Are Not True Bishops
— Rev. Anthony Cekada—
A summary of
Fr. Cekada’s article disproving SSPX’s claim that Novus Ordo bishops are valid
bishops.
Readers of The Angelus were probably surprised last
year when they received the December 2005 issue with its feature article entitled
“Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid.”
What in the world was this about?
And why was a traditionalist magazine published by SSPX putting concelebrating
Novus Ordo bishops on its cover?
Traditionalists
have always worried about the validity of the New Mass. But the question of
whether Holy Orders conferred with the post-Vatican II rites are valid has
hardly been discussed as all, even though clergy ordained by bishops consecrated
in the new rite — diocesan priests, members of the Fraternity of St. Peter,
Institute of Christ the King, etc. — are now offering traditional Masses everywhere.
If the bishops who ordained these priests were not true bishops, obviously,
the people who attend such Masses adore and receive only bread.
After Benedict XVI was
elected in 2005, the topic naturally started to come up more and more. Joseph
Ratzinger had been consecrated with the new rite on May 28, 1977. Was he,
apart from the question of whether or not he is a true pope, even a real bishop?
In the summer of 2005,
a group of French traditionalists published the first volume of Rore Sanctifica, a book-length dossier
of documentation and commentary on the Paul VI Rite of Episcopal Consecration.
(www.rore-sanctifica.org) The study, featuring
on its cover side-by-side photos of Ratzinger and SSPX Superior General Mgr.
Bernard Fellay, concluded that the new rite was invalid. (Three additional
volumes have appeared since.)
This caught the attention
of higher-ups in the SSPX in Europe, who were by then negotiating with Benedict
XVI to obtain special status in the Vatican II church. How could SSPX’s superiors
sell traditionalists on the idea of uniting themselves to a pope who may not
even be a real bishop?
When I was in SSPX more
than two decades ago, Father Franz Schmidberger was even then promoting the
idea that the new rite of episcopal consecration was valid. Now, however, perhaps it was thought impolitic
that such a prominent member of SSPX should make this case directly, lest
it be summarily shot down or, even worse, provoke a backlash among the faithful.
Instead, the Dominicans
in Avrillé, France, a traditionalist religious order in the SSPX orbit, were
deputed to try to make a convincing case for validity, thus providing the
SSPX superiors with a bit of wiggle room for “plausible deniability.” Fr.
Pierre-Marie OP duly produced a lengthy article arguing for the validity of
the new rite. This appeared last year in the Dominicans’ quarterly, Sel de la Terre.
SSPX’s European
superiors have always considered America the land of independent-minded “hard-liners,” so Fr. Pierre-Marie’s article
was immediately translated into English and published in The Angelus with an elaborate and eye-catching layout.
The article features impressive-looking
comparison tables with Latin texts, and is loaded with footnotes. An editorial
note touts its Thomistic” style, and the author assures us that he will “proceed
according to the Scholastic method so as to treat the matter as rigorously
as possible.”
All this might intimidate
the casual reader into accepting the validity of the new rite, or at least
stun him into silence.
But things are not what
they seem. Fr. Pierre-Marie’s tables, upon close examination, turn out to
be comparisons of apples-and-oranges texts. His footnotes cited no works on
sacramental moral theology — the discipline that deals with the validity of
sacraments. And despite his supposed “Thomistic” style, Fr. Pierre-Marie never
managed to focus on the two central questions:
(1) What principles does
Catholic theology employ to determine whether a sacramental form (the essential
formula in a sacramental rite) is valid or invalid?
(2) How do those principles
apply to the new rite of episcopal consecration?
With these two points
in mind, I sat down to write a study of my own on the new rite. For many years,
I had been hoping to find time to address just this issue, and I had already
collected great deal of research material.
The resulting article
is entitled “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void” (a phrase from Pope Leo XIII’s
pronouncement on the invalidity of Anglican orders), and was published on
the internet at www.traditionalmass.org
I completed the article
on March 25, 2006. I noticed later that this date was the fifteenth anniversary
of Archbishop Lefebvre’s death. This I considered providential, because the
Archbishop himself had personally told me in the 1970s that he considered
the new rite of episcopal consecration invalid.
