Is Paul VI's New Rite of Episcopal Consecration valid? Fr Calderón's answer
Some want to claim that 'the SSPX accepts Novus Ordo priests as valid,' and anyone concerned about orders must be a sedevacantist. Fr Álvaro Calderón's 2014 article shows it's more complex than that.
Editors’ Notes
This is a translation of Fr Álvaro Calderón SSPX’s answer to the question, published in Spanish in 2014.
Fr Calderón is a respected figure in SSPX circles, and the author of the popular book on Vatican II, Prometheus – The Religion of Man. This is his biographical note from the SSPX Argentine Seminary website:
Fr Álvaro Martín Calderón was born on 22 October 1956, in Mendoza (Argentina).
He entered the Seminary of La Reja and was ordained priest in 1986. He served for one year as vicar of the Priory of Zapotiltic, Mexico, and one year as vicar of the Priory of Mexico City. He was then appointed professor at the Seminary, more than 25 years ago.
He has written several books during that period, the most recent being:
La Lámpara bajo el Celemín (2009)
Prometeo (2010)
Umbrales de la Filosofía (2011)
He holds the role of deputy headmaster and prefect of health, in addition to teaching the classes of:
Theology: (Dogmatic Theology I)
Philosophy: (Metaphysics, Philosophy of Nature, Logic)
Humanities: (Theology of Nature) Source
Fr Calderón’s essay on the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration (NREC) contains many points of interest, although there are some parts which seem to call for reservations or appear to be problematic.
As such, please note:
Publishing a translation of this essay is by no means an endorsement of everything contained therein.
We have tried to indicate some of points of reservation in short appendices after the article.
Chief interests of the essay
First, this article definitively breaks the illusion, cherished by some, that the SSPX has a monolithic “position” on the question of Novus Ordo orders.
Observing such diversity of opinion is by no means a criticism of the SSPX. It is entirely normal that there be differing opinions on complex questions such as this; nor is it the place for groups such as the SSPX to impose definitive answers to questions such as this.
Recognising that there are indeed differing opinions is important – as is making appropriate decisions based on this fact. In this context, the appropriate decision will be the one which ensures peace and the common good for all, avoids overstepping one’s own authority in settling such questions, and avoids putting souls in grave difficulties of conscience. This is, indeed, an aspect of the solution give by Fr Calderón. He writes:
“[W]e also believe that there is no certainty of its validity, because it suffers from two important defects, one canonical and the other theological…
“… the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent certainty of its validity, seem to us – until there is a Roman judgment, for which many things would have to change – to justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional reconsecration of these bishops. Such uncertainties cannot be tolerated at the very root of the sacraments.”
We have written more about this solution, as well as addressing the idea that such concerns are “scruples,” in the afterword of this article:
Secondly, Fr Calderón’s article also definitively breaks the illusion that having concerns about the validity of Novus Ordo orders is a sedevacantist concern.
On the contrary, many sedevacantists actually learned to have these concerns from the SSPX.
It may or may not be the case that these concerns point inexorably towards a further conclusions about the legitimacy or recent papal claimants – but the point is, this is a separate question.
In other words, the question of “Novus Ordo Holy Orders” cannot be answered indirectly or short-circuited by dismissing it with the taboo of sedevacantism.
Finally, please note that this is an unofficial translation of the essay. Parts of the essay have appeared here and there over the years, but never in full.
Whether the Episcopal Consecrations Reformed by Paul VI are valid?
Fr Álvaro Calderón
Originally published in Spanish in Si Si No No, 2014
English Translation made by The WM Review.
Introduction
On 18 June 1968, Paul VI promulgated the apostolic constitution Pontificalis Romani, approving the new rites for the ordination of deacon, priest and bishop, reformed along the lines of the Second Vatican Council. “It was the first liturgical book since the Reformation to be published” (Bugnini).1
The ordination rites for the diaconate and priesthood arise from a more or less general reform of the previous Roman rituals, but that of the episcopate – the nature of which had been especially considered by the Council – is an entirely new work and distinct from the previous ritual.
If we take into account the anti-liturgical spirit which dominated the conciliar reform, the almost heretical doctrine of the collegiality of the episcopate taught by Lumen gentium, which made the Nota Praevia necessary, and the sickness which since then has affected the exercise of authority in the Church, especially of her magisterium, the Catholic is justified in asking anxiously about the validity of this new rite. And this uneasiness borders on anguish when one thinks that the whole sacramental order and the very existence of the Church depend on the validity of the episcopate.
Being called upon by those who have the authority to do so, we give our humble opinion on such an important matter – humble not because of our great humility, but because of our little “science.” As is necessary, we first explain the theological principles on which we rely, and then apply them to the concrete case before us.
Part I: Elements for judging the validity of the new rite of Episcopal Consecration
This is not a question of judging whether or not this or that particular consecration was valid, but whether or not the rite, as formulated in its text and context, ensures the validity of the sacrament. De facto, validity also presupposes the validity of the minister and the proper application of the rite.
The validity of the rite as such depends on three elements: the matter, the form and the intention.2 And these three things must be judged according to the divine institution of the sacrament.
1) Of the divine ecclesiastical institution of the sacrament of Holy Orders
The judgement of these three elements, not only of matter and form but also of intention, depends mainly on the divine institution of the sacrament, which is the only authority capable of giving supernatural efficacy to a simple sign.
It is a matter of faith that the seven sacraments were instituted immediately by Jesus Christ, but – a fundamental distinction for our purpose – they were instituted with greater or lesser determination, as suited to the nature of each sacrament. For Baptism and the Eucharist, Our Lord determined both the material element and the words to be used in conferring them. The other sacraments were instituted under a certain indeterminacy, greater or lesser, leaving to the Church the charge and authority to specify them.
For each sacrament, in order to distinguish what is fixed by the divine institution and what is left to the determination of the ecclesiastical institution, the first criterion chronologically is the practice of the Church itself, because she is the faithful interpreter of the intentions of Jesus Christ. Theologically, however, the explanations and definitions which the magisterium has subsequently given on these matters take precedence. In order to judge the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, we must therefore rely on a comparison with the various liturgical usages of the Church, which is difficult terrain because of the uncertainty of the information. It will be appropriate to rely above all on the Roman judgment of Anglican ordinations (Apostolicae Curae), not only because the criteria for the validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders are explained and applied there, but also because there is a relationship between the Anglican liturgical reform and the conciliar reform.3
2) Of matter and form
Leo XIII wrote:
“All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the ‘matter and form’, it still pertains chiefly to the ‘form’; since the ‘matter’ is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the ‘form.’”4
In this regard, in addition to what has been said about the greater or lesser determination in which the divine institution can leave the form and matter, let us make another clarification that seems necessary. Those who read St Thomas' explanations of the suitability of the matter and form of each sacrament (in relation to the significance of the effects of each) may be left with the impression that it is necessary for the form to define explicitly the effect in order to produce it, for "[the sacraments] produce what they signify". This is suitable, but not necessary. The relationship of these signs to their meanings is not natural but conventional. In instituting them, Our Lord linked the sacramental signs to their effects, and explained to His Church how they signified them; in revelation, then, the Christian "convention" which links the sacramental signs to their effects is made explicit. Evidently, neither Our Lord nor His Church has used whimsical [arbitrary] signs, but ones which were suitably adapted – but the full significance of the sacraments is only to be had in the profession of Christian faith. The expression "I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" suggests a sanctifying washing, but only the context of the profession of Christian faith sufficiently indicates that it actually signifies and thus produces the blotting out of original sin, the infusion of grace, virtues, and gifts, and the impressing of the baptismal character. It is always so with human signs: their meaning is determined by a certain convention in the society in which they are used.
