John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on May 29, 2023 17:47:07 GMT -5
I'm looking for French translations of Fr Cekada's last two pieces on the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration, as if they exist, they aren't on traditionalmass.org. If anyone has some I'd be grateful if you could share it please.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on May 29, 2023 19:50:17 GMT -5
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on May 31, 2023 3:47:14 GMT -5
Thanks wenceslav. I did the same thing without any useful results, so I'm glad you found something. Can you find the document "New Bishops, Empty Tabernacle"? I am also drawing a blank with this.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on May 31, 2023 18:35:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Aug 5, 2023 7:46:21 GMT -5
Fr Pierre Marie has declined to answer any further questions posed in the thread due to "lack of time" and is referring me back to his articles for information. I would however appreciate it if someone could draft a response to him as I think that it would be prudent to point out what you have found to him. The Avrille Dominicans to whom he belongs have distanced themselves from the SSPX because of their closer relations with modernist Rome. I am requesting prayers for Fr Pierre Marie and offering Masses in the hope that God will change his mind on this issue, for it is key for the SSPX to be able to recognise where the Church is, and isn't in these times. I am afraid that I don't fully understand all that wenceslav has posted above, but if summary rebuttal could be written I would be happy to send it to Fr along with additional information that might make him take this more seriously. Any help you could provide Pacelli , samuelsede & sdwright would be appreciated. Seeing as you ask: Just some grist for the mill. The English bishops responsible for the Vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae, in Leo XIII's day, were aware of the rite upon which the NREC is based, and considered it sufficient for the consecration of a bishop. It comes in an appendix, in which they go through all the various rites' forms for the making of deacons, priests and bishops, and show how each one of these forms conforms to the requirements Leo XIII sets out. Obviously that is a separate question to whether the NREC is valid, invalid or doubtful – but nonetheless, it's interesting. Attached below.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Aug 5, 2023 12:30:43 GMT -5
Fr Pierre Marie has declined to answer any further questions posed in the thread due to "lack of time" and is referring me back to his articles for information. I would however appreciate it if someone could draft a response to him as I think that it would be prudent to point out what you have found to him. The Avrille Dominicans to whom he belongs have distanced themselves from the SSPX because of their closer relations with modernist Rome. I am requesting prayers for Fr Pierre Marie and offering Masses in the hope that God will change his mind on this issue, for it is key for the SSPX to be able to recognise where the Church is, and isn't in these times. I am afraid that I don't fully understand all that wenceslav has posted above, but if summary rebuttal could be written I would be happy to send it to Fr along with additional information that might make him take this more seriously. Any help you could provide Pacelli , samuelsede & sdwright would be appreciated. Seeing as you ask: Just some grist for the mill. The English bishops responsible for the Vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae, in Leo XIII's day, were aware of the rite upon which the NREC is based, and considered it sufficient for the consecration of a bishop. It comes in an appendix, in which they go through all the various rites' forms for the making of deacons, priests and bishops, and show how each one of these forms conforms to the requirements Leo XIII sets out. Obviously that is a separate question to whether the NREC is valid, invalid or doubtful – but nonetheless, it's interesting. Attached below. View AttachmentI would like you to expand on this a bit, I think I've gotten lost here (I speak Spanish), could you explain this in another way so I know if I understood it correctly?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 5, 2023 14:02:33 GMT -5
S.D. Wright can explain this in his own words, but I have not forgotten about this either, and plan to get to it soon. There is so much to say on this that it's overwhelming, but the key to grasping the problems with Paul VI's new rite of ordination and more especially the consecration rite of bishops can be found in the reasoning of why the Anglican Orders were invalid. The similarities between the two cases are striking.
