Post by Pacelli on Jul 14, 2021 14:54:28 GMT -5
I have been posting numerous resourses for some time now on the subject of the validity of the novel rites approved by Paul VI on June 18, 1968. This has always been an issue that I have held of great importance, as being certain of validity of the sacraments cannot be minimized and it directly affects Catholics in the most gravest possible manner.
In my opinion, this matter is becoming more and more urgent, as the largest traditionalist organization in th world, the Society of St. Pius X, is, as a practice allowing more and more men to join their group who have received holy orders either through the 1968 Paul VI rite, or ordained by a bishop who himself was consecrated as bishop in the novel 1968 rite, or both.
One may ask, why is this issue being addressed so late in this crisis? In the early days of this dilemma, the 1970's, Catholics were laser focused on the Novus Ordo Missae, as the point of unity in what must be resisted. The Mass was what Catholics personally witnessed, and they saw that the novel rite was seriously at odds with the Catholic Roman rite. Most Catholics were not, and are not familiar with the ordination rite of priests or the consecration rite of bishops, so it's very mysterious to many, and trust has always just been given that men who show up at their church were properly ordained in the Catholic rite by a bishop who possesses certainly valid episcopal orders.
The mysteriousness of the holy order rites to rank and file Catholics has allowed this matter to fall to the back burner of the crisis, with very little attention being given to it. In the 1970's the issue was not relevant anyway, as all of the early traditional priests were ordained in the old rite, and Archbishop Lefebvre was ordaining men in the old rite to say the mass so there was no pressing need at the time.
In the East, men were ordained using their own approved and Catholic orders of their rites, so there was no issue there initially as well.
As this crisis has dragged on, however, more and more cases of men ordained through the novel rite or by bishops consecrated in this novel rite have been showing up to say mass at SSPX chapels and also even in the eastern rite parishes. The issue can no longer be ignored and must be faced as the problem growing and is hardly contained to a few isolated cases.
There are two key defenses by apologists who have sought to defend the new rites:
1. The indefectibilty of the Church would protect the Pope from approving an invalid or even a doubtful rite.
This statement is of course true, but it relies completely on the certainty that Paul VI was indeed a lawful Pope on June 18, 1968, and I argue that this is hardly as settled matter, and is very much a disputed point, amd I further argue that, in my opinion, it is impossible that Paul VI could have been a legitimate Pope, at least from the date of his approval of the document Lumen Gentium, at Vatican II, November 21, 1964.
Was Paul VI a legitimate Pope from the day of his election until November 21, 1964? It's an open question, and is beyond this post to look into it, but it's really a moot point, as to this matter, all of Paul liturgical laws came after this date. If Paul VI was not a legitimate Pope, his new rites could be doubtful or invalid, as they would not come from St. Peter's successor, but just a man, who did not sit on the Papal throne.
2. The novel rites of Paul VI were identical to the eastern rite ordination of priests and consecration of bishops, which are unquestionably valid, therefore the new rites are certainly valid.
If this assertion were true, it would be a slam dunk and there would be no controversy over this entire matter, but the fact is that the novel 1968 rite does not match ANY of the eastern rite of ordination of priests or consecration of bishops.
The new 1968 rites are not identical, even in the core form, to any approved rite ever used in the Church, neither Roman or eastern.
Since they are new rites, with no matching approved rites to give them legitimacy, and since the fact of Paul VI's legitimacy is in question, the new rites cannot be presumed to be valid. There is an inherent doubt, which will remain until a legitimate Pope settles the matter on way or another.
One last point, if the rites are at least close, in some respects, will not that be sufficient for validity? I would direct the reader to study the 19th century controversy over the validity of the Anglican orders. These novel rites, the .Edwardine orders, led to a fierce debate over whether they were valid or not, until the matter was authoritatively settled by Pope Leo XIII who declared that their novel rite was invalid. The Anglican rite, like the novel 1968 rite, found no matching rite in either Roman or eastern rites, and both rites are stand alone novelties. A Pope dealt with the Anglican novelty, but the Paul VI novelty has yet to be dealt with, and in my opinion it will be declared invalid, but until then, the proper course of action is to treat it as doubtful, and in practice avoid clergy whose lines come from it, and maintain that practice until a certain amd legitimate Pope settles it.