The Roman genius, exercised in the precision of juridical definitions, sought (as far as possible) to make the meaning of the sacraments as precise as possible, and in this it distinguished itself from the other Eastern rites.
The essential rite of Baptism was precisely given by Our Lord, and was therefore not touched
The rite of confirmation was not [given by Our Lord], and [we can see this “Roman genius” in that] the Roman rite combines the laying on of hands and anointing as its matter, and in that its form explicitly distinguishes between what concerns grace and what concerns character – a richness which is not to be found in the other Catholic rites
In the Eucharist, the Romans removed all reference to the effects at the first consecration, to make it clear that the sacrifice has not yet been made, and detailed them precisely at the consecration of the wine (as well as removing the epiclesis, which in the Eastern rites casts doubt on the moment of consecration)
So, too, in the ordination to the priesthood, the Roman rite specified both the form and the matter of the sacrament, with the giving of the instruments and the reference to the power to celebrate Mass, which is the power by which the priesthood comes to be defined, as the profession of Christian faith teaches
Underlining the centrality of the Eucharist in the sacred order, it did not consider a new order of episcopal consecration, for nothing is greater or comparable to the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice.
But the Greek genius is more at home in the gloom of mystery, and did not seek such precision in its liturgical ordinances. Looking especially at the various Eastern rites of ordination, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the effects produced by each order. In one way or another, the only thing that is always clearly determined is which order is involved: the diaconate, priesthood or episcopate. There is no major drawback in this, because the context of the profession of Christian faith in which these rites are applied makes it clear what are the graces and powers proper to each of these orders.5
Hence Leo XIII, having to judge Anglican ordinations, affirms, by way of disjunction, that the essential form must signify "definite ordinem sacerdotii vel eius gratiam et potestatem" (the definite order of the priesthood, or its grace and power).6 That is to say, it must at least say clearly what order is conferred (as some Eastern rites do), or (better and more suitably) define the grace and power that characterises such an order, as the Roman rite does. In the first case, grace and power are implicitly understood by the context of the profession of Christian faith.
In Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII also deals with what is required of the essential form of the sacrament of Orders, saying:
"Effectus, qui sacra Diaconatus, Presbyteratus et Episcopatus Ordinatione produci ideoque significari debent, potestas scilicet et gratia".
“The effects which must be produced and hence also signified by Sacred Ordination to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy – namely, of course, power and grace…”7
But by "potestas" he does not mean, like Leo XIII, the particular determination of the powers that each order confers (for example, the power to celebrate Mass for the priest) but the generic mention of the order conferred – namely, what Leo XIII means by the first member of his disjunction. This is not a mistake, because – as we have said – each order implies, according to the profession of Christian faith, certain powers of its own, so that for a Catholic, it is enough to say that “the priesthood is conferred” to know that “the power to celebrate Mass is conferred.” Using the formula of Leo XIII to express what Pius XII required, it would have to be said that, since Sacramentum Ordinis, the essential Roman form means "definite ordinem sacerdotii et eius gratiam" (the definite order of the priesthood and its grace), no longer meaning that definite applies to potestas. It is almost the formula used by Pius XII a little further on in the place quoted: "potestas Ordinis et gratia Spiritus Sancti." (the power of order and the grace of the Holy Ghost).8
Evidently, the decision taken by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis entailed a loss of determination in the essential elements of the sacrament of Holy Orders, because – as St. Thomas teaches and as is evident in the rite – the words of the Preface refer explicitly only to the grace which confers the order, while the power is defined in the giving of the instruments.9 Hence, since it is more suitable to define the sacrament by the potestas than by the grace, the Roman Church, fond of doctrinal rigour, had added as necessary for the validity of the sacrament – according to the most serious theological opinion – the delivery of the instruments with the explicit mention of the potestas. However, although Pius XII renounced the determination of the potestas in the essential elements of the sacrament, he solved the discussion about the elements necessary for the validity of the sacrament by defining the most certain of them. In any case, the delivery of the instruments remained in the rite, explaining ex adiunctis what is given in the essential form of the Preface.
We pause to discuss this point because, in the debate raised regarding the validity of the new episcopal consecrations, there are some who, taking into account only what Pius XII says in Sacramentum Ordinis, somewhat confuse things demanding that the essential form distinctly signify both the power and the grace, while at the same time being satisfied that the power remains implicit in the mention of the order given.10 In reality, the grace could also be implicit in the reference to the order conferred, with the mere expression of the latter being the minimum required of the essential form, according to the practice of some Churches and the teaching of Leo XIII.
The disjunction of Apostolicae curae is especially underlined by the English bishops, in their Vindication of the pontifical letter (1897). In refuting the Responsio of the Anglicans to Leo XIII, they are authoritative interpreters, because they had been closely involved in the drafting of the document.
Among many other things, the Anglicans object that what the Pope requires of their rites in terms of significance is not fulfilled in many accepted Catholic rites. To this the English bishops reply that the pope disjunctively requires the rites to express explicitly the order conferred OR [vel] grace and power – the two ways being equivalent because, according to the Catholic profession of faith, conferring such an order means conferring such grace and power, and vice versa.11 If the Anglican rites were declared invalid, it is because for more than a century they did not signify distinctively even the order given, and if they later added to them the explanation of each order conferred, the Anglican profession of faith positively excluded that the priesthood implied the power to consecrate the Eucharist. In reality, for Leo XIII, the determining defect of the Anglican ordinations for which they were declared invalid was not so much in the rite but in the context of their heretical doctrinal profession.
As we pointed out elsewhere,12 both the matter13 and the form of the rites of ordination can be so indeterminate because – as St Thomas says – this sacrament is conferred in the manner of a generation, since the bishop communicates to the ordinand what he is and has, and generation is a mode of univocal causality, determined by the very nature of the generator. It is therefore sufficient to specify whether the priesthood is transmitted partially (deacon), substantially (priest) or fully (bishop).
