different beliefs about the nature of Orders, and to create a rite that was mutually acceptable to Protestants. In this they were quite successful.
And why should we need such changes – only 20 years previously Pope Pius XII had promulgated his Sacramentum ordinis which specified the traditional rite unchanged and delineated the absolutely necessary requirements for any valid ordination rite – requirements that the reformers clearly violated.
“We teach, declare, and determine this, all persons not withstanding, no matter what special dignity they may have, and consequently we wish and order such in the Roman Pontifical . . . No one therefore is allowed to infringe upon this Constitution given by us, nor should anyone dare to have the audacity to contradict it . . .” Sacramentum ordinis
One might point out that highly respected theologians and Canonists such as Herve and Capello have indicated the infallible and de fide character of Pius XII’s declaration.
What is shocking and indeed scandalous is in that Pierre Marie’s defense of the new rite, appeal is made to the authority of such nefarious individuals as Annibale (Freemason) Bugnini who boasted that the changes in the liturgy were “a major conquest of the Catholic Church”; Father Lucuyer, whose strange views on the nature of the Catholic priesthood have led Mgr. Tissier of the SSPX to characterize him as a heretic[2], and Dom Botte whose false claims with regard to the Apostolic traditions of Hippolytus have been exposed, and whose linguistic contortions with regard the phrase spiritus principalis are spelled out in my original paper. One wonders whether or not one will in the near future see these individuals on the altars (tables) used by the Society. Clearly the author(s) are happy to sleep with strange bedfellows.
As these characters may be somewhat unfamiliar to American readers, more will be said of them below.
Brother Pierre Marie has knowingly or unknowingly perpetuated many of the errors and downright falsehoods used by the above mentioned individuals in their efforts to justify the new rite for Consecrating Bishops. These falsifications have been pointed out by the French text Rora Sanctifica. The failure of the author(s) to either disprove or admit these errors which totally destroys their contentions as to the validity of the new rite they created, is evidence of their intent to mislead the Catholic faithful. Furthermore it is intellectually dishonest, and as such a sin against the Holy Ghost.
THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING OF POPE PIUS XII
How does one determine the essentials of a rite? It is a question of the exact manner of action of the person who possesses the power of consecration (the consecrator) who says in an imperative manner (words of the form of the rite) and God who acts by the application of this form (which in an unequivocal fashion expresses the sacramental effects) combined with the matter (the imposition of hands on the recipient), and as a result it is God who confers the Episcopal consecration and the plenitude (fullness) OF Holy Orders and the sacramental powers which all is part of the chain of Apostolic Succession.
As Leo XIII taught:
“In a rite which involves the confection and administration of any sacrament, one logically distinguishes between the ceremonial part and the essential part which one calls the matter and the form. Everyone knows that the Sacraments of the new law signify in a sensible and efficacious manner, the invisible grace that they signify. It is true that this signification should be found in the essential part of the rite, which is to say, the matter and the form; but it especially pertains to the form for the matter is an indeterminate part of the rite.” Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae. 1896.[3]
In 1947 Pope Pius XII specified the requirements of the form of a rite for Episcopal consecration:
“This is why after having invoked the divine light, in virtue of Our supreme Apostolic Authority, and from certain knowledge, declare, and as far as may be necessary, decree and provide: that the matter and only matter of Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood and the Episcope is the imposition of hands; and that the form and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which unequivocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.” Sacramentum ordinis.
“In the ordination or Episcopal consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands by the consecrating Bishop. The form consists of the words of the Preface of which the following are essential and are required for validity: Compte in Sacerdote tuo ministrii tui summm, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti roar sanctifica. (Give your priest the plenitude (fullness) of your ministry and provide him with all the glory of heavenly instruction and sanctify him with the graces of heavenly unction.) All these rites are accomplished in conformity with the prescriptions of Our Apostolic Constitution “Episcopus Consecretionis” of Nov. 30, 1944.” Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis.
Now, in the new post-Conciliar rite for consecrating Bishops, the essential form is specific and contains the phrase spiritus principalis. It is the only reference to spiritus used during the time when the ordaining Bishop places his hands on the head of the ordinand, and hence the only spiritus transferred.
The omission or negation of even one of the two conditions (the power of Orders or the “fullness of the priesthood” and the Holy Spirit) suffices to show that any rite for consecrating Bishops is invalid. In accordance with this principle, the new post-Conciliar rite for consecrating Bishops is clearly invalid. IT FAILS TO CONFER EITHER THE PLENITUDE OF THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS OR THE HOLY SPIRIT. As such, IT CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED A SACRAMENT; THOSE WHO ARE ORDAINED UNDER ITS AEGIS ARE IN NOW WAY CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND THE SEMINARIANS THAT THESE LATTER ORDAIN ARE IN NO WAY CATHOLIC PRIESTS.
This then clearly demonstrates that the new rite is “intrinsically” invalid. As we shall see, the author(s) of this new rite will make an attempt to justify the validity of the new rite by “extrinsic” validations by claiming that it is similar to valid Oriental rites still in use, or to the ancient rite of the so-called rite of Hippolytus.
THE FALSE COMPARISON WITH ORIENTAL TEXTS IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE EXTRINSIC PROOF OF VALIDITY
The authors would like us to believe that the use of the phrase spiritus principalis in various oriental rites, or in the Hippolytus document provide proof of the validity of their new rite. In this way they hope to prove validity by having recourse to its analogy with rites the validity of which has been accepted by the Church – namely Oriental rites “still in use,” or that of Hippolytus. The same technique was used by the Anglicans in their attempt to justify the validity of their rites of ordination. The author(s) in doing this either knowingly or unknowingly involve themselves in propagating errors of fact, errors which Dom Botte and Father Lecuyer deliberately used in order to achieve the acceptance of the new rite.
Let us first consider the Apostolic tradition of Hippolytus which the reformers claim is a valid source of their new rite. In effect, they justify the new rite by the false exhumation and “reconstruction” of this document which is presented to us as a return to the primitive tradition of the Church.[4]
Dom Botte was one of the “scholars” involved in the “reconstruction” of the Hippolytus document which supposedly represented ancient Roman practice and was also used in the ancient partriarchies of Antioch and Alexandria. Both the reconstruction and the contentions of Dom Botte were disproved by the work of M. Richard and J. Magne and others, and was openly shown to be totally hypothetical at a conference on the topic held at Oxford University in September 1967. Despite this Dom Botte presented his work as an authentic text that should be used for creating the new rite, a contention which Pierre Marie finds acceptable.[5]
A further problem with the Botte reconstruction lies in the fact that in a fragment taken from the sixth century one does not find the phrase spiritus principalis, but the words spiritu primates sacedotium. There also exists an Oxford translation dating from the last century and available on the internet which translates this as “free spirit.” Needless to say Dom Botte failed to mention this in his supposedly scholarly studies.
This allowed the reformers to claim that the prayer of Episcopal consecration and the new rite and its essential form was derived from the Apostolic Tradition attributed to Hippolytus of Rome, a document of dubious origins “reconstructed” by Dom Botte himself.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE ORIENTAL RITES AND THEIR FALSIFICATION.
The reformers, and Brother Pierre-Marie who is the author of the article in Sel de la Terre (translated in the Angelus) have accepted the false and erroneous arguments of the reformers and claim with them to support the validity of the new Conciliar rite by claiming there exists “an established and fundamental agreement” between the new form of Episcopal consecration with the Oriental rites that are sacramentaly valid and which are “still in use,”[6] namely the Coptic rite of Episcopal Consecration and the rite of “consecration” of a Maronite patriarch.[7]
This method gives the reader the impression of an external validation of the new rite by means of its “analogy” with the valid oriental rites. This proof by analogy can be considered as a tentative proof of the extrinsic validity of the rite.
Let us first of all consider the Syrian rite for the enthronement of an Archbishop. This “rite” is falsely presented to us as a rite of Episcopal Consecration “still in use.” The fact of the situation is that this “rite” is only a sacramental and for at least the past two or three hundred years, the archbishop is chosen from those already ordained as Bishops. In such a situation the use of the phrase spiiritu principalis is certainly appropriate. Similarly, the Dominicans have presented the “ordination” prayers of a Coptic metropolitan as a sacramental act, when in fact the prayers involved are a supplement to the consecration of a Bishop and gives the Bishop the dignity of the Archbishoporic. In fact the term “spiritus hegemonicus = spiritus principalis” of the Coptic text is also to be found in the Coptic benediction of an abbot – again not as a sacrament.
