PROBLEMS WITH THE NOVUS ORDO CONSECRATION RITE TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Internet Site E-mail List: traditio@traditio.com, Web Page: http://www.traditio.com Copyright 2001 JM. Reproduction prohibited without authorization. An Open Letter April 18, 2001 From John Menezes (Bombay, India) ...Paul VI completely recast the Church's sacramental rites with the active assistance of six Protestant ministers, men who had no belief in the Mass and Priesthood. Concerning the new 'mass' called the Novus Ordo Missae, it has been represented by the highest theological authorities, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, that : * it teems with insinuations and manifest errors against the Catholic religion; * it dismantles the defences of the Faith; the Real Presence is never alluded to (read with Article 7 of the General Instruction to Missale Romanum) and belief in it is implicitly repudiated; * the celebrant is nothing more than a Protestant minister. These and over a dozen other objections have simply been ignored. On April 6, 1969 Paul VI decreed his revised rites of ordination. 'It was necessary in the revision of the rite to add, delete, or change certain things, either to restore texts to their earlier integrity to make the expressions clearer, or to describe the sacramental effects better' stated Paul VI in his Apostolic Constitution 'Pontificalis Romani Recognitio' of June 18, 1968. Elsewhere, in the same ApostolicConstitution, Paul VI has stated: '...it appeared appropriate to take from ancient sources the consecratory prayer which is found in the documents called the Apostolic Traditions of Hippolytus of Rome, written at the beginning of the third century, and which is still used in large part in the ordination rites of the Coptic and West Syrian liturgies.' By the same Apostolic Constitution Paul VI also revised the ordination rite for priests 'to express', as he would have one believe, 'in sharper light the central part of the ordination…' In the revised rite for priests, every mandatory mention of the power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to bless, and to hear and forgive sins has been excluded. There is a muted reference to these powers in the opening exhortation of the ordaining bishop, but an earlier explanatory note makes the exhortation optional. The Form of the sacrament, confirmed by Pope Pius XII in his constitution ‘Sacramentum Ordinis’ (1947), has been split into two parts with the removal of the Latin word 'ut' (so that), delinking cause (the Spirit of holiness) from effect (the office of second rank), thereby denying that the grace of the Holy Ghost accompanies the sacrament. The new rite for bishops is much more debatable. Contrary to the above-mentioned assertions of Paul VI, the clear specifications of the episcopal power of a Catholic bishop in the traditional rite are excluded in the new rite. The traditional Form of the sacrament, confirmed by Pope Pius XII in 'Sacramentum Ordinis', has been replaced by another one said by Paul VI to be used in large part in the ordination rites of the Coptic and West Syrian liturgies. But if this new Form is placed side by side with the Form contained in the West Syrian Pontifical, one can see very clearly that not only whatever is indicative of episcopal grace in the West Syrian Pontifical has been totally excluded, but that certain essential words in Paul VI's Form are not to be found in the West Syrian Pontifical at all. Indeed, the new Form is so ambiguous that the Episcopal Church of the United States of America, a Protestant Church which does not believe either in the Real Presence or in a priesthood vested with supernatural power, has readily incorporated it into its 1979 Book of Common Prayer for its ordination rite for bishops. Thus it appears that the post-Conciliar Church has no intention of perpetuating the Catholic priesthood or episcopate, but has effectively endorsed the Reformation. It is worthwhile to have a closer look at the new rite and especially the innovations: 1. In the traditional rite, the bishop-elect reads a lengthy oath pledging obedience to the Apostle Peter, the Holy Roman Church, the Pope and his successors, and to honour the Legates of the Apostolic See etc. In the new rite the oath has been replaced with an Instruction of the principal consecrator which is replete with ambiguities and equivocations concerning the ministry of the bishop, his title, rank and duty. Let us consider a few examples. 'Dearly beloved people: Consider carefully the position in the Church to which our brother is about to be promoted' (either all are priests or the ordinand is a layman like the rest). 'So the apostles sent helpers ... and passed on to them the gift of the Holy Spirit ... by an imposition of hands which confers the sacrament of Orders in its fullness' (was the imposition of hands not accompanied by a charge which defined the degree of priesthood? Or did the Apostles make bishops right away ?). 'The title of bishop derives not from his rank but from his duty, and it is the part of the bishop to serve rather than to rule' (whom is the bishop to serve: the errant theologian, the liturgical innovator, the priests' senate, or the marriage annulment tribunal?). 2. Then comes the Examination in both the rites. In the traditional rite the bishop elect vowed, in the new rite he merely resolves. In the former, he vowed obedience to the Pope. In the latter he resolves to remain united to the Church by his link with the order of bishops (being constrained to accept collegiality). In the traditional rite there is an explicit reference to the rank of Bishop. In the new rite, he resolves to carry out the highest duties of the priesthood. (Is the avoidance of the word episcopate a deliberate vitiation of the rite's intention?) In the traditional rite, he vowed to keep with reverence the traditions, decrees, and laws of the Holy See, and to render to Peter subjection and obedience. In the new rite he resolves merely to be loyal in obedience to the successor of St. Peter. (It seems to imply that all that is required now is loyalty to the occupant of the chair of Peter, i.e., to one man, even if such occupant deviates from the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church as the post-Conciliar popes have done.) 3. The traditional rite contained a detailed Profession of Faith on the part of the bishop elect through the interrogation of the consecrator. In the new rite, this Profession is replaced with a question: ‘Are you resolved to maintain the content of faith, entire and uncorrupted as handed down by the apostles and professed by the Church at all times and places?’ (Is the exclusion of a formal Profession of Faith a concession to modern ecumenism and is the substitute resolution a guarantee of the bishop–elect’s orthodoxy in all matters concerning the faith?). 4. In the traditional rite, the Consecrator proclaimed : 'A BISHOP IS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY TO JUDGE, INTERPRET, CONSECRATE, ORDAIN, OFFER, BAPTIZE AND CONFIRM.' In doing so he spelled out the powers of the bishop. In the new rite this specification does not exist, an omission which amounts to an infraction of the bishop's powers. (The excuse for reform was clarification of the rite !) 5. The magnificient Litany of the Saints now stands abridged. 6. The new 'Prayer of Consecration' is in three parts. The first part, recited only by the principal consecrator, reads: 'Father..., your life-giving revelation has laid down rules for your Church, the just people of Abraham upon whom you had set your mark from the beginning: in that Church you have established a government and priesthood so as not to leave your sanctuary without its liturgy; and from the beginning of the world it has pleased you to be glorified by the ministers whom you have chosen'. (This establishes a continuity and equation with the Jewish priesthood which were deliberately excluded and contrasted in the traditional rite.) Thereafter, in the new rite, all the consecrating bishops say: 'Now pour out upon this chosen one that power which flows from you, the perfect Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ, the Spirit whom he gave to the Apostles, who established the Church in every place as the sanctuary where your name would be praised and glorified'. (Indeed, the Holy Spirit is invoked in several of the Church's sacraments. In the new rite, it is bereft of fulfillment; what exact power of the Holy Spirit, which was given to the Apostles, is now sought? It is the power to confirm, to make a deacon, or to raise a priest? Without the specification of a Catholic bishop, without the Profession of Faith, without the vows to entertain reverently, teach and keep the traditions and authoritative enactments of the Apostolic See, what sort of a species is the new bishop?) The sufficiency of the traditional Form, confirmed by Pope Pius XII, in 'Sacramentum Ordinis', in the words: 'Grant Thy priest the plentitude of Thy ministry, i.e., the fullness of the Episcopal office, 'and with the dew of Thy heavenly ointment sanctify him, clad with the ornaments of all that glorifieth', is absent in the new Form despite Pope Pius XII's strong warning: 'No one therefore is allowed to infringe upon this Constitution given by us, nor should anyone dare to have the audacity to contradict it……' In the third part of the new 'Prayer of Consecration' the principal consecrator continues alone to ask the Father to inspire the heart of His servant chosen to be a bishop (with no specification in the Catholic sense and no specific episcopal power; "indeed, he is seen as an 'overseer' rather than one having the 'fullness of the priesthood', to use the words in 'Apostolicae Curae' of Pope Leo XIII), to ask the Spirit to give him power to forgive sins (no longer given in the new rite of ordination of priests, yet exercised nonetheless!) and to invoke the power to loose every bond (which, without the corresponding power to bind, so explicitly stated in both the Roman and West Syrian Pontificals, singularly qualifies the ordinand to be a member of the post-Conciliar demolition squad). 7. The post-Conciliar rite, in not specifying the grace it effects, suffers from the same infirmity which merited the condemnation of the Anglican rite as null and void by Pope Leo XIII in his Bull 'Apostolicae Curae'. The new rite omits the anointing of hands by which the matter of several sacraments is applied. Authority is ignored in the elimination of 'Grant unto him O Lord the Episcopal seat to rule Thy Church and the flock entrusted to him. Be Thou his authority, be Thou his power, be Thou his firmness'. No longer does the handing over of the staff of authority precede the other instruments of office, as in the traditional rite, accompanied by the charge: 'that Thou may be piously severe in the correction of vice, exercising judgement without wrath ... nor abandoning a just severity in mildness'. 8. The Te Deum is optional and is seldom intoned and sung. After all, from the now informal preliminaries of a troupe of dancing girls, and approvals by a cross-section of his flock, a post-Conciliar bishop appears to occupy that office more by the will of his people rather than by the grace of God. 9. Of course, all the post-Conciliar liturgies are concelebrated with piece-meal prayers, a ruse to destroy the notion of a priest or bishop to be acting in the singular person of Christ. ...Paul VI drew inspiration from an anti-pope of the third century, Hippolytus, who separated from Rome because of doctrinal differences and established a schismatic church, but later recanted, returned to the Catholic Church and died a martyr for the Faith; his 'Apostolic Traditions' now employed by Paul VI are believed to have been drawn up for his schismatic sect. The resurrection of the anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer No.2) and the consecratory form of Hippolytus are examples of liturgical archaeologism which was condemned by Pope Pius XII as'wicked' in 'Mediator Del', para 68....