3) Of the intention
The intention can and must only be considered in so far as it is objectively shown in the rite and in the circumstances of its promulgation:
"De mente vel intentione, utpote quae per se quidam est interius. Ecclesia non iudicat: at quatenus extra proditur, iudicare de ea debet".
“The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it.”14
It is not the personal intention of the material authors of the rite, which could be deduced from the circumstances of its elaboration, but the intention of the promulgating authority, considered in the context of its promulgation.
The proper intention is to do what the Church does. Leo XIII said:
“A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.”15
Judgment on intent, then, must be objective – that is, somewhat independent of what the minister thinks about the Church.
If the minister belongs to a heretical sect, which he considers to be the true church, but uses the same rite as the true Church uses, then, despite his heretical error, he still wants to do what the Church does.
But if a heretical bishop, himself validly consecrated, uses an ordination rite which observes everything required by divine institution—meaning its matter and form sufficiently express what they must essentially signify—yet determined by the heretical sect in the particular—that is, in what Our Lord left to be defined by His Church—such a bishop lacks the proper intention, and his ordinations are invalid. For however subjectively he may believe his sect to be the Church of Christ, and however he may be convinced that by accepting the rite instituted by it he does what the church does, it is not objectively true – because he does not use a Catholic rite.
This does not occur in the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist because divine institution fixed the substance of the rite in particular.
But in the other sacraments, whose ultimate determination was left to the Church, it is not enough for the essential rite to comply with what divine institution requires. Rather, a rite accepted by the Church (ab Ecclesia receptus) must be used, because only she has the authority to legitimately establish such determination.16
In the case of Anglican ordinations, this was another of the main reasons why they were declared invalid:
“[I]f the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church – ab Ecclesia non receptus – 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."17
The use of a rite ab Ecclesia non receptus implies not only a defect of intention, but also a defect of form. For sacraments whose essential rite has not been specifically determined by Jesus Christ, the form must not only be true, i.e. have the proper meaning of the words according to the divine institution, but must also be legitimate, i.e. have been determined in its words by the ecclesiastical institution.
Editors’ Note
Let’s pause and note that the following section seems somewhat problematic in its treatment of:
The authority of the magisterium
The authority of the Roman Pontiff
The infallibility of the Church in her universal disciplinary laws.
Nonetheless, it contains many interesting observations – and its mere existence refutes the idea that the SSPX accept all Novus Ordo ordinations, and that concerns about Novus Ordo ordinations are only for sedevacantists.
As mentioned, the reality is that there are a broader range of ideas in the SSPX milieu than some would like to believe.
Part II – On the validity of the new rite of Episcopal Consecration
According to what we have said above, the first thing to consider in the new rite of episcopal consecration is its legitimacy. Then we will deal with its validity.
1. The new rite is certainly illegitimate.
The new rite, which Paul VI pretended to promulgate by his apostolic constitution Pontificalis Romani, is certainly illegitimate for the accumulation of two reasons.
First, because no Pope has the authority to abrogate the Roman liturgical tradition and even less to invent a rite in rupture with all Catholic tradition.
Second, because the contagion of modernist doctrines makes it harmful to the faith, and a determination contrary to the common good of the Church cannot have the value of law.
First – The Authority of the Roman Pontiff
In their fever of reform and with the complicity of Paul VI himself, the experts of the Consilium dared to completely set aside the traditional Roman rite of consecration of bishops.
Now, no Pope has the authority to abrogate the traditional liturgical rites of the Roman Church, a judgment that we do not bother to demonstrate because it is too obvious, so much so that even the present Pope [Benedict XVI] himself acknowledges it.
If a Pope were to abrogate the Roman liturgical tradition and accept a liturgy of Eastern tradition, the manoeuvre would be illegitimate – but the rite, considered in itself, would not cease to be Catholic. But the experts of the Consilium, in the most excessive archaeology and antiquarianism, took as the basis of their reform the Traditio Apostolica, an ancient document which does not belong to any particular liturgical tradition of the East or West, of uncertain origin, and which only bears resemblance to liturgical rites recognised by the Church. Moreover, even if the Traditio Apostolica were to be shown to have once been used as a Catholic liturgical rite, the rite of Paul VI is so new that it cannot be said to be a reform of it, but only to have taken it as a source of inspiration.
For all these reasons, even if the rite, considered in itself, were totally orthodox and better in the expression of the doctrine of the episcopate, it would not be legitimate, because no Pope has the authority to break with the liturgical tradition of the Church. The invention of a new rite is certainly an illegitimate act, no matter whether it is a Pope or an angel from heaven who claims to create it.
On this point, please see Editor’s Appendix I below.
Secondly – Modernism
The liturgical reform in general and the new rite of consecration in particular are tinged by the principles of modernist theology. This will only be dealt with insofar as it has to do with the validity of the rite. But just as the Society of St Pius X has been obliged to declare the illegitimacy of the Novus Ordo Missae, because of the doctrines of the Paschal Mystery which animate it,18 so it must be recognised that the Novus Ordo of episcopal consecration is also to some extent illegitimate.
2. The new rite is probably valid
A sacramental rite can certainly be illegitimate, but that does not necessarily make it invalid. Monsignor Lefebvre and the Society have maintained that the Novus Ordo Missae is illegitimate, but they have not maintained that it is invalid.
Is it valid to hold the same positions with regard to the Novus Ordo Consecrationis? As we pointed out in the first part, there is an important difference between these two sacraments: the matter and form of the Eucharist have been specifically determined by divine institution, whereas those of the sacrament of Holy Orders are determined by ecclesiastical institution. Therefore, having to recognise that the alleged institution of the new rite of episcopal consecration by Paul VI is illegitimate, the shadows cast over the validity of this sacrament are thicker than in the case of the Mass. But let us go from the clearest to the darkest.
a) Intention
If the Consilium had acted under the authority of the Queen of England, we could declare it invalid without further investigation for defect of intention, because we would be in the presence of a sect proposing a rite ab Ecclesia non receptus. But Bugnini and company acted in close dependence on the highest authority of the true Church. Paul VI justified the rupture of the liturgical tradition on the grounds, sufficient in itself, of the greater good of the masses.19 In fact, he was careful not to go openly against the dogmas in the doctrinal order, or against the divine liturgical institution, in the practical order – a care in which modernism had become specialised, in its will to remain Catholic. Therefore, even if the rite introduced is not legitimate, it cannot be said that the one who uses it does not want to do what the Church does, because it was the authority of the Church which, in appearance, approved it.