Even if one were to grant that the phrase spiritus pricipalis is to be found in some Oriental rites, this changes nothing. In Paul VI’s rite the essential form is specific and contains the phrase spiritus principalis. It is the only reference to spiritus used during the time when the ordaining Bishop places his hands or the ordinand’s head, and hence the only spiritus transferred. In the Coptic, Syrian and other rites Pierre Marie refers to, the entire Preface is said during the time the ordaining Bishop places his hands on the ordinand’s head. Hence not only would the spiritus principalis be transferred, but also the Spiritus Sanctus (which incidentally is capitalized). Hence a true and proper consecration with the Holy Spirit occurs. In addition, by the use of the entire consecrating prayer, the problem of Significati ex Adjunctis is also to a great extent obviated.
The rite of Paul VI in fact suffers from the same defects as the Anglican rite which as Leo XIII explained were invalid because of a deficient form which did not express clearly the fullness of the priesthood. The Anglican rite was declared by him to be irreformably “null and void.”
In addition, in transcribing the Syrian text, the reformers changed the word “quam” into “quem,” (from “who” to “which”) and the Dominicans of Avrille followed suit, thus in fact falsifying the comparison and transitively changing the import of the rite to accommodate the Adoptionist heresies of Father Lecuyer. They have also arbitrarily rearranged the phrases of the Maronite rite on page 102 (French original) to force an “analogy” with the counterfeit form used in the Conciliar rite.
THE QUESTION OF “INTENTION” AND THE HERETICAL ROLE OF FATHER JOSEPH LECUYER
The role of this nefarious individual is highly significant, and once again, it is extraordinary that the Society should turn to him in its attempt to justify the new post-Conciliar rite of ordination.
First of all Father Lecuyer was an enemy of Archbishop Lefebvre and was responsible for the Archbishop’s deposition. According to Mgr. Tissier de Mallerais’s Life of the Archbishop:
“Father Lecuyer collected these complaints [against Archbishop Lefebvre] and others: authoritarianism, absence of consultations required by the constitutions before making decisions, government according to his personal views, imposition of his personal ideas with regard to liturgical language and collegiality, ‘taking positions that went against the decisions of the French Episcopate,’ which risked losing confidence in the French seminary. And finally, the fear that Mgr Lefebvre would not apply the Conciliar decisions. He sent the “dossier on Lefebvre to Paul VI and it was examined by the Sacred College of Religious orders which demanded of the superior general Lefebvre who made no attempt to refute this tissue of reproaches, ineptitudes, at times malevolent and calumnious.”
The biography of Mgr. Lefebvre also informs us that Father Lecuyer was the person who carried out the decision to expel Mgr. Lefebvre at the orders of Franc-Mason Cardinal Villot.
“The response was a telephone order by Cardinal Villot to have the Archbishop leave Rome and no longer stay there. The Archbishop responded: “Even though one send a battalion of Swiss Guards in order to force me to leave.” It was Father Lecuyer who received Villot’s order and transmitted it to Mgr Lefebvre.”[8]
Far more serious however is the fact that Father Joseph Lecuyer is, as Mgr, Tissier has publicly stated, a heretic.[9] The propagating of his opinions on the nature of the priesthood is well described in Rora Sanctifica as “the hidden intention of the new rite. (The ecumenical intention is not in any way hidden.) This heresy is not easy to explain and the following is taken from Lecuyer’s essay entitled The Meaning of the rites of ordination among the Fathers, L’Orient Syrien, Vol. V, 1960:
“The prayer that accompanies the imposition of hands according to Hippolytus of Rome, and which is found in substance in nearly all the eastern rituals, express with this a great richness: The ordinand receives in substance that which Christ Himself had received and which he passed on to the Apostles: this Spirit, this pneuma is also ‘the Spirit of the high priest.’ In brief, it is a question of a special grace which resides in the bishop in his double role as chief and of high priest, and which gives him the power of continuing, among the People of God, the double dignity of being head of the priests of the Old Testament. The formulas of Hippolytus, so full and rich, present the Episcope in the light of the institutions of the Old Testament, and in fact, very often similar to that of St. Clement of Rome who compares the Bishop to Aaron while the priests are compared to the sons of Aaron. However, this does not apply directly to the symbolism of the imposition of hands (. . . ). However, I wish to stress certain points.
1) In Apraate, as Theodoret admits, John the Baptist imposed his hands on Our Lord’s head.
2) The imposition of hands as such conferred upon him the priesthood. The same teaching or one very like it, is found with Saint Ephrem in his Commentary on Diatessaron: “Christ received from John the Baptist the dignity of prophet and priesthood. As for the royal dignity of the family of David, He derived this from the family of his birth.”
The last point made by Aphrante is especially interesting, namely that the imposition of hands corresponds to the anointing of kings and high priests in the Old Testament: In two places in effect (Luke 4: 18 and Acts 10:38). The descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus at the Jordan is identified with a spiritual anointing.”
All this is somewhat confusing, but in essence it states that the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus at the Jordan was his spiritual anointing. It is a denial of the fact that Christ, from the first instant of His incarnation, in virtue of the hypostatic union, was called and consecrated by God a priest for all eternity. (Cf. Thomassin, De incarnatione, IX c VIII) As Garrigou Lagrange put it: “Christ did not receive this special character [of Holy Orders] since he was priest in virtue of the eternal grace of the hypostatic union.”
This error is further reinforced by the addition by Dom Botte of the word ipse (not in any reconstructed Hipolytus document) to the consecratory prayer in the new rite:
“dffunde super hanc electrum eam virtutem, quae a te est Spiritum principatum, quem dedisti dilecto Filio tuo JC, quam ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis.”
SOME ANCELLARY ISSUES
The Role of Bugnini who was at the time Secretary of State under Montini was highly significant. He was appointed the task of overseeing the activities of the Concilium appointed to aggorniamentalize the new rite for consecrating Bishops and was responsible for appointing Father Lecuyer.
Moreover, Bugnini et al, by introducing the various changes into the Roman rite, opened the ecumenical door as is demonstrated by the fact that the Anglicans (according to the authors) are now using this rite in consecrating their “bishops.” He was the individual who supervised the production of The Pontificalis Romani in June of 1968 and the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969. He stated in 1965 that “we have stripped our Catholic prayers and the Catholic liturgy of everything that could act in any way as stumbling-block to unity with our separated brethren, namely the Protestants.”[10] He was later (1974) to boast that “the liturgical changes represented a major conquest of the Catholic Church.” He was personally rewarded with the Archbishop’s hat by Montini in January of 1972. Because of the exposure of his Freemasonic connections, he was exiled a second time in January of 1976.
The author(s) of the article in Sel de la Terre raise another interesting point which I had not considered in detail – namely yet another aspect of the “intention” of the rite. Despite their attempts to void this matter, they discuss the implications of collegiality which the new rite allows for. They argue that the Church had altered aspects of the traditional rite in the 12th century to preclude any such understanding or limitation on the Pope’s authority and that therefore the new rite in opening the door to collegiality did not involve accepting any real change in doctrine. Now if the embracing of collegiality by Vatican II is not a change in doctrine, than words have lost their meaning. It is pertinent that Father Lecuyer worked very hard at the Second Vatican Council to establish the principal of collegiality.
The author(s) also raise the issue of Archbishop Levebre’s position claiming that he did not object to the new rite. Now it is well known that Archbishop Lefebvre held that all the new Sacraments were “in se” valid. While I am not at all sure what he means by the term “in se,” but what confuses me is why the SSPX fails to use all the new Sacraments which they claim to be valid and which the Pope whose authority they recognize wishes them to use. This of course raises yet another issue which is outside of the scope of this response.
The authors also claim that Cardinal Ottaviani gave his approval, and indeed “showed his pleasure” in the new rite. The source of this is the Memoires of (Freemason) Bugnini whose reliability is certainly questionable. In view of the fact that Cardinal Ottaviani was virtually blind and advantage was taken of this to get him to sign a letter approving of the Novus Ordo Missae, would allow us to at least question Bugnini’s veracity.
CONCLUSIONS
It is clear that on the basis of Catholic Sacramental theology, as well as the de fide teaching of Pope Pius XII, that the new post-Conciliar rite for consecrating Bishops is “intrinsically” invalid. It suffers from the same defects as the Anglican ordination rites which led Leo XIII to irreformably condemn them.
