homeabout hutton gibsonmissionary efforthutton gibson mediabookscontact hutton gibson
Missionary Effort

Why are you not Catholic?   •   Catholic Controversy   •   Danehy on Penance   •   The Papacy   •   
The Council   •   The New Order   •   The New Mass   •   The New Law   •   Cum Ex

The New Order

The Invalidity of the new "rite" of Episcopal "Ordination"

Society of St. Pius X has devoted its December 2005 & January, 2006 Angelus to “proof” of validity of the 1968 episcopal ordination, by Fr. Pierre-Marie, OP. If the Society wishes to negotiate with the Vatican, this is the recommended course. From its inception it has held the antipopes legitimate and their new mass and sacraments “not per se invalid.”

The New Order of “Mass” was imposed to bring everyone “mass” in his own language, so he could understand it. This ridiculous excuse supposedly concealed the fact that our Mass had been stolen and replaced with idolatry, as we shall show. No reason existed to modify the ordination rite except deliberate invalidation. It needed no adaptation or translation for “the benefit of” the ordinary Catholic. It was a once-a-year-in-the-cathedral ceremony at which comparatively few of the laity ever assisted. Any innovation whatsoever intruded in violation of the papal oath (no longer sworn) to accept the whole religion from one’s predecessor and pass it on unchanged to one’s successor. Nothing new is Catholic.

John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council in utter absence of serious challenge to doctrine, practise or authority, in open violation of Pope Pius II’s decree, Exsecrabilis, which forbade and annulled beforehand any council called to appeal from past popes. John’s avowed purpose was to open windows, let in fresh air, bring the Church up to date, to accommodate it to modem man, whoever and wherever he may be. The very idea that Jesus Christ founded a religion to suit all men and all times until this enlightened generation, which He could not foresee, is a denial of Christ’s divine omniscience vital to our religion.

But the Second Vatican Council went even further. It assumed that when Jesus Christ established His Sacrifice on the Cross as our Sacrifice of the Mass through the Last Supper, He did not get it quite right. These proud bishops decided they had power to correct all their own predecessors, through whom they received the Faith, and Jesus Christ Himself. Just coincidentally, perhaps, they collectively violated another papal decree, Quo primum tempore of Pope St Pius V, which froze the Roman Missal, especially the Mass Canon, for all time to come, in the same shape --ceremonial and words-- used as far back in history as any man can trace. This Mass, often called the Tridentine because the Council of Tridentum or Trent approved its perfection, is at least a thousand years older than Pope St. Pius V’s 1570 decree. But those who have replaced our undoubtedly true Mass keep telling us that Paul VI did no more than Pope St Pius V in introducing a new rite. Of course all these innovators know how great is their lie, but imagine endless repetition can overcome truth. The first thing Paul VI did that Pope St. Pius V did not was to break the law and tradition of the Church. This law, published in the front of every altar Missal, forbade all heedless change in the Mass and guaranteed the right and privilege of every priest to use this rite in preference to all other permitted rites then in use for a minimum of two hundred years. Why, you may ask, should the Church have waited fifteen centuries to promulgate such a law? Laws are enacted when necessary. What made this law necessary? The Reformation. Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, Zwingli, and a host of branch “reformers” had arranged public worship to suit themselves and their own various and variable doctrines. But they continued to call these variations “mass,” to mislead their people, most of whom believed in and were attached to their Mass. In Norway, for instance, two hundred years after imposition of the Lutheran service, people still spoke of it as “high mass.” In all the confusion it was necessary to define the requirements for Mass. A standard was necessary so that the Church could guarantee the Mass. The Mass it guaranteed was, neither unnaturally nor unexpectedly, the oldest rite in existence.

Now Paul VI, when he introduced his new rites of mass and ordination to overcome the stigma necessarily incurred by violation of Church law, pleaded obedience to the needlessly and illicitly convoked Second Vatican Council. Firstly, a pope owes no obedience to a council. Secondly, this particular pastoral council never ordered or even suggested a new rite for mass or sacraments. What this illegal council said, on this subject completely beyond the competence of a proper council, is recorded in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, honey-combed with tremendous, anarchy-breeding lies. ... We find throughout this constitution that our defective rite needs revision. In paragraph 58 we find the only suggestion of a new rite for concelebration to be drawn up and incorporated into the Missal and Pontifical—existing books!

Yet Paul VI affixed his papal signature to and promulgated this violation of ecclesiastical and divine law, and then pretended to obey this violation when he introduced his new rite supposedly as an experiment, in 1969. He hoped and he wished that his new rite would find acceptance. No official order has ever been made public though from the success of the improperly conducted experiment to the point where our true, traditional Mass has disappeared from all dioceses, parishes, and the like, and no one is permitted to assist even where Priests—mostly retired—insist on their legal rights and privileges, it is certain that a secret order forbidding the Mass of the ages was passed down through all channels from Paul VI himself.

It took two years’ correspondence to extract from the Archbishop of Sydney, James Freeman the fact that our Mass, the true worship of God, recognized as such by all previous generations of Catholics, is forbidden. Freeman’s reluctance to admit such an absurdity is readily understood... Who could have believed such a proscription could ever come about? More recently, it is true, John Paul II has graciously consented to celebrations of John XXIII’s abbreviated Latin Mass, though not in the parish churches, under certain conditions which include statements by petitioner’s for Mass, our undeniable right under Canon 682, that they find no fault in Paul VI’s new rite. This renders such petitioners crackpots. If nothing is wrong with the new rite who are they to request another rite? But nothing is right with the new rite, whose imposers could not allow the true Mass to continue if only for comparison.

The fact, which most Catholics fail to realize, is that the new rite was intended to replace the real Mass with an ecumenical service which is, on the authority of its authors, no mass at all. We not only cannot satisfy our Sunday obligation but we violate Canon and Divine Law by participation in this new rite. Many think the new rite is merely a poor translation of the old Latin Mass. But it has replaced all Mass essentials.

