Choose style:
Subscription Options:

One-time Donations:

Author Topic: On the validity of the New Rite for Ordination of Priests (1968)  (Read 6658 times)


I will now treat and refute the incredible nonsense that is spread by Feeneyite Sedevacantists like the Dimond Brothers (claiming to be part of the Order of Saint Benedict). (Feeneyism is worse than sedevacantism in some ways, as it portrays Pius IX´s teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood as heretical. Well I´ll be happy to be an heretic with HH Pope Pius IX.....Sedevacantism is logical, feeneyism - though promoted by often well intentioned Catholics - is illogical and denies historical facts, while sedevacantism is based on speculative teachings of Doctors of the Church and at least several Popes who thought an heretic invalidly occupying the Chair was not a ridiculous impossibility, see Pope Paul IV.)


Their allegation is, that the New Rite for Ordination to the Priesthood of 1968 does not contain the notion of the sacrificing priest, and is therefore definitely invalid.


This is incorrect as I will explain. In the New Rite for Ordination, there is mentioned `sacrifice´, so is the notion of priestly order, which would horrify protestants and still does.



The New Rite for Ordination to the Priesthood (1968), by Paul VI, according to ´Pontificalis Romani´ (18.6.1968)


up Liturgy of the Word

The readings may be taken in whole or in part from the Mass of the day or from special texts. The profession of faith and general intercessions are not said.

1st Reading

Responsorial Psalm

2nd Reading


up Calling of the Candidates

Deacon: Let those to be ordained priest please come forward.

up Presentation of the Candidates

Priest: Most Reverend Father, holy mother Church asks you to ordain these men, our brothers, for service as priests

Bishop: Do you judge them to be worthy?

Priest: After inquiry among the people of Christ and upon recommendation of those concerned with their training, I testify that they have been found worthy.

up Election by the Bishop and Consent of the People

Bishop: We rely on the help of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, and we choose these men, our brothers, for priesthood in the presbyteral order.

up Homily

Bishop may use these words:  
These men, your relatives and friends, are now to be raised to the order of priests. Consider carefully the ministry to which they are promoted.

It is true that God has made his entire people a royal priesthood in Christ. But our High Priest, Jesus Christ, also chose some of his followers to carry out publicly in the Church the priestly ministry in his name on behalf of mankind. He was sent by the Father, and he in turn sent the apostles into the world; through them and their successor, the bishops, he continues his work as Teacher, Priest, and Shepherd. Priests are co-workers of the order of bishops. They are joined to the bishops in the priestly office and are called to serve God's people.

Our brothers have seriously considered this step and are now to be ordained to the priesthood in the presbyteral order. He is to serve Christ the Teacher, Priest, and Shepherd in his ministry which is to make his own body, the Church, grow into the people of God, a holy temple.

They are called to share in the priesthood of the bishops and to be molded into the likeness of Christ, the supreme and eternal Priest. By consecration they will be made true priests of the New Testament, to preach the Gospel, sustain God's people, and celebrate the liturgy, above all, the Lord's sacrifice.

Bishop then addresses the Candidates:  
My sons, you are now to be advanced to the order of the presbyterate. You must apply your energies to the duty of teaching in the name of Christ, the chief Teacher. Share with all mankind the word of God you have received with joy. Meditate on the law of God, believe what you read, teach what you believe, and put into practice what you teach.

Let the doctrine you teach be true nourishment for the people of God. Let the example of your life attract the follower of Christ, so that by word and action you may build up the house which is God's Church.

In the same way you must carry out your mission of sanctifying in the power of Christ. Your ministry will perfect the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful by uniting it to Christ's sacrifice, the sacrifice which is offered sacramentally through your hands. Know what you are doing and imitate the mystery you celebrate. In the memorial of the Lord's death and resurrection, make every effort to die to sin and to walk in the new life of Christ.  
Sorry, but here we have a clear reference to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to which celebration EVEN the conciliar priests are ordained.