The attempts at claiming an ‘extrinsic” validity based on parallelism with valid Oriantal rites “still in use,” or with a return to primitive practice (so-Called Hippolytus’ prayer) fall flat in that Rora Sanctifica has clearly demonstrated that such assumptions are based on poor scholarship if not outright fraud. (The author(s) of the Sel de la Terre article are in fact probably only guilty of accepting the work of Dom Botte and Father Lecuyer at face value, though their current refusal to admit the factual demonstrations of Rora Sanctifica demonstrates their willingness to mislead the Catholic laity and manifests their intellectual dishonesty and is as such a sin against the Holy Ghost.)
The claim that I was in error in my initial study on the question of the validity of the new rite also, as a result, is also false.
The issue is of major importance because it demonstrates, not only that the Apostolic succession in the post-Conciliar Church is non existent, but also that their Bishops are not Bishops (indeed most are simply laymen) and that they have absolutely no power to ordain priests. The issue becomes clearer when one understands that the desire for unity with the various groups of separated brethren requires that the post-Conciliar Church make their Apostolic succession and their Orders “null and void.” The reason for this is that even the most conservative of Protestants reject the idea of the Apostolic succession, the seven Sacraments, and a valid Catholic priesthood.
In so far as the post-Conciliar Church will probably soon be allowing the use of the Tridentine Mass, it should be clear that unless the confecting priest was ordained prior to 1965, or was ordained by a true and valid Bishop, nothing will be achieved. Further, those priests associated with the Society of Pius X, and who boast of their not being conditionally re-ordained (Father Hesse, rip; Father Perez in California, their name is legion) are simply not priests. They neither have the power to confect the Eucharistic Sacrament nor to absolve sins. To use a phrase taken from the English reformation, “They are not “massing priests.”
The new rite further incorporates the heresies of a false ecumenism, of collegiality, and of the Adoptionist heresies of Father Lecuyer.
The replacement of the true Catholic rite with one that declares the bishop is only endowed with the spiritus principalis or governing spirit, concedes to the Protestants their idea of the function of their bishops. (European Lutherans and Anglicans retain the title though not the essence of the Episcope.)
The new and post-Conciliar rite for consecrating Bishops is then at least doubtful, if not downright “null and void.”
[1] Correspondence with Philippe Bourcier de Carbon.
[2] Ordination sermon, 2002.
[3] The intention should also be considered and should conform to the intention to do what the Church does.
[4] “At the same time, they have greatly distorted the matter by agreeing with the erroneous doctrines of innovators under the pretext of returning to its primitive form.” Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896,
[5] It is of interest that Mgr. Martimort, a member of the circle of Dom Botte, ended up by recognizing in 1987 (BLE.SCII/2, 1991, pgs. 133-144)that the Apostolic tradition was not truly attributable to Hippolytus of Rome. “I dare say , it is of little importance that matters little whether it was by Hippolytus or not: It is a most ancient document and most precious for the history of the liturgy.”
[6] To quote Pauil VI’s Pontificalis Romani “. . . the Apostolic tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, a document from the beginning of the 3rd Century, and which in great part is still used in the liturgy for the ordination among Copts and Western Syrians.” This statement, as will become clear, is simply untrue.
[7] The term is ambiguous for the exact word is “chirotonia” and the rite taken from Denzinger is dependent upon the publication Codex Liturgicus of Assemani (Rome, 1758, since reproduced in facsimile in 1902), according to the use or not of certain parties serve for the non sacramental enthronement of a patriarch, preceded or not by a sacramental Episcopal consecration depending upon whether or not the ordinand was already a bishop and not just a simple priest. Certain parts of the rite were or were not used, according to the situation. And the way in which this the sacramental use of this rite of enthronement of a Maronite patriarch had for many years before 1968 ceased to be used. Those chosen to be patriarchs were long before this time chosen from among Bishops, and thus endowed with fullness of Holy Orders. The Sacramental parts of the rite wee therefore not used in order to avoid the sacrilege of repeating the sacraments, unlike the practices used among the heretics and Nestorian schismatics.
[8] Taken by Mgr. Tissier from Iota unum by Romano Amero)
[9] Sermon on the ordination of priests, 2002.
[10] L’Osservatore Romano, 19 March, 1965
Sedevacantist Priest. Firmly believes that since the death of Pope Pius XII, all claimant to the Holy Office are Anti-Pope
Thursday, 3 June 2010
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
St. Augustine
Saint Augustine (354-430), bishop of Hippo (North Africa) and Doctor of the Church
Commentary on the Gospel of John, 80, 1, 81, 1:3-4; CCL 36, 527-531.
"I am the vine, you are the branches"
In the gospel passage where our Lord says he is the vine and his disciples the branches, and he speaks as head of the Church, and we its members. For "Christ is the mediator between God and men" (1 Tm 2:5). Indeed, the vine and the branches are the same nature, and why, because he was God, of a different nature than we, he became man so that human nature was in him like a vine we could be the branches.
He said to his disciples, "Abide in me and I in you. "They were not in him the same way it was in them. This reciprocal union do not procure any profit from them it is advantage. The branches are in the vineyard, not to enrich it, but to receive it the principle of their lives. The vineyard is in the branches, to communicate his life-giving, not to receive them. Thus the permanence of Christ's disciples, and the permanence of them in Christ, they are doubly advantageous, but not to Christ. Because if you subtract one branch, another may arise from the root remains alive, while the branch cut can not live separated from the root ...
If Christ was not a man, he would not have been the vine. However it does not provide this through the branches, if not also God. But, because without this grace, we can not live, because death is the power of our free will, our Lord says: "If anyone does not abide in me he is like a branch that was thrown out and withers. The branches dry, they are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. "(Jn 15:6) Therefore, if the wood of the vine is even more contemptible when it does not remain in the vine, it is even more glorious when it remains so.
Saint Augustine (354-430), bishop of Hippo (North Africa) and Doctor of the Church
Commentary on the Gospel of John, 80, 1, 81, 1:3-4; CCL 36, 527-531.
"I am the vine, you are the branches"
In the gospel passage where our Lord says he is the vine and his disciples the branches, and he speaks as head of the Church, and we its members. For "Christ is the mediator between God and men" (1 Tm 2:5). Indeed, the vine and the branches are the same nature, and why, because he was God, of a different nature than we, he became man so that human nature was in him like a vine we could be the branches.
He said to his disciples, "Abide in me and I in you. "They were not in him the same way it was in them. This reciprocal union do not procure any profit from them it is advantage. The branches are in the vineyard, not to enrich it, but to receive it the principle of their lives. The vineyard is in the branches, to communicate his life-giving, not to receive them. Thus the permanence of Christ's disciples, and the permanence of them in Christ, they are doubly advantageous, but not to Christ. Because if you subtract one branch, another may arise from the root remains alive, while the branch cut can not live separated from the root ...
If Christ was not a man, he would not have been the vine. However it does not provide this through the branches, if not also God. But, because without this grace, we can not live, because death is the power of our free will, our Lord says: "If anyone does not abide in me he is like a branch that was thrown out and withers. The branches dry, they are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. "(Jn 15:6) Therefore, if the wood of the vine is even more contemptible when it does not remain in the vine, it is even more glorious when it remains so.
Friday, 21 May 2010
How should we follow the Passion of the Catholic Churc
The Crusader publishes the following article by Professor Plinio Correa de Oliveira who, in times of Lent, makes us reflect on the attitude we should have against a serious tragedy that the Church is living today and their similarity with the story of the Passion of Our Lord.
Nothing in history has been so similar to the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as the situation in which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is happening today. Therefore, we feel compassion with regard to the Passion of the God-man should also intertwined with the current situation of the Church. The two passions are one thing.
The crime of Deicide - Cardinal Bea wants to use the term or not - that inspired the Catholics in all ages to solidarity with the Lord, is recurrent today. Only today the enemies of Christ are trying to kill the Catholic Church - a crime that could perhaps be described as Eclesiocidio, if possible kill the Church. These two passions are intertwined so that it can be said that the Passion of Christ is repeated today.
"Oh, all ye that pass by, attend and see if there is any sorrow like my sorrow"
This should remind us to take a position similar to the soul of the faithful people who knew the Lord and served him in his earthly life. The obligation of loyalty, sadness, adoration, reparation and thanksgiving for the passion were much more serious for people who for the faithful of today. But these duties incumbent upon us today, as the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore, we must take a position similar to that assumed soul by the faithful of his time.
This is an invitation to spend the Lent and Easter meditation on the Passion of Our Lord, asking Our Lady to grant us the grace to be faithful disciples in this second passion.
What should be lived this supreme duty of fidelity to the Passion of the Catholic Church in this day?