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Aug 8, 2023 3:41:07 GMT -5
S.D. Wright can explain this in his own words, but I have not forgotten about this either, and plan to get to it soon. There is so much to say on this that it's overwhelming, but the key to grasping the problems with Paul VI's new rite of ordination and more especially the consecration rite of bishops can be found in the reasoning of why the Anglican Orders were invalid. The similarities between the two cases are striking. Thanks Pacelli. I don't have clear thoughts on the matter, I'm just sharing this text for interest. I think that much of the discourse around the new rites of holy orders is very flawed, including (for example) the claim in question - that it was a rite for the installation of a patriarch, not a bishop; or that if it was a rite for a bishop originally, its subsequent use for patriarchs renders it no longer clear enough for conferring the episcopacy. Interesting claims, but against that we have Denzinger and the English bishops mentioned. Again, this isn't to say the new rites are valid. This point is on the level of the arguments being used, not the conclusions reached.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 8, 2023 7:34:19 GMT -5
S.D. Wright can explain this in his own words, but I have not forgotten about this either, and plan to get to it soon. There is so much to say on this that it's overwhelming, but the key to grasping the problems with Paul VI's new rite of ordination and more especially the consecration rite of bishops can be found in the reasoning of why the Anglican Orders were invalid. The similarities between the two cases are striking. Thanks Pacelli. I don't have clear thoughts on the matter, I'm just sharing this text for interest. I think that much of the discourse around the new rites of holy orders is very flawed, including (for example) the claim in question - that it was a rite for the installation of a patriarch, not a bishop; or that if it was a rite for a bishop originally, its subsequent use for patriarchs renders it no longer clear enough for conferring the episcopacy. Interesting claims, but against that we have Denzinger and the English bishops mentioned. Again, this isn't to say the new rites are valid. This point is on the level of the arguments being used, not the conclusions reached. I agree. I have been both busy and sidetracked with other matters lately, but hope to get back on track on this soon. The fact that an eastern rite does not identically match the 1968 rite does not prove the 1968 rite invalid or doubtful just because of that fact, but it does debunk those who say it matches, and by that claim it is valid due to this. The Anglicans interestingly enough used very similar defenses of their rites as those who defend the Paul VI rites. When I first read into this many years ago, I initially expected them to have a weak defense that would have been easily crushed by the Catholic theologians, but to my surprise, their defense of validity was much better than my expectations,, and there were Catholic theologians arguing for validity. It's interesting when you read on this, how narrow, but at the same time how complex the matter gets, along with the many misunderstandings of Pope Leo's teaching that are out there. Btw, Denzinger's translations of the Eastern rites have been challenged so they are not the last word on the texts of the Eastern ordination rites.
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Aug 9, 2023 6:28:24 GMT -5
My concern has more with those who say that it doesn't match at all, and that the Coptic rite is incapable of being construed or sufficiently clear to make a bishop. I'm aware that there are debates - including on Denzinger. My point isn't that it's the last word, but rather that those who say that it's a patriarch installation rite haven't got the last word either.
Let me put it another way. If the English bishops and Denzinger thought that the original rite in question was sufficient to make a bishop, then I don't feel sure that I can say that it isn't. But again, this is about the original rite on which things are based, not the modern rite, which is a different question.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 9, 2023 7:55:15 GMT -5
My concern has more with those who say that it doesn't match at all, and that the Coptic rite is incapable of being construed or sufficiently clear to make a bishop. I'm aware that there are debates - including on Denzinger. My point isn't that it's the last word, but rather that those who say that it's a patriarch installation rite haven't got the last word either. Let me put it another way. If the English bishops and Denzinger thought that the original rite in question was sufficient to make a bishop, then I don't feel sure that I can say that it isn't. But again, this is about the original rite on which things are based, not the modern rite, which is a different question. Agreed, in the end, none of us have the last word on this, only the Pope, whenever that may be. The only thing we can do in the meanwhile is to study this as best we can, and correct false assertions being made in defense of the novel rites, (or incorrect assertions being made against validity for that matter) and form moral certainty for ourselves so as to protect our own souls, prior