“The Lord’s Supper, or the Mass, is the sacred assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” This definition, though correct on the authority of its authors was changed to ambiguity to stop the general outcry, but not a word of the rite it defined was changed. We obtain further development of the definition from a “Precis of a Circular-Letter from the sacred Congregation for Divine Worship on Eucharistic Prayers” dated 27 April 1973 and distributed to Sydney s Clergy Conferences 27 June, in. which “the following points are offered for the information of the clergy .... 7. The Eucharistic Prayer is the culmination of the entire celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy (Mass?). “It is recited” (prayed?) “by the ministerial priest, who interprets the word of God for the people and places before God the voice of the people offering themselves to Him 8. The primary purpose of’ the Eucharistic Liturgy is to give thanks and praise to God for the mystery of salvation in general; and for the special aspect of that mystery celebrated on a particular day, feast, season, or ritual 11. The aspect of petition and Intercession in the structure of the new liturgy is secondary; ....“ These novelties continued for twenty prolix paragraphs, none of which refer in any way to the essential aspect of propitiation. Whatever the Eucharistic Liturgy may be, it is not a Mass—defined as the unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross, the primary purpose of which was propitiation, atonement, redemption. Here is not mere divorce of idea but annulment of intent.

To fulfill his Sunday Mass obligation the Catholic’s presence was required at the Offertory the Consecration, and the priest’s Communion. It seems safe to say, therefore, that these were considered essential. In view of the innovators’ claim that essentials remain unchanged, how have these particular vital, central essentials fared in the new rite?

Naturally bread and wine are only bread and wine until consecrated. But they are not offered in the true Mass Offertory, which offers “this spotless Victim, ... for my countless sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here but also for all faithful Christians, living and dead, that for me and them He (or It) may avail for salvation unto life eternal.” This is clearly beyond the effect of an offering of mere bread Whatever lies on the paten to provide visibility to the sacrifice, what is here offered is the true Victim, alone capable of satisfying for all sins offenses, negligences of all faithful Christians. Call it anticipation, if you like, or God’s independence of His own creation time. Or consider that Calvary has taken place. “We offer Thee, 0 Lord, the chalice of salvation, ... for our and the whole world’s salvation.” These prayers determine the intent of the Sacrifice. If a cup of wine could accomplish this we could all be saved at the nearest pub.

Again, just before the Consecration: “... this offering of our bounden duty” (a moral obligation, then) “...“ (including at Easter and Pentecost: “which we offer Thee for these also . .. granting them remission of all their sins’) “... grant that we be rescued from eternal damnation and counted in the flock of Thy elect.” The bread and wine have still not been consecrated but the Victim is clearly the consecrated species. How is this different whether ten seconds or ten minutes before the actual Transubstantiation? Paul VI’s new rite replaces our Offertory with a ‘Preparation of the gifts,” in which our God is offered exactly the insufficient Old Testament sacrifice that Jesus Christ came and died to replace—the work of human hands, the produce of the earth, even the people themselves, though none of them are burned. If this were good enough we could have saved ourselves, and Jesus Christ, His Incarnation, His Passion, His terrible death were all superfluous, These two supposedly unchanged essentials, then, obviously signify different intentions, offer different things. Why would the one Sacrifice of the Mass offer two different victims, especially if one were merely natural and useless? Why would the Church bind us under penalty of mortal sin to presence at such a preparation of gifts, having no relevant sacrificial significance.

As Adrian Fortescue said, the rite continues to pray for the already accomplished effect. We pray for the transubstantiation that has just taken place. What possible reason, then, not to offer the Victim of Calvary, though represented still by unconsecrated bread and wine?

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) Vol V p 502-3: “.... the Epiklesis (postconsecratory invocation) for the Holy Eucharist is only one of many such forms. In other sacraments and blessings similar prayers were used to ask God to send His Holy Spirit to sanctify the matter. In all these cases (including that of the Holy Eucharist) the idea of invoking the Holy Ghost to sanctify is a natural one derived from Scripture (Joel ii, 32; Acts ii, 21; cf Rom. x, 13; I Cor. i, 2). That in the Liturgy the Invocation should occur after the words of institution is only one more case of many which show that the people were not much concerned about the exact instant at which all the essence of the sacrament was complete, They looked upon the whole Consecration-prayer as one simple thing .... The succession of time in sacramental prayers involves nothing but a dramatic representation of what presumably takes place in one instant.”

The new rite ‘consecration” is a narrative, Cranmer-style, not an action accompanied by blessing and prayer as required by all proper rites to do what Christ did, not merely to quote Him. But this new rite even misquotes Him! If the consecration is to be accomplished through Christ’s words, what price someone else’s words? Especially since the Missal instructions forbid any change whatsoever in the Consecration formula under pain of invalidity or grievous sin? What is essential in addition to make the essential form operative has never, supposedly, been defined because the subject has never previously arisen. Priests have adhered to their Missals. But the Missal implies additional essentials through prescription of where the priest must start over in certain types of detects. Canon 817 forbids even these essentials outside of Mass. The new rite is by definition not Mass. Canon Law does not consider the Consecration sufficient by itself. Unlike the innovators, the prophets of change, Canon Law would not forbid proper worship.

Our Mass, defined as the Sacrifice of Calvary, is efficacious because the Victim is divine—of infinite value, the only sacrifice, as the Church has always said, of any propitiatory value. In the new rite, defied as other than the Sacrifice of Calvary, containing a “Preparation of the gifts” offering the insufficient sacrifices of the Old Law, substituting a Cranmerian “narrative of institution” for Christ’s prayerful Action, telescoping the people’s communion into the essential priest’s communion, there are a number of “Eucharistic Prayers” replacing the essential Canon of the Mass. In the Preface of the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer you may read, if you don’t mind blasphemy, “Father in heaven, it is right that we should give you thanks and glory. You alone are God living and true.” This is classic Arianism, denial of the Blessed Trinity, denial of the divinity of the Second and Third Persons.

What effect has this on the consecration, supposing it were real in the other three standard Eucharistic Prayers? Is this, then, the Body and Blood in sacrifice of an infinitely valuable Divine Person? Or is it now the body and blood of a mere man, of no eternal value whatsoever? Is it not even less-—the useless corpse of all time’s greatest liar and imposter, who has said that he is God? And (always presuming anyone can believe in him and his “consecration”) when he is raised and adored is this not idolatry?

What can be said of a man who promulgated this most hateful heresy? (Not even a new heresy in which he might conceivably be honestly deceived.) What can be adduced in defense of the clergy and hierarchy who must know this as well as he? Or what were they doing all those years in the seminary? What are these people if not heretics? Where then, is their jurisdiction? Removed by Canon Law! What obedience is owed them? They are obeyed on(y at the risk of weekly idolatry, the worst crime on the calendar.

