Tuesday, August 20, 2013
The New Rite of Ordination is Invalid. Thursday 22nd August, 2013. Immaculate Heart of Mary. St. Timothy & Comp. Mm
As we pointed out in our video and in an article on our website, the New Rite of Ordination, which was instituted by the Vatican II sect in 1968, is not valid.
It's not valid for the same reason that Pope Leo XIII declared the Anglican Rite of Ordination to be invalid in his 1896 Bull, Apostolicae Curae.
Leo XIII declared that because the Anglicans removed from their Rite of Ordination all references to the true sacrificing priesthood, their Rite of Ordination was invalid, because it did not signify what the priesthood is.
By removing those references to the sacrificing priesthood which were contained in the traditional Rite of Ordination, they manifested an intention contrary to that of the Church, and therefore their Rite of Ordination was invalid.
Well, when the Vatican II Church came out with a new Rite of Ordination, just like it came out with the New Mass etc., in 1968, it actually removed all references to the true sacrificing priesthood, and it did so along the very same lines that the Protestant revolutionaries did, and actually a member of the Vatican II Church, named Michael Davies - he wrote a book called 'The Order of Melchisedech' - which gets into detail on this topic, and, he points out, "Every prayer in the traditional Rite of Ordination, which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead, has been removed, from the New Rite of Paul VI. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by Protestant Reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels."
So this defender of the Vatican II Church is admitting that the New Rite of Ordination manifested the same pattern of deletion as the Protestants and the Anglicans, and Pope Leo XIII declared that the Anglican rite of Ordination was invalid because of the deletions.
Davies also says, "there is not one mandatory prayer in the New Rite of Ordination itself, which makes clear that the essence of the Catholic Priesthood is the conferral of the powers to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass and to absolve men of their sins, and that the sacrament imparts a character which differentiates a priest, not simply in degree, but in essence from a layman. There is not a word in it that is incompatible with Protestant belief."
So, the evidence against the New Rite of Ordination, based on Catholic Principle, is overwhelming. It absolutely has to be considered invalid for the same reasons the Anglican Rite of Ordination was declared invalid by Leo XIII.
Now, we recently received an e-mail on this point from a woman who is unfortunately desirous of believing that the Vatican II Church is still somewhat Catholic, and, or that the New Rite of Ordination may be valid, and she says, " I read your information regarding the invalidity of the New Rite of Ordination, and I have a question. It seems as if your main objection is that the New Rite does not promote the sacrificial character of the priesthood. You claim the New Rite removes it from the old rite, as the Anglican Rite does. When I reviewed the actual words of the New Rite, there does seem to be reference to the sacrificial nature. Here are a couple of examples."
And, she attempts to give two examples. Well, as we've pointed out in an e-exchange on our site, and their are links to important articles in the description to this video, the first example she cites is from an optional prayer. It's not even part of the actual Rite, and other people have made this same mistake.
The part she cites says, "The ministry will perfect the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful by uniting it with Christ's Sacrifice, the sacrifice which is offered sacramentally through your hands.
And, Davies actually addresses this precise prayer in his book. He says, "It must also be stressed that the 'bishop's charge,' ( that's what its called ), from which the passage from the Catholic Rite has been taken, is only an option, and that in the introduction to the ICEL version of the New Rite, stress is laid upon the fact that it is only an optional model."
So, it's not even part of the actual Rite of Ordination. Since it's not even part of the official Rite, it does nothing to remedy the failed defects, clearly manifested by the shocking deletion of Catholic prayers throughout the Rite.
And actually, let me give you examples of prayers that were abolished in the New Rite in Protestant fashion, and which key is, these prayers all signify that the priest is receiving powers that differentiate him in essence from a layman.
All of these elements which are the crucial elements in signifying the true sacrificing priesthood were abolished:
"Theirs be the task to change with blessing, undefiled for the service of thy people, bread and wine, into the Body and Blood of Thy Son." - abolished.
And notice, this prayer clearly signifies that the priest is getting powers to change the bread and wine.
"Be pleased Lord, consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing and our blessing. That whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ ."- abolished
"Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord." - abolished.
Notice, again, that clearly signified a power that the priest would be receiving, that differentiates him in essence from a layman.
Another prayer: "Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." - abolished.
Another one: "Make you blessed in the priestly order, enabling you to offer propitiatory sacrifices for the sins of the people to Almighty God." - abolished.
Why does the New Rite abolish all of these prayers which were part of the traditional rite in which signified the true Catholic priesthood?