The Easter liturgy sings one of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, saying: "Oh, all ye that pass by the way, attend and see if there is any sorrow like my sorrow" (1:12). We must stop and ponder the depths of the sufferings of the Church of today and compare them with their suffering in times past. We should feel sorrow for this situation and intend to do what we can to prevent more suffering to come. We must be motivated to a more enthusiastic love for the Church, complete fidelity, more unconditional dedication, an incessant activity and most acute combativeness. These are the components of the state of mind that we have to follow the Passion of Jesus Christ as if developed today.
The faithful souls of our time involved in a mysterious way, in the comfort of our Lord in His Passion received 2,000 years ago. This should inspire us to do more acts of reparation for the offenses against His Mystical Body we are witnessing. These acts must be made before God, the Virgin, and all the Heavenly Court of Angels and Saints in order to repair the damage to the Glory of God, who is deeply offended by the steps of the second Passion. It is a way to express our loyalty.
Such prayers of reparation are of great value before God, because they express the understanding of all the evil that was committed, along with our complete abhorrence of this and we intend to do everything possible to prevent and repair.
Since it is proper to the human mind to understand things by comparison, one might ask: What is the opposite of this spirit of compassion? The opposite of this compassion is indifference. It does not consider the seriousness of the Passion of the Church. It is not considering the great sights of the Catholic cause. You think first about the personal life and concerns. The typical expression of indifference to the Passion of the Church is to put your own personal interests and problems over it.
If you want to know if we thought about the church or ourselves during the day, when bedtime comes, try to remember our emotions of the day. "We were moved by the sufferings of the Church or were driven only by our own selfishness and interests? Thermometer is useful to know the temperature of our compassion for the passion of the Holy Mother Church.
The Crusader publishes the following article by Professor Plinio Correa de Oliveira who, in times of Lent, makes us reflect on the attitude we should have against a serious tragedy that the Church is living today and their similarity with the story of the Passion of Our Lord.
Nothing in history has been so similar to the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as the situation in which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is happening today. Therefore, we feel compassion with regard to the Passion of the God-man should also intertwined with the current situation of the Church. The two passions are one thing.
The crime of Deicide - Cardinal Bea wants to use the term or not - that inspired the Catholics in all ages to solidarity with the Lord, is recurrent today. Only today the enemies of Christ are trying to kill the Catholic Church - a crime that could perhaps be described as Eclesiocidio, if possible kill the Church. These two passions are intertwined so that it can be said that the Passion of Christ is repeated today.
"Oh, all ye that pass by, attend and see if there is any sorrow like my sorrow"
This should remind us to take a position similar to the soul of the faithful people who knew the Lord and served him in his earthly life. The obligation of loyalty, sadness, adoration, reparation and thanksgiving for the passion were much more serious for people who for the faithful of today. But these duties incumbent upon us today, as the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore, we must take a position similar to that assumed soul by the faithful of his time.
This is an invitation to spend the Lent and Easter meditation on the Passion of Our Lord, asking Our Lady to grant us the grace to be faithful disciples in this second passion.
What should be lived this supreme duty of fidelity to the Passion of the Catholic Church in this day?
The Easter liturgy sings one of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, saying: "Oh, all ye that pass by the way, attend and see if there is any sorrow like my sorrow" (1:12). We must stop and ponder the depths of the sufferings of the Church of today and compare them with their suffering in times past. We should feel sorrow for this situation and intend to do what we can to prevent more suffering to come. We must be motivated to a more enthusiastic love for the Church, complete fidelity, more unconditional dedication, an incessant activity and most acute combativeness. These are the components of the state of mind that we have to follow the Passion of Jesus Christ as if developed today.
The faithful souls of our time involved in a mysterious way, in the comfort of our Lord in His Passion received 2,000 years ago. This should inspire us to do more acts of reparation for the offenses against His Mystical Body we are witnessing. These acts must be made before God, the Virgin, and all the Heavenly Court of Angels and Saints in order to repair the damage to the Glory of God, who is deeply offended by the steps of the second Passion. It is a way to express our loyalty.
Such prayers of reparation are of great value before God, because they express the understanding of all the evil that was committed, along with our complete abhorrence of this and we intend to do everything possible to prevent and repair.
Since it is proper to the human mind to understand things by comparison, one might ask: What is the opposite of this spirit of compassion? The opposite of this compassion is indifference. It does not consider the seriousness of the Passion of the Church. It is not considering the great sights of the Catholic cause. You think first about the personal life and concerns. The typical expression of indifference to the Passion of the Church is to put your own personal interests and problems over it.
If you want to know if we thought about the church or ourselves during the day, when bedtime comes, try to remember our emotions of the day. "We were moved by the sufferings of the Church or were driven only by our own selfishness and interests? Thermometer is useful to know the temperature of our compassion for the passion of the Holy Mother Church.
60 Reason Why Not Attend the Novos Ordo Mass
60 REASONS
Without faith it is impossible to please God (St. Paul, Epistle to the Hebrews, 11, 6)
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel different from what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (St. Paul, Epistle to the Galgate, 1, 8)
60 REASONS why, in conscience, I can not attend the "New Mass" or Mass of Paul VI, or the Modern Mass, whether in Latin or Spanish, facing the people or face the tabernacle. And, therefore, for the same reasons, continue with the traditional Mass, or Mass of St. Pius V, or Tridentine Mass, or Mass as usual.
1 .- Because the New Mass is equivocal and ambiguous. It is also used by Protestants. However, as we pray. Therefore the New Mass is not a clear profession of faith, but ambiguous. And our faith can not be both Catholic and Protestant.
2 .- Because the changes were not insignificant but "it is a fundamental restoration, I would say a total removal and, in some respects, a true new creation" (words of Monsignor Bugnini Hannibal, coauthor of the New Mass.
3.-Because these changes in the Mass, they suggest that "the truth, if believed by the Christian people, can change or turn off without infidelity to the sacred deposit of doctrine, which the Catholic faith is bound for eternity" (Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in a letter to Paul VI).
4.-Because the New Mass represents "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent, in establishing the" canons, "provided an" insurmountable barrier to any heresy that was against the integrity of the Ministry. "
5.-Because the difference between the two masses is not just a mere detail or simply change in the ceremony, but "what is presented as new in the New Mass is a matter concerning perennial truths."
6.-For "Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that the new changes in the liturgy, only lead to total disorientation of the faithful, who already show signs of indifference and decline in their faith."
7.-time because of confusion as the current guide us the words of our Lord: "By their fruits ye shall know them." However, after the reform in the liturgy, there was fighting in the Fe and decrease the fervor of the faithful, and statistically, significantly decreased attendance at Sunday Mass, in the United States, according to the New York Times of 05/24/1976, a decrease of 30%, in France there, as Cardinal Marty, decrease of 43% in Holland, according to "New York Times" on 01.05.1976, 50%.
8.-For, after the imposition of the New Mass, "the best part of the clergy goes, right now, for an agonizing crisis of conscience, which we have countless testimonies everyday" (Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in a letter to Paul VI).
9.-Because after the New Mass was introduced, according to statistics from the Holy See, in only seven years, the number of priests worldwide fell by nearly 50%. ([From 1969 to 1976 of 413.438 to 243.307; decrease of 41.15% exactly.) Coincidence? Where is the vitality of the New Mass? Where is the "optional renovationem totius ecclesiae" (desired renewal of the whole Church)?
10.-For "pastoral reasons adduced to support this very serious breach (with the tradition of the Mass), while having no value in any case, the reasons against teaching, do not think, by no means sufficient" (Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in a letter to Paul VI).
11.-Because the New Mass expresses not so clear as in the Traditional Mass, Faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord.
12.-Because somehow confuses the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with the presence in the word of the Bible and his spiritual presence among the faithful Protestant proximity errors.
13.-Because it facilitates the confusion between the hierarchical priesthood and the common priesthood of the faithful, as claimed by Protestants.
14.-For favors the theory that Protestant faith of the faithful, and not the word of the priest, is what makes being present to Christ in the Eucharist.
15.-Because, when you insert the "prayer of the faithful" in the New Mass Lutheran not only continues, but is presented as being acceptable Protestant error that all people are priests.
16.-Because the New Mass eliminates the "I sinner" of the priest, and does so common with the people and therefore favors the rejection of Luther not to accept the Catholic teaching that the priest is judge, witness and intercessor before God.
17.-Because the New Mass implies that the people "concelebrates" with a priest which is contrary to Catholic theology.
