John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Dec 6, 2023 21:50:06 GMT -5
Hello everyone, I attach the book by Father Olivier Rioult, unfortunately this was the best I could do to transcribe it, I took the time to leave all the phrases in Bold as they come in the book and order the texts, but when translating it into English Everything has been messed up again and some words seem to have been distorted, so I recommend that you do a reading by looking at the original book digitized in French and if there is any error you will be able to read the original book and know what it is saying. I speak Spanish so I don't know how many errors there may be, so I ask that if anyone is interested they can help make the text look better since it takes time and I don't have that right now. I attach the 2 transcribed versions, the French one (it is identical to the original book) and the English version translated with Google (there will surely be errors and disorder in the text). PS: I could not transform the file into PDF because the bold and all the original formatting of the book are erased. If someone can do all this and make it much clearer, it will do us a great favor. However, I think that reading can be done without no problem. View Attachment View AttachmentWell done Didymus.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 7, 2023 8:07:09 GMT -5
Hello everyone, I attach the book by Father Olivier Rioult, unfortunately this was the best I could do to transcribe it, I took the time to leave all the phrases in Bold as they come in the book and order the texts, but when translating it into English Everything has been messed up again and some words seem to have been distorted, so I recommend that you do a reading by looking at the original book digitized in French and if there is any error you will be able to read the original book and know what it is saying. I speak Spanish so I don't know how many errors there may be, so I ask that if anyone is interested they can help make the text look better since it takes time and I don't have that right now. I attach the 2 transcribed versions, the French one (it is identical to the original book) and the English version translated with Google (there will surely be errors and disorder in the text). PS: I could not transform the file into PDF because the bold and all the original formatting of the book are erased. If someone can do all this and make it much clearer, it will do us a great favor. However, I think that reading can be done without no problem. View Attachment View AttachmentThis is great work, and thank you for doing this for us. It's fine that it's not a perfect translation, the main goal is to see what his arguments are, and I think the translation gives that. I'll look through it all soon more in depth.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Dec 7, 2023 8:31:40 GMT -5
We are all here trying to survive this mess, there is nothing to be grateful for. I also asked Fr Rioult for permission to digitize the book since I think it is important to listen to the arguments. I will start reading the book soon too, it will be interesting to read its arguments too.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Dec 9, 2023 2:56:52 GMT -5
I note the following from page 126:
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 14, 2023 16:03:09 GMT -5
I am reading the book now. It's a good critique in many ways, and I am in agreement with much of what he says, but not complete agreement, which I will get to soon. I want to re-read the book again, taking careful notes, and go through my own notes on many things before writing a response, so it will be a while.
Fr. Rioult is clearly not a lightweight and any response to his book deserves a well thought out sourced response.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Dec 14, 2023 17:55:36 GMT -5
I am reading the book now. It's a good critique in many ways, and I am in agreement with much of what he says, but not complete agreement, which I will get to soon. I want to re-read the book again, taking careful notes, and go through my own notes on many things before writing a response, so it will be a while. Fr. Rioult is clearly not a lightweight and any response to his book deserves a well thought out sourced response. I am finishing reading it, honestly it has good arguments, it would be interesting to invite you to talk about this matter. I'm looking forward to it.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Mar 17, 2024 18:00:21 GMT -5
I have translated the book from French to English using ChatGPT. Each page has a sticky-note where you will find the English translation of that given page. Didymus did an excellent job in his translation of Fr. Rioult’s book. This ChatGPT translation is meant to complement Didymus’ translation especially if there is tricky or complex text that might need a second interpretation. URL: drive.google.com/file/d/1SEGiNbn6WmscUCcT0u2y-hL87q6Zf3yE/view?usp=drivesdk
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Mar 24, 2024 22:51:11 GMT -5
I have translated the book from French to English using ChatGPT. Each page has a sticky-note where you will find the English translation of that given page. Didymus did an excellent job in his translation of Fr. Rioult’s book. This ChatGPT translation is meant to complement Didymus’ translation especially if there is tricky or complex text that might need a second interpretation. URL: drive.google.com/file/d/1SEGiNbn6WmscUCcT0u2y-hL87q6Zf3yE/view?usp=drivesdkWhat did you think of the book Wenceslav ?
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Mar 25, 2024 21:40:30 GMT -5
Hi Didymus,
I refer you to p. 127 of Fr. Rioult’s book.