to any decision on these novel rites by the Pope. Regarding the Coptic, there can be no doubt that it is valid. Anyone arguing otherwise would also have to argue that the Catholic Church allows invalid rites of sacraments to be used. I contend though that there are clear differences between the Coptic and the Paul VI rites, and one most notable difference is that the form of the Coptic is very long, and does include all the essentials for validity in its lengthy form, while the 1968 rite form is very short, only comprising the middle prayer in the consecration rite, "Pour out now..." posted HERESome may argue that the deficiencies in the form are corrected by the consecratory prayer before and after the form, but that's merely an opinion, only the Pope can settle that. Another problem is that even if the other two consecratory prayers are thought to be included with the form, it is still not identical to the Coptic rite. I posted both so anyone can see the differences for themselves HERE
|
|
Caillin
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 136
|
Post by Caillin on Feb 12, 2024 13:01:05 GMT -5
What are the main reasons you would give for having doubts about the new rite, other than it coming from the VII church?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 13, 2024 9:28:56 GMT -5
What are the main reasons you would give for having doubts about the new rite, other than it coming from the VII church? This is a big complicated subject, so please bear with me as I break it down. There is no simple way to do this. The fact that it comes from the V2 sect, in and of itself, is not a ground for doubt. The Orthodox who broke from the Church to form various schismatic sects have unquestionably valid sacraments, as they didn't change the rites, and didn't change their beliefs on the sacraments. If this new sect kept the Catholic rite unchanged then there would be no issue, and even if they took an eastern rite and made it the new Roman rite, as far as validity goes, there would still be no issue. The problem is that they developed new rites that are not eastern rites, and are novel, never approved for use in the Church. This, in and of itself, does not mean they are invalid, but it's still a big problem, as the Church has never guaranteed their validity by approving them. I see many points that must be answered as to these novel rites, but in this post I will just focus on the 1968 episcopal consecration rite: 1. The rite is a novel rite, never before used in Church history. Since it is a novel rite, not yet approved by the Church, in my opinion, Catholics need not accept it, and simply say, "The Church did not give me this, I don't need to receive it." That doesn't deal with validity, but it does deal with the practical problem of whether Catholics must accept it. If an unauthorized religious group, a sect, makes up a new sacramental rite on their own non-authority, must Catholics accept it, prior to Rome settling whether it is valid or not? The answer is obvious. 2. Fr. Pierre Marie in his 2006 article on the novel episcopal rite of Paul VI put together an impressive looking chart in order to demonstrate that this rite is essentially the same as the ancient rite of Hippolytus, the Coptic rite, and the Maronite rite. In many posts I debunked this, and others have as well. 3. Regarding the rite of Hippolytus, it's not reliable to use, as there are many texts of the rite, not one, and they differ from each other. We can't even be sure that these even come from St. Hippolytus, either! Regarding the rite of Hippolytus, what one is reading in Fr. Pierre Marie's study, is a reconstruction of the rite, made my Dom Botte, a scholar and the author of the novel 1968 episcopal rite. The problem is that Botte's subjective judgments on what the rite said, are just that, his judgments, not established facts, so we cannot be certain that what is attributed to this Rite of Hippolytus is identical to the rite actually used by the ancient Catholics. Despite Dom Botte's impressive credentials as a scholar on ancient rites, and his linguistic ability to read these texts, this does not guarantee his opinion in reconciling all of these old texts as to what must be included so as to know with certainty what was used by the early Catholics in this rite. Other liturgical scholars on ancient rites do not agree with Botte's reconstruction, and have publicly taken different views. It's not settled, not even close, and most likely, it can't really be settled, as it's a matter of opinion of the varying scholars looking at these ancient texts and forming judgments about them, as they try to reconcile them to form a reconstruction. One last point, Fr. Pierre Marie failed to warn his readers about any of this in his paper, so the reader who is ignorant about all the controversy among scholars on the reconstructed rite of Hippolytus would probably just think it was an out of use rite, but it was still a rite used by the Church, so it must be valid. The fact is, as stated above, that we cannot be certain that the rite, as presented by Dom Botte's reconstruction is the actual rite that was used, and readers should have been warned of this fact. 4. Regarding the Maronite rite in Fr. Pierre Marie's chart, there is another big problem, in that the rite that was presented as being an episcopal consecration