18.-Because they were six Protestant ministers who helped in their making, their names: George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.
19.-For as Luther abolished the Offertory, because it is expressed net so sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass, so the New Mass is reduced to a simple preparation of the gifts.
20.-For the Protestants, without correcting its errors, can hold its dinner using the text of the New Mass. That is, they use the New Mass without ceasing to be Protestant, maintaining her Protestant faith. Max Thurian, Taizé Protestant, said that one of the fruits of the New Mass "is perhaps that the non-Catholic communities will celebrate the sacrament with the same prayers of the Catholic Church. Theologically it is possible "(La Croix, 05.30.1969).
21.-For the narrative mode of consecration led to believe that this is only a memory of the dinner and not a true and proper Sacrifice (thesis Protestant).
22.-Because of the serious omissions, suggest that this is only a meal or a sacrifice of thanksgiving only and not a propitiatory sacrifice, that is, favoring the Protestant error that the Mass is only a banquet and the priest only president of the assembly.
23.-For, with the other innovations that once served as the altar-shaped table, the priest facing the people, standing, or Communion in the hand not only gave room for abuse, but it serves the Protestant doctrine , that the Mass is only a banquet and the priest only president of the assembly.
24.-Because, as a result of all this, the Protestants, possibly making fun of us, said: "The new Catholic Eucharistic prayers have left the false perspective of the sacrifice offered to God" (La Croix, 10.12.1969). And more: "Now in the Mass renewed, there is nothing to disturb the Christian Gospel" (Siegevalt, professor of dogmatic theology at the Protestant Faculty of Strassburg).
25.-Because we are facing a serious dilemma: either we become Protestants following the New Mass or on the contrary, we maintain our Catholic Faith by adhering faithfully to the traditional Mass ever.
26.-Because the New Mass was prepared in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: "The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred sinaxis or assembly of the People of God gather, headed by the priest to celebrate the memorial of Lord "(No. 7 of the" Institutio Generalis "of 04/06/1969, a document that presents the New Mass).
27.-Because the New Mass does not please God, who hates the things ambiguous and words of double meaning as the New Mass, which aims to please Catholics and Protestants and more to them.
28.-For who attends the New Mass, especially when accompanied by strong-tasting new songs Protestant (not to mention the guitars and drums), has the distinct impression of attending a meeting or dinner Protestant worship.
29.-For, being ambiguous and promoting the heresy is worse than if it were clearly heretical, because it is more deceptive: the worst counterfeit currency is the closest to true.
30.-Because the Holy Mass is the sacrifice of the Bride of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. Therefore can not be both the Bride of Christ and other churches or sects contrary to the true and only Christ: this would be offensive to Christ and his Bride.
31.-Because the New Mass follows the same pattern of Mass Protestant Cranmer, one of the leaders of Anglicanism and a fierce persecutor of the Church, the methods used to enter, remain, finally, traces of the English heretic.
32.-For the Church canonized many English martyrs who gave their lives for not adhering to a mass very similar to the New Mass, which was the Anglican church.
33.-For many former Protestants converted to Catholicism were shocked to see the New Mass in the same "Mass" to which they attended when they were in error. One of them (Julien Green) came to ask: "Why do we become?"
34.-Because the statistics show a large drop in conversions to Catholicism, after implantation of the New Mass and even an impressive growth of Protestant sects in the Catholic countries. For example, in the U.S., conversions totaling approximately 100.000 per year, dropping to less than 10,000.
35.-Because no saint held or attended the Mass, whereas the Traditional Mass had many saints, as Paul VI's own testimony: "countless saints nurtured abundance own piety to God by the same (Traditional Mass) ) ... "(Const. Apost. Missale Romanum).
36.-For, on the contrary, the New Mass is being instrument and occasion of the greatest delusions and desecration of the Holy Eucharist and the holy place, which happens very often. But that's not happening, according to the testimony of the Card. Renard, Archbishop of Lyon, France: "events that are held masses without sufficient respect, for example, no liturgical dress, no I think in Pater, with a charge invented, or profane full renovation, with no prayers." "It sometimes happens that there concelebrations with lay or married priests ... not over the chalice is purified at the end of the Mass, or to stop rolling over a table or altar consecrated bread particles (Vison, Messe L'Antechrist, pp. 4).
37.-Because the New Mass is, in itself, modernist, despite appearances to inoculate a new faith is not the Catholic Faith. Perfectly follows the modernist tactic of playing with ambiguities and vague terms to infuse errors. (Tactical especially denounced and condemned by Saint Pius X.)*
38.-Because there is a risk factor of unity in the liturgy, as did the Traditional Mass, in fact, every priest celebrating the Mass as it wants, under the guise of creativity. So the new "Ordo" Mass deserved to be called new disorder, because he has consistently produced. Additionally, the new Ordo of the Mass is followed almost anywhere, as presented officially, adding to its defects.
39.-For many theologians, canonists and priests respectable haceptaron no new Mass and said that in conscience they can not celebrate.
40.-Because the New Mass has eliminated many things, such as genuflections (there are only three), the purification of the priest's fingers into the chalice, preservation of these profane fingers from contact after the Consecration, the consecrated stone (Ara) and relics, the three linen tablecloths (now used only one), and many others, which only serves to confirm specifically the implicit repudiation of the Faith in the dogma of the Real Presence. ("A brief critical review of the New Ordo" of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci).
41.-Because it is an artificially constructed and not Mass Mass enriched and perfected by a centuries-old tradition as long as Mass was codified and not invented by a pope who was a saint, St Pius V.
42.-For the translations into the vernacular version (the adopted) of the New Mass, came to increase and aggravate the errors already present in the Latin text, and so stressed over modernist character.
43.-For, because of all these errors and ambiguities of the rite, easily runs the risk of being held invalidly, thus being deprived of the true Church sacrifice, and we exposed to the wrath of God. The Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci state in the critical review, "Priests in the near future had not received the traditional training, and will trust in the new Ordo of the Mass and in his" Institutio generalis' to do what the Church, "consecrate validly? It is legitimate to doubt. "
44.-For "the Mass is there more beautiful and better in the Church ... So, the devil always sought through heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the Antichrist, who, before all , seek to abolish and actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, in punishment for the sins of men according to the prophecy of the prophet Daniel, 8, 12:''And power was given him against the daily sacrifice, because of sin ( the people). " (Words of St. Alphonsus Liguori).
45.-Because in places where you can see the Traditional Mass, Faith and the fervor of the faithful are higher, while the opposite is seen dominated the New Mass. (This confirms the relationship of the Holy Mass in the diocese of Campos, presented to Cardinal James Knox, published in Rome, No. 69, August 1981, pp. 29).
46.-For, together with the New Mass, catechisms appeared new, new morals, preaching and new ideas, the new timetable, the new code, in short, a new church. The New Mass is a manifestation of the new Church and the central point of progressivism. "The liturgical reform is in very deep sense, the key Aggiornamento (modernization of the Church). Do not be deceived: this is where the revolution begins "(statement by Bishop Dwyer, Archbishop of Birmingham, in his capacity as spokesman for the Episcopal Synod.)
47.-For the beauty inherent, essential, of the Traditional Mass attracts souls by itself, whereas the New Mass, lacking its own attraction, has to invent new features to interest and to attract the public.
48.-Because the New Mass contains many errors and dogmatically condemned by the Council of Trent: the Mass recited entirely in the vernacular, the words of Consecration spoken aloud, by Pius VI (the same mistakes in the condemnation of the synod Pistoia) and Pius XII (condemned, for example, in his encyclical "Mediator Dei" the, altar-shaped table.)
49.-Because the New Mass attempts to perform a strong desire to transform the Judeo Masonic Catholic Church a new church, ecumenical and covers at the same time, all ideologies, all religions, truth and error. In this respect the statement is symptomatic of Dom Duschak of 11/05/1962: "My idea would be to introduce an ecumenical church ..." When asked if his position came from his diocese, he replied: "No, I find, even they would oppose, as well numerous bishops oppose. But if I could put into practice that would eventually accept "(quoted by Father Ralph Wiltgen, in" The Rhine flows into the Tiber ")
50.-For an attack on the dogma of the Communion of Saints, prescribing the removal, when the priest celebrates alone, of all balances and the final blessing, the "Ite Missa est" including in the Mass with assistant ( Brief critical review, "Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci).