Overreaction? All these holy men couldn’t do this to us? Not if they were Catholic! But at their council most of them excelled themselves backing another dozen heresies. They are responsible for maintaining the teachings of the Church. They all boast the title Doctor of Divinity. They must know that they have varied from the teachings of the Catholic Church. They have all had years to recant, and have not done so. They are without question apostates—all of them.

Matter and form are necessary to the sacraments. But it does not follow that they are the only essentials, that the bare matter and form suffice. The Holy Eucharist, for instance is produced only in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The correct verbal form or Consecration has no effect on the correct matter unless prayed in the rite which clearly shows that the priest acting in the person of Christ offers the Church’s Sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood unto the remission of sins.

A sacramental rite is an entity. It did not fall together by chance. It surrounds the form and matter with purpose and intent. To cancel out parts of sacramental rites, especially parts which clearly specify the intention of the sacrament, on grounds that such parts do not occur in other rites or other times, is absurd. Before authoritative definition of sacramental matter or form there may have been disagreement on what part(s) constituted the form. But disagreement based on another integral rite is complete beggary of the question. The rites and forms are simply different, as in Confirmation, Extreme Unction, or Holy Orders. We can be sure of the efficacy of the form only when the entire rite is preserved.

A form stripped of its setting and re-clothed in rites which vitiate or suppress its intention arouses reasonable doubt—unnecessary doubt from unnecessary change. When changes create rites which approximate heretical rites, especially rites repeatedly declared invalid, why are we to trust the motives or explanations of those who impose these changes? Can it follow that changes obviously unnecessary to validity intend less than suspicion or destruction of the sacrament?

If the bare words designated as the form of Holy Orders in a rite systematically stripped of specification of intent and definition of object is enough, then the “communion service” from the Book of Common Prayer, recited by a properly ordained priest, would miraculously become a Mass despite removal of intent from the rite.

Pope Pius XII, after determining the form and matter of Holy Orders (Sacramentum Ordinis, 30 Nov. 1947), continued “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,”

This new “ordination” ousted the traditional rite 6 April 1969, the day the novus ordo was promulgated. Valid orders are not required to celebrate a non-Catholic service. Our innovators, like those of the sixteenth century, made much of the presbyterate. The ancient, or elder, helps his bishop. His chief function is to rule—to share in his bishop’s authority. He is nothing by himself; he acts for his bishop in every facet of his presbyterate.

All this gives him undisputed sway over the presbytery dog. The laity listens first to the parish council or the charismatic coven, often identical. Should the presbyter oppose them, he can expect at best to see the difficulty put off by his bishop, who lends his authority also to the council and sometimes belongs to the coven.

When this modern tries to perform his duties under Canon Law (469) regarding religious instruction in his parish, he finds the good brothers and sisters, or the laymen who have largely replaced them, brutally brandishing their own version of delegated episcopal authority even to ordering him off school premises. The episcopal conference has ignored, violated, superseded Canon Law, and given away his job. His authority has gone up in smoke, and the soot has settled on lesser men. Even in the sacramental field his bishop provides him lay acolytes, who perform duties assigned him by virtue of his priesthood under Canon 468 (special care of the sick and the dying), and save his precious time by distributing the Eucharist.

His bishop, often through his clergy conference, pre-empts the time needed to care for his parishioners (under Canon 467) for service on committees, most of which deal verbosely with, but never settle, problems caused by the undermining of his own authority.

It is one thing to aspire to be a humble parish priest; it is quite another to find the parish rubbing the elder’s nose in humiliation with the backing of his bishop, the source of his authority and his presbyterate. Obviously one need not receive Holy Orders to share in the bishop’s indiscriminately broadcast authority. Can such sharing be the essence of the priesthood? If so, why is not his school principal, parish councilor, or acolyte equally a priest?

Compare this impoverished modern with the preconciliar priest of the ages, the alter Christus, ordained priest forever to bring God down upon our altar to sacrifice Him in the person of Christ, in the name of the Church. Privileged and honored beyond all laymen—beyond the Seraphim—this man was called and honored by God to share His own divine Action.

“The proper and essential office of the priest is the offering of sacrifice.” (Nicholas Gihr, “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass)

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Vol. XII, p. 415: “The priesthood forms so indispensable a foundation of Christianity that its removal would entail the destruction of the whole edifice.”

Isn’t that the whole idea?

Paul VI, 9/9/66: “The Council defines parish priests as the chief collaborators of the bishops, and thus in the great mystery of the Church, illustrated by the Council, they appear to be enveloped by a threefold halo of presence: Christ’s presence! ... The bishop’s presence! Priests: ‘associated with their bishop in a spirit of trust and generosity make him present in a certain sense in the individual local congregations of the faithful.” .... The presence of the Church! ‘They make the universal Church visible in their own locality ...’ (by dressing like laymen and melting into the crowd.) “We shall have more institutions: a priests’ council and the pastoral council and many other fine initiatives,” The matter of Holy Orders, according to Pius XII, who went to unnecessary trouble in “Sacramentum Ordinis,” is the imposition of hands. The form consists in the words of the Preface, the essential words being: “Grant we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, to this Thy servant the dignity of the priesthood; renew the spirit of holiness within him, that he may hold from Thee, 0 God, the second rank in Thy service and by the example of his behavior afford a pattern of holy living.”

Leo XIII ruled the intention of the Anglican ordination rite defective because the form was not intended to ordain sacrificing priests in the Catholic sense of the term, that the prayers “have been deliberately stripped of everything which, in the Catholic rite, clearly sets forth the dignity and function of the priesthood. It is impossible, therefore, for a form to be suitable or sufficient for a sacrament if it suppresses that which it ought to signify” The intention of the new rite was to make a man not a sacrificing priest, but a “faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of His holy sacraments,” a phrase used by me continental reformers to describe the Protestant ministry in opposition to the Catholic priesthood.

The Anglican archbishops objected. The Catholic hierarchy of England and Wales issued A Vindication of the Bull “Apostolicae Curae.” They decried the very idea of reforming or omitting “anything in those forms which immemorial tradition has bequeathed to us. For such an immemorial usage, whether or not it has in the course of centuries incorporated superfluous accretions, must in the estimation of those who believe in a divinely guarded visible Church, at least have retained what is necessary; so that in adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps abandon just that element which is essential. And this sound method is that which the Catholic Church has always followed (till when?) .... That in earlier times local churches were permitted to add new prayers and ceremonies is acknowledged .... but that they were permitted to subtract prayers and ceremonies in previous use, and even to remodel the existing rite in the most drastic manner is a proposition for which we know of no historical foundation, and which appears to us absolutely incredible. Hence Cranmer in taking this unprecedented course acted, in our opinion, with the most inconceivable rashness.”