However, there is a certain shadow regarding intention, due to the intrinsic contradiction of the dialectical game that modernism sets in motion. The modernist reformer simultaneously intends and does not intend an intention contrary to what the Church has done until then: he sets it in the first instance to later supposedly surpass it in a second instance. The neo-liturgists' criticism of the traditional rite of episcopal consecration was fierce, and the expressed a desire not to continue doing what the Church has done until then.20 But if pressed, they do not want to dissociate themselves from what has gone before, and incoherently justify the Church's behaviour with the historical circumstances. And since it is now the Church authorities themselves who have assumed this procedure, this contrary intention remains latent and is not made manifest. Therefore, the new rite does not imply an intention simpliciter opposed to the intention of the Church, but only secundum quid: Whoever uses the new rite appears not to want to do what the Church has done up until then.
b) The subject matter
The traditional Roman Ordo commands the imposition of the Gospels as a yoke on the neck and shoulders of the Elect, followed by the imposition of hands by the consecrating bishops. The Novus Ordo inserts the imposition of the Gospel on the head of the Elect between the imposition of hands and the consecratory Preface. This is a daring modification, because the timing and manner of the imposition of the Gospel – the book is opened as two hands on the head – does not appear as an ancillary rite but as determining the indeterminate imposition of hands.
But even if it were seen as purporting to specify the essential matter, it is still the laying on of hands, and the intercalation of a rite cannot be said to break the moral union between matter and form. Prior to Pius XII's definition, serious theologians thought that, in the ordination of deacons and priests, the giving of the instruments with their formula had a close moral union with the laying on of hands and the words of the Preface, completing their essential significance, although they were liturgically even more separate rites. It does not seem, then, that the sufficiency of the matter can be seriously questioned.
c) The form
Absence of an authoritative judgment
In the constitution Pontificalis romani, Paul VI establishes the essential elements of episcopal consecration:
“‘Et nunc effunde super hunc Electum eam virtutem, quae a te est. Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio Tuo lesu Christo, quem Ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui.’”
"The matter of the ordination of the Bishop is the laying on of hands on the head of the elect, done in silence by the consecrating Bishops, or at least by the principal consecrator, before the consecratory prayer; the form is the consecratory prayer itself, of which the following words are essential and therefore necessary for validity:
Now, the sentence which affirms the validity of this form does not have the guarantees of the extraordinary magisterium, nor that of the ordinary universal magisterium.
1. Extraordinary Magisterium
Paul VI seems to suggest that his constitution has a value similar to Pius XII's Sacramentum ordinis, from which he takes the same expressions:
"It has seemed necessary to us, in order to avoid any controversy or cause of disturbance of conscience, to declare which parts of the reformed rite are to be considered essential. For this reason, with our supreme apostolic authority, we decide and dispose as follows concerning the matter and the form of each Order."21
Although the decision of Pius XII is not dogmatic but practical in nature, all theologians agreed in recognising its infallible character. If the decision of Paul VI could be recognised as infallible, there would certainly be no controversy or disturbance of conscience. But, as we have said, verbal expressions have to be seen in their context. Since the Council and Ecclesiam suam, the expression "supreme apostolic authority" means something very different than it did for Pius XII, and hierarchical acts no longer offer us the assurance of divine authority.22 Moreover, the new Roman liturgical prescriptions are only a framework to be taken into account for liturgical inculturation in each place. If we want complete peace of conscience, we must ask the Popes for an infallible declaration for each of the vernacular versions of the sacramental forms. Unfortunately, there is still room for controversy and confusion of conscience.
On this point, please see Editor’s Appendix II below.
2. Universal Ordinary Magisterium
As Benedict XVI has recognised, Paul VI had no authority to abrogate the traditional Roman rite. But if he had introduced into the Roman Church some other liturgical usage ab Ecclesia receptus [Ed: Received by the Church – e.g. an Eastern rite], although his act would be illegitimate, the rite would certainly be valid with the guarantees of the universal ordinary magisterium, which is infallible. For nothing else is meant by the acceptance of the Church. But the experts of the Consilium, although they did not invent the consecratory prayer entirely de novo, relied on the Apostolic Traditio, which is an ancient document, of uncertain origin, which as such was not in use in any Church in the East or West.
Theological judgement
Lacking a judgement of higher authority, we have no choice – for the time being – but to judge in the light of our own theological authority. In order to judge of its validity, the essential form must be considered
In itself
In the context of the rite in which it is inserted
In the wider context of its institution.
A form that is in itself insufficient is irremediably invalid – but if it is ambiguous, it can be validated or invalidated by its context.23
The form of Anglican ordinations, an example we are interested in keeping in mind, was invalid in itself for more than a century. For both for the ordination of deacons and priests, and for the consecration of bishops, the following words were used as formulae: "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum.” Not only were the grace and power conferred not specified, but it was not even distinguished which order was intended to be given in each case.
Later, affected by Catholic criticism, they added: "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum ad officium et opus ‘episcopi’ vel ‘presbyteri,’ etc.” Although ambiguous, since they do not say what these offices are, they could be valid in a Catholic context. But considered in the context of their institution, they are certainly invalid, because the Anglican sect excluded from the rite and its profession of faith the essential relation of the priesthood to the sacrifice of the Mass.24 Let it be established, then, that in order to judge an ambiguous form, "there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances – quibus adiunctis rerum – under which it was composed and publicly authorized.”25
3. The form itself
Considered in themselves, the essential words certainly suffer from some ambiguity, because it is asked that the Holy Ghost, who is the source of every gift, whether of grace or of power, be infused into the elect. But there are two determinations which may be understood as referring especially to the episcopate: the Spirit is described as "principalis", implying that he is infused as the cause of principality, and it is proper to the bishop to be prince in the Church.
As Fr Pierre Marie OP26points out, the validity of this interpretation is confirmed by the great similarity of this form with those of two other Catholic rites ab Ecclesia recepti: the episcopal consecration rite of the Coptic Catholics and the consecration rite of the Maronite patriarch. The consecratory prayers of both rites show close kinship with the Apostolic Traditio. The Coptic rite reads:
"Tu iterum nunc effunde virtutem Spiritus tui hegemonici, quem donaste Apostolis tuis in nomine tuo".
"Now again pour out the power of your guiding Spirit, whom you gave to your Apostles in your name."
It does not say that the virtue is the “principal Spirit” himself, but that it comes from the hegemonic or principal Spirit (which is what the Greek term means); but this variation is not significant, for whenever the Holy Ghost is given, he is given as the source of some gift. Since these words are commonly regarded as the essential ones in the Coptic consecratory prayer,27 evidently the mention of the principality must be sufficient to signify the episcopate, for the rite is certainly valid and could not be so without sufficiently defining the order given.28
On this point, please see Editor’s Appendix III below.
The consecration of the Maronite patriarch reads:
"Illumina eum et effunde super eum gratiam et intelligentiam Spiritus tui principalis, quem tradidisti dilecto Filio tuo, Domino nostro lesu Christo".
"Illuminate him and pour upon him the grace and understanding of your principal Spirit, whom you bestowed upon your beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ."
Some object that this is not a rite of episcopal consecration, because the one elected patriarch had to be a bishop beforehand. But it is probable that in the beginning it did have consecratory efficacy, because in the first centuries a bishop never left his diocese, so that the one elected patriarch was always, necessarily, a simple presbyter.29 In any case, even if it was not a sacramental rite, it does not fail to show that the mention of the principal Spirit refers to the episcopal office.
4. The form in the context of the rite
The certain ambiguity suffered by the essential words is sufficiently eliminated by the rest of the consecratory prayer. Immediately before, it says:
"… qui constituisti principes et sacerdotes, et sanctuarium tuum sine ministerio non dereliquisti".
"… who have appointed rulers and priests, and have not left your sanctuary without ministry."
By saying there that God constitutes the ministers of the sanctuary as princes and priests, it is sufficiently clear that in the following words, the outpouring of the principal Spirit signifies the operation by which they are constituted.
And the words immediately following dispel any possible ambiguity:
"Da, cordium cognitor Pater, huic servo tuo, quem elegisti ad Episcopatum, ut pascat gregem sanctum tuum, et summum sacerdotium tibi exhibeat sine reprehensione".
"Grant, O Father, knower of hearts, to this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, that he may shepherd your holy flock and present the high priesthood to you without reproach."
The sufficiency of these concepts is confirmed, as we have said, by the similarity with the Coptic and Maronite rites.30
5. Form in the context of its institution
The darkest shadow appears when considering the wider context of the conciliar liturgical reform and of the Novus Ordo Consecrationis in particular, because if one considers the circumstances of the institution of the new rite, the modernist spirit that guided its creation is notorious. If there is one thing that modernism subverts, it is the notion of authority; hence the greatest efforts were made at the Second Vatican Council to give a more democratic version of ecclesiastical authority, under the sophism of "collegiality."
However, if the rite of episcopal consecration was not reformed but created de novo, it was precisely so that the lex orandi would express the conciliar lex credendi.
If we would like to point out what is at the heart of the new thinking on the episcopate, we believe we are not mistaken in saying that it consists in the negation of the personal powers of the bishop: that of teaching (proper exclusively to bishops) and that of celebrating the Eucharist (proper to priests in general). If the bishop has personal powers, he has personal authority, which the democratic Christian abhors. The effort of modernism was therefore directed towards transferring these powers to a wider subject: the People of God. The conciliar doctrine strives to show that the priesthood belongs to the Church as a whole, which the whole Church teaches and celebrates.
Hence the new rites tend to avoid references to the transmission of personal priestly powers, and retain only the concepts of presidency and principality over the ecclesiastical community. Nothing could be more evident than the change in what had been the excellence of the Roman rite of ordination of presbyters, the formula at the presentation of the paten and chalice, where the proper and principal power of the priesthood was defined:
"Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium Deo, Missasque celebrare, tam pro vivis, quam pro defunctis".
“Receive the power to offer the Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead.”
In the Novus Ordo it is said:
"Receive the offering of the holy people to present it to God: consider what you perform and imitate what you commemorate, and conform your life to the mystery of the Lord's cross."31
The personal power has been changed into a presidential function with regard to the "holy people". The whole rite of episcopal consecration is diluted in this direction. The handing over of the mitre, signifying the power to teach, was done with great solemnity after the celebration of Mass:
"Imponimus, Domine, capiti hujus Antistitis et agonistae tui galeam munitionis et salutis, quatenus decorata facie, et armato capite, cornibus utriusque Testamenti terribilis appareat adversariis veritatis; et, te ei largiente gratiam, impugnator eorum robustus exsistat, qui Moysi famuli tui faciem ex tui sermonis consortio decoratam, luci dissimis tuae claritatis ac veritatis comibus insignisti: et capiti Aaron Pontificis tui tiaram imponi jussisti".
"Lord, we place upon the head of this Bishop and your champion the helmet of protection and salvation, so that, adorned with a radiant face and with an armed head, he may appear fearsome to the adversaries of the truth with the horns of both Testaments; and, granting him your grace, may he stand firm as their mighty opponent. Just as you adorned the face of your servant Moses with radiant light from communion with your word and adorned it with the shining horns of your glory and truth, and as you commanded the tiara to be placed upon the head of your High Priest Aaron."
In the new rite, the mitre is "imposed in silence". We even dare to affirm that if, in the essential words, it has avoided speaking of the infusion of a created virtue, as does the Traditio and the Coptic and Maronite rites, and instead speaks of the infusion of the Holy Spirit himself, an uncreated virtue, it is precisely in keeping with the tendency to avoid the priesthood being understood as a certain personal power.
If the institution of the Novus Ordo Consecrationis had been made in the context of an explicit profession of these modernist doctrines, it seems clear to us that it would have to be declared invalid for the same reason that the Anglican ordinations were declared invalid: for understanding the priesthood in a non-Catholic way, especially for not referring it essentially to the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice. But here it is necessary to point out again what we said about intention: The conciliar hierarchy has been infected by modernist doctrines, but has not made an explicit profession of them. On the contrary, although with the incoherence typical of the Catholic modernist, he has always said and repeated that the new orientations do not go against the traditional doctrine and practice. Benedict XVI is perhaps the last survivor and the best example of the contradictory conciliar spirit, seeking with all conviction the synthesis of continuity between the traditional thesis and the antithesis of the conciliar rupture. For this reason, although the larvae of the new doctrines which, having grown, would lead to invalidity, are easily discernible, it cannot be said that the new rite was instituted in an explicit negation of the traditional doctrine of the priesthood.
Conclusion
If we consider the matter, form and intention of the new rite of episcopal consecration in the context of the rite and in the circumstances of its institution, it seems to us that it is most probably valid, because it not only means what it should mean, but most of its elements are taken from rites received by the Church.32
But we also believe that there is no certainty of its validity, because it suffers from two important defects, one canonical and the other theological:
Canonical defect:
In view of the above, the institution of this new rite cannot be considered legitimate.
Theological flaw:
The Novus Ordo is not identical to other rites accepted by the Church, but only similar to them. On the one hand, although certainly valid, these rites are not very precise in their concepts; on the other hand, the differences introduced by the Novus Ordo follow tendencies of bad doctrine. All this makes theological judgement, always difficult in these matters, even more difficult. Now, in a matter of the utmost importance for the life of the Church, such as the validity of the episcopate, it is necessary to have absolutely certainty. Therefore, in order to be able to accept this rite with peace of conscience, it would be necessary not only to rely on the judgment of theologians, but also the infallible judgement of the Magisterium.
As for the practical attitude to be taken towards the new episcopal consecrations, the one that the Society had hitherto held up to seems to us to be justified:
The very probable validity of the rite seems to us to make it morally acceptable to occasionally attend Mass (in the traditional rite, of course) celebrated by a priest or bishop ordained or consecrated in the new rite, and even to take communion there; it seems to us acceptable, in case of need, to receive absolution from them; to treat them as priests and bishops and not as laymen in disguise; it seems to us acceptable to allow them to celebrate in our own houses. This is because the shadows that hover over the validity of their priesthood are indeed shadows, and in all these activities our responsibility for the priesthood exercised is not engaged. And the remote risk of one communion or one absolution being invalid is not so grave.
On this point, please see Editor’s Appendix IV below.
But the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent certainty of its validity, seem to us – until there is a Roman judgment, for which many things would have to change – to justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional reconsecration of these bishops. Such uncertainties cannot be tolerated at the very root of the sacraments.33
Father Álvaro Calderón
Si Si No No, November 2014, XXIV, n. 26734
NB: This was an unofficial translation.
Please do read Fr Calderón’s footnotes below, as they contain many interesting points.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone. If you have benefitted from our content please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material!
Thank you!
Read Next:
Editor’s Appendix I – Can the Roman Pontiff invent new rites?
Fr Calderón says:
“The invention of a new rite is certainly an illegitimate act, no matter whether it is a Pope or an angel from heaven who claims to create it.”
In my opinion, Fr Calderón treats this matter with more certainty than is warranted. Those who disagree with him may point to Pius XII, who refers to “new rites” on four occasions in Mediator Dei:
22. As circumstances and the needs of Christians warrant, public worship is organized, developed and enriched by new rites, ceremonies and regulations, always with the single end in view, "that we may use these external signs to keep us alert, learn from them what distance we have come along the road, and by them be heartened to go on further with more eager step; for the effect will be more precious the warmer the affection which precedes it." Here then is a better and more suitable way to raise the heart to God.
53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters.
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
61. […] The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
However, it seems that these texts are referring more to rites such as that of Benediction, rather than to the introduction of wholly new rites of Mass and the sacraments, even if they are somewhat based on traditional rites (having been deconstructed and then reconstructed with elements which are either wholly new, or based on a transient scholarly consensus of what the early Church did).
While I am sympathetic to what Fr Calderón says, I think that being too categorical here leaves his argument open to criticism.
Editor’s Appendix II – Is it possible for the Church to change what she means by words in her sacramental rites?
Fr Calderón writes:
“Since the Council and Ecclesiam suam, the expression ‘supreme apostolic authority’ means something very different than it did for Pius XII, and hierarchical acts no longer offer us the assurance of divine authority.”
This seems very problematic – even if it were to be conceded as true, what would the implications be for a Church who can change what such words mean?
Further, much of what Fr Calderón says in this section, about needing a “higher judgment” about these rites, also seems problematic. If the Roman Pontiff (which is what Fr Calderón believes Paul VI to have been) promulgates a liturgical rite, there would seem to be no grounds to say that we “lack a judgment from a higher authority” or require a further infallible judgment on the matter. He also refers to “a Roman judgment” as being needed in order to attain “certainty of validity” – but the very act of promulgating a sacramental rite would itself be a Roman judgment. The mere act of promulgating a disciplinary law to the universal Church is sufficient judgment in itself:
The fact that this law is so evidently problematic itself does not call this principle into question – rather, it recalls the words of Archbishop Lefebvre:
“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.”35
Editor’s Appendix III – on what is essential in the Coptic prayer
Fr Calderon says:
“[T]hese words [those designated as essential by Paul VI] are commonly regarded as the essential ones in the Coptic consecratory prayer.”
However, if we consult the relevant passage in Denzinger or in the English Bishops’ Vindication, they do not treat the analogous passages in the Coptic rite as the essential words – rather, they treat the whole, wider preface as such:
Further, notwithstanding other changes in the NREC and the fact that it does not use this prayer, it could also be noted that the English Bishops considered this form (taken as a whole) to be sufficient for consecrating a bishop, which undermines the idea that it should simply be dismissed as a rite of installing a patriarch.
Further, Fr Calderón himself argues that it is not sufficient for the form merely to express “the power of order and the grace of the Holy Ghost”; it must do so in words “which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense” (Sacramentum Ordinis n. 4). It is for reason that Calderón notes that “the Novus Ordo is not identical to other rites accepted by the Church, but only similar to them,” and also states:
But in the other sacraments [including Holy Orders], whose ultimate determination was left to the Church, it is not enough for the essential rite to comply with what divine institution requires. Rather, a rite accepted by the Church (ab Ecclesia receptus) must be used, because only she has the authority to legitimately establish such determination. […]
The use of a rite ab Ecclesia non receptus implies not only a defect of intention, but also a defect of form. For sacraments whose essential rite has not been specifically determined by Jesus Christ, the form must not only be true, i.e. have the proper meaning of the words according to the divine institution, but must also be legitimate, i.e. have been determined in its words by the ecclesiastical institution.
Editor’s Appendix IV – The morality of receiving doubtful sacraments
Fr Calderón writes:
“The very probable validity of the rite seems to us to make it morally acceptable to occasionally attend Mass (in the traditional rite, of course) celebrated by a priest or bishop ordained or consecrated in the new rite, and even to take communion there; it seems to us acceptable, in case of need, to receive absolution from them; to treat them as priests and bishops and not as laymen in disguise; it seems to us acceptable to allow them to celebrate in our own houses. This is because the shadows that hover over the validity of their priesthood are indeed shadows, and in all these activities our responsibility for the priesthood exercised is not engaged. And the remote risk of one communion or one absolution being invalid is not so grave.”
This is a perplexing statement – for a perplexing situation.
It is a commonplace that we are not entitled to administer or receive the sacraments under circumstances when they are merely “probably” valid.
If we were to receive the sacraments under such circumstances, we would essentially be acting in a doubtful conscience, willingly either receiving a sacrament or merely simulating one – the latter of which is a sacrilege – being content with either option. But such exposure of a sacrament to the danger of invalidity is impermissible, as is the reception of such a sacrament of doubtful validity. We have discussed this serious problem at greater length here:
A. Bugnini, La reforma litúrgica, Edizione Liturgiche. Rome 1983, p. 697.
Matter and form must not only be valid in themselves separately, per seorsum, but also – as the terms themselves indicate – they must be given together in the same meaning, because matter is said to be matter with respect to a form to which it is subject and form is said to be form with respect to a matter which it determines.
Cf. Leo XIII, letter Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896 (DS 3315-3319). The bibliography on this decision is abundant. John Paul II opened access to the Vatican archives of the Commission that prepared this document (in an attempt to revise it for ecumenical purposes). So far we only know of the publication of a first volume of documents:
Fontes archivi sancti Officii romani, La validité des ordinatioris anglicanes. Les documents de la Commission préparatoire à la lettre "Apostolicae curae", tome I : Les dossiers précédents. Florence, Leo S. Joschka editor. 1997, edited by von Ounten OP (deceased at the time of publication of this volume).
This volume includes a votum by J-B Franzelin, of great authority and utility. G. Ramadi SJ has published several articles bringing to light various documents of these archives of the Holy Office, both in the journal Gregorianum and in other publications.
