I was working on a response to Bataar, and when I submitted my post I found out that the thread was deleted I would really like Bataar to respond to my post, so I have reproduced it below the following is what was written on the original thread Bataar wrote..... Hello, I'm new to the forum and am hoping you can help me with a serious question. If anyone can help me debunk this, I'd appreciate it. It has come to my attention that some traditional Catholics consider modern bishops to be invalid. In summary, Pope Piux XII infallibly 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. For conferring the episcopacy, Pius XII designated as the sacramental form a sentence in the traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration that univocally expresses the power of the Order that a bishop receives and the grace of the Holy Ghost. Pope Paul VI changed the form in 1968. 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. The new form fails to meet two criteria for the form for Holy Orders laid down by Pius XII. Because the term governing Spirit is capable of signifying many different things and persons, it does not univocally signify the sacramental effect. 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.” For these reasons, the new form constitutes a substantial change in the meaning of the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy. A substantial change in the meaning of a sacramental form, according to the principles of sacramental moral theology, renders a sacrament invalid. Bataar, Today at 10:00 AMReport#1Like+ QuoteReply Dolours answered There are lots of responses to the sedevacantist accusations about the Rite of Sacred Ordination approved by Pope Paul V1. An internet search should help you find answers to your questions. Bataar responded I've tried looking online and I can't find any non-sedevacantist sites that address this. I'm a traditional Catholic attending an FSSP church and the thought that the priests there might not be actual priests because they were ordained by a false bishop is definitely concerning. Don D responds, Have you tried asking your priest? ¡Viva Cristo Rey! And then my post. Hi Dolours, Don and Bataar, In the 1990's I asked my wonderful Catholic parish priest a question about the Anglican/Episcopalian priesthood. From memory I think my question was in regard to the invalidity of the priesthood of the Anglican priesthood. Father answered the question in the affirmative but then he added the following, which I did not expect (I wish I could remember all the details); he conveyed that in the 1940's there was a group of Anglican seminarians who did not have an Anglican bishop to ordain them for some reason; so the head of the seminary asked a Roman Catholic Bishop if he would ordain these seminarians, a healthy payment was also offered for this service. This Catholic Bishop accepted the offer and ordained these Anglican seminarians! I know I was gob smacked at the time of the conversation, and I protested; I stated that these Anglican seminarians would not really be authentically ordained, but father said "well who knows, they received their sacred priestly orders from a Roman Catholic Bishop!" I then stated," well if they were truly ordained and had the ordination power to bring the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus to their altars, then it is an extreme shame that the church going Anglicans of that time had no idea that Jesus was truly present on their altars! I also stated that these ordinations powers given to these seminarians, would die out with them, and Father agreed. It is interesting to note that this occurred during the reign of Pope Pius XII
I've only just realised something about myself and that is...... I think I must dislike being an apologist for the truth! I dislike having to be on the defensive. I much prefer to be on the offensive! I also believe, The Truth must be proclaimed! not defended. When some person decides they can undermine the truth, something inside me, takes hold of my soul and says 'Truth has been sabotaged and what are you doing?..... you are to defend truth! This happens and I normally turn away from all confrontation and so I let my Lord down. If I respond to this (defend the truth word) I hope I am doing this appropriately, because most people are innocently lost in a world of lies, and hopefully I am gentle and draw them in Love to reality but if a person is self satisfied and arrogant with error, I know in hindsight by my responses that I normally approach by placing a conundrum before them to highlight the truth. May God forgive me if I offend anyone of His children. In the case above and for all sedivacanist , the simple fact is Pope Paul VI exercised his God given right to effect the episcopal consecration with a prayer that certainly does specify the power of the Order however different from the former! Does the Pope have this right? Jesus says he does! Matthew 16: 17-19 17 Jesus replied, 'Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. 18 So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: 'whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'
When I read the original post the other day, that very thought crossed my mind about Pope Paul VI having the right to change things. Thank you Josephite