A brief summary of the
article follows. I invite readers to consult the original for more details.
(1) Each sacrament has
a form (essential formula) that produces its sacramental effect. When a substantial change of meaning is introduced into the sacramental form
through the corruption or omission of essential words, the sacrament becomes invalid (=does not “work,” or produce the sacramental effect).
(2) Sacramental forms
approved for use in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are sometimes
different in wording from the Latin Rite forms. Nevertheless, they are the
same in substance, and are valid.
(3) Pius XII declared
that the form for Holy Orders (i.e., for diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy)
must univocally (=unambiguously) signify the sacramental effects — the power
of Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.
(4) For conferring the
episcopacy, Pius XII designated as the sacramental form a sentence in the
traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration that univocally expresses (a) the power of the Order that a bishop
receives and (b) the grace of the Holy
Ghost.
(1) The Paul VI form for
episcopal consecration appears in a special Preface in the rite, and the complete
text of the form is as follows:
“So now pour out upon
this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you
gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy
apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the
unceasing glory and praise of your name.”
While it seems to mention
the grace of the Holy Ghost, the new form does not seem to specify the power of the Order supposedly being conferred. Can it confer the
episcopacy? To answer this question, we apply the principles set forth in
section I.
(2) The short Paul VI
form for episcopal consecration is not identical to the lengthy Eastern Rite forms, and unlike them, does not mention sacramental powers proper to
a bishop alone (e.g., ordaining). The Eastern Rite prayers that the surrounding
Paul VI consecration Preface most closely resembles, moreover, are non-sacramental prayers for the installations
of the Maronite and Syrian Patriarchs, who are already bishops when appointed.
In sum, one may not argue (as The Angelus article does) that the Paul VI form is “in use in two
certainly valid Eastern Rites” and therefore valid.
(3) Various ancient texts (Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the Testament of Our Lord) share some common
elements with the Paul VI consecration Preface that surrounds the new form,
and the Angelus article cites these
as evidence to support the argument that the new rite is valid. But these
texts have all been “reconstructed,” are of questionable origin, may not represent
actual liturgical use, or pose other problems. There is no evidence that they were sacramental forms “accepted and used by the Church as such” — a criterion Pius XII’s
constitution on Holy Orders lays down. Thus these texts provide no reliable
evidence to support the argument for the validity of the Paul VI form.
(4) The key problem in the new form revolves around the
term governing Spirit (Spiritus principalis in Latin). Before
and after the promulgation of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration, the
meaning of this expression provoked concerns
about whether it sufficiently signified the sacrament. Even a bishop on the Vatican commission that created the new rite
raised this issue.
(5) Dom Bernard Botte, the modernist who
was the principal creator of the new rite, maintained that, for the 3rd-century
Christian, governing Spirit connoted
the episcopacy, because bishops have “the spirit of authority” as “rulers
of the Church.” Spiritus principalis
means “the gift of a Spirit proper to a leader.”
(6) This explanation was false and deceptive. Reference to dictionaries, a Scripture commentary, the Fathers of
the Church, a dogmatic treatise, and Eastern Rite non-sacramental investiture
ceremonies reveals that, among a dozen different and sometimes contradictory meanings, governing Spirit does not specifically signify either the episcopacy in general or the fullness
of Holy Orders that the bishop possesses.
(7) Before the controversy
over it arose, Dom Botte himself even said that he didn’t see how omitting the expression governing Spirit would change the validity of the rite of consecration.
(8) The new form fails to meet two criteria for the form for Holy Orders laid down
by Pius XII. (a) Because the term governing Spirit is capable of signifying many different things and
persons, it does not univocally signify
the sacramental effect. (b) The new form lacks any term that even equivocally connotes the power of Order that a bishop possess —
the “fullness of the priesthood of Christ in the episcopal office and order,”
or “the fullness or totality of the priestly ministry.”
