OLMC focuses again on validity only?

This thread was referenced in Cathinfo ( www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/no-archbishop-ambrose-videos/15/)

This was a post made on that thread following this reference:

Quote from: Maria Regina on July 13, 2019, 12:04:57 PM

Questions Directed to Fr. Pfeiffer and/or OLMC Supporters
July 13, 2019
Posted by Tony La Rosa
For the background of the following questions, please refer to this thread on The Catacombs Forum.
1) Why did Fr. Pfeiffer have Fr. Poisson conditionally ordained by Ambrose Moran if Fr. Pfeiffer believes that the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid?
2) If Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop, and since he conditionally ordained Fr. Poisson, why is the argument now directed towards proving the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration?
3) If Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop, what is the paperwork problem that now prevents Fr. Pfeiffer from using Ambrose Moran to ordain the OLMC seminarians?
4) If there is a now a paperwork problem that prevents Fr. Pfeiffer from using Ambrose Moran to ordain the OLMC seminarians, why was this paperwork problem not a problem at the time that Fr. Pfeiffer used Ambrose Moran to conditionally ordain Fr. Poisson?

www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2019/07/13/questions-directed-to-fr-pfeiffer-and-or-olmc-supporters/


RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE OF PIERRE MARIE IN SAL DE LA TERRE[1]


One is surprised to find a official journal of the Society of Pius X coming to the defense of the post-Conciliar Church in regard to the matter under consideration (The validity of the post-Conciliar Sacrament of Orders) especially as it is rumored that Father Schmidberger of the SSPX, and the Abbe Gaudron from the Priory FSSPX were collaborators in the production.[2] All this only goes to support my contention that the SSPX and the FSSPX are nothing more than conservative cults associated with the Novus Ordo establishment. Be this as it may, I find their contention that they have proven me to be in error and that the new post-Conciliar rites for consecrating Bishops is truly Catholic is highly questionable.

It is of interest that the author(s) inform us that after the close of the Second Vatican Council, the Sacrament of Orders was the first rite that the reformers wished to “Aggiornamentalize.” The post-Conciliar modernists immediately struck at the heart of the matter by attempting to destroy the Apostolic succession The very idea of “updating” the Churches rites smells of heretical intent. There had been a perfectly adequate rite in use for some 17 centuries – and indeed as the authors point out in one of their foot notes, that the use of the traditional rite can be traced back to the third century, and was therefore as ancient as the rite of Hippolytus (also Third century) that they took as their supposed model. Now Hippolytus was a excommunicated schismatic when he wrote the Apostolic Tradition, though through the grace of God, he died reconciled to the Church as a martyr along with Pope Pontianus I in the Sardinian salt mines. The only possible reason creating a new Sacrament of Orders was to introduce new and different ideas and beliefs about the nature of Orders, or to create a rite that was mutually acceptable to the Protestants. In this of course they were quite successful.

And why should we need such changes – only 20 years previously Pope Pius XII had promulgated his Sacramentum ordinis which specified the traditional rite unchanged and stated the proper rite to be used and added:

"We teach, declare, and determine this, all persons not withstanding, no matter what special dignity they may have, and consequently we wish and order such in the Roman Pontifical... No one therefore is allowed to infringe upon this Constitution given by us, nor should anyone dare to have the audacity to contradict it..."

One might point out that highly respected theologians and Canonists such as Herve and Capello considered this to be de fide.

What is shocking and indeed scandalous is that in Pierre Marie’s defense of the new rite, appeal is made to the involvement of such notorious individuals as Anibale (Freemason) Bugnini, The “red” Cardinal Lecaro and Dom Botte whose linguistic confusions are spelled out in my original paper. Clearly the author(s) are happy to sleep with strange bedfellows.