Leo XIII, Apostolicae curae. DS 3315.
Chanoine Léon Marcha, "Ordinations anglicanes", DTC tome XI, col. 1177:
“If we compare all these formulas of consecration [Eastern rites and ancient Western rites], we will see that the order conferred is always clearly mentioned; as for the nature of the function, it is not so clearly determined.
“Thus, for the diaconate, we only find once the precision: ministerium mensae sanctae, tuae (lit. Arménienne); elsewhere, ministerium ecclesiae, ministerium altaris.
“In the conferral of the priesthood, the power of sacrifice is mentioned more or less vaguely in the Greek, Maronite, Nestorian liturgies and in the Apostolic Constitutions; explicitly in the Gallican and Armenian liturgies; the Coptic and Roman liturgies make no allusion to it. There is no mention of being able to forgive sins.
“For the episcopate, the Leonine sacrament is very vague, speaking only of episcopal authority, summum sacerdotium. The most explicit are the Jacobite and Syrian rites.
“It can therefore be concluded that the minimum requirement is the general mention of the order conferred; it cannot be demanded that the designation of the powers proper to each order, in particular the mention of the office of ‘sacrificer’ in the conferral of the priesthood, be made in the very formulation of the ordination, since some of these forms, recognised as valid, do not have this.
“The generic mention of the order, specified as we have said, constitutes the minimum strictly indispensable for the validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders.”
Leo XIII, Apostolicae curae, DS 3316.
Pius XII, Sacramentum ordinis, 30 November 1947, DS 3858.
Pius XII, Sacramentum ordinis. DS 3859:
"Decernimus et disponimus: Sacrorum Ordinum Diaconatus, Presbyteratus et Episcopatus materiam eamque unam esse manuum impositionem; formam vero itemque unam esse verba applicationem huius materiae determinantia, quibus univoce significantur effectus sacramentales – scilicet potestas Ordinis et gratia Spiritus Sancti – quaeque ab Ecclesia qua talia accipiuntur et usurpantur".
“Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.”
The last words indicate that such power and grace must be understood according to the doctrine of the Church, for in such brief sentences as the sacramental formulae, they are necessarily very indeterminate.
Summa Theologica. Supla. q. 37, a.5:
"Per manus impositionem datur plenitudo gratiae, per quam ad magna officia sunt idonei.... Sed potestatis collatio fit per hoc quod datur eis aliquid quod ad proprium actum pertinet. Et quia principalis actus sacerdotis est conse crare corpus et sanguinem Christi, ideo in ipsa datione calicis, sub forma verborum determinata, character sacerdotalis imprimitur".
“By the imposition of hands the fulness of grace is given… The conferring of power is effected by giving them something pertaining to their proper act. And since the principal act of a priest is to consecrate the body and blood of Christ, the priestly character is imprinted at the very giving of the chalice under the prescribed form of words.”
Cf. Rev. Anthony Cekada, Absolutely null and utterly void:
"Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, laid down the general principle when he declared that for Holy Orders these must ‘univocally signify the sacramental effects – that is, the power of the Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost’. Note the two elements that it must univocally i.e., unambiguously) express: the specific order being conferred (diaconate, priesthood or episcopacy) and the grace of the Holy Ghost".
Cardinal Vaughan and Bishops of Westminster, A Vindication of the Bull "Apostolicae Curae", 29 December 1897, n. 26:
"These forms [those Catholic rites which appear not to meet the requirements of Leo XIII], however, fully satisfy the requirements of the Bull. You have failed to observe the word ‘or’ in the proposition in which the Bull states what the requirements are. The proposition is disjunctive.
“The rite for the priesthood, the Pope says, ‘must definitely express the sacred Order of the priesthood or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord.’ You do not seem to have perceived the importance of this little word ‘or’, and have taken it to be the equivalent of ‘and’.
“What Leo XIII means is that the Order to which the candidate is being promoted must be distinctly indicated either by its accepted name or by an explicit reference to the grace and power which belongs to it. And, of course, he means us to understand that the same alternative requirements hold with regard to the form for the episcopate. The form must either designate the Order by its accepted name of ‘bishop’ or ‘high priest’ or it must indicate that the high priesthood is the grace and power imparted.
“Nor is such a disjunctive statement unreasonable, for in the Catholic Church the alternative phrases are perfectly equivalent! The Catholic Church has always meant by the term ‘priest’ (sacerdos) a person appointed and empowered to offer sacrifice, and again by the terms ‘priest’ (presbyteri and ‘bishop’ (episcopus) or ‘high priest’ (summus sacerdos), the possessors of this power in its substance and in its plenitude respectively".
Cf. Le sel de la terre n" 58. "Sont-ils evêques? La validité du rite de consecration episcopale", p. 215- 216.
Leo XIII, Apostolicae curae, DS 3315:
"[The matter for conferring the sacrament of Holy Orders] is the imposition of hands, which, indeed, by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several Orders and for Confirmation.
Leo XIII. Apostolicae curae, DS 3318.
Leo XIII. Apostolicae curae, DS 3318.
So teaches St. Thomas, III, q.60. a.8:
“With regard to all the variations that may occur in the sacramental forms, two points seem to call for our attention. one is on the part of the person who says the words, and whose intention is essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further on (III:64:8). Wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppression to perform a rite other from that which is recognized by the Church, it seems that the sacrament is invalid [even if the proper sense of the words is not taken away]: because he seems not to intend to do what the Church does. [In the above consideration it is not necessary to take into account the meaning of the words: they could have the proper meaning.]
“The other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey, as stated above (Article 7, Reply to Objection 1), we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid.”
Leo XIII, Apostolicae curae, DS 3318.
In the paragraph quoted above, Leo XIII says that there is a certain lack of intention when a rite non receptus is introduced, and he adds for the sake of completeness – because this is what happened with the Anglican ordinations – that there is even more clearly a lack of due intention, when not even “what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament” is respected – that is, what is of divine institution.
But certainly, the very intention to introduce a new rite non receptus would suffice for there to be invalidity, even if what pertains to the nature of the sacrament is respected – because, we repeat, this “nature” was not determined in words by Christ:
"Thus the rejection of the rite adopted by the Church, the adoption of a new rite, with the intention of introducing heresy, is proof of the absence, in the minister, of the intention to do what the Church does; it is not even necessary, in the opinion of Cardinal d'Annibale, that essential changes be made to the form: an accidental modification, with the intention of introducing a new rite or heresy, is sufficient to testify to the lack of intention". (L. Marchal, "Ordinations anglicanes", DTC t. XI, col. 1190).
Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, n. 122 and appendix:
“[O]ne cannot say that the rite of Mass resulting from the reform of 1969 is that of the Church [ritus non receptus], even if it was conceived by churchmen.” (n. 122)
"The missal of Paul VI, because of its serious theological defects, contributes positively to the diminution of faith, piety and religious practice, as is shown by daily experience. For this reason, it is neither honest, nor just, nor useful for the good of the community, and therefore does not have the character of true law, nor can it be obligatory.” (Appendix, n. 5)
Certainly the good of souls is the first law of the Church's action, and for this, everything rest must indeed be sacrificed. The good of souls, for example, justified St. Gregory VII's abrogation in Spain of the secular use of the Mozarabic liturgy: even though Christian peoples have the right to change their liturgical usages, these rights yield to that which favours the unity of the Church, such as liturgical uniformity. If, for some circumstance, the Roman liturgical usage were to be detrimental to souls, the Pope could and should abrogate it. But this is unthinkable, and in fact did not happen in the time of Paul VI.
A. Bugnini, La Riforma liturgica, p. 693:
"The Roman part [of the ancient Roman pontifical] has only one theme: the bishop is the high priest of the New Testament... Which is true, but too little after Vatican II's doctrine on the episcopate... The Gallican part is nothing more than a hundred of scriptural citations, which in part can be applied to apostles and in part to all Christians. Even here there is no doctrine concerning the episcopate. Furthermore, one gets the impression that the bishop is more the successor of the high priest of the Old Testament than of the apostles of Christ.”
Paul VI, Pontificalis romani. Pius XII said in Sacramentum ordinis, DS 3859:
"It follows that we declare, as if to close the way to all controversy and anxiety of conscience, by our apostolic authority we truly declare and, if ever it had been lawfully otherwise provided, we statute that, at least henceforth, the delivery of instruments is not necessary for the validity of the sacred orders of diaconate, presbyterate and episcopate. Concerning the matter and form of the collation of orders, We decree and constitute the following by Our apostolic authority".
Paul VI says nothing about what happens with the traditional rite: he did not dare to declare it abrogated.
This has been discussed at length elsewhere.
Father Cekada insists that the words of the form must signify order and grace (we saw that the former is sufficient) in a univocal and unambiguous way, relying on the words of Pius XII:
“[We declare that] that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit.” (DS 3859)
This is true, but considering the words not in themselves, but in their broad context. That is why the quotation from Pius XII goes on to say: “… and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.” (“Quae que ab Ecclesia qua talis accipiuntur el usurpantur"), i.e. that the words must mean univoce according to the use made of them by the Church in the text of the rite.
Fr Cekada takes the time to distinguish the various meanings that the expression "Spiritus principalis" could have, stopping at twelve. If we were to consider what "baptizare" might mean in isolation, we could easily arrive at twenty-four. The only meaning that matters is the one that is intended in the context of the rite and its institution.
Leo XIII. Apostolicae curae, DS 3317a:
“Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying”, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice 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.”
Leo XIII, Apostolicae curae, DS 3317a:
“For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized.”
Pierre-Marre OP, "Le nouveau rituel de consécration épiscopale est-il valide ? Le sel de la terre n° 54, p. 72-129. On pages 101-104 he gives a comparative table of the new rite with the Traditio and the Coptic and Maronite rites.
So does L. Marchal in the above-mentioned article in PTC. vol. XI, col. 1176.
When Fr. Cekada, in the above-mentioned article, considers the various meanings of "Spiritus principalis", he studies what the dictionaries, Psalm 50, the Fathers of the Church, some ancient and modern theologians, and even some non-sacramental ceremonies of the Coptic rite say – but he never considers what it means in the Coptic rite of episcopal consecration.
Although his study "reveals a dozen possible meanings", he is not entitled to conclude that "none of these expressions specifically signifies the episcopate in general or the fullness of Holy Orders that a bishop possesses". At least in the Coptic (and Maronite) rite it has that meaning.
This is what Dom Puniet says for the Patriarch of the West, the Pope, in Le pontifical romain, tome II, p. 26:
“Quite late in life, the practice was introduced into the Church of choosing as successor to Peter a prelate who had already acquired the episcopal character. However, what has become the rule since the beginning of the 16th century was considered illegal in terms of the prohibition against the translation of bishops. Just in the 9th century, not a single pope was known to have been already a bishop at the time of his election to the pontifical throne".
A major flaw in Fr Cekada's study is the little attention he pays to the influence of the context on the significance of the essential form. He does not consider this point of doctrine among the "principles to be applied", taking it into account only as an objection of Fr Pierre-Marie OP (n. IX of his article). He answers the objection by affirming that…
"the new form does not even equivocally signify one of the elements whose expression Pius XII had demanded in the sacramental form, namely the power of Order which is conferred".
But we have pointed out that this is not true, confirming it with the Coptic and Maronite rites.
"Receive the offer of the holy people to present it to God. Be aware of what you are doing, imitate in your life what you accomplish by these rites, and conform yourselves to the mystery of the cross of the Lord".
«Recevez l’offrande du peuple Saint pour la présenter a Dieu. Ayez conscience de ce que vous ferez, imitez dans votre vie ce que vous accomplirez par ces rites, et conformez-vous au mystére de la croix du Seigneur».
Father Cekada concludes that the rite is invalid. But as can be seen even more clearly in the summary of his position in a later article: Toujours nul et toujours vain – in order to arrive at this conclusion he makes two errors:
1. Relying exclusively on Sacramentum ordinis of Pius XII, when it would be appropriate to take into account Apostolicae curae of Leo XIII, he demands that the essential form mention the Order and the grace conferred, whereas the former is sufficient.
2. It arbitrarily denies that the new form can mean, even ambiguously, the Episcopal Order; for which reason it always avoids discussing the meaning of "Spiritus principalis" in the Coptic and Maronite Rites.
Much is said by moralists about the need for certainty in the validity of the sacraments.
The seeming equivocation in Fr. Calderon’s article bothers me:
On the one hand, he finds the NREC only “very probably valid,” (which means he finds it slightly doubtful), yet concludes despite that, it may still be permissible to frequent the sacraments of a priest ordained by a bishop consecrated in this rite, in seeming violation of Church teaching regarding the reception of doubtful sacraments.
What?
Then having just explained such slightly doubtful sacraments may occasionally be received (what??), nevertheless, the doubts are an intolerable shadow cast upon the root of the sacraments, and therefore the rite must be reformed.
What?
Dear Father, if you’ve given permission to receive the sacraments from priests ordained by bishops consecrated in this rite, then why should the rite be in need of reformation?
As the authors of the article note, there is not only an inconsistency inherent in Fr. Calderon’s conclusions, but it also seems to be at odds with Church teaching regarding the need to take a tutiorist position regarding sacramental validity.
To say that the rite is doubtful, but go ahead and use it is conflicted at best.
First of all, Paul VI was an antipope, as the White Smoke 1958 site makes clear. But even if he were a valid pope, this article at Novus Ordo Watch proves that the new rite has invalid form:
novusordowatch.org/2018/06/unholy-orders-50-years-invalid-ordinations