(9) For these reasons,
the new form constitutes a substantial change in the meaning of the sacramental form for
conferring the episcopacy.
(10) A substantial
change in the meaning of a sacramental form, according to the principles of
sacramental moral theology, renders a
sacrament invalid.
Accordingly, an episcopal
consecration conferred with the sacramental form promulgated by Paul VI in
1968 is invalid — i.e., it cannot create a real bishop.
Priests and other bishops who derive their orders
from such bishops are themselves, then, invalidly ordained and consecrated as well.
Consequently, the sacraments they confer
or confect that depend upon the priestly or episcopal
character (Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders) are invalid as well.
(1) “Context renders the form valid.” Language elsewhere in the rite cannot cure this defect, because an essential element of the form (the power of Order)
is not just ambiguous, but missing entirely.
(2) “The
form was approved by the pope.” According to Trent and Pius XII, the Church does not have the power to change the substance of a sacrament. The omission of the power of Order
from the new form changes the substance of a sacrament, so even if Paul VI had been a true pope, he would not
have had the power to make such a
change. If anything, his attempt to do so proves he was not a true pope.
*
* * * *
The reason why the Novus Ordo rite for making bishops is invalid
can be summed up in one sentence: The modernists changed the essential words by removing the idea of
the fullness of the priesthood.
My article “Absolutely
Null and Utterly Void” is available at www.traditionalmass.org.
Those without Internet access can write to the address below for a free printed
copy.
I invite readers to photocopy
and distribute the article to fellow traditional Catholics, especially to
clergy and laity affiliated with SSPX, many of whom may already perhaps have
grave reservations about the validity of the new rite.
I close with a personal
anecdote: In August 1977 an old-line traditionalist passed along to me a
favorite quote from Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, a Capuchin who had just started to
work with SSPX, and would later write for and actually print The Angelus “Once there are no more valid priests,” Fr. Carl would say,
“they’ll permit the Latin Mass.” Prophetic words — but little could he have
suspected that his own magazine and the superiors of SSPX themselves would one
day help fulfill them!
For a printed copy of “Absolutely Null
and Utterly Void,” contact: St. Gertrude the Great Church, 4900 Rialto Road,
West Chester OH 45069, 513.645.4212. A donation to cover postage is always
appreciated.
Articles
& studies
by Father Cekada
Canon Law
Canon Law and Common Sense.
Refutes charges that traditional
Catholics are “outlaws.” Also demonstrates that too-literal application of
the Code (a la “Home-Aloners”) would eliminate every sacrament but baptism
in danger of death. (Sacerdotium
7, Spring 1993)
Is Rejecting the Pius XII
Liturgical Reforms “Illegal”?
Why the general principles of church law allow us to reject pre-Vatican II
liturgical changes that were the work of Annibale Bugnini, the modernist who
went on to create the Novus Ordo. (Internet, 27 April 2006)
Russia and the Leonine
Prayers. The Prayers after Low
Mass and Fatima. Origins and purpose of the prayers. Is the St. Michael Prayer
connected to a vision? Did the Church’s enemies suppress a “prophetic” version
of it? Church law and the obligation to say the Leonine Prayers. Substitution
of other prayers. (Sacerdotium 5,
Autumn 1992)
Feeneyism
Baptism of Desire and Theological
Principles. The main problem
with the Feeneyite position: A rejection of the universal ordinary magisterium
and of the fundamental principles by which issues in Catholic theology must
be decided. With chart analyzing the teaching of 25 theologians on baptism
of desire and baptism of blood. (Conference notes: July 2000)
Baptism of Desire:
An Exchange. Debate
occasioned by Fr. Cekada’s earlier article, “Baptism of Desire and Theological
Principles.” Objections answered: Is rejecting the teachings a mortal sin?