It does so precisely because its intention is contrary to this true priesthood, and when Leo XIII declared that the Anglican Rite of Ordination was invalid, he said, " Let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic Rite. That form consequently cannot be considered after sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify."
He also says, "For this reason in the whole ordinal, meaning Anglican Ordinal, not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice of consecration of the sacerdotium, but as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic Rite, as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. In this way the native character or spirit , as it is called of the ordinal, clearly manifests itself. Hence it vitiated in its origin; it was holy and sufficient to confer orders."
He is saying that this pattern of deletion manifested the native character or spirit of the Ordinal, a character that was contrary to the intention of the Church, and that's why it was holy and sufficient to confer orders. It lacked what must be signified to confer Orders, and it manifested an intention contrary to that of the Church.
The same exact principles absolutely apply to the New Rite of Ordination.
It is definitely invalid.
Now, another part of the New Rite this woman cited in a futile attempt to defend its validity, and others have raised this as well, says, "the bishop say, 'The Father anointed Our Lord Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. May Jesus preserve you to sanctify the Christian people, and to offer sacrifice to God.'"
Well, that prayer doesn't help the New Rite of Ordination at all, because the Anglicans also spoke of a certain form of sacrifice. Michael Davies addresses this in his book. Michael Davies actually addressed this specific prayer in his book. He said, "Note carefully, that no reference is made to the Sacrifice of the Mass, or to propitiatory sacrifices. The Anglican reformers insisted that it was the duty of every Christian to offer sacrifice to God, but a sacrifice of laud, praise and thanksgiving."
Please note, the Anglicans also insisted that it was the duty of every Christian to offer sacrifices to God, but a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Davies also says, " Protestants do profess belief in a Eucharistic Sacrifice, but one in which the offering is praise, thanksgiving and ourselves."
Hence , a reference to "offering sacrifice" in the New Rite does not signify the true sacrificing priesthood, and does not show that the New Rite is valid, for the Protestants and Anglicans insisted on saying.
It is the specific references to the Sacrifice of the Mass, propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead etc., which have all been deliberately removed from the New Rite, which are crucial and essential in signifying the true sacrificing priesthood.
If the New Rite had not manifested an intention contrary to this priesthood, then it would have kept rather than deleted the aforementioned references to the true sacrificing priesthood. It should also be remembered that the New Rite of ordination does mention that the candidates for ordination are to be elevated to the priesthood, but so also does the invalid Anglican.
So the point is that references to sacrifices or offering sacrifice are not sufficient to signify the true sacrificing priesthood.
The key elements are those prayers which show that a priest is receiving powers which differentiate him in essence from a layman, and that's why when the New Rite abolished the prayers about how the priest receives power to forgive sins, to offer Mass for the living and the dead, to carry out propitiatory sacrifices etc., those are the crucial elements, and by deleting them, the New Rite, without any question manifested a native character in spirit contrary to that of the Church, and it's invalid.
Now, another futile attempt has ben made to defend the New Rite. This individual Deborah, after we sent her these responses pointing out how the one prayer she recites, not even part of the official rite, and the other one doesn't prove anything because it just speaks of offering sacrifice which the Protestants also spoke about - it doesn't speak about the essence of the power of the priesthood.
She seemed to admit that her objection in that regard did not hold up, but she's offering a different one, which is the fact that, in the new Rite, and when you look at the words of the form that Pius XII designated in Sacramentum Ordiniis - and we discussed this in our article on the topic - he designated certain words as essential for validity in ordaining priests.
If you compare that form to the words in the New Rite, just in that portion, only one word is missing in the new Rite, the word 'ut,' which means 'so that,' and actually, the New Rite's removal of that word is significant because the word 'for that' or 'so that' signifies a cause and effect relationship.
It shows that which is happening to the priest is happening so that he may receive a new rank, a new power, a new position.
By removing it from the form, the New Rite presupposes an ordination which has already taken place, rather than one that is occurring as a result of what's happening during the ceremony and the words being pronounced.
But there's another principle people need to understand, which is even more significant in this regard, and that is that all seven sacraments were instituted by Christ to give grace, but only certain sacraments were instituted by Christ with a specific form.
Those sacraments are said to be instituted 'in specie,' in a special way, whereas other sacraments were instituted 'in genera,' or in a general way.
