THE PROBLEM WITH THE OTHER SACRAMENTS
By Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D.

                              TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Internet Site   
          E-mail List: traditio@traditio.com, Web Page: http://www.traditio.com
            Copyright 1998 RPC.  Reproduction prohibited without authorization.


[The following version is reproduced here from the unpublished 
manuscript, with the kind permission of the author.  Typographical 
errors have not been corrected, nor have the footnotes, referenced by 
the numbers in the text, been reproduced.]

[The author has previously published two books of significance to the 
scholarship of Traditional Catholicism, published by Tan Books & 
Publishers:  THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION (1981) and THE 
PROBLEMS WITH THE NEW MASS:  A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE MAJOR THEOLOGICAL 
DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE (1990).

[Although some of the conclusions drawn by the author are controversial, 
and are strictly his own, they are presented to further the scholarly 
debate on the principles of Traditional Catholicism.]


CONTENTS

Introduction
Preface
The Magisterium of the Church and Related Issues                                                                                      
THE PROBLEM WITH THE OTHER SACRAMENTS: Chapter I General Introduction                                                                                                                   
Chapter II The Sacrament of Order                                                                                                             
Chapter III Extreme Unction                                                                                                                        
Chapter IV Confirmation                                                                                                                             
Chapter V What happened to Confession                                                                                                    
Chapter VI Baptism                                                                                                                                         
Baptism by Father Dominic Savio Radecki, C.R.M.I.                                                                                 
Chapter VII Marriage                                                                                                                                    
Is Baptism of Blood and Desire a Catholic Teaching?  



INTRODUCTION

This book is primarily written for Catholics who are unhappy with the 
changes introduced by Vatican II and the post-Conciliar Church. 
Hopefully, it will enable them to sort out the issues and to act 
appropriately as Catholics.

It is always necessary to establish common ground with the reader. With 
this in view I would propose that all Catholics by definition believe in 
God; believe that Jesus Christ is God (and man); that Jesus Christ 
established a visible Church; and that this Church is what is commonly 
called the Roman Catholic Church.

There can be little discussion about the first two principles for no 
Catholic as a Catholic can deny the existence of God or the divinity of 
Jesus Christ.

What creates confusion in these days is the nature of the visible Church 
that Christ established. Its character was quite obvious for some 1900 
years - up to the time of Vatican II. It taught the same doctrines and 
used essentially the same "Apostolic" rites and sacraments since its 
foundation. These have generally been referred to as the "deposit of the 
faith" which it is the Church's duty to guard and reserve unadulterated 
till the end of time. This principle is incorporated in the creed where 
we say  "One,  Holy, Apostolic and Catholic" Church. However, subsequent 
to this Council changes were introduced in doctrine and rites which have 
raised a serious question: "is it the same Church?"

As there is only one God, only one Jesus Christ, and hence only one 
Revelation, it is clear that there can only be one Church. Now the post-
Conciliar Church claims to be that Church despite the fact that this new 
organization has changed the rites and doctrines which were inherited 
from the Apostles and which were held and/or taught up to the time of 
Vatican II. It is precisely this which has confused the average thinking 
Catholic.

Only two possibilities exist. Either the "post-Vatican II (also called 
the "New" and "Conciliar" Church) has changed from the Church as it 
existed prior to the time of this most dubious "council," or the two 
churches are one and the same and the "changes" that have occurred are 
not of a substantial nature. If one holds that the "New Church" is 
significantly different from the traditional (tradition meaning "handed 
down") Catholic Church, one is obliged as a Catholic to adhere to that 
Church which Christ founded. If on the other hand one believes that the 
changes instituted in the wake of Vatican II are insignificant and not 
substantial, one is obliged as a Catholic to accept and respect them. 

There is much talk today about "the Faith." Faith of course has two 
aspects. First of all, it is objective and as such pertains to the 
doctrines taught by the Church as part of Revelation. As such Faith is a 
"gift." But faith also has a subjective aspect which relates to our 
acceptance of what the Church teaches. The Faith (and not some vague 
feeling which passes for faith) is important for as St. Paul said, "it 
is impossible to please God without faith." The objective aspect of 
faith or the teaching of the Church is incorporated in what is called 
her Magisterium which is defined in the first section of this book. No 
Catholic can knowingly deny or reject what the Magisterium or teaching 
authority of the Church holds to be true without placing themselves 
outside the Church. We (subjectively) must give our assent to this 
teaching authority. To refuse to do so is to deny Christ who defines 
Himself as the Truth.

Many Catholics are confused by what has happened to the Church. Much of 
the confusion lies in the Catholic desire to be "in obedience" to the 
pope who is or should be Christ's vicar or representative on earth. What 
is forgotten is that obedience is a "moral" virtue, and as such ranks 
lower than the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity. In other 
words, obedience is fine, but one must be aware of just what one is in 
obedience to. If one is in obedience to a false faith, one in essence 
apostatizes from the Catholic Faith. If one obeys a pope who himself is 
not in obedience to Christ, one places oneself in disobedience to our 
Divine Master.

Anyone who attends the Tridentine Mass or rejects the teachings of 
Vatican II, places him or herself in disobedience to the post-Conciliar 
popes. This brings us to yet another tactic of those who would sit on 
the fence. They claim that the doctrinal changes introduced and 
promulgated by Vatican II are "pastoral" and not "doctrinal," or again, 
that only the "extraordinary teachings of the Magisterium" (which are 
given once or twice in a century) demand our intellectual assent. Now 
both the Ordinary and the Extra-Ordinary Magisterium are part and parcel 
of the "teaching authority of the Church." Both demand our intellectual 
assent as Catholics. What are we to say when we find that the post-
Conciliar "popes" have "magisterially" declared the documents of Vatican 
II to be the "highest form of the ordinary magisterium" to which every 
Catholic "must give their intellectual assent." It follows that anyone 
who considers himself to be in obedience to the post-Conciliar hierarchy 
must accept ALL the teachings incorporated in the documents of Vatican 
II as well as all the Sacramental changes subsequently introduced. They 
must further abstain from attending the Tridentine Mass or the "Mass of 
All Times" as it has been so correctly labeled. 

Many Catholics have rejected the changes introduced. They hold that to 
refuse to obey a pope who is himself no longer in obedience to Christ, 
in no way denies the authority of the papacy. It is because of their 
respect for this institution and their knowing that no Catholic can be 
saved if he or she is in disobedience to the true Vicar of Christ, that 
they refuse to obey an individual who they see as lacking all true papal 
authority.  According to Plato a king must rule by divine law (i.e., by 
enforcing God's laws). Should he command or rule in his own name or by 
his own authority (as against God's), then he becomes a tyrant. The same 
is true of the individual who sits in Peter's chair.

"One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic." These are the criteria. Is the 
post-Conciliar Church one with the Church that Christ established and 
which has been maintained through 19 centuries? This is for the reader 
to decide. Is it Catholic, which is to say "universal" in time and place 
or is it a local phenomena established after the close of Vatican II? Is 
it Apostolic in the sense that it uses the same rites and teaches the 
same doctrines that the Apostles did? Again, this is a decision that 
every Catholic must make. Finally, is it Holy? This is hard for 
individuals to judge. However its fruits are certainly of a dubious 
nature. Millions of Catholics have abandoned the faith; thousands of 
priests and religious have abandoned their vocations. Confessions and 
baptisms are down. Conversions of former Catholics to other religions 
abound far in excess of those entering the Church. Certainly, it has 
canonized a enormous number of saints under new and relaxed regulations. 
But at the same time it has refused to canonize such individuals as Pius 
IX and Merry de Val, individuals whose canonization process has been 
completed under the old rules. Little is it realized that the criteria 
for sanctity have been changed. Instead of the time honored procedures 
which involved an examination of the life and writings of the individual 
involved, it is political expediency which is now the fundamental 
criteria. The "devil's advocate" no longer functions and miracles are no 
longer required. But all in all, it is not for us to judge of holiness.

And so it is that Catholics must make a choice. It is hoped that these 
essays along with my book on The Problems with the New Mass will assist 
them in doing so.

Rama P. Coomaraswamy



PREFACE


The essays in this book were written over many years. Some have been 
published in several languages, others have had great difficulty in 
being published at all, and have reached friends and colleagues only in 
mimeograph form. At the request of several readers I have brought them 
together under the title of "The Problem with  the Other Sacraments." 
The title has been chosen because in many ways they are a sequence to my 
book on The Problems with the New Mass published several years ago by 
TAN.

The first essay is the last written. It deals with the criteria 
available to Catholics in these confused times for deciding what to 
believe and how to act. It is perhaps the most important essay because 
everything that follows flows from the criteria it establishes (or more 
precisely, resumes). 

What follows is a series of chapters dealing with the changes in the 
Sacraments other than the Mass. After a General Introduction which deals 
with the principles of Sacramental Theology, the post-Conciliar changes 
in the sacraments are discussed. How does the Church judge the validity 
of a Sacrament and what is the extent to which we must as Catholics 
demand these criteria be fulfilled by the clergy? Have the changes in 
the Sacrament of Holy Orders, especially those involving the 
Consecration of Bishops, rendered them null and void? And if this is so, 
are priests ordained by such falsely consecrated "bishops" indeed 
priests? The chapter (originally an essay) dealing with this critical 
matter has been in print for well over ten years, and has been 
translated into French, Spanish and German. To date it's contention that 
the rite for consecrating bishops, while highly acceptable to 
Protestants, is barely Catholic and is almost certainly invalid, has 
never been refuted.

I am grateful to Father Dominic Radecki CRMI for his contribution on the 
changes in the rite of Baptism. The issue of Baptism is complex. One 
does not have to be a Catholic to baptize a Catholic, though of course 
one must use the correct form and intend to do what the Church (or 
Christ) intends. Many Protestant baptisms are valid, and in so far as 
most Protestant sects continue to baptize, the need to totally destroy 
this rite was not present. However, innumerable and highly significant 
changes were made and a multiplicity of different Baptism rites for 
different occasions created, each with a host of "options." Underlying 
these changes are significant alterations in the understanding of the 
purpose of the rite. This in turn may well effect the intention of the 
officiating minister and hence may well vitiate validity even though 
proper form and matter are used.

Each of these chapters have been read by many traditional priests both 
in this country and abroad. Their suggestions, comments and corrections 
have been incorporated. The list would be too long for me to name them 
all. Many of the articles are used in traditional seminaries in this 
country, Europe and South America. Some will find their contents 
offensive, but it is my sincere hope that in all that I have said, I 
have but faithfully reproduced the teaching of the Church of All Times. 
If it can be shown that I have been in error on some points, I shall be 
most grateful for correction.

Rama P. Coomaraswamy



THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH AND RELATED ISSUES

Before embarking on a study of the Magisterium we should pause for 
a moment lest the present confusion within the Catholic Church tempt us 
to an attitude of despair. The present confusions have their purpose, 
even though we with our limited outlook cannot always understand. As St. 
Paul explains: "To them that love God all things work together unto 
good" (Rom. 8.28) and St. Augustine adds "etiam peccata, even sins." In 
the same sense, in the Exultet, on on Holy Saturday, the Church sings: 
Felix culpa,  quae talem ac tantum meruit Redemptorem: O happy fault (of 
our first parents), that merited so great a Redeemer." As Augustine 
says: "God in His wisdom has deemed it better that good should come out 
of evil than that evil should never have been." God has the power and 
wisdom to turn to His own glory the evil which He permits on earth. 
Angels and saints can take only joy from the divine wisdom which rules 
the world so wonderfully.1

Holy Mother Church, like the loving mother she is, has provided us 
with the necessary guidelines on how to think and behave in the present 
circumstances. These are provided for us in what is called her teaching 
Magisterium. The present essay is dedicated to an understanding of the 
nature and purpose of the Authentic Magisterium of the Catholic Church.2 

***

The Church, which is the "Body of Christ," is as it were the 
presence of Christ in the World.3 Now Christ combined in Himself and 
bestowed on His Apostles whom He "sent forth" the three qualities of 
Teacher (Prophet), Ruler and Priest - symbolized in his Vicar by the 
triple crown or papal tiara. 

With regard to this Christ told us that "He who believed in Him 
would know the truth which gives true liberty (John VIII, 31-31) but he 
who did not would be condemned" (Matt. X.33; Mark XVI.16) He allowed 
Himself to be called the Master and even stressed that He was the true 
Master who not only taught the truth, but was the Truth.(Matt. VIII,19; 
John III, 17 and Matt. XXIII, 8-10). Now he communicated these truths to 
his Apostles and sent them forth to teach in His name, telling them that 
"just as my Father sent me, so also I send you...," telling them: " He 
who hears you hears me, and he who rejects your words, rejects me, and 
he who rejects me rejects the Father who sent me" (Matt. X, 40 and Luke 
X, 16). And so we see that the Apostles were given the charge of 
continuing Christ's mission as infallible Master.4 Moreover Christ 
demanded an absolute obedience to this teaching function - for he who 
does not believe will be condemned. Of course, He also specified that it 
must be His teaching and not some other person's teaching - not even the 
teaching of an angel from heaven if it departed from His teaching. He 
further promised that "the Spirit of Truth would always be with them," 
provided they accepted this Spirit, and again, He left them free to 
reject this Spirit or accept some other spirit if they so willed - but 
then of course they would no longer be participating in His charisms and 
would loose their infallibility. As He said, "therefore go ye into all 
nation and teach them to safeguard all that I have taught you. And I 
will be with you till the end of the world" (Matt. XII, 18-20)

Perhaps the most important error abroad today relates to the 
teaching authority of the Church; specifically to the idea that the 
Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is not infallible. Lest there be 
doubt about this, let us listen to Pope Leo XIII:
"Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the 
Church a living authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His 
own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by 
miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, 
that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often 
therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this 
or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be 
believed by everyone as true. If it could in any way be false, an 
evident contradiction follows: for then God Himself would be the author 
of error in man. The Fathers of the Vatican Council (I) laid down 
nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and 
invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when 
they decreed as follows: 'All those things are to be believed by divine 
and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word 
of God, and which are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, 
either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of the ordinary and 
universal Magisterium."  Satis Cognitum

Because the Magisterium provides us with the only solid objective 
criteria by which we may judge what is true and false, it is important 
that we examine its nature in greater detail.

The Catholic Dictionary defines the Magisterium as:

"The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of 
religion. 'Going therefore teach ye all nations... teaching them to 
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you' (Matt. 28: 19-20). 
This teaching, being Christ's, is infallible..." 5
Two different modes exist for the exercise of this living and infallible 
Magisterium.
	
This Magisterium or "teaching authority of the Church", exists in 
two different modes. It is termed "SOLEMN" or "EXTRAORDINARY' when it 
derives from the formal and authentic definitions of a General council, 
or of the Pope himself: that is to say, dogmatic definitions of the 
Ecumenical councils, or of the Pope's teaching ex cathedra (see below 
for an explanation of this term). Such truths are de fide divina et 
Catholica which means that every Catholic must believe them with divine 
and Catholic Faith.6
	
Included under the category of solemn are "symbols or professions 
of the faith", such as the Apostles' Creed, the Tridentine or Pianine 
Profession and the Oath against Modernism required by Pius X since 1910 
(and no longer required by the post-Conciliar Church)7. Finally included 
in this category are "theological censures" or those statements that 
qualify and condemn propositions as heretical 8.

It is termed "ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL" when it manifests itself as 
those truths which are expressed  through the daily continuous preaching 
of the Church and refers to the universal practices of the Church 
connected with faith and morals as manifested in the "unanimous consent 
of the Fathers, the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning 
faith and morals, in the consensus of the faithful, in the universal 
custom or practice associated with dogma (which certainly includes the 
Roman liturgy or traditional Mass), and in the various historical 
documents in which the faith is declared." Included in this category are 
Papal Encyclicals9. It is termed "Pontifical" if the source is the Pope, 
and "universal" if it derives from the Bishops in union with him10. Such 
truths, as Vatican I teaches, are also de fide divina et Catholica. 11

It is termed "living" because, being true, it exists and exerts 
its influence, not only in the past, but in the present and future. As 
Vatican I explains, it is infallible: 
"All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith, 
which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, [i.e., 
Scripture or Tradition], and which the Church, either by a solemn 
judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for 
belief as having been divinely revealed."  Vatican I, Session III

This statement is important because there are many theologians who 
proclaim that the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are not binding. 
Some attempt to mitigate the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium by 
claiming that it can at times contain error12. Others claim on their own 
authority that "only those doctrines in the ordinary and universal 
Magisterium that have been taught everywhere and always are covered by 
the guarantee of infallibility.13 Still others  attack this teaching by 
limiting the contents of the Ordinary Magisterium - removing from it 
anything not couched in absolutist or solemn terminology. Finally there 
are those who claim that the Magisterium can change - that it can teach 
differently today than in the past because doctrine and truth evolve. 
Before dealing with these secondary errors, it is necessary to 
understand why the Magisterium is infallible.


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM

As noted in Chapter I, the Church, by God's will, is a 
hierarchical institution. At its "head" is the Pope, the vicar of 
Christ, the "rock" on which the Church is founded.14 He is endowed with 
all the unique authority of Jesus Christ "who is the shepherd and bishop 
of our souls" (1 Pet. 2:25), and depending upon Him, the pope is also - 
but vicariously - the shepherd and bishop of the whole flock, both of 
the other bishops and of the ordinary faithful (John 21:15-17) He is the 
evident and effectual sign of the presence of Christ in the world, and 
it is through him that Christ who is invisible in the bosom of the 
Father, visibly presides over all the activities of this enormous Body 
and brings it under His control. As Dom Grea has said, "the pope is with 
Jesus Christ - a single hierarchical person - above the episcopate, one 
and the same head of the episcopate, one and the same head, one and the 
same doctor, pontiff and legislator of the universal Church." Or more 
precisely, "Jesus Christ Himself is the sole Head, rendered visible, 
speaking and acting in the Church through the instrument whom He 
provided for Himself. Christ proclaims Himself through His Vicar, He 
speaks through him, acts and governs through him." When Christ speaks, 
acts, and governs through the pope, the pope is endowed with 
infallibility, a quality which derives, not from him as a private 
person, but from his being "a single hierarchical person" with Christ15.

This conception is made clear by Pope St. Leo's third sermon on 
the anniversary of his own election where he paraphrases the words of 
Christ:

"I make known to thee thy excellence. for thou art Peter: that is, as I 
am the invulnerable rock, the cornerstone, who make both one, I the 
foundation beside which there can be laid no other; so thou too art a 
rock, in my strength made hard, and I share with thee the powers which 
are proper to me. And upon this rock I will build my Church and the 
gates of hell shall not prevail against it..."  Office of St. Peter's 
Chair at Antioch, Feb. 22.

The pope is also a private person (an ordinary human being) and a 
private theologian (doctor). It is however, only when he functions as "a 
single hierarchical person" with Christ that he is endowed with 
infallibility (or partakes of the Church's, i.e., Christ's 
infallibility.) It is only then that Christ's Scriptural statement "he 
who hears you, hears me" applies. And it follows logically that his 
authority is extended through those bishops who "are in union with him" 
in governing the flock. The bishops have no independent authority apart 
from him for the simple reason that he has no independent authority 
apart from Christ. Thus it is that he is called the "Bishop of bishops", 
and that he "confirms" them in their doctrine - not the other way 
around. Thus it is that no statement of an Ecumenical Council has any 
authority until it receives his approbation.
	
The pope then has an almost limitless authority. He can however 
loose this authority in a variety of ways. He can lose it when he dies 
(physical death), if he loses his reason (madness), if he separates 
himself from the Church (schism), or when he loses his faith (heresy and 
therefore spiritual death). At such a point the pope is no longer pope 
because it is the very nature of this bishop's function and ministry to 
be the Vicar of Christ and nothing else16. (The pope is not deprived of 
his free will as a result of his election. He can therefore go into 
schism or heresy.)

The pope's authority is almost unlimited - however, it is not 
absolute. He has full powers within his charge, but his powers are 
limited by his charge. In order fully to understand this doctrinal 
point, let us once again recall the nature of this charge.
	
The ecclesiastical hierarchy was instituted by God to teach, that 
is to say, to transmit the deposit of the faith. At the head of this 
teaching Church Christ appointed a Vicar to whom He gave full powers to 
"feed the faithful and the shepherds" (John 21:11-17). Consequently, it 
is within the bounds of this function, the transmission of the deposit 
of the faith, that the Pope has "full powers". He has these precisely to 
enable him to transmit the deposit of the faith - in its entirety - "in 
the same meaning and the same sense" (Denzinger 1800). "For", as Vatican 
I clearly taught, "the Holy Spirit has not been promised to Peter's 
successors in order that they might reveal, under His inspiration, new 
doctrine, but in order that, with His help, they may carefully guard and 
faithfully expound the revelation as it was handed down by the Apostles, 
that is to say, the deposit of the faith" (Pastor Aeternus, Denzinger 
1836).

Hence it follows that the Pope can and must make all his 
determinations entirely within the bounds of orthodoxy, and this is true 
whether they concern the reformation of the Liturgy, of Canon Law, or to 
use the phraseology of earlier Councils, the reformation of the clergy 
"in its head or in its members." The Pope may indeed abrogate all the 
decisions of his predecessors, even those deserving of special mention, 
but always and only within the limits of orthodoxy. As The Catholic 
Encyclopedia (1908) states: "the scope of this infallibility is to 
preserve the deposit of faith revealed to man by Christ and His 
Apostles." It goes without saying that under such circumstances, any 
changes introduced would affect only matters that are mutable and never 
the faith itself. A Pope who presumed to abrogate the smallest iota of 
dogma, or even attempted to change the meaning of the Church's constant 
teaching, would step outside the bounds of orthodoxy and outside the 
limits of his function of preserving the deposit of the faith. He would 
in doing so, teach a new doctrine and a "new gospel", and as such would 
be subject to the anathema pronounced by St. Paul in his Epistle to the 
Galatians (1:8-9).

It is then clear that the infallibility of the Magisterium or 
"teaching authority of the Church" derives from the Pope functioning as 
one hierarchical person with Christ. Thus the source of this 
infallibility is Christ, and indeed, it could be not be otherwise. For 
the Church to claim infallibility on any other grounds would be absurd. 
And just as there is only one source, so also there is only one 
Magisterium. When the Pope uses his infallibility - be it by solemn 
proclamation or within the bounds of the ordinary magisterium, he 
partakes, not of some personal, but of Christ's infallibility. As the 
official text puts it, "when he speaks ex cathedra... he has the same 
infallibility as that with which the divine Redeemer invested His Church 
when it is defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that 
therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and 
not from the consent of the Church, irreformable". (Ds. 183917)


THE MEANING OF EX CATHEDRA AND THE REASON FOR THE DEFINITION OF PAPAL 
INFALLIBILITY

When does a Pope use his infallibility, or to use the technical 
phrase, speak ex cathedra? In Holy Scripture "cathedra" is synonymous 
with the authority of a "master" or "teacher" (Ps. 1:1; Matt. 23:2; Luke 
20:46). Once again the teaching of the Church is manifest and clear. He 
teaches ex cathedra "when serving in the capacity of pastor and Doctor 
(shepherd and teacher) of all the faithful, in virtue of his supreme 
Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine with regard to faith and 
morals that must be held by the whole Church." Four conditions are 
required:

1) The Pope must be functioning as Pastor and supreme Doctor. It is not 
his teaching as a private or particular Doctor that is in question.

2) He must be dealing with matters of faith or morals, and it is only 
the proposed doctrine - not the adjoining considerations - the "obiter 
dicta" that is guaranteed by infallibility.

3) He must intend to define; his teaching must be given with 
authority and with the intent that it be believed by the entire Church.

4) He must manifest his intention to bind all Catholics.

The Pope is not required to use any specific formulas to 
accomplish this. All that is required is that he clearly manifest his 
intention to compel the entire Church to accept his teaching as 
belonging to the deposit of the faith.

It is obvious that by the very nature of his function as the Vicar 
of Christ, this authority has always been with Peter and his valid 
successors. Why was it then necessary that this doctrine be defined in 
an extraordinary manner at the time of Vatican I? The answer to this 
question is highly instructive.

The Church does not ordinarily define a doctrine "in an 
extraordinary manner" unless it comes under dispute or is denied by a 
significant number of the faithful (as the Assumption of the Blessed 
Virgin). Nor does a doctrine so defined become more true than it was 
before.

The Church "has the duty to proceed opportunely in defining points 
of faith with solemn rites and decrees, when there is a need to declare 
them to resist more effectively the errors and the assaults of heretics 
or to impress upon the minds of the faithful clearer and more  profound 
explanations of points of sacred doctrine... Not because the Church has 
defined and sanctioned truths by solemn decree of the Church at 
different times, and even in times near to us, are they [truths not so 
defined] therefore not equally certain and not equally to be believed. 
For has not God revealed them all?"  Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

In the decades prior to Vatican I, the popes repeatedly condemned 
liberal Catholicism and parallel efforts aimed at bringing the Church's 
thinking into line with the modern world - Pope Pius IX summarized these 
censures in his Syllabus of Errors. Those who came under such strictures 
attempted to defend themselves by claiming that their attitudes had 
never been formerly condemned by the teaching magisterium and that such 
documents only represented the private opinion of the Pontiffs. Such a 
claim placed the infallibility of the Pope in doubt. During Vatican I 
furious debates were waged on the subject. The liberals were perfectly 
aware of the fact that if they voted for the definition of infallibility 
they would condemn themselves, but that if they voted against it, they 
would be denying a doctrine of the Church. Every conceivable objection 
capable of preventing, or of at least postponing the definition, was put 
forth and strongly supported by those who labeled themselves as 
"inopportunists"18. One orthodox bishop, Anthony Claret - later 
canonized - was so distressed by these attempts that he died of a heart 
attack during the Conciliar debate. The cases of Popes Liberius, 
Honorius I, Paschal II, Sixtus V and others were brought forth in an 
attempt to influence the Fathers against defining something the liberals 
claimed was both unnecessary and insane. Needless to say, they were 
supported in this by the secular press, by world leaders, and even by 
governments. It is of interest to note that the Freemasons held a 
simultaneous "anti-Council" in Naples which proclaimed several 
principles as essential to the dignity of man - principles which later 
were incorporated into the documents of Vatican II19 

Unlike John XXIII, whose machinations in favor of the liberals at 
Vatican II will be detailed later, Pope Pius IX, aware of his 
responsibilities, did everything in his power to fulfill his obligations 
towards our divine Master. Listen to the comments of Cardinal Manning:

"The campaign against the Council failed, of course. It failed because 
the Pope did not weaken. He met error with condemnation and replied to 
the demands to modify or adapt Catholic truth to the spirit of the age 
by resisting it with the firmness and clarity of Trent - and despite the 
prophecies of her enemies that the declaration of Papal Infallibility 
would mark the death blow to the Church, she emerged stronger and more 
vigorous than ever. This of course evoked the full fury of the City of 
Man. The hatred of the world for the Church was made manifest, and at 
the same time manifested the divine nature of the Catholic Church; for 
the hatred of the world was designated by Christ Himself as one of the 
marks of His Mystical body which must not only teach Christ crucified, 
but will live out the mystery of His crucifixion and resurrection until 
He comes again in Glory... Had Christ been prepared to enter into 
dialogue with his enemies, had he been prepared to adapt, to make 
concessions, then He would have escaped crucifixion - but of what value 
would  the Incarnation have been? Pope Pius IX followed the example of 
Christ whose Vicar he was and, as the highest point attracted the storm, 
so the chief violence fell upon the head of the Vicar of Christ...."20

One does not have to be an expert in theological matters to know 
that, if the Conciliar fathers had found themselves incapable of 
unequivocally refuting every one of the objections of the 
inopportunists, and of showing in a peremptory manner that, throughout 
the preceding nineteen centuries not one Pope - even among those whose 
lives had been scandalous in the extreme - had ever erred in his 
function as Pope, in his teaching function as the universal Pastor and 
Doctor, the Church could never have solemnly promulgated this dogma. 
Indeed, if the issues and facts had not been made absolutely clear, the 
adversaries of infallibility and the enemies of the Church would 
certainly have published abroad all the supposedly false teachings of 
the previous popes and used this as a means of making the Church appear 
ridiculous. "No man", say the Fathers of the great Council of Nice, 
"ever accused the Holy See of a mistake, unless he was himself 
maintaining an error.21"

When the final vote came, the adversaries of this dogma, 
foreseeing how things would go, left Rome in order to avoid personally 
participating in this decision. They however, not wishing to be ejected 
from the Church, declared in advance that they accepted the decision - a 
decision that ultimately depended, not on the Council, but on the Pope 
promulgating the Council's teaching.22

Unable to any longer deny this principle, the liberals in the 
Church rapidly shifted tactics. "The Pope is infallible", they said, 
"and such is certain for the church has proclaimed it as a dogma. But be 
careful! the Pope is not infallible every time he opens his mouth." and 
under the pretense of defending this dogma by sharply defining its 
limits, they cleverly stressed the concept that the Pope only uses this 
privilege on rare occasions - "once or twice in a century". Today we 
hear the same cry from those who would defend the post-Conciliar 
changes. "Nothing de fide has been changed", by which they mean no part 
of the extraordinary Magisterium. "The children of this world are wiser 
in their generation than the children of light" (Luke 16:8).23

Because the infallible nature of the Ordinary Magisterium is 
currently so much in dispute, the following pertinent quotations are 
appended:

"Even if he makes this submission efficaciously which is in accord with 
an act of divine faith... he should extend it to those truths which are 
transmitted as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the 
entire Church dispersed throughout the world."  Pius IX, Tuas libenter

Leo XIII reiterated the teaching of Vatican I to the effect that 'the 
sense of the sacred dogmas is to be faithfully kept which Holy Mother 
Church has once declared, and is not to be departed from under the 
specious pretext of a more profound understanding.' He adds: "Nor is the 
suppression to be considered altogether free from blame, which 
designedly omits certain principles of Catholic doctrine and buries 
them, as it were in oblivion. For there is the one and the same Author 
and Master of all the truths that Christian teaching comprises: the 
only-begotten son who is in the bosom of the Father. That they are 
adapted to all ages and nations is plainly deduced from the word which 
Christ addressed to His Apostles: Go therefore teach ye all nations: 
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and 
behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world. 

Wherefore the same Vatican  Council says: 'By the divine and Catholic 
faith those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of 
God either written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church 
whether in solemn decision or by the ordinary universal magisterium, to 
be believed as having been divinely revealed.' Far bee it then, for any 
one to diminsh or for any reason whatever to pass over anything of this 
divinely delivered doctrine; whosoever would do so, would rather wish to 
alienate Catholics from the Church than to bring over to the Church 
those who dissent from it. Let them return; indeed nothing is nearer to 
Our heart; let all those who are wandering far from the sheepfold of 
Christ return; but let it not be any other road than that which Christ 
has pointed out... The history of all past ages is witness that the 
Apostolic See, to which not only the office of teaching but also the 
supreme government of the whole Church was committed, has constantly 
adhered to the same doctrine in the same sense and in the same mind.... 

In this all must acquiesce who wish to avoid the censure of our 
predecessor Pius VI, who proclaimed the 18th proposition of the Synod of 
Pistoia 'to be injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God which 
governs her, in as much as it subjects to scrutiny the discipline 
established and approved by the Church, as if the Church could establish 
a useless discipline or one which would be too onorous for Christian 
liberty to bear.'"  Leo XIII Testem Benevolentiae

When the modernists attempted to void the magisterial authority of the 
decisions of the Biblical Commission and of Lamentabili sane exitu which 
accompanied the Encyclical Paschendi dominici gregi, Pope Saint Pius X 
issued the following Motu Proprio:

"There are no dearth of individuals who go beyond legitimate bounds and 
lean towards opinions and methods prone to be affected by pernicious 
novelties; carried away by an exaggerated solicitude for liberty - which 
in reality is no other than an unrestricted license which is most 
prejudicial to the sacred sciences and full of grave dangers for the 
purity of the faith - such individuals have not received or do not 
receive the aforesaid decisions [of the Pontifical Biblical Commission] 
with that obedience which is due them, even though they have the 
approval of the Pope. This is why We believe it is necessary to declare 
and order, as in fact we are presently expressly declaring and ordering, 
that everyone without exception is bound in conscience to obey the 
doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in the same 
manner that they must 0bey the decisions and decrees of the other Sacred 
Congregations approved by the  Sovereign Pontiff... Beyond this, wishing 
toi repress the audacity of innumerable Modernists which increases day 
by day - who by means of all sorts of sophisms and artifices exert 
themselves on a daily basis in an attempt to destroy the value and 
efficacy of Lamentabili sane exitu promulged by the Holy Roman and 
Universal Inquisition, under Our order of July 3rd of the present year, 
and even of our Encyclical Pascendi dominici gregi of September 8, also 
of this year, We again reiterate and confirm with our Apostolic 
Authority, the Decree of this holy and supreme Congregation with regard 
to Our Encyclical and we add the pain of Excommunication against those 
who contradict it. We declare and decree that if anyone - which God 
forbid - should have the temerity to defend, no matter which of the 
propositions opinions or reproved doctrines found in one or the other of 
the documents mentioned above, he incurs ipso facto, the censure carried 
by the Chapter Docentes of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, which 
censure is the first of the excommunications latae sententiae simply 
reserved to the Roman Pontiff."  Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae

"This Magisterium [the ordinary and universal] of the Church in regard 
to faith and morals, must be for every theologian the proximate and 
universal rule of truth, for the Lord has entrusted the Church with the 
entire deposit of the faith - Holy Scripture and Tradition - to be kept, 
to be upheld and to be explained. In the same manner, we must not think 
that what is proposed in the encyclicals does not require in itself our 
assent because the Popes did not exercise their supreme magisterial 
powers in them. Our Lord's words 'he who listens to you listens to Me' 
also applies to whatever is taught by the ordinary Magisterium of the 
Church."  Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis

"The Pope is infallible in all matters of Faith and Morals. By matters 
of faith and morals is meant the whole revelation of the truths of 
faith; or the whole way of salvation through faith; or the whole 
supernatural order, with all that is essential to the sanctification and 
salvation of man through Jesus Christ. The Pope is infallible, not only 
in the whole matter of revealed truths; he is also indirectly infallible 
in all truths which, though not revealed, are so intimately connected 
with revealed truths, that the deposit of faith and morals cannot be 
guarded, explained, and defended without an infallible discernment of 
such unrevealed truths. The Pope could not discharge his office as 
Teacher of all nations, unless he were able with infallible certainty to 
proscribe and condemn doctrines, logical, scientific, physical, 
metaphysical, or political, of any kind which are at variance with the 
Word of God and imperil the integrity and purity of the faith, or the 
salvation of souls. Whenever the Holy Father, as Chief Pastor and 
Teacher of all Christians, proceeds, in briefs, encyclical letters, 
consistorial allocutions, and other Apostolic letters, to declare 
certain truths, or anything that is conducive to the preservation of 
faith and morals, or to reprobate perverse doctrines, and condemn 
certain errors, such declarations of truth and condemnations of errors 
are infallible, or ex Cathedra acts of the Pope (emphasis mine). All 
acts ex Cathedra are binding in conscience and call for our firm 
interior assent, both of the intellect and the will, even though they do 
not express an anathema on those who disagree. To refuse such interior 
assent would be, for a Catholic, a mortal sin, since such a refusal 
would be a virtual denial of the dogma of infallibility, and we should 
be heretics were we conscious of such a denial (Alphonse Liguori, Theol. 
Moral. lib. I, 104). It would even be heresy to say that any such  
definition of truths or condemnations of perverse doctrines are 
inopportune."  Father Michael Muller, CSSR24

"In a word, the whole magisterium or doctrinal authority of the Pontiff 
as the supreme Doctor of all Christians, is included in this definition 
[at Vatican I] of his infallibility. And also all legislative or 
judicial acts, so far as they are inseparably connected with his 
doctrinal authority; as for instance, all judgments, sentences, and 
decisions, which contain the motives of such acts as derived from faith 
and morals. Under this will come the laws of discipline, canonization of 
the saints, approbation of Religious Orders, of devotions, and the like; 
all of which intrinsically contain the truths and principles of faith, 
morals and piety. The definition, then, does not limit the infallibility 
of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but 
extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his 
supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority."


CARDINAL MANNING, THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND ITS DEFINITIONS 25

At this point we can come to certain conclusions: 

1) Christ instituted a hierarchical Church  which was His own 
Mystical body, and is as such the prolongation of His presence in the 
world.

2) He revealed to this Church certain truths and entrusted these to it 
as a precious pearl - the deposit of the faith.

3) He established a Magisterium in order to keep intact the deposit of 
revealed truths for all time and to assure their availability to all 
mankind.

4) He instructed the Church to teach these truths. The Magisterium is a 
"divinely appointed authority to teach... all nations... all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you."

5) This single Magisterium of the Church is entirely in the Pope, the 
vicar of Christ, and through him in all the bishops that are in union 
with him.

6) In so far as these truths are revealed to us by Christ and the 
Apostles, they are infallibly true.

7) The pope when he functions in his capacity as the Vicar of Christ, as 
one hierarchical person with our Lord, is to be obeyed as if he was Our 
Lord.

8) When the pope teaches in this capacity - ex cathedra - he teaches 
infallibly.

9) The Pope and the bishops in union with him are in no way empowered to 
teach anything other than what pertains to this original deposit "in the 
same sense and mind" that they have always been understood.

10) Obviously doubts may arise as to the exact nature or meaning of some 
point of doctrine contained in this deposit. When such occurs, the 
hierarchy functions to explain and define, but not to innovate. "The 
Pope [and by extension, the hierarchy] is only the interpreter of this 
truth already revealed. He explains, he defines, but he makes no 
innovation"26.

11) "The revelation made to the Apostles by Christ and by the Holy 
Spirit whom He sent to teach them all truth was final, definitive. To 
that body of revealed truth nothing has been, or ever will be added."

12) There is no need for the Pope to use special formulas or attach 
anathemas to his ex cathedra teachings.

13) The Ordinary Magisterium is to be believed with the same divine and 
Catholic faith as is the Extraordinary Magisterium. 


SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS ON THE MAGISTERIUM

The Magisterium is also called "living", not because it "evolves" 
in the manner that modern man erroneously ascribes to all things, but 
because it exists today as a viable entity within what the theologians 
call the "visible" Church. It is "living" because it is vivified by the 
Holy Ghost. As Cardinal Manning explains: "this office of the Holy Ghost 
consists in the following operations: first, in the original 
illumination and revelation...; secondly, in the preservation of that 
which was revealed, or, in the other words, in the prolongation of the 
light of truth by which the Church in the beginning was illuminated; 
thirdly, in assisting the Church to conceive, with greater fullness, 
explicitness, and clearness, the original truth in all its relations; 
fourthly, in defining that truth in words, and in the creation of a 
sacred terminology, which becomes a permanent tradition and a perpetual 
expression of the original revelation; and lastly, in the perpetual 
enunciation and proposition of the same immutable truth in every age."27

In giving assent to the teaching authority of the Church we should 
recognize the fact that we are giving assent, not to a series of "dry" 
doctrines decided upon by mere men, but rather to Christ Himself. 
Moreover, in so far as the Church and Christ are one, this obligation of 
giving assent also extends to certain matters intimately related to the 
faith such as the Sacraments instituted by Christ and the ecclesiastical 
laws by which she governs herself. As St. Catherine of Sienna says, "the 
Church is no other than Christ Himself, and it is she who gives us the 
Sacraments, and the Sacraments give us life."28

The Catholic Church is not a congregation of people agreeing 
together, it is not a School of Philosophy or a Mutual Improvement 
Society. It is rather the Living Voice of God and Christ's revelation to 
all people, through all time. It teaches only what its divine Master 
taught. It is in God's name that the Church makes the awesome demand she 
does on the faith of men - a demand that cannot be merely waived aside 
as being incompatible with the so-called rights of private judgment.

It will be argued that the Church has been far from pure in her 
worldly actions. This is to misunderstand her nature. She is by 
definition a "perfect society", the divinely instituted Mystical Body of 
Christ. The human failings of individual Catholics - or groups of 
Catholics - in no way alters the Church's essentially divine character. 

She certainly contains sinners within her bosom, for she, like Christ, 
is in the world for the sake of sinners. Those who would reject the 
teachings of her divine Master because of her human failings, are 
similar to the Pharisees who rejected Christ because he ate with 
publicans. Despite such defects, the fundamental nature and purpose of 
the Church cannot change. She has never asked the world to follow other 
than the doctrine of Christ. "The Proximate end (purpose) of the Church 
is to teach all men the truths of Revelation, to enforce the divine 
precepts, to dispense the means of grace, and thus to maintain the 
practice of the Christian religion. The ultimate end is to lead all men 
to eternal life"29

Man is free to examine the reasonableness and validity of the 
Church's claims; he is also free to accept or reject them. If he chooses 
the latter, which is in essence to refuse the authority of God's 
Revelation, he is forced, if he is rational, to seek some other basis 
and authority for his actions and beliefs. And this brings us to the 
topic of:

	
PRIVATE JUDGMENT

In the last analysis, man must in religious matters, rely upon 
some authority.  Either this derives from some objective "teaching 
authority" that is independent of himself, or else it derives from an 
"inner feeling" that can be characterized as "private judgment"30. 
Clearly, the prevailing basis for religious beliefs in the modern world 
- be they Protestant or "modernist-Catholic" - is private judgment, 
which is to say that paramount authority resides in that which at any 
moment commends itself to the individual or group most strongly31. 

According to Vatican II, man's dignity is such that in religious 
matters, he is to be guided by his own judgment32. Such a principle by 
its very nature represents a revolt against the Church (and Christ), for 
it proclaims that what the Church teaches is not morally obligatory. 

Vatican II seems to have forgotten that man's freedom resides, not in 
his being at liberty to believe anything he wants, but in his ability to 
accept or refuse what God teaches; that his dignity resides, not in 
acting like gods, but in his conforming himself to divine principles. 

Private Judgment always starts out by accepting some of the 
teachings of the established faith and rejecting others - it is only a 
matter of time before the 'new' suffers in turn from the same principle. 

Within Luther's own lifetime dozens of other Protestant sects were 
formed, and one might add that within the post-Conciliar church the same 
thing has happened. That this is less obvious is because this Church 
blandly accepts the most divergent views - other than traditional 
orthodoxy - as legitimate. St. Thomas Aquinas said, "the way of a 
heretic is to restrict belief in certain aspects of Christ's doctrine 
selected and fashioned at pleasure" (Summa II-II, 1.a.1). Obviously, 
this "picking and choosing" is nothing other than the free reign of 
private judgment. And as sects give rise to other sects, it soon happens 
that all truth and falsehood in religion becomes a matter of private 
opinion and one doctrine becomes as good as another. Again, it is only a 
matter of time before all doctrinal issues become irrelevant (who can 
ever agree about them anyway?). What follows is that morality loses its 
objective character, and being based on "social contract", can alter in 
accord with prevailing social needs33. Man, not God, becomes the center 
of the universe and the criteria for truth; doing good to others becomes 
his highest aspiration, and "progress" his social goal. The idea of 
"sin" is limited to what "hurts" our neighbor or the "state". What need 
is there for God, for truth, for doctrines, for authority, for the 
Church and for all the "claptrap" of the ages that has held man back 
from his worldly "destiny"? All that is asked of modern man is that he 
be "sincere", and that he not disturb his neighbor excessively. If in 
this milieu he manages to retain any religious sense at all, it is 
considered a "private matter". Man's "dignity", which traditionally was 
due to the fact that he was "made in the image of God", is now said to 
derive from his independence of God. In reality, man has been so seduced 
by the serpent - "Ye shall be as Gods" - that he has proclaimed himself 
his own God. (As Paul VI said on the occasion of the moon landing, 
"honor to man... king of earth,... and today, prince of heaven!"). He 
lives by his own morality and only accepts the truths that he himself 
has established. (It used to be said of the Protestants that "every man 
was his own Pope".) A satanic inversion has occurred and man cries out, 
as did once the Angel of Light - Non Serviam - I will not serve any 
master other than myself34.

Of course, all this occurs in stages. What is remarkable is the 
similarity of pattern seen in all "reformation movements". What starts 
out as the denial of one or two revealed truths (or of truths derived 
from revelation), progressively ends up in the denial of them all35. 

Similar also are the various subterfuges by which this is achieved.  
Almost all reformers declare that they are "inspired by the Holy Spirit" 
(and who can argue with the Holy Spirit?) and end up by ignoring or 
denying His existence. All claim to be returning to "primitive 
Christianity", which is nothing other than Christianity as they think it 
should have been all along. All, or almost all, claim that the are 
adapting the Faith to the needs of modern man, which is nothing else 
than an appeal to the pride and arrogance of their followers and an 
attempt to make Christianity conform to their personal needs36. All 
quote Scripture, but selectively and out of context, and never those 
parts that disagree with their innovative ideas - thus it follows that 
they reject the traditional interpretation given to the sacred writings 
by the Church Fathers and the Saints. All mix truth with error, for 
error has no attractive power on its own. All attack the established 
rites, for they know that the lex orandi (the manner of prayer) reflects 
the lex credendi (the manner of believing); once the latter is changed, 
the former becomes an embarrassment to them37. All use the traditional 
terms of religion: love, truth, justice and faith, but attach to them a 
different meaning. And what are all these subterfuges but means of 
introducing their own private and personal judgments on religious 
matters into the public domain? Finally, none of the reformers fully 
agree with each other except in their rejection of the "fullness" of the 
established Catholic faith, for error is "legion" and truth is one. As 
one mediaeval writer put it, "they are vultures that never meet together 
except to feast upon a corpse"38.

The traditional Church has of course always eschewed the use of 
"private judgment" in religious matters. From a traditional point of 
view, man should seek to "think correctly" rather than to "think for 
himself". (What kind of mathematician would a person be who computed for 
himself and considered the correct answer to be a matter of "feeling" 
arising from his subconscious?) The Jewish fathers considered private 
judgment the greatest form of idolatry because it made oneself rather 
than God the source of truth. As has been pointed out above, man's 
"liberty" lies, not in his freedom to decide for himself just what is 
true and false, but in his freedom to accept or reject the truth that 
Christ and the Church teach and offer. It is a saying of common wisdom 
that no man should be his own advocate or physician, lest his emotions 
interfere with his judgment39. If we are careful to obtain authoritative 
advise and direction in the management of our physical and economic 
well-being, it becomes absurd for us to relegate the health of our soul 
to the "whims" of our emotions. As Socrates said, "Being deceived by 
ourselves is the most dreadful of all things, for when he who deceives 
us never departs from us even for a moment, but is always present, is it 
not a most fearful thing?" (Cratylus, 428, D). As soon as we make 
ourselves rather than God speaking through the Church, the criterion of 
truth, we end up by making man qua man the center of the universe and 
all truth becomes both subjective and relative. This is why Pope Saint 
Pius X said "we must use every means and bend every effort to bring 
about the total disappearance of that enormous and detestable wickedness 
so characteristic of our time - the substitution of man for God" (E 
Supremo Apostolatu).

There is of course an area in which legitimate use can, and indeed 
must, be made of what is sometimes - though erroneously - called Private 
Judgment. In that case what are being made are not judgments in the 
Protestant sense, which are mere opinions, but rather objectively 
certain judgments which are nevertheless reasonable.40 It must never be 
forgotten that the intellect of a private individual is capable in 
certain far from infrequent circumstances, of making judgments which are 
not liable to error, because within due limits the human intellect is 
infallible. As Father Hickey states in his Summa Philosophiae 
Scholasticae, "the intellect is 'per se' infallible, although 'per 
accidens' it can err." As Dr. Orestes Brownson states, "private judgment 
(in the Protestant sense) is only when the matters judged lie out of the 
range of reason, and when its principle is not the common reason of 
mankind, nor a Catholic or public authority, but the fancy, the caprice, 
the prejudice or the idiosyncrasy of the individual forming it."41 
(Brownson's Quarterly Review, October 185).

Such for example is the judgment a man makes use of in seeking the 
truth, and which makes him aware that in matters where he lacks full 
understanding, it is appropriate to use a guide. Again, there is the use 
of judgment in the application of principles to a given situation 
(conscience as the Catholic understands it), or in areas where the 
Church has never specifically spoken and where it allows for differences 
of legitimate "theological opinion". In all these situations there is a 
criterion of certainty beyond the individual and evidence is adducible 
which ought to convince the reason of every man, and which when adduced, 
does convince every man of ordinary understanding. Having stated the 
distinction between mere opinion and the proper individual use of 
judgment we can further add that such judgment can never rationally be 
used to abrogate principles or deny revealed truths. These same 
distinctions make it clear how false it is to accuse Traditional 
Catholics who adhere to the teachings and practices of the Church of All 
Times, and who reject innovations that go against the deposit of the 
faith, of using private judgment in a Protestant sense. To label them as 
"Rebels" or "Protestants" because they refuse to change their beliefs is 
either an abuse of language or pure hypocrisy.

Private judgment in the Protestant sense is inimical to the 
spiritual life not only because it denies the authority of Revelation, 
but because it also denies intellection. God gave us an intellect by 
means of which we can know truth from falsehood and right from wrong. 

Reason is normally the "handmaid" of the intellect, which means its 
function is that of ratiocination or discoursing from premises to 
conclusions. Truth does not depend on reason, but rather truth becomes 
explicit with the help of Reason. We do not say something is true 
because it is logical, but rather that it is logical because it is true. 

Reason must then feed on some sustenance, and this it gets from above or 
from below; above from intellection and Revelation; below from feelings 
and sense perceptions. Modern man, while occasionally using his higher 
"cognitive" faculties, in the practical order refuses to grant their 
existence. More precisely, being Nominalist, he refuses to accept any 
premises from above and limits the function of reason to dealing with 
what comes from below, from his feelings or sense perceptions. In this 
schema Reason is placed at the apex of man's faculties (Rationalism). 

Given these truncated principles, it follows that all truth is based on 
feelings and sense perceptions and hence is relative42. Modern man lives 
on "Opinions divorced from knowledge", which in Plato's words " are ugly 
things."43 At the same time there was a parallel attack on the will. 

While mechanists and evolutionists deny free-will altogether, pseudo-
theologians obliterated it in the name of a false concept of grace.  
(What else is "justification by faith", but the denial of "good works", 
those acts we "willfully" perform. Surely grace builds on nature and 
will abandon us in proportion to our refusal to cooperate with it.)44

Those who see the futility of resolving religious issues on the 
basis of their (or someone else's) personal and subjective opinions, and 
who seek objective and external sources for the Truth, must inevitably 
turn to the various "churches" for a solution. Of all the various 
"ecclesiastical communities" that hold out the possibility of finding 
objective truth, only one has consistently rejected "private judgment" 
as a source. Only one proclaims that God Himself (through Christ and the 
Apostles) has revealed the truth, and only one claims and can 
demonstrate that it has retained this "deposit" intact from Apostolic 
times down to the present. This is of course, the "One, Holy Catholic 
and Apostolic Church". To quote St. Alphonsus Liguori:

"To reject the divine teaching of the Catholic Church is to reject the 
very basis of reason and revelation, for neither the principles of the 
one nor those of the other have any longer any solid support to rest on; 
they can be interpreted by everyone as he pleases; every one can deny 
all truths whatsoever he chooses to deny. I therefore repeat: If the 
divine teaching authority of the Church, and the obedience to it are 
rejected, every error will be endorsed and must be tolerated."45


THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH
"One Lord, one faith, one baptism."  St. Paul (Eph. 4:4-5)

Having determined the nature of the teaching authority of the 
Church we can now turn to yet another quality inherent in her nature: 
INERRANCY. In essence, she cannot wander from the original deposit and 
still claim to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

It is amazing to what a degree these four qualities hang together 
- lose one and you lose them all. The Church is one in the doctrines she 
teaches. "She is called holy and without spot or wrinkle in her faith; 
which admits of no sort of errors against the revealed word of God." She 
is called Catholic not only because her teachings extend across time and 
space in this world, but because the term means "universal" and the 
doctrines she teaches are true throughout the entire universe, in 
heaven, on earth and in hell. She is called Apostolic because she 
teaches the same doctrines and uses the same Sacraments which the 
Apostles taught and used, and because she retains intact the Apostolic 
Succession.46 Only the "Catholic Church has these qualities, and it 
follows that other Churches which deny one or more of her teachings 
cannot be considered as the Church which Christ founded any more then 
they can claim "union" with her.47

Oneness or "unity" exists as a characteristic of this Church, not 
because the faithful agree with "the bishops in union with the Pope", 
but because all its members, including the bishops and the pope "agree 
in one faith" established by Christ, use "the same Sacrifice" and are 
"united under one Head"48. It is not the agreement of the faithful with 
any faith the hierarchy may wish to teach, or to use any rite the 
hierarchy may wish to establish, but rather the agreement of both the 
laity and the hierarchy (who one hopes is also to be numbered among the 
faithful) with the doctrines and the rites that Christ and the Apostles 
established. Nor is the concept of unity restricted to the living, for 
by the very nature of things, we must be in agreement with all those 
Catholics who have gone before us back to the time of Christ, with those 
Catholics in the Church Suffering (Purgatory) and the Church Triumphant 
(Heaven)....

It is repeatedly claimed by the present hierarchy that the Church has 
lost this "unity" and that the various divisions among Christians 
constitute a scandal that must be repaired. The Latin title for the 
Vatican II document on Ecumenism is Unitatis redintegratio or "The 
Restoring of Unity". John XXIII established the "Secretariat for 
Promoting Christian Unity" and specified that Unity was the word, not 
Reunion. A new "unity" is to be restored by claiming all Christian 
bodies that accept baptism are part of the true Church. In a similar 
manner the Documents of Vatican II state that the Church that Christ 
established subsists in the Catholic Church rather than is this Church. 

Recently the entire body of English post-Conciliar "bishops" - some 42 
individuals in all - publicly declared in an official communiqué on the 
nature of the Church that the Catholic Church embodies the Church of 
Christ in a special way, but that such a statement "is not intended to 
exclude the fact that other Christian bodies also belong to the Church 
of Christ." They further stated that the Church which Christ established 
also subsists in the Anglican Church. The response of an Anglican 
"bishop" is pertinent: "What has been swept aside from the ecumenical 
scene is the idea that the Church of Christ is identical with the Roman 
Catholic Church. Instead we have a picture of the Church of Christ 
embracing all the Christian churches, though not in the same way...."49 

If such is the position of the English hierarchy, it would seem clear 
that it has apostatized to a man from unity of the faith. And what of 
Rome which never reprimanded them?
	
As opposed to such a view, and based on what has been the constant 
teaching of the Church, unity exists and has always existed in the true 
Church. This unity exists even if the majority of the present hierarchy 
deviate from orthodoxy - indeed it is a matter of faith that such is the 
case50. This is witnessed by the de fide statement of the Holy Office on 
November 8, 1865:

"That the Unity of the church is absolute and indivisible, and that the 
church had never lost its unity, nor for so much as a time, ever can."51

If the new Church is telling us it lacks unity, it is also telling 
us that the pope and the bishops in union with him have deviated from 
orthodoxy and hence lost all magisterial authority. That the greater 
majority of modern-day "Catholics" agree with such an errant hierarchy 
adds nothing to their authority. The personal views of the hierarchy do 
not make up the "deposit of the faith", but rather, it is the "deposit" 
that provides the hierarchy for their raison d'etre. "It is the office 
of the Church... in fulfilling Christ's function as teacher, not to make 
new revelations, but to guard from error the deposit of faith, and 
authentically, authoritatively, to proclaim and interpret the Gospel of 
Jesus Christ"52. As the Holy Office states, "the Primacy of the Visible 
Head is of divine Institution, and was ordained to generate and to 
preserve the unity both of faith and of communion..."53. Authority 
exists to protect the faith and not the other way around. In the face of 
the post-Conciliar attitude, it is of interest to recall the statement 
of the Anglican convert Henry Manning:

"We believe union to be a very precious gift, and only less precious 
than truth... We are ready to purchase the reunion of our separated 
brethren at any cost less than the sacrifice of one jot of a little of 
the supernatural order to unity and faith... We can offer unity only on 
the condition on which we hold it - unconditional submission to the 
living and perpetual voice of the Church of God... it is contrary to 
charity to put a straw across the path of those who profess to desire 
union. But there is something more divine than union, that is the 
Faith."

"There is no unity possible except by the way of truth. Truth first, 
unity afterwards; truth the cause, unity the effect. To invert this 
order is to overthrow the Divine procedure. The unity of Babel ended in 
confusion... To unite the Anglican, the Greek and the Catholic Church in 
any conceivable way could only  end in a Babel of tongues, intellects, 
and wills. Union is not unity... Truth alone generates unity. The unity 
of truth generated its universality. The faith is Catholic, not only 
because it is spread through the world, but because throughout the world 
it is one and the same. The unity of the faith signifies that it is the 
same in every place [and time]"54

As the English Bishop John Milner said of the Anglo-Catholic 
Ecumenical movement in the 19th Century: "if we should unite ourselves 
with it, the Universal Church would disunite itself from us".

If we are then to speak of believing in the "One, Holy Catholic 
and Apostolic Church" we must understand the phrase in the "same sense 
and mind" that the Church has always understood it55. "There is only one 
true Church which remounts to Apostolic time by means of its 
traditions... For us, we recognize only one ancient and Catholic Church, 
which is one by its nature, by its principles, by its origin, by its 
excellence, which reunites all its children in the unity of one same 
faith..." (St. Clement of Alexandria). "Such is the faith, which the 
Church received; and although she is spread throughout the universe, she 
guards with care this precious treasure, as if she inhabited but one 
house; she professes each of these articles of faith with a perfect 
conformity, as if she had only one soul and one heart. Behold  what it 
is she teaches, what it is she preaches, what it is she transmits by 
tradition, as if she had only one mouth and only one tongue..." (St. 
Irenaeus). "What they [the Church Fathers] believe, I believe; what they 
held, I hold; what they taught, I teach; what they preached, I 
preach..." (St. Augustine). It is with these principles in mind that we 
shall, in the next chapter, investigate the sources of the Church's 
teachings and practices.56


THE PRESENT SITUATION

Few would deny but that the present situation in the Church is one 
of massive confusion. No two priests or bishops teach the same doctrine 
and every possible aberration is allowed in liturgical functions. How is 
a Catholic seeking to live the faith able to sort out the issues. The 
answer is the Magisterium. It is amazing to what degree this organ 
provides us with answers as to how to react and function, the limits of 
obedience to a false hierarchy, and even with regard to the authority of 
a pope who officially promulgates heresy under the cover of magisterial 
authority. 

We can of course debate as to what is part of the ordinary 
magisterium and what is not. The criteria provided by Vatican I are all 
we really need to determine this. What we cannot do is deny the de fide 
teaching that the ordinary magisterium is just as infallible as the 
extra-ordinary magisterium.57  

The greatest error possible is to deny the total authority of the 
Magisterium (remembering that there is only one magisterium that 
expresses itself in a variety of ways). To do so is to cut oneself off 
from truth and to turn one into a Protestant.58 We have spoken of the 
possibility of holding theological opinions, but when one examines the 
magisterium, there is almost nothing significant left about which to 
have theological opinions.59 Those who would tell us that the ordinary 
magisterium can contain error are wolves in sheep's clothing. If such is 
the case we must all become super theologians so as to pick and choose 
what is true and false among some 95% of the Church's teaching. Such an 
attitude allows one to reject anything one doesn't personally approve of 
while at the same time allowing for the introduction of every possible 
error. It is a satanic proposition.

And all this highlights the present situation in the Church with 
clarity. It is clear that Vatican II teaches a host of doctrines under 
the cover of magisterial infallibility that directly contradict what the 
Church has taught through the ages as true. If one accepts the teaching 
of Vatican II and the definition of the Mass that is promulgated in the 
General Instruction on the Novus Ordo Missae60  - which all must do who 
accept the authority of the post-Conciliar "popes," one is forced to 
deny previously taught truths which is to apostatize from the faith.61 
Putting this in different terms, the Catholic today is forced to choose 
between two different magisteriums. That such is the case is glossed 
over by claiming that the living character of the Magisterium allows for 
development, progress or evolution  of doctrine, another concept 
embraced by Vatican II. Now certain principles are clear. We can develop 
or deepen our understanding of the Magisterium, but the Magisterium 
itself cannot change under the euphemism of development. The reason for 
this is that Truth cannot change. Another principle involved is that 
once something is declared to be magisterial teaching, it takes priority 
over any change. Two contraries cannot be simultaneously true. It 
follows that one cannot remove what is magisterial from the Magisterium.

Once again this is affirmed by the Magisterium:

"Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be 
perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declarred; and 
thre must never be recesdsion from that meaning under the species name 
of a deeper understanding [Can.3]. Therefore... let the understanding, 
the knowledge, and widsdome of individuals as of all, of one man as of 
the whole Church, grow and progres stronglyu with the passage of the 
ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in 
the same dogma, with the sane sense and the same understanding."  
Denzinger 1800

We have then the two Magisteriums; one, as it existed up to the 
death of Pope Pius XII which can be called "authentic," and another 
which, has it's roots in an attempt to bring the Church into line with 
the modern world, established during the reign of John XXIII. Apart from 
Roncalli's prior Freemasonic connections,  his first act on assuming the 
papal role was to delete the phrases referring to and praying for the 
conversion of  the "perfidious Jews" from the Good Friday services. 
(Obviously, there were perfidious and non-perfidious Jews, just as there 
are perfidious and  non-perfidious Catholics. Who would say Nicoddemus 
or Simeon were perfidious? Who would not say Simon Magnus was not 
perfidious?) This seemingly simple act, disguised under the cover of a 
false charity, was a declaration on his part of the principle of non 
serviam. It  was like a first step in establishing the new post-
Conciliar Church. It was followed with a host of other doctrinal 
changes.62


FAITH

Catholics are often confused about the term Faith. Faith has, as 
St. Thomas explains, two aspects. There is the objective side of The 
Faith - which is incorporated or expressed by the Magisterium (and this 
is a "gift"), and there is the subjective side of Faith which is the 
assent we give to the Revelation as taught by the Magisterium. Thus to 
claim to have the Catholic Faith requires that we give our whole-hearted 
assent to the Magisterium including those parts that we may not be fully 
aware of. The same is true of those who follow the post-Conciliar 
pseudo-Magisterium. Those of us who believe in a Revelation that is true 
and who strive to be able to able to say with St. Paul "I live, not I, 
but Christ within me," must be sure to adhere to the authentic 
magisterium given us by Him who is "the Way, the Light and the Truth." 
People who hide behind the present confusions, the shibboleths of 
doctrinal development, obedience to the popes, etc, are in essence 
refusing to make the choice and at a minimum run the risk of being 
included among the "lukewarm." (The degree of responsibility varies 
greatly with circumstance but clearly falls more on the hierarchy 
responsible for preserving and teaching the "deposit of the Faith.") The 
reason why Catholics who adhere to the authentic Magisterium call 
themselves "traditional," is becaus tradition is what is "handed down." 
Those adhering to the post-Conciliar pseudo-magisterium have no right to 
use this term. 

One can in fact label the objective side of faith as being 
equivalent to the authentic magisterium. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that 
faith (i.e., the authentic magisterium) holds the first rank in the 
spiritual life because it is by faith alone that the soul is bound to 
God and that which gives life to the soul is that which binds it to God, 
namely faith. God has opened to us no other way to eternal happiness 
than that of faith... he who has been raised to contemplation look not 
uon faith as inferior to this extraordinary gift. The clearer and more 
comprehensive his vision, the stronger does one's faith become. As St. 
Catherine of Sienna said, "the gift of prophecy can be recognized as 
true only by the light of the faith."

This brings us to the issue of orthodoxy which is defined as "true 
doctrine and sound faith." It is only in light of the above need to be 
one with Christ and His Magisterium that heresy has meaning and also 
clearly risk. This is why the Magisterial condemnation of error always 
demands our assent. It is pertinent that the post-Conciliar Church has 
dropped the use of the Index and declares itself unwilling to condemn 
the grossest of errors. "Pope" John Paul I publicly stated that in the 
Old Church "only the Truth had rights, but now we know that even error 
has rights." Once again however we must be careful. The True Church 
distinguishes between the possibility that we may be mistaken about some 
Magisterial point and therefore speaks of "material" heresy (some 
"matter" about which we are mistaken) as opposed to "formal" heresy. She 
requests that "competent authority" point out a material error to the 
individual involved and allow him six months to study the issue and 
correct him or herself. If after six months this correction is not made, 
the Church considers the individual to have added an attitude of 
"obstinacy" to the error and normally deprives the individual of at 
least his teaching function. This is not "thought control," but the 
insisting on responsible people thinking correctly. "Brethren, Let this 
mind be  in you, which was also in Jesus Christ" (Phil.2,5)

All this highlights the dilemma of the Catholic in the post-
Conciliar era and there is no rational way around this. Catholics who do 
not wish to drift are forced to choose. In order to get a perspective on 
the need to take a stand, one has only to ask how many Catholics would 
run their stock port-folio without investigations and choices. Despite 
all the supposed confusions fostered by "the world, the flesh and the 
devil," Holy Mother Church has provided us with all the criteria needed 
to make the right choices. The grounds for such choices are further 
delineated in other parts of The Destruction of the Christian Tradition 
which is a text based on magisterial teachings.63 

One further point. Those that assert their own opinions between 
the Magisterium and the faithful in essence create  a cult in the 
pejorative sense of the word. Thus it is that both the post-Conciliar 
Church and such organizations as the Society of Pius X (advocating 
disobeying a Pope whose authority they recognize) are from this point of 
view "cults" and not Catholic.64 

All this raises the issue of obedience. Now obedience is a moral 
virtue. Faith Hope and Charity are theological virtues. Obedience 
without the theological virtues is an absurdity because it is always 
possible to give obedience to a wrong authority, even to Satan himself. 

Faith Hope and Charity are the proper objects of obedience - normally 
they are mediated through the Church hierarchy, but they reside 
ultimately in Him who is the Truth, The Way and the Light. Now this 
Truth, Way and Light resides above all in what He taught and teaches, 
which is incorporated in the Magisterium - once again, both the Ordinary 
and Extra-ordinary. Hence it follows that we must give our obedience (or 
what the Church calls our "intellectual assent") to the entire 
Magisterium. Only by so doing can we think with Christ. And if we are to 
be Baptized with Christ, Buried with Christ and Resurrected with Christ, 
we must then also think with Christ.65


SACRAMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

One of the most important functions of the Authentic Magisterium 
is to protect Sacramental integrity.  The Faithful have an absolute 
right to the Sacraments as they were given to us by God as a "vehicle" 
for the transmission of Grace. Now the post-Conciliar establishment has 
violated the Magisterial structures aimed at protecting these Sacraments 
in every possible way. Consider the traditional Mass. This rite was 
protected by the Papal Bull Quo Primum which states that no priest can 
be forbidden to say this Mass, and that the faithful shall always have 
access to it. This Papal Bull was moreover re-affirmed by every Pope 
from Saint Pius V (who promulgated it) to the time of John XXIII. This 
is now a forbidden Mass.66 Attempts to disguise this fact such as 
allowing for the so-called "indult" Mass, or the Novus Ordo in Latin 
with Chant prevail. Similarly organizations of seemingly traditional 
priests such as the Society of St. Peter are organized but provided but 
ordained with post-Conciliar "bishops" who, as we shall demonstrate 
below, almost certainly do not have the power to pass on Holy Orders. 

But the fact remains that the Mass of All Times is forbidden and if one 
doubts this statement, simply go and ask a post-Conciliar "bishop" for 
permission to attend it. Now this rite is not only forbidden, it has 
been replaced by a false Mass in which the "Words of Consecration" (no 
longer called such) given us by Christ Himself have been changed.  
Remembering that we are dealing, as Scripture says, with "powers and 
principalities," this action of the post-Conciliar establishment must be 
labeled diabolical.67 In a similar manner all the Sacraments that depend 
upon the priesthood, and particularly that of Episcopal consecration 
have been rendered at least doubtful if not totally destroyed.

An excellent example illustrating many of these isssues is 
provided by E. Sylvester Berry. "According to Protestant teaching, all 
men are free to worship 'God according to the dictates of their own 
conscience.' the doctrine is widely proclaimed today as 'freedom of 
conscience' or 'freedom of worship.' It simply means that every man is 
free, not only to believe according to his own interpretation of the 
Scriptures, but also to worship God in his own way. This either denies 
that Our Lord established any definite form of worship in the New Law, 
or maintains that we cannot know with certainty what it is, for surely 
no Christian could believe that he is free to worship as he pleases, if 
he admits that Christ has established a definite form of worship to be 
used by His followers."68


A WORD ON THE USE OF ONE'S CONSCIENCE

Many hold that their decision as to how to behave in the present 
circumstances is one of following their conscience. Catholics should be 
understand just what this means and again the Magisterium makes it quite 
clear. One's Catholic conscience is not a "still small voice" such as 
Newman and the Protestants believe in. There is a theological and 
metaphysical teaching that Synderesis (the divine spark within us) 
cannot err, but conscience can. Our consciences are far too easily 
influenced by our emotions and passions, by the milieu in which we live, 
and this is to say nothing of the effects of Original Sin. For a 
Catholic the conscience is a faculty used to apply God's laws (knowable 
from the Magisterium) to a given circumstance where the Church has not 
provided clear guidance. One cannot perform an abortion because one's 
conscience "allows" one to do so. Nor can one use one's conscience to 
choose the "lesser of two evils," when both are against God's laws. One 
of course is responsible for a well formed conscience, which is to say, 
for knowing the laws of God (as they pertain to one's station in life), 
as promulgated by the Church and how they apply. But it would be 
impossible for the Church to formulate specifics for every possible 
situation nuanced or otherwise. Hence it is that Our Lord provides us 
with a conscience that allows us to apply the laws we know to some 
specific circumstance.69 Where there is doubt as to such application, 
the Church recommends consulting a competent (and orthodox) confessor.
	
It should be abundantly clear on the basis of what has been said 
that a Catholic cannot reject the authentic Magisterium of the Church on 
the grounds of conscience. The Magisterium, the "proximate rule of 
faith," is in fact God's law for man. It is the Truth, and one obviously 
cannot deny the truth on the grounds of conscience. 

The idea that God's love will protect us from the consequences of 
our rebellion is fraught with danger. Love is a reciprocal affair and as 
St. Francis de Sales instructs us in his Treatise on the Love of God, it 
has three aspects: love of delight in the divine perfections; love of 
benevolence, by which we will to praise the Lord, to serve him and work 
for His glory; and love of conformity, by which we accept all that God 
wills or expects of us, a love which has its consummation in the total 
donation of ourselves to God. 

In the final analysis the Church has not left us orphans. She has 
provided all that we need to be Catholic in the present circumstances. 
Those that would argue that rejecting the heterodox teachings of the 
post-Conciliar "popes" leads to denying the indefectability of the 
Church are simply not rational. It is precisely the opposite. If one 
accepts them one proclaims that the post-Conciliar Church has in fact 
defected, for it has changed its teachings and practices which is the 
essence of defection. The same can be said about rebellion. It is those 
who have changed Christ's teaching (and those who knowingly accept the 
changes) who are in rebellion. As opposed to such, it is those who have 
loyally adhered to the traditions, and who have refused to change their 
beliefs who have proven that the Church, like the Truth she represents, 
has never and never can defect. The gates of hell cannot prevail against 
the truth.

There is a way back. The paradigm is found in the parallel of the 
Prodigal Son. Having demanded our inheritance and left our home, many of 
us have he ended up eating the swill of modernism fit only for pigs. 
When we came to our senses we must return home and the embracing bosom 
of Our Father. Then it is that the "fatted lamb" who "is slain and is 
yet alive" can be returned to us - the lamb which is none other than 
Christ Himself. Those of us who, for whatever reason have left our 
traditional home in Holy Mother Church must make the choice.

In the last analysis, we must all choose between Barabbas and 
Christ!




THE PROBLEMS WITH THE OTHER SACRAMENTS DEPENDENT ON THE PRIESTHOOD 
(APART FROM THE NEW  MASS)

CHAPTER I - GENERAL INTRODUCTION

It is well known that the post-Conciliar Church has, in accord with the 
"Spirit of Vatican II," and with the desire of "updating" her rites, 
made changes in her manner of administering all the sacraments. Few 
would deny that the intention behind the changes was to make the 
Sacraments more acceptable to modern man and especially to the so-called 
"separated brethren." 

Catholics have reacted to the changes in a variety of ways. Most have 
accepted them without serious consideration - after all, they emanated 
from a Rome they always trusted. Others consider them "doubtful," or 
have completely denied their efficacy; and as a result refuse to 
participate in them. Much of the controversy has centered around the new 
Mass, or Novus Ordo Missae, with the result that the other Sacraments - 
especially those which depend on a valid priesthood - have been 
ignored.70 The present book will discuss the changes made in Holy 
Orders, along with those made in the various Sacraments dependent upon 
the priesthood. We shall initiate our study with a restatement of 
traditional Catholic theological principles relative to all the 
Sacraments.

According to the teaching of the Church, a Sacrament is a sensible sign, 
instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to signify and to produce grace. 
There are seven Sacraments: Baptism, Marriage, Holy Orders, Eucharist, 
Absolution (Penance or Confession), Confirmation and Extreme Unction. I 
have listed them in this order because Baptism and Marriage do not 
strictly speaking, require a priest.71 Holy Orders are administered by a 
Bishop and the remaining Sacraments require priestly "powers" to be 
confected or administered.

Sacramental theology by definition dates back to Christ and the 
Apostles.72 It has "developed" over the centuries, which to paraphrase 
St. Albert the Great, does not mean it has "evolved," but rather that 
our understanding of it has become clearer as various aspects were 
denied by heretics and the correct doctrine affirmed and clarified by 
definitive decisions of the Church. The end result can be called the 
traditional teaching of the Church on the Sacraments. 
The rise of Modernism gave rise to a different and Modernist view of 
Sacramental Theology, one which holds that the Sacraments are not so 
much fixed rites handed down through the ages, as "symbols" that reflect 
the faith of the faithful - a faith which is itself a product of the 
collective subconscious of those brought up in a Catholic milieu.73 The 
traditional Sacraments, according to this view, reflected the views of 
the early Christians. As modern man has progressed and matured, it is 
only normal that his rites should also change. It is for the reader to 
decide how much such opinions have affected the changes instituted in 
the Sacraments in the wake of Vatican II.

THE SOURCE OF THE SACRAMENTS

"Who but the Lord," St. Ambrose asks, "is the author of the Sacraments?" 
St. Augustine tells us "It is divine Wisdom incarnate that established 
the sacraments as means of salvation," and St. Thomas Aquinas states 
that "As the grace of the sacraments comes from God alone, it is to Him 
alone that the institution of the sacrament belongs." Thus it is that 
the Apostles did not regard themselves as authors of the Sacraments, but 
rather as "dispensers of the mysteries of Christ" (1 Cor. IV:1).There is 
some debate as to whether Confirmation and Extreme Unction were 
established by Christ directly or through the medium of the Apostles. 
The issue is of no importance, for Revelation comes to us from both 
Christ and the Apostles. The latter, needless to say, would hardly go 
about creating sacraments without divine authority.




A BRIEF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The early Church Fathers, mostly concerned with defining doctrine, 
expended little effort on defining or explaining the sacraments. One 
should not however assume that they lacked understanding. Consider 
Justin Martyr (114-165) who made it clear that the effect of Baptism was 
"illumination" or grace. And again St. Iranaeus (+ 190) who, in 
discussing the "mystery" of the Eucharist, noted that "When the mingled 
cup [i.e., wine mixed with water] and the manufactured bread receives 
the Word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ..." In 
these two Fathers we see the essential theology of the sacrament - the 
joining of "form" and "matter," (though other terms were used) and the 
conveyance of grace.

The earliest Church Fathers placed the Sacraments among the "mysteries" 
(from the Greek mysterion)74 without clearly specifying the number. It 
was Tertullian (circa 150-250) who first translated this term into Latin 
as "sacramentum," though once again, not in an exclusive sense.75 It is 
of interest to quote him in order to show that he was familiar with the 
essential features of sacramental theology: "All waters, therefore... 
do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of 
sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens, 
and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself, and being thus 
sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying... It 
is not to be doubted that God has made the material substance, which He 
has disposed throughout all His products and works, obeying Him also in 
His own peculiar sacraments; that the material substance which governs 
terrestrial life acts as agent likewise in the celestial."76
From this point on the term sacrament was increasingly used - often 
interchangeably with mystery. St. Ambrose (333-397) clearly provides us 
with the first treatise dedicated exclusively to the subject of what he 
calls sacraments, specifically to those of Baptism, Confirmation and the 
Eucharist. He made no attempt at a universal definition, but clearly 
understood the principles involved as is shown by his statement that 
"the sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of 
Christ." It is with St. Augustine (354-430) that the first attempt is 
made to define clearly the term as "a sign," or "signs," which, "when 
they pertain to divine things, are called Sacraments." Elsewhere he 
states that they are called Sacraments because in them one thing is 
seen, and another is understood. He still uses the word as virtually 
equivalent to Mysteries and speaks of Easter as well as the allegory of 
sacred numbers which he sees in the twenty-first chapter of John's 
Gospel as sacraments. Marriage, Ordination, Circumcision, Noah's Arc 
and, the Sabbath and other observances are also so labeled. Perhaps his 
most important contribution to sacramental theology was the distinction 
he drew between the Sacrament as an outer sign and the grace that this 
sign conveyed. The former without the latter, as he indicated, was 
useless.77

The next person to discuss the Sacraments was Isidore of Seville (560-
636) who functioned in this area as an encyclopaedist rather than as an 
individual who provided us with further clarification. His discussion is 
limited to  Baptism, Chrism, and the Body and Blood of the Lord. Next 
was Gratian (1095 -1150) who made the first attempt to bring all the 
canon laws of the Church together. In his Concordia Discordantium 
Canonum he quotes the various definitions we have reviewed, and lists as 
examples the sacraments of Baptism, Chrism (Holy Orders) and the 
Eucharist. This collection became a standard source and Roland 
Bandinelli, who later became Pope Alexander III, (pope 1159-1181) wrote 
a commentary on this text in which he lists the Sacraments as Baptism, 
Confirmation, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood (in which he treats of 
the Consecration of Priests), Penance, Unction and Matrimony. This 
commentary itself became a standard text and a pattern for Peter 
Lombard's Commentary on the Sentences.78

Finally, it is Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141) who reviewed the subject 
and provided us with a definition which most closely resembles that 
officially accepted today. In his text De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, 
he defines a Sacrament as "a corporeal or material element sensibly 
presented from without, representing from its likeness, signifying from 
its institution, and containing from sanctification some invisible and 
spiritual grace." He also states, "add the word of sanctification to the 
element and there results a sacrament." He further distinguished between 
those Sacraments essential for salvation, those "serviceable for 
salvation because by them more abundant grace is received, and those 
which are instituted that through them the other sacraments might be 
administered [i.e., Holy Orders]." 

We shall conclude this historical discussion with three definitive 
decisions of the Church which are de fide, that is, "of faith." 
"A Sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace, instituted by Christ 
for our sanctification" (Catechism of the Council of Trent).

"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law were not all 
instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, or that there are more or less than 
seven, namely Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme 
Unction, Order, and Matrimony, or even that anyone of these seven is not 
truly and strictly speaking a Sacrament: let him be anathema" (Canon of 
the Council of Trent, Denz. 844)."If anyone say that the Sacraments of 
the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do 
not confer grace on those who place no obstacle to the same, let him be 
anathema." (Canon of the Council of Trent).


MATTER AND FORM

The concept of "Form" and "Matter" - the words used and the material 
over which they are said (as for example the Words of Consecration said 
over wine mixed with water in the Mass) were borrowed from the 
Hylomorphic theory of Aristotle, and introduced into Catholic theology 
by either  William of Auxerre or St. Albert the Great. The terminology 
was new but the doctrine old. For example, St. Augustine used such 
phrases as "mystic symbols," and "the sign and the thing invisible," 
"the word and the element."79 

Thus it is that, while the proper words and the material vehicle of the 
Sacraments date back to Christ, debates as to proper form and matter 
only occur after the 13th century. It should be clear that these 
concepts help to clarify, but in no way change the principles enunciated 
by the earliest Church Fathers. The manner in which they clarify will 
become clear when we consider the individual sacraments.

With regard to validity, the Church clearly teaches that "A Sacramental 
form must signify the grace which it is meant to effect, and effect the 
grace which it is meant to signify."


DOES MAN NEED THE SACRAMENTS TO BE SAVED?

Not absolutely, but "relatively absolutely." The present study cannot 
discuss in detail the Catholic principle that "Extra Ecclesiam nulla 
Salus" - that is "outside the Church there is no salvation."80 Suffice 
it to say that the Church understands by this that, apart from the 
invincibly ignorant, salvation is normally dependent upon being in the 
Catholic Church; and that the normal means of entering this Church is 
Baptism.81 The other Sacraments are not absolutely necessary, but are 
required in so far as one is a member of the Church and in so far as 
they are the normal means of grace instituted by Christ. Thus one must 
confess and receive the Eucharist at least once a year - providing a 
priest is available.82 Now clearly Christ who established the Church, 
also established the other Sacraments as normal means of grace. Not to 
avail ourselves of them when they are available is as absurd as not 
seeking medical assistance when one is ill.


HOW THE SACRAMENTS WORK 

Many so-called "conservative Catholics" are convinced of the validity of 
the post-Conciliar rites because of the manifold graces they believe 
they receive from them. Even if we grant that they are not subject to 
self-deception in this area, such an argument is useless in defending 
validity, for it is a constant teaching of the Church that in the 
reception of the Sacraments, grace enters the soul in two ways. The 
first is ex opere operato, or by virtue of the work performed. The 
second is called ex opere operantis, which is to say, by virtue of the 
disposition of the recipient. Thus, one who participates in good faith 
in false sacraments can indeed receive grace - but only that grace that 
comes from his own good disposition, and never that much more ineffable 
grace which derives from the Sacrament itself.

It has also been argued that, providing the disposition of the recipient 
is proper, the deficiencies of a sacrament are "supplied" by the Church. 
Such an argument is patently false, for it implies that no matter what 
the minister does, the Church automatically makes up for the defect. (It 
would also declare all the Protestant rites as being of equal validity 
to those of the Church.) It is possible that Christ Himself may make up 
for the defect in the case of those who are "invincibly ignorant," but 
the Church can in no way make up such a defect. As A.S. Barnes, the 
admitted authority on Anglican Orders says: "God, we must always 
remember, is not bound by the Sacraments which He Himself has instituted 
- but we are." 

The phrase ex opere operato was used for the first time by Peter of 
Poitiers (d. 1205). It was subsequently adopted by Pope Innocent III as 
well as St. Thomas Aquinas to express the constant teaching of the 
Church to the effect that the efficacy of the action of the Sacraments 
does not depend on anything human, but solely on the will of God as 
expressed by Christ's institution and promise. The meaning of the phrase 
should be clear. The Sacraments are effective regardless of the 
worthiness of the minister or of the recipient. What this means is that 
the Sacraments are effective, even if the priest is himself in a state 
of mortal sin (it would be sacrilegious for him to administer them in a 
state of mortal sin - should a priest not be able to get to confession 
before confecting a Sacrament, he should at least make an act of 
contrition), and even if the recipient's disposition is not perfect (he 
also commits sacrilege if he receives them in a state of mortal sin - 
apart from Penance of course). This is because the priest is acting on 
the part of Our Divine Master, Jesus Christ, and the Sacraments have 
their efficacy from their divine institution and through the merits of 
Christ. The Sacraments and the priests who administer them function as 
vehicles or instruments of grace and are not their principle cause.83 It 
is Christ who, through the priest, forgives sins or confects the 
Eucharist, etc., etc. 

Unworthy ministers, validly conferring the sacraments, cannot impede the 
efficacy of signs ordained by Christ to produce grace ex opere operato. 
But what of ex opere operantis? Obviously, there must be no deliberate 
obstacle to grace on the part of the recipient. These principles follow 
from the nature of Grace. Grace is God's free gift to us (whether in or 
outside the channels which He established), but man always remains free 
to refuse or to place obstacles in the way of God's grace. The 
recipient's disposition need not be perfect - indeed, only God is 
perfect. It must, as is discussed in greater detail below, be 
appropriate.

A further principle follows: the priest and the Church must follow the 
pattern which Christ established in instituting a special vehicle of 
grace. As St. Ambrose said:
 
"He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery (Sacrament) otherwise than 
Christ delivered it." And as the Council of Trent states, "If anyone 
saith that the received and approved rites of the Catholic church, wont 
to be used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, may be 
contemned, or without sin be omitted by the ministers, or be changed by 
every pastor of the churches into other new ones; let him be anathema." 

The Church, of course, has a certain latitude with regard to the manner 
in which the Sacraments are administered, and, as we shall see below, 
can change the manner of their administration and the ceremonies that 
surround them. However, she cannot make a Sacrament be other than what 
Christ intended, and she cannot create new Sacraments. The acceptance of 
the traditional Sacraments in their traditional form is part of that 
obedience that the faithful Catholic (which obviously should include 
members of the hierarchy84) owes to Christ through tradition. As 
evidence to this anti-innovative attitude consider the following letter 
of Pope Innocent I (401-417) addressed to the Bishop of Gubbio:

"If the Priests of the Lord wish to preserve in their entirety the 
ecclesiastical institutions, as they were handed down by the blessed 
Apostles, let there be no diversity, no variety in Orders and 
Consecrations... Who cannot know, who would not notice that what was 
handed down to the Roman Church by Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is 
preserved even until now and ought to be observed by all, and that 
nothing ought to be changed or introduced without this authority..."
As St. Bernard says, "it suffices for us not to wish to be better than 
our fathers."


OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR VALIDITY

All that has been said so far being granted, it behooves us to ask just 
what is required for a sacrament to be valid. The Church's answer is 
usually given under several headings. There must be a proper minister - 
and where the minister is a priest, he must be validly ordained; the 
minister must have the proper intention; there must be proper "form" and 
"matter"; the recipient must be capable of receiving the sacrament. If 
any one of these are faulty or absent, the Sacrament is not effective.  
Each of these requirements will be considered sequentially.

THE MINISTER: For administering Baptism validly no special ordination is 
required. Any one, even a pagan, can baptize, providing that he use the 
proper matter and pronounce the words of the essential form with the 
intention of doing what the Church does or what Christ intended. 

However, only a Bishop, Priest, or in some cases a Deacon, can 
administer Baptism in a solemn manner.85 In marriage the contracting 
parties are the ministers of the Sacrament, because they make the 
contract and the Sacrament is the contract raised by Christ to the 
dignity of a Sacrament.86

All the other Sacraments require a duly ordained minister by which term 
Catholics understand a priest. 

INTENTION: The Minister must have the proper intention. That is, he must 
intend to do what the Church intends, or what Christ intends (which is 
in fact the same thing). Intention is usually seen as having both an 
external and internal aspect. The external intention is provided to the 
minister by the rite he uses and it is assumed that he intends what the 
rite intends. His internal intention is another matter and can never be 
known with certainty unless he exposes it or makes it known. The 
minister can, by withholding his internal intention, or having an 
internal intention that contradicts that of the rite, obviate or prevent 
the effect of a Sacrament. The Church, recognizing that it can never 
know the internal intention of the minister, assumes it is the same as 
his external intention, (the intention which the traditional rite 
provides by its very wording) unless he himself informs the Church 
otherwise.87 

PROPER FORM AND MATTER: It is well known that the manner of 
administering the Sacraments was confided by Christ to His Church. 
We know that Christ specified certain sacraments in a precise manner - 
in specie to use the theological term. Such is the case with both 
Baptism and the Eucharist. With regard to the other sacraments, it is 
generally held that He only specified their matter and form in genere - 
in a general way, leaving to the Apostles the care and power of 
determining them more precisely.

"Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of 
external rites: for some Sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He 
determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He 
determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an 
external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving 
to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had 
not determined - e.g., to prescribe the matter and form of the 
Sacraments of Confirmation and of Holy Orders."88 

Now the Church has been around for a long time, and has long since 
determined the essential components of the Sacraments - almost certainly 
within the lifetime of the Apostles. These essentials are part of 
tradition and cannot be changed at will - not by any individual, not by 
a council, and not even by a pope.  This principle was made clear by Leo 
XIII in his Bull Apostolicae curae:

"The Church is forbidden to change, or even touch, the matter or form of 
any Sacrament. She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something 
in the non-essential rites or "ceremonial" parts to be used in the 
administration of the Sacraments, such as the processions, prayers or 
hymns, before or after the actual words of the form are recited..."

"It is well know that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to 
innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments." (Pius X, Ex quo 
nono).

It [the Council of Trent] declares furthermore that this power has 
always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, 
without violating their substance, she may determine or change whatever 
she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive 
them..." (Session, XXI, Chapter 2, Council of Trent).The crux of the 
debate about "substance" revolves around the issue of "meaning." Thus, 
as we shall see, in some of the Sacraments, the form used varied over 
the centuries, and in the different (traditionally recognized) Churches. 

But providing the "meaning" of the form was not changed, the words used 
substantially carried the same import that Christ intended. This is 
clearly the teaching of St. Thomas:

"It is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form is 
suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed, and 
consequently the Sacrament is invalid" (Summa III, Q. 60, Art. 8).
Sacramental terminology can be confusing. "The substance of the form" 
refers to the words that convey its meaning. "The essential words of the 
form" are those words on which the substance depends. Theologians will 
argue about what the essential words are, but all agree on the need to 
maintain the integrity (i.e. the completeness) of the received forms.89 

Again, a form may contain the "essential words" but be invalidated by 
the addition of other words that change its meaning. As the Missale 
Romanum states, "if words are added which do not alter the meaning, then 
the Sacrament is valid, but the celebrant commits a mortal sin in making 
such an addition" (De Defectibus).

THE RECIPIENT: The previous reception of Baptism (by water) is an 
essential condition for the valid reception of any other sacrament. In 
adults, the valid reception of any Sacrament apart from the Eucharist 
requires that they have the intention of receiving it. The Sacraments 
impose obligations and confer grace, and Christ does not wish to impose 
those obligations or confer grace without the consent of man. There are 
certain obvious impediments to reception of the Sacraments, such as the 
rule that women cannot be ordained. Finally, according to ecclesiastical 
law, a married person cannot receive ordination (in the Western Church), 
and a priest who has not been laicized cannot enter the state of 
Matrimony.90 There are various impediments to priestly ordination for 
men such as age or blindness. Obviously, someone who is blind cannot say 
Mass without risk of spilling the consecrated species. 

The reason the Sacrament of the Eucharist is excepted from this rule is 
that the Eucharist is always, and always remains, the Body of Christ, 
regardless of the state of the recipient. 

In general, attention on the part of the recipient is not essential. 
Obviously inattention is disrespectful of the sacred and an intentional 
indulgence in "distractions" would involve a proportional sin. In 
Penance however, because the acts of the penitent - contrition, 
confession, and willingness to accept a penance in satisfaction are 
necessary to the efficacy of the rite, a sufficient degree of attention 
to allow for these is necessary. 

Obviously, the recipient of a Sacrament would sin gravely if he received 
the sacrament (Penance apart) when not in a state of grace, or sin 
proportionally if he received them in a manner not approved by the 
Church. 

Having enumerated these principles, we shall discuss some of the other 
Sacraments, with the obvious exception of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass 
and the Eucharist which has been covered in a previous book.


WHAT TO DO WHEN THERE IS DOUBT ABOUT A SACRAMENT

The Church, being a loving mother, desires and indeed requires, that the 
faithful never be in doubt about the validity of the sacraments. For a 
priest to offer doubtful Sacraments is clearly sacrilegious and where 
this doubt is shared by the faithful, they also are guilty of sacrilege. 

As Father Brey states in his introduction to Patrick Henry Omlor's book 
Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the new All-English Canon: 
"In practice, the very raising of questions or doubts about the validity 
of a given manner of confecting a sacrament - if this question is based 
on an apparent defect of matter or form - would necessitate the strict 
abstention from use of that doubtful manner of performing the 
sacramental act, until the doubts are resolved. In  confecting the 
Sacraments, all priests are obliged to follow the 'medium certum.' - 
that is, "the safer course."91

Similarly, Father Henry Davis, S.J.:

"In conferring the Sacraments, as also in the consecration in Mass, it 
is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and 
to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by 
Pope Innocent XI [1670-1676]. To do so would be a grievous sin against 
religion, namely an act of irreverence towards what Christ Our Lord has 
instituted. It would be a grievous sin against charity, as the recipient 
would probably be deprived of the graces and effects of the sacrament. 
It would be a grievous sin against justice, as the recipient has a right 
to valid sacraments."92


POST-CONCILIAR CHANGES IN THE SACRAMENTS

It is well known that the post-Conciliar Church changed all the 
Sacraments. While the changes in the Mass were discussed in a previous 
book93, they will be briefly reviewed before proceeding to consider the 
changes in the other Sacraments that either affect the priesthood or 
depend upon the priesthood for their confection.
THE MASS The Novus Ordo Missae or new mass was promulgated on April 3, 
1969, the Feast of the Jewish Passover. The traditional rite had been 
divided into two parts, "the Mass of the the Catechumens" and "the Mass 
of the Faithful." The new rite was also divided into two parts, "the 
Liturgy of the Word," and "the Liturgy of the Eucharist." This change 
was in itself significant, for the term "Word," which was traditionally 
applied to the Sacred Species - the "Word made flesh," was now tied to 
the reading from Scripture. In similar fashion, the second part of the 
new rite stressed "Eucharist" which means thanksgiving - for indeed the 
new rite was merely a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving." All 
references to it being an immolative sacrifice "for the living and the 
dead" or the "unbloody representation of the sacrifice of the cross" 
have been deleted. The net result is a service which is in no way 
offensive to Protestants - and indeed, the Superior Consistory of the 
Church of the Augsburg Confession of Alsace and Lorraine, a major 
Lutheran authority, have publicly acknowledged their willingness to take 
part in the "Catholic eucharistic celebration" because it allows them 
"to use these new eucharistic prayers with which they felt at home." And 
why did they feel at home with them? Because they had "the advantage of 
giving a different interpretation to the theology of the Sacrifice."94

The net result then is a rite which is at best, dubiously Catholic. 
Closer examination tends to support the suspicion that it is indeed 
Protestant in outlook. Consider the definition initially given to the 
rite by Paul VI who is responsible for promulgating it with seemingly 
Apostolic authority:

"The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the 
people of God gathered together, with a priest presiding, in order to 
celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason Christ's promise 
applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: 

"Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst 
(Matt. 1:20)." (DOL. No. 139795)

The definition is extraordinary because it declares that Christ is no 
more present when the Novus Ordo Missae is said, then he is when I 
gather my children for evening prayers. Moreover, whereas in the 
traditional rite it is clearly the priest alone who celebrates, the 
above definition clearly implies that the function of the priest is only 
to "preside," and that the supposed confection of the sacrament is 
effected not by the priest, but by "the people of God." One has only to 
leave out the prepositional phrase "with a priest presiding," to see 
that the action is performed by the "assembly or congregation of the 
people of God gathered together."

So offensive was this definition that Paul VI found it necessary to 
revise it shortly after its promulgation. Its new form reads:
"At Mass or the Lord's Supper, the people of God are called together, 
with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate 
the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice. For this reason 
Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of 
the Church: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in 
their midst (Matt. 1:20)."

In changing the definition Paul VI was careful to point out that no 
doctrinal differences existed between this and the former definition, 
and that "the amendments were only a matter of style." The stylistic 
change is that the presiding priest is now acting in the person of 
Christ. However, his function is still that of "presiding"; it is still 
the "people of God" who are called together to celebrate the memorial of 
the Lord; and the parallel with evening family prayers is retained. 

True, we find the traditional phrase of the priest "acting in the person 
of Christ." But it should be remembered that a priest can act in the 
person of Christ in a variety of ways other than as a sacrificing priest 
(which is the essential and traditional understanding of the nature of 
the priesthood), as for example, when he teaches, exhorts, counsels or 
exorcises in the name of the Lord.96Does the priest in saying the Novus 
Ordo provide or perform any sacrifice other than that of "praise and 
thanksgiving" such as Protestants believe is appropriate to Sunday 
services? Nowhere in the General Instruction (or in the rite itself) is 
it made clear that such occurs. And indeed, as we shall see, all 
reference to the priest performing any sacrifical function (apart from 
praise and thanksgiving) has also been deleted from the new rites of 
ordination.97 

Consideration of the other aspects of the new rite - the Novus Ordo 
Missae - tend to confirm its Protestant and non-sacrificial orientation. 
Consider the fact that the Words of Consecration are no longer called 
the "Words of Consecration," but only the "Words of Our Lord." While the 
point may seem minor, it raises the question of whether any consecration 
in fact occurs. Moreover these words are part of the "Institution of the 
Narration," (an entirely new phrase to Catholic theology). Nowhere is 
the priest instructed to say the words of Consecration "in the person of 
Christ." If one follows the rubrics of the General Instruction (such as 
obedience presumably requires), they are simply said as part of the 
history of what occured at the Last Supper. Now, the traditional Church 
has always taught that when the words are read as part of a narrative - 
as occurs when one reads the Gospel - no Consecration occurs. The priest 
must say the words in persona Christi, as something happening "here and 
now," or the Sacred Species are not confected. Truly the new mass has 
changed the "immolative sacrifice" into a mere "memorial."

And what of the supposed "Words of Our Lord"? I say "supposed" because 
these words were also significantly changed by Paul VI. The words used 
by Our Lord at the Last Supper are well known - they have been handed 
down to us by Tradition since time immemorial. These words are not 
exactly the same as those found in the Gospel renditions and there was 
absolutely no justification for changing them to bring them into line 
with Scripture. (And even less for bringing them into line with the 
Lutheran service.) It should be remembered that the true Mass existed 
years before the first Scriptures were written down (and long before 
Luther came on the scene); one can assume that the Apostles took great 
care to use the exact words specified by our Lord at the "Last Supper" 
for the Consecration. (The twelve Apostles said Mass in slightly 
different ways, but always preserved these words with great care - and 
to this day in the 80 or more different traditional rites which have 
been in use in various parts of the world, preserve these words 
exactly.) But not only did Paul VI change the words of our Lord 
traditionally used in the Consecration formulas, he also altered them so 
that they no longer even conform to those found in Scripture. The Church 
has throughout the ages taught that Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross was 
sufficient to save all men, but that on our part it does not effectually 
save all, but only those that cooperate with grace. Thus it is that the 
traditional formula for Consecrations says "for you and for many."98 

However, the new rite insistently translates this phrase as "for you and 
for all," thus attacking the theological (and logical) principle that 
distinguishes sufficiency from efficiency and leading ont to assume that 
as a result of the historical Sacrifice of the Cross, all men are saved. 

Such a change of meaning in the Consecratory formula attacks the 
"substance" of the rite and even taken in isolation - apart from the 
numerous other defects indicated - certainly renders it of dubious 
validity.

Such then are but two or three of the ways in which the Mass inherited 
from the Apostles has been altered. Space does not allow for a fuller 
discussion and the reader is referred to the author's Problems with the 
New Mass for a more detailed consideration. The primary intent of the 
present book is not to discuss the Mass, but rather the other Sacraments 
- namely Holy Orders and the Sacraments dependent upon it.




CHAPTER II - THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER

We shall consider Holy Orders first because it is that Sacrament by 
means of which priests are ordained, that is, given the "power" to say 
Mass and administer the other Sacraments pertinent to their function. It 
is said to imprint a "sacramental character" on the recipients that 
provides them with the special graces necessary for them to fulfill 
their high calling and to act "in persona Christi." Priests are ordained 
by bishops who are consecrated by other bishops going back in an 
"initiatic chain" to the Apostles, and hence it is through the 
"episcopacy" that the Apostolic Succession is passed on.99 It follows 
that, if the ordination rite for bishops were in some way to be 
nullified and rendered invalid, priests ordained by them would not be 
priests, and all the other sacraments dependent upon this high estate 
would be rendered null and void.100  In order to place the subject under 
consideration in a proper perspective it will be necessary to define the 
"Sacrament of Order," to determine whether the rite of episcopal 
consecration is a true Sacrament, to specify what is required for 
validity, and then to examine the new rite and see whether it "signifies 
the grace" which it is meant to effect, and "effects the grace" which it 
is meant to signify. 

Considerable perplexity arises from the fact that while the Sacrament of 
Order is one, it is conferred in stages. In the Western Church these are 
divided into seven steps - the "Minor Orders" of acolyte, exorcist, 
lector and doorkeeper; and the "Major Orders" of the subdeaconate, 
deaconate and priesthood. Almost at once confusion enters the picture, 
for some of the ancient texts list six, others eight and nine. In the 
Greek Church, the rites of which are considered unquestionably valid, 
subdeacons are listed in the "minor" category. In all the Churches that 
recognize Orders as a Sacrament (The Protestants - which category 
includes Anglicans - do not) we find both Deacons and Priests are 
"ordained" and that the Episcopate or rank of Bishop is included under 
the heading of Priests; it is in fact called the "summum sacerdotium" or 
the "fullness of the priesthood."  Higher ranks in the Church such as 
Archbishop, Cardinal or Pope, are considered administrative and not 
Sacramental. Thus once a Pope is elected he is installed with 
appropriate ceremonies, but not with a sacramental rite.101

For the sake of completeness it should be  noted that 1) An ordinand (an 
individual about to be ordained) to any order, automatically receives 
the graces pertaining to a lesser order. (This principle is called per 
saltum, or "by jumping"). Thus if an individual were consecrated to the 
priesthood without receiving the lesser orders, he would automatically 
receive all the power and graces that relate to the lesser orders, such 
as, for example exorcism. The post-Conciliar Church has abolished many 
of the minor orders, but if this Church validly ordains priests, then 
these priests automatically receive the powers that pertain to these 
lower and "abolished" orders. However, when it comes to Bishops, almost 
all theologians hold that they must already be ordained priests, lacking 
which the episcopal rite conveys nothing. The Church has never 
infallibly pronounced on this issue and contrary opinion - namely that 
the Episcopal rite automatically confers on the recipient the character 
of priestly orders - exists.102 So critical is the Apostolic Succession 
that it is the customary practice of the Church to ordain a bishop with 
three other bishops. The rule is not absolute, for validity only 
requires one, and innumerable examples of where this custom has been by-
passed can be given.

It is of interest that many traditional theologians have questioned 
whether the elevation of a Priest to the rank of Bishop is a sacramental 
or juridical act. The point is important because 1) it implies that an 
ordinary priest has the ability (not the right) to ordain (make other 
priests), and because 2), if the episcopal rite involves no "imprinting 
of a sacramental character," the question of validity can hardly arise.

However, in so far as the ordination of Bishops has a "form" and a 
"matter," the greater majority hold that it is in fact a Sacrament - or 
rather that it is the completion of the Sacrament of Orders and confers 
upon the ordinand the "Fullness of priestly powers" and functions. Leo 
XIII clearly taught that such was the case. To quote him directly: "the 
episcopate, by Christ's institution, belongs most truly to the Sacrament 
of Order and is the priesthood in the highest degree; it is what the 
holy Fathers and our own liturgical usage call the h