Different theological categories? What about “Unanimity”? Was Fr. Feeney a
“theologian”? How are baptism of desire and blood defined? Does this contradict
Trent? Fundamental error of Feeneyism: Rejecting the rules for belief laid down
by Vatican I and Pius IX. (Email exchange: March 2001)
Was Fr. Feeney’s
Excommunication Doubtful? (Sacerdotium 14, Spring 1995)
New
Mass
Did Paul VI ‘Illegally
Promulgate’ the Novus Ordo? The Remnant, SSPX and countless traditionalist
groups have claimed that Paul VI didn’t follow the correct legal procedures
for abolishing the old Mass and promulgating the New Mass. Fr. Cekada explodes
this myth and lays out the consequences. (SGG Newsletter 49, February 2000).
The Ottavianni Intervention:
Its Enduring Value.
Scholarly history and analysis of the “Short Critical Examination of the Novus
Ordo Missae” that Cardinal Ottavianni submitted to Paul VI. Preface to Fr.
Cekada’s 1992 retranslation. (Sacerdotium
14, Spring 1995)
The Ottaviani Intervention:
Short Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass. Cardinals Ottaviani,
Bacci, & Roman Theologians. Fr. Cekada’s definitive English translation of the 1969 critique
of the New Mass that rallied the traditionalist resistance. (TAN Books, 1992)
The Problems with the
Prayers of the Modern Mass. The new orations
undermine Catholic doctrine. An international best-seller. (TAN 1991)
Welcome to the
Traditional Latin Mass. Traditional vs.
new Mass. A complete overview of all the issues. The best intro available for
newcomers. (Booklet. Revised 2004.)
Pastoralia
Fighting Scrupulosity. Short resume of the rules for combating this difficult
affliction. (Pamphlet, 1985.)
Natural Family Planning:
On Recent Condemnations of NFP. A priest and
seminary professor answers the lay “experts” who condemn NFP as sinful. Resume
of general principles, requisite conditions and gravity of obligations.
(Pamphlet, Sept. 1998)
Sunday Obligation: How
to Reassure Newcomers. (Sacerdotium 14, Spring 1995)
Why Do Good Priests
Leave Bad Impressions? Don’t drive
newcomers away from the traditional Mass. (Sacerdotium
11, Spring 1994).
Sacraments
Absolutely Null and Utterly
Void. The 1968 Rite of Episcopal
Consecration is invalid. The consequences: Benedict XVI and the rest of his
modernist hierarchy are not realbishops, and ordinations conferred in “Indult”
organizations are invalid. Examines the criteria for validity, Eastern Rite
formulas, ancient Christian texts, early doubts about validity, “governing
Spirit” vs. “fullness of the priesthood,” substantial change, arguments from
context, papal approval. Answer to SSPX/Angelus articles by Fr. Pierre-Marie
favoring validity. Extensive bibliography. A monumental study. (Internet 25
March 2006)
Traditional Priests,
Legitimate Sacraments.
Divine law obliges traditionalist priests to confer sacraments, and renders
their apostolate legitimate. Human ecclesiastical laws which would otherwise
forbid this have ceased due to the apostasy of the post-Vatican II hierarchy.
(Monograph, July 2003)
The Validity of Ordination
Conferred with One Hand.
Did Abp. Lefebvre confer a ‘dubious’ ordination? A scholarly examination of
the issue in light of moral theology, history, Eastern rites, canonists, and
papal practice. (Booklet Nov. 2000)
Untrained and
Un-Tridentine: Holy Orders and the Canonically Unfit. The problem of untrained traditionalist clergy. (1) Canonical
criteria for determining fitness for priestly ordination. (2) Sinfulness of
conferring orders on the unfit. (3) Orders conferred by the unfit enjoy no presumption
of validity. (4) The unfit may not exercise their orders. (5) Objections and
answers. A major canonical study. (Monograph, 2003)
Sedevacantism
The Bellarmine Resistance
Quote: Another Traditionalist Myth. Analysis of a passage in St. Robert Bellarmine on ‘resisting’ the
pope that traditionalists have misinterpreted for decades. (St. Gertrude the
Great Newsletter, October 2004.)
