|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 23, 2021 17:28:25 GMT -5
The following is from the blog of "Bishop" Rene Henry Gracida, who states that he is a validly consecrated Roman Rite Bishop, who was consecrated AFTER Paul VI's new rite in 1968 was promulgated. The "Bishop" also publicly professed: SOURCE
|
|
|
Post by fluidicpuppet on Aug 17, 2021 9:47:17 GMT -5
If you google pictures of his consecration there are newspaper clippings of the time and it's very clearly the new rite
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 17, 2021 20:14:20 GMT -5
If you google pictures of his consecration there are newspaper clippings of the time and it's very clearly the new rite I did a search and was unable to find any pictures. Could you send me a link to the pictures you found?
|
|
|
Post by fluidicpuppet on Aug 31, 2021 17:41:14 GMT -5
Unfortunately I can't find the link anymore but I saved the pdf if you have an email I can send it to
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 8, 2021 19:59:31 GMT -5
The following is a PDF of The Voice, January 28, 1972, which covers in detail the episcopal "ordination" of "Bishop" Gracida, which appears to contradict his assertion, as quoted in the opening post above, in which he states that he was consecrated in the old rite. PDF linked HEREIf the bishop is reading this and has some evidence that the text of old rite was used, despite the photos showing that the new rite was used, then of course, he is welcome to present it. Until that happens, I am not taking his assertion of being consecrated in the old rite at face value. I will be modifying the title of this thread based on this information. Thank you to member Fluidicpuppet for providing this valuable PDF document.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 19:35:34 GMT -5
Could you please elaborate on what in images indicated that the New Rite was used?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 23, 2022 23:13:58 GMT -5
Could you please elaborate on what in images indicated that the New Rite was used? Since it was just photos and not a recording, all of the differences are not available for a critical review, but there are many things which give it away: 1. The rite was referred to as an episcopal ordination, not an episcopal consecration, see page 6a top caption. The new rite changed the terms, and is referred to as episcopal ordination. I realize that could be a mistake, but it's one issue, let's look at the others. 2. The vestments are all new rite. The Church itself is showing that it is a modernist church, look at the podium with Conciliar art, 6a top photo, so with that context, I would highly doubt that they would be putting off using the new rites. The modernists were all into the changes in the 1970's and implemented them immediately. But, even that is not yet strong enough proof. The stronger evidence will follow below: 3. The consecrating bishop is placing his hands on Fr. Gracida by himself, not together with the co-consecrating bishops, see pg. 6A photo second down on the left. This is hard evidence as in the old rite all bishops would place their hands simultaneously on the bishop being consecrated. In the new rite, it is the principle consecrator, who does it first, by himself, then the other bishops do it after. 4. In the photo, page 6a, second down on the right, you will see the Gospel book being held over Fr. Gracida's head, which is the way it is done on the new rite. In the old rite, the Gospel book was placed on the neck and shoulders, not over the head. Also, the Gospel book, would have been placed in the old rite prior to the laying on of the hands, which is not done in the new rite. This is more hard evidence that this is the new rite. 5. In the photo, page 6a third down on the left, Cardinal Dearden states in the rite, "Take this ring as a seal of faith. Keeping faith, guard and protect holy Church which is the bride of God." This exhortation is not found in the old rite and it is part of the new rite. This is more proof that the new rite was being used. 6. In the photo, page 6a third down on the right, you will see the miter being placed on Fr. Gracida's head. As the pictures are following a chronological order, this would not have happened at this part of the rite if this was the old rite. In the old rite the miter was placed after the mass was over. In the new rite, this fits exactly, as the miter is placed after the investiture of the ring, which is what the photo shows. 7. In the photo, page 6a fourth down on the left, Cardinal Dearden states, when giving Fr. Gracida the staff, "Take the staff as a sign of the shepherd's office, and watch over all the flock to which the Holy Spirit has assigned you as bishop to govern the Church of God." This exhortation is not found in the old rite and is found in the new rite. 8. In the photo, page 6a fourth down one the right, the ceremony ends with the kiss of peace, which follows the ring and staff being given. This follows the order of the new rite, but not the old rite. To sum it up: the photos show a different order of the ceremony from the old rite, which could not have happened in the old rite, and they show that exhortations found in the new rite were said, that are not found in the old rite. I have no doubt in my mind that this was the new rite. If you compare the new and old rites, you will see that what these photos show can only be the new rite. I realize that more photos and especially video would have made it more clear as there are many other parts to the rite, but these photos alone are strong proof that it was the new rite.
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Mar 1, 2023 5:41:28 GMT -5
If one distinguishes between the ritual and the formula of consecration, if the old formula is used, then the Bishop is consecrated in the old rite, speaking strictly. So against the opinion presented in the commentary provided above, you can find in the article itself these words of the newly consecrated on p. 3A, first column, paragraph 6:
"More than all the beauty and the pomp and circumstances which surrounds this ancient and sacred rite of the Catholic Church ...."
Which, if taken at the face value, must refer to the traditional formula of consecration. And to claim otherwise, is to say the Bishop lied in his very first public statement. And nothing cited above contradicts this.