51.-Because it gives more value to the altar to the Tabernacle. Now recommended to keep the Blessed Sacrament in a place apart, as if it were a relic either, so that, upon entering the Church, no longer have the Tabernacle which will immediately attract attention, but a stripped, bare table ("Brief critical examination. ")
52.-For the new rite of Mass is no longer a vertical worship from man to God, but to become a cult landscape, consider this new rite is limited to return the man to man and not the hunger to God. Besides the new church is the religion of man. Where is the glory of God?
53.-Because the New Mass, saying obedience to Vatican II, indeed even contrary to its provisions, as the Council declared that the Church wants to preserve and promote traditional rites.
54.-For the Traditional Mass, called St. Pius V has never been legally abrogated, according to the canonical laws in force (cf. Canons 22 and 30).
55.-The Pope St. Pius V granted a perpetual pardon (which was not repealed until today) that is valid for ever, to celebrate the Mass according to their mass, freely and lawfully, without any scruple of conscience and without which may be incurred in any penalty, sentence or censure (Bull "Quo Primum Tempore").
56.-For Paul VI, introducing the New Mass, did not intend to engage in it papal infallibility. It was he who declared, in the discourse of 19.11.1969, referring to the new Ordo: "The rite and the respective section in itself is not a dogmatic definition, are susceptible to a different value encoding theological ..."
57.-Because when Cardinal Heenan of England to Pope Paul VI asked whether or not prohibited the Tridentine Mass, answered that "it was not his intention to prohibit absolutely the Tridentine Mass." (Card. Heenan in a letter to Houghton Brouwer, president "Latin Mass Society").
58.-For, although we recognize the supreme authority of the Pope and his government in the Church universal, and the authority of bishops, we know that this authority can not impose the practice of that which clearly goes against the Fe : Mass equivocal and favoring heresy and therefore displeasing to God
59.-For the First Vatican Council (dogmatic and pastoral only) defines: "The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter for these, under the revelation of it, preach a new doctrine, but that, with attendance, and presented accurately called holy Deposit of the Faith, that is, inherited from the Apostles Revelation "(Dz. 3070). Now, by what we saw before, The New Mass conveys a new doctrine.
60.-For the heresy, particularly that which promotes it, can not be a matter of obedience. Obedience is at the service of faith and no faith in the service of obedience. In this case, "must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5, 29). IS THEREFORE AN very heavy obligation of conscience to NOT ACCEPT THE NEW MASS. THAT IS AT STAKE IN THE ETERNAL SALVATION.
Without faith it is impossible to please God (St. Paul, Epistle to the Hebrews, 11, 6)
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel different from what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (St. Paul, Epistle to the Galgate, 1, 8)
60 REASONS why, in conscience, I can not attend the "New Mass" or Mass of Paul VI, or the Modern Mass, whether in Latin or Spanish, facing the people or face the tabernacle. And, therefore, for the same reasons, continue with the traditional Mass, or Mass of St. Pius V, or Tridentine Mass, or Mass as usual.
1 .- Because the New Mass is equivocal and ambiguous. It is also used by Protestants. However, as we pray. Therefore the New Mass is not a clear profession of faith, but ambiguous. And our faith can not be both Catholic and Protestant.
2 .- Because the changes were not insignificant but "it is a fundamental restoration, I would say a total removal and, in some respects, a true new creation" (words of Monsignor Bugnini Hannibal, coauthor of the New Mass.
3.-Because these changes in the Mass, they suggest that "the truth, if believed by the Christian people, can change or turn off without infidelity to the sacred deposit of doctrine, which the Catholic faith is bound for eternity" (Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in a letter to Paul VI).
4.-Because the New Mass represents "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent, in establishing the" canons, "provided an" insurmountable barrier to any heresy that was against the integrity of the Ministry. "
5.-Because the difference between the two masses is not just a mere detail or simply change in the ceremony, but "what is presented as new in the New Mass is a matter concerning perennial truths."
6.-For "Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that the new changes in the liturgy, only lead to total disorientation of the faithful, who already show signs of indifference and decline in their faith."
7.-time because of confusion as the current guide us the words of our Lord: "By their fruits ye shall know them." However, after the reform in the liturgy, there was fighting in the Fe and decrease the fervor of the faithful, and statistically, significantly decreased attendance at Sunday Mass, in the United States, according to the New York Times of 05/24/1976, a decrease of 30%, in France there, as Cardinal Marty, decrease of 43% in Holland, according to "New York Times" on 01.05.1976, 50%.
8.-For, after the imposition of the New Mass, "the best part of the clergy goes, right now, for an agonizing crisis of conscience, which we have countless testimonies everyday" (Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in a letter to Paul VI).
9.-Because after the New Mass was introduced, according to statistics from the Holy See, in only seven years, the number of priests worldwide fell by nearly 50%. ([From 1969 to 1976 of 413.438 to 243.307; decrease of 41.15% exactly.) Coincidence? Where is the vitality of the New Mass? Where is the "optional renovationem totius ecclesiae" (desired renewal of the whole Church)?
10.-For "pastoral reasons adduced to support this very serious breach (with the tradition of the Mass), while having no value in any case, the reasons against teaching, do not think, by no means sufficient" (Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in a letter to Paul VI).
11.-Because the New Mass expresses not so clear as in the Traditional Mass, Faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord.
12.-Because somehow confuses the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with the presence in the word of the Bible and his spiritual presence among the faithful Protestant proximity errors.
13.-Because it facilitates the confusion between the hierarchical priesthood and the common priesthood of the faithful, as claimed by Protestants.
14.-For favors the theory that Protestant faith of the faithful, and not the word of the priest, is what makes being present to Christ in the Eucharist.
15.-Because, when you insert the "prayer of the faithful" in the New Mass Lutheran not only continues, but is presented as being acceptable Protestant error that all people are priests.
16.-Because the New Mass eliminates the "I sinner" of the priest, and does so common with the people and therefore favors the rejection of Luther not to accept the Catholic teaching that the priest is judge, witness and intercessor before God.
17.-Because the New Mass implies that the people "concelebrates" with a priest which is contrary to Catholic theology.
18.-Because they were six Protestant ministers who helped in their making, their names: George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.
19.-For as Luther abolished the Offertory, because it is expressed net so sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass, so the New Mass is reduced to a simple preparation of the gifts.
20.-For the Protestants, without correcting its errors, can hold its dinner using the text of the New Mass. That is, they use the New Mass without ceasing to be Protestant, maintaining her Protestant faith. Max Thurian, Taizé Protestant, said that one of the fruits of the New Mass "is perhaps that the non-Catholic communities will celebrate the sacrament with the same prayers of the Catholic Church. Theologically it is possible "(La Croix, 05.30.1969).
21.-For the narrative mode of consecration led to believe that this is only a memory of the dinner and not a true and proper Sacrifice (thesis Protestant).
22.-Because of the serious omissions, suggest that this is only a meal or a sacrifice of thanksgiving only and not a propitiatory sacrifice, that is, favoring the Protestant error that the Mass is only a banquet and the priest only president of the assembly.
23.-For, with the other innovations that once served as the altar-shaped table, the priest facing the people, standing, or Communion in the hand not only gave room for abuse, but it serves the Protestant doctrine , that the Mass is only a banquet and the priest only president of the assembly.
24.-Because, as a result of all this, the Protestants, possibly making fun of us, said: "The new Catholic Eucharistic prayers have left the false perspective of the sacrifice offered to God" (La Croix, 10.12.1969). And more: "Now in the Mass renewed, there is nothing to disturb the Christian Gospel" (Siegevalt, professor of dogmatic theology at the Protestant Faculty of Strassburg).
25.-Because we are facing a serious dilemma: either we become Protestants following the New Mass or on the contrary, we maintain our Catholic Faith by adhering faithfully to the traditional Mass ever.
26.-Because the New Mass was prepared in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: "The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred sinaxis or assembly of the People of God gather, headed by the priest to celebrate the memorial of Lord "(No. 7 of the" Institutio Generalis "of 04/06/1969, a document that presents the New Mass).
27.-Because the New Mass does not please God, who hates the things ambiguous and words of double meaning as the New Mass, which aims to please Catholics and Protestants and more to them.
28.-For who attends the New Mass, especially when accompanied by strong-tasting new songs Protestant (not to mention the guitars and drums), has the distinct impression of attending a meeting or dinner Protestant worship.
29.-For, being ambiguous and promoting the heresy is worse than if it were clearly heretical, because it is more deceptive: the worst counterfeit currency is the closest to true.
30.-Because the Holy Mass is the sacrifice of the Bride of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. Therefore can not be both the Bride of Christ and other churches or sects contrary to the true and only Christ: this would be offensive to Christ and his Bride.