Now in my original paper I provided the Syrian-Antiochian rite for comparison with the new post-Conciliar rite and showed that it neither contained the phrase spiritus principalis, nor had much in common with the supposed Hippolytian rite. My source was the Pontifical of the Antiochean Syrians, Part II, printed in 1952, (Sharfe, Lebanon), and carries the Imprimatur of Ignatius Gabriel Cardinal Tappuni, Syrian Patriarch of Antioch. This is the rite used by the Coptic and West Syrian Liturgies. I also provided the consecratory prayer promulgated by Paul VI. It is taken from the new rite in English as used in the United States. I stated that the phrase spiritus principalis is not used in any of the traditional rites, in accord with my primary source, Bishop Kendrick’s The Validity of Anglican Ordinations which in the appendix gives various ordination rites

The authors have found other Coptic and Syrian rites that apparently contain the phrase spiritus principalis. Their source is a book by Paul Cogin’ Anaphore Apostolique and Denzinger’s Ritus Orintalium which were at the time of my writing unavailable to me. I have subsequently obtained these and their existence in no way vitiates my contention that the validity of the new rite is dubious. Let me explain:

In Paul VI’s new rite the essential form is specific and contains the phrase spiritus principalis. It is the only reference to spiritus used during the time when the ordaining Bishop places his hands on the ordinand’s head, and hence the only “spiritus” transferred. In the Coptic, Syrian and other rites Pierre Marie refers to, the entire consecrating prayer is said while the ordaining Bishop places his hands on the ordinand’s head. Hence the spiritus principalis is transferred – but also the Spiritus Sanctus (which is capitalized unlike spiritus principalis). Hence it follows that a true and proper consecration with the Holy Spirit occurs. In addition, by the use of the entire consecrating prayer, the problem of Significatio Ex Adjunctis is also to a great extent obviated. (The other parts of the rite also obviate it).

Moreover, Bugnini et al, by introducing the various changes into the Roman rite, have opened the ecumenical door as is demonstrated by the fact that the Anglicans (according to the authors) are now using this rite in consecrating their “bishops.”

The authors further raise an interesting point which I had not considered in detail – namely the issue of the “intention” of the rite. Despite their attempts to void this matter, they discuss the implications of collegiality which the new rite allows for. They argue that the Church had altered aspects of the traditional rite in the 12th century to preclude any such understanding or limitation on the Pope’s authority and that therefore the new rite in opening the door to collegiality did not involve accepting any real change in doctrine. Now if the embracing of collegiality by Vatican II is not a change in doctrine, than words have lost their meaning.

The authors also raise the issue of Archbishop Levebre’s position. Now it is well known that Archbishop Lefebvre held that all the new Sacraments were “in se” valid. While I am not at all sure what he means by the term “in se,” but what confuses me is why the SSPX fails to use all the new Sacraments which they claim to be valid and which the Pope whose authority they recognize wishes them to use. This of course raises yet another issue which is outside of the scope of this response.

The authors also claim that Cardinal Ottaviani gave his approval, and indeed showed his pleasure in the new rite. The source of this is the Memoires of Cardinal (Freemason) Bugnini whose reliability is certainly questionable. In view of the fact that Ottaviani was virtually blind and advantage was taken of this to get him to sign a letter approving of the Novus Ordo Missae, would allow us to at least question Bugnini’s veracity.

Finally, in conclusion, I hold that all the contentions of my original paper stand as completely valid. Paul VI did not really copy the fullness of an Eastern rites as used among some Copts or Syrians, but only picked out a most dubious phrase from them, a phrase which would please the Protestants. It follows that in Paul VI’s rite, the Holy Spirit as such is never transferred to the ordinand as it is within the Coptic, Syrian and Catholic rites Moreover, for some strange reason, he chose to take this dubious phrase from the Copts who are Monophysites as are the Marionite-Jacoobites.[3]

Clearly the new rite for Orders is totally dependent upon the dubious phrase spiritus principalis and apart from its other defects, remains is of questionable validity. As the true Church teaches, a dubious Sacrament is no Sacrament at all.


Rama Coomaswamy, M.D., +


[1] An English language translation of this article is available from the Society of Pius X journal, The Angelus, Dec., 2005.
[2] Correspondance with Philippe Bourcier de Carbon.
[3] This heresy denies that there are two wills in Christ. Now if such is the case, Christ was not “true man,” and our salvation through Him is not possible. One must be careful to distinguish between the “Western” Marionites who are united to Rome and the so-called “Eastern” Marionites who are Jacobites.
Logged