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Mar 1, 2023 6:01:20 GMT -5
Addendum
On p. 8A it affirms that the consecrandus was the rector of the Cathedral, and thus, would have had the rule of deciding which formula of consecration was used. The same bulletin contains an article praising Gracida as a liturgist, so it would be hard to argue he did not know the difference cf. p. 3A, right column, 5th paragraph, testimony of Msgr. Enright.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 1, 2023 6:41:46 GMT -5
If one distinguishes between the ritual and the formula of consecration, if the old formula is used, then the Bishop is consecrated in the old rite, speaking strictly. So against the opinion presented in the commentary provided above, you can find in the article itself these words of the newly consecrated on p. 3A, first column, paragraph 6: "More than all the beauty and the pomp and circumstances which surrounds this ancient and sacred rite of the Catholic Church ...." Which, if taken at the face value, must refer to the traditional formula of consecration. And to claim otherwise, is to say the Bishop lied in his very first public statement. And nothing cited above contradicts this. Thank you for your comments. There was no accusation of lying. Memory is a faulty thing, especially as one ages, so I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. The photos show the new rite being used, in the order in which it is supposed to be used. If the old rite was said, despite what the photos and then captions show, then so be it. I wasn't there. I am not willing to accept at face value this assertion, though, unless I see strong evidence that the old rite was used, and answers as to why the new rite wording and ceremonies are shown in the photos and captions, in the order that the new rite prescribes, which differs from the ordering of the old rite.
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Mar 1, 2023 9:15:01 GMT -5
I think the question could only be answered by finding the copy of the ceremonial used, in the Diocesan Archives, because as you can discern from the photographs they were not using the Pontifical published by authority of the Vatican, but folders in which some printed pages were affixed inside.
The ritual was in English, it is said, and so one must ask when the official English of the Ordo for Ordination of Bishops was finalized to determine this further, without reference to those folios. Another way would be to interview someone present, if anyone is still alive.
The photographs of the folders being used, indicate strongly that there may be some variation in the rituals being spoken from the rituals captured on camera or the rituals contained in the Latin version of the Pontifical.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 2, 2023 8:35:35 GMT -5
Historian wrote:
Perhaps, and until someone does find that out, if that's still possible, then I as a Catholic would go with the side of caution, and not regard the episcopal consecration, having been completed completely in the old rite, as certain.
Historian wrote:
That may be useful, but unless it's someone familiar with the episcopal consecration rites, new and old, they may not have paid enough attention, or have had the competence to understand the difference.
Historian wrote:
It's possible, but I don't know why you think the indication is strong on this. It appears that it was being covered with photos and captions showing the rite as it took place. I do agree with you that the captions may not be what was actually said, and maybe the reporter who covered this, just placed them in as he thought that's what was being said, That leaves open one scenario.
But with that said, there are certain things in the photos that lead me to to the belief that this was the new rite:
1. The consecrating bishop is placing his hands on Fr. Gracida by himself, not together with the co-consecrating bishops, see pg. 6A photo second down on the left. This is hard evidence as in the old rite all bishops would place their hands simultaneously on the bishop being consecrated. In the new rite, it is the principle consecrator, who does it first, by himself, then the other bishops do it after.
I would like to see this explained. How can it be the old rite, when the old rite specifically explains that all bishops must place their hands simultaneously on the bishop being consecrated, and the photo shows only the principle consecrator placing his hands on Fr. Gracida's head, which could not have happened in the old rite?
2. In the photo, page 6a, second down on the right, you will see the Gospel book being held over Fr. Gracida's head, which is the way it is done in the new rite. In the old rite, the Gospel book was placed on the neck and shoulders, not over the head. Also, the Gospel book, would have been placed in the old rite prior to the laying on of the hands, which is not done in the new rite. This is more hard evidence that this is the new rite.
This photo shows that this rubric of placing the Gospel book over Fr. Gracida's head, which is only found if the new rite was used. If the old rite was being used, the Gospel book would have been placed on the neck and the shoulders. This is a significant piece of evidence, in and of itself, that the new rite was used.
3. In the photo, page 6a third down on the right, you will see the miter being placed on Fr. Gracida's head. As the pictures are following a chronological order, this would not have happened at this part of the rite if this was the old rite. In the old rite the miter was placed after the mass was over. In the new rite, this fits exactly, as the miter is placed after the investiture of the ring, which is what the photo shows. How can this be explained? The new rite and the old rite follow different ordering of how things happened, and the photos show the miter was being placed during the ceremony while in the old rite it would have happened after the mass.
4. In the photo, page 6a fourth down on the right, the ceremony ends with the kiss of peace, which follows the ring and staff being given. This follows the order of the new rite, but not the old rite.
This is another break from the ordering of the old rite, and shows the ordering of the new rite.
The only possibility in favor of the argument that he was consecrated in the old rite that balances what we see in photos with what he is asserting, that I see, is that the two rites were blended, and perhaps the text of the old rite was being read by the principal consecrator, and the rubrics of the new rite were being used.
There is no evidence of the blending of rites, however, and even if that took place, that would leave open other questions.
The onus of proof always resides with the one making the claim, not others, so unless I see evidence from Fr. Gracida that the rites were blended, and the text of the old rite was being read while the rubrics of the new rite were being followed, or in any other way explain the four points above, which all show rubrics of the new rite being used, which are rubrics not found in the old rite, then I am concluding that he is to be regarded as a priest, not a bishop.
His claim, however, quoted in the opening post, was that he was consecrated in the old rite, yet the photos clearly show rubrics being used that are not found in the old rite and only found in the new rite. That much is a fact. If the rites were blended, then it's still not accurate to say "I was consecrated in the old rite," as that would only be accurate if the old rite was used completely, and not blended with the new rite. There is no evidence that the rites were blended, and the fact that new rite rubrics were being used, not found in the old rite, only favors the provisional belief that he was indeed consecrated using the words and rubrics of the new rite.
|
|