Responding to a recent defense of the New Rite of Ordination

Recently, a defense of Paul VI’s New Rite of Ordination was published by a Sedevacantist (i.e., one who does not believe that John Paul II is the Pope).  This defense of the New Rite was surprising because almost all Sedevacantists agree that the New Rite of Ordination promulgated by Paul VI cannot be considered valid.

As our article on the New Rite of Ordination showed, Paul VI’s New Rite of Ordination cannot be considered valid for two reasons, the second reason being the most important because Holy Orders was a Sacrament instituted by Our Lord in genere (in a general way), not in specie (with a specific sacramental form).

The two reasons why the New Rite cannot be considered valid are: 1) the form specified by Pope Pius XII is missing a word; and 2) all mandatory references to the true sacrificing priesthood have been deliberately eliminated from the New Rite, just like in the invalid Anglican Rite of the 16^th Century – thereby manifesting an intention which is contrary to that of the Church in Ordination.

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 83: “As the previous section made clear, 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 the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.”

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. xix: “…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.”

But in the recent defense of the New Rite of Ordination by a man named R.I. (I will abbreviate his name), R.I. states that it is simply not true that the New Rite deletes all references to the true sacrificing priesthood.  He writes the following:

R. I.: “We will now look at the ceremonial part of the New Rite to see how it defines the priesthood. Do its priests offer real sacrifice (confect the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist) and do they have the power to forgive sins.

     “The argument goes that the New Rite of Ordination does not mention or imply a priesthood that offers sacrifice, which consecrates the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus, and some say it does not mention the priest’s power to forgive sins. If this is true, then the New Rite would be invalid because the minister would manifest and (sic) improper intention not to do as the Church intends, which is to make true priests who confect the Holy Eucharist and forgive sins. However, the ceremonial of the New Rite, even though it is much less reverent than the Catholic Rite, does mention these dogmas that define the true priesthood.

New Rite: “Homily: …he will be a true priest of the New Testament, to preach the Gospel, sustain God’s people, and celebrate the liturgy, above all, the Lord’s sacrifice. …Let the doctrine you teach be true nourishment for the people of God. In the same way you must carry out your mission of sanctifying in the power of Christ. Your ministry will perfect the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful by uniting it to Christ’s sacrifice, the sacrifice which is offered sacramentally through your hands. …In the sacrament of penance, you will forgive sins in the name of Christ and the Church.” (Ordination of a Priest, Homily, #14, vol. 2, pp. 40-41.)

First, R.I. quotes the above homily to show that the New Rite does mention the true sacrificing priesthood.  The homily of the New Rite from which he quotes makes reference to “the Lord’s sacrifice” and “Christ’s sacrifice, the sacrifice which is offered sacramentally through your hands.”  It also says that, “In the sacrament of penance, you will forgive sins in the name of Christ and the Church.”  The problem for R.I., however, is that this homily (the Bishop’s charge) is not a mandatory prayer in the New Rite; it is only an optional model, as Michael Davies points out on page 86 of his book The Order of Melchisedech.

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 86, discussing the aforementioned passage: “It must also be stressed that the Bishop’s charge, from which the passage from the Catholic rite has been taken, is only an option and that in the introduction to the I.C.E.L. version of the new rite stress is laid upon the fact that it is only an optional ‘model’, that an effort should be made to relate the ‘charge’ to whatever readings are used and that, unlike the traditional rite, ‘considerable flexibility is provided in the choice of readings.’

     “The introduction insists that: ‘It is not intended that the model instruction should be read verbatim, as was generally done in the case of ordination of the Roman Pontifical, although the ordaining bishop may choose to use these texts.’”

In fact, even the page of the book from which R.I. quotes reflects the fact that this prayer is an option, not a mandatory part of the New Rite.

The Rites, Volume Two, “Ordination of a Priest,” Liturgical Press, Homily 14, p. 40: “Then all sit, and the bishop addresses the people and the candidate on the duties of a priest.  He may use these words:…”

So, if R.I. had carefully read Michael Davies book on the New Rite of Ordination (and he obviously didn’t), he would have discovered that Davies responded to this objection a long time ago.  And this is precisely why Davies says:

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. xix: “…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.”

Davies, despite his definitely heretical and false conclusions on this and various other matters, has done thorough research on the New Rites and is very knowledgeable about the facts surrounding this issue.  R.I. is most certainly not, as is obvious from the above.  He has erred in a major way and has misled his readers.  The fact is that there is not one mandatory prayer in the New Rite 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.

But let’s look at the few other prayers which R.I. brings forward to attempt to prove that the New Rite does signify the true sacrificing priesthood.  R.I. next quotes the prayer for the anointing of hands:

New Rite: “Anointing of Hands: 24. …The Father anointed our Lord Jesus Christ though the power of the Holy Spirit. May Jesus preserve you to sanctify the Christian people and to offer sacrifice to God.” (Vol. 2, p.45.)

This prayer is a mandatory prayer in the New Rite, unlike the last one, but this doesn’t prove R.I.’s point either, for, as Michael Davies points out the following in reference to the above prayer in the New Rite:

“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.’” (The Order of Melchisedech, p. 86.)

Please note: The Anglican reformers insisted that it was the duty of every Christian to offer sacrifice to God – but a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 86:  “It is worth repeating a point documented on several occasions in Cranmer’s Godly Order, that Protestants do profess belief in a Eucharistic Sacrifice – but one in which the offering is praise, thanksgiving and ourselves.”

So, any mention of “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 the Anglicans insist on the same.  It is the specific references to the Sacrifice of the Mass, propitiatory Sacrifices 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 manifested an intention that was not contrary to this Priesthood, then it would not have omitted all mandatory references to them.

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 does the invalid Anglican.  The fact is that Pope Leo XIII explained in Apostolicae Curae that if an Ordination Rite implies the exclusion of the power to offer propitiatory sacrifices, as the New Rite does, then it is necessarily invalid, although it may express or mention the word “priest.”

Furthermore, it should also be noted that Pope Leo XIII declared in Apostolicae Curae that any words in the Anglican Ordinal which were ambiguous cannot be taken in the Catholic sense, because of the other deletions of the Catholic meaning of the priesthood from the Rite.

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “…any words in the Anglican Ordinal as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same 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 consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost,’ no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the sacrament, and so the words ‘for the office and work of priest or bishop,’ and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.”

This would apply precisely to the New Rite as well, because what Leo XIII describes above about the Anglican Ordinal was done exactly to the New Rite.

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 83: “As the previous section made clear, 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 the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.”

So, if the ambiguous phrases in the Anglican Ordinal cannot be taken in the Catholic sense, as Leo XIII says, the same necessarily applies to the New Rite.  But let’s look at the next prayer which R.I. brings forward from the New Rite:

New Rite: “You must apply your energies to the duty of teaching in the name of Christ… Let the doctrine you teach be true nourishment for the people of God…  Provide worthy priests… companions to your Son’s apostles to help in teaching the faith.”  (‘Homily’ and ‘Prayer of Consecration,’ vol. 2, p. 40-44)

It should be noted again that the first part of this quote isn’t even mandatory – it is from the optional model – but the last part doesn’t prove his point either.  Protestants also speak of teaching the faith.  Nothing here signifies the essence of the true Catholic priesthood or anything different than something a Protestant minister could do.  So R.I is wrong again.

R.I. also quotes the following three prayers from the New Rite:

New Rite: “You must carry out your mission of sanctifying in the power of Christ… Are you resolved to celebrate the mysteries of Christ faithfully and religiously as the Church had handed down to us for the glory of God and the sanctification of Christ’s people?” (‘Homily’ and ‘Examination of the Candidate’, vol. 2, p. 41, 42)

New Rite: “Examination of the Candidate: “…Bishop: Are you resolved to exercise the ministry of the word worthily and wisely, preaching the Gospel and explaining the Catholic faith?”

New Rite: “Homily: 14. …When you baptize, you will bring men and women into the people of God.” (Vol. 2, p. 41)

All quotes from “page 41” are from the optional prayer, not the mandatory part of the New Rite.  Besides, none of these statements signify the essence of the true Catholic Priesthood.

So, in defense of the New Rite, R.I. can bring forward only one optional prayer, which does not prove his point, while all mandatory references to the true sacrificing priesthood were eliminated, such as the following:

“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

“Be pleased, Lord, to 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

“Receive the Holy Ghost.  Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” – abolished

“The blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, come down upon you, and 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 crucial prayers which signify the true Catholic priesthood?  It does so precisely because its intention is contrary to this true priesthood.