I think Fr. Rioult cannot equate the fact that the schismatic Greeks kept their rite intact versus the concoction of the Novus Ordo rite. The schismatics stole the Catholic rite but did not change it. And the Novus Ordo rite was a “concoction “ introduced by the same man who introduced the New Mass to the Universal Church. i.e. Paul VI. Fr. Rioult bases his statement (about the Novus Ordo rite) on the historical analysis of Dom Botte regarding the Constitution of the Egyptian Church, Ecclesiastical Ordinance, Document X, Apostolic Tradition...etc. It seems that the authenticity of the Novus Ordo rite (in Fr. Rioult’s mind) rests on Dom Botte’s analysis and which many scholars have shown (including our very own Pacelli) to be quite flawed.
Nevertheless, I would not stake my eternal salvation on a consecration rite approved by a “Pope” who introduced the Novus Ordo “Mass” which brought about a near universal loss of Faith among the clergy, religious and laity. It would be interesting to know more about Dom Botte’s sources specifically the constitutions of the Egyptian Church. I have read in the past that the Orthodox Copts and their associated records about their consecration rites are dubious at best. But I’m not a historian and Pacelli is. But Fr. R’s statement equating the Novus Ordo rite’s legitimacy with the Catholic rite retained by the schismatics is unacceptable, at least to me. (i.e. the former approved by Paul VI through the research of Dom Botte, an historian, versus an approved rite of the Catholic Church)
my 2 cents worth.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Apr 8, 2024 11:42:19 GMT -5
I have read Father Rioult's book, I sincerely believe that I understand the central point of his thesis but I do not dare to say that this is my final opinion because I may be misinterpreting it. I think that Father Rioult is intelligent enough not to have seen the abysmal difference between the comparisons with the schismatic rite and the Novus Ordo, what I have understood from the book (I insist that I could be misinterpreting it or not having understood it well) is that Father Rioult tries to approach the subject from the sense of "valid/sufficient sacrament", that is, without falling into an anti-ecclesiastical modernism, He mentions that all the works of the validity and invalidity of the rite of Paul VI that deal with the subject focus a lot on the question of the words and not the meaning, thus he gives as an example the oriental rites that usually give more importance to the whole rite and not only to the words. (Except for the sacraments that have formula instituted by N.S.J.) for that reason it concentrates in the complete prayer and not only in the formula.
And I see from this point of view he tries to solve the problem and not only from the sacramental scholasticism.
It assumes that the rite of Paul VI is indeed a new rite, but it is not "an absolutely new rite" based on Leo XIII and that it is not similar to the Anglicans since the Anglican situation had an explicit intention to separate itself from all Catholic and hierarchical conception of the church and that was condemned by Leo XIII and its sacraments became invalid, however in the rite of Paul VI there is no intention to destroy the whole Catholic rite, the hierarchical conception of the Church and the sacred orders, and he explains it in the book even because the rite itself admits this structure, And although it is admitted that it can be considered confusing, he explains this by quoting Innocent IV and the articles on Anglican ordinations. Pope Innocent IV says that the apostolic rite of laying hands on the ordinads and praying over them is described in the epistle to Timothy. No other form of ordination is mentioned. Therefore, the Pope says "Therefore we believe that, unless other forms are subsequently found, it would be sufficient for the one giving the ordination to say: Be a priest, or other equivalent words...". "" So that "equivalent" is found in the rite of Paul VI.
He also cites "That an implicit mention of the order conferred and of the functions is sufficient for the form to be valid, this results from the examination of the different Eastern rites and of the ancient Western rites. "(DTC, art. Anglican Ordinations) From this, Father Botte concludes that the Anglican case and the rite of Paul VI are not equivalent because in both cases the intention is opposite, Dom Botte says that he does not intend to completely rework the formula or replace it with another but to enrich it and is inspired by ancient rites even if he does not follow them completely and it is not the case of the Anglicans who wanted to remove everything Catholic.
Can it be said that the pre-conciliar bishops who used this formula transferred invalidly using this formula? I honestly would not go that far. I can neither affirm nor deny this.
Certainly I would like to find see what mention " - That the essential form of the rite of Paul VI was taken 77 from canonical-liturgical documents 78, which have received various names over time (Constitution of the Egyptian Church, Ecclesiastical Ordinance, Document X, Apostolic Tradition...) of which " we can say that it is the oldest canonical compilation that we know of. "79 since "the majority of authors agree in dating this compilation".
I am not sure if I have understood the thesis , see if someone will correct me.
|
|