Catholic historians of the Reformation (e.g. Hughes, Messenger, Clark) lay special emphasis on Cranmer’s technique of introducing doctrinal innovation through the liturgy, not by explicitly heretical statements, but by omission of prayers and ceremonies irreconcilable with Protestant doctrine. Their judgment is unanimous—what is not affirmed is denied.

The old rite has been remodeled in the most drastic manner, principally by subtraction of prayers and ceremonies in previous use, notably those specifying the traditional (Tridentine) definition of a Catholic priest—ordained to consecrate, offer sacrifice, and forgive sins. The new rite follows the very pattern for which Pope Leo XIII condemned Cranmer’s ordination rite as invalid.

Too much space is needed to list all the prayers subtracted or transformed beyond recognition in the new English version. Among those omitted:

“Theirs be the task to chance with blessing undefiled, for the service of Thy people, bread and wine into the body and blood of Thy Son.”

“Be pleased, Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing and our blessing. Amen. That whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

As the Chalice and Paten are handed over (traditio): “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord.’

At the second laying on of hands (also omitted): “Receive the Holy Ghost. When you forgive men’s sins they are forgiven when you hold them bound, they are bound.”

“May the blessing of God enable you to offer propitiatory sacrifices for the sins and offences of the people to Almighty God.”

At the “presentation of the gifts’ (new rite) the bishop presents the Chalice and Paten and says: “Accept the gift of the people to be offered to God. Realize what you are about, be as holy as your ministry, model your life on the mystery of the cross of our Lord.” At the anointing of hands: “May Jesus Christ our Lord Whom the Father has anointed through the power of the Holy Spirit, keep you worthy to offer sacrifice to God and to sanctify His people.”

Could those who intended only to ordain, or to be ordained, as a “faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of His holy sacraments” accept “worthy to offer sacrifice?” Cranmer taught the sacrifice which does not reconcile us to God, which is offered by the already reconciled (“.... to testify our duties unto God, and to show ourselves thankful unto Him. And therefore they be called sacrifices of laud, praise, and thanksgiving.”). Hooper, who said: “If we study not daily to offer these sacrifices (of thanksgiving, benevolence, and liberality to the poor) to God, we be no Christian men,” also said: “I believe the Holy Supper of the Lord is not a sacrifice, but only a remembrance and commemoration of this holy sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Therefore it ought not be worshipped as God, neither is Christ therein contained; who must be worshipped in faith only, without all corruptible elements, Likewise I believe and confess that the popish Mass is an invention and ordinance of man, a sacrifice of Antichrist, and a forsaking of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that is to say, of His death and passion; and that it is a stinking and infected sepulchre, which hideth and covereth the merit of the blood of Christ; ....“ The use of the word “sacrifice” within the new rite must be taken in the context of its “native character and spirit.”

Even the Preface defined by Pope Pius XII as constituting the form has been changed: “.... dignity of the priesthood. Renew the spirit of holiness within him, By Your divine gift may he attain the second order in the hierarchy and exemplify right conduct in his life.” Nothing here could repel an Anglican, particularly in view of the immediately following change: “May he be our fellow worker, so that the words of the gospel may reach the farthest parts of the earth, and all nations gathered together in Christ, may become one holy people of God.”

We must refer to the climate, the historic circumstances, surrounding compilation of this rile. It follows introduction of an ambiguous, invalid rite of “mass”—perfectly acceptable to Protestants—and the signing of a joint statement on the Eucharist by an Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission, in which commitment to the doctrine of transubstantiation and the sacrificial nature of the Mass were deliberately avoided.

To quote an Anglican member of the Commission: “The (Windsor) Statement spoke explicitly of the sacrifice of Christ, but it never described the eucharist as a sacrifice, even a ‘substantial agreement' did not require that.”

The new Catholic Ordinal has also been followed by the “Agreed Statement on the Ministry,” in which not only is there no clear teaching on the Real Presence and the sacrificial nature of the Mass, but it is nowhere stated that the Apostles appointed bishops and established an unbroken chain down to the twentieth century, nor that ordination confers a “character” which empowers an “ordained man to do something which no layman can do.” (E. Messenger, “The Reformation, the Mass and the Priesthood”)

One thing is absolutely certain: There could have been no Windsor Agreement on the Eucharist and no Canterbury Agreement on the Ministry had the old Mass and the old Ordinal still been in use. Catholics who try to defend the new Ordinal will, as when defending the new “mass,” base their case on the notion that it can be used validly. Even were this true, it is impossible when the “ordaining” bishop is himself improperly consecrated. His rite is wrong, too.

No Bishops, No Clergy—No Clergy, No Mass!

If the new “orders” are used to the exclusion of the sacrament of Holy Orders—as Knox and Montini intended—within twenty years it will not matter what rite is used for worship. Not only will there not be a properly ordained priest capable of celebrating a true Mass, but there ‘will be no possibility of obtaining one. For there will be no bishops either. “It is well-known that the sacraments of the New Law, being sensible signs which cause invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they cause and cause the grace which they signify. Now this signification, though it must be found in the essential rite as a whole, that is, in both matter and form together, belongs chiefly to the form, for the matter is by itself the indeterminate part, which becomes determinate through the form. This is especially apparent in the sacrament of Order, the matter of which .... is the imposition of hands. This by itself does not signify anything definite, being used equally for the conferring of certain orders and for administering Confirmation” (and lately for “anointing of the sick”).—Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 24.

“Now in all things composed of matter and form the determining principle is on the part of the form, which is as it were the end and term of the matter. Consequently for the beginning of a thing the need of a determinate form is prior to the need of determinate matter, for determinate matter is needed that it may be proportioned to the determinate form. Since, therefore, in the sacraments determinate sensible things are required, which are as the sacramental matter, much more is there need in them of a determinate form of words.”—Summa Theologiae, III, q 60, 7.

“Since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey .... we must see whether the change of words destroys the due sense of the words, because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear that if any of these things which are of the substance of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the due sense of the words is destroyed, and consequently the sacrament is invalid.”—Summa Theologiae, III q 60, 8.

“The form of a sacrament should contain all those things that explain the nature and substance of the sacrament itself” — Catech. Conc. Trent (1566) II, ch 3, q 11.

“.... the power of a sacrament consists not in the matter only, but in matter and form together, which two are one sacrament; hence however greatly the matter of a sacrament is applied to a man without the necessary form of words and other things which are required for it, the effect of the sacrament does not follow,” — St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, q. 27, 4, ad 10.

We can multiply quotations of this nature from recognized authorities of all ages of the Church indefinitely. Let us apply them to the superseded rite of consecration of a bishop, and to the new rite of ordination of a bishop-elect. Observe even in the title of the ceremony a diminution—another unnecessary innovation—in the dignity of the office. The Ordination completely replaced the Consecration by “order” of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (Prot. no. R 19/967) Easter Sunday, April 6, 1969, in another of these actions beyond its competence in response to a non-mandatory approval by a “pope” acting beyond his competence in “obedience” to a pastoral council acting beyond its competence.

We quote the Apostolic Constitution Approval of a New Rite for the Ordination of Deacons, Priests, and Bishops, Paul VI, June 18, 1968:

...the apostolic constitution Sacramentum Ordinis .... (of) Pius XII, Nov. 30, 1947 .... declared that “the sole matter of the sacred Orders of diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate is the imposition of hands; likewise the sole 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 employed by the Church as such.” Having said this the document determines what imposition of hands and which words constitute the matter and form in the conferral of each Order. It was necessary in the revision of the rite to add, delete, or change certain things, either to restore texts to their earlier integrity, to make the expressions clearer, or to describe the sacramental effects better. We therefore think it necessary, in order to remove all controversy and to avoid anxiety of conscience (nether of which would have arisen but for the revision), to declare what in the revised rite should be said to pertain to the nature of the Order. By our supreme apostolic authority we decree and establish the following with regard to the matter and form in the conferral of each Order .... (deacons) .. (priests)... Finally, in the ordination of a bishop, the matter is the imposition of hands on the head of the bishop-elect by the consecrating bishops, or at least by the principal consecrator, which is done in silence before the consecratory prayer; the form consists of the words of the consecratory prayer, of which the following pertain to the nature of the Order and therefore are required for the validity of the act: "Now pour out ... be praised and glorified.”

In the traditional rite the consecrator and both Co-consecrators touch with both hands the head of the consecrand, saying: “Receive the Holy Ghost,” thus coupling an intent with the matter, If the matter of the sacrament, even if sufficiently determined by a proper form, may be applied by the principal “consecrator” only, what is the purpose of the other two? How are they insuring apostolic succession?

The traditional rite of Consecration follows the prescriptions of Sacramentum Ordinis, naturally enough, since it preceded and furnished part of the basis for this document “The imposition of hands is the matter, and the words of the following preface, the last sentence of which is essential for the validity of the Consecration, are the form by which the episcopal order is conferred.”


All: It is truly fitting and just, right and profitable unto salvation that, at all times and in all places, we should give thanks to Thee, 0 Holy Lord, Father Almighty, Eternal God, source of honor to all dignitaries who in their sacred orders serve Thy glory. Thanks to Thee, 0 Lord Who, in the privacy of familiar conversation, didst instruct Moses Thy servant, concerning, among other things of divine worship, the nature of sacerdotal garments, and Who didst order that Aaron, Thy chosen one should be clad in mystic robes during sacred functions, so that generation after generation might learn from the example of their forebears, and so that knowledge derived from Thy instruction be not wanting in any age. Among our forebears the very display of symbols would excite reverence; among us, however, the realities themselves mean more than the symbols. Whereas the garb of the ancient priesthood is merely a display for our mind, now the splendor of souls rather than of vestments makes the pontifical glory attractive; because even those things which then were pleasing to the eyes of the flesh had to be grasped by the mind as to their inner meaning. Therefore, we beseech Thee, 0 Lord, shower upon this Thy servant, whom Thou hast chosen for the ministry of the highest priesthood, this grace, namely, that whatever those garments signify in the lustre of gold, the beauty of jewels, and the varied skill of craftsmanship, may shine forth in their conduct and deeds. Give to thy priests the perfection of ministry, and sanctify them, decked out in ornaments of glory, with the dew of Thy heavenly ointment.

NEW Ordination “FORM”

Principal Consecrator: Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, merciful God, bringing comfort to all from your heavenly home you look with care on lowest of your creatures knowing all things even before they come to be. Your life-giving revelation has laid down rules for your Church, the just people of Abraham upon whom you had set your mark from the beginning: in that Church you have established a government and priesthood, so as not to leave your sanctuary without its liturgy; and from the beginning of the world it has pleased you to be gloried by the ministers whom you have chosen.

(All the consecrating bishops): Now pour out upon this chosen one that power which flows from You, the perfect spirit whom You gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ, the Spirit whom He gave to the Apostles, who established the church in every place as the sanctuary where Your name would always be praised and glorified.

(Principal consecrator continues alone): Father, you know what is in every heart. Inspire the heart of your servant whom you have chosen to make a bishop. May he feed your holy flock and exercise the high priesthood without blame, ministering to you day and night to reconcile us with you and to offer the gifts of your Church. By the spirit of this Priesthood may he have the power to forgive sins, as you commanded. May he assign the duties of the flock according to your will and loose every bond by the power you gave the apostles. May his gentleness and singleness of purpose stand before you as an offering through your Son Jesus Christ. Through him glory and power and honor are yours, with the Holy Spirit in the Church, now and forever. (All): Amen.

In the left column the Old and New Laws are deliberately contrasted; in the new form they are unified, so that high priesthood seems to refer to the priesthood of Aaron (non-sacramental by definition— instituted by Christ?) rather than to anything relevant. This new (not highest) priesthood (Why not episcopacy’? This would “make the expression clearer,” as Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution rationalized the revision,) is defined in functions which lie completely within the power of the ordinary priest.

Divine power poured out is not the same as conferral of active use of divine power. No specification in the entire new ‘form” exceeds what may also characterize Baptism, Confirmation, or the new “anointing of the sick.”

The old form was not that specific either? As in the Mass, we cannot divorce the form from the rite. The old form is sufficiently specific in a rite that clearly conveys its intent. The Consecrator (old rite) explicitly defines his new office to the bishop-elect in words removed from the new rite: “A Bishop is charged with the duty to judge, interpret, consecrate, ordain, offer, baptize, and confirm.”

The new rite otherwise manifests defect or deliberate suppression of intention of conveying the sacrament. Instances:

  1. In the Examination, by introduction of:
    1. “to remain united with (the Church) by your link with the order of bishops.” This appears to constrain the ordinand to subordinate his authority to those other innovations, the episcopal conference and the instruction’s “collegiate body of bishops,” rather than to refer to Apostolic Succession.
    2. “to show kindness .... in the name of the Lord (replacing “for the Lord’s sake) to the poor and to strangers” (replacing “to the homeless”).
      The bishop is “ordained” for his own flock? Ecumenism first!
    3. “to carry out the highest duties of the priesthood ....” “Episcopate” is available. The excuse for reform is clarification.
    4. “in co-operation with the priests and deacons who share your ministry.” He is to co-operate with subordinates, not run his diocese. Nor is the extent of the sharing clarified. He may be first among equals, in the general trend of spiritual devaluation.

  2. In the Examination, by deletion of
    1. “Will you receive, teach, and keep with reverence the tradition of the approved Fathers as well as the decrees and laws of the Holy .... See?”
      Teaching and tradition must go. Quo Primum and Canon Law ignore or forget!
    2. “Will you, in all things and in accord with canon law, show to Blessed Peter the Apostle, who received from God the power of binding and of loosing to His Vicar, our Holy Father, Pope N., and to his successors, the Roman Pontiff’s, fidelity, submission, and obedience?’
      This is replaced with “to be loyal in your obedience to the successor of St Peter the Apostle?” Loyalty to only one contemporary man is required.

  3. (Prayer of Consecration, third paragraph) “.... loose every bond ....” without mention of “binding” promotes the ecumenical, non-Catholic bias of most innovation.
  4. Deletion of the anointing of hands, by which the matter (laying on) of several sacraments is applied, and its accompanying prayer: “May God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath Himself willed to raise you to the dignity of the Pontifical Order, flood you with chrism and with the symbolical ointment, and make you fruitful with the richness of spiritual benediction. Whatsoever you shall bless may it be blessed, and whatsoever you shall sanctify may it be sanctified; and may the imposition of this consecrated hand or thumb be profitable to all unto salvation. Amen.”
  5. Reversal of the ritual order of gifts (crosier, ring, Gospels) leaving the “staff” of authority last, as a “sign” of the “office” accompanied (old rite only) by the caution: “Neglect not strictness of discipline through love of peace.
  6. Substitution of the (old rite) prayer “May your head be anointed and consecrated by heavenly benediction in the pontifical order” with “God has made you a sharer in Christ’s priesthood (required for eligibility for this ceremony). May He pour upon you this oil of mystical anointing and make you fruitful with spiritual blessing.”
  7. Elimination of the entire long prayer which follows the anointing, and ends: “Grant him, 0 Lord an episcopal chair for ruling Thy Church and the people committed to him. Be Thou his authority; be Thou his power; be Thou his strength. Shower upon him Thy blessing and Thy grace so that .... he .... be faithful to his charge.”

But then this man has neither authority nor charge.

“.... one argument has the value of them all: namely that these prayers have been stripped of everything which in the Catholic rite clearly sets forth the dignity and functions of the priesthood (read: episcopacy). It is impossible, therefore, for a form to be suitable or sufficient for a sacrament if it is silent on that which it ought distinctively to signify.”—Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae,

Not even an undoubtedly valid form can be effective in a rite which excludes or contradicts the sacramental intention. Even the proper words of the Mass Consecration would have no effect in an Anglican rite or in the novus ordo missae.

Let us recall the catechism definition of a sacrament: an outward sign, conveying an inward grace instituted by Jesus Christ. Christ is the source of all grace, and only He can institute a sacrament. Our only safe course is to keep to tradition. When we change anything in the sacramental field we risk invalidating it. When we identify heresy in the 1969 “mass” we must ask how it invaded our official worship. Some one was responsible, and it is certain that he was not Catholic. Could it have been the man in charge, Hannibal Bugnini? Was he not exiled to Iran (where he eventually hanged himself, according to persistent well-founded rumor) when his Freemasonry became too blatant? Was he not teamed with Cardinal Lercaro, the man with the motorcycle clergy, and with Dom Bernard Botte, the man who acquired his liturgical tastes from Dom Beauduin, the prototype of liturgical heresy? And who protected their assaults on tradition but that stellar innovator Paul VI, who promulgated at least twelve previously condemned heresies as Catholic Doctrine in his approval of decrees and documents of the Second Vatican Council? No mere man can create a sacrament—or attach grace thereto.

In the Angelus December article Father Pierre-Marie relates: “The execution of the reform prescribed by the” (incompetent) “Second Vatican Council was entrusted to a new organism ... the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy ... The chief artisans of the reform were the ‘experts,’ ... consultors. ... who sometimes exerted pressure that their superiors did not have the courage to resist.... It is not normal to leave so much power to experts, even if they are very knowledgeable in their field.” (Whence their expertise? In a forbidden field outside their competence as well as that of their conciliar and papal “authority”.) “They should have been more closely directed by the hierarchy and checked as regards doctrine. Our Lord entrusted His Church to bishops, not to ‘experts,’ and the principal role of the hierarchy is to watch over the orthodoxy of the faith. It comes as no surprise that the result of the Consilium’s work was not a happy one for the Church. The reforms reflect the attitudes—and the defects—of the experts.”

PM continues: “It should come as no surprise that by giving Dom Botte free rein the result was a ritual that broke with the tradition of the Roman Church.” This has a familiar ring.

The form of Confirmation in the Latin Church for centuries has been: Signo te Signo Crucis et Confirmo te Chrismate Salutis: in Nomine Patris, et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. The form currently in use here is: Be sealed with the Holy Spirit, the gift of the Father.

This change was guided by the Congregation for Divine Worship because:

1) Vatican II has ordered or recommended a change,

2) The Greek form is closer to the real meaning, and is preferable.

What has Vatican II incompetently ordered? Const. Sacred Liturgy, 62: “With the passage of time there have crept into the rites of the sacraments .... certain features which have rendered their nature and purpose less clear to the people of today; .... the need arises to adjust certain aspects of these rites to the requirements of our times.” Taken in conjunction with the words of Paul VI the day after the tenth anniversary of his election .... that the many reforms already accomplished in the liturgy are only an introduction, this would seem to indicate that we shall have another rite every ten or twenty years to keep pace with the evolution of modem man. CSL specifies (71) “The rite of Confirmations is to be revised and the intimate connection which this sacrament has with the whole of Christian initiation is to be more lucidly set forth; .... for this reason it will be fitting for candidates to renew their Baptismal promises just before they are confirmed.”

Please note the use of the word rite, which indicates the whole procedure. Vatican II did not order or recommend revision of the form. Such revision carries the clear hazard of removal of validity. The Roman Catechism says: “In our sacraments .... the form is so definite that any, even a casual, deviation from it renders the sacrament null. Hence the form is expressed in the clearest terms, such as exclude the possibility of doubt.”

Is the Greek form preferable? Who can decide between undoubtedly valid forms? The Question is made irrelevant by another question: Why was the Greek form, The stamp (or seal) of the gift of the Holy Spirit, not used?

What consideration can possibly have been served by its rephrasing? “It must be shown that the Holy Spirit is the Gift?” Is this a new doctrine that it should require a new form? Why such a form as this, which is bound if not, indeed, deliberately designed—to stir up controversy? What ever happened to Filioque? Is this not another intrusion of Arianism?

Back to the episcopal consecration. P-M quotes Dom Botte; “I didn’t see how we could make a coherent whole out of the two badly matched parts of the formula. Should we create a new prayer ‘from start to finish? ... Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to seek a formula in the Eastern rites that could be adapted?” (Why not merely adopted? We would then have a rite that had been used at some time somewhere.) An examination of the Eastern rites led my attention to ... the prayer in the Apostolic Tradition of’ (Antipope) “Hippolytus. ... my study of the Eastern rites made me notice that the formula always survived under more evolved forms. thus in the Syrian Rite the prayer for the Patriarch’s ordination was none other than the one in the Testamentum Domini, a reworking of the Apostolic Tradition.”

Botte continues with a questionnaire of the bishop to be ordained. “Undoubtedly this venerable custom should be kept, but the orthodoxy of the candidate in light of heresies today having only historical interest.” P-M comments; “This insider testimony puts a finger on the problem with this liturgical reform: it was entrusted to specialists who did not have much interest (nor, probably, competence) in that which concerns the integrity of the Faith. It is quite inexact to claim that the examination in the traditional rite only targeted ‘heresies today having only historical interest It was a magnificent moral and doctrinal allocution exposing the candidate to what he must do and believe. ... Rather than replace this questionnaire on faith and morals, it would have been better to complete it in such fashion as to fight against more recent errors. But this was hardly the concern of Dom Botte and the other “specialists.”

To the objection of Msgr. Jean Hervas y Benet, Bishop of Mallorca, “We have no right to change the” [sacramental] “form,” Botte replied: “That’s true, but we do have the right to propose changes to the Holy See.” What right has the Holy See to change the form? “The pope approved the reform of the rite on June 10, 1968,” writes P-M to end the December article.

Meanwhile back at the herring hatchery another ruby-red tinny creature was committed to the deep. Only the deep will understand this one, The Congregation for Divine Worship, papal purveyors of quality fiction, outdid itself in Notitiae 100, December 1974, pp. 410-411: Studia “Spiritus Principalis” (Formula of Episcopal Ordination). The expression “Spiritus Principalis” used in the formula of episcopal ordination raises some difficulties and leads to different translations in modern languages. The question can be solved provided a sound method is used

There are in fact two problems not to be mixed up. The first is the meaning of the expression in the original text of Psalm 50. This is a matter for exegetes and Hebraicists. The second is the meaning .... in the prayer of the rite, which is not necessarily bound to the first one. To assume that the words have not changed in meaning after twelve centuries is an error of method. It is even more serious an error in this case, as the expression is isolated from its psalmic context. Nothing indicates that the author of the prayer intended to bring closer the situation of the bishop to that of David, The expression has, for the Christian of the third century, a theological meaning which has nothing in common with the thought of a king of Juda(?) twelve centuries earlier. Even assuming that “principalis” is a mistranslation, it is not important here. The only problem is to know what meaning the author of the prayer wanted to give the expression.

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

The three hierarchies have a gift of the spirit, but it is not the same for all. For the bishop it is the “Spiritus Principalis;” for the priests, who are the counselors of the bishop, it is the “Spiritus Consilii,” and for the deacon, who is his assistant, it is “Spiritus Zeli et Sollicitudinis.” It is clear that these differences are made according to the duties of each minister. It is therefore clear that Principalis must be related to the specific duties of a bishop. It is sufficient to re-read the prayer to be convinced of that. (This may explain the change, effective 12 Aug. 1977 with approval of an English translation, from perfect to governing spirit in the ‘form’ of the new rite. How sad to lose perfection in only nine years!)

The author takes from the typology of the Old Testament: God has never left His people without a chief nor His sanctuary without a minister; it is the same for the new Israel, the Church. The bishop is at the same time the chief who must lead his new people, and the high priest of the new sanctuary which is established in all places. The bishop is the chief of the Church. Therefore the choice of the word hegemonikos is understandable: it is the gift of the Holy Ghost which falls to a chief. The best French translation would perhaps be: “L ‘Esprit d’autorite” (the Spirit of Authority). However, the translation may be anything but the meaning is certain. This has been very well demonstrated by an article of Fr. J. Lecuyer (1953).—B. Botte, O.S.B.

These spirits, then, would seem the essential differences of the three ordinations—therefore vital to the sacramental form and formulary. Do they then appear in the vernacular rites used in Australia. Not for nine years in the case of a bishop, and in a rite that deliberately suppresses his new “governing spirit” Even when he “ordains” a “priest” he acknowledges the reduction in his dignity: “You filled the sons of Aaron with their father’s power, to make them worthy priests for the offering of saving victims and the celebration of sacred rites. By your Providence Lord your Son’s apostles had companions of the second rank, to help them preach the faith to the whole world” (but apparently not, as Aaron’s sons, for sacred rites and sacrifice). “We” (bishops!) “cannot compare with the High Priests, with Moses, Aaron, and the Apostles.” (Apostles I’ll grant, as did the old rite.) “Weaker than they, so much the more are we in need of help. Grant us that he]p, 0 Lord. We ask you all-powerful Father give these servants of yours the dignity of the, presbyterate” (changed 12 Aug. 1977 to priesthood). “Renew within them the Spirit of holiness.” (Spiritus Consilii? Of counsel? Is holiness exclusively priestly? Is not the Spirit of holiness given every Catholic in Baptism and again in Confirmation?)

Though the “ordination” rite for deacons plays all around it, it seems deliberately to avoid the Spirit of zeal and solicitude. All three “ordinations” evade, or have till recently evaded Notitiae’s requisites. Are they therefore suspect?

Perish the thought! The same issue of Notitiae carries, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Declaration on the significance to be attributed the vernacular translation of sacramental formulas. The Church (it says) has the power to change a sacramental formula, as was done recently for Confirmation and for Anointing of the Sick, provided that the new formula continues to signify the special grace conferred by the sacrament. This meaning is given in the Latin text. Difficulties can arise when trying to express the concept of the original Latin formula in translation. It sometimes happens that one is obliged to use paraphrases and circumlocutions. A diversity of expression results which can give rise to various interpretations. To obviate this, the Declaration points out that the Holy See approves a formula because it considers that it expresses the sense understood by the Church in the Latin text. The formula is understood in this sense. If there is any ambiguity, this is best understood in the light of the Latin text.

Now, apparently we may use Paul VI’s original Latin text of Missale Romanum to determine the meaning of the fraudulent translation. This fortuitous decision supposedly forestalls the question: Why are the victims of improper forms not recalled for valid conferral of sacraments?

“The succession of time in sacramental prayers involves nothing but a dramatic representation of what presumably takes place in one instant.” —The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) Vol. V, page 503

Let us apply this to Holy Orders. In the traditional ordination of priests occurs the Tradition of the Instruments. As the Chalice and Paten are handed over: “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord.”

Pierre-Marie writes (page 12, December Angelus): “It was not just ‘the Roman atmosphere’ that Dom Botte didn’t like. It was also the theology and liturgy of Rome,’ He quotes Botte’s An insider View of the Liturgical Renewal, pp. l34-35:

“... certain formulas were inspired by medieval theology and needed correction. For example, the theologians of the Middle Ages considered the handing over of the paten and chalice to be the essential rite of ordination to the priesthood. Now, this was not compatible with the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis of Pius XII which had re-established the primacy of the laying on of hands. The rite of handing over the paten and chalice could be retained, but not the accompanying formula” (quoted above). The power to celebrate Mass is given to the priest by the imposition of the hands alone.” The editor’s footnote: “... But that does not prevent one from keeping the venerable rite of ‘handing over’ the implements which does but illustrate this power. If Dom Botte were right, it would have been necessary for Pius XII to correct the ceremonial of the ordination of priests when he promulgated his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, but he declined to do so.”

Pius XII did more than that; he forbade any change to the rite, including this specific definition of the chief propose of the priesthood. But Dom Botte here exposed his intention to redefine priesthood and episcopacy. His Group 20 destroyed the Mass and all the sacraments but Baptism and Matrimony, upon both of which they made all the assaults in their power. Their purpose, like that of Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council, was destruction of the Church and its sacramental system, to advance religious liberty, ecumenism and one-world religion.

Father Pierre-Marie, having selected the objections to validity which he wishes to address, proceeds to his proof of validity. He treats four Defects of Form without considering the whole new rite that contains his “undoubtedly valid” form—which without necessity or reasonable recommendation has replaced our traditional episcopal consecration. He fails to answer even his own objections to Botte’s actions, attitudes, motives, and competence. We had this undoubtedly valid rite, and everything in it was stripped at the same time as Pius XII’s defined form

“.... one argument has the value of them all; namely that these prayers have been stripped of everything which in the Catholic rite clearly sets forth the dignity and the functions of the priesthood (read: episcopacy). It is impossible, therefore, for a term to be suitable or sufficient for a sacrament if it is silent on that which it ought distinctively to signify.”—Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae,

Under Defect of Intention P-M mentions the Anglicans, who have adopted a similar rite, and the background of Collegiality, but never recognizes the obvious fact that the group which implemented this episcopal “ordination” has worked also on the rest of the sacraments and the novus ordo missae itself; with disastrous results to validity of all.

Under Answers to the Arguments P.M writes: “If the new rite were invalid, the Church would not be utterly without hierarchy: still there would be an almost total disappearance of the Roman Church’s hierarchy, which seems hardly compatible with the special assistance of Providence over this Church, Mother and Mistress of all the Churches.” This is the exact situation of which we have complained for over thirty years: no visible Latin hierarchy. This seems compatible with St Paul’s Second Epistle to the Thessalonians) chapter 2, and with the fact that the postconciliar “Church” has killed the missionary effort in favor of an innovation—Ecumenism, thus removing the fourth mark of the Church: it is Apostolic.

“... it is likely that, if the new rite were certainly invalid, ... then Providence would not have allowed a fact of such importance to escape the notice of a person manifestly chosen by God to guide faithful Catholics in this time of confusion.” If a person of God’s manifest choice were to resolve the confusion, how would St Paul’s prophecy or those of the Apocalypse be fulfilled? Surely P-M cannot mean the last five “popes” could or can resolve this confusion. They have been its chief source. If there is no confusion why must P-M write about it? St. Paul solved our difficulties in that same chapter: Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. 2:14. The solution lies not in kissing Korans or in dialogue with religions that reject Christ and His Resurrection.

P.M concludes: “... The validity of the new rite could not be called into question without also calling into question the validity of several Eastern rites recognized by the Church from time immemorial.” These rites are as good as they ever were. Their forms were not previously clothed in the invalidating rite imposed by Dom Bernard Botte, Hannibal Bugnini, and Paul VI.

We contend that those last three intended to replace the Latin rite Mass and sacraments with invalid substitutes, and that they have almost entirely succeeded.

Why are you not Catholic?   •   Catholic Controversy   •   Danehy on Penance   •   The Papacy   •   
The Council   •   The New Order   •   The New Mass   •   The New Law   •   Cum Ex

Submit your email address to receive updates.

Required: Please enter your email address

Home   •   About   •   Missionary Effort   •   Media   •   Books   •   Contact
© Hutton Gibson.  All Rights Reserved.