I will keep posting more resourses on this forum to help those who are trying to understand this issue to find the truth and get to the bottom of it.
In my opinion, this matter is becoming more and more urgent, as the largest traditionalist organization in th world, the Society of St. Pius X, is, as a practice allowing more and more men to join their group who have received holy orders either through the 1968 Paul VI rite, or ordained by a bishop who himself was consecrated as bishop in the novel 1968 rite, or both.
One may ask, why is this issue being addressed so late in this crisis? In the early days of this dilemma, the 1970's, Catholics were laser focused on the Novus Ordo Missae, as the point of unity in what must be resisted. The Mass was what Catholics personally witnessed, and they saw that the novel rite was seriously at odds with the Catholic Roman rite. Most Catholics were not, and are not familiar with the ordination rite of priests or the consecration rite of bishops, so it's very mysterious to many, and trust has always just been given that men who show up at their church were properly ordained in the Catholic rite by a bishop who possesses certainly valid episcopal orders.
The mysteriousness of the holy order rites to rank and file Catholics has allowed this matter to fall to the back burner of the crisis, with very little attention being given to it. In the 1970's the issue was not relevant anyway, as all of the early traditional priests were ordained in the old rite, and Archbishop Lefebvre was ordaining men in the old rite to say the mass so there was no pressing need at the time.
In the East, men were ordained using their own approved and Catholic orders of their rites, so there was no issue there initially as well.
As this crisis has dragged on, however, more and more cases of men ordained through the novel rite or by bishops consecrated in this novel rite have been showing up to say mass at SSPX chapels and also even in the eastern rite parishes. The issue can no longer be ignored and must be faced as the problem growing and is hardly contained to a few isolated cases.
There are two key defenses by apologists who have sought to defend the new rites:
1. The indefectibilty of the Church would protect the Pope from approving an invalid or even a doubtful rite.
This statement is of course true, but it relies completely on the certainty that Paul VI was indeed a lawful Pope on June 18, 1968, and I argue that this is hardly as settled matter, and is very much a disputed point, amd I further argue that, in my opinion, it is impossible that Paul VI could have been a legitimate Pope, at least from the date of his approval of the document Lumen Gentium, at Vatican II, November 21, 1964.
Was Paul VI a legitimate Pope from the day of his election until November 21, 1964? It's an open question, and is beyond this post to look into it, but it's really a moot point, as to this matter, all of Paul liturgical laws came after this date. If Paul VI was not a legitimate Pope, his new rites could be doubtful or invalid, as they would not come from St. Peter's successor, but just a man, who did not sit on the Papal throne.
2. The novel rites of Paul VI were identical to the eastern rite ordination of priests and consecration of bishops, which are unquestionably valid, therefore the new rites are certainly valid.
If this assertion were true, it would be a slam dunk and there would be no controversy over this entire matter, but the fact is that the novel 1968 rite does not match ANY of the eastern rite of ordination of priests or consecration of bishops.
The new 1968 rites are not identical, even in the core form, to any approved rite ever used in the Church, neither Roman or eastern.
Since they are new rites, with no matching approved rites to give them legitimacy, and since the fact of Paul VI's legitimacy is in question, the new rites cannot be presumed to be valid. There is an inherent doubt, which will remain until a legitimate Pope settles the matter on way or another.
One last point, if the rites are at least close, in some respects, will not that be sufficient for validity? I would direct the reader to study the 19th century controversy over the validity of the Anglican orders. These novel rites, the .Edwardine orders, led to a fierce debate over whether they were valid or not, until the matter was authoritatively settled by Pope Leo XIII who declared that their novel rite was invalid. The Anglican rite, like the novel 1968 rite, found no matching rite in either Roman or eastern rites, and both rites are stand alone novelties. A Pope dealt with the Anglican novelty, but the Paul VI novelty has yet to be dealt with, and in my opinion it will be declared invalid, but until then, the proper course of action is to treat it as doubtful, and in practice avoid clergy whose lines come from it, and maintain that practice until a certain amd legitimate Pope settles it.
I will keep posting more resourses on this forum to help those who are trying to understand this issue to find the truth and get to the bottom of it.