31.-Because the New Mass follows the same pattern of Mass Protestant Cranmer, one of the leaders of Anglicanism and a fierce persecutor of the Church, the methods used to enter, remain, finally, traces of the English heretic.
32.-For the Church canonized many English martyrs who gave their lives for not adhering to a mass very similar to the New Mass, which was the Anglican church.
33.-For many former Protestants converted to Catholicism were shocked to see the New Mass in the same "Mass" to which they attended when they were in error. One of them (Julien Green) came to ask: "Why do we become?"
34.-Because the statistics show a large drop in conversions to Catholicism, after implantation of the New Mass and even an impressive growth of Protestant sects in the Catholic countries. For example, in the U.S., conversions totaling approximately 100.000 per year, dropping to less than 10,000.
35.-Because no saint held or attended the Mass, whereas the Traditional Mass had many saints, as Paul VI's own testimony: "countless saints nurtured abundance own piety to God by the same (Traditional Mass) ) ... "(Const. Apost. Missale Romanum).
36.-For, on the contrary, the New Mass is being instrument and occasion of the greatest delusions and desecration of the Holy Eucharist and the holy place, which happens very often. But that's not happening, according to the testimony of the Card. Renard, Archbishop of Lyon, France: "events that are held masses without sufficient respect, for example, no liturgical dress, no I think in Pater, with a charge invented, or profane full renovation, with no prayers." "It sometimes happens that there concelebrations with lay or married priests ... not over the chalice is purified at the end of the Mass, or to stop rolling over a table or altar consecrated bread particles (Vison, Messe L'Antechrist, pp. 4).
37.-Because the New Mass is, in itself, modernist, despite appearances to inoculate a new faith is not the Catholic Faith. Perfectly follows the modernist tactic of playing with ambiguities and vague terms to infuse errors. (Tactical especially denounced and condemned by Saint Pius X.)*
38.-Because there is a risk factor of unity in the liturgy, as did the Traditional Mass, in fact, every priest celebrating the Mass as it wants, under the guise of creativity. So the new "Ordo" Mass deserved to be called new disorder, because he has consistently produced. Additionally, the new Ordo of the Mass is followed almost anywhere, as presented officially, adding to its defects.
39.-For many theologians, canonists and priests respectable haceptaron no new Mass and said that in conscience they can not celebrate.
40.-Because the New Mass has eliminated many things, such as genuflections (there are only three), the purification of the priest's fingers into the chalice, preservation of these profane fingers from contact after the Consecration, the consecrated stone (Ara) and relics, the three linen tablecloths (now used only one), and many others, which only serves to confirm specifically the implicit repudiation of the Faith in the dogma of the Real Presence. ("A brief critical review of the New Ordo" of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci).
41.-Because it is an artificially constructed and not Mass Mass enriched and perfected by a centuries-old tradition as long as Mass was codified and not invented by a pope who was a saint, St Pius V.
42.-For the translations into the vernacular version (the adopted) of the New Mass, came to increase and aggravate the errors already present in the Latin text, and so stressed over modernist character.
43.-For, because of all these errors and ambiguities of the rite, easily runs the risk of being held invalidly, thus being deprived of the true Church sacrifice, and we exposed to the wrath of God. The Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci state in the critical review, "Priests in the near future had not received the traditional training, and will trust in the new Ordo of the Mass and in his" Institutio generalis' to do what the Church, "consecrate validly? It is legitimate to doubt. "
44.-For "the Mass is there more beautiful and better in the Church ... So, the devil always sought through heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the Antichrist, who, before all , seek to abolish and actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, in punishment for the sins of men according to the prophecy of the prophet Daniel, 8, 12:''And power was given him against the daily sacrifice, because of sin ( the people). " (Words of St. Alphonsus Liguori).
45.-Because in places where you can see the Traditional Mass, Faith and the fervor of the faithful are higher, while the opposite is seen dominated the New Mass. (This confirms the relationship of the Holy Mass in the diocese of Campos, presented to Cardinal James Knox, published in Rome, No. 69, August 1981, pp. 29).
46.-For, together with the New Mass, catechisms appeared new, new morals, preaching and new ideas, the new timetable, the new code, in short, a new church. The New Mass is a manifestation of the new Church and the central point of progressivism. "The liturgical reform is in very deep sense, the key Aggiornamento (modernization of the Church). Do not be deceived: this is where the revolution begins "(statement by Bishop Dwyer, Archbishop of Birmingham, in his capacity as spokesman for the Episcopal Synod.)
47.-For the beauty inherent, essential, of the Traditional Mass attracts souls by itself, whereas the New Mass, lacking its own attraction, has to invent new features to interest and to attract the public.
48.-Because the New Mass contains many errors and dogmatically condemned by the Council of Trent: the Mass recited entirely in the vernacular, the words of Consecration spoken aloud, by Pius VI (the same mistakes in the condemnation of the synod Pistoia) and Pius XII (condemned, for example, in his encyclical "Mediator Dei" the, altar-shaped table.)
49.-Because the New Mass attempts to perform a strong desire to transform the Judeo Masonic Catholic Church a new church, ecumenical and covers at the same time, all ideologies, all religions, truth and error. In this respect the statement is symptomatic of Dom Duschak of 11/05/1962: "My idea would be to introduce an ecumenical church ..." When asked if his position came from his diocese, he replied: "No, I find, even they would oppose, as well numerous bishops oppose. But if I could put into practice that would eventually accept "(quoted by Father Ralph Wiltgen, in" The Rhine flows into the Tiber ")
50.-For an attack on the dogma of the Communion of Saints, prescribing the removal, when the priest celebrates alone, of all balances and the final blessing, the "Ite Missa est" including in the Mass with assistant ( Brief critical review, "Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci).
51.-Because it gives more value to the altar to the Tabernacle. Now recommended to keep the Blessed Sacrament in a place apart, as if it were a relic either, so that, upon entering the Church, no longer have the Tabernacle which will immediately attract attention, but a stripped, bare table ("Brief critical examination. ")
52.-For the new rite of Mass is no longer a vertical worship from man to God, but to become a cult landscape, consider this new rite is limited to return the man to man and not the hunger to God. Besides the new church is the religion of man. Where is the glory of God?
53.-Because the New Mass, saying obedience to Vatican II, indeed even contrary to its provisions, as the Council declared that the Church wants to preserve and promote traditional rites.
54.-For the Traditional Mass, called St. Pius V has never been legally abrogated, according to the canonical laws in force (cf. Canons 22 and 30).
55.-The Pope St. Pius V granted a perpetual pardon (which was not repealed until today) that is valid for ever, to celebrate the Mass according to their mass, freely and lawfully, without any scruple of conscience and without which may be incurred in any penalty, sentence or censure (Bull "Quo Primum Tempore").
56.-For Paul VI, introducing the New Mass, did not intend to engage in it papal infallibility. It was he who declared, in the discourse of 19.11.1969, referring to the new Ordo: "The rite and the respective section in itself is not a dogmatic definition, are susceptible to a different value encoding theological ..."
57.-Because when Cardinal Heenan of England to Pope Paul VI asked whether or not prohibited the Tridentine Mass, answered that "it was not his intention to prohibit absolutely the Tridentine Mass." (Card. Heenan in a letter to Houghton Brouwer, president "Latin Mass Society").
58.-For, although we recognize the supreme authority of the Pope and his government in the Church universal, and the authority of bishops, we know that this authority can not impose the practice of that which clearly goes against the Fe : Mass equivocal and favoring heresy and therefore displeasing to God
59.-For the First Vatican Council (dogmatic and pastoral only) defines: "The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter for these, under the revelation of it, preach a new doctrine, but that, with attendance, and presented accurately called holy Deposit of the Faith, that is, inherited from the Apostles Revelation "(Dz. 3070). Now, by what we saw before, The New Mass conveys a new doctrine.
60.-For the heresy, particularly that which promotes it, can not be a matter of obedience. Obedience is at the service of faith and no faith in the service of obedience. In this case, "must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5, 29). IS THEREFORE AN very heavy obligation of conscience to NOT ACCEPT THE NEW MASS. THAT IS AT STAKE IN THE ETERNAL SALVATION.
Monday, 17 May 2010
SACRAMENTUM ORDINIS
Apostolic Constitution by Pope Pius XII on the Essential Rites of Ordination for Diaconate, Priesthood, and Episcopacy with the valid and only words and form for Ordination, without which one is not ordained either a deacon, a priest or a bishop.
