Rorate Caeli

The "Question" of Lutheran Orders

One of the bugaboos of advanced Catholic ecumenists is the widespread "misperception," as they might put it, that the Council of Trent declared Lutheran orders to be invalid. Their ultimate goal is for the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation to officially declare themselves to be in full communion, without any reordinations of Lutheran ministers by Catholic bishops. They lament that too many Catholics still automatically assume the absence of true holy orders in the Lutheran church. So they are at pains to point out, and in fact correctly, that Trent did not declare Protestant orders to be invalid. It only said that those who were not "rightly" (rite ) ordained and not sent by canonical authority, are not lawful ministers of the Word and sacraments. Notice that the end of the passage does not conclude saying these men are not valid ministers. Rite in this passage does not have to refer to the sacramental validity of an ordination, but can signify its having been conferred in accord with the canons or with the authorization of a legitimate superior. Our modern enthusiasts for the validity of Lutheran orders conclude therefore that the ordinations conferred by early Lutheran leaders were at most illicit, without prejudice to their possible validity.

But another plank is needed in their argument for the validity of Lutheran orders, since generally it was at most simple priests (like Luther himself) who ordained pastors for "reformed" congregations. And so ecumenists have brought forth an old theological question as to whether a simple priest can validly ordain under certain circumstances. There are in fact some ambiguous texts from past centuries, including a famous letter from the Pope to an abbot in England, which on their face seem to imply precisely that. On the other hand, these rare texts can also be explained differently, since the word "ordain" can also signify something like an authoritative designation of someone for the office of the priesthood without implying that the same authority would sacramentally lay on hands. At any rate, some ecumenists think they have gotten the camel's nose under the tent with this one: they argue that, in accord with the rare historical precedents as they see them, a simple priest can ordain in a situation of necessity, and that 16th century reformed congregations were in a state of necessity, having been condemned by Rome and the bishops. Oh yes, they admit, we Catholics officially see a defectus ordinis in Protestant ministries, but that does not have to be interpreted as invalidity, or so they claim.

It is difficult to see how this argument can be made with a straight face, since the alleged situation of necessity had been created by the "reformed" congregations themselves! And as for the fact that Trent did not declare Protestant orders invalid, this is irrelevant, since the same criteria under which Leo XIII later declared Anglican orders invalid apply equally to Lutheran and other Protestant orders. Anglican orders are invalid, taught Leo XIII, because the Anglican ordinal had cut out every reference to sacrifice and true priesthood in the traditional liturgy of ordination. The absence of such explicit language in a later rite formed by pruning the received rite is not the same thing as the possible absence of such language in the most primitive Catholic formulas of ordination, and thus it cannot be argued that Anglican orders are just as valid as orders conferred in the subapostolic and primitive age. This is because deliberately cutting out received references to sacrifice gave the Anglican ordination formulas a signification different from the signification of ancient liturgies in which sacrificial references surrounding the laying on of hands make it clear that a sacrificing priest is being "made" by the decisive words.

So even if we were to grant that validly ordained priests who joined Luther's movement had the power to ordain priests, we would still need to examine the words and rites they employed, and if they had the same anti-sacerdotal signification as the Anglican ordinal, then the ordinations were pseudo-ordinations.

So let us consider the 16th century ordination liturgies of the "highest" of "high-church" Protestants, those of Norway and Sweden. It has become received wisdom in some circles, and not only among Swedish Lutherans themselves, that the Lutheran Church of Sweden has apostolic succession. During the first years of the Reformation in Sweden, a validly ordained bishop continued ordaining after the split with Rome. But on the issue of the elimination of all sacrificial language, the reformed ordinals of Norway and Sweden were no different from their Anglican counterparts.

Conclusion: the orders of even "high-church" Lutheran pastors and bishops must be held invalid in virtue of the same principles Leo XIII applied to Anglicans.

34 comments:

Joe of St. Thérèse said...

a priest doesn't have the power to ordain.