rite was in fact not an episcopal consecration rite at all! It was the rite of elevation of the Maronite Patriarch. This rite was a ceremonial rite dealing with jurisdiction of the one elected of his taking on the office of Patriarch, not a sacramental rite. There is absolutely no evidence that this rite was used for both, the consecration of a bishop and the elevation of a Patriarch. There is a rite of episcopal consecration of the Maronites, and considering that the chart was demonstrating different episcopal consecration rites, that rite should have been used, not the rite of elevation of a Patriarch! The readers of this study should have been warned of this fact! 5. The last rite used to defend the new rite by comparison with the eastern rites is the Coptic. There are certainly some similarities to this new rite, but they are far from identical. The Coptic rite certainly has the two criteria as taught by Pius XII, the grace of the Holy Ghost, and the order to be received. The new rite did not identically follow the Coptics and there are clear differences along with ambiguity that is not found in the Coptic, and in my opinion, the novel rite unlike the Coptic does not make clear the order being prayed for, and even if one argues it does, it's disconnected in a strange way, that would make the rite suspect and we would need it to be judged by Rome. With all of that as a background, that the novel rite is not an eastern rite, or a certain ancient rite, then the next thing to look at is the question of whether it is valid on its own as a novel rite that came to be from an unauthorized sect despite having no guarantee from the Church as to its validity. I will get into that in my next post.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 13, 2024 11:01:55 GMT -5
To the next matter, looking specifically at the form of the 1968 episcopal consecration rite of Paul VI, there is a good thread on this already, so really no need to go through it all again. Thanks to sdwright 's comments, the discussion developed and many points were covered that may not have been covered otherwise. You can find that thread HEREI think, considering that thread covered this issue in depth, that if you read it, you will see the serious problems with the novel form of Paul VI, which could create a doubt as to its validity. To sum up: 1. The novel rite of Paul VI is not identical to any Catholic rite. That is a fact. It is truly a novel made up rite that has some similarities with the Coptic rite and Botte's reconstruction of the rite of Hippolytus. Although there are similarities, there are clear differences. 2. The form of Paul VI does not clearly and directly connect the grace of the Holy Ghost to the power of order. 3. Even in regards to the power of order being prayed for, there is no mention of the specific power of ordaining which is unique to bishops and is found in the Coptic and rite of Hippolytus, which this rite is supposed to be taken from, yet is strangely absent. 4. Paul VI, when he approved this rite stated to the Catholic world that all essentials for validity are found only in the middle prayer. I realize that we believe he has no authority, but since he attested that to be a fact, and he along with his commission created this novel rite, why do we have to make a case for this sect as to its validity by seeing if essential words exists in the third prayer to fill in for the problems with the middle prayer, when those who made this rite publicly said all essentials for validity are found in the middle prayer ? Shouldn't we just say, "the creator of this rite said all essential words are found in the middle prayer, yet the power of order which is essential is not being prayed for, so this is a matter for Rome, and I'll have nothing to do with it until a decision is made." 5. Even if one wants to make the case for validity by using the third prayer, doesn't this create a disjointed and disconnected prayer? I used and example of this in the linked thread above. Imagine a baptism where the one baptizing said: "I baptize you," but rather than finishing, adds a lot of verbiage such as "so your soul may be cleansed and made pure, and you may now be a member of the Church, and by these graces may you always be a good and virtuous" then concludes with "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost." Does this form that is disconnected create a doubt? Should the matter be submitted as a dubia to Rome to answer if this strange form which has all the essentials for validity but is separated by other words need to be repeated again using the correct form or whether at least a conditional baptism must be done? 6. I am not conceding that the power of order is univocally being prayed for in the third prayer, btw, but for the sake of argument that it is found in the second paragraph of the third prayer, then at a minimum, it is certainly disconnected from the middle prayer where the grace of the Holy Ghost is prayed for. Would this disconnect of the essential elements (prayer for the grace of the Holy Ghost & the order being prayed for) as in the case of a disconnected baptismal from, mentioned above, create a doubt? In my opinion it would, and that an authoritative answer must be had on it from Rome.
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Feb 13, 2024 12:41:22 GMT -5
|
|