Considering that Paul VI illegally changed this in his own Roman Pontifical, it brings up the necessary question: In light of this, are all cardinals entering the conclave who were ordained after 1968 actually ordained priests? If not, then they could not only not be cardinals and are therefore legally ineligible to vote, but hold no authority whatsoever in the Church Christ founded. His Holiness' most certain words below give credence to this.
1. The Catholic Faith professes that the Sacrament of Order instituted by Christ, by which are conferred spiritual power and grace to perform properly ecclesiastical functions, is one and the same for the universal Church; for, just as Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to the Church but one and the same government under the Prince of the Apostles, one and the same faith, one and the same sacrifice, so too He gave her but one and the same treasury of efficacious signs of grace, that is, Sacraments. For these Sacraments instituted by Christ Our Lord, the Church in the course of the centuries never substituted other Sacraments, nor could she do so, since, as the Council of Trent teaches (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII, can. 1, De Sacram, in genere), the seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over "the substance of the Sacraments," that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs.
2. As regards the Sacrament of Order, of which We are now speaking, it is a fact that, notwithstanding its unity and identity, which no Catholic has ever dared to question, in the course of time, according to varying local and temporal conditions, various rites have been added in its conferring; this was surely the reason why theologians began to inquire which of the rites used in conferring the Sacrament of Order belong to its essence, and which do not; it also gave rise to doubts and anxieties in particular cases; and as a consequence the humble petition has again and again been addressed to the Holy that the supreme Authority of the Church might at last decide what is required for validity in conferring of Sacred Orders.
3. All agree that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs which produce invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they produce and produce the grace which they signify. Now the effects which must be produced and hence also signified by Sacred Ordination to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy, namely power and grace, in all the rites of various times and places in the universal Church, are found to be sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words which determine it. Besides, every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations conferred according to the Greek rite without the traditio instrumentorum; so that in the very Council of Florence, in which was effected the union of the Greeks with the Roman Church, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it the traditio instrumentorum: and it was the will of the Church that in Rome itself the Greeks should be ordained according to their own rite. It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. 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.
4. Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.
5. As to the matter and form in the conferring of each Order, We of Our same supreme Apostolic Authority decree and provide as follows: In the Ordination to the Diaconate, the matter is the one imposition of the hand of the Bishop which occurs in the rite of that Ordination. The form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:
"Emitte in eum, quaesumus, Domine, Spiritum Sanctum, quo in opus ministerii tui fideliter exsequendi septiformis gratiae tuae munere roboretur."
In the Ordination to the Priesthood, the matter is the first imposition off hands of the Bishop which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition through the extension of the right hand, nor the last imposition to which are attached the words: "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum: quorum remiseris peccata, etc." And the form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:
"Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet."
["Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, invest this Thy servant with the dignity of the Priesthood; do Thou renew in his heart the spirit of holiness, so that he may persevere in this office, which is next to ours in dignity, since he has received it from Thee, O God. May the example of his life lead others to moral uprightness."]
Finally in the Episcopal Ordination or Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator. The form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:
"Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica."
["Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing."]
All these things are to be done as was determined by Our Apostolic Constitution "Episcopalis Consecrationis" of 30 November, 1944.
6. In order that there may be no occasion for doubt, We command that in conferring each Order the imposition of hands be done by physically touching the head of the person to be ordained, although a moral contact also is sufficient for the valid conferring of the Sacrament.
Finally, what We have above declared and provided is by no means to be understood in the sense that it be permitted even in the slightest detail to neglect or omit the other rites which are prescribed in the Roman Pontifical; on the contrary We order that all the prescriptions laid down in the said Roman Pontifical be religiously observed and performed.
The provisions of this Our Constitution have not retroactive force; in case any doubt arises, it is be submitted to this Apostolic See.
These things We proclaim, declare, and decree, all things to the contrary notwithstanding, even those worthy of special mention, and accordingly We will and order that in the Roman Pontifical they be clearly indicated. Let no man therefore infringe this Constitution which We have enacted, nor dare to contravene the same.
Given at Rome from Saint Peter's, on the thirtieth of November, Feast of Saint Andrew the Apostle, in the year nineteen hundred and forty-seven, the ninth of Our Pontificate.
Apostolic Constitution by Pope Pius XII on the Essential Rites of Ordination for Diaconate, Priesthood, and Episcopacy with the valid and only words and form for Ordination, without which one is not ordained either a deacon, a priest or a bishop.
Considering that Paul VI illegally changed this in his own Roman Pontifical, it brings up the necessary question: In light of this, are all cardinals entering the conclave who were ordained after 1968 actually ordained priests? If not, then they could not only not be cardinals and are therefore legally ineligible to vote, but hold no authority whatsoever in the Church Christ founded. His Holiness' most certain words below give credence to this.
1. The Catholic Faith professes that the Sacrament of Order instituted by Christ, by which are conferred spiritual power and grace to perform properly ecclesiastical functions, is one and the same for the universal Church; for, just as Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to the Church but one and the same government under the Prince of the Apostles, one and the same faith, one and the same sacrifice, so too He gave her but one and the same treasury of efficacious signs of grace, that is, Sacraments. For these Sacraments instituted by Christ Our Lord, the Church in the course of the centuries never substituted other Sacraments, nor could she do so, since, as the Council of Trent teaches (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII, can. 1, De Sacram, in genere), the seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over "the substance of the Sacraments," that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs.
2. As regards the Sacrament of Order, of which We are now speaking, it is a fact that, notwithstanding its unity and identity, which no Catholic has ever dared to question, in the course of time, according to varying local and temporal conditions, various rites have been added in its conferring; this was surely the reason why theologians began to inquire which of the rites used in conferring the Sacrament of Order belong to its essence, and which do not; it also gave rise to doubts and anxieties in particular cases; and as a consequence the humble petition has again and again been addressed to the Holy that the supreme Authority of the Church might at last decide what is required for validity in conferring of Sacred Orders.
3. All agree that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs which produce invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they produce and produce the grace which they signify. Now the effects which must be produced and hence also signified by Sacred Ordination to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy, namely power and grace, in all the rites of various times and places in the universal Church, are found to be sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words which determine it. Besides, every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations conferred according to the Greek rite without the traditio instrumentorum; so that in the very Council of Florence, in which was effected the union of the Greeks with the Roman Church, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it the traditio instrumentorum: and it was the will of the Church that in Rome itself the Greeks should be ordained according to their own rite. It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. 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.
4. Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.
5. As to the matter and form in the conferring of each Order, We of Our same supreme Apostolic Authority decree and provide as follows: In the Ordination to the Diaconate, the matter is the one imposition of the hand of the Bishop which occurs in the rite of that Ordination. The form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:
"Emitte in eum, quaesumus, Domine, Spiritum Sanctum, quo in opus ministerii tui fideliter exsequendi septiformis gratiae tuae munere roboretur."
In the Ordination to the Priesthood, the matter is the first imposition off hands of the Bishop which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition through the extension of the right hand, nor the last imposition to which are attached the words: "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum: quorum remiseris peccata, etc." And the form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:
"Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet."
["Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, invest this Thy servant with the dignity of the Priesthood; do Thou renew in his heart the spirit of holiness, so that he may persevere in this office, which is next to ours in dignity, since he has received it from Thee, O God. May the example of his life lead others to moral uprightness."]
Finally in the Episcopal Ordination or Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator. The form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:
"Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica."
["Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing."]
All these things are to be done as was determined by Our Apostolic Constitution "Episcopalis Consecrationis" of 30 November, 1944.
6. In order that there may be no occasion for doubt, We command that in conferring each Order the imposition of hands be done by physically touching the head of the person to be ordained, although a moral contact also is sufficient for the valid conferring of the Sacrament.
Finally, what We have above declared and provided is by no means to be understood in the sense that it be permitted even in the slightest detail to neglect or omit the other rites which are prescribed in the Roman Pontifical; on the contrary We order that all the prescriptions laid down in the said Roman Pontifical be religiously observed and performed.
The provisions of this Our Constitution have not retroactive force; in case any doubt arises, it is be submitted to this Apostolic See.
These things We proclaim, declare, and decree, all things to the contrary notwithstanding, even those worthy of special mention, and accordingly We will and order that in the Roman Pontifical they be clearly indicated. Let no man therefore infringe this Constitution which We have enacted, nor dare to contravene the same.
Given at Rome from Saint Peter's, on the thirtieth of November, Feast of Saint Andrew the Apostle, in the year nineteen hundred and forty-seven, the ninth of Our Pontificate.
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)