For example, the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of Eucharist, were instituted by Jesus Christ in a special way. He gave us a specific sacramental form for baptism in Matthew 25. He says, "baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost..."and the form of the Eucharist is found in scripture and tradition, however, in Ordination, Jesus instituted the sacrament but He did not give the Church a specific sacramental form. He left it up to the Church to determine the sacramental form. O.K.
Since ordination is different in that way from Baptism and the Eucharist, the entire ceremony plays a role in giving signification to the form used by the Church, and so when you remove all the references to the true sacrificing priesthood from the surrounding rite, that gives a defective signification to all the words in the Rite, and the specific form that you are using, and that's why the entire rite must be considered with the sacrament, such as ordination.
But in the case of baptism, for example, the New Rite of Baptism. The Vatican II Church has also changed the Rite of Baptism.
They changed the rites to all the sacraments, but even though they messed around with the Rite of Baptism, if they used the essential words, it's still valid, if the person also possesses the minimal intention to do what the Church does.
Since Baptism was instituted with a specific form, that form itself contains all the signification necessary for the sacrament, whereas in ordination, it was not instituted with a specific form, and the entire rite gives signification to the form, and that's precisely why Pope Leo XIII in analysing the Anglican Rite, took into account the entire ceremony and his key arguments were based on the things that were removed from the surrounding ceremonies, just as they've been removed from the New Rite of Ordination.
In fact Leo XIII even says that, " any words in the Anglican Ordinal which lend themselves to ambiguity cannot be taken in the sense as they possess in the Catholic Rite, for once a New Rite has been initiated, in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecrating and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula 'Receive the Holy Ghost,' no longer holds good."
And so, what he is saying is that the formula in Ordination wouldn't even matter if the rite has been adulterated in such a way- that's the point. So, the New Rite is invalid, and in fact they didn't even keep the form that Pius XII designated as essential. They altered that as well. But even if they hadn't it would still be invalid because the entire rite must be considered with the sacrament such as Ordination.
The New Rite of Ordination is invalid. There's no doubt about it.
It should also be noted that Michael Davies, who brought forward overwhelming evidence proving the New Rite of Ordination invalid, actually held that it is valid!
However, he held that it's valid on the "authority" of Paul VI, not on the evidence found in the rite itself.
Davies concluded that the New Rite of Ordination as well as the New Rite of Mass had to be valid, for otherwise Paul VI would not be a true pope. In his blindness and bad-will he obstinately failed to recognize that Paul VI was indeed an antipope.
Can you imagine pinning all your hopes for your "priesthood" on antipope Paul VI! [see our video: "The Amazing Heresies of Paul VI" or "The Third Secret of Fatima."]
Davies, therefore hung his entire conclusion for validity on the authority of the apostate antipope Paul VI, who enjoyed wearing the breastplate of a Hebrew High Priest; he's also the man who solemnly approved and promulgated Vatican II which teaches the Protestants are in the Church of Christ, esteems pagan religions.
There is absolutely no doubt that the New Rite of Ordination is invalid. It was crafted as part of a heretical ecumenical anti-traditional agenda, and it gutted the right received from tradition in a way that parallels what the Protestants did. When that occurs invalidity will necessarily be the result.
Furthermore, those who watch our recent video on the Apocalypse, will see that the invalidity of the New Rite of Ordination was actually indicated in the Apocalyptic prophecies. [You can watch that video "Is the World about to End?"] and consider the information covered.
And, this issue is huge because it means that since the New Rite was promulgated in 1968, all the "priests" ordained in the Vatican II Church essentially after that time, unless they were ordained in the Eastern Rite or in a rare situation by a bishop who was made a bishop in the traditional Rite of Ordination and continued to use the traditional Rite of Ordination, all the other "priests," which is almost 100% of the non-Eastern priests since 1968 - they're not priests, and any confessions of mortal sins to those "priests" would have to be confessed to validly ordained priests - priests who were ordained in the traditional Rite of Ordination by bishops who were made bishop in the traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration.
And before people just rush off to receive traditional sacraments they need to be convinced on the issues as our website explains.
The information proving the New Rite of Ordination to be invalid is just another powerful element of the proof against the Vatican II sect which further demonstrates that it's not the Catholic Church and that it has been led by invalid antipopes.
This issue is also extremely significant because there are many so-called "priests" running around in the traditional movement pretending to offer Latin Masses who were ordained in the New Rite of Ordination, who are not priests, whose Masses are not valid at all; they are no more valid than Protestant services because they were ordained in the invalid New Rite of Ordination.
So we wanted to discuss some of the information on this issue as well as some of the objections people raise on this point."