3 things as we know confer validity
1. form
2. matter
3. intent

The form may have been valid. The matter was certainly not. (as a Bishop is necessary). The intent to offer sacrifice wasn't there for sure. More later

Bob said...

Historically I'm afraid that it seems that bishops are necessarily necessary for ordination. See the discussion at http://valleadurni.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-on-orders.html

Robert said...

It was a professor at Econe, I believe, who remarked to me that there was still the possibility that some Lutheran orders were valid. He didn't think it was so cut and dried.

Anonymous said...

Two problems:

1) Historically there are a small number of cases where right up until the last 200 years some Abbots of French monasteries (not in Episcopal orders) ordained priests;

2) If one applies Leo XIII's principles of why the Anglican ordinal was defective to the vernacular editions of the Paul VI rite an unfortunate doubt is reached

Father Anthony Cekada said...

The principles of post-Vatican II sacramental theology would indeed seem to allow its adherents to maintain that Lutheran orders are valid.

The reason is that the notion of a readily-identifiable essential sacramental form has been replaced with "context" — in the "particular church" or community, and in the sacramental rite itself.

This principle is the basis for the Vatican's 2001 statement declaring valid an Assyrian anaphora (canon) that contained no words of consecration. General drift and context were sufficient.

(For a discussion, see "O Sacrament Unholy," at
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=34&catname=15)

At the time, members of the modernist theological establishment pointed out that the document could be used as a starting point to declare protestant orders valid.

Ironically, this "context" argument seems to be the same one Br. Ansgar used in an earlier thread to defend the validity of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration — if "spiritus principalis" in the essential form is vague, well, the "context" makes it specific.

All of this, though, is impossible to reconcile to the standard principles of pre-Vatican II sacramental theology.

Might as well just admit that the old rules don't apply.

Cerimoniere said...

In the case of these Protestants, intention is a separate and equally-dispositive ground on which to conclude that their orders are invalid. Having explicitly repudiated the Mass and the priesthood, evidently they had a positive intention not to ordain Catholic priests. Their invention of a new ordination service, devoid of references to the doctrines they denied, also bears witness to this. Unsurprisingly, what would be the sacramental form in this service is also invalid.

As ever, in heretical sects, form and intention go together. They invent new forms and shun Catholic ones to express their defective intentions. Not so within the Church. Even though our new sacramental rites were drafted in large part by material heretics
(to say the least), and so express the Church's faith much less strongly, we have a guarantee of their validity from the Vicar of Christ and from the indefectibility of the Church.

On the question of the validity of ordination by a simple priest, the texts cited at Valle Adurni seem to cut both ways. I'd be very interested in more details about the ordinations conducted by French abbots mentioned by the anonymous poster.

rev'd up said...

There is some slight of hand at work in this post. Namely the equating of Lutheran orders(sic) with that of Anglican orders. Leo XIII did not, as you aver, invalidate Anglican orders because they failed to mention the word "sacrifice." Rather he declared them invalid because he believed there was a lack of intent to ordain truly apostolic ministers by the Anglican bishops. Now, unless you believe that Leo XIII was a medium able to know the inner thoughts of men, then one must conclude that "Apostolicae Curae" is based on faulty reasoning and is therefore vitiated.

I submit to you the following post which speaks to the issue of Anglican orders:

http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/04/necessary-admissions.html

Letter "L" specifically deals with the issue of "sacrifice."
Also, the response of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, "Saepius Officio," made mincemeat of Leo XIII bull and has yet to be responded to by Rome. I recommend it for your reading:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm

There is also the matter that many Anglican bishops in the early 20th c., when receiving their consecration, involved Polish National Catholic Church bishops in the laying on of hands. Rome does not question the validity of such consecrations. Not to mention the same succession being applied at the consecration of the so called "Continuing Anglicans" following their Affirmation of St. Louis in 1977. (One of these continuing groups, the TAC, is currently and formally petitioning the Holy See for admittance into the Roman Church).

It is a very sad thing that the majority of Roman Catholic laity and clerics have neither been told the truth regarding Anglican orders nor have they seriously investigated the matter for themselves. It is a needless, bitter division of the bride of Christ. One for which many Anglicans have bent over backwards to rectify, only to be insulted by ignorant and arrogant Roman Catholics.

An excellent book addressing this subject is "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void" by Fr. John Jay Hughes.

rev'd up said...

Sorry, my first link got cut off it is: http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/04/necessary-admissions.html

rev'd up said...

And again:
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/
2008/04/necessary-admissions.html

Anonymous said...

An ordination under these conditions (a chismatic church, to a chismatic-heretic one) is like a black mass. I think that´s creepy to be proud of it.

Man, now your so called church could stablish contacts with benedict xl and their francmasonic friends. Why not? The "third order" of the anglican cult that´s freemasonry.

Jimmy Cranmer

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

Rev. Fr. Cekada,

Your arguments on this article are not correct.

(1) Br. Ansgar Santogrossi OSB does not use the Addai and Mari controversy to "prove" validity. He uses the method used by pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae. The Anglicans after 1667 used a clear word "bishop" (office) and Holy Ghost in their revised form. But the destruction of Catholic words for the ministry made the rite invalid, a contrary intention was "captured" inside it. Now in the new Rite for Episcopal Consecration (1968) of Paul VI there is in the consecratory prayer or preface an abundance of words signifying the powers of the bishop's ministry in clear Catholic orthodox terms (summum sacerdotium) and speaking about the Holy Ghost being actively given. That is enough.

(2) Thilo Stopka, Abbé Schoonbroodt and you, are sadly enough not educated theologians (not that the latter would matter mostly), and seem to miss several points. The "Spiritus principalis" is in the Latin Litany for the Holy Ghost (Spiritus principalis ac confortationis, miserere nobis), and thus aptly signifies the Holy Ghost "Who governest the Church". The sacramental powers are clearly described and signified ex adiunctis by the consecratory prayer of Paul VI-Dom Botte-Bugnini.

Lutherans orders are invalid due to the nativa ac indoles spiritus - like the Anglicans. And most in Germany have no real apostolic succession even in the sociological sense (the Scandinavian ones do have a sociological continuity with the first Catholic then apostatized bishops of 16th century Sweden).

A priest cannot validly ordain another priest according to the consensus, as Pope Pius XII in 1944 "Episcopalis Consecrationis" and 1947 Sacramentum Ordinis designated a form and matter for the sacrament, proving this Holy Order is a sacrament, and not a mere sacramental, or a mere blessing or 'consecration'. That is also why Pius XII started using the word episcopal ordination instead of the medieval 'consecratio' increasingly.

Without valid bishops, no valid priests.

But the http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/ allegations are untenable often.

Now their saying goes that the "essential form" of Paul VI (Et nunc effunde) is a heretical assemblance of words, because they allegedly deny the Filióque and the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son also (with the Father together the one principle) - as if the Son is not the principium ex principio and as if therefore indirectly the Holy Ghost is not also an indirect consequence of the generation of the Son from the Father, who is principium sine principio.

The sedevacantists have a lot of things to tackle to prove their points. So have the Conciliars.

Things are complex.

One thing is clear: the sede clergy who impose their hypothesis or theory of sede-vacante since 1958 as a "dogma" to be accepted from all faithful who desire the sacraments, and refuse those the confession or Eucharist who also attend the indult Mass, go beyong their capacity. Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada did so by their Grain Of Incense nonsense article on ecclesial communion. As if the sedevacantist clergy can stand in tribunal or impose their own theological conclusions with some kind of self-assumed moral authority upon the Roman Catholic faithful. We are living the desert - and shepherds should protect the sheep. This Crisis is very complex, and the one-sided sedevacantist approach is insufficient - at least theologically they have little professionality and too many conspiracy theories around.

Matthew said...

Pope Leo XIII declared that Anglican Orders were not valid NOT because they deleted references to a sacrificial priesthood BUT because after they deleted these references they left the RC Church - and so it could no longer be presumed that the ordaining bishop had the "intention to do what the Church does ... " While they remained in the RC Church, even after the rite was changed, it could be presumed that they were intending to do what the Church intends.
Take a look at the new (alleged) Catholic rite of Ordination of priests and bishops. How much different is it from the Anglican Rite? And if the "American" church decides to sever ties with Rome, then what?
A deacon (Catholic) told me that you can "only be ordained once" and that the bishop could authorize him at any time to "say Mass."
This problem is with us right now.

rev'd up said...

Jimmy Cranmer: Who consecrates your wafers? Some made-up priest of some made-up bishop just like your made-up words. Please, if your going to be un-charitable use proper grammar.

"Black mass" - like the black mass between your ears.

Anonymous said...

You are criticizing the form and not the substance of my words(you haven´t answered about that... remember all freemasons are excommunicated).

Did you remember how many people was killed in the name of that reform (the massacre of Hereford, for example)? What about Saint Thomas Moore?

Yes, we can discuss how valid are consecrations done with wrong intention. And what was did with the Polish schismatic church, is not something to be proud...

Again! We are talking about Holy Orders in the same language of the serpent. It told to Adam and Eve to take the fruit of knowledge against God´s will. What happened after this terrible sin?

The Holy Father is God´s Will visible presence on Earth, he is the Vicar of Christ and the Holy Spirit Helps Him to Guide the Holy and One Catholic Church. If someone ordains people against His will, that´s "robbing" God´s things again... like the Original Sin.

If your Priests and Bishops have doubts about their legitimacy, the solution is easy: re-ordination by True and Valid Bishops, and public abjuration of their heresies. Why not? I think that´s time to leave british pride, in the name of the Church. The only Country that will survive to the end.

Sorry for my english, but i´m doing my best...

Jimmy Cranmer

Louis E. said...

With regard to the precedents of abbots being specifically authorized by the Pope to ordain priests,are the Lutheran priests ordaining priests prepared to produce their instructions from the Pope to do so?

rev'd up said...

Every Christian is a vicar of Christ - literally, Christ's representative. That the pope has taken this title since the 5th c. is not substance that he is THE vicar of Christ and that all must bow down before him. It seems, Jimmy, that you would make the pope God himself.

Anglicans recognize the pope affectionately as the first among equals. Though once Roman pontiffs sought the role of political emperor of Christendom they disconnected with the teachings of the Church Fathers and the doctrines of the undivided conciliar Church.

You speak of massacres. Yes indeed there have been many. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. All in all there was very little blood shed in England (unlike the continent) which testifies to a somewhat peaceful continuity of things ecclesiastical. Read Eamon Duffy's "The Voices of Morebath" or "The Stripping of the Altars." There was change, but that was mainly due to the changing POLITICAL landscape of Europe. The pope had his attack dog in the fight, the Holy Roman Emperor, who at the pope's bidding would set about to kill, sack, rape and rob pell mell (look at the Spanish Armada). And the pope had his agent provocateurs in the Jesuits, who were for all their acclaimed virtue, nothing but treasonous bastards. As for S. Thomas More, I believe you are horribly mis-informed.

If the popes had only stuck with things ecclesiastical (to "seek peace and ensue it"), just think of all of the carnage that would have been avoided. But has Rome ever apologized for the Vicar of Christ's blood lust? Weren't the popes then (as now) heretics as much or more as any that they condemned? And for all the honor lavished upon Leo XIII; wasn't he just a common back alley usurer who later, after buying the papacy, started the Vatican Bank?

Stop the papal supremacy grandstanding and papal flag-waving, it's enough to make me sick.

Thanks be to God that Sacramental validity is not exclusive to the bishops of Rome. Surely, S. Peter, the prince of the apostles, was a rock for the early Church and for those early saints in Rome; but Jesus Christ is THE ROCK upon which the Church is founded. Anyone who says otherwise is anti-Christ and engaged in idolatry.

rev'd up said...

Jimmy said: "the Holy Spirit Helps Him [the pope] to Guide the Holy and One Catholic Church. If someone ordains people against His will, that´s "robbing" God´s things again... like the Original Sin."

Let me get this strait. The Holy Ghost told the pope to consecrate all of the homo bishops and that they should ordain all the homo priests so that children could be molested?

Or am I misunderstaning something here?

Jimmy, you are a rare mind.

Ad Orientem said...

It is and has always been the consistent teaching of the Fathers that there are no Mysteries outside the Church. These people are heretics (on this point Orthodox and Roman Catholics would agree without reservation). Therefore their Mysteries are without grace. That's really all that needs to be said. Moving on...

ICXC NIKA
John

Ione said...

Question: To this end, do sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, Thuc-line clerics, conclavists, and the SSPV have valid orders?

Ad Orientem said...

Ione,
To whom is your question addressed?

ICXC NIKA
John

Anonymous said...

To rev'd up:
Regarding this quote of yours:

"Now, unless you believe that Leo XIII was a medium able to know the inner thoughts of men, then one must conclude that "Apostolicae Curae" is based on faulty reasoning and is therefore vitiated."

Leo XIII knew a whole------- more about the Anglicans and their ministers than you give him credit for. He was the Supreme Pontiff. He and his advisors studied this case for a long time. They came to valid conclusions and promulgated it as such.
Your snide comment about Leo XIII is an insult to his memory, and the memory of a great document which is still held up as valid in the Catholic Church.
Anglican, as well as Lutheran orders are invalid, much as you'd probably like it otherwise.
We have nothing in common with Anglicans, Lutherans, and any of the other 15,000+ Protestant sects, cults, groups, or "Christian communities".

There's no point to discuss these issues with Protestants.
Their orders are valid to them, but totally invalid for the Catholic Church. All their other beliefs, sacraments etc. are valid for them....but of course invalid for the Catholic Church.

So having said that, I think there should be a polite break in endless dialog, ecumenism, etc. etc. and everyone go their own way SEPERATLY in peace.

Anonymous said...

To rev'up

Hint: The "Bride of Christ" you refer to, isn't a reference just to in general "Christians" but is in fact a reference to THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (only).

Ione said...

ad orientem: to anyone who can answer it

Anonymous said...

"Hint: The "Bride of Christ" you refer to, isn't a reference just to in general "Christians" but is in fact a reference to THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (only)."

How gratifying that people can at least retain a good sense of humour!

Ione said...

If a schismatic bishop ordains a heretical clergyman (ie: A Jansenist bishop ordanining a Lutheran pastor) is that ordination considered valid?

It would seem that since the Lutheran episcopate in the German lands was reestablished only in the nineteenth-century through the Anglican bishops (which are invalid) then it would imply that at least German and Swiss Lutherans would lack valid orders.

The Scandanavian reformed bishops left the Catholic Church en masse following Luther's reforms and thus if an argument could be made then possibly the Nordic Lutherans could claim valid Apostolic Succession.

Of course the whole idea that Lutherans have valid orders is Vatican II silliness that has no basis in canonical reality. (And I don't think the Lutherans themselves much care)

Anonymous said...

rev'd up: spare us your bigoted rhetoric

Anonymous said...

Il lefebvriani hanno respinto - e con toni piuttosto duri - la proposta del Vaticano di rientrare in seno a Santa Romana Chiesa. «L’unica cosa che ci dicono è “chiudete la bocca”, ma noi non intendiamo chiuderla», ha dichiarato il vescovo Bernard Fellay, erede di monsignor Marcel Lefebvre alla guida della Fraternità San Pio X.

Per Fellay le condizioni poste dalla Santa Sede sono inaccettabili. «Roma ci dice: “Va bene, siamo pronti a togliere la scomunica, ma non potete andare avanti così”», ha spiegato nel corso di un seminario della San Pio X a Winona, in Minnesota. «Dunque non abbiamo scelta - ha aggiunto -, porteremo avanti ciò che abbiamo fatto».

Il sermone è stato pronunciato domenica, ma la registrazione è stata messa oggi sul sito della radio americana Voice of Catholic

Angelo said...

Fr. John Jay Hughes,

One other pitfall besets the path of those Anglo-Catholics who are of the "unity-at-any- price" variety. They tend to give the impression to non-Catholics that the papal bull of Leo XIII (1878-1903), successor of Pius IX, Apostolicae Curae, 1896, which declared Anglican Orders "null and void," may possibly be subject to revision.

The history of Anglican orders begins with the Ordinal used in the reign of Elizabeth I (1558-1603). The Ordinal is the Book of Service used by bishops to ordain priests or bishops. It was first used in the reign of Edward VI King of England (1547-53), son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, hence its name, the Edwardine Ordinal. With very few changes it remains the Ordinal of the Anglican Communion to this day.

First published in 1550 as the work of Archbishop Thomas Crammer, the Ordinal saw a change in the rite of ordination which--from then onwards--can be considered no more than a COMMISSIONING SERVICE TO PREACH THE WORD OF GOD . The idea behind it was that preaching the Word of God is more in keeping with the Gospel than is the Sacrificial Mass of the Roman Missal. Shortly thereafter a revised version was published, just in time to ordain some people before the death of Edward VI in 1553.

The Edwardine Ordinal was discarded when the Catholic Tudor Mary I, ascended to the throne in 1553. But it was re-introduced under the Prostestant Queen Elizabeth in 1559, and with additions of 1562, it is the Anglican rite of ordination to this day.

The question of Anglican Orders is therefore linked to the nature of this Ordinal, and the question to be resolved is one of its sufficiency or insufficiency to confer Orders as understood by the Catholic Church, the sole custodian of the Sacraments of Christ.

The historical argument against the validity of the orders conferred under the Edwardine Ordinal relies on the fact that, given the invalidity of those orders conferred under Edward VI, and the subsequent questionable "consecration" of Matthew Parker on the one hand, and the lapse of time which occurred before serious doubts were entertained about the validity of their Orders, any vestige of validity that Anglicans might have adduced had long since vanished.

The idea of reunion surfaced again in the 1890's under the aegis of Lord Halifax and the Abbe Fernand Portal. As President of the English Church Union, a group representative of the Anglicans who saw reunion as a possibility, Lord Halifax persuaded Portal that such a union could come. Lobbying began in Rome and in 1895 pressure from Cardinal Merry del Val, Cardinal Gasquet and Cardinal Vaughan plus a sympathetic approach by anglophile Pope Leo XIII gave rise to an international commission charged with the responsibility of examining the validity of Anglican Orders. The findings of the commission were published in the earlier mentioned Bull, Apostolicae Curae. Perhaps to the surprise of some, Anglican Orders were declared "null and void"--a judgment which, the Letter stated, was "now and forever in the future valid and in force." In this decision, the nature of King Edward's Ordinal, and its suppression of all references to Christ's sacrifice and priestly oblation, played the central role.

It is impossible, therefore, to contemplate how the findings of the commission, stated so clearly in the Bull, and backed with a phrase that would seem to indicate that the statement of invalidity borders on faith, faith in the Pope's ability to make a statement regarding the validity of a sacrament, could be reversed today. There is no way around the findings of Apostolicae Curae.

Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est

Anonymous said...

L’ennesimo ‘strappo’ dei lefebvriani, rifiutata la proposta di pace della Santa Sede: “Ribadiamo il no al Concilio. Se ci rivogliono nella Chiesa di Roma aboliscano il Messale di Paolo VI”

di Bruno Volpe

CITTA’ DEL VATICANO - Pieno riconoscimento del Concilio Vaticano II e massima obbedienza al Papa. Questi i punti principali dell’accordo proposto dal Presidente della Pontificia Commissione Ecclesia Dei, il Cardinale Dario Castrillon Hoyos, ai seguaci di Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre. Ma Richard Williamson (nella foto), rappresentante dell’ala più dura dei cosiddetti ‘lefebvriani’, sostenendo di rappresentare il pensiero del superiore Bernard Fellay, ha dichiarato ufficialmente a ‘Petrus’ che lo scisma non si ricomporrà. Una doccia fredda dopo la ventata di ottimismo degli ultimi giorni. E’ bene chiarire che pubblichiamo l’intervista a Monsignor Williamson della Fraternita’ San Pio X considerandola rilevante sotto il profilo dell’attualità religiosa. Il nostro giornale è sempre stato e continuerà ad essere, senza indugi, in comunione con la Chiesa di Roma, con il Successore di Pietro e con i Vescovi a Lui fedeli. Lo stesso diritto di cronaca che ci spinge a riportare le gravissime e ingiustificate dichiarazioni di Williamson, non ci può far sottacere che tale Vescovo è, allo stato, scomunicato.

Monsignor Williamson, come giudica le proposte di Roma? Vede praticabile una ricomposizione dello scisma?

“Ho apprezzato il tono della lettera del Cardinale Castrillon Hoyos, ma francamente penso che non se farà nulla e che la nostra risposta sarà negativa”.

Il Santo Padre Benedetto XVI, intanto, già da un anno, ha liberalizzato la Messa secondo l’antico rito romano per venirvi incontro. Allora qual è il vero problema?

“Il gesto del Papa, al quale riconosciamo la massima buona volontà, ci è piaciuto ma non basta. Nella Chiesa è in atto una guerra, e sottolineo la parola guerra, tra il sano tradizionalismo e il modernismo post-concilare. Noi non accetteremo mai il Vaticano II”.

Una delle conseguenze del Vaticano II che non avete mai gradito è stato il ‘Novus Ordo’, la Messa in lingua nazionale. Ma con la liberalizzazione del rito romano antico, il problema liturgico sembrava superato…

“Guardi, noi non abbandoneremo mai la tradizione, glielo posso assicurare. Anzi, se la Chiesa ci rivuole con sé, chiediamo che ritorni al suo glorioso passato, cioè stabilmente al Messale di San Pio V, eliminando del tutto il Messale di Paolo VI. Ciò premesso, le assicuro che il problema non è solo liturgico ma anche teologico”.

Sarebbe a dire?

“La liturgia è espressione del dogma. E quella del dopo-Concilio è una liturgia in salsa russa, una specie di torta avvelenata. Poi vi sono altri aspetti del Vaticano II che non ci convincono, come l’ecumenismo, la collegialità, il modernismo, il dialogo interreligioso. Il fumo di Satana che entrava nella Chiesa del quale parlò Paolo VI, per noi era tutto ciò. Ma non solo. Restiamo all’attualità. Mi domando e chiedo: è lecito che gli ebrei vogliano insegnarci a pregare, come è accaduto nel caso della preghiera del Venerdì Santo fatta modificare al Papa proprio recentemente nel rito tridentino? Gli ebrei non conoscono Cristo, non credono in Lui, e debbono dirci come essere cristiani? Il dialogo interreligioso è stato un altro danno del Vaticano II…”.

Dunque, voi ribadite il vostro no anche al dialogo interreligioso…

“Il dialogo interreligioso è uno dei più grandi ostacoli presenti sulla strada della ricomposizione con Roma”.

Nella lettera del Cardinale Castrillon Hoyos, il Vaticano chiedeva obbedienza al Papa… Si potrebbe partire da ciò per rientrare, magari anche gradualmente, in seno alla Chiesa di Roma.

“Quello dell’obbedienza al Papa è un falso problema. Il problema non è il Pontefice: riconosciamo il suo potere e la sua autorità. Il vero problema è rappresentato dalla Curia modernista figlia del Concilio che alloggia in Vaticano”.

Con il muro contro muro, non sarà mai revocata la scomunica nei vostri confronti…

“Mi limito a dire che la scomunica non era valida quando fu comminata e che Monsignor Lefebvre fu un grande Vescovo e Pastore della Chiesa tradizionale”.

rev'd up said...

It must be nice to be Roman Catholic and so sure of ones right-ness.

"Anonymous" opines: "Hint: The "Bride of Christ" you refer to, isn't a reference just to in general "Christians" but is in fact a reference to THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (only).

Wow, sounds like we got ourselves a theologian here! I like the "ROMAN" thing - very creedal. Isn't it from the "Amnesia Creed?"

Another "Anonymous" blasts: "rev'd up: spare us your bigoted rhetoric"
Touche! I've been found out! "Anonymous" has won the fight by the fitness of his arguments. HEY MOM, I'M A BIGOT!

As for "Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est," the origin of this phrase is at the very essence of Roman spin. Intelligent consideration of this adulterated and abused pastiche of S. Augustine's, hoists papal supremacy claims on their own petard.

"Angelo" would like to give the impression he is quoting from Fr. Hughes - he is not. Though I will admit "Angelo" has done some reading up on the Anglican ordinal - mighty impressive. But it doesn't prove anything unless he can prove that an ordinal MUST use the word "sacrifice" in order to be valid.

You see, Lord Halifax's commission was not seeking to ascertain whether or not Anglican orders were valid (they already knew that they were), they were only hoping to end the bitter civil war within the Western Church. Most Roman Catholics unfortunately see this as a weakness of Anglicans. But is it a weakness to seek Christian unity? That all God's children should be one, as Christ prayed in John XVI?

Roman arrogance and ignorance are apparently invincible. So everyone has to kiss the popes @$$ or they're going to hell, right?

How many of you pucker up?

New Catholic said...

OK, dear Protestant: I will leave your comment up as an example of how our non-Catholic guests should NOT behave.

Any other hostile comment, particularly if offensive of the Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome (her Head), the Magisterium of the Church, and Petrine authority, will be deleted.

baeda said...

As a non-Roman Catholic, I would venture only indirect participation in this discussion. An article published by the present Pope some time before the start of Vatican II makes me wonder, though, whether loyal Roman Catholics actual face the strict choice between outright denial of Anglican/Lutheran orders, on the one hand, or their unconditional acceptance, on the other. In an article entitled "Protestantismus" included in the third edition of Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (a standard work of reference for German Protestants), Joseph Ratzinger contended that "Protestant" ministerial office and celebration of the Sacrament of the altar is "not a nothing." Was that a relevant intervention on his part with respect to your present discussion?

Anonymous said...

"An article published by the present Pope some time before the start of Vatican II makes me wonder, though, whether loyal Roman Catholics actual face the strict choice between outright denial of Anglican/Lutheran orders, on the one hand, or their unconditional acceptance, on the other."

That personal opinion of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger I am sure he's corrected some 50+ years later and no longer believes that type of thing.

Lutheran services are of course valid for Lutherans. That's okay.

But never ask me to accept them as valid, or acknowledge the value of Lutheran, Anglican, or any Protestant traditions in any way for use in the Catholic Church!! even if the Pope said one day (which wouldn't happen of course...but for the sake of argument, say some lunatic got elected) and said " we're all going to accept all Protestant traditions and sacraments as valid, and worthy of adopting into out own liturgy and theology"
I, and I know alot of Catholics would repudiate such teaching.
It never would happen though.

baeda said...

Not so, for he has ploughed this furrow quite consistently over the last fifty years. If you don't read his actual writings (which seems to be the case with anonymous), just consult Fr Aidan Nichols' magisterial work on his theology. ...Would Anonymous fain be plus royaliste que le roi?