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 54: “Had Cranmer continued to use the Catholic rite, even his known heretical belief might not have been sufficient to invalidate his ordinations, but by introducing a rite intended to exclude the essence of the Catholic priesthood he made manifest and public his intention to do other than the Catholic Church does.”

Dr. Francis Clark, quoted by Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 35: “In the Bull Apostolicae Curae of 1896, pronouncing Anglican orders invalid, Pope Leo XIII singled out one factor as vital; on it his central argument depends.  It is the ‘native character and spirit’ of the Ordinal, the anti-sacerdotal and anti-sacrificial connotation, which, he declared, the new rite acquired from the circumstances of its origin and which rendered its wording incapable of serving as a sacramental form for ordination.”

One can see that the “native character and spirit” of the New Rite is anti-sacerdotal, which character is acquired from the removal of all clear references to the true nature of the sacrificing priesthood.  This means that the New Rite of Ordination is invalid by virtue of a defect of intention – a manifest intention to not do what the Church does.

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”

An optional prayer, even if it happened to be used, does not change the anti-sacerdotal character or spirit of the New Rite and therefore does not change the fact that the intention manifested by the New Rite is contrary to that of the Catholic Church. 

By obstinately asserting that the New Rite of Ordination is valid, R.I. has done a tremendous disservice to Catholics.  He has deceived them with fallacious arguments which appear sound to those unfamiliar with the facts.  Moreover, in his article, he repeatedly and arrogantly accuses those who write against the validity of the New Rite of lying, of deception and of dishonesty – “They all lie!” he says – when the fact of the matter is that his article contains inaccuracies and false argumentation by which he deceives his readers.

The actual Motive/Agenda of the author

The fact of the matter is that the author of this terribly misleading article, R.I., even though he is a Sedevacantist, actually has an agenda to “prove” that the New Rite of Ordination of Antipope Paul VI is valid, believe it or not.  His motive/agenda is to make the independent “traditionalist” (Latin Mass) chapels, most of which have valid sacraments because the priests were ordained in the traditional rite, look no different from the diocesan, indult Masses, etc., many of which don’t have valid sacraments because the “priests” were ordained in the New Rite.  He wants them all to look the same with regard to the validity of sacraments.

But why would he want to make the independent “traditionalist” chapels look no different than the diocesan indult Masses?  He wants them all to look the same precisely because he has composed a formal abjuration declaring that all persons at either kind of chapel are condemned heretics, because they all deny the Faith, he says.  It matters nothing at all that valid sacraments are provided at these “traditionalist” (Latin Mass) chapels – because they all deny the Faith and are going to hell anyway.  And there is no better way to bolster his position than to belittle the entire issue by insisting that the New Rite “priests” are just as valid as the priests at the independent Latin Mass chapels.

Be assured, this is the real reason and motive behind why he is now defending the New Rite of Ordination (a rite which he admits was promulgated by a Satanic Antipope), when in the past he had held the New Rite to be of doubtful validity.  His new position corresponds to his new, corrupted, schismatic mentality.

Though it is absolutely true that the Faith comes before the Mass, and that those who deny the Faith will not profit unto salvation by receiving valid sacraments – and it is true that many of the people at the independent “traditionalist” chapels deny the fullness of Catholic Faith, especially the true meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation – it is not true to say that all of these people at the independent traditionalist chapels are heretics, since it is fact that some of them are not.

So, in fact, the validity of the sacraments offered at many of these “traditionalist” independent (Latin Mass) chapels are benefiting those people who do not deny the Faith, contrary to R.I.’s assertion.  Thus, the fact that the New Rite of Ordination is invalid is a very relevant issue to the salvation of many, contrary to what the heretic R.I. wants one to believe: namely, that it is completely irrelevant because they are all going to hell anyway.  And he attempts to bolster his point that the independent chapels’ possession of valid sacraments means nothing by arguing that the New Rite is just as valid as the traditional rite.

This is the reason for his fallacious article, in addition to the fact that he is under the influence of the devil.  But his feeble attempt to defend the New Rite of Ordination fails miserably.  The facts speak for themselves: The New Rite cannot be considered valid.

The post Responding to a recent defense of the New Rite of Ordination appeared first on Catholic Church.