Benedict XVI’s Ecumenical
One-World Church. What are we to
make of Ratzinger? Preliminary considerations about his record, his teachings
and the consequences. (Sermon, Cincinnati, 24 April 2005)
Did Bellarmine Condemn
Sedevacantism? How SSPX, The Remnant, others, use a quote out of context. (Sacerdotium 12, Summer 1994)
Have I Rejected the
Pope? Letter to The
Remnant briefly explaining the pope issue. (Letter, May 1992)
Is Sedevacantism
‘Pope-Sifting’? Systematic refutation
of an SSPX apologist’s critique of sedevacantism. (Sacerdotium 16, Spring 1996)
An Objection to
Sedevacantism: Paul VI as ‘Patriarch of the West.’ Refutation of an SSPX apologist’s critique of sedevacantism. (Sacerdotium 16, Spring 1996)
Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism
and Frankenchurch. A short case for sedevacantism.
Can one recognize and then ‘resist’ a true pope? The nature of heresy. Ratzinger’s
‘Frankenchurch’ heresy that denies an article of the Creed: I believe in one
Church. (Remnant November 2005)
Sedevacantism Refuted? Some common objections: Conclave rules, public and notorious
heresy, declarations and the Bellarmine “resistance” quote. (Article, August
2004)
Sedevacantism: How to
Tell Aunt Helen. Letter to a priest
about a pastoral approach to the pope issue. (Sacerdotium 15, Autumn 1995)
Traditionalists,
Infallibility and the Pope. How can we
reconcile evil laws with infallibility? Theologians on a heretical pope.
(Booklet 1995)
Thuc, Abp.
Pius XII,
Excommunication, and Traditional Catholic Bishops. It is erroneous to maintain that a 1951 decree and a 1958
encyclical of Pius XII excommunicating bishops in Communist China would apply
to traditional Catholic bishops of our own time. Intro and texts.
The Validity of the Thuc
Consecrations. Examination of 1981
episcopal consecrations of three traditionalist priests by Abp. P.M.
Ngo-dinh-Thuc, retired Archbishop of Hué, Vietnam. (Sacerdotium 3, Spring 1992)
Trad
Controversy
Frankenchurch: A Letter
to the Editor. Despite what
Christopher Ferrara, SSPX, etc. claim, if you believe Paul VI was a true pope,
Vatican II is obligatory. And you can’t use Vincent of Lerins to turn the
magisterium into the doctrinal equivalent of Country Buffet. (Internet, Jan
2006)
The Fraternity of St.
Peter: Some Problems. Sacerdotium 14, Spring 1995)
The Great
Excommunicator. Bp. Clarence Kelly’s
communion rules divide traditional Catholic families and violate canon law.
(Pamphlet, October 2002)
Home Alone? The article that coined the term. ‘Home-Aloners’ are traditionalists
who maintain all traditional chapels are illicit and evil. (Pamphlet, February
1993)
Letter to Ten-Year-Olds
Who Just Want to Be Confirmed. An SSPX
District Superior requires that confirmands from sign a lengthy oath against
Fr. Cekada et al. (Pamphlet, March 1990)
Light on the OSJ. The Order of St. John claims it is the ‘true’ Knights of Malta,
and operates chapels where the traditional Mass is offered. An examination of
its dubious historical claims and ecumenical connections. (Roman Catholic, December 1981)
Mt. St. Michael &
CMRI: Brief Overview. Whatever this
group’s past difficulties may have been, it is wrong to claim that its members
were “schismatic” or “Old Catholic.” (Pamphlet, October 1993)
Sedevacantism and Mr.
Ferrara’s Cardboard Pope. Systematic
refutation of a widely-circulated attack against sedevacantism. Among topics
discussed: ‘absurdity’, dead church, long vacancy of Apostolic See, perpetual
successors, judging the First See, manifest heresy, doctrines denied, heretical
actions, the pope on trial, presumptions of guilt, John XXII and Honorius
cases, right-to-resist-the-pope quotes, Paul IV’s Bull on a heretical pope.
(Internet, August 2005)
(May 2006)