When you baptize, you will bring men and women into the people of God. In the sacrament of penance, you will forgive sins in the name of Christ and the Church. With holy oil you will relieve and console the sick. You will celebrate the liturgy, and offer thanks and praise to God throughout the day, praying not only for the people of God but for the whole world. Remember that you are chosen from among God's people and appointed to act for them in relation to God. Do your part in the work Christ the Priest with genuine joy and love, and attend to the concerns of Christ before your own.

Finally, conscious of sharing in the work of Christ, the Head and Shepherd of the Church, and united with the bishop and subject to him, seek to bring the faithful together into a unified family and to lead them effectively, through Christ and in the Holy Spirit, to God the Father. Always remember the example of the good Shepherd who came not to be served but to serve, and to seek out and rescue those who were lost.

up Examination of the Candidates

My sons, before you proceed to the order of the presbyterate, declare before the people your intention to undertake the office.

Are you resolved, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to discharge without fail the office of the priesthood in the presbyteral order as a conscientious fellow worker with the bishops in caring for the Lord's flock?

Candidates: I am

Are you resolved to celebrate the mysteries of Christ faithfully and religiously as the Church has handed them down to us for the glory of God and the sanctification of God's people?

Candidates: I am

Are you resolved to exercise the ministry of the word worthily and wisely, preaching the Gospel and explaining the Catholic faith?

Candidates: I am

Are you resolved to consecrate your life to God for the salvation of his people, and to unite yourself more closely to every day to Christ the High Priest, who offered himself for us to the Father as a perfect sacrifice?

Candidates: I am, with the help of God

up Promise of Obedience

Do you promise respect and obedience to me and my successors?

Candidates: I do

May God who has begun the good work in you bring it to fulfillment.

up Invitation to Prayer

My dear people, let us pray, that the all-powerful Father may pour out the gifts of heaven on these servants of his, whom he has chosen to be priest.

up Litany of Saints

Deacon: Let us kneel

Litany - Candidates are prostrate

Bishop concludes:  
Hear us, Lord our God  
and pour out on these servants of yours  
the blessing of the Holy Spirit  
and the grace and power of the priesthood.  
In your sight we offer these men for ordination:  
support him with your unfailing love.  
The notion of grace which is conferred by the sacrament is explicitly mentioned in the rite!

We ask this through Christ our Lord.  

Deacon: Let us stand

up Laying on of Hands

One by one the candidates go to the bishop and kneel before him. The bishop lays hands on the head of each, in silence.

Next all the priests present, wearing stoles, lay their hands upon the candidates in silence.

up Prayers of Consecration

Candidates kneel before the bishop.

Come to our help,  
Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God;  
you are the source of every honor and dignity,  
of all progress and stability.  
You watch over the growing family of man  
by your gift of wisdom and your pattern of order.  
When you had appointed high priests to rule  
    your people,  
you chose other men next to them in rank and dignity  
to be with them and to help them in their task;  
and so there grew up  
the ranks of priests and the office of levites,  
established by sacred rites.  
This clearly refers to Sacrificial Service, to which the Priests of the New Testament are ordained and called. Sacred rites, and chosen from the priestly people. 

In the desert  
you extended the spirit of Moses to seventy wise men  
who helped him to rule the great company of his  
You shared among the sons of Aaron  
the fullness of their father's power,  
to provide worthy priests in sufficient number  
for the increasing rites of sacrifice and worship.  
With the same loving care  
your gave companions to your Son's apostles  
to help in teaching the faith;  
they preached the Gospel to the whole world.

grant also to us such fellow workers,  
we are weak and our need greater.
Ordaining Bishop:
Almighty Father,  
grant to these servants of yours  
the dignity of the priesthood.  
Renew within them the Spirit of holiness.  
As co-workers with the order of bishops  
may they be faithful to the ministry  
that they receive from you, Lord God,  
and be to others a model of right conduct.
The dignity of the priesthood, the link to the Order of bishops, ministery and the spirit of holiness, are all present in the Old Rite for Consecration. Except for the `ut` the Latin Version of the New Rite is exactly the same as the one Pope Pius XII declared essential for validity in 1947. And the Leonine Sacramentary of the 4th century ´lacks´ "ut". This most definitely is valid. It specifies what grace is conferred by the laying on of hands. This is why most sedevacantists are silent about the New Rite of Ordination, as it is definitely valid.
May they be faithful in working with the order of  
so that the words of the Gospel may reach the ends of  
    the earth,  
and the family of nations,  
made one in Christ,  
may become God's one, holy people.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,  
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,  
one God, for ever and ever.  

up Investiture with Stole and Chasuble

The assisting priests puts a stole and then chasuble on the newly ordained.

up Anointing of Hands

The Father amointed our Lord Jesus Christ  
through the power of the Holy Spirit.  
May Jesus preserve you to sanctify the Christian  
and to offer sacrifice to God.


up Presentation of the Gifts

The deacon assists the bishop in receiving the gifts of the people and he prepares the bread on a paten and the wine and water in the chalice for the celebration of Mass. He brings the paten and chalice to the bishop, who hands them to the new priests as he kneels before him.

Accept from the holy people of God the gifts to be
    offered to Him.  
Know what you are doing, imitate the mystery you
model your life on the mystery of the Lord's cross.


This clearly tells the priests, that they celebrate the Mystery of the Lord´s Cross in the Eucharist, and thus thé sacrifice. They are destined to be a sacrificing priesthood. By the tradition of chalice, paten and bread and wine along with ´the gifts to be offered to Him´, is clearly indicated, that the Eucharist they should celebrate is a sacrifice. If they celebrate the Lord's Cross, which is taught here, then these "conciliar" priests are ordained to offer the sacrifice. For the Cross is intrinsically thé sacrifice.

up Kiss of Peace

Bishop: Peace be with you.

Priest: And also with you.

up Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Continue with the Liturgy of the Eucharist



Of course we now have seen, that during the entire Ceremony several references have been made to the Mystery of the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, they should imitate the mystery they celebrate, the mystery of the Lord´s Cross, which clearly was and ís a Sacrifice.


The claim of the Dimond Brothers, that sacrifice is done away with, is really too ridiculous to speak of.


Of course there are serious changes and quite some New World Order language in this rite (´the world become one people´), and we should hold on to the Old Rite, but it is sufficiently proven, that there is clear reference to sacrifice, the sacrifice of the Eucharist etc. and that the priesthood is a separate sacramental order, and not equal to the common priesthood of all Christians (Catholics).


This Rite specifies and tells what Sacramental grace it confers and what priests should (forgive sins, celebrate the sacrifice of the Cross).


Non-sacramental defects are the new world order language, the description of Extreme Unction (which is not about mere consolation, but also forgives sins of - seriously -  sick!).


The very word priest in the entire west indicates that it´s about a sacred minister who offers sacrifice to God or the gods.


The condemnation of Anglican ordinal by H.H. Pope Leo XIII was because there was no mentioning of sacrifice in the entire Anglican rite, AND especially because before the 17th century the ordinal had not even contained the words ´presbyter´ or ´priest´ nor that of episcopus or ´bishop´. The Anglican rite does not speak of consecration, celebrating the Lord´s Cross by own hands and offering the Sacrifice. That´s why it is invalid. But the Post-Conciliar rite dóés! It does speak of sacrifice, of the equation of the sacrifice of the Cross and the Eucharist, about the link and difference between bishops and priests, about separate class of priests, about supernatural grace etc. etc. Therefore it is valid. Of course the entire essential form would suffice normally, as it is the essential form (without ut) which Pope Pius XII declared essential for validity. It´s the old Leonine sacramentary form.


Yes, validly consecrated bishops and priests are spreading modernism now, just as in the days of St. Pius X. They promote and engage in apostasy, as did the bishops of the Reformation and the Anglican Schism.


We still have lots of validly consecrated bishops (of before 1968) who are still hardened Neo-Modernists. I know a VALID old Dutch bishop who dresses in suit and tie and promotes modernism and a modernist lay movement composed of old-ages pensioneers (the fifth colonne in the 1970s).


It´s valid clergymen destroying the Church. A mystery, yet it is true. And please remember, that all the participants in Vatican II were validly consecrated clergy, who all celebrated the Traditional Latin Tridentine Rite (Old) Mass, at times even with much devotion. The same Joseph Kardinal Frings who piously consecrated the German Empire to the Blessed Mother in 1954 while kneeling and reciting an entire Rosary, put forth Hans Küng, De Lubac and even Joseph Ratzinger (sad to say), who at the Council were ultra-modernists. In 1964 he rejected all Marian devotion as unecumenical and rejected the Immaculate Heart.

The same man. An old validly consecrated Cardinal of Pius XII in golden robes and with a staff of silver. Who brilliantly sung the preface and 1000s of times kissed holy relics in the altar stones all over the world.

The same validly consecrated Cardinal-bishop of Cologne, forced upon his flock radical liturgical changes and the vernacular, while under anti-modernist Pope Pius XII he had still lauded Latin and the universal Latin spoken Roman Rite Mass. Cardinal Frings in public speeches told how touched he was, that in the Japanese capital of Japan in 1957 he was able to faithfully communicate with fellow Catholics who spoke an Asian native language. He said he was touched by pious Japanese attending his Latin Roman Rite Mass and praying in the same way as he would do in the magnificent cathedral of Cologne. This valid Bishop, and there were thousands like him, after the Council implemented harmful liturgical changes which shocked the people and protestantized their Eucharistic understanding.



Sometimes I fear, that for all the time before Vatican II and the catastrophe to the Church, many bishops simply were apparatchniks simply serving the Holy See, but with little personal conviction and internal Faith in Jesus Christ. How could it be explained, that so many turned from anti modernist Marian bishops to openly ecumaniacal promoters of modernist revolutions.......


Of course many old bishops silently resisted and you still had many priests resisting, but after all only a remnant, many of them old bishops (Cardinal Spellman) or dying ones (Bp. Blasius Schutz OFM).


May I also remind you, that Hans Küng is a validly ordained priest (1954), who during his studies in seminary CONFESSED DAILY to a good and holy priest, sometimes even SEVERAL TIMES PER DAY! And yet he fell and continues to promote the One World Religion by his Weltethos Stiftung (for which he was praised by no one less than pope Benedict XVI).


It comes to my mind, that the opposition to the validity of the Conciliar Rites of Consecration, Ordination, Penance and Extreme Unction, by sedevacantists is primarily ´caused´ by the necessity they feel, that all these modernists and all these abuses can´t possibly be done by valid ministers and to valid sacraments. Yet it was, and it will be done. The Dutch bishop mentioned above beautifully blessed the people in Latin in 1958 and he knelt in deep adoration in front of the consecrated Host of His Pontifical Masses in the early 1960s. But nowadays he takes grape juice, sits on a wheel chair next to a wooden table and distributes loaves of ordinary bread with the words: "Sign of the Bread of Love" or "Bread made by Jesus". (Of course this is invalid.) The same man. With the same eternally lasting sacramental episcopal potential marked upon his soul and being.


I once heard one of the sedevacantists say: "I am glad the New Mass is always invalid, because otherwise al these desecrated visible particles would be truly desecrated in  horrible ways." But with the New Mass sometimes we can theoretically still have a valid Mass, especially if Eucharistic Prayer I is used in which the intention of propitiatory sacrifice is made clear unequivocally. Of course many New Masses are invalid: defect of intention if the rite is altered on purpose, defect of form if the Words of Consecration are totally mutilated (they already contain the ´for all´ error), and often in the USA defect of matter, because non-fermented grape juice is used or even other beverages, along with fermented ordinary parts of bread. But many ´reverend´ Novus Ordo´s can be theoretically valid, if the priest offering it has the firm intention. Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci indicated that the New Mass in future might produce invalid Masses, because its definition and its being stripped of sacrificial elements, would produce a state of ignorance on what the Sacrifice should be. But they could not say: it is in all cases. When I told the sedevacantist that we cannot say it is always invalid, he went mad. He thought the Lord would not permit such desecration. Yet the Lord does permit it (He is patient and His perfect justice will come anyway, no need to hurry). His true Body and Blood are desecrated for centuries by satanists during so-called ´black masses´.


And all kinds of schismatic, heretic and gnostic sects still have validly ordained clergymen.


God permits descrecatio in divinis. We might want to look away, or create our own world in which we dismiss such sacraments as ´invalid because illicit´, yet in reality it is ´perfectly valid though illicit´. Like this a Novus Ordo very ´conservative´ older lady whom I have known for long (whom I respect) said to me: "You go to the priests of Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre. (...) That not good. That´s NOT VALID!" She wanted the celebrations by the ´Lefebvrist´ priests to be invalid, yet they are totally valid, even the Vatican and all other denominations acknowledge that. They are more valid than the average Novus Ordo in America even in Vatican eyes, because the Holy See for numerous times addressed defect of matter in American novus ordo liturgies (even by bishops).


Do you understand now.


Neo-Modernism and total apostasy do not mean sacramental invalidity. Not even if it is deemed to be more appropriate by us humanely thinking faithful who piously think the Sacramental Holy Orders should in some way protect from decay and heresy. Pious thought, yet irrealistic and certainly not a point of Faith.


The Conciliar Rites are valid. At least those for Consecration of Bishops and Ordination to the Priesthood, along with Confirmation, Penance and Marriage and Extreme Unction (though often administered invalidly). The New Eucharistic liturgy has serious defects in several cases, though should be valid too normally speaking, at least with Euch. Prayer I (rarely used).

„Ja, Ja, wie Gott es will. Gott lohne es Euch. Gott schütze das liebe Vaterland. Für Ihn weiterarbeiten... oh, Du lieber Heiland!” ("Yes, Yes, as God wills it. May God repay it to you. May God protect the dear fatherland. Go on working for him... oh, you dear Savior!") - Clemens August Cardinal von Galen, his last words.


Abp. Lefebvre clearly taught, that the new rite in itself is perfectly valid. Of course this does not mean, that liturgical creations that with protestant intention erase and adapt the integral rite and eradicate all reference to sacrifice are equally valid. My experience is however that during ordinations this rite is still followed.

„Ja, Ja, wie Gott es will. Gott lohne es Euch. Gott schütze das liebe Vaterland. Für Ihn weiterarbeiten... oh, Du lieber Heiland!” ("Yes, Yes, as God wills it. May God repay it to you. May God protect the dear fatherland. Go on working for him... oh, you dear Savior!") - Clemens August Cardinal von Galen, his last words.


Abp Lefevbre taught something concerning this?


I did not know he was an authority whose word on any subject was owed assent, or that he could be relied upon as the voice of divine authority or its interpreter.  If it came from a true pope, it is necessarily valid.  If it is invalid, it could not have come from a true pope.


As an aside, Abp Lefevbre and the society also taught that "more and more" NOM's are becoming invalid due to the ever-increasing defect of intention of the minister.  Holy Mother Church has taught that She Herself does not presume to judge the intention of individual ministers.

"Pray the Rosary every day."
"Pray, and do not worry."


  • Guest
On the validity of the New Rite for Ordination of Priests (1968)
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2005, 01:36:pm »

She does not/did not presume to judge, when the rite makes it clear what the intention is, so that a heretic could not in good conscience say the Mass. However, the new rite does not have these assurances, so if it is presumed valid, which it is for the sake of the discussion here, then it one must be able to question the intentions of the minister. It is simply prudence and common sense, because more and more of the priests are becoming liberal protestants at heart. Now tell me. If you were at your TLM, and the priest, over the course of a few months of conversations, made it very clear that his thinking had gone from Catholic to Protestant, he started skipping prayers, changing the words, dancing around at the altar, after consecration, he called the matter that he'd "consecrated" "the breads" and "the wines" and told people to "come and get it," in short, he made it very clear that he rejected the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and the idea of a sacrifice. It would be absolutely foolish then to say "Yes, but I'm still going to recieve from him, his masses are unquestionably valid." He couldn't do all the above shenanigans in the Traditional Rite, but he certainly could in the Novus Ordo.




It was not the SSPX nor Abp. Lefebvre saying, that in future ever more Novus Ordo celebrations simply can't be valid.


Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci and other Roman professors wrote so in teh Ottaviani Intervention criticizing the Bugnini New Rite for Mass.


It was not the SSPX.


Were Ottaviani and Bacci wrong on this? Of course not. Eric perfectly explained it.


A heretic priest like Hans Küng would validly celebrate Mass, if he used the Tridentine Missal integrally, because then he would clearly do what the Church wants him to do, that is the Church would supply his intention.


It may seem Ottaviani were making validity dependent upon the faith of the minister, but in fact he did not say that, he indicated that the supplying of intention was stopped due to the protestant definition of the New Mass by the first 1969 missal.

„Ja, Ja, wie Gott es will. Gott lohne es Euch. Gott schütze das liebe Vaterland. Für Ihn weiterarbeiten... oh, Du lieber Heiland!” ("Yes, Yes, as God wills it. May God repay it to you. May God protect the dear fatherland. Go on working for him... oh, you dear Savior!") - Clemens August Cardinal von Galen, his last words.


The thing distinguished here is the intention of the framers of a rite, vs that of an individual minister.

BTW, the SSPX does in fact base its invalidity argument on the intention of the individual ministers (saying their formation is becoming so unorthodox, etc). Ottaviani and Bacci were talking about the intention of the framers, which is exactly what Apostolicae Curae focused on.


If the rite is good, and if the man has the powers, his intention is presumed to be correct (to do what the Church does) unless he specifically expresses otherwise.

"Pray the Rosary every day."
"Pray, and do not worry."


No, Ottaviani and Bacci based themselves upon the faith and education of the future minister too. They said in their Intervention, that in future this New Rite might be invalid, because the minister will define the Mass after the heretical definition of Bugnini and his commission (1969 Institutio Generalis, which was "corrected" - that further ambiguified - in 1971 by saying it was a Meal ánd a "Eucharistic Sacrifice", so both prot and Cath could make of it what they want too. ANd in fact they do.)


The New Mass is on top of that not always invalid. While the "offertory" prayers of the New Rite might be totally protestant, e.g. when the First Eucharistic Prayer is used, the matter is validly consecrated, because the minister explicitly says he is celebrating this sacrifice for redemption of living ánd dead.

„Ja, Ja, wie Gott es will. Gott lohne es Euch. Gott schütze das liebe Vaterland. Für Ihn weiterarbeiten... oh, Du lieber Heiland!” ("Yes, Yes, as God wills it. May God repay it to you. May God protect the dear fatherland. Go on working for him... oh, you dear Savior!") - Clemens August Cardinal von Galen, his last words.


I thank you, HMiS, for your timely, clear and charitable replies. 


Frankly, I believe the NOM is invalid in all its forms, even the Latin, due to a serious defect of form (with multis in the Latin, the argument against it is clearly focused on another defect). I am not trying to go into that now, but I thought you might like to know where I stand. I believe the consecration form is no good, and if this is so, it of course renders all discussion of other points objectively unnecessary (for St. Peter himself could not consecrate validly without a valid form).


You correctly say the original definition of the NOM was heretical. I wonder how it is possible for the spotless bride of Christ to heretically define His Sacrifice?  If the definition originally given was heretical, to the point of needing a change (which, as you say, was not really helpful), what are we to think now?  What I mean is this: there was a (pseudo-)change in the definition, but they changed nothing in the NOM itself, which was created by the same men who heretically defined the 'Mass'. 

"Pray the Rosary every day."
"Pray, and do not worry."


Dear username,


The Novus Ordo Missae is only valid if:


1) correct matter is used

2) the intention is not that of the makers of the rite, but that of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.

3) correct form is used.


If eucharistic prayer I in its Latin form is used, not even a sedevacantist can say it is invalid, as the words of Consecration clearly suffice for a valid sacrament. Despite his great contributions to traditionalism, the theory of Patrick Olmor, that no Mystery of the Faith means the Mass is invalid in the Latin rite, is nonsense theologically speaking and not meant by "De Defectibus".


The fact is, that during the Novus Ordo Mass often the priest makes a contrary intention statement, though this is not incorporated in the Rite itself.


What I find hard, unprofessional, uncharitable and dishonest about the sedevacantists' arguments about the invalidity of "all" "New Sacraments" (except for Baptism and marriage), is that in one situation they argue that the sacrament is invalid because of things ex adjunctis, like in the Priestly Ordination Rite discussion, but in the Episcopal Consecration Rite of 1968 refuse to accept arguments about the form ex adjunctis. This is highly improfessional.


E.g. Fr. Jenkins of the SSPV does not have this "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" odour around himself, and argues with theological arguments; he considers it  a possibility that the new rites for Mass, ordination and episcopal consecration may be valid (New Mass only in some situations), like new confirmation etc. But he doubts it, because he has doubts about Paul VI's orthodoxy.


Constantly I am appalled by the Dogmatic Definitions individual sedevacantists make out of their own Situation Interpretation. A thing which ís protestant. Almost all do in some way. And it's ugly, because that would - justly so - scare off any sincere Roman Catholic. In fact, those sedevacantists and sedeprivationists (materialiter-formaliter) who dó charitably argue on sound theological basis and who take into consideration that most Novus Ordo people follow their shepherds in good faith, have gained some Novus Ordo priests (conditionally re-ordained).


But the often justified theological criticism of the sedevacantists towards Neo-modernist "Rome" are obscured by and even made incredible by:


1) Intra-sedevacantist dispute over sacramental validity. While I think no sede should have something to do with the Duarte Costa line (which is valid), one should accept the (clarified) Thuc, Lefebvre and Mendez line. But these three constantly battle among each other.


2) Polemical emotionalism and insults towards the conciliar clergy (from pastor to Pope), which is highly unprofessional and uncharitable.


3) Independency and those saying there are no longer "Romish" Catholics, while we are and should be. We are ROMAN CATHOLICs (not "Roman" Modernists or Ecumenists), but never can we separate the Eternal Catholic Church from the See of Peter, no matter how you consider the situation of that Holy Apostolic See at the moment (Sede Vacante, sede privata or Sede plena).


4) I attend a chapel with Lefebvre line clergy which is run by mostly sedevacantists, though all kinds of traditionalists come over.

„Ja, Ja, wie Gott es will. Gott lohne es Euch. Gott schütze das liebe Vaterland. Für Ihn weiterarbeiten... oh, Du lieber Heiland!” ("Yes, Yes, as God wills it. May God repay it to you. May God protect the dear fatherland. Go on working for him... oh, you dear Savior!") - Clemens August Cardinal von Galen, his last words.


Quote from: HMiS


The Novus Ordo Missae is only valid if:

2) the intention is not that of the makers of the rite, but that of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.

3) correct form is used.


If eucharistic prayer I in its Latin form is used, not even a sedevacantist can say it is invalid, as the words of Consecration clearly suffice for a valid sacrament. Despite his great contributions to traditionalism, the theory of Patrick Olmor, that no Mystery of the Faith means the Mass is invalid in the Latin rite, is nonsense theologically speaking and not meant by "De Defectibus".


The fact is, that during the Novus Ordo Mass often the priest makes a contrary intention statement, though this is not incorporated in the Rite itself.




If the NOM is a rite of Holy Mother Church, the intention of the framers and of said Church are identical. If the intentions of said Church are different from those of the framers of the rite, is the rite a rite of Holy Mother Church or not?


Likewise, the intentions of the framers are unavoidable if one is using the rite they framed. The two are inseparable. By the logic presented, a priest could use an heretical rite framed by non-Catholics, but somehow still validly consecrate (provided he had this double-mind business going and used a valid form). The correct form is the one from the Catechism of Trent and De Defectibus, which all admit is different from the NOM, even prayer I in Latin (which is almost never used).


I happen to think Omlor makes better arguments, theologically based arguments, than any other present contributor. He may be wrong, but no one has yet shown him to be so. To say it is nonsense is one thing, to prove it another. I realize that was not your goal, but thought I should mention it.


I am unsure of your meaning about NO priests often making contrary intention statements in their "masses", even though it is not incorporated into the rite.


As for the lamentable infighting among sedes, I agree. However, it is to be expected if they are correct (just as children will fight among themselves when the parents are out). In fact, the present situation, with sedes and non-sedes, is a strong argument from experience that the V2 popes are impostors, since a pope is by definition the principle of unity in the Church.


"Pray the Rosary every day."
"Pray, and do not worry."

